What changed my mind was after watching Atheist experience years ago. I noticed that all the arguments fell apart once actually questioned and thus I could only fall upon faith. Then I noticed that faith is useless and does more harm then good if followed. When I first started questioning my faith I saw Christopher Hitchens and I initially hated everything coming out of his mouth but as I intellectually approached what he was saying it started to crumble my foundations of faith. I then found Matt Dillahunty and the Atheist Experience and begun to hear people fall short constantly when trying to prove a God. Thank you Matt Dillahunty for being a force of nature.
I don't like to poop on fellow atheists, but your story isn't coherent. You say that watching atheist experience years ago caused you to start doubting, because all the arguments for god fell apart once questioned. Then you turned around on Hitchens. THEN you say you found Matt Dillahunty and the Atheist Experience. This does not compute. You either discovered the Atheist Experience (TAE) years ago and it started you questioning your faith, or you didn't discover it years ago and it was only after you reversed your views on Hitchens that you discovered TAE. You can't have discovered it once, then came to appreciate Hitchens, then discovered it a second time. I'd like to believe that what you mean was: You discovered TAE years ago, then you came to appreciate Hitchens, then you discovered Matt. Except even then, Matt has been on TAE for almost 20 years (last 1.5 years or so excepted). If you discovered TAE years ago, you would also have seen Matt on it. Unless you only watched one episode, but that's hardly enough to cement the process of deconversion... So it comes down to this. I find your story hard to believe. I'm sorry to say so, but it doesn't sound genuine. I do believe that it's a fabricated story, at least in part. Dude, as atheists, we're better than that. We have objective reality on our side. We don't need to make shit up. edit - Alternatively, it could be that you've just messed up your attempt to relate to us, your story of what really happened. I'm hoping that this is the case.
@@Raz.C I did indeed mess up in my attempt to relate. I meant it as I watched Hitchens and hated him at first but as time went by and I found things like TAE I started to understand what he was saying and how my belief system at the time was downright foolish. I'm sorry that it is confusing I'm not very good with English.
I had the same experience. I was in the clergy. But I was also curious and a truth seeker. At first I hated everything atheists said and thought I could easily refute their points. But the more I looked and read and watched, the less I could justify my beliefs. Until eventually it just hit me that I didn’t believe anymore. The four horsemen and AXP helped a lot.
The existence is of Christian apologists is a profound irony that hasn't been reasonably addressed, as an issue, in itself. I've been YELLING , into the void, for what it's worth, for years, that Christianity should require ZERO apologetics. The idea of the Bible needing interpreters seems almost blasphemous , to me, if you're a believer.
@@jimmythebold589The existence of non-Christian apologists even more so. If he cares about the truth, why isn't there a method to determine which apologist is right? The Bible shows such battles multiple times and yet modern apologists don't. It's God gave up your final answer?
Wait, What ? Those are all the classic ways of gracefully convincing people. For thousands of years the tried and true persuasive tactics of God's greatest coaxing and wheedling spokesmen. All the best ...
Hey, Matt. Just wanted you to know that I'm glad I found your content. I was raised into a somewhat cult like spiritual environment. After years of estrangement, mental illness, and tough situations, my therapist helped me become agnostic and introduced me to a philosophy podcast. You who have the courage to stare the world in the face (as you have in debates), and proclaim "You're wrong." While firmly planted in your reasoning, demonstrating your position eloquently and (I think) very patienly. While those firm in their faith can not fully appreciate the good you're doing in the world, the disillusioned of us, with unsupportive families, friends, and communities. Are now able to find people like you. Your efforts are most appreciated, and I can see you worked very hard to build something for the rest of us to appreciate. Sorry for being long-winded, but your content stands out, and I learn a lot from your values. I'm sure you are a figure to more than just I. Please continue to stand in for us who maybe weren't given a fair chance at deciding what was important to us. Thank you for helping me become an individual. Sincerely - a 20 something minnesotan guy
I agree and I'd like to thank Matt also, however Matt isn't likely to give a crap about us. TH-camrs/public figures are in a position above us. I'd like to have talks with Matt about beliefs and get his views on my thoughts but it's not going to happen. It's like him saying he talked with Richard Dawkins, how else would we do this without also being a well known person in a particular community of people? As if Richard Dawkins is going to care to give any of his time answering out questions outside of organized debates? At best we'd get a hour at most and then they'll be too busy. We're nobodies to public figures or celebs of TH-cam. I get people have lives but it's just strange that they have the time to talk to friends, family and maybe even acquittances but not to nobodies that just watch their videos. I also get they can't possibly talk to everyone but I doubt everyone here is wanting to talk to any of them and it's not like a conversation never ends either. I don't even feel comfortable emailing or messaging anyone to just see if they'll talk because I feel like I'm intruding and they wouldn't want to talk to just any random person. I wouldn't mind it if they could just read a message then reply at a later time but I doubt they would do, they'd just leave it on read indefinitely. I feel like I can't even attempt to reach out to these people. It appears that the only way to get noticed by them is to either become a public figure ourselves or tweet something that triggers them, otherwise we mean nothing. The other option is call in shows like the Atheist Experience but this is a public place with 1000s watching and maybe some people don't want to talk in a public setting even if it is over the internet. There is also the option of paying them but will likely be a lot of money.
Matt is a pathological liar who runs a charade or lies and false 'atheist' doctrines, but if you are easily manipulated, I can understand why you mistake his ridiculous bluster for confidence and reason. I assure you, this Dillahunty clown is a huckster peddling nonsense claims and doctrines that nobody can defend.
@@Lillypad12 Thanks for the reply! I believe we the viewers are the beneficiaries of this (nearly) free content that matt has contributed. As a pretty quiet distanced type of person, I understand needing time. Time to be selfish, and time to choose what you want to do instead of dealing with others wants. But to engage the wants and commentaries of an entire community aimed at his face, for better or for worse? I wouldn't be able to deal with all that.
