Victor Stenger - Atheism's Best Arguments?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ส.ค. 2024
- Atheism fields two kinds of arguments denying the existence of God: arguments that refute so-called 'proofs' of God's existence and arguments that affirmatively support the truth claims of atheism. This first seeks weaknesses or fallacies in pro-God arguments; the second seeks to show why atheism alone makes sense. Different atheists offer different arguments.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on atheism: bit.ly/3bE0E0G
Victor J. Stenger is a retired elementary particle physicist. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from Newark College of Engineering and later a Master of Science degree in physics from UCLA and a PhD in Physics.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, 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.
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - สาวสอง ( มีมี่ของอ้าย ) ft. ตาต้า,ต้องเต [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqlMjnP08XI/mqdefault.jpg)
The best argument for atheism is the lack of good arguments for theism.
Indeed, I am always surprised that people deem the matter as closely run when I would struggle to name a decent argument for God.
Atheism is a beautiful house of cards!
@@user-ry2qs7xf9k So now is your chance to knock it over
Let's hear it.
@@TurinTuramber
I don't have to ,Atheists themselves are doing it!
@@user-ry2qs7xf9k Wow, that sure is convenient for you to suggest that, almost gets you off the hook.
Why don't we put that obvious evasion aside and you can smash Atheism right now; do it just as you claim and I will be cleaning the toilets down at the local Mosque from Monday morning.
Atheism should be a rational person's default position. No arguments needed.
We don't need arguments for atheism, that should be our default position unless there is evidence for some sort of god or another. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not on the skeptic.
That is "agnosticism" in the gral view, they see atheism as the proposition of non existence of God.
@@OsvaldoBayerista correct. modern pop atheists have merged agnostics into atheism for political reasons, but the positions are fundamentally distinct. And I don't like being lumped with wimpy agnostics.
@@OsvaldoBayerista Agnosticism is a more of a neutral stance. If people claim something I find highly, highly unlikely, I'm not neutral about it. It believe they are wrong, unless they can provide some kind of proof. That is atheism.
Then why did u need arguments against theism.
@@zimpoooooo it really depends on what definition you are using, obviously. Many dictionaries will describe agnosticism not just as the position that it is not known if a God exists or not, but also the position that the existence of God is not KNOWABLE. I think the etymology would support this distinction. Atheism means "without god" and agnosticism means "without knowledge."
This seems to me to be a much harder stance than atheism as it asserts a positive claim that something is unknown or unknowable.
I consider myself an atheist because I have not, personally, seen any convincing evidence that God exists. However, I can't say conclusive what evidence somebody else might have and just not be willing to show me. Nor do I believe that I can say anything conclusively about what is or is not ultimately knowable.
The only good argument for atheism is:
If you make a claim of God/gods existence, then it is for you to convincingly prove the existence of it. Mere deductions won't do, cause we don't have even the basic knowledge required for drawing such conclusions.
Until the time you provide evidence, I need not believe in your claims.
Yes, I agree. So many theists say, "Oh, but it couldn't have been natural." This is not evidence of a god and is just an argument from ignorance and incredulity.
It's the black and white fallacy that theist use all the time, science doesn't know X therefore God.
The problem is that it’s easy to frame practically any argument by claiming a sceptical position. It makes one a small target, but it means nothing.
For example, I could just as easily argue I am not a theist … but rather an a-naturalist. There is no verifiable evidence that demonstrates the ultimate origin of our universe came from a natural (non-personal) cause. I don’t have to prove there was a personal entity (aka god) who caused the universe. The onus falls on those who claim a natural (non-personal) cause.
Do you want to engage in constructive conversation or hide behind a skeptical position to avoid scrutiny?
@@GraewulfeHow do you imagine such a natural (istic) process that w'd have given birth to the universe? Who or what w'd then have given birth to that natural process????, in the first place to begin with & so on.... Dont retort by saying who or what then created God, if any, 'cause thats a nasty false argument that was debunked.
I really, genuinely, do not understand how can anyone for that matter deny the existence of God. I really don't. If not God, how then did this universe come into being??? How????? Did it make itself???? You gotta be kidding me. Get real. One gotta have all the knowledge necessary to make such a conclusion pertaining to how, that none has now or will ever have, not now & not in the future, not even remotely close. Thats the fragmented nature & relative limited scope of human knowledge, no matter how "vast" or sophisticated it may sound or look. Some real sages even question whether we really *'know"* anything at all; since knowledge implies full, *final* & conclusive "data*, so to speak, thats humanely impossible to obtain, since it is unlimited at least. The more we think we know, the more ignnorant we discover we are, as a quantum physicist once said. More answers trigger many more questions, exponentially. Its not that our alleged knowledge grows with every discovery....it *decreases* exponentially. Its not something linear. Neither is the "progress" myth. So, when i listen to these kinds of atheists, they dont even make sense to me. He talks about the pristine or original chaos as an argument against God..... about the fact, according to him at least, that the kind of universe we have is what we w'd expect to have if there was no God...
Its like saying that *drones, for* *example, are NOT man-made, 'cause*
*they are unmanned lol* , or because we cannot see or we do not know how they are operated or guided from a distance by man.
This is juvenile infantile reasoning at best. Does he expect to actually witness, first hand, the literal intervention of God in the functioning of the universe as a pre-requisite to believe in God????
I said *infantile.* I take it back, 'cause sometimes God takes wisdom away from the learned & put it back into the hearts of kids.....
Besides, as somone said whose name i dont recall right now, that the main flaw of atheism is that it w'd require unlimited knowledge for atheism to be true, but then again, only God has unlimited knowledge, so an atheist has to be God to deny the existence of God. Thats the paradox that defines those atheists who suffer from some kind of cognitive dissonance between their human, all too human, innate desire to believe in God & between their acquired irrational conscious denial of God.
Atheist Thomas Nagel, the author of *"Mind and Cosmos: Why* *the Materialist* *Neo-Darwinian* *Conception of Nature Is* *Almost Certainly False,* said once: "*I don't want there to be a* *God. I refuse to believe in God...."* Stuff like that. That sums up the mentality of atheists. They just hide it behind fancy phony "wisdom"...
@@Graewulfe I know lots of theists and atheists alike who make sweeping unsubstantiated claims about the existence or non-existence of god. In such cases it’s always appropriate to be skeptical and ask for evidence. On that point I agree with you.
However, the OP is trying to use it as an argument in its own right. It’s an attempt to avoid constructive dialogue and is not an argument any thinking atheist should use.
As Leibniz put it: “If an ontological theory implies the existence of two scenarios that are empirically indistinguishable in principle but ontologically distinct ... then the ontological theory should be rejected and replaced with one relative to which the two scenarios are ontologically identical.”
In other words, if a theory describes two situations as being distinct, and yet also implies that there is no conceivable way, empirically, to tell them apart, then that theory contains some superfluous and arbitrary elements that ought to be removed.
Leibniz’s prescription is, of course, widely accepted by most physicists today. The idea exerted a powerful influence over later thinkers, including Poincaré and Einstein, and helped lead to the theories of special and general relativity. And this idea, Spekkens suggests, may still hold further value for questions at the frontiers of today’s physics.
Leibniz’s correspondent
Clarke objected to his view, suggesting an exception. A man riding inside a boat, he argued, may not detect its motion, yet that motion is obviously real enough. Leibniz countered that such motion is real because it can be detected by someone, even if it isn’t actually detected in some particular case. “Motion does not indeed depend upon being observed,” he wrote, “but it does depend upon being possible to be observed ... when there is no change that can be observed, there is no change at all.”
In this, Leibniz was arguing against prevailing ideas of the time, and against Newton, who conceived of space and time in absolute terms. “I have said more than once,” Leibniz wrote, “that I hold space to be something merely relative.”
Einstein, of course, followed Leibniz’s principle when he noticed that the equations of electricity and magnetism make no reference to any absolute sense of motion, but only to relative motion. A conducting wire moving through the field of a magnet seems like a distinct situation from a magnet moving past a stationary wire. Yet the two situations are in fact empirically identical, and should, Einstein concluded, be considered as such. Demanding as much leads to the Lorentz transformation as the proper way to link descriptions in reference frames in relative motion. From this, one finds a host of highly counter-intuitive effects, including time dilation.
Einstein again followed Leibniz on his way to general relativity. In this case, the indistinguishability of two distinct situations - a body at rest in the absence of a gravitational field, or in free fall within a field - implied the impossibility of referring to any concept of absolute acceleration. In a 1922
lecture, Einstein recalled the moment of his discovery: “The breakthrough came suddenly one day. I was sitting on a chair in my patent office in Bern. Suddenly the thought struck me: If a man falls freely, he would not feel his own weight. I was taken aback. This simple thought experiment made a deep impression on me. This led me to the theory of gravity.”
thanks for the stroll through history so what?
@@scambammer6102
Leibniz > Newton
Newtonian gravity was/is profoundly important. Luckily, mankind has been blessed with countless great minds. I don’t think U not I are the ones to rank newton and Leibniz. Also, what’s the metric? Philosophical musings? Scientific contributions? Wealth amassed? Offspring sired? I’m just thankful we’ve been able to continue the progression they contributed to.
@@scambammer6102 Einstein Physics :
Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher Albert Einstein
.
Newtonian Physics :
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton
@@dongshengdi773 you know Einstein did not believe in a personal god right? He essentially equated god with nature, like Spinoza. Quoting him shows how desperate theists have become. Newton lived 400 years ago when everyone was forced to be a Christian. He also believed in alchemy. FYI appeal to old authorities on this issue are useless.
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” - Werner Heisenberg
So say Werner in his hour of need. But there are other choices, such as god is a illusion.
@@keithrelyea7997 because you are so blind to see something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. At least don't be so sure.
@@housnialami4330 Which god? And why would it care whether or not I believed in it?
@@mikel5582 boring. Don't conflate the existence of a creator with religion.
@@mikel5582 for me there is only one God. I don't care about you personally if you believe... Just trying to have a constructive conversation...it always good to know how the others think
I miss the late physicist, Victor Stenger. I didn't agree with all his ideas, but he was very thoughtful, easy going, and explained complex cosmological concepts better than most of the talking heads in popular science today. Thankfully, there is a nice video record of the man we can access. Of course, his books (some in print, some no longer) are the best reference sources with much greater detail about cosmic-origin topics. For inner clarity, I often consult his books when I am thinking about heady concepts from what existed before the big bang to speculation about a multiverse.
