Arguments for Atheism? | Episode 211 | Closer To Truth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- Turn the tables on whether God exists. Atheists take their best shots at disproving God; theists deflect the arguments, defending God. Atheists come harder still; theists fight back. We keep the arguments tough-minded and the thinking critical. Featuring interviews with Michael Tooley, Daniel Dennett, Richard Swinburne, Nancey Murphy, and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.
Season 2, Episode 11 - #CloserToTruth
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
I watched with my 12 year old daughter. It speaks volumes that she was able to point out the fallacies in Richard Swinburne's "rebuttal to atheist arguments" in real time.
lol
Teach children critical thinking skills while they are brave and innocent to ask hard questions and not hobbled by politeness or correctness to be able to cut through the obfuscation and sophistry of the pseudo intellectuals.
The Christian rebuttals are weak but so are most Atheist rebuttals. I no longer bat for either team. Your rebuttal is based purely on the reader believing that you even have a 12 year old daughter, very informative and scientific
Nancy Murphy says when something good happens, its because of "God". When evil happens, we should blame ourselves. Very convenient!
Want Answers seek JESUS. They Have None
A very convenient, effective, and totalitarian way of imposing conformity.
No it's not convenient. It's a partial answer or explanation. While it's true God, The Father, Son And Holy Spirit are omnipotent it can be unclear as to all that is going on. Let me explain:
Christianity has taught there is God then man and man sinned and now we all have a problem. But is that it? It's not that simple. Read the work ir listen to the TH-cam video by Dr. Michael Heiser on The Divine Counsel Theology and then start thinking about it all again with regard to the problem of evil and freewill. There is a cosmic drama going on that we are just one aspect of it. Heiser explains: In Psalms 82 it says God takes his stand in the midst of the gods. Huh? Gods? Yes gods. And this Devil or Satan or Serpent was one of those deities. Are they eternal or infinite? No! But for whatever reason my our Lord God made those beings. They are different from the angels. And some are holy ones that accord and worship our Lord in heaven. But apparently there are some who do not. It was Satan who demanded God permit him to harm Job. Why? I don't know. Initially it could be inferred Job was a willing Saint although later he resented what happened to him. Still the point remains, it's not simply we chose and now we have to deal with evil or pain and suffering. It more complicated and frankly much more scary. As a Christian I now pray the end of the Lords Prayer where it says "...deliver us from evil..." And so should everyone who has a relationship with the Lord Almighty.
Yes, that was my problem too..Actually, because of that I was atheist for some time. I couldn’t accept the thought that if something goes well than thanks to God, if it goes wrong, it’s God will. My question was why do I need God if whatever happens, I suppose to be fine with it..?
This thought was bothering me, and now it makes much more sense. We don’t have a big pucture. For us, volcano erruption can be a tragedy, but maybe we just don’t get it why erruprions are important? What about life after it? I don’t look on tragedy the same as before. For me, the life is easier, I finally found peace. Wish You all the best
@@laleydelamor1327 So basically everything you just said can be summed up by the saying "it is what it is,"
Honestly I don't accept that either👎
The only argument one needs for atheism is simply not being convinced by all the ridiculous theistic fantasies.
I was a christian once myself but as soon as I seriously examined my christian theology I started to recognize what a laughable crap it really was.
"If you were to say to me that the existence of the universe leads you to believe there is a creator, I will not argue with you. That is your right. I have no problem with that. In fact, I will go further and say it is a possibility. But if you tell me it is certain and say that doubting it is a crime, then that is something no intelligent person should ever accept."
- Abbas Abdul Noor from his book: "My Ordeal with the Qur'an."
That goes for everything, not just religion
I think Mr. Lawrence is very honest, he is basically following good reasoning. What we see, very frequently, it is that theists’ reasons are tremendously adaptable; so that, their ideas look reasonable. A sort of demagogic art.
Theism is true. I have found a way to know this. I'm planning on writing a book about it. Note, by "know" I don't mean scientically verify.
However, that's precisely the error most Atheists are commiting: They falsely believe truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified (a philosophy known as Scientism).
However, here's why Scientism is self-refuting:
The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified ITSELF.
So anyone arguing as if Scientism is true (Atheists do constantly) has declared belief in a philosophy that philosophies can't be true, which is self-refuting and false by necessity.
This isn't a knock against the scientific method, it just means truth can be known in more ways than merely science alone.
It means we CAN know philosophies to be true. What is beyond science is not beyond rationality.
Giving murderous pedophiles the free will to inflict untold harm on innocent children seems like a pretty evil exception for a perfectly good creator to make.
Now imagine if there wasn't God or after life, that pedo won't pay for his sins... lol yall atheists can deny God all u want to but truth will hit when the angel of death comes knocking
@@moediniokings5473 the pedophile can just accept Jesus as their savior and ask for forgiveness and they don’t pay for their sins, they get everlasting life. How can you not see the silly loopholes for horrific actions in your religion?
@@brettbcomedy first of all I don't believe Jesus is God. Jesus was a prophet like all the other prophets. In Islam we believe in 1 God not trinity and God is nothing like in this earth or the heaven but do a research at least
@@moediniokings5473 ah right, speaking of pedophilia.. god revealed himself to an illiterate merchant warlord who took child brides. That one.
@@brettbcomedy no ge didn't. OMG you atheists just love to be negative and wrong. That's why you never see people bashing atheists but it's the opposite you see atheists bashing every religion. That tells you all you need to know
Lesson of the video: Everybody has an answer for everything.
Apperantly. Only apperantly.
You mean a guess not an answer
@@dayronpalacio8118 this person gets it
For sure. I go in hoping for some sort of scale tipping and as always am left to my own devices. The science seems to shout the absence of intelligent design yet my heart demands of me opposite. Oh the humanity of it all.. lol!
@@JohnCompton1 We should go by heart not arguments.
I think the problem of evil is typically presented in the wrong way, because it's actually talking about two things: evil by humans and "evil" by everything else. The latter is the important one, and it includes natural disaster, disease, parasites, mosquitos, ticks, etc. None of those are because of free will.
You can't explain children dying from cancer due to "free will".
@@andrewriggs2910 thank you for reiterating my point.
You are doing great work for humanity on this channel. Good luck and prosper 💢👍
Atheists don't attack arguments to show god does not exists, but instead argue there is not enough evidence to warrant belief in said god.
You either have belief or you dont! you cant put this into an equation.we know absolutly nothing yet go on like we know everything .
Which atheists? Most don’t even bother since there is little to refute. Do you believe in Zeus, Thor and all the others? If not, you are an atheist in regards to those deities.
Didn't you just contradict yourself? You're trying to show that God does not exist by arguing that God does not exist by showing there is not enough evidence to believe in God. This is not possible to do. You might be ignorant or lazy, which is actually the case. But you can't show it anyway. All you can do is say "see? There's no evidence of God". Then someone can say "but what about all these proofs that you missed? Your arguments will be invalid; and they are just useless arguments. What argument would you have that God doesn't exist? It's impossible to prove that anything doesn't exist unless you traverse the entire abstract and concrete universal system and find there is no God there. This you can't even begin to do. So what argument do you have that God doesn't exist?
@@wprandall2452 “You might be ignorant or lazy, which is actually the case”?? Is English your first language? It is hard to identify meaning from such a sloppy comment.
@@estuchedepeluche2212 So I should have put the latter half of that comment in parentheses. I'm writing a comment, not another book that I want to publish. You should have discerned the meaning.
"are you telling me there is a chance?" hahaha
I am aware of only *_one_* argument for atheism, and it's _irrefutable._ "I am not convinced that gods exist."
That's not an argument. DO you think atheists present that as an argument?
If you think that's an argument no wonder most athiest I speak to possess an IQ lower than 50
@@knowledge_lantern
Your Willful Ignorance is Exceeded only by your Hubris, and Imagined Piety.
@@johnnyb6049 your self delusion is propelled, willingly, by your inabilty to grasp basic argumentation
@@johnnyb6049 also stop following me in the comment section, I know your ego has been tranished, shew, you level 1 Athiest
“Tough.”
Talk about a convincing argument.
It's the appropriate response to an argument from consequence. Unfortunately for her, while he had indeed made arguments from consequence at the beginning of their conversation, the precise point she responded to with "tough" was not -- he was pointing out that her points were (post hoc) rationalizations.
TL;DR version: I agree 100% with your comment.
Really enjoying this channel for it's thought provoking subject matter! 👍
The argument from evil: Appeal to incredulity fallacy. He argued that he can't imagine/understand God existing and allowing suffering, therefore it can't be true.
His argument is merely that the idea doesn't match his pre-existing expectations / worldview or is difficult for him to comprehend, which is the only reason he provides for why he's assuming it must be false.
It's a textbook appeal to incredulity fallacy, so its somewhat shocking to see otherwise educated using such obvious fallacious arguments. Yet, this is a common occurrence with Atheism. It's really the only way to defend the position - with objectively fallacious arguments.
Logical fallacies are simply invalid counterarguments which are inadmissible on their face in intellectual forum.