@@parttimebrian2370 I get that for sure, however, There's things I'd like to converse about with someone like Matt with the knowledge and the experience he has and as Matt is someone I can find out about to some degree through his youtube videos and learn what things he knows about I know he's someone who has the knowledge and therefore I know he maybe a good person to talk to about the things I'd like to talk about. I don't know of many people in person with the expertise Matt has. There is no way to get a 1 on 1 conversation with him and the best way to contact would be to call into a show but then it's in front of 1000s of people watching the video. I get though he can't talk to everyone and may not have time for a nobody like myself, I just feel it's wrong to even attempt to contact someone like Matt who's in the public eye, maybe he would talk for a bit but I don't feel right trying because of this "class system" there seems to be.
@@parttimebrian2370 Yeah I get that. My rant was more about how I have questions that I'd like to discuss with someone like Matt with the knowledge he has. Doesn't necessarily have to be Matt but someone with similar knowledge. Getting Matt's opinion on something thought would be great though of course. The thing is though is there's no way to know if someone has that knowledge easily outside of people we see in the public eye and they seem out of reach to someone who is comparatively, a nobody such as myself. I'm not saying I'd like to have small talk with someone like Matt just to discuss thoughts I've had and maybe discuss religion and beliefs in general without having to be in front of 1000s of people on the internet.
The Licona debate was wild. Mocking Matt's skepticism while giving arguments from trash can lid ghosts and ouija board demons like a schoolgirl at a sleepover.
As a former school girl obsessed with the occult, even I didn't actually believe in that stuff and thus this is an insult to school girls at sleepovers everywhere lmao
@@nicolab2075 the girls in my grade school often did these things at sleepovers. The comment comes from my personal experience, and that would explain the specificity. If you are still having trouble understanding, I will be happy to explain further. Hope that helps! :-)
P1) God desires all people believe in him. P2) God is capable of convincing all people who want to believe in him. P3) I want to believe in God. P4) God isn't convincing me. C) This conception of a God that wants me to believe in it does not exist.
We could have empirical evidence that an entity with extreme power exists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a God - or even any specific God. All we would gather from this entity appearing is that it exists. It still has a lot of work to prove that it’s divine, should be worshiped, has the power over life and death, created the universe, etc. When you follow these thoughts logically, it is insane to believe that people accept belief in a specific God claim without any of the above claims getting met by any form of evidence. Honestly, if a personal God did exist, we don’t live in that universe solely based off how ours operates.
I particularly don’t see the logic relation between god and afterlife. Even granting we had solid evidence that there’s a god that created our universe, still that doesn’t entail that afterlife/heaven/hell and all the rest exists.
Materialism and imperialism have led people to destruction in the last century. It is not possible to be happy with material gain alone. Human nature, by nature, exists with peace, family ties, love, respect, faith and cooperation. Atheism drags people into emptiness, and the thought of disappearing after death makes people sad. People are filled with the feeling of eternal existence. A believer will attain eternal heaven in return for his good deeds.
It's not that they just accept the belief, but that they believe they must behave in very specific (& silly) ways: Speak in tongues, Genuflect, go door-to-door, align your chakras, bow to the East 7 times per day, wear a beanie cap with no propeller, hold e-meter cans, etc.
@@Specialeffecks I disagree. The unverifiable fiath is a big part of it. From the Christian view, if I were to grant that a God made the universe, a god made the Earth, and a God made men, The christian would then still have no idea how many if any of those three feats was done by his god. It is entirely possible that a god made the universe and then went away, and another god came along, found the universe and claimed credit. Heck, it is entirely possible that Satan wrote the bible and installed himself as god. Everything we get from god, is, at the end of the day, unverifiable hearsay. Which may be fine to some degree, but not if it is ALL we have.
I have no doubt many Theists will be annoyed by Matt`s answer to this question but the answer he gives (that he just doesn`t know) is really a practise in humility and not arrogance or dogmatism. For Theists to think otherwise really shows their own unhumble and unsophisticated understanding of this topic.
@@SLADHuntter-du6pv it’s a joke. There’s an “argument” that theists give that implies the evidence for their god is all around us, you just need to “look at the trees”
@@Theslavedrivers He wouldn't. He might think he was shown a god, and have no way of verifying that, and since there's a 100% chance it's something natural, like a trick or mistake, and a 0% chance it's a god, I'd say it's a terrible way to go about things. But I could totally sell Phil a golden swan that lays wooden eggs. I'd just just have to show it and offer it for a good price. I could use some money. Hey, Phil! Wanna buy a golden swan? It lays wooden eggs. I can show it to you. I have a whole shed full of them, you can have one for only $7000. But yeah, if being shown something convinces someone, they're easy prey for religions and other abuses and scams. It's even explained repeatedly in this very video how that doesn't work. You at least need other evidence, like evidence that shows that a god is even an option, which it isn't. For that it needs to at least be shown possible or existing. With the track record of theists trying to come up with arguments and evidence, it's absolutely fair to not even hear them out, let alone consider their arguments and evidence. There's a 100% chance it's fallacious and/or worse.
What would convince me that (a) god exists: showing up in person. What would convince me that the being is, in fact, a (or the) god: I’m unsure. But the god should know what would convince me.
5:00 I grew up in a Pentecostal church. They taught that there were tongues prayer languages that were quiet utterances between you and the Christian god and there were also messages for the church that were vocalized loud enough for everyone to hear. Those messages that were allegedly for the edification of the church body were always supposed to have a prophetic message from someone (usually a separate person) who offered the interpretation of the gibberish message. A couple of things were funny about this. 1. once in a while, two people started calling out an interpretation message, and they almost never started the same way. (oops) One person always backed down and the other person continued. 2. there wasn't necessarily any correlation between the length of the message in tongues and the length of the interpretation. Most of the time, the interpretation went for considerably longer than the gibberish.