I think these are the worst arguments for atheism. Even worse, these are good arguments for theism.
By implication, you are saying that there are better arguments for atheism. What would be your favourite example of a better argument?
@@Juttutin The fact that not one person on the planet actually knows what existed or occurred prior to the Planck Epoch.
The fact that nothing supernatural has ever been shown or proven to exist whatsoever.
The pact that pretty much every isolated civilization on earth has made up their own myths and legends regarding origins. It is human nature to make things up when we don't have all the facts.
It is almost infinitely more likely that the universe and life originated naturally and wasn't poofed into existence by some magical entity from another dimension.
@@Juttutin there are better arguments in the comment directly above this one
I think there are no so many args to be atheist.
no
"Atheism's Best Arguments?"
The complete and utter absence of any good arguments for theism!
When I claim that smurfs exist, I do not demand arguments from non-believers to prove that smurfs do not exist.
The burden of proof is for the one who states that smurfs, gods, pixies, unicorns etc. etc exist.
The non-believer does not have to give arguments at all. He can just laugh out loud, and point to his forehead.
And the cool thing is, that theists have innoculated their magical sky daddy against scientific inquiry by claiming that it is invisible and unmeasurable.
@@thomasb7464 and it's been on vacation for 2000 years
Epitome of a grown woman -- probably a man behind the guise -- whom has a mentality of a toddler.
After years, this thing is still commenting -- likely paid troll.
@@thomasb7464 "And the cool thing is, that theists have inoculated their magical sky daddy against scientific inquiry by claiming that it is invisible and unmeasurable."
Yes, that was a very smart move. I tend to think it evolved naturally over time, because the theists failed to prove the existence of their magical fantasy god-daddy-friend time and time again. They had to develop evasive maneuvers, because they looked like fools in every discussion.
Of course, the tactic didn't do them any good. They still look like fools, and the tactic made their foolishness only more obvious.
I clicked the thumbnail because I was excited to see an argument for the non-existence of deities. But this is yet again boils down to "god of gaps isn't necessary." This isn't an argument for a firm stance that there are no deities. Seems that the most rational thing is to say, "I can't know there are no deities, but it is reasonable to conclude that there aren't deities which x, y, z (e.g., intervene in the Universe after its creation)." That's still agnosticism. I can't understand the strong atheistic stance any more than the strong theistic stance. It also seems that both extremes are textual literalists. Breakdown of specific points below.
3:05 That's literally the cosmology of many religions (including the Abrahamic ones he's arguing actually against). The word chaos itself comes from the ancient Greek explanation for the primordial state of the Universe, _χάος._
6:22 Okay, but that's only an argument against very specific conceptions of a deity. It's not an argument for "no deities exist." At the very least this isn't a response to: deism, pandeism, pantheism, or panentheism.
7:13 "Why do you need to introduce a god to do anything at all?" Have you considered the possibility of people people believing in a deity for reasons other than explanatory purposes?
I think the entire concept of "science vs religion" comes down to the fact that on one hand Evangelical Christians (and surely others, but I won't speak to what I don't know with certitude) can't start with the premise "the Universe is rational," in other words, "only the contents of the Universe can cause effects to the contents of the Universe and all effects have causes." This breaks down with when one starts with the premise that a deity intervenes in the affairs of people.
And on the other hand rational atheists can only discuss that which can be agreed to be objectively true. Since mystical experiences happen within an individual, and experiences are subjective not objective (one can only observe their own subjectivity, not that of another), then they toss out any reports of subjective experience. Crucially they only seem to do this when it comes to mystical experiences. If my friend is a rational atheist and I tell him I am in pain, then he won't even question the validity of my subjective experience before asking me what's wrong or how he can help. But if I tell him about a mystical experience he is immediately skeptical. This is because he has no subjective experience with which to compare. So, it seems to me the most scientific thing to do would be to attempt to replicate the experience for himself. Instead everyone I have encountered who thinks like this sees such an attempt as a waste of time. This is tautological. Meaning they aren't being as rational as they could be.
Anyway, both of these perspectives ignores the possibility of a reality in which the Universe is rational and also some kind of Divinity exists.
Totally agree. Both theists and atheists begin with presumptions that we can make claims about the unfathomable. Both share huge leaps of faith. Agnosticism is a more realistic and honest blend of belief and acknowledgement of our limits to comprehend and prove those beliefs.
I don't believe literally in gods any more than I believe in aliens visiting Earth in flying saucers, but I'm not dead set against them, either. Anything's possible, but in those two cases there is no logical evidence for them and plenty of evidence that people make up such things for their own psychological reasons.
@@vitus.verdegast I think humans reduced the concept of "god" down to a level we can comprehend because the alternative isn't comforting, isn't something we can build a moral code around, isn't something that can be manipulated as a basis of power. So "god" is reduced to some sort of physical form, with characteristics we can grasp, and communicates in some form we can comprehend. What it isn't is a placeholder for the truly incomprehensible, that we accept as truly incomprehensible. My personal belief is that the true nature of existence is as beyond our understanding as a nuclear power plant is to an amoeba. And, to me, this is a more magnificent thing to accept than ideas of bearded men, or lightning bolt wielding men, or multi-armed elephant headed deities, or whatever. I think we need to make our own morals, and accept that they are ours, and that we are fallible, and not invent deities that justify our actions however great or horrible they may be.
@@tinetannies4637 Gods are a means for humans to personify the ineffable because it is easier to grasp personal relationships than abstract concepts. But people are forever mistaking their symbols for what they represent.
So, by his own admission this isn’t an argument against God, it’s simply a denial of the God that, ‘Most people believe in’. And this is supposed to be a strong argument? 😂
Evidence and proof are all relative to the perception of the perceiver. Evidence doesn't call itself evidence, proof doesn't call itself proof the perceiver defines what is evidence and proof.
Not actually.
Evidence is any observational instance which points toward any SINGLE explanation to the exclusion of all others. So finding a severed head in my bedroom means that the person is dead, but not that I killed the person. So it's evidence of death, but not evidence that I'm the murderer.
If you define your explanation or explanatory model sufficiently so that it can be supported by evidence AND could be disproved by evidence then you have a framework which could be elevated beyond a hypothesis.
Most god models don't permit evidentiary support nor falsifiability at all.
Proof is often a synonym for evidence but has an alternate definition where something is 'proved' or something has a proof -- and that exists solely in mathematics or some aspects of logical rhetoric.
@@PhrontDoor I understand but the severed head doesn't say I'm evidence.
@@williamburts5495 Correct, the severed head wouldn't be just "evidence" in general, it would be evidence ONLY for one group of claims over another.
That’s the best argument for atheism?? Chaos is relative to the observer.
There is no evidence of a god. End of story. How about why god?
there are all knids of evidence but people are taking the wrong way!
@@user-ry2qs7xf9k Did you ever see God? Did you ever Spoke to him? If yes you definitely would have made an audio recording or a picture right? If you have it send it to me pls. You could be the person that has seen god for the first time
@@percivalgraves521
Atheists will never believe in God, even if He "appears" to them they would say 'this is just an illusion,it's just a psychological phenomenon'
So you don't have any selfies of you and god then? rats and here I was just about to believe
@@scambammer6102
You need to have your "own selfie",otherwise you'll never believe,this what I'm trying to explain to you,you need to meet God "face" to "face",no one will help with it except God and your readiness to submit.
People are already doing this in the physical World,for example people go to school with the faith that one day they might graduate and have a job,have you ever seen a primary school student demanding his college degree and a job?!!!
But some how Humans refuse to do the same thing when it comes to the spirtual World,they want to see God with no submission and no sacrifices!!!!
Little jimmy : But, who created the creator ?
Catholic papa : Alright boy go to bed or write 20 pages of homework.
If God "exists" then what is he made of? Either he is part of existence or he is nothing. It's a paradox you never see addressed.
Arriving at a paradox to satisfy your answer is probably the wrong course.
@@3AA2
What would the right course be?
I think they say something like "God exists outside of space and time." The only way a god exists is if the universe itself is "god."
He’s exists but is immaterial, these aren’t the same. Just like math, which is immaterial but accessed only by rational thinking, you arrive at God through reason faculties that as humans, we are endowed with.by his mercy we also access him through belief. Even in the absence of religion, you logically arrive at a point where a unique, eternal being is necessary for existence, as did Plato and Aristotle because they understood causality.
@@Kal9222 why a being ?
Why not just eternal energy ?
The problem is, for most atheists, is that we don't have a position that we need to defend. Theists present this and this and this and this as 'proof' of the existence of something they call 'god' but it's never sufficient. All atheists like me say is "I don't accept your claim". I, unlike theists, have nothing to 'prove'.
I prefer proving that there are no gods.
@@scambammer6102 Well, that's pretty easy DEPENDING on the type or definition of the god people put forth. If they put forth omnibenevolence, then that's easy refuted. If they assert omnipotence then that's self-refuting. If they assert that god has divine foreknowledge then humans (and god) are precluded from having any free-will.
So most of the old-school god definitions render THOSE specific gods proved not to exist (and to not even be able to exist). Lots of more modern apologists try to use the same terms but HEAVILY redefine them so they don't mean ANYTHING like the terms (like omnipotence for god is indistinguishable from human capabilities.)...
@@scambammer6102 OK. Go ahead.
@@PhrontDoor There's really only two kinds of "gods". Purely semantic ones like "god is love", "god is nature", "god is the first cause", etc. I dismiss these definitions as being trivial. They simply replace the word "god" for something else. All of the philosophical arguments for god fall in this category. The second category I call "substantive definitions of god". These always include some supernatural element which, being inconsistent with physical laws, can be refuted through empiricism. This includes all of the traditional religions and all the newer versions that aren't just semantic. To summarize, "god" is either (1) just a word, or (2) something supernatural that doesn't exist.
@@scambammer6102 You cannot prove anything to theists, they don't really subscribe to facts and logic, they will just pick up their supernatural claims and runaway over the hills.
Remember religious indoctrination on the young developing mind robs them of their objectivity and rationality for life.
why focus on order while we have no idea about how matter/energy appears out of nothing - order is a property of matter/energy, but the first question is why there is anything there is
What would be more difficult to grasp, that there always was what is,
or that there could never have been at all?