Arguing that something must be false because it's difficult to understand is not a valid argument. It's just declaring that he doesn't know about it / understand it, not that it's false.
Love the videos! 🙏
Disproving god? That's amazingly backwards. Have you disproved Superman yet?
That's a bad analogy lol
disproving a god is easy. gods are made up by religions. go look at amy religion and you see there is a god. many movies have gods on them too. define any god and it's properties and i can disprove it. take the christian god for example. all loving and it blesses people? then why do people die of diseases? why are people able to become corrupt? because there's no loving god to fix that.
It's not backwards but questioning things instead of believing anything blindly
@@eventhorizon4879 What's bad about it? I think it's perfect.
@@bozo5632 Well you're obviously an atheist, so of course you're gonna think that analogy makes sense.
The universe was created by some being or mechanism. We are still trying to find out what caused anything to exist. It's good to see so many people trying to understand even though most of them are wrong.
Mechanism isn’t possible because it’s a temporal effect.
An infinite being caused a finite universe.
The only thing that explains that is a will.
@@GulledX so are you arguing for the existence of God? Just curious.
@@plantae420 conscious but doesn’t need to think as that implies thinking right or wrong.
A will is the only way to explain infinite to finite.
@@plantae420 the cause is a choice it’s impossible to say it’s mechanical.
It’s not similar to a human mind but who says that’s the only mind that can exist.
@@steez1017 yep
I didn't want to believe in the Living Infinite Being. The thought of living forever scares the hell out of me.
doesnt make sense to believe in that.
Yes imagine never being able to get off the bus, ever!
@@ivanleon6164 Sure it does (to me, not to you). I won't bother explaining because, of course, you have your own view. It's what we do.
Why is Robert Lawrence is just so perfect in the chain of thoughts.... I mean isn't that how we are all supposed to be in the search for the ultimate reality?
There is no ultimate reality. Every one of us looks at the nature trough different lenses. Literally. Maybe the only thing is real that we have experiences.
You live in the ultimate reality. It's all around us. You don't need to go searching for it. Just open your eyes and observe and learn. You don't need anyone else to tell you what reality is unless you're literally blind. Use your own brain and senses while you can, don't waste them.
At 5:38 he says that if God intervened in our daily affairs to create a just world it would create a wrote, mechanistic society where everybody sat around with the same smile on their face and implied that this would be a bad type of thing that God would not want. I was raised a Christian and that is exactly how heaven was always described to me. Everybody smiles for all eternity and nobody is capable of sinning. God wipes away everybody's tears and there is no more pain and suffering. In the book of Revelation the creatures in heaven surround the throne and praise him day and night like mindless puppets and God doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
You nailed it. He could go just straight to heaven
But they claim, he had to weed out the bad souls.
But that means he deliberately created bad souls to weed out.
They can’t hide from the fact that it is all made up mythical stories, not meant to be taken literally.
@@ihatespam2Meant for social control and power preservation.
You are absolutely right... it's not the, "Problem of Evil", but the problem of heaven...!
@@Sponge3905 For me it's the problem of miracles in a natural world. For me it's one or the other.
Always interesting but after hundreds of episodes, he is not actually closer to truth
Yeah, that would have put an end to his television career.
😂😂😂 more father away then closer to the truth by a million years... confused as hell
You have to show that "TRUTH" exist.
Wow . Great episode
a very elegant argument for atheism is as follows. all our knowledge comes from our senses and abilities (to learn, to speak, to fell, etc). Our senses and abilities allow us to imagine abstract things - freedom, math, ghosts, etc. They also allow us to organize the results of our observations of the natural world (through the use of our senses) logically. So, here comes the simplicity. Take biological taxonomy as an analogy. What is a poodle/collie/you choose the breed? It's a breed. A breed of what? Of a dog. What is a dog? A four-legged furry human companion, best friend, family member, etc etc etc. The bottom line is you can reduce this knowledge down to something tangible that's come from your senses (as does everything in this world for both theists and atheists). One can not logically reduce god/God to such a thing. I simply ask: 'what/who is god?' Silence... oh, wait. it's a supreme being, the creator, etc. I then ask, WHAT is a supreme being? and the argument, the simplest one of its kind, will go on ad infinitum until the theist will respond the the only word they can lean back on: faith (which is ofc based on nothing). So, since according to theists, god gave us brains to be so damn smart, we should be smart enough to realize there is no such thing as god. We can label certain things (freedom, math, economics) and live with them because we've created/invented/discovered them. While they are abstract, we can use those principles to predict things and to improve our lives. A concept of god is an empty space, it's devoid of meaning. As sentient beings, we ought to realize that if we can't explain the nature of the object of our belief, the belief itself is silly.
At the end of the argument, God is an idea one has that's brought about by being told that there's a God and shown that there's a history of believing it and documents to support it. It's nothing more than another God in another religion.
"theists deflect the arguments" Well phrased: fallacious deflection of arguments only lightly examined by the questioner, leaving the questions insufficiently answered. The bias of this video is plain in the quote from description. The conclusion is assumed and not allowed to be fully challenged. The questioner is not looking to learn, but see how arguments can be "deflected" by fallacious assertions, sometimes in the form of a question to rationalize his conviction.
A teaser for an actual conversation, at best.
@Luca Stuca The purpose of this video is not to look for an "THE" answer. If you want the genuine answer from theist and atheist why they think what they think, you must withdraw judgement on them.
One of the best episodes
Addressing Ricard Swinburne, God doesn't just keep some distance, God keeps a large hidden distance. My counter to this idea that if we knew God is constantly watching over us, we would be inclined to always do good is moot because we're already being told by theists that God is always present, and our sins we'll be judged when that day comes. We also still have this idea of 'free will' so even if God presents itself evident, we'd still choose whether or not to obey God. Also the all knowing God would know if we were just pretending for the sake of avoiding hell wouldn't it?
Excellent counterpoints. You should be given a PhD in religious philosophy, or at the least be interviewed for this video!
Me: sitting there praying
Atheist: Stop wasting your time, your God doesn't exist.
Me: Can you prove that with logic and evidence?
Atheist: I don't have to. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the claim.
Me: Oh. Okay. Wait what?
What do you mean what? Your extraordinary claim that a non physical being is listening to your prayers require extraordinary evidence. 1. Why would you ask the atheist for the non-evidence? 2. The non-evidence is evident as no one is responding to you.
@@edmundlee4087 But I choose to believe in my God and to pray to him. You say it is evident that this is a waste of time, due to no immediate results. You could just as easily say that eating four cheeseburgers a day would have no immediate results either--and then a couple of years later end up in the hospital recovering from open-heart surgery.
You could also say that the results I see later are just coincidence, and my non-existent god had nothing to do with it. But then you would again be making a negative claim, and expecting me to disprove it.
The point of my post was that the act of prayer makes no claim of God's existence to anyone other than oneself. And yet when someone prays, you question them on it as if they were tacitly making that claim to you. This seems to suggest that religious people need to prove to *you* that their gods exist before *they* can pray to them. The hubris of that is monumental.
That's why religious people don't listen to people like Richard Dawkins: not because we are stupid bigots who don't know any better, but because we don't like bossed around by people with superior attitudes and no authority.
Try a hearts-and-minds campaign instead. Approach us with a humble attitude, just as you would want us to approach you. Convince us that you are nice people who only want the best for us!
The argument for God has always sounded conceited and anthropocentric. This video concludes in the same manner.
Funny how it's only humans that talk for god. God never shows up and talks for itself.
I love this channel ❤️
Robert are ye listening?? 👂
Thank you Mr. Kuhn.
I'm an atheist that loves your work.
Me too,
I'm a believer who loves Mr Kuhn's Work
U are correct in your belief that god doesn't exist don't ever let anyone change your mind
@@joegeorge3889prove the correctness of your claim
I'm not crazy about the suggestion that atheists have certain beliefs. The word simply means 'against theism,' that is a lack of belief in personal, interacting gods. Most atheists will not insist that gods do not exist, rather they will say they don't believe any gods exist because there's absolutely no compelling objective reason to do so. The old song comes to mind.... "Do you believe in magic..."
A question I would have liked to have heard him ask the theists is - what happens if you don't believe in God? What happens to atheists? I think that question would get at the root of the issue: FEAR.
Everybody believes in God. What we as humans do is suppress that truth and exchange God with idols. Such as money, sex, drugs, pleasures, etc. We hate the idea of our creator telling us what we ought to do; and instead we do what we want to do.
@@ronnied1172 if someone truly believed in the Christian god, they would have to be insane to say otherwise, given that the punishment for failing to believe in this god is eternal torment. Does your god punish insane people?
Keep in mind that the god of the bible commands, commits or condones sexism, slavery, racism, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled, murder of innocents, and genocide. He only makes sense if we understand that he's evil. And in his Jesus persona he sends mere mortals who live but a handful of decades to an eternity of torment simply for failing to believe things for which there isn't a shred of compelling evidence. What could possibly be more evil than that?