Let me go to that church. I will demand "controls" like raising of hands by anyone claiming to be able to interpret. Then have them write down their interpretations in separate rooms to be collected, read, and compared.
Regarding a god interacting with us? I like to paraphrase Spock from Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan "There are two possibilities. He is unwilling to respond. He is unable to respond". The unwillingness is probably because he is a dick. The inability is because no god exists.
Invisible, intangible, undetectable, uncommunicative, unresponsive... And yet there's something preventing theists from connecting the dots and realising that "God" is functionally identical to something that isn't there.
Your thinking is 1 dimensional and binary. There are plenty of other possibilities. Such as we aren’t listening, refusing to open communication, God might want us to figure out the answers on our own (I have 4 kids, I don’t just tell them the answers to things I try to give them pieces so they kind find the answers themselves). I am not sure what I believe about the actuality of a God, but almost all the atheist criticisms of the concept are easily dismissed with the injection of good reason. If god exists and has good reason for behaving like he does then there simply is no issue to complain about. I am not convinced fully either way but many atheists annoy me and sound just as dogmatic and closed minded as the religious people they belittle.
@@patrickthomas2119"Your thinking is 1 dimensional and binary. There are plenty of other possibilities. Such as we aren’t listening, refusing to open communication, God might want us to figure out the answers on our own (I have 4 kids, I don’t just tell them the answers to things I try to give them pieces so they kind find the answers themselves). I am not sure what I believe about the actuality of a God, but almost all the atheist criticisms of the concept are easily dismissed with the injection of good reason. If god exists and has good reason for behaving like he does then there simply is no issue to complain about. I am not convinced fully either way but many atheists annoy me and sound just as dogmatic and closed minded as the religious people they belittle."-- From your post I believe you are dishonest. It is possible you are just utterly ignorant about atheists, but that would be the best case scenario. Your language is typical theistic apologietics, which is why I call you dishonest. Most atheists simply dont accept the evidence that a god exists. Existence claims are the ones that have the burden of proof to convince people. I am sorry that you are incapable of understanding that it is not the responsibility of someone to make up reasons to be convinced if you are terrible at providing evidence that doesnt convince them. In fact expecting someone to take a claim seriously anyways, despite the lack of evidence is the 'dogmatic' view.
Personally, being asked what would make me believe in god is on the same level as: What evidence would you need to believe that the earth is flat? What evidence would you need to believe that Santa is real? What evidence would you need to believe that astrology is a serious science? And so on. It’s not that there’s no evidence for god, it’s that there’s ton of evidence that religion is a social phenomenon and gods are manmade mythology.
The more I think of it, watching religious fanatics speak amongst themselves is identical to watching Star Wars fanatics discuss the Force and Jedi. The subjects are equally real.
I'll go one step further and say that all evidence that shows that religion is a social phenomenon and gods are manmade mythology also includes that all evidence and arguments for those being real/true are fallacious and/or worse, and it's fair to dismiss them based on that unbroken pattern. A god hasn't even been shown possible. A black swan is at least possible even if there are none. Swans exist and black feathers exist. That can't be said about anything of and about a god. We are not obligated to consider theists arguments or evidence or to even listen to them, and it's completely fair to dismiss them completely without listening or consideration.
Imagine there was this person who was physically present wherever you are, talking to you, relating to you, doing things with you, AND visible to everyone else. Now imagine there was such a person for everyone, and wherever we would go, we would see our person and also everyone else's person, AND they all look totally identical. And anything you would tell your person would be known by every other such person. And all of them recognized you. AND all of reality is otherwise just as you see today, nothing more, nothing less, not a dream or hallucination. I think we would know this person exists and is totally different from every other person.
Could be a powerful alien who learned that many primates seem to worship this idea without good evidence and poses as a god, provides the evidence that even skeptical people demand - as an efficient means to take over the planet. The religious leaders then joyously but mistakenly lead their flock to the slaughter.
Nicely concordant with making a god disappear: “I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Materialism and imperialism have led people to destruction in the last century. It is not possible to be happy with material gain alone. Human nature, by nature, exists with peace, family ties, love, respect, faith and cooperation. Atheism drags people into emptiness, and the thought of disappearing after death makes people sad. People are filled with the feeling of eternal existence. A believer will attain eternal heaven in return for his good deeds.❤❤
@@brightroarttttbbbb You forgot the part where for *millennia* materialism and imperialism were hallmarks of theistic societies, including and especially Christian ones.
@@lebojay I hear that you're just kidding but, Being mad at God isn't something I've ever felt , in any way shape or form. It simply NEVER crossed my mind. Though I've been plenty irritated at and disappointed with those people who confidently tried their best to spread to me the fake news of religion. to pass on the misinformation of false history , religious narratives, and superstitious ideologies as if they were 100% accurate and factual.
This is so insightful, i recently made the same argument during my call but they seem to be a discrepancy. If Matt says his standards of evidence most only led directly to a god, then that will also mean that the evidence that would make Matt believe in a god most not fit in our naturalistic worldview. This makes things hard because i can't think of anything in that category of evidence. But great points and breaking down of both side of the arguments.❤
When I speak with believers who ask me what would convince me to believe in a God, I say I don't know what would convince me. But I do know what shouldn't convince me.
Maybe he/she/it can come and present itself to every human at once, maybe break a couple laws of physics like maybe stopping time and just set the record straight, provide us with some kind of script that contains every single commandment
@sad_doggo2504 First we'd need to know what the difference is. After all we don't claim God was born here so he is an alien and Satan seems to operate as an agent or at least with permission.