@@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT Don't hurt my brain like that 😮💨
Would you be so kind to explain HOW order has become a PROPERTY of matter and energy?
@@IFYOUWANTITGOGETIT *"What would be more difficult to grasp, that there always was what is, or that there could never have been at all?"*
... I'm going with _"there could never have been at all"_ as being more difficult.
It is conceivable that something can axiomatically exist because, at the very least, you have whatever it is already existing and present before you. In other words, you have "something" to work with. However, there cannot be a state of total nonexistence because "nothing" is logically inconceivable. "Nothing" cannot even be communicated without assigning *it* some type of virtual existence (like "0") or referring to something else that already exists.
In the previous sentence I tried to communicate "nothing" by using the word, "it" ... yet logic states that "nothing" cannot be defined as an "it."
*Conclusion:* Existence is axiomatic.
When you ask the Big Question, why does the default have to be a god?
My argument is simple
Yesterday a small child ran to his home when a storm came. Lightning struck a tree which hit him crippling him badly for life.
A: god was incapable to intervene ___B: god seen this and approves ____C: there is no god _____Choose one ... A, B, or C.
B: i’m a Christian and I have just as much trouble as you do with the answer being B. The entire book of Job is about this Bad things happen to good people. I think God is looking for obedience in the midst of suffering, but man!!! it’s hard to take
you dont know if at the very end that child would not be happy for the life he lived. Surely the argument of "evil" is a solid one against God but at the end God would give an explanation for that (hopefully a good one), bad luck doesnt...
I feel sorry for believers because I once was one. Without god I am free from a tyrant that is capable of any atrocity and can never be trusted not to arbitrarily cause me unreasonable pain and suffering. There are many times in the bible that god changes his mind. So whatever he says or does is not fixed.
I am going to go with what christ said. He said after you are dead if you don't make the grade your dead body will be thrown in the rubbish trench. FACT He said exactly that according to trananslation from the very 'first' New Testament .written by the Greeks...that is your end if you are christian or atheist.
@@Paul_Lenard_Ewing Yours is a crusade against evangelicals or fundamentalists. But you put yourself in the same territory claiming truths and citing the scriptures. Relax even religion is just a path to understand more of our reality. And (at least in Europe) i think that a good 80% of catholics or protestants havent read the Bible either, even once .. Maybe watched just some Charlton Heston movie
@@francesco5581 Crusade ...a vigorous campaign for religious social or political change ???? WOW that's a stretch. All decisions that you take action are based on probability because possibilities would make you inert. Could there be a god? Yes. Is it probable. No.
If there is god that has informed us what is good or bad in a situation but that god does not at all conform to his teachings then I have to lean towards the most probable.
So god goes into the box I keep for the fond memories of Sunday School the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
I'm not aware of a definition of God such that its existence in the Universe is discernible from its absence. Much less something able to receive prayers.
Neither one mentions the fine tuning argument for God’s existence in this video. In fact, Stenger suggests that the increasingly greater room for disorder in an expanding universe allows for more order in the universe, thus explaining why there is order. What am I missing here?
Ah, for the good old days Mark when you could just lead you sheep without getting into physics. You could just talk about god, baby jesus, the cross and will them to have faith. The gap is gettig so wide, give it up and free yourself, it's easy, no santa claus.
@@keithrelyea7997 Red Herring.
@@keithrelyea7997 Your comment seems to suggest that the general populous is better informed today about physics and science in general than in the past. Are you sure about that? I for one am not sure at all.
@@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913 he was positing a minimum level of intelligence
@@scambammer6102 Well, I sure can’t disagree with that. baby jesus would agree too.
I like the title of this video: "Atheism's Best Argument?" In other words, is this the best argument for atheism?
Let me quote the guest: "If you project back to the earliest possible time, you find that the universe had maximum entropy, the highest entropy, the highest amount of disorder,... the highest amount of disorder that was possible for an object that size. Later on, as the universe expanded and blew up into the big bang, the maximum possible entropy increased faster than the actual entropy and so there became room for order to form."
Whoa...how mysterious is that!
I hope this expert on atheism could clarify the following doubts for me:
(1) How did repulsive or negative gravity come about in the state of maximum entropy or better put, thermodynamic equilibrium, where no energy exists that is capable of doing any useful work?
(2) Inflationary theory says that a very dense energy and/or pressure under extremely high temperature, turns gravity upside down thus giving birth to this "repulsive gravity material." What is the source of the very dense energy/pressure and the extremely high temperature in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium or maximum entropy?
(3) How feasible is it for this "repulsive or negative gravity material," (I will call it the inflationary cake of soap) to keep producing foams or bubble universes for all eternity and yet it does not wear out or dissipate? What kinds of materials is it made of?
(4) It is postulated that the total negative and positive energy equal zero. That applies to those that are already in existence. But how can you factor in the endless emergence of new universes? How does that obey the law of conservation?
If this is all there is of atheism, then atheism is the most bizarre.
dude you theists are the only ones that "believe" in something from literally nothing ie your god creating everything ex nihilo. Science can simply say "I don't know" to every one of your questions and be on infinitely better grounds than your bald assertion that god dun it. You realize your argument is pure god of the gaps right?
Atheism just mean they don't acknowledge the existence of a God based on their experiences and evidence at hand.
It's an obvious fallacy to believe that unless science can disprove God / answer every question posited then he must exist. Theists demand every possible detail from Science in the "case for Atheism" and yet in their own arguments they offer up "faith", "because the old book says" and such other fluffy feelings. At least be consistent with yourself and recognise the disparity. Science doesn't know everything yet and I am skeptical of anyone pretending that they do.
I don't know doesn't mean there is a god
@@chamicels if you don't know, then how do you know there is no God?
The universe, at the beginning had far less entropy than it does now.
In fact, any single black hole within the center of the milky-way has thousands times MORE entropy than the entire early big-bang universe.
Come on, atheism. Surely ou can do better than this!
I'm sure we can. this channel would never present a compelling atheist position
There is only ONE SELF arguing with itself! Remember. The reason for the veil is LOVE.
The reason for being concerned with love is that you don't realize there is only one Self, which makes you feel lonely. Love is your craving to reunite with your true Self, but ironically it is always portrayed as love between Self and Other.
@@vitus.verdegast There never is anything to reunite with for Self Is. Yes. One. Yes. One not wanting to be alone. As such you are partially correct after having studied Buddhism or Advaita perhaps which is not the final conclusion. The final conclusion is this. All this is indeed Self but the reason why Self has conceived itself to perceive itself as differentiated (bio diversity) is companionship otherwise known as love which is why the wisest of all wise owls proclaim that the meaning of life is love. That which you call craving is desire or kama and kama means both desire and love.
@@waldwassermann When you realize your true Self all desires melt away, even the desire for love. But don't worry, it is the nature of Self to forget who it is and start playing games with itself again, and when desire gets to be too excruciating, it wakes up once more and the cycle begins anew.
@@vitus.verdegast The illusory veil of separation will never be lifted and this for the simple reason that it is not good for one to be alone. This I assure You. That being said. I would love to find out who inspired you to come to your conclusion.You are definitely far ahead in your realization.
@@waldwassermann You can only have the illusion of being alone if you think you are separate from others. But since everyone and everything is really you in disguise you are always surrounded by good company.
I think that we confuse the bliss of "supreme love" with god. To be in the throes of the bliss of Anant is no indication of god, it simply is the bliss of Anant, but what a bliss!
So you are taking a very similar Atheistic view as do most scientist - that something (Anand) comes from nothing.
*".....I want atheism to be true and am* *made uneasy by the fact that some of* *the most intelligent and well-informed* *people I know are religious believers. It* *isn’t just that I don’t believe in God* *and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my* *belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I* *don’t want there to be a God; I don’t* *want the universe to be like that.”(”The* *Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford* *University Press: 1997)...."*
Thomas Nagel
Since none of us is all-knowing, we all should refrain from uttering statements of "fact" that require unlimited knowledge like atheism....
That sums up the atheists' mentality. They just refuse to believe in God. Its mainly a mental psychological spiritual condition....
@@trojanhorse860 Unfortunately Mr. Nagel was unaware the the origin of the word God is Self (Khud > Gut > God). As such; Truth is Self-Evident. Not that it matters for all that matters is LOVE. It simply is not good for ONE to be alONE hence Cell Theory (otherwise known as a Bioveiling of sorts). See Genesis 2:18. In short. It's all about companionship really.
@@waldwassermann My friend. You're just playing with words & making associations between them, i guess, just semantics...
@@trojanhorse860 Perhaps it could as such be said that The Word or Logos speaks all words...
Einstein Physics :
Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher Albert Einstein
.
Newtonian Physics :
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton
Albert Einstein also said, ‘the rational mind is a humble servant, the intuitive mind a faithful gift. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift (see; The mind bending story of quantum physics + can a single cell “change its mind” + what can we learn from bacteria about social networks] enjoy
We know the names Newton and Einstein because their work continues to prove useful.
I don't know if they said that but even if they said "God is 100% real" that wouldn't make the claim for God any more true since there are no arguments from authority in science. If anyone wants to make God credible to science, then they need to show the data.
A quote from a horrible character and superstitious fool like Newton is not very convincing at all. He was smart, but also one of the biggest a-holes of his time.
Had he lived today, with all we know today, I seriously doubt he would have believed in any gods.
"Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe"
No, not true at all.
No matter what, it proves nothing. And that is what we need. People can blabber all they want about invisible magical god-friends, but we require definite proof to believe such a claim.
What intellectual mush, to state that the interplay between entropy and organization supports the notion of God's non-existence is not credible. The universe is formulaic in its construction and completely reflective of mind and consciousness which brought it into existence.
The last few sentences of this interview are very telling. When the questioner asked Mr Stengel "Doesn't this make for an interesting God that starts with chaos and produces order?' His answer was "well that's not the God of Judeo-Christian believers" and therein lies the weakness of his argument. Atheists want a static, anachronistic God to be the target of their refutations. They want an outmoded, discredited God of the bible to rail against but this God never existed. The only God that exists is one that may be loosely and imperfectly described as an omniscient, all powerful form of lucid energy whose dominant attribute is love.The shrunk down imitation version of God is easy to discount and this is the version atheists prefer to argue against. The problem is most of humanity hasn't yet developed the language and the understanding needed to accurately describe the transcendent, supervening spiritual reality that both created the universe and governs all aspects of it's continued existence. Religion which has more to do with worldly power than spiritual edification has left us with a rag bag lexicon of archaic terms and definitions that amounts to unyielding dogma. This is what atheists love to argue against not an evolved conception of God.