The problem is FEAR. Atheists lack Christian FEAR, and that drives believers crazy.
@@ptgannon1 This is what happens when you remain ignorant of the Bible. You spew nonsense.
For the sake of argument, I'll just play along and say everything you said is true. What is wrong with commiting everything you said God committed?
@@ronnied1172 how many times have you read the bible cover to cover? Don't assume atheists haven't read the bible. We read it more than Christians, and I'm on another go-round. I know the bible better than most Christians.
What is wrong with everything Yahweh did? Seriously? Slavery is OK with you? Sexism, racism, homophobia - these things are all OK with you? Discrimination against the disabled is a good thing, along with murdering innocents by the tens of thousands, and committing mass genocide - all these things are "good"? You're OK with that? Society has worked long and hard to rise above biblical morals. I hope you're not suggesting we go back to biblical morality! If so, let's revive those 613 laws in total, not just selectively, and start stoning people in mass public executions. Did you work on the Sabbath? Eat shellfish or pork?
See Gen 3:22. We know what good and evil are, as do the gods, and decent, moral people don't model their morals and ethics around the mythical Yahweh's idea of morality. That passage is a warning that an evil god lies ahead! The talking snake tried to warn the kids about him....
@@ptgannon1 I never said you didn't read it. I said your ignorant. You act as if just because you read something, somehow you all of a sudden understand it. You have no idea what context means. You bringing up the shellfish and pork exposing your 1st grade understanding of the Jewish law that was put in place at a particular place for a particular time.
Since you don't believe in God. Tell me what is absolutely wrong with all of the things you just stated.
The problem for theists is that even they themselves say what they have is a belief in God. And belief by definition isn't something you know for sure. It's an act of faith based on your subjective desire, feelings and understanding, despite incomplete or ambiguous evidence. Faith and belief is different from knowledge.
And what atheists are talking about is knowledge, rather than faith. So, they aren't even talking about the same thing as the religious people. Atheists and religious people are talking past each other, rather than with each other, because they are talking about two different things and two different ways of thinking and viewing the world. So, their arguments fly past each other and are ineffective against each other.
You can't win an argument by talking about something different than your opponent is talking. Because this kind of thing is against the rules of logic.
Theists and atheists actually have a common ground. Because in a way they both say that they don't know 100% for sure. Religious people admit this, when they say that what they have is a belief. And atheists admit this, when they say that they can't rule out the existence of God 100%. Atheists have to say this, because it's not logically possible to prove non-existence of something. And if atheists go beyond this logic, then what they have is also faith, a negative kind of faith.
Mike Dziuba
Well said Good Sir.
If you say something exists, and someone else doesn't believe you and asks you to prove it, does that mean they have faith? To me, it just means they are not convinced of something
@@SamuelGunnestad To understand what people truly mean, you need to look at their unsaid assumptions and not just at the words they say.
Because words often have several different meanings, and you need to know which of these meanings are correct in the current context and which meanings are wrong. So, you have to choose and choose correctly among the meanings. Or else you misunderstand what the person says.
When religious people say that God exists, then they mean that they have faith and they believe that God exists. And asking them to prove their faith and belief makes no sense at all. Because this is like asking them to prove their devotion and their strength of belief.
This is basically a misunderstanding between the believer and the person questioning him. Because the believer is talking about his belief and faith. While the questioner is talking about facts and knowledge, that are independent of any belief and faith. These two people give different meanings to the same words, and they are talking about two different things, even though it seems like they are talking about the same thing.
I'm a theist . with No religious affiliations considering I'm obsessed with religion for over 50 years now.
I agree with your assessment
but I also believe that believing in Science also requires faith.
Opposite sides of the Same coin.
(Science requires faith by Hugh Pickens )
That's why Science and Religion co-exist. They "complement" each other.
Religion answers the WHY and Science answers the HOW.
Not Dualism , they're complementary ~
Heads vs Tails of a coin
Good vs Evil
God vs Devil
Nature vs Nurture
Material vs immaterial
atoms vs energy/vibration/ frequency
matter as particles vs matter as waves
Body vs spirit/mind/soul
Science vs art/philosophy/religion
objective vs subjective
Logical positivism vs Panpsychism
theory of knowledge vs philosophy of mind
Light particle vs light wave
matter Both particle and wave
matter Both solid material and a Cloud of probability
matter Both exists and doesn't exist
(Shroedinger's Cat) Both alive and dead at the same time.
Water Both particle and wave
sand Both particle and wave
life is Both body and soul
Brain Both mind and spirit
Medicine and placebo effect/homeopathy
real hand and phantom hand
psychology and parapsychology
language as acoustic waves (mouth) and language as electrical waves (mental)
Coral Both plant and animal
fungi Both Vegetable and animal
virus Both alive and dead
hair and fingernails Both alive and dead
'zombie' Both alive and dead
… … … … … … … … …
Science and Religion are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.)
Both require FAITH. There is nothing absolute in Science.
Medicine, Nutrition, Psychology, Archeology, Paleontology, as well as all other fields of science are ever-changing and constantly open to re-interpretation. What's confirmed as "scientific truth" today can easily be marked as "scientifically disproved" tomorrow. New discoveries can render the information in this post obsolete at any time.
@@mikedziuba8617 Misconceptions about Science
if you truly understand SCIENCE... Science has Not Proven anything ... they are all theories only.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”
Why there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. Proofs are not the currency of science. all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Further, proofs, like pregnancy, are binary; a mathematical proposition is either proven (in which case it becomes a theorem) or not (in which case it remains a conjecture until it is proven). There is nothing in between. A theorem cannot be kind of proven or almost proven. These are the same as unproven.
…………………
Misconceptions about the nature and practice of science abound, and are sometimes even held by otherwise respectable practicing scientists themselves. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.
by Satoshi Kanazawa - an evolutionary psychologist at LSE
The Scientific Fundamentalist
www.psychologytoday.com
Hi ROBERT-LAWRENCE-KUHN;
Rev.,7/29/2021,AM,aev.
Rev.,7/29/2021,PM,aev.
Rev.,7/30/2021,AM,aev.
As always,
thank you for sharing your mission of trying to reconcile the science and theology of ontology. Your infinitely presentable,well crafted,casually succinct,parsing of the rhetoric and argumentation is an absolutely,perfectly-digestible format for today’s current information and media mania.
I fined myself agreeing with you that;although we can agree with the ‘atheist’s argumentation’,it is less convincing for us to agree with their conclusions. In fact,I find them quite disingenuously smug - relying far too much on rhetorical argumentation and worn-out dogma - rather than sincere.
Like you I have been studying the theological epistemological argumentation for some time now.
And,
like you;
I bring mine own predilections to the thinking process.
And,
like you;
I have my own list of ‘appeals-to-authority’ of great thinkers that I trust to guide my inquisition. They are to date still;BARUCH-SPINOZA,THOMAS-JEFFERSON,and ALBERT-EINSTEIN. The later agreed with the ‘God’ of the former. And,JEFFERSON as you may know,as the greatest legal mind this country ever produced,studied the biblical narrative for 50-years,1770-to 1820, in four languages - Greek;Latin;French;and,English. He concluded by declaring himself a ‘christian’ and re-writing the biblical narrative by removing the ‘dross‘’ignorance’ and ‘roguery’ of men into his own abridged edition - ‘The-Life-Morals-Teachings-and-Philosophy-of-Jesus-of-Nazareth’,1820;published as ‘the-Jefferson-Bible’,1904,by the U.S.Government printing office.
He clearly understood the limitation of the English language as a dumbed-down common-global lingua-franca,since it did not come into a distinct linguistical usage,16-th.century,only 100-years before the settlement of the English speaking American continent. In fact,English as the international-phonetic-alphabet, only uses five-percent of the human lexicon to convey up to 90-% of intended communicated meaning. There is only one English word for ‘god’ for the more than infinite words used for god in the human lexicon. As you know,if you have studied the prime-directive teachings of the most commonly known ‘religions’;we find the ‘Golden-Rule’ of ‘doing-unto-others’ the most familiar.
But,
forgive me,
I digress.
Since,
you study the sciences,both the hard physics of cosmology and the life-sciences - neuroscience and the cognitive-sciences - I offer the following theological-epistemological-treatise as a reasonable argument for the ontological argument.
Before actually making the propositional statement,I presume you are aware of the two most recent experiments that provides evidence that ‘time-does-not-exist-outside-the-know-universe’;2013,Turin,Italy;and,
the ‘DNA-Phantom Effect’,1993,Moscow,Russia,as part of the international human genome research project.
…
THEOLOGICAL
EPISTEMOLOGICAL
TREATISE
All matter is different forms of energy on a sub-atomic level. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. All matter and energy came from the single source of a singularity at the time of the ‘big-bang’. All energy and matter coming from a single source are connected through entanglement. We suspect there was no-thing before the Big-bang,including time;because we now know that time does not exist outside the known universe. Since,we know that there is no time differential in the conscious observation of the manifestation of matter and or energy when coming from a single source,[a.k.a.,’The-observer-effect’];
And,
since,we know the only thing we can be certain of is our own conscious being beyond all doubt.