I've had people PRETEND they could read minds. Indeed, I've had people pretend that I could read minds - one guy accused me of reading his mind to find the one thing that would make him uncontrollably lose his temper (I told him that "Kamikaze" isn't Japanese for "suicidal attack", but rather for "Divine Wind" - don't ask me why that was the one thing that would make him lose his temper) BTW I was wrong - "Kamikaze" is the Southern Chinese pronunciation of the characters which in Japanese mean "Divine Wind"
One of the biggest questions is why do so many of the (current) faiths require belief as a core tenet? Surely such powerful beings would be able to demonstrate their existence as the first step, before requiring you to pray or worship or act in specific ways. Surely belief would be so obvious as to not even be a question in the first place. Why are we left (reasonably) debating the existence of a god rather than only smaller details such as how to please it/them ?
It's Natural Selection as it applies to religions: the ones that have survived have better survival traits, one of which is the requirement to believe, among many other thought stopping traits. The one that don't have well-honed, time-tested survival traits have died out long ago.
Religions are integrated with cultural eco-systems. If the cultural eco-system is destroyed so is the religion. Islam pushed Christianity out of much of the Middle East, Balkans, etc. Was it that better designed as a religion than Christianity (as the Islamists might argue) or was the Byzantine eco-system weak? Did the Aztec religion disappear because Catholicism was stronger, or because of European diseases wreaking havoc on urban populations in Mexico? The eco-system that is poisonous to all religions, of course, is the interaction of science, reason education. As this eco-system spreads, religion declines. We see the secular decline of all religions in the West quite inevitable. USA is behind the rest of the West, but there too.@@Specialeffecks
@@oldpossum57 ...As the environment any given religion finds itself in begins changing, just like for life - the religion can either adapt (or possesses survival traits suitable for this new environment) - or it will tend to die off to varying degrees. Also, there is likely a 'holding capacity' for religions - too many in one environment and it starts becoming obvious that these are simply a preference rather than some underlying truth, and again the one less suited for the environment tend to die off via survival of the fittest.
Given the tiny genetic variation across Homo sapiens I am going to presume that the elementary mind of individuals is pretty similar across populations. That elementary mind will have instincts, brain functions, basic behaviours, out of which social groups construct cultures. To the extent that the habits of the social group accord with the elements, that culture will be stable in a given environment. If on the other hand, the cultural practice goes against instinct, the practice will cause disruption. E.O. Wilson pointed to an old Taiwanese practice of “minor marriages”, or raising future wives within the nuclear family. This expression of patriarchal control over girls had the unintended consequence, according to the research of Westermarck, of triggering incest avoidance repugnance. (If my example is no longer scientifically accepted, another such will suffice to make the point.) Given the building blocks of behaviours and beliefs provided by the elemental and individual mind, I can’t imagine there is any limit to the sorts of cultural practices we can invent. I don’t know why religions should be especially vulnerable. To me they seem fairly insignificant I don’t think it is inevitable that they consume the same amount of social resources as they currently do. @@Specialeffecks
Well we've all seen the prestige so even if somebody's head got chopped off and they seemed to come back to life how could you rule out it wasn't a twin?
I know the exact answer to this video, that I would have given when I was a believer. "Matt, you are so arrogant, that you think you can tell God, how he should provide evidence for his existence" Damn! I still have it in me😢
I've pretty much narrowed this down. What would or should convince me? God. To the best of my knowledge anything capable and desiring for me to know it exists, hasn't had a problem. People, animals, insects, viruses, bacteria. Whether I want to know they exist or not, sure as I'm typing this, they figure it out. Seems to me that concept of a god, should be able to as well.
With my skeptical mind, the only way I "could have" believed is - if I was raised from birth in a world that God was as obvious as any other everyday fact that all people from all cultures agreed upon (unlike how it is with religion). The fact that the world has one or more conflicting religions does it for me alone.
This was the best session, in all of your discussions, that I have ever listened to. I have an earnest question for Matt. I would also like to note that in no way am I asking in a facetious way; If a [g]od did actually provided you undeniable proof, and you acknowledged it as such, but yet you cannot test it (it was a one time occurrence) nor provide the evidence to anyone outside of yourself, how do you surmise that you would handle that particular situation?
As a child i attended a Pentecostal bible camp where a preacher taught us to speak in tongues by reciting "I tie your tie you tie my tie" in fast repetition. Later in life i was quite amused watching a television preacher using the same ridiculous fakery.
My tongues usually went like shadda kadda badda byunda bedunda cyunda...or something like that. I even googled the words at one stage thinking I was speaking some foreign or ancient language 😅
When you have something that is the answer to every question, any event can be attributed to that something. I see these events as validation of my magic universe creating socks, yet somehow I'm wrong. I get called arrogant and conceitful, but if you change it from socks to (insert god here), suddenly it's all okay. It seems arrogance and conceitful are an accurate assessment.
I was born into the catholic religion through a devoutly Irish catholic family. Five aunts who were nuns two uncles and a cousin priests. My family wanted me to pursue holy orders . I want to stress this point I never believed . I never felt the presence of god it never moved me as far back as I can remember. After nine years of catholic education I was just unmoved and I was lucky enough to get kicked out for my behavior in other words I didn't pay attention to the priest ..... growing up with priest I wasn't in awe of their power the nuns didn't fare much better though I wasn't a total shit to them I loved my aunts and therefore was easier on nuns . I stopped going to church with the family. Before I go further I was never sexually violated by a priest I was corporally punished by nuns and one male teacher but that's what made me as they told my parents I was incorrigible and would not comport with their rules and regulations. I have never looked back.
When I was in church, many years ago, I recall several times when someone "spoke in tongues", and after they were done, two people started to "give the interpretation", at the same time, but were saying different things. Then the pastor had to step in and stop both of them. Clear that it was all just what they were THINKING was "an interpretation". No reason to consider either of them were right at all, of course.