Im an agnostic, but here you show Stenger that his gripe is with a specific, culturally dependent notion of God that comes from contemporary fundamentalism. He can't say anything about the concept itself which is more complex and far reaching than any particular brand of contemporary monotheism.
ALL gods share the following qualities: (1) they were invented by humans, and (2) they have supernatural characteristics OR they are merely a semantic substitution for something else (eg the universe). Either of those arguments is sufficient to establish the non-existence of gods as independent substantive beings.
But the Genesis account of creation suggests God created order OUT of chaos. So it still seems pretty consistent with the Christian God.
they say that about every god. it's bs
I prefer Tolkien's Ainulindalë myself.
@@TurinTuramber best creation account ever. The abrahamic religions should consider migration.
And all the time we did not realize that God and the Universe are one and the same. When we observe this amazing Universe, we are seeing God from the inside; infinite and all-powerful.
farts
Far out, man.
I am confused by the statement that the early universe shortly after the big bang had high entropy. My understanding is that, when taking into account gravity, the early universe was in a very special state of low entropy (see Sean Carroll's argument for instance ). It makes sense that from there the entropy of the universe has room to increase creating the arrow of time.
"comparisons are odious" -Cervantes
Most men rely on the idea of a god to self soothe their existential angst. Men made god. They never stop to reason that them relying on gods judgment implies that their god relies on their existence to judge them. Hence their god made them to judge them. Now, what does that imply. That god has needs and desires to make beings to judge. Lol 😆 that’s no god I would respect but to each their own.
It is real scary to think we are accountable people go to great lengths to convince themselves that there is no God. It is easier to think when I am dead its lights out and thats it.
Your logic needs refinement.
if a man creates his own god,that god is not the Real God,it's his fault because the whole idea of religion is to submit to the One and Unique God the All Powerful the All Knowing ,the One who enncompasses his creatio,you need to read some Logic!
Looking at the the world simplistic, black and white, having all the answers, like atheists do also has everything to do with existential angst. You obviously know very little about psychology sir.
You are the kind of person who labels anyone who dares questions your theistic beliefs as atheist without actually addressing what is being questioned. Good luck sir.
Just like I don't believe in Santa Claus, fairies or ghosts there is no reason to believe in a god. And even by some stretching of the definition of god, you can most certainly discount the god of any biblical god.
Any God is many orders of magnitude more of an outlandish claim than Santa, Fairies or ghosts.
if you don't believe that something exists doesn't mean that thing doesn't exist,this is the arrogance of the Human self,you want to make things exist or not exists based on your wishes ,arrogance blocks you from knoing God
@@user-ry2qs7xf9k Projection 101. Theists say they believe XYZ and try to pass this off as reality based on feelings.
@@TurinTuramber
How could you say that thie reality experienced by religious people is just "feelings" while yourself didn't experience these "feelings" ???!!
You keep committing the same mistake which is arrogance,arrogance blocks you from knowing the True God
@@user-ry2qs7xf9k I was charitable in calling them feelings. Theists don't turn up to a debate with a briefcase full of empirical data and evidence so I think feelings is a fair description. If you have something more tangible than feelings then please share it.
First cause arguments never works because it states that a first cause is necessary but then what was the cause that ‘created’ the first cause. After Kant, it’s pretty clear that arguments for God, or at least the five traditional ones, can’t do the job.
One's cause is one's very own unwillingness to be alOne. (see Cell Theory) 🙏
That’s not an argument. Having a belief, or expressing an opinion, does nothing. You can belief anything so what. Totally vacuous.
Well. It's quite simple really. It's all about companionship really.
From the comments recd, it’s clear that most cannot understand basic philosophical arguments. It’s not about stating an opinion, much less simply repeating nonsensical and stupid remarks. If you can’t even state a cogent fact or a valid argument, you are sadly hopeless. Study philosophy, logic, etc. instead of repeating ad nauseating and meaningless comments.
There is only the first cause... there is diversity WITHIN the first cause. It is up to you to come up with the answer as to why. A lot of very smart people already figured it out before us.
At least theism will never have a problem as monumental as the hard problem of consciousness.
Doesn’t god have a consciousness ? Isn’t god more complex than the entire universe ? Human consciousness is peanuts that
I can't speak for other Atheists, but if I were to explain as an Atheist from my opinion, it is that I don't believe the universe was created, or that it did have a beginning.
That is the scientific opinion that removes all religion from the picture.
If, as the scientist Stephen Hawking believed, that the universe always existed ... then that would mean that energy and consciousness always existed ... no creator involved ... and that suffering of all forms of life ... is natural.
This is something akin to what Spinoza states. There was no ''Creation'', nor is there anything transcendent or supernatural.
Everything that exists is simply Nature, expressed in infinite ways. Nature being the infinite substance of existence, existing and conceived through itself and everything which exists is simply a manifestation of this substance and Nature is nothing ultimately but power. In a post Einstein world, we could say that everything is a manifestation of energy/power, variously, infinitely expressed in infinite ways. Everything is Immanent.
There is nothing transcendent. Nature works for no end, no teleology, it is completely indifferent. Evil is nothing inherent in things and good and bad are only used in relation to what we think is good for us or bad for us. Good/Bad/Evil etc are not inherent/intrinsic/simpliciter properties of things outside us.
He who believes that good is the end of the universe, tolerate him; he who believes that evil is the end of the universe, respect him; but he who says that the ends are myths, follow him! Only infinite Nature exists. All finites are solved in the essence of the infinite.
What's the Universe?!
@@user-ry2qs7xf9k Whatever the universe is, I believe that it was not created. What do you believe?
@@Alphardus Thank you for that post.
You might find this one also of interest.
From the book, “Ideas and Opinions” … author … Albert Einstein.
Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just and omnibeneficient personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every thought, and every human aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
@@Alphardus Are you aware of The Clergy Project? If you are not, you might want to go to TH-cam ... Michael Aus being interviewed by Richard Dawkins.
The Clergy Project is a confidential support group for clergy and former clergy who no longer hold supernatural beliefs.
“They said they had gained way more than they lost, because they now had intellectual freedom and being at one with themselves.”
Caught in the Pulpit … Linda LaScola
Humans will not evolve until they realize that the debate for or against God is completely irrelevant and useless to even have
Oh, but the debate is so much fun. . . Really! (Well, at the very least interesting to those of us who ARE interested)
@@debbiewheeler4066 it's funny to see how fg stupid so many people are "the universe just HAS to be my daddy"
The crux of the matter, is how one defines God - which is not limited to ideas found in Western religions or even some eastern religions offerings. In a world where science does not fully understand the human body and consciousness, what to speak of distant star systems, a little humility might be in order. Some religious philosophies reconcile that Godhead cannot be fully understood by the limited sense perception humans are saddled with - yet by divine privilege, Godhead can reveal otherwise inconceivable truths, into one's receptive heart. For a sovereign being, such a subjective evolution of consciousness, is proof enough.
The experience of a relationship with Divinity, is very subjective, although objective frameworks may be appreciated as a starting point. Whether one holds a Ph.d or not, has no bearing on God's reality, nor does it qualify a person to decide for others, if God exists or not. If God is understood as having unlimited inconceivable potency, anyone who wants to deny such a greater reality - based their own limited faculties - can be appreciated as someone who just doesn't get it. It's not just the intellectual limitations which cripple atheists, but an envy in the heart; a jealousy of something greater than themselves that drives their denial. Whether that makes them happy or not, only they can say.
If philosophers and scientist stopped urging about a vague, generic "god" and, instead, urged about _specific_ ones like Enki or Yahweh they would realize none exist. The latter does not exist for the exact same reason the former doesn't.
It would be Godly of me to believe that I know the answer. It is human of me to imagine that I might.
that was awesome! and it makes sense!
*the answer to that is submission,which the majority of people refuse to do,submission is the one and only way to God.*
@@user-ry2qs7xf9k Submit then, bow down to your divine coloniser, who shaped you as he pleased. Enjoy your enslavement and stay in your place, minion. Wait for your master to instruct you to write back.
3:28 ... Wasn't the entropy low at the beginning of the universe?
3:44 the highest disorder for an object of that size, it then expanded....
There are observable and quantifiable irregularities in the cosmic microwave background, which Penrose has an interesting explanation for, worth seeking out. Cyclical universe.
@@waerlogauk So does that mean the amount of disorder is relative to size? Thus an elaborate sand castle on a beach would have more total disorder than just a small pile of sand, if you include the beach with the sand castle while not including it with the small pile of sand. This renders the whole notion of entropy rather arbitrary to my mind.
@@uncommonsensewithpastormar2913 Entropy is the most commonly missed understand notion. Entropy is the number of possible arrangements an atom can have in a system.
@@kos-mos1127 I have heard that entropy can also be described in terms of information rather than matter.
These are the best arguments? Because the immense energy we observe is impeccably and perfectly balanced, that means it was produced by zero energy? The best argument is Zero energy produces perfectly balanced energy? Really… how did he come to that conclusion? Because the universe expands, more room for chaos in the yard means the house just becomes organized? That’s consistent with 2nd law of thermodynamics? Do large plots of land cause organized things to be created at the center? Where did these conclusions come from? What evidence or logic supports these statements? If these are the best arguments, I’d hate to see the worst.
Creationists create arguments to fit their hypothesis.
Agnostic atheists have the modest attitude by just observing and learning.
If emotionally you need an invisible friend that watches over you and promises to fulfill your most cherished, impossible dreams, then certainly: Invent that friend.
Agreed. Problems only arise when you try to pass this friend off to others as objective reality.
I have heard ALOT of arguments on both sides trying to provide proof, I must say neither side has persuaded me much
One side believes based on evidence. The other one believes even in the absence of evidence
Logically and philosophically , a Creator is more sane than no creator from nothing.
.
Einstein Physics :
Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher Albert Einstein
.