Then;
we can reasonably be certain,and more probable than not that we are made out of the same constituency as this 'non-thing'.
END-OF-TREATISE
…
Full-stop
.
Please feel free to
correct me if I’m wrong.
~
Robert Lawrence Kuhn is a member of the propaganda arm of the atheist communist party of China
We are immersed in a finely tuned, incredibly complex reality that reacts to our conscious observation at the quantum level. The more we learn paradoxically just makes us more aware of our ignorance. Did we create all this? If not, it seems arrogant to make assumptions about the nature of something we don’t or can’t understand.
So why are YOU making such unfounded assumptions?
@@theoskeptomai2535 He's trying to point out that we (humans) didn't create the universe, so how can we rightfully say it's existence is pointless?
why is it finely tuned? nature is not your friend. tornados and hurricanes destroy what humans build and we just have no access to anything other than this planet which we are killing and the moon where there is nothing. the universe is not finely tuned, it's just here, probably always has been. no creator necessary. just an eternal lung that we exist inside of as some energy that gets exhaled and converted into a different form of energy. the lion king taught kids about this. everything is just a big circle and it doesn't say anything about a creator.
@@eventhorizon4879 Are you asserting the universe was created?
@@psychedelicfox4815 “the universe is not finely tuned, it’s just there, probably always has been” “just an eternal lung” “the lion king taught kids this” ………..thanks fir the insight 🤪.
People seem desperate to believe in God because the existence of God means there is life after death -- hmm, I don't see any evidence to support that conclusion.
I disagree. It has nothing to do with the idea of life after death. I've wandered all over the spectrum of belief. I was raised Catholic. But, I rejected it from an early age. Never confirmed. Then I drifted into atheism until my late 20s. But, I live a life of observation and constant contemplation and analysis. And, by my early 30s atheism made no sense anymore. I'm VERY comfortable with mortality. I don't fear death. I have no pressing need or even a desire to "live forever". That's not an appealing thought to me. I say that simply to clarify that my realization of God in my 30s had nothing to do with some need to believe in an eternal hereafter and it has nothing to do with religion. And, I don't need others to believe. But, I feel sorry for those who are blind to God's existence, of which I am certain. I used to be one of the blind. I didn't realize I was only limiting myself and essentially perceiving life through a window as small as the eye of a needle. I was young. I was dumb. I was arrogant. My gradual realization of God profoundly changed everything. The pieces of the puzzle that fell into place, the priorities that shifted, the loads that were lifted, everything changed. Something in my mind opened. I can't even begin to articulate it. Now, I may well die and that's that. End of story. I'm cool with that. It doesn't frighten me. But, my realization of God has been so completely transformative to THIS life that it embarrasses me to have taken as long as I did to recognize it. No religions. No churches. No rituals. Just God. It's right in front of us if we only open our eyes and learn to see instead of just look.
Atheists seem desperate to believe they won't answer for their evil.
There are no good people. LOL
@@e.l.norton Yep, that’s it! The same story here. It’s all about this life. Onley by observation around us we can understand better. If we try to live in peace and harmony with world around us, ultimatley we will first find peace in ourselves. Tnx fo sharing..
You think everything in this universe just popped up from nothing?
God is not revealing Himself directly because this life is a test. However He sent many messengers/prophets to tell about Him. Everything that we see around us are the proofs that God exists.
Before you were born, do you knew you will be born into this world? Did you request for it?
Life after death is real, God told this in the scriptures through the messengers.
Pray to God for anything: a royal flush, rain, recovery from sickness, more money, getting approved for a mortgage, that you will meet that special someone, etc etc. Prayer has nothing to do with the outcome of any of those things. Prayer is wishful thinking, a way of letting go of control. And when it doesn't work, the praying person rationalizes: It wasn't God's will so it did not happen. And that, of course, is profound nonsense. Prayer had nothing to do with any of it from the start.
So God exists to be a Santa Claus or magic genie in a wishing bottle? The spiritual realm and it's connection to physical reality is not like that. From the creation on except for a brief moment in Eden, it is now much more subtle and nuanced of a thing; man's relationship with God. Things happen or don't in a very natural way. In accord with the order and nature of things. I'm just saying
@@jilesbo9175 If children do not get indoctrinated, it is much harder to get them to later believe the fantasy about God and anything supernatural. Religious leaders know they must get to the young humans before they reach the age of reason. Otherwise those people will not grow up to be financially supportive of the religious institutions, and the religion leaders would have to find some real work to earn their "daily bread".
When you impose the conflation of fantasy and reality on children early and often, it tends to stick for life. Then add in some threats of horrific punishments in this life and beyond for the non-believers, and the conflations stick even better. Belief: The Greatest Con Job the World Has Ever Known.
@@c2farr What you said bears absolutely no resemblance to the entire history of mankind on this planet. In fact just the opposite, it is the deliberate and relentless opposition of belief by a small militant few atheists that has been forced into public discourse and the public square.
Also, you are a good example. Because unlike Dr. Robert Lawrence Kuhn who continues to ponder and ask questions, you are at the very least, dismissive and at worst out right hostile to those who wish to embrace their faith.
If your mind is made up I see no point in further discussion or exchange. I'm not interested in exchanging your kind of criticism talk. It is a waste of time because it is not constructive or productive and nothing meaningful or enlightening will come from such. It's just your way of venting pent up anger and frustration.
@@jilesbo9175 Humans did fine for about 99% of their time of existence on this planet without the God Fantasy imposed on them by the Corrupt Religion Authorities... One million years of human existence vs Invention of God about 10k years ago or less. Do the math 10k/1m = 1%. If you can't handle the truth, don't respond.
@@c2farr humans have had religious beliefs and practices for almost all of our history and our prehistory
Very good video!
It seems that everybody around me just does not fully understand or try to understand the meaning of these questions.when you really think deeply very deeply of these big questions my mind just gets blown !!
Good stuff. Please do near death experiences. I understand that they're extremely powerful and meaningful.
NDE is the homeopathy of apologetics.
The biggest argument for Atheism 'Almighty God himself would be an Atheist' 😂
I was raised Southern Baptist in Appalachia and after living my life and experiencing what life can be when meeting new people from different backgrounds, I began losing that religion when I was 17. As I expanded my world view by meeting more people from different backgrounds, it seemed obvious that what I was raised with as truth wasn't. That said, atheism and agnosticism are different answers, with the former about belief and the latter about knowledge. I see myself as an agnostic atheist who, like you, would like a god to exist and there to be something else, but I just don't know and lack a belief that that om omnipotent, omniscience being exists given all of this.
I'm just left with being the best human that I can and treating everyone with empathy and kindness and living a good life while I'm here.
by the way, are most people in the US evangelicals? I tried looking that up but unsuccessful.
@@kentdavidge6573 www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/ Yes, of the Christian denominations, the highest percentage of them are evangelicals, which is a top level category for a bunch of other denominations.
@@AnotherViewer thanks!
@Billy Liberty
I thought of sharing these videos posted by few Americans, This video from former Jewish American, who asked God to guide him to the correct religion that is accepted by God, please watch this it was a miracle in the broad daylight how God guided him to Islam, th-cam.com/video/3Y8Tr8-bSx4/w-d-xo.html
@Billy Liberty
Similar miracle reported by another American.
It was similar miracle reported by a U.S corporal in marine went to Afghanistan, but God had different plan for this corporal and God converted him to Islam, it was a miracle in the broad daylight, how God guides to whom HE wills, th-cam.com/video/1ogm2ILpy9s/w-d-xo.html
Have you ever read the Quran?
It's just the same problems with the question of why nothing DNE, but isomorphed into different form.
Swinburne's argument are so smooth because he is simply making up descriptions of his imaginary god. This is like filling in the blanks in a crossword puzzle with random words it makes you look smart but means nothing.
Very well said. That describes Swinburn to a tee.
It is so annoying that some people take these theistic fantasists seriously. It is absurd.
Or it could very well be the case that what he said is beyond your present ability to comprehend.
Someone not familiar with a subject like calculus might say the same thing you just said about it. They might say its absolute rubbish and the author of the textbook is just making up and writing random weird symbols.
All I am saying is to say something is nonsense, you gonna have to show why it is nonsense. You gonna have to demonstrate how it is unreasonable.
So how about you pick out something he said and explain why it doesn’t make sense. That’s a better approach.
Just saying.
@@charlesudoh6034 Oh, it is just as difficult to comprehend as the average fairy tale.
I could tell you stories about smurfs and gremlins, you wouldn't believe.... and you would be right not to believe them. Same goes for the drivel of Swinburn.
@@andreasplosky8516
Missing the point again.
I wouldn’t believe the fairly tales you would tell me because I would be able to refute them.
All I am asking you to do is the same thing. Pick something from what he said. A question he was asked and the answer he provided and refute it.
Funny thing is I am not even saying he was completely on point regarding all the answers he provided. As a theist, I think some of the response he gave were not so adequate and a bit lacking even though still generally right.