It's still unclear to me how actually one goes about changing one's mind about an unfalsifiable proposition. *_Evidence?_*_ How does one produce evidence for that which is unfalsifiable?_
One must learn to think critically - do NOT accept any (important) claim as true that is unfalsifiable. But, if a god has any detectable effect on reality, in principle this should be testable/detectable, though maybe not falsifiable (this god may be claimed to "be taking a vacation for the next 10K years", for example). I am always curious to ask "if your god is all-powerful and can make everything continue just as it has always done if he leaves, what would be the detectable difference between him - A) having left yesterday, or B) leaving tomorrow (either of which never interacting with the universe in any way ever again)? Put another way (to counter all the deistic first cause arguments): How do you know God STILL exists and/or STILL interacts with anything in the universe?
Right, the issue of infinite Gods as an explanation is that they will always fail parsimony. And then the issue of any kind of deity in general becomes an issue of definition.
Here's another logical problem for modern Christian dogma: God is all knowing, all powerful, and benevolent, right? Does evil exist? Well if evil exists in the world then he is either not all knowing, all powerful, and certainly NOT benevolent, therefore the Christian god does not exist.
@@mobrocket especially the god of the old testament. Let's remember too that Yahweh is the god of the Israelites. Likely started as a hearth-god. Ancestor worship. This is a heroic or legendary tribal figure from the ancient Jewish past. The Jews are "its" chosen people, so do non-Jews really have a place worshiping this god?
Matt proves my gf's axiom that men are like wine -- they get better looking as they age. That having been said, Matt, you have fulfilled your calling as a pastor as you have helped hundreds of us (safe guesstimate) to break the shackles of superstition and religion and towards the light of reality and truth. Now, when I run into religious folks, I am shocked at how brainwashed they are...and I am not saying that in a militant atheist way...am just genuinely sad...and then glad of the series of circumstances which lead me out of religion.
The writing in the sky would be convincing if it was seen to be written in the language of the viewer, regardless of what language I read it in. If it could be photographed and this quality translated to the photograph. Maybe it gives off a little hum which audibly voices the message in whatever language the listener understands, for the visually impaired. If the contents of the message was claiming to be about God and from God and all the specifics are so well-understood that nobody could honestly disagree about the contents, I’d have a very difficult time not accepting it tentatively. Although it’s not definitive, I cannot imagine anyone but the author going to such lengths to communicate that message to us. This “indestructible message” is the answer I’ve given when asked “would anything convince you?”
I heard an analogy once about those posters in the 90s with hidden images behind the pixels where you had to adjust your eyes to see the image. That was compared to God and explained that you have to spirtitually adjust your vision to "see" god as you do physically with your eyes to see the hidden pixel image.
Yes! Past a certain age, children give up playing “Let’s pretend”. We expect adults to distinguish between their fantasies (sports, fame, sex, wealth) and real life. Indulging in fantasies is normally done with intimates only. Perhaps that is why the public displays of religiosity are unsettling. It is as if they were in a Pride parade: okay once in a while, but every day of their lives?
If I could read other people's minds, I would wish I couldn't. It would drive me insane. Imagine standing in a crowded room with access to everyone else's thoughts! How would I determine which thoughts were mine? I would lose all sense of myself. I would be insensible.
If belief isn't voluntary (it's not), then what _should/shouldn’t_ make one believe something is irrelevant. To _not_ believe a proposition without proper justification is an _"ought,"_ *not* an _"is"._
the Simulation Hypothesis covers all bases - in fact the designer of the simulation may itself be inside a higher simulation and never know. Mind reading, changing the laws of physics etc are all built-in features of any simulator.
The Simulation Hypothesis is intriguing. Many fail to recognize the extent of similarities between religion and simulation theory. The difference is that the illusion of our world, in one case, is of technological nature, while in the other, it's an illusion of consciousness. All the mystics have described the world as a divine dream, a purely mental creation. And since consciousness is inherently creative, a creator can in turn be the creation of a higher creator. Hence, all religions describe creation as a tree, a fractal structure whose beginning cannot be found (God is without beginning and end). Upon careful analysis of scriptures, one realizes they describe a nested structure of consciousness, akin to nested Russian dolls, as you described.
@@gabormuller9850 yeah and of course our brains are running a neural-net simulation of 'reality' (whatever that is). Then there are lucid dreams when you become aware you are in a simulation or waking up from a dream to find yourself still in a dream (ala Inception). Or Plato's metaphysics of a world of appearances as an image of an underlying universe of Perfect Forms and its influence on Christian doctrine in Neo-Platonism down the centuries.
You are right matt. Your ideas are so clear to those who don’t believe in god. The only reason it is hard to get these idea across to a theist is because they have believed their whole lives. The more people that don’t believe the easier it is for others to understand. Slowly but surely rational thinking will prevail
Whatever potential demonstration people can give... would at *least* be a start to move the needle in the direction of a deity existing. But it never happens.
I once heard the argument, and I believe it was Matt who said it, that I may not know what would convince me of a god, but wouldn't that god know what would convince me?
Hi,matt you got annoyed at me because i kept asking you during a live show in chat. (you asked me to call in), it's all good though,i was wondering if at some point in your talks you'd address this point i hear often from thiests ,"the scientific method is circular" , I'd love to hear your take now, in a week or next year ,i watch your shows religiously so i won't miss any response, even if it's a sentence,ty in advance .
I'd say that, while nothing could really, truly PROVE the existence of some sort of god, what would CONVINCE ME to start believing in a god, would be... Some kind of deeply personal experience. Something that blows the mind and exceeds what i could ever imagine as possible. For example, god himself, or i guess a messenger, taking my consciousness into a separate dimension at some random time. They would take the time to talk with me, introduce themselves to me, explain things to me, show me things i couldn't possibly see otherwise. Like the past, or bits of the future. They would keep me in this separate dimension for a time that would feel like YEARS to me, and i would get to know this new reality which would otherwise remain hidden to me. Then, i'd be returned to the present time. Right to the point where this "debate with the divine" started. My life would continue, maybe as if nothing happened, or maybe they would leave me with some sort of proof, an artifact of sorts, just to make the point very clear - I was in a very, VERY special encounter. I understand that at that point, there would still be other possibilities. Aliens, capable of stopping time, travelling through dimensions. The programmers of the Matrix of our universe, pretending to be gods. An exceptional sort of brain hyperactivity, which conjured the whole thing in my mind alone. Or even some sort of different spiritual entity, interacting with me - godlike or not so godlike. But i'm just saying, an event like this would seem to me pretty convincing.