Newtonian Physics :
"This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton
@@giorodrigues8589 Science has never proven anything.
Only subjective interpretations of subjective observations in view of Materialism which has already been debunked many times
@@giorodrigues8589 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
@@giorodrigues8589 Religion teaches Morality and Spirituality , they are not fiction . They are called moral and religious truths . Belief in some higher power is not blind faith; it is based on Reason.
There are also many theologians (Religious Studies) who earn Phd's just like other sciences. Science and Religion-Spirituality 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.)
Science and religion are two sides of the same deep human impulse to understand the world, to know our place in it, and to marvel at the wonder of life and the infinite cosmos we are surrounded by. Let’s keep them that way, and not let one attempt to usurp the role of the other.
Arguments? We prefer fact-checking and scientific evidences/proofs.
There are no proofs on either side . That’s why they use argument
@North Korea Is Best Korea
arguments have belief as their goal. They persuade people to accept an idea as true. (See Rhetoric - Wikipedia)
proofs have knowledge as their goal. They establish that an idea is objectively true. (See Epistemology - Wikipedia)
See the difference?
@North Korea Is Best Korea
If all the premises of a valid argument are true, then the conclusion must also therefore be true.
In the example you gave , your premises are true .
With theism vs atheism there’s no agreement on the premises .
The arguments therefore aren’t proofs .
@North Korea Is Best Korea
I’m saying you cannot prove gods existence with deductive arguments . That’s why we just have arguments and not proofs on this particular question
@North Korea Is Best Korea your not listening . God hypothesis cannot be falsified or proved . I clearly articulated this .
It’s irrational to accept propositions without sufficient evidence . There is, I believe , insufficient evidence for gods . Hence, I reserve belief in them unless you or anyone can present sufficient evidence . Deductive arguments aren’t evidence . Even if the premises are valid and the conclusions sound
“Universe begins at total chaos” he just contradicted himself with second law of thermodynamics. If disorder increases with time then now is the time of more chaos than the beginning. Guru please let go of ur unique argument of yours.
Actually this, somewhat of a mystery that seems to not make sense to most people, is the same exact thing that has puzzled Roger Penrose for I'm guessing many decades,I think. And this sorta contradiction is also prevalent in black holes. You see....black holes have a certain entropy...but as they evaporate slowly over time....are they decreasing or increasing entropy? Seems like a very similar answer as to why when the universe began to cool it had high entropy. What if...entropy is mislabeled?? What if instead of measuring order and disorder...it measured possibilities.
Starting with chaos, and then creating order out of that chaos... That sounds like the work of intelligence to me !
Let alone there being a chaos to begin with... How about if there was nothing at all??
@@treasurecave431 In some “way” it has to be impossible for there to be nothing. I guess just because it’s a brute fact that there IS something??
atheism=speculation assumption no-design no-order no-reason by luck/accidentally missing link theory
creation=design order beauty harmony scientific explained base on logical order reality reasonable
atheism=speculation assumption no-design no-order no-reason by luck/accidentally missing link theory
creation=design order beauty harmony scientific explained base on logical order reality reasonable
Yeah.But an idiot intelligence!!
Why you need chaos when you can build an ordered object from the beginning?
These are Atheism's best arguments?!😳
this channel would never present compelling atheistic arguments. but there are plenty of others that do
He seems incredibly uncomfortable
Atheism's best argument is that the arguments for the existence of god are ridiculous and fallacious... there is no reason to believe any of them.
@North Korea Is Best Korea
fal·la·cious
adjective
based on a mistaken belief.
"fallacious arguments"
@North Korea Is Best Korea Lol, the Kalam isn't even a proof for a god, it is only an argument that the universe had a cause.
@North Korea Is Best Korea You are demonstrating my claim quite nicely as a matter of fact!
@North Korea Is Best Korea Lol, no nothing else you can demonstrate for me today, thanks for the help 🤣
Maybe there is a God. But in light of what we can see around us God can’t be both infinitely powerful and infinitely good. So it isn’t *That* God.
*God is all powerful,if God is not all powerful that means he's not God*
You are a prisoner of religion(s). The Creator and creation has nothing to do with them. They just saw an opportunity for money and power and grabbed it. The Creator might not care about humans at all. Everything relgions are tellng you about a "personal god" and "personal relationship with god" is a lie. There are other things religions will never tell you and even make an enemy of you if you do.
@@EggtherSong
you're mixing religion with ideology
God is all wise so why would He create something then neglecting it!!!!!!
God cares about His creation
@@user-ry2qs7xf9k I do not know if he cares and what is his interest. No one says he is neglecting his slaves. The question is: do you want to be his slave?
@@EggtherSong
You have to be a slave there is no other option,anyone who's lived enough realises this
Now it's your choice,either to be a slave to God the Loving ,most Merciful,most compassionate.....or to be a slave to His creation(Humans,physical desires,money,women...)
I've chosen God and I've realised that submission to Him is the True freedom.
What God are we talking about? there's loads of them!
Literally millions of Gods dead and alive.
@@TurinTuramber and every one of them was invented by some human
@@scambammer6102That's the great thing about imaginary friends, you can just conjure up whatever you want them to be. Perfect
All are aspects of God or modalities.
Just like when you become anger, joyful, compassionate, envious, greedy, lie, or say truth, relaxed or tense.
@@S3RAVA3LM He asserts, without evidence, logic or grammatical intelligibility.
The law of physics tells us that everything is mechanical, even consciousness. So instead of believing in the great spirit who resides in all of us, we have to believe that we are just machines... Science can make us believe anything! Resistance is futile, we are borg LOL, man even can become pregnant... or be a woman if they choose. Why doesn’t science tell us about the placebo effect and the nocebo effect; ask and you shall receive (either positive or negative) God knows you by heart. I guess big farma doesn’t want us to know. Why don’t our priests tell us how consciousness really work? Because they’re not more spiritual than most of us these days. If I’m correct, it was Eve ((the subconscious) and NOT Adam who was first deceived and fall into sin, with Adam (consciousness) right on her heels. “Father forgive them because they don’t know what they’re doing.” That’s why God said, “I will greatly increase your pain in childbearing, your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you! Stay conscious folks... your wife is overruling you 95% of the day. In childbearing we can use self hypnosis; Adam has to be in charge; women are stupid, they can’t think for themselves, they can only react and drag you along. See what happens when we take a blood test of someone in extreme anger; Eve poisoned Adam with noradrenaline... he doesn’t know right from wrong anymore. And the great thing is... god knows us by heart, it doesn’t matter if you’re an atheist. Jesus said, when you blasphemes against the father you will be forgiven, and when you blasphemes against the son you will be forgiven. But when you blasphemes against the HOLY SPIRIT you will NOT be forgiven! Hell only exists on earth. When we die we all go back where we came from. Didn’t god say, if you eat from that tree you will surely die? They died spiritually... all unconscious people create hell on earth, that’s why they’re called ‘the living dead’, because they’re asleep. (See: Wim Hof a.k.a the iceman - a science breakthrough)
For intelligence of mind to actually exist, there needs to be an understanding, which is inevitable always missing from a digital computer. This poses the question, though, what constitutes understanding? In other words, on what level is a computational system required to understand what it is doing for it to be considered sufficient enough for intelligence? Is it a total, comprehensive understanding that’s required, a partial understanding in a specific way? How does one determine this? How does one verify it? After all, do we, as humans, really understand what we mean, even when we know what we’re saying? If a machine functioned as if it understood, behaved as if it did, and made the explicit claim that it felt as though it did, all based on a program code, do we believe it?
I find it very sad to see people who are so convinced there is no God.
And I find it so sad that people pin all their hopes on a non-existant being.
What is sad about that?
You are probably convinced there is no Yeti. Sad?
They are just insecure and hope that destroying all religions will make them less insecure.
@@sadiqal-amana6498 - no - I keep an open mind about the Yeti.
@@paulag7634 - I don't pin anything to God - I just do what I believe 'he' wants me to do and trust that he'll look after me. I am one of the most contented, happy and fulfilled people on the planet so it seems to work very well for me.
Not being a stamp collector, or not believing in fairies does not really require an argument.
.......mankind is so lost in its race to answer the question "why?"......rather than come together to compare notes of their individual observations, they fight and demean each other to call the elephant's parts: rope, tree trunk, and snake. PEACE to every child of Earth.
Without a God to deny atheism would not exist. Even the atheists depend on God for their existence.
Pointless comment . The concept of god is real . An actual god is up for debate .
Hmmm, I don't think those are the best arguments. Mine are:
The fact that not one person on the planet actually knows what existed or occurred prior to the Planck Epoch.
The fact that nothing supernatural has ever been shown or proven to exist whatsoever.
The fact that pretty much every isolated civilization on earth has made up their own myths and legends regarding origins. It is human nature to make things up when we don't have all the facts.
It is almost infinitely more likely that the universe and life originated naturally and wasn't poofed into existence by some magical entity from another dimension.
“Proofed into existence by some magical entity”
Ho the irony!!
(Relativism, strictly reductive materialism, militant atheism or philosophical naturalism):
“The belief that there was “nothing”, and nothing didn’t really mean nothing as there was no such thing as meaning, and then nothing much happened to nothing except nothing and then nothing suddenly magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything suddenly magically rearranged itself -- for no reason whatsoever -- into self replicating bits which then turned into something that meant everything. But ultimately it didn’t really mean everything or anything as everything is ultimately meaningless.” (Atheism)
And they mock other peoples beliefs!!
Your world view, your existential crisis and your epistemological crisis not the theists buddy!!
Yeah not dogmatic at all and perfectly “sane” and makes perfect sense!! About as much sense as your straw man argument and “life originated naturally” argument!!
@@georgedoyle2487 No crisis here my friend and life has incredible meaning because this is most likely the only one we get. How do you think the universe originated? And how do you know that there was "nothing" prior to the Planck Epoch?
you're right those are better arguments. it's almost like doofus went and found the dumbest atheist he could to interview.
@@georgedoyle2487 , if you just simply take a look around at how the material world functions, the dynamic cycles of creation and destruction at the atomic level on up to the cosmic, and the influence of probability without any obvious sign of divine intervention, you either have to conclude that if a god created it all it was done on a whim without any real plan, or that God did not create our universe. Any other conclusion is untenable, the product of wishful thinking.