However, if you are gonna say he said complete nonsense, then you should be able to demonstrate that with a refutation.
@@charlesudoh6034
Of course I will shortly publish my complete analyses of Swinburn's fantastical adventures in the world of the invisible magical god-friend in a youtube comment section. As if that is worth my time. I would rather see Swinburn finally offer some valid proof or evidence for all the fantastical theistic claims he has made in his pointless and utterly useless career based in theistic magical fantasies.
And by the way you would not be able to refute any of my fairy tales, because just like with theism I would construct them in such a way, that they would evade refutation. That is what all theisms aspire to do, and it is not difficult at all. Many of the simplistic and ignorant theists I have met think that if something can not be refuted, that it therefore should be considered true. Which of course is poppycock. I can't even count the times someone said to me "You can not prove that god does not exist". It doesn't even make me mad anymore. It just makes me sad.
I could profess to be an atheist (or a theist for that matter) and yet not recognize that it would be what was in the unconscious part of my mind that would determine whether or not I was actually telling the truth. It would be only because I could not consciously account for what was in that part of my mind that I could not be sure that I wasn't being other than what I was professing.
Either way, something caused that, so you don’t really have a choice.
Great video 👍
Being has a tendency to 'return' to clusters
='the nature of solidarity' -a desire for empathy -(Wave)-(yin)
and also,
Being has a tendency to 'exist' as individuals
='the nature of self-expension' -a desire for breed-(Particle)-(Yang)
Likewise, humans have two elements.
We must realize that we all have both left and right elements
=Solidarity and Self reliance
No one has only one element.
so 'Sum' derived from 'two poles' , (thesis, antithesis, synthesis)
To develop intellect and ethics by harmonizing the two,
It is good to realize it and balance it properly
But A few people polarized the crowd(political partisanship)
without balancing themselves.
And They stole only the sum, only the synthesis from the triangle composition.
Now We all have to get out of this deceptive situation.
This is not the time for us to hate each other.
We have to track down those who have been manipulating us.
Believers think that everything is connected to God. I see a three, God put it there so that can admire it's beautiful foliage. No dude, you just ran into a three you like.
Technically we believe that God put everything everywhere...lol...but I see your point. I don't recommend that people go chasing signs because they will start seeing them everywhere and read into them what they want them to mean. Jesus actually taught not to seek after signs.
I didn´t know threes had foliage. I know trees have foliage.
you take a shop, there is a boss,
every shop has a boss
you take a city, there is a boss (called mayor)
every city has a boss
you take a flock of birds, there is a boss
every flock has a boss
you take a country, there is a boss,
every country has a boss
and so on...
it is always so,
there is a boss, not none nor several,
now
you take the universe, there is a boss.
@@Zo-hc2fn Did you just go all over youtube and post this nonsense?
@@tomjackson7755 what you push is nonsense. I'm just letting you know that's how you look, thinking that the universe is all for you when your just a spec of DNA in this vast universe.
The most influential and meaningful video of the series I have watched, and I’ve watched many many of them.
This channel is a part of my life now.
Social media employees.
@@williamesselman3102 Haha no, I just really like the content.
I like his final summing up where he says that he agrees with Atheists arguments, but not their conclusions. This is my position too. So therefore there is a gap here that needs to be explored because the logic of the atheist arguments should naturally lead to the conclusion of their being no God.
Doesn't Ockham's razor cut the idea of "god" to pieces?
I was quite surprised that Daniel Dennett responded to the question of evil by toning down god's power. I don't get paid the philosophy big bucks, but when I realized that the tri-omni god was a super-easily-defeated strawman concept, I backed off on god's knowledge.
God could be perfectly good and infinitely powerful with the universe as we know it today without contradiction if he's not all-knowing. I'm not saying he would have to be a dunce, just not ultimately able to see the repercussions of his own actions, and he would therefore need to err on the side of caution.
Furthermore, while it's quite debatable that we even HAVE free will (the universe appears to be largely deterministic with some potential stochastic interference at a quantum level), any world in which god knows everything nullifies free will. This is quite apart from his "goodness" or power, simply knowledge: if he knows what we're going to do and has any power at all, then even choosing not to respond is an interference in free will. He would know long before we were born, and could have designed the universe to put us in a different situation where we would have acted differently.
Furthermore, perfect knowledge invalidates the notion that life is any sort of test, whether of us, himself, or some grand experiment. He already knows the outcome. Christianity and many other religions include free will because they know that eternal condemnation cannot be justified if our actions were predictable before we were even born, not because there is any empirical reason to believe that we even have free will. (EDIT: A good counter-example would be Calvinists, who are Christians who do not believe in free will. I do admire that.)
Finally, if one has perfect knowledge and ANY degree of power, then one is omnipotent. It might take more time and effort to accomplish any goal, but any possible goal is still achievable in the long run.
For my own argument. I cannot disprove the "jello" god that is perpetually redefined into a new dark hole every time we discover that some assumed property of god cannot be true, such as the tri-omni god failing on its face or in light of the problem of evil. If god is capable of being indefinitely redefined, then I would say he MUST exist, though probably in a form pretty disappointing to a typical theist, such as the pantheistic god that is simply "everything" with no agency. I define a being that is simply of sufficient power as being a "deistic" god, and a "theistic" god as one who A) has sufficient capability to arbitrarily alter the fabric of reality at will and B) wants something from me. How much that god knows, how "good" he is or any other agenda he has is irrelevant, as long as he wants something from me.
And that god appears to not exist. It's often pointed out that the bible has very few transcription errors, but it's far less often pointed out that there are known insertions such as the last few verses of Mark and the good evidence that perhaps some of Paul's epistles were forged. There are thousands of denominations just within Christianity. Other works either "extend" the bible or contradict it. This being did NOT leave us clear instructions. He's also not doing well if his game is personal revelation, given the completely contradictory and unverifiable nature of personal revelations. If he were telling people direct truths, then why would he not tell the snake handlers that they're dying to a verse that was inserted into Mark much later? Are they not sincere enough believers to be worthy of his revelation? If not, then we'd have no way to determine what one must do to even be told by god what one must do.
Where is God? There's nothing there. That alone should be a strong argument for no god
Kind of like your brain....worse than dementia Joe.
@@georgesawtooth2214 _"Kind of like your brain..."_ Nice, you have no evidence your god exists.
@@edgarmatzinger9742 Who said I believe. The moron only said there's nothing there which is stupid comment that only Joe would make. Looks like I have another Einstein on my hands.
Where are my keys? I reached into my pocket for my keys. There is nothing there. This is a strong argument that there are no keys.
@@georgesawtooth2214 The only thing you have are ad hominems. No arguments.
Did I just hear the Fuller Brush Saleswoman say that seeking and failing to find evidence in the physical world of a divine plan is "simply assuming" that there isn't really a hidden divine plan being overseen by a benevolent godhead? Reasoning from belief belief produces folly.
Yeah but we do the same thing in mathematics all the time. We have no proof the Reimann hypothesis is true, but papers upon papers which assume it is true at the outset exist. Reasoning from belief at its finest.
@@kierharris976
_we do the same thing in mathematics all the time._
But that's the difference between reality and artificial, human-developed systems of logic or mathematics, isn't it?
@@Bill_Garthright Mathematics is a flawed system derived from human logic, true. And we can only use logic to approximate God’s existence just like we do with numbers and probabilities. But both atheists express the possibility of God’s existence in this video, even though they already believe God does not exist, even though that’s where their logic already took them. Putting yourself on the absolute extremes of Atheism and Theism is the thing that truly blinds you to reality. We cannot be certain that God exists or doesn’t exist just like we cannot be certain of what the very last digit of Pi is. But we can still use reasoning to get closer and closer to certainty.
@@Bill_Garthright I'm not following what you're implying here. My point was simply that seeking an answer and failing to find evidence proves nothing in either direction.
@@alexczarnomski1116
_But we can still use reasoning to get closer and closer to certainty._
Can we? Why, then, do Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and every other religion on Earth get "closer and closer" to being certain about _entirely different beliefs?_ They can't _all_ be right. They _can_ all be wrong, though.
Anyway, my comment on this video was deleted, and so was at least one other reply. Someone doesn't like atheist comments, apparently. So I don't feel like wasting any more time here. Send me an email, if you like. (Go to my TH-cam channel, under the "About" tab, where there's a link to a contact page with m address.) Thanks.
I would love to see a Shelly Kagan interview
Regarding the "it doesn't look like there's a point" argument. What would be an example of it looking like there is a point?
It looks like Hoover Dam has a point.
@@bozo5632 Thanks! What about something for which is uncertain that the thing has a point? It's certain that the Hoover Dam has a point. Does it look, for example, like the eyeball has a point? Like the solar system has a point? Much respect!
@@quinnculver Eyeball yes, it's for focusing light on some nerve cells. Solar system, not really, only sorta, you could say the point is maximizing entropy and reducing energy gradients but it's a stretch. It's reading purpose into it.