The best evidence I could think of would be if we could somehow demonstrate or be confident that uncontacted tribes had never had missionaries/evangelists and had developed the bible independently. If the conquistadores had showed up and the Inca had been like "Yeah no doy, of course we know about Jesus. God wrote it on all our hearts, that's how we knew what to write in our Bibles. Did you even READ his message that you claim is so important?" Interesting how God is so obvious and makes himself known to everyone, yet the annals of Christian history are replete with writings about how the "savages" must be educated/converted, and even appear to have "no concept of religion" in certain cases, since the religious practices of many peoples were so alien to what Christians expected that they didn't even recognize them as religious.
I came up with something that would convince me that a book is divinely inspired. 1. It would have to be verifiably written in one go and in a short amount of time like a number of weeks. 2. There should be gematria or other mathematical links between the words, phrases, sentences, skipping letter methods, the verse numbers, etc in the book that point directly towards there being a god and are so unlikely that it happened at random that its basically impossible. There is no current computational method to write a narrative that has these numbers embedded within that doesnt involve checking every possible phrase that could go there and hoping that one of them has the numbers you are trying to put there so that the numbers seem divinely inspired. I cant even put 2 sentences together that have the same number but have a coherent meaning when put together. So if someone has done it thousands of times when writing a book in a short time that would be evidence that some sort of higher being was really inspiring them word for word what to write.
If I had a voice that could get me to understand and even solve thus far unsolved mathematical problems, I’d be strongly inclined to believing in god. Only if my understanding could be backed by experts. Since I have dyscalculia, and thus not likely to ever even grasp mid-level mathematics, I would know something, at any rate, had changed.
That seems fair, but you'd only consider a god because you're already primed that it's a likely option, which it isn't. It's neither likely or an option. It's just primed in your mind by people/society repeating the idea of it. If you lived in a society where the more prevalent idea was a sort of life stream where souls that have lived here share their knowledge, you'd consider that a likely option, which is also neither likely nor an option, but at least it could be more plausible because people and energy at least are things that exist. And the fact that you didn't name the latter option proves my point because it isn't reasonable to consider a god, but if you do, it's far more reasonable to consider spirits, which you didn't, showing how much your mind is primed and not actually considering the infinite options that haven't been shown possible, which you should if you want to be consistent, which you're not because you're biased through conditioning to consider a god and dismiss other things that are also not shown to be possible options. I know I am repeating the same point over and over, but I really want to hammer it in, and you know how hammers work, you repeat the action, unless you're David Wood, then you hammer once and then continu to use manipulation instead to avoid the consequences he denies. But that's beside the point.
@@stylis666 So what? The fuck you’re going on about? As I said, I’d consider something had changed, because something most definitely would have had. From there on, more investigation would have to be done. Get out of your soap box, ffs.
Nothing can change my mind, eccept my mind, my sences give me input to use to change my mind, i can use it, or ignore it, my mind will change, what do i let change my mind, ... i'm open to information, i am willing to learn and change, are you?
People have designed gods that are so incredible that I'm unable to evaluate the evidence that they exist and then claim that disbelief is somehow my fault.
Hi Matt, Ive recently began living with a christian that is very annoying about his beliefs. We've talked a couple times and I keep identifying several fallacies within his arguments. I think he is being greatly dishonest and won't listen to me because he calls me ignorant since I've never read the bible in detail. What should I do?
I’m not Matt, and this sounds like a tall order, but maybe give the Bible a read. And when you do, you can say “it hasn’t convinced me” should you not be convinced. Because you read it thoroughly and hypothetically would not have been convinced, you can’t be at fault.
I would normally say "Matt doesn't read these comments," but it appears that he does. Or at least, he sometimes does. You can generally tell these things by how many responses are made by the host. Matt almost never replies to any comments here. However, I must admit, I've occasionally found that Matt has replied to some of the comments I've left on his vids. So it DOES happen, but in my experience, it doesn't happen very often. So don't be overly disappointed if Matt doesn't respond to you.
Maybe remind them that the Bible IS the claim, not evidence of the claim. The Bible being true is the thing your roommate is trying to prove, so reading it, hypothetically, would just help you better understand the claim, something that your roommate could do by just telling you more about hsi beliefs himself. Telling you to just read the Bible is just dodging the issue, as it isn't actually evidence as that would be circular. You can read it, you'll just have even more issues with it honestly, but if he's actually trying to engage in evidence and debate, you don't actually need to read the Bible to engage him in that. If you're "ignorant" he can feel free to tell you what you're ignorant of. If you were ro disagree with his interpretation or something, then yes turning to the Bible could be useful. However the issue is that if it's ignorance of Christianity that is his problem with you, he can just fix that himself by talking to you. If it's evidence you're ignorant of, you wouldn't find that from reading the Bible anyway, so he can feel free to share his evidence. To skip to the chase though, there is no scientific or empirical evidence of God, only philosophical or anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately you can come to many false beliefs with only those kinds of evidence, as there are other religions that I'm sure he disagrees with that use the same exact epistemology as him. If it's truth he cares about, faith and religion are not a reliable pathway to truth. And if it's not truth he cares about, then he can just be honest and say that it gives him comfort or whatever. You probably won't be able to see eye to eye, so I'd honestly reccomed not even talking about it with him, if he isn't "open" to talking about it. He has to choose one though, if it's truth he cares about, backed by evidence, religion ain't it. And you reading the Bible would do nothing to help your current disagreement. BUT you don't have to read the whole thing cover to cover. If he wants to talk about the bible, ask him about the many many inconsistencies with itself and reality, and moral atrocities. If you want to have a good time living there though, again, just drop it lol
If I could manipulate your memory or especially the memories of a group of people, I could make you or them sincerly believe that they had witnessed/experienced literally anything. Therefore any power greater than that would necessarily be less plausible.