@@WUWHere I call that the argument from "stupid design." Any god that designed this place is either a black hole or a maroon.
Kuhn nailed perfectly that he was just making perfect examples of fine-tuning ...
and when he says "An universe that do all by itself" then Chaos is called in with his cool name (to not have to call it randomness) and should explain everything ... as a God.
@iarguephilosophy Who created reality isnt a God (broader meaning) ? And we have only two choices here A) some kind of consciousness B) Mr Randomness (AKA we were lucky !!)
@@francesco5581 there is zero zippo evidence of "consciousness" outside the brain functions of finite living organisms. You theists are just projecting your daddies onto the universe. It's infantile and pathetic grow the F up.
@@francesco5581 I am agree %100 with your comment and reply. And why this Mr Chance doesn't put money in my pocket randomly? To be more scientific: Why does not universe create random things? Why it does obey laws?
@iarguephilosophy What are the initial conditions of whatever model you hold? Can you tell me anything about that?
Remember the initial amount (or initial ex-nihilo emergence) of matter-or-energy-or-whatever still needs to be explained.
All these comments, all the time, for all of human history, trying to argue that there is a God or a creator, yet it is just people talking and nothing from your so called gods.
If their Gods came out of hiding, flew across the sky on a flying horse and were interviewed for Time magazine; that would help settle the debate.
@@TurinTuramber that would not settle the debate. You must think more critically than that. I do not know how a God could prove itself to everyone, but that God would know how to fo that.
Evidence of absence is absence of evidence.
The video represents the typical assumptions made by a materialist (Victor Stenger) who cannot fathom that if there truly is a living Creator of this universe, then such a Being would be as far above him in scope and consciousness as he is above an amoeba.
This is a very week ad hominem argument for the existence of god. It can be easily turned around as follows: Your argument represents the typical assumptions of a theist that there must be creator and, as there is no evidence that this creator exists, the creator must work in ways that are beyond our understanding. You simply cannot fathom that there is no creator.
@iarguephilosophy Why would you think that?
We have a universe that needs a cause, so what is your model?
@@20july1944 so you are saying that because you believe the universe must have a cause, and that others may not have a model for the cause of the universe, the version of the cause that you believe in must be correct.
@@robertdavies2865 Somewhat -- the universe must have a cause is the first step.
Do we agree the universe must have a cause?
@@20july1944 no.
An-Nahl: 12
And He has subjected for you the night and day and the sun and moon, and the stars are subjected by His command. Indeed in that are signs for a people who reason.
Ar-Ra`d: 4]
And within the land are neighboring plots and gardens of grapevines and crops and palm trees, [growing] several from a root or otherwise, watered with one water; but We make some of them exceed others in [quality of] fruit. Indeed in that are signs for a people who reason.
That is exactly the Creator mentioned in The Quran
This is the type of Creator that is argued against. The available data from cosmology does not support the traditional monotheistic creator.
@@kos-mos1127 neither does the available data from history
@@kos-mos1127 Why not?
What are the initial conditions of your preferred cosmogony?
I'm looking for a purely scientific discussion.
@@20july1944 Cosmologist do not know the initial conditions of cosmology. The earliest condition of inflation erases all data prior to the beginning of the expansion. Science does know that the energy and matter content of the Cosmos adds up to zero. By induction scientist can extrapolate that the initial condition of the Cosmos was a zero state. There was no creator as far as science can tell.
@@20july1944 there's no reason to think there were "initial conditions". It is more likely that the universe has always existed in some form. Sort of like god, but without the BS.'
God cannot claim it does not exist. It is just that existence relies on the illusion of separation. The illusion of separation exists for LOVE.
Some say there is an elephant flying in the sky we look we found nothing!
Who's responsible to give evidences for the elephant existence or non existence?
From Hindu to atheist here
The thing that really strengthened my belief in God was when a got a large aperture Newtonian reflector and took it to a Bortle 3 dark site. The beauty of God's creation changed my life 🔭
Lame
I had that same experience with pornography
These people are always so quick to tie the beauty of the world to god, but they skip over how its evidence for *their* specific god. You can believe the beauty of the cosmos requires a creator, you don't get to skip to saying "That's evidence for THIS SPECIFIC 2000 year old book and not any of the other hundreds of religions throughout history".
@@em.1633 I would be more than happy to explain my reasons for my belief of God. It's just to much to get into in a comment section.
It's not a god it's definitely a goddess 😉, if such a thing exists.
Have you ever heard a man giving birth.
It's only a woman who can give birth to the universe.
*I did not create myself by myself and therefore there must be a creator and this creator by definition is God. Any designer knows very well that you can not have all the human parts and their functions without a real, extremely intelligent creation* .
Every biologist knows very well that you CAN have all the human parts and their functions without an intelligent creator. It's called evolution and we understand it very well.
@@ecsciguy79 :
*Obviously, you are WRONG* .
Actually your parents had quite a lot to do with creating you, didn't they tell you about the birds and the bees?
Amazing that in 2022 people can still believe that humans needed a creator. Baffles me as so much knowledge is accessible.
Fine; any complex entity must have been created by an equally or more complex entity. The logical conclusion from that is that man was made by a creator.
Just one follow-up question. Who created the creator, and what creator created the creator's creator? Therein lies the dilemma. Even if I adopt your explanation, I'm still left without an answer to the origin of existence.
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” Werner Heisenberg / theory of quantum mechanics, published in 1925
And yet no scientist has ever offered good evidence for any god.
@@eddyeldridge7427 if you understood the lack of logic in your words then you would finish high school.
@@jankopandza1072
Already finished.
Maybe if you paid attention in class, youd know to back up your words. Point out the lack of logic.
If you do so, I'll be kind enough to correct you.
@@eddyeldridge7427 i would suggest to go buy a dictionary and then look what is evidence and what is proof. after doing that try to understand the difference. then come back to your original question and become aware of the stupidity that you wrote. now that you have been really basic schooled i believe there is no need for further elaboration since it is obvious on what lvl of understanding you are and what i am.. wishing you a good day. dont act smart next time or you will get schooled by some other random internet guy.
Atheism = Without beliefs in gods...
Atheists fields NO kinds of arguments...
Theists claim gods -- and NEVER prove their claims !!1
START THERE!!!
As I said, Atheism should be the default position someone has until they might "find" God. If you believe in God but you have never been agnostic/ atheist then you were probably indoctrinated as a child and have been robbed of your objectivity in the matter.
That's a fallacy. Every name is God, but God is not defined by any name.
Everything that is is evidence of God.
Prove comes by way of contrast, thus discrimination, and comparison so to define.
God is not definable because there is nothing equal to God.
This is called metaphysics.
Modern science is pseudo and mathematics, and math isn't science.
You're incapable and without the tools necessary to tackle the question let alone the equation.
This is beyond your limited comprehension, your senses, your math, your logic.
Your reason for denying God is because you cannot understand.
You people are silly, with toddler mentalities; contemptible.
No prove of God? Says who?
EVERYTHING IS EVIDENCE OF GOD, EVERYTHING RELIES ON GOD, EVERYTHJNG IS GOD.
Modern atheism is about the conviction that there is nothing beyond matter and that all religions needs to be destroyed. Atheist claims are that they have all the answers which is why it is a cult.
Such nonsense! How do you know how the Creator created the Universe? What if the initial chaos was a necessary stage in the building process? Just the fact that "chaos" organized into an orderly mechanism is proof that there is an Architect and an Engineer. "Scientists" are so arogant. "For a Creator to exist he/she should have done things this way (i.e. my expectations are not met). Things are not the way I expect, thus there is no Creator". Utter stupidity! You have no idea what constitutes 95% of our universe ("dark matter" and "dark energy"). You are constantly changing your opinions as facts contradict your theories. And still you have the arrogance to say "We know better!"
Changing your opinions and theories as new facts are discovered is the Rational scientific approach otherwise it would be theology.
Did you actually watch the video? The whole point he is making is that we understand how order can arise from chaos without the requirement for external input. Since the observed universe can be explained without the requirement for an external organiser there is no gap left for the god of the gaps to sit in. This is far from being a claim to know everything but simply a claim but nothing we know requires this external designer.
@@waerlogauk There is nothing wrong with changing opinions. And I could not care less about theology and religions. It is wrong to say "I know" when you do not. It is wrong to pretend that atheism/materialism is not a belief system. Everyone seems to be brainwashed into believing that materialism is more supported by facts than belief in a Creator. There is NO factual proof that the universe appeared by itself out of nothing. There is NO factual proof that life can "emerge" out of non-life. There is NO factual proof that the first monocellular organism was able to form "accidentally". Atheism/materialism is just another belief system.
@@waerlogauk Yes I did. And you must be a humanitarian by education. An engineer who has an interest in "evolution" vs creation argument will disagree with you. I do not want to go into details. You are entitled to thinking that a perfectly working mechanism does not require an architect and an engineer.
To know God is to submit to Him,Atheists want to encompass God,this is insane!
Such interesting talking points with highly learned people, never long enough! It seems to me that part of 'God's design' is to make it so that there is NEVER more than 50 % proof of its existence to make space for min 1% of faith which is usually required it seems. ('God' is more akin to a kind of universal intelligent electricity than a person imo. Or it is a metaphor for the workings of the deeper mind which may be far more capable than generally understood currently. For example other's thoughts can be apprehended irrespective of distance such that one sometimes receives salient information through the imagination well in advance of a face to face meeting. This happens, many of us experience it frequently, there is no question, even pet dogs sometimes start barking before visitors are within earshot yet mighty science still pompously denies it. Lmfao. 😂 (R Sheldrake excepted)
and god does that because it is an AH
Yes nobody ever wants to talk about how the god story was specifically tailored to not be provable... how convenient for story tellers right!
I really love the science of Rupert, his son Merlin has followed his fathers footsteps. You should see his great works too.
If we don't need God in eternity, why do we need a designer in everyday life?! Every intelligent human creation is a small universe that proves the designer. A universe is a larger creation with intelligence in it, why does it not prove a Designer?
"In the laws of nature such a high order of intelligence is manifested that the rationality of human thought and ordering is a pale reflection in comparison!" /Albert Einstein: Mein Weltbild.