@@bozo5632 How about the universe? What would be an example of that looking like it has a point? (The "it doesn't look like it has a point" argument I initially mentioned is talking about the universe.)
Why is it always presumed God is all good or all powerful? I’m content with a superior being that is not perfect.
Agreed
So any being superior to humans would be God?
I think by definition God is all good and all powerful, but only relative to himself. God IS the universe in my view so he is inherently in power over all aspects of the universe hence all powerful. All good because whatever God wants is ultimately best for the universe which might take us rising to a higher consciousness to understand better. I don't think God cares too much about suffering and evil in our plain of existence. This entire level or reality seems like a simulation/test reality to me, we're only here because of some decision we've made in a past life. For us to understand good and compassion we have to understand evil. Anyway I've gone off the rails by now but point is he's ultimately good and ultimately all powerful but there may be an exterior reality beyond ours, that's a question we'd have to ask God, or ourselves once we finish ascending
@Christopher Meisner I didn't state any conclusion, I just asked a question. I'm trying to determine what would count as God, and why, if God is not a perfect being but just a being superior to humans.
In Christianity, God being crucified, responsible for every sin. That is not an all powerful and perfect god. Except in one sense only. Love.
You misrepresented atheism more than once in the introduction
And if he said "atheists, the smart ones ones" more time...
@Frances Snowflake well, he said atheists attack theist arguments to show God doesn't exist. That's not an atheist position necessarily, that's antitheist domain. Atheists tend to say to theists gimme what you got and then say, that's wholly unconvincing because of xyz and I'll continue to withhold belief. Using the word attack sets up a conflict that doesn't always exist. He did say 'normally' though so perhaps that wasn't his intention. 🤷♂️
A commenter challenged my post with the question "What God do you believe in?" I find this a very interesting question and one that I have not given any thought to in the past. As I noted there are over 4,200 registered religions worldwide and this suggests there is over 4,200 different gods. Is the God worshipped by the Jehovah Witness Church the same God worshipped by Catholics? Is the God worshipped by Baptists the same God worshipped by Israelites. If all of these Gods are in fact the same God then why would he allow such disparity. Is God's message not unified?
there's more than 4,200 religions. way more.
The response to that is the experience of the numinous seems to be common throughout human civilizations, there are remarkable similarities between mystic experiences in Roman and Orthodox Catholicism and Sufi Islam and in Buddhism and Hinduism. It can be argued therefor that those experiences are real, and that the differences in religious practice are because they are filtered through culture. It’s not a perfect argument obviously. It relies on experiences that are personal and untestable, and that, while universal, aren’t universally experienced by individuals. Additionally there is a big mystic gap between people who say they experienced it and found out everything matters and people who say none of it matters, basically the definition of incompatible. In other words it narrows the range of beliefs to the commonalities, but even then there remains this one massive gap that is impossible to close with reason. Lastly, it’s of no comfort to any believers who need not only for their to be a God but for their God to be the God.
@@scambammer6102 You may be possibly right Scambammer. A google search suggests there is over 4,200 so I went with the number but as you point out there could possibly be more. I would enjoy hearing from you your thoughts on whether a Catholic God differs from a Baptist God?
@@joegibbskins Your post was very much enjoyable altho I had to read if a few times ... lol.
In my opinion the bible does prove God exists. Actually with all of its flaws I would suggest it confirms God does not exist.
Two key Questions to ask yourself: Why do we need a God? Why do we need Religion?
@@warrenpeterson6065 lol thank you.
I’d say those are two different questions. We traditionally needed religion because it was wrapped up in our tribalism and provided the ceremonies and traditions that bound people to each other under their ruler. Consequently, religion is rapidly declining as a result of both secularism making it a private practice and not a shared public practice and globalization expanding everyone’s tribe to include people who don’t believe what they believe. Ie being an atheist is tough when you are the only one you know in a town that is 99% christian. If you have doubts you can subsume them to the beliefs of the greater community, or the greater community can pressure you into swallowing them. However, if the community is 20% unaffiliated and another 20% not practicing and another 10% completely different religions, it’s a lot harder for the social structure to give you support or coerce you into staying. I think, assuming climate change and resource shortages don’t break society apart completely, we are going to reach a future where religion is increasingly irrelevant and where the religion that remains is increasingly perennial and less tied to the specifics of what your ancestors believed.
As for God, I’m not comfortable answering because I am not a believer myself; but I think the spiritual seems to be a universal experience (unlike God which the Buddhists for instance are agnostic about). Spirituality doesn’t have to be religious or deistic in nature. It can express itself in art and music and literature for instance. It seems to me that there are two answers to the universality of the experience. One is that the divine exists and used this means to let its presence be known. The other is that it is simply the price we pay for our creative and intuitive ways of thinking, which is useful in and of itself and far more common than strictly rationale thinking. I believe the latter is much more likely to be the case, but can think of no great reason to completely discount the former. But then again, I’m just some guy on his phone
It'll be great to see Wal Thornhill as your guest.
Dennett’s understanding of classical theism and the arguments from natural theology seems wafer thin. He caricatures the theist position and always tries to suggest that religious belief is nothing but an evolutionary trick of the mind, but he doesn’t have any argument for these assertions.
Exactly. He thinks everything is a natural phenomenon so of course spiritual experiences are a natural phenomenon. He might be right, in fact, he’s probably right; but it’s one of those things where his underlying assumption is obvious. If you accept his premise, that’s fine; but it’s not radically different than accepting Aquinas’ starting premise and becoming a Catholic
I think he's a fantastic philosopher of mind, but a bad philosopher of religion.
Quite. When he's directly faced with the arguments as he has been on some occasions, he doesn't address them at all.
His response is just, 'Well, the mind works cleverly' and then gives some examples of self-deception that don't deal with the premises at all, and at the same time not realising that he too is liable to self-deception.
I've never heard or read a good argument for or against the existence of God.
You exist.
This entire universe is made from quantum particles, all together they form a space-time. Your body is made from molecules of your cells, and your thought are a flow of electrical charges. But who are you then?
@@xspotbox4400 I know who I am, but I'm under no obligation to engage in that discussion or any discussion. I stated my position on the matter. That will have to suffice.
@@Traderhood I do and I also think.
@@Traderhood Is that your argument for or your argument against? Just curious.
These videos have been very thought inspiring, but they have been going on for so long and tackling this question from so many angles, yet there is still no conclusion.
Yes there is
@@tonyb5492 then you have been indoctrinated by atheists.
You are both TH-cam account. You are the main comment and this comment in the thread. You are so cool.
Another social media employee
shill
Best intro ever
Religion replaces the problem of our existence with the greater and entirely unexplained problem of a god, while our existence is quite well explained anyway!
whishful thinking, existence coming from nothingess is a far greater problem.
@@alexsorto8100
Not really, there are plenty of big bang and abiogenesis models!
@@_a.z something coming from nothing what an ontological joke that's literally magic yet you laugh at religious folk, Athiesm is magic without a magician 🎩
@@knowledge_lantern the universe could be cyclical and the Big Bang could have happened over and over again, and may be produced by maybe a black hole in another part of the universe that we cannot see. I know your probably going to say how did it all come about in the first place if this is the case, and I don’t have the answers but scientists are working on it and WILL disprove god one day I can imagine.
@@knowledge_lantern
Nope, quantum physics!
At last you agree that you are having a cognitive dissonance.
You're not?
You're not a Dr of anything but fakeness.
Pointless to be able to learn to appreciate things to understand things to adore things etc?
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Being an atheist is a perfectly acceptable worldview for someone who has no interest in Eternal Life. The one and only reason to believe in God is to gain Eternal Life because there is no other path to Eternal Life than through God. That is an irrefutable statement because if you know of some other way to eternal life without God, please, please, share it now. People can create moral standards and perform good works without having God around, but not one person has ever been able to promise Eternal Life without going through God.
So where is the evidence for God?
To answer that question we need to turn to the world's legal justice system. Murder is mostly a private affair for obvious reasons and generally there are no eyewitnesses to the actual act of murder. So the DA has to look other places for evidence that converges on a suspect. The legal standard that is mostly used is preponderance of evidence. That means the sum total of all the evidence leads to a conclusion that can only point to a particular suspect. No single piece of evidence could by itself convict a suspect, but when taken all together, the sum total of all the evidence can lead to only one conclusion.
And so it is with God. There is no single piece of evidence that unequivocally points to God. It is the sum total of all the evidence that leads to a conclusion that there is no other explanation than the universe was and is under the direction of a supreme power we call God.
>First there is the scientific fact that time, space, and energy appeared from nothing. Some scientists try to get around that one by claiming that there wasn't exactly nothing before the Big Bang, but that is pure speculation because the math does not support this. No one has ever provided a valid scientific explanation that shows, without doubt, that there was something prior the Big Bang. So until that happens we can safely conclude that all time, space, and energy came from nothing.
>Second is the Genetic evidence. RNA and its twin DNA are pure information and can do nothing on their own. It's like you are walking across the desert and you find a DVD in the sand. You know there is information on it, but you can't read it because you don't have a DVD reader. It can't be just any reader because different parts of the world have different standards and a DVD reader from one part of the world won't work with a DVD from a different part of the world. The reader must match the information coding on the DVD.