How do you deal with someone who thinks they heard the literal voice of God telling then to do something? I tried asking them how they knew it was their god speaking to them and got no response.
Language and natural human communication are mimicry behaviours. The only universal language (for a better word) among animate forms of life are states of calmness, tranquility or fear and worry. It doesn’t matter if it’s an ant, human, dog, elephant, bird, tiger, they all can have a state of inner frightening and uneasiness or peace and tranquillity with a feeling of safety.
I can't believe you had that discussion of coding, you get that basic concept, and yet you didn't use the phrase "one time pad." If you just made that up, your brain's working really well man. Good for you
We are at a stage in science and technology where we can fairly reasonable say what is and is not possible even in the most advanced technology, and that we now essentially have the ability to tell the difference between magic and advanced technology. So defining what evidence is needed to prove a god is possible, but relies on a definition of god and its properties in order to do so. In the video you raised a number of examples of events that are considered beyond the scope of any possible technology, one of which is be able to read someone's mind remotely. Our understanding of physics clearly predicts that a reading of a human mind done completely remotely and in a normal environment is impossible. Were this to be demonstrable it would definitely be evidence of something supernatural, that is beyond the properties of this universe. Of course you are correct in stating that the evidence of something supernatural existing is not remotely evidence of a god, but it does demonstrate that if the properties of a god were given examples of evidence could be devised that would demonstrate the something with the properties of a god existed. Having said that I will extend your statement that there hasn't been any demonstrated evidence for a god to say that there has been no demonstrable evidence of anything even supernatural despite extensive research. For me an example of something that would be conclusive evidence of a god would be the simultaneous projection into everyone's mind of a person talking to them and telling them exactly the same thing that the entity is the god of the bible. Such a thing cannot be done under the laws of the universe, so native alien inhabitants of advanced technology can be ruled out.
When you use the word "god". What conceptualization is in your mind? There must be something you are thinking of when using the word. Atleast it seems probably to me.
If you look at the original formulation of gods from plato, he viewed them as the transpersonal "spirits" of a nation. For instance, he referred to athena and hephaestus as the gods of athens, because they were spirits associated with the literary arts and crafting. If you look at the roots of the word religion, it comes from lation "religio" or "to bind." If you follow reductionism backwards, you get religion. One way people bind together is through stories, and the way stories bind people together around mythic characters is not arbitrary or subjective.
I think you will love my book when it is done. It's a sci-fi story but the contents of it are ridiculously close to the topics that you talked about in this video.
I feel confused when some arrogant people tell me "Dont be so arrogant!". Like, who are they to tell me how to behave, act, think or even be? And do they expect me to change who i am in a second, just because they told me so? Doesnt work that way, just as it doesnt work with belief in God. If someone thinks that evidence X is insufficient, then he has to remain skeptical, whether he wants to or not.
I suspect I’ll believe when I have no choice but believe. I realize this appears to violate the virtue of volitional belief, but I’ve never ascribed virtue to volitional belief and if God necessitates such a condition for belief then it’s unclear to me why such a condition is necessary. If belief requires a leap of faith, consider me faithless and I’ll take my lumps if I’m wrong.
The difference between tech and magic is that magic does not rely on naturalistic processes however it requires an acting personal agent. While it is philosophically true that one cannot trust one's own senses and emotions in order to distinguish magic from a deceptive application of alien tech, for practical purposes I'm more than happy to operate under the assumption that even the most advanced tech cannot just accomplish anything on a whim. Meaning that if I can decide on the spot and have my arbitrary "3 wishes" fulfilled instantly by an anthropomorphic agent, I'll be satisfied and willing to accept that this very agent is a god.
The _supernatural_ and the _unknown natural_ both have the ability to explain anything. There is no advantage for either to serve as an explanation for an unexplained phenomena.
If every prayer addressed to God had a measurable effect on reality (effect does not mean that the prayer must have the desired effect, but merely that reality after and because of the prayer is no longer exactly the same as before), would that be a sufficiently strong indicator that God or at least a transcendent entity existed?
How would you measure the effects of every single prayer to a god and which god are you talking about? You'd have to prove that the prayers were fulfilled at a higher rate than just by pure chance.
@@ThePianoenergy The assumption can also be that the outcome would be the same, whether you prayed to a god or not. Since you cannot verify or demonstrate the existence of any god, you can never verify that a prayer had any effect at all, so your hypothetical is moot. I could just as easily substitute praying to a god with making a wish on a star, and claim that the wish had impact. I know many theists claim that god answers prayers, but not always in a way you wanted or expected. This gives the prayer argument a convenient cover, as no matter what happens, prayers were answered.
@@ga6589 I know, of course there could also be a completely different assumption, but this is mine and the question is: if we assume that what I outlined above, would it be a strong argument for the existence of a God or not?
@@ThePianoenergy If you assume something is true, you're doing so without evidence to prove it. So no, IMO your assumption would not be a strong argument for the existence of a god, because it lacks evidence. It's like saying, "I prayed to Zeus for a raise. Two days later I got one. Then, I prayed to Zeus that he'd make my cold go away. I started to feel better a few days later. Therefore I can assume Zeus answered my prayers, because the reality after the prayer is different from the reality before it." To me, this isn't logical, as our reality changes all the time, regardless of whether or not one prays. Would you not agree that "God answers prayers" is an extraordinary claim, as is the Zeus claim? I think so and believe such claims requires some very extraordinary evidence.
if there's something "wrong" with me that a god cannot prove itself to me... well, I didn't make myself. if someone thinks their god made me, then they should hold their own god responsible for it having a lack of a method to prove itself to its own creation. especially when it allegedly made everything and everyone else in the world as well.