- Published by C. Seeling, Zurich-Stuttgart-Vienna 1953. 21.1/
This is why I’m agnostic and the reason Why I’m not atheist or religions I believe the God in cosmology and maybe heaven is inside a black whole so when we die our energy get suck into the black whole and we end up in heaven . Please leave your comment on my theory would like more insight on any good idea you have
"You are getting me more and more convinced to God"
You were right Robert.
Which God?
@@williamsmith9948 Please describe it for me. What are its characteristics?
@@williamsmith9948 if you want to anthropomorphize nature and the universe and call that God you can do that, but then I am not sure what kind of personality you would want to imprint on your anthropomorphization of the natural material world
@@andrebrown8969 his teddy bear
@@mikel5582 Are you an atheist?
I wouldn't personally take on the burden of proof. Arguing for atheism would mean you need to disprove all other gods, and that's just not practical. It's way harder to disprove the existence of something, than prove the existence of something.
I know of no atheists that make the claim that gods can’t exist . I know of no atheist that claims god claims can be disproven .
I can’t prove that there’s a teapot, to small to see with telescopes currently orbiting Saturn .
Atheists simply claim that they aren’t convinced that gods exist . They find the so called evidence insufficient or not sufficiently persuasive .
Theists are the ones making the claims about teapots .
@@tonyatkinson2210 true. I could make arguments against a theistic God, but wouldn't bother doing the same for a deistic god.
@@jvalfin3359 I agree . Deistic gods don’t interact with the universe, or so I believe . So they are indistinguishable from no gods . Pointless
If you're claiming a God exists, the burden if proof is on you.
yeap Abrahamic or any other religions god not exist. But my God exactly like that. Let universe(s) become exist and expand without any intervene. Let them born and die in a probabilistic universe, by chance if intelligent life become exist, let them thrive and return their PURE random information to himself via black hole.. this is how he spend his eternal life.
the ultimate question is why there is a universe instead of none. all his arguments about the universe starting from chaos evade the elephant in the room, why there is something instead of nothing.
Why is there is something insted of nothing? Why not?
Was nothing ever an option?
What is nothing?
*".....I want atheism to be true and am* *made uneasy by the fact that some of* *the most intelligent and well-informed* *people I know are religious believers. It* *isn’t just that I don’t believe in God* *and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my* *belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I* *don’t want there to be a God; I don’t* *want the universe to be like that.”(”The* *Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford* *University Press: 1997)...."*
*Thomas Nagel*
I suspect he’s referring to the Christian god of the old testament . Anyone with any sense of justice and morality would hope he isn’t the one . - “jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”
@@tonyatkinson2210 How do you know he was referring only to that. I see not that he was targeting any "particular" God of any kind. He aimed at God in general, any kind of God....
@@trojanhorse860 that maybe the case. But why would actively not want (for instance ) a deistic god ? That god may as well not exist
@@tonyatkinson2210 Thomas Nagel was cristal-clear in what he said, i guess.
Intellectual dishonesty from this gentleman
This is the second time I've come across Victor on your channel. Impressive man.
Please sir, I want some more. 🙂
Forgot fine tuning
What we need is a positive case to be made for atheism. That is, that it ain't so bad. Rather than seeing it as a terrible conclusion- see it as a liberating perspective. Give up hoping for eternal life and just see the cosmos as an ongoing creation which is magnificent without any divinities. I suspect Robert Lawrence Kuhn is simply terrified of there not being some kind of life after death. I don't see that as so bad- what's bad is they dying process itself- that is, years of decline, then for some, a very unpleasant final episode of suffering. If there's nothing after death, we aren't going to know it and if there is, fine, terrific. The cosmos to me isn't any less magnificent if there no supernatural of any sort. In a way, to me, the natural is the supernatural because it's so fantastic. For me, the creation is the creator and the creator is the creation.😄
Religion is to live to please a religious god, instead of reasonably to live to be happy, for the empty promise of eternal happiness, because there is not life without death and happiness without unhappiness. Atheism is dead, condemned eternally to say "it is not known" when the truth is that atheists don't know, and to ask the foolish question "who created God?" to muddle the debate fighting logic and reason for a way out from the straight forward logical conclusion that a creation needs a creator. I know God is unbelievable because designed and created its own Life and Death, however life and death looks and feels like a miracle. Let's do a psychological experiment that would rattle humanity and do what religious people and atheists do all the Time and 'assume' an eternal entity existed Alone. What would you do if you were that entity called God? You don't love or hate because you are alone, perfect. What is the point of creating the universe if the future is known? You would condemn to hell or reward with heaven who you already knew would be condemned or rewarded because free will would not exist. The omniscience of the future of a religious god makes all eternal reality deterministic therefore impossible. The only way to be alive is to be able to die. God became us and die when we die. The only way to live forever is in a mortal cycle of life that creates life that tends to immortality, because immortality is death, meaningless existence. At the beginning without beginning, because God is eternal, only Time existed and Nothing else. At what Time Time was created? How much Time took to create Time? Can a religious god create Time after creating a river after creating a mountain? Can a religious god exists before Time? Time is a reference to existence before or after therefore the atemporal religious god doesn’t exist. All reality exists in Eternal Time, Creator without Creator, First Uncaused Cause or Decision, Origin of Everything because nothing existed before, creator and creation because nothing can be created from nothing, unless nothing is something, an impossibility possible or the miracle of God, that is existence and absence of existence. A contradiction is an impossibility and a miracle is an impossibility that God makes possible, an act of God. God is a metaphysical entity, not a horrible personal religious god. Religious people have misunderstood the nature of God personifying a perfect, omniscient, almighty, inmortal meaningless existence that is not alive because there is not life without death, finitude without infinitude, happiness without unhappiness, health without illness, suffering without joy, lie without truth in the Perfect Game with the Perfect Conclusion of the Miracle of Infinite Possibilities Of God's Life and Death to know the Absolute Truth for eternity Alive or existing Dead, if all life die and God die becoming an infinitely regretted memory of what God's Life was, God's Death knowing the future of a deterministic reality without free will. God makes perfect sense because is for all lives the same perfect justice with perfect knowledge because everything we do we do it to Ourself in perfect karma being the same Creator and different Creation for eternity Alive or existing Dead and whoever lives by the lie would be tormented eternally on knowing the truth! because Time can not be deceived and all lives are a present from God to God. I exist therefore I was created or always existed, and the creator was created or always existed, therefore eternal God exists because nothing can be created from nothing and if everything needed to be created nothing would exist in an infinite regress of causes and effects without a beginning of existence. The son can not exist without the parents that can not exist without the grandparents ad infinitum without a beginning of existence. It is not the same an eternal entity than an eternal sequence of finite causes and effects without a beginning of existence. Both options are logically impossible because in infinite Time every present moment is preceded by a never ending past and the moment of the creation of finitude would never be reached, but I would not exist if the eternal sequence of causes and effects existed therefore the eternal entity has to exist, therefore has to be possible, a miracle. What makes posible the imposible is that God is Time transforming Self. We are literally an infinitesimal part of infinite God, like mortal and imperfect Organs of the eternal and perfect Body and Mind of the Miracle of God's Life and Death. The heart and tail of the lion are the lion impossibility possible miracle God. I know I am God because nothing can be created from nothing therefore everything comes from God being God, the same miraculous nature or substance transforming in Infinite Time. "There is not a shred of evidence that Body exists, prove that Body exists! I am open to new ideas and evidence on the existence of God, prove that the prophet esophagus is the son of Body ressurected on the third day after his crucifixion!" would say an atheist stomach.
First line of the Bible; In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. I take that to mean God created nature. But nature is the natural, it is the opposite of artificial. Created things are artificial, they are artifacts. What is natural is what happens of its own accord. So God created nature means God created that which is not created.
Keep stretching that old book to mean whatever is convenient. Might as well have left the pages blank for believers to each write their own terms and conditions.
The simplistic and misleading argument stated below of why God doesn't intervene to save the innocent child from a random lightning strike poses an interesting question but then offers a bogus set of choices to answer that question.
To ask why a just God would not intervene to protect and innocent child is to ask why God wouldn't intervene to protect all such innocent children, because one is not more deserving than any other, or why a child with cancer should have to suffer as a result of something he or she had no control over and the answer is not immediately apparent.
If God intervened every time a danger presented itself man would have no incentive to improve the conditions of this world that brought about that danger. If every disease were miraculously cured, humanity would never have developed medical science, if hunger were miraculously relieved there would be no need for agriculture. The SEEMING absence of God has had the eventual effect of empowering mankind. In the same way that parents of a teen reach a point where they no longer bail him out of trouble but hold back and let him discover and develop his own strength and good judgement. A universe where every threat and danger to man is eliminated is a closed universe and one not consistent with human freedom. Would any of us at any age like to be followed around by a parent or guardian who monitors every thing we do in order to protect us? We wouldn't and we'd soon say "leave me alone. I'll take my chances."
As far as the example given below concerning the lightning strike harming an innocent child goes; this example is completely hypothetical. How do any of us know that this child would not be protected by providential intervention? The answer is we don't. Therefore this argument is false and misleading.
How do you explain innocent children being hurt and abused on a daily basis by men and women around the world? ALL children should be deserving of growing up without fear of being hurt by adults. If God is real, he does not care one bit that thousands of kids get abused and killed by the sick people of earth.
@@thesatinbowebird Hurting a child is a choice not evidence that God doesn't care about children. Its a straw man argument There are laws to protect children and the reason they exist is because compassionate human beings were motivated to see it happen.
Abusing a child is a personal choice in a universe consistent with human freedom We ourselves must walk out of the darkness we created and not expect God to pull us from our own confusion. Again, the seeming absence of God has worked ultimately toward man's greater empowerment.
@@michaelmckinney7240 so you're completely happy with the fact that God allows children to be harmed and abused. These people can go unpunished if they are not caught by the police. Your happy you God allows the innocent to be put in harms way and he is basically wiping his hands if any wrong doing because of free will. That is the person you look up to and praise??? It's disgusting you follow such a heinous moster. Do you believe in miracles?
@@thesatinbowebird Hurting a child is a choice not evidence that God doesn't care about children. Its a straw man argument There are laws to protect children and the reason they exist is because compassionate human beings were motivated to see it happen.