The reader for RNA and DNA is the Ribosome. The Ribosome reads the strand of RNA (or DNA) and makes proteins that match the information contained in the strand. Different proteins are used to make different parts of the body. The RNA (or DNA) tells the Ribosome exactly how to make the protein. But in order to do this the Ribosome has to know the coding in advance. How does it know? It had to have a key built into its memory so it knows what the different codes contained in the RNA mean. Without the key, the Ribosome is useless.
So we have a dilemma. The RNA (or DNA) is useless without the Ribosome and the Ribosome is useless without the RNA (or DNA). They had to form at exactly the same time in order to build the tiny molecular machines that make up the cells that produce every living thing. Both are water soluble so it would never work if any one of them came first and then hung around for a couple of weeks, months, or years trying to figure out the code. Both the RNA and the Ribosome would have dissolved away in less than an hour so they both had to be present at exactly the same time. How would that be possible without someone placing the raw coding information in there in advance?
>Third is the consistent message that has been given to mankind over a 5,000 year period. Lots of gods have come and gone, but none of them had a consistent message that did not change and remains until this day.
>Forth, we have a written record of man's relationship with God that has withstood the test of time. No other god or entity has been able to provide this. If someone wants to believe Zeus exists today most people would say he is crazy. Why? Because there is nothing in the written record directly from Zeus claiming he exists. Nor has Zeus made any effort at all to prove his existence. In contrast, God has sent prophets to mankind on a regular basis to proclaim the thoughts of God. The test for a prophet is he must be 100% accurate all of the time. There have been many false prophets that came and went, but we know with certainty who the real ones are because their predictions have stood the test of time.
>Fifth, there are buildings in every city and every small town around the world dedicated to teaching people about God. Has any other pagan god been able to accomplish this? Why hasn't Zeus inspired men to build temples all around the world to worship him? Maybe he just doesn't exist. If the living God were not real, the public interest in him would have died out long, long ago. God persists in the hearts and minds of humanity because he keeps reminding mankind that he exists in many diverse forms. And he inspires mankind to build places where the people can get information all about him.
>Sixth, there is an abundance of evidence that consciousness continues in an individual after the physical death of the body. There is too much to list here, but easily found with even a small amount of research on Google.
I could go on, but this is enough for now. The consistent message in the Bible is that God wants everyone to have Eternal Life and he provides a simple path to obtain it. That is the most basic reason for religion. Either you want eternal life or you don't. You can change your mind up to your last breath, but after that you are on your own.
Complete bullsht.
Wow. The hubris of knowing it all.
a yarn of nonsense. there is zero facts in your long list of claims. all this stuff you claim about an unnamed god you don't even have a clue about. you're just attaching what you believe a god is yet watch any movie about any random mythical god and you'll see none of what you said is the case. take the Christian god for example, complete idiot. creates 2 people in a garden and sets them up for failure on purpose and every human after that is born with sin and if you don't believe in some thousands year old deity who wants you to come to him, you are set on fire when you die and you'll burn forever and this concept exists in other religions as well. most gods are evil beings and even the ones that people claim love everyone well, the god must be evil because he created the concept. he must also be a little gay too, the thing so many people are afraid of. everything you just said is the sad signs of a severely brainwashed mind and almost no one is even going to read all that except some other poor bastard that's sitting there nodding in agreement as if they're in on some secret knowledge.
You guys will pay the price for what you are doing.
@@williamesselman3102 aaahh.. threats... classy! Are you a christian? Is it allowed to threaten people?
Gratuitous suffering ... 15,000 children die every day, with no mercy.
What an omnipotent god cannot do ---> Give back a lifetime of experience to a dead child. God without a doubt does not exist.
Show me the revelation you received that said, "on earth there shall be no death, no suffering and you shall have everything you want"
No such deal was made with you , so I can't understand why you came to this world and made up your own rules by which you hold God accountable? That doesn't make sense.
@@HappyBloke81
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus
@@antimonycup7066 who said that God wants to prevent evil? Who said this? There's a difference from asking you to stay away from evil to test you and not allowing the existence of evil. So again and again and again I will ask this question to these people who think that mentioning evil some how means no God exists. What an absolute ridiculous thing to think up or say.
Unless one of you adherents to the religion of "there's evil so there is no God" show some scripture you received that said "life on earth will be evil free, do as you please, no harm will befall you". Where is this revelation? You don't have it so stop using this silly argument
@@HappyBloke81
1. you conflate evil with harm, this is a simplification; they are connected by using them interchangeably muddies the water.
2. there are many statements in the bible about god being benevolent
3. you present evil as a test 'to stay away' from, but how can this apply with a small baby suffering from a terrible disease or getting abused by someone? It's 'senseless evil' that is being argued; evil that befalls the innocent that have not even been given the chance to consider and accept or reject your god-claim.
4. 'there's evil so there's no god' is an unjust abbreviation and thereby simplification of the full Epicurus quote I listed above. It is as concise as can be, to shorten it and argue from there cannot be anything else than arguing a straw man.
5. Also what Epicurus said is a philosophical axiom, calling it a 'received scripture' or 'revelation' like you do can be interpreted as 'trying to drag us down to your (religious) level' (.. and beating us by experience, as the saying goes).
Your solution to Epicurus' axiom seems to be: God is malevolent.
@@antimonycup7066 I'm sick of atheis sophistry and semantics deal with the clear point: you can't so you have to start talking about punctuation and grammar. Again and again. where is you revelation stating no evil shall befall you, no harm shall come to you, you will have everything you want" stop beating around the bush and accept you don't have any deals. Your arguement is pathetic
I identify as agnostic simply, because there might be some thing or someone that put reality as a whole into motion but it doesnt mean they have any connection relevant to our existence. Like how a simulation had to have something/someone to have made most basic set of rules that spew forth immense complexity. Doesnt mean they had a ‘reason’ to create us as a species.
everyone is agnostic, thinking otherwise is just a lie to yourself.
When a theist claims that a person who does not believe the claims of the God idea the burden of proof, they are misunderstanding the word "believe". We do not choose to believe a thing. We are convinced of it or we are not thus, we believe or we do not. Choosing to believe something based on anything other than convincing evidence is delusional or disingenuous.
I claim I do not believe this and one either accepts it or they attempt to continue the conversation claiming I'm lying, (which never works with me. That's where it all stops). When a theist claims there is a god, they have the burden of proof not the one who doesn't believe the claim.
It boils down to this: The theist cannot prove there is a God and I cannot prove to the theist that I don't believe his claim. We're at a stalemate. Romans chapter 1 is not true. Many people do not believe in any gods. Not even Jesus, meek and mild.
If people don't believe in god, it's his fault, not the other way around.
@Muzaffar Zaky what a load
@Muzaffar Zaky
Therfore god?
How does being thoughtful, emotional and searching for answers prove god?
@Muzaffar Zaky
So ,you say we cannot know or comprehend god, we just know he is there?
If we cannot interact with god and only imagine he is there ,why are we compelled to devote ourselves and seek help and guidence from him ?
It sounds similar to a delusion. Can you explain how your description of god is different to an imagined concept?
@Muzaffar Zaky
I can hear music. I can see music written and translate the symbols to sounds when i play them on an instrument. Anyone else playing the same notes will produce the same tune. Music is something i can experience with my senses of sight and hearing.
Why would i seek guidence from something i cannot prove has any effects on my senses and only exists in my imagination?
@Muzaffar Zaky
I am sure i can hear music. Your description of vibrations in a pattern received and processed in my brain via my ear is what hearing is.
I recognise the symbols as music in the same way i recognise the language i am writing is English.
Where do i find god?
Atheism doesn't need an "argument" because it makes no claims.
You don’t actually believe that, do you?
@@jonp3890 Prove me wrong, please explain how "I don't believe you" is a claim.
@@TheRealCatof That’s disingenuous. Whatever you personally believe (or don’t believe), and whether or not you can admit it, atheists most definitely make claims.
@@jonp3890 Atheism is not having a belief in the existance of a god. Please explain how that is a claim. I'll wait.
As a parent we discipline our child put them through types of punishment so they learn and learn to do better just like Proverbs 13:24 says he that spares the rod hates his son but he that loves him chastises him betimes.
unless you saw people die right infront of you due to these calamity ,you cant understand how cruel your statement is. i think you have no clue of the level of evil existing in the world.
@@ManiBalajiC I watched my father die of colon cancer when I was a teenager. And watched him reflex throw up blood and that was it. So yes I had to lose my earthly father to find my heavenly father Jesus Christ. There's plenty of amazing things we learn from his perspective.
@@ManiBalajiC as far as natural disasters I have a comment on that. But so will give it to you. The Bible says that Satan is the prince of the power of air. Should not be puffed up.
@@jeremycrofutt7322 How many did Satan kill in the Bible? How many did God kill?
@@SamuelGunnestad Satan's done killed everybody that goes after his way. And here's the other thing though this is an early chastisement before the actual appointed time in early time of learning before the appointed time of eternal life or eternal death. And if you remember Genesis 6 whenever the sons of God saw the daughters and men and married any of them that they wanted there was Giants in the land in that day and also after that so yeah he was trying to go for getting rid of a problem. In God who sees us Christ has saved everybody who believes in Him.
Just so you know my typos are from very bed eye sight , so sorry .
How hasn't he made himself known through his word especially whenever he says that he is in us and that he made us in his likeness and His image? Plus she says wherever two or three are gathered there I am also.
Honestly, I never understood this part. How can God have made us in his own image if we're so different from him? We don't follow on his steps, we struggle to do what is good.
@@kentdavidge6573 free will to just serve self or to serve all. And if anybody should be blamed it should be Adam.
@@kentdavidge6573 God is not that old man in the sky with white beard. We are his image meaning in the mind.
@@jacobsr51 Close. But to be more specific, being made in the image of God means being endowed with the power of agent causation freewill. Meaning the will ultimately makes it own choices based on it own desires not on some thing or some other person or persons. It chooses because it desires to.
And that desire that makes the choice does so out of nothing. Just like God desired to make the universe out of his own desire based on nothing else and from nothing else. Same with us humans
Faith is a euphemism for ignorance.
@likeable antagonist then be brave
Usually, yes, but not always. Context matters
Já cri. Hoje não creio mais. Não foi uma escolha, de fato foi sofrimento. Era mais feliz quando fazia minhas inocentes orações. Mas, amadurecemos, nossos conceitos se alternam com as reflexões racionais.
The burden of proof lies with the proposer of a hypothesis. Therefore the existence of god has to be proven whereas the non-existence of god needs no proof. This is exactly the point Bertrand Russell tried to make about the flying teapot.
And it’s that simple. This video needn’t be more than 30 seconds based on this argument alone. Where is the evidence that a non physical conscious being views all the stars and planets as beautiful as Swineborne argues? Complete fantasy.
“In the beginning, no god exists..”
The end.
Thor, the god Thor. What is the argument for Athorism? None needed, same for "god".
Classical and neoclassical theism are totally different concepts compared to polytheism, and it’s not merely a numbers game. Arguments for classical theism aren’t arguments for polytheism, and arguments against polytheism aren’t arguments against classical theism.
This holds even if you single out an individual instance of the gods of polytheism, none of whom are even remotely close to the concept of classical theism.
SeeEd Feser, David Bentley Hart, Gaven Kerr, Rob Koons, Josh Rasmussen (who is more neoclassical than classical but with substantial overlap), etc
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Any dialogue considering the topics "classical" or "neoclassical" theism are moot.
Your first paragraph exposes the pseudo intellectual tea parlor nonsense of such topics. It's not like comparing "classical" physics versus "quantum" physics.
@@NeverTalkToCops1 Oh, snap! You got me! I shall bow to your superior intellect, masa
The theist professors have absolutely zero rebuttal to these arguments.
Funny, I never thought there were arguments FOR atheism. Isn't it just, "No, thank you, I don't believe that... it doesn't make sense."
For me, it's just that.
Read qur'an..
Slowly with open mind...
You will get the clues and signs to think that Allah is exist
Insya Allah...
@Al Mudarabah Masha Allah... Tabarakallah...
Ya Akhi.. jazakallah kheir for this pretty channel..
@Al Mudarabah hi, can you please explain why there is a reward or punishment for believing or non believing respectively. Believing/Non believing doesn't cause good or bad in this world.
@Al Mudarabah Masha Allah..tabarakallah..
Your explanation, for me, easy to comprehend.. and very comprehensive explanation in simple way, straight to the point..
May Allah bless you..
Barakallah..
@Al Mudarabah Greetings from, Jakarta, Indonesia...
Salam alaikum 🙏
@Al Mudarabah Aamiin... Jazakallah kheir ya syaikh for your pray for us.. may Allah also bless your country and all muslimin wherever you live in..
Atheism does not need an argument!
I have a better morality than the God of the Bible. I do not advocate slavery.
Not believing in God is like being locked in a room but having a key and not believing that it fits the lock without even trying and would rather stay locked in the room while denying the door of the room that you're stuck in
That is incredibly stupid.
@@robertwhite1810 Agreed.
Idiotic
Believing in God is like being in a room with big open windows and your holy book, and saying to yourself 'The outside is not real. Only the book is real.'
1:31 Oops! What you meant to say is, “atheists explain why those arguments aren’t convincing.”
Atheists don’t “normally claim God does not exist.”
God and Religion were created by mankind
Social media employee
God is the greatest entity.
The totality of everything that exists is the greatest entity.
Therefore God is the totality of everything that exists.
@@plantae420 If you are talking about the God of the Bible I want nothing to do with this God! The God of the Bible is depicted as jealous and Vengeful. This are HUMAN characteristics!
All over every social platform The Narrative is how bad Christianity is and how bad the Bible is. Everywhere you look. From every angle. You are doing a job. You are a social media propagandist.
You operate several different accounts having conversations with yourself, like you have multiple personalities, playing both sides of the argument. Your entire purpose is to create doubt in Christianity and undermine Christian faith in everything. You are a social media employee.
The new religion of atheism is the only game in the town now.
Is better than religion
What are three arguments for atheism?
There’s only one argument for atheism that’s needed: there’s no evidence for god. That’s it.
To the Bible also tells us to seek and he who seek shall find and he's not hiding so well that we can't notice stuff about him by observing things that God created.
We are in another Copernican moment, where we’re seeing everything through the lens of materialism and the finiteness of the material world, and not seeing which we all know is mysteries that we just don’t know about. Our assumptions are based on myopia.
Typically the mysteries take on characteristics, and if you compare the characteristics of the mystery towards people who believe in God, they’re almost the same.
I watched dozens of videos of ctt about god/aetheism.But you got to talk to Prof.Dr Bart Eherman on this topic.
All these people you talk to are not quite there.
Prof.Dr Nasir Fazal Cambridge USA 🇺🇸
I suggest that you bring in Lee Strobel the next time you deal with this issues. He was an atheistic attorney and journalist how tried to disprove the existence of God and came away a thiest. He has defeated many an atheists in debate . Have the courage to bring someone just embrace you skepticism .
Lee Strobel 😂
if there isnt a thing called death , no one would even consider god. everyone who belives wants a after life or afraid of death.
The most powerful argument for atheism is this: If biologists are to be believed that Homo sapiens have been around for a half million years and geologists are to be believed that the Earth was formed four billion years ago, then God can’t be both a Homo sapiens and the creator of the Earth.
Hmmm but according to traditional Christian teachings, God is a being that manifests itself in three distinct personas or persons. Those we call the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. God manifested himself in his second person when he came in the form of Jesus. So he still existed as a God infinitely far in the past by the time he came down as Jesus.
My strongest argument for atheism: What is God?
BOOM! Easy win.
Art imitates life and life imitates art which one was created first. The Bible tells us the world and everything in it was created by the word of God Who Art in Heaven to my understanding love is an art, it creates and destroys. So then God must be love, and works in mysterious ways. We think that we feel loved, but something wanted that to happen before you were even attracted to it, and it's very powerful as anyone that loves or feels like they are loved knows. Your mind is your soul by definition so why would an invisible spirit not be but a thought. We all have good thoughts and bad thoughts. Some we believe in and most we are possessed by. I think that's what it meant when it said to test the spirits to see if they are of God, test your own thoughts to see if there are truly of love, treat others as you would yourself. Everything that lives has a pattern or a rhythm. So I think to believe in love is like one of those patterns or rhythms that knows what belongs where there are plenty of names for him plenty of ways to describe him, the family structure is just like any other living organism or plan, there has to be an order for it to survive. The Simplicity of Christ turns the wise to fools
Are these leading philosophers so limited in ideas..they all sounded more like politicians with a strong bias.
Unless you can explain, why there's something rather then nothing, there's no way to disprove existence of god. What kind of god it might be is obviously a different story.
There is no need to 'disprove' the existence of gods unless you first 'prove' such to exist. I have never encountered any evidence that suggests that such an existence.
it's very easy to disprove a god exists.
they're all made up. it's so simple. look in any religious texts and you'll find various gods that PEOPLE wrote about. everything else is made up. fancy quotes to guide people in their life. that's all made up too. life itself is made up. when you are asleep your brain basically shuts off to reality and you enter a dream world of anything, then return to this dream until the next time you sleep and none of reality exists before you're born. after you die everything stops, your brain and body dies and it will be just like before you were born. we exist in a space that only exists to us when we exist in it. it will still be here long after you're gone, but to you, nothing will exist anymore. i would say THAT is NOTHING and you can come from that nothing and begin to exist for a short time. why couldn't the universe do the same? no creator is necessary in that case and a god existing is just completely pointless and science fiction which is why there are movies with extra powerful deities running the universe and nobody would actually want those gods to exist because they're pretty terrible and evil.