Abusing a child is a personal choice in a universe consistent with human freedom We ourselves must walk out of the darkness we created and not expect God to pull us from our own confusion. Again, the seeming absence of God has worked ultimately toward man's greater empowerment.
Wow! So you really don't care your God has abandoned the innocent so the adults can have free will to hurt them. Copying your previous comment proves to me you have no real opinion on the matter other than what your pastor had told you. You can't think for yourself and maybe see that it's f@&cking horrible what your God has done to millions of young innocent children. You are a sad person who's been brainwashed and I feel sorry for you. I'm sorry you don't have a better God to look up to.
These are clearly NOT Atheism's best arguments. One of the better arguments is why an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent God needs or desires to create things that submit or worship him if has unlimited power, infinite knowledge and can exist everywhere? The only explanation I have heard that could answer that is that God chooses to limit his power at times so he can relearn or re-experience his power over and over again. But that argument does not properly explain allowing evil to exist or why bad things happen to good people - unless God is inherently not good nor just.
Those are, of course, arguments against a logical and just god. But who's to say that god isn't just some stupid sumbitch? Now that I think about it, evidence for a petty, malicious, narcissistic god with abhorrent engineering skills is starting to seem likely; a drunken fool stumbling throughout his creation screwing up one thing after another, like a spoiled rich kid with his daddy's credit card. Perhaps the existence we're familiar with is simply god's sloppy attempt at dark comedy submitted for his freshman film course.
1st corinthians 1:19 For is written “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; The intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate. “
Gods point is: not by your own intelligence nor by your own morality can you find him. But he will give it freely although the gift is through Faith, so that even then you can’t boast before him.
Rubbish
@@merrybolton2135
This is why people who think like you will never find God,simply because you refuse to submit to Him,you want to encompass God with intelligence and reason,this is insane!
The Jesus story began in 48 AD with the first of the Pauline Epistles (which comprise nearly half of the New Testament books) when Paul realized the Daniel 9:25 prophesy of a messiah expired without fulfilling so he made one up decades later and set the story decades in the past to make the prophesy seem true.
The fulfillment of the Daniel 9:25 prophecy written in 444 BC was the test of the true messiah. By 48 AD it was known that the prophecy of a messiah coming in "seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" had not occurred on the prophesied date.
"Seven weeks and threescore and two weeks" is, 7 plus 60 plus 2 equals 69 total weeks. One prophetic week equals seven biblical years of 360 days (the Julian calendar was created centuries later), so 7 times 69 equals 483 total biblical years beginning with Artaxerxes' decree in 444 BC. Those 483 biblical years equal 173,880 days, or 476 Julian years. Therefore the Messiah would come and be "cut off" in AD 33. One prophetic week equaling seven Biblical years is something “Daniel” invented in about 165 BC, effectively an admission that Jeremiah 25:11-12 failed.
Paul made up the entire Jesus story and added historical figures, locations, and events to add authenticity.
Paul's goal was to garner support for the insurrection against the Romans which began in 46 AD led by two brothers, Jacob and Simon, in the Judea province. The revolt, mainly in the Galilee, began as sporadic insurgency until it climaxed in 48 AD when it was quickly put down by Roman authorities. Both Simon and Jacob were executed.
He created the fiction of having witnessed the risen messiah. He wanted to show that the messiah had come as prophesied but was murdered by the Romans. This was to entice the Gentiles to aid in the Jews' rebellion against the Romans.
Instead, he created one of the world's most popular religions that is based on the literal worship of ritual human sacrifice, rape, and cannibalism.
The Gospel authors copied, and embellished, Paul's fiction. None of the Gospel authors, or any other writers, were witnesses to the Bible figure known as Jesus.@@user-ry2qs7xf9k
@@twitherspoon8954
I don't know about that but chistianity is not the only religion in the world,it's your duty to look for the perfect religion because if God exists then the perfect religion also must exist,God doesn't create something and leave it completly lost,if God does so he's not the Real God
@@user-ry2qs7xf9k
_"... if God exists then the perfect religion also must exist."_
I condemn ritual human sacrifice, rape, and cannibalism; Christians literally worship them and their savior is a zombie (an undead corporeal revenant created through the reanimation of a corpse).
Ritual Human Sacrifice-
God sent one of his sons to be tortured and killed as a sacrificial offering (a practice adopted from Paganism).
Christians worship a father who sent one of his sons to be tortured and executed (and literally called it as a sacrifice) as part of a ritual intended to appease a god (in Christian theology, atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the death by crucifixion of Jesus).
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son."
1 John 4:10
"This is love; not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
Romans 8:32
"He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all."
1 Corinthians 5:7
"Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
Romans 3:25
"God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement."
Philippians 2:8
"Christ was humble. He obeyed God and even died on a cross."
Galatians 1:4
"Christ obeyed God our Father and gave himself as a sacrifice for our sins to rescue us from this evil world."
Romans 5:8
"But God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still sinners."
Hebrews 10:10
"We are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."
~~~~~~~~~~~
Rape-
God raped ("overshadowed") Mary while she was engaged to Joseph and while God was married to Asherah, Aholah and Aholibah (who were sisters). God's sons also "ravished" human females and impregnated them.
God sent one of his representatives to tell Mary (who was between ages 12 and 14 at the time), that even though she was engaged to Joseph and frightened by the encounter, that God would impregnate her. A child cannot consent to pregnancy by an authority figure.
The Bible uses the word "overshadow", which is the Greek word, "επισκιάζω" (episkiazó). Some Christians interpret "overshadow" to mean that some sort of mystical cloud or divine wind hovered over Mary and then she became pregnant. But the literal translation of the word is, "to overshadow, to use influence upon by a looming presence (skiá)" and figuratively means "to invest with preternatural (extraordinary, exceeding what is normal) influence". So, the "overshadowing" was God using what the Bible describes as the "extraordinary" coercion of his greater power and status to dominate and overpower Mary's desires and will by forcing his own desire to force unwanted sexual contact from frightened Mary with the intent of impregnating her.
The word Mary uses to accept the command to be impregnated is "ginomai", which means "let it not be, far be it from, God forbid".
In Mary's praise and thanksgiving to God in Luke 1:48 she says, “God has lifted up his humble maidservant.” The Greek word for “humble” is the same one that the Septuagint (the old Greek version of the Hebrew Bible) uses to describe the rape of Dinah in Genesis and other incidents of sexual violation.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Cannibalism is an integral part of Christianity-
John 6:53
"Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever gnaws my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a difficult and harsh and offensive statement. Who can accept it?" From this time, many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him."
Russel's teapot argument actually negates any ARGUMENT against the existence of God since it demonstrates how absurd it is to argue for OR against the existence of God.
People devote their lives in disputing what is obviously unfalsifiable.
Russell's teapot has been thoroughly refuted by better atheists. You didn't know? It was pretty easy.
Sorry but Victor's arguments didn't impress me in the least. Maybe we are just now understanding God's methods of creation? I will remain an agnostic.
Conjecture, still no evidence.
Ambiguous
Victor Stenger was a great man.
Leibniz now mostly inhabits scientific history books, his ideas receiving scant attention in actual research. And yet, Spekkens argues, Leibniz’s principle concerning indistinguishability may be as useful as ever, especially when confronting foundational issues in physics. Consider the interpretation of quantum theory, where theorists remain separated into two opposing groups, loosely associated with the terms realism and empiricism. Although Leibniz’s principle can’t offer any way to unify the two groups, Spekkens argues, it might help them focus their attention on the most important issues dividing them, where progress might be made.
For example, one particular interpretation comes in the form of so-called pilot-wave theories, in which electrons and other particles follow precise but highly non-classical trajectories under the influence of a quantum potential, which produces the wave-like nature of quantum dynamics. These theories demonstrate by explicit example that nothing in quantum physics prohibits thinking about particles moving along well-defined trajectories. But the theory does require the existence of some absolute rest frame, while also implying that this frame can never be detected. Many other aspects of such theories also remain unconstrained by empirical data. Hence, one might take Leibniz’s principle as coming down against such theories.
On the other hand, Spekkens points out, Leibniz’s principle demands that distinct states be, in Leibniz’s own words, “empirically indistinguishable in principle,” and achieving such certainty is not easy. If several states appear indistinguishable now, future experiments might turn up measurable differences between them. So a proponent of the pilot-wave approach might agree with Leibniz’s principle, but still reject its application just yet. The aim of research, from this point of view, ought to be to seek out such evidence, or at least envision the conditions under which it might be obtained.
And in this sense, Spekkens notes, Leibniz’s principle also offers some criticism of
theorists from the empirical school, who object to pilot-wave or other realist interpretations of quantum theory for containing unmeasurable quantities. It implies, as he puts it, that the empiricists’ “set of mental tools is too impoverished.”
After all, progress in physics often requires imagination, and creative exploration of possible distinguishing features that have not yet been measured, or even thought to exist. Progress requires scientists to “entertain ontological hypotheses, expressed with concepts that are not defined purely in terms of empirical phenomena.”
Science thrives on the essential tension existing at the boundary between empirical observation and unconstrained imagination. Incredibly, Leibniz perceived that more than 300 years ago.
Is there any relationship of conservation of energy from time symmetry to space-time? How do expansion of space, conservation of energy, and time symmetry fit together?
The energy is conserved with the expansion of space because of the vacuum energy. I think anyway. The vacuum continues to expand and the energy that it contains is spread thinner and thinner but doesn't disappear. Hence the conservation,also the expansion itself is going to create some energy I believe due to things like negative pressure forcing the expansion. As far as symmetry of time...I think time is the thing we understand the least, but then I'm no expert
there's not an either/or but rather a why or how... an answer to the why will be challenged only by its how counterpart...
I love the clarity and simplicity of that argument. But it makes me laugh...as though I just heard something a bit crazy. Why?
Rob stop flirting with God asking the same questions in different ways, while receive no substantive answer from these people. Just give you life to God while you still can
Which one ?
@@tonyatkinson2210 Isis - wife of Osiris and mother of Horus of course.
When Voltaire was on his deathbed, a priest visited him and said to him 'you should renounce the devil'. He replied 'This is no time to be making enemies.'
Que cantidad de autocontradicciones, falsedades e inexactitudes.
Los creyentes no cambian.
' There are true statements that cannot be proved' Gödel's Theorem. !!
Are these statements you are referring to called premises?