Whenever a feast asks me if anything would convince me that there is a God I answer. If at this precise moment in time that Im talking to them I got every superpower of superman permanently plus invisibility whenever I want and written in the sky (IT IS I, GOD). I’d believe in god if it was something else that did it at least I have superpowers.
What would convince me is very simple: God just has to make me omniscient. It's impossible for me to have certainty that God is God without omniscience, because not even God can PROVE they're all-powerful and not just sufficiently-powerful, all-knowing and not just very knowledgeable, etc. However, omniscient beings would possess certainty with respect to all propositions, including propositions that should normally be impossible to prove. And it wouldn't tread on God's toes to make me omniscient long enough to know with epistemic certainty that "The set of omniscient beings at this present time is: Me, God", since I wouldn't have any more power and thus couldn't interfere with God if God doesn't want me to. I would then also know everything about God including whether I should trust them. One could, I suppose, argue that a very powerful being could simply trick me by deluding me into thinking I've gained all knowledge when I've only gained a whole lot, but I'm not convinced omniscience is that easily faked. And if I am being duped so convincingly that I legitimately believe myself to be omniscient, then I've at least been PERSUADED to believe in God, and thus convinced, even if it was by deception.
I have pondered what it would take to convince be to believe in a deity. Well I would at the very least need a face to face meeting with this deity, a little sit down, and then of course I would need truthful answers to the many questions I would ask this "deity", then maybe I might believe this deity is a deity. but I would always be skeptical the deity was actually a deity because unless there are other known deities that exist I would have no way of verifying anything I saw or anything the deity told me.
My understanding is its their _personal God_ which is clearly contradictory to all other claimed Gods. The issue is they have been poorly instructed they can personally make up facts in their head! Whoever deceived such theists (Christians etc) to believe this should be ashamed of themselves.
and you chose NOT to mention any example of those imprints. I wonder why. I also wonder what the g0d is, by the way. Sadly, nobody has ever demonstrated it. Again, I wonder why. (scam, money, lies, scam, money, lies, scam, money, lies...)
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Week 4 Day 1 // PRX vs RRQ | GE vs GEN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/iIi2_04jGr0/mqdefault.jpg)
What changed my mind was after watching Atheist experience years ago. I noticed that all the arguments fell apart once actually questioned and thus I could only fall upon faith. Then I noticed that faith is useless and does more harm then good if followed. When I first started questioning my faith I saw Christopher Hitchens and I initially hated everything coming out of his mouth but as I intellectually approached what he was saying it started to crumble my foundations of faith. I then found Matt Dillahunty and the Atheist Experience and begun to hear people fall short constantly when trying to prove a God. Thank you Matt Dillahunty for being a force of nature.
I don't like to poop on fellow atheists, but your story isn't coherent. You say that watching atheist experience years ago caused you to start doubting, because all the arguments for god fell apart once questioned. Then you turned around on Hitchens. THEN you say you found Matt Dillahunty and the Atheist Experience.
This does not compute. You either discovered the Atheist Experience (TAE) years ago and it started you questioning your faith, or you didn't discover it years ago and it was only after you reversed your views on Hitchens that you discovered TAE. You can't have discovered it once, then came to appreciate Hitchens, then discovered it a second time.
I'd like to believe that what you mean was: You discovered TAE years ago, then you came to appreciate Hitchens, then you discovered Matt. Except even then, Matt has been on TAE for almost 20 years (last 1.5 years or so excepted). If you discovered TAE years ago, you would also have seen Matt on it. Unless you only watched one episode, but that's hardly enough to cement the process of deconversion...
So it comes down to this. I find your story hard to believe. I'm sorry to say so, but it doesn't sound genuine. I do believe that it's a fabricated story, at least in part.
Dude, as atheists, we're better than that. We have objective reality on our side. We don't need to make shit up.
edit - Alternatively, it could be that you've just messed up your attempt to relate to us, your story of what really happened. I'm hoping that this is the case.
@@Raz.C I did indeed mess up in my attempt to relate. I meant it as I watched Hitchens and hated him at first but as time went by and I found things like TAE I started to understand what he was saying and how my belief system at the time was downright foolish. I'm sorry that it is confusing I'm not very good with English.
@@flopperdilly2231
It's all good. We got there in the end.
I had the same experience. I was in the clergy. But I was also curious and a truth seeker. At first I hated everything atheists said and thought I could easily refute their points. But the more I looked and read and watched, the less I could justify my beliefs. Until eventually it just hit me that I didn’t believe anymore. The four horsemen and AXP helped a lot.
Even when I was a theist and felt that everything Hitchins said was wrong, I still couldn't help but love the guy. He could seriously turn a phrase.
If God was all powerful, he wouldn't need apologists to defend him.
The existence is of Christian apologists is a profound irony that hasn't been reasonably addressed, as an issue, in itself. I've been YELLING , into the void, for what it's worth, for years, that Christianity should require ZERO apologetics. The idea of the Bible needing interpreters seems almost blasphemous , to me, if you're a believer.
@@jimmythebold589The existence of non-Christian apologists even more so. If he cares about the truth, why isn't there a method to determine which apologist is right? The Bible shows such battles multiple times and yet modern apologists don't. It's God gave up your final answer?
He also would not require blasphemy laws to protect him. Nor would he need a book written in an ambiguous language to understand him.
@@jimmythebold589It's not blasphemous. You misunderstand what blasphemy is.
what is the point of giving us free will,if he will use his power to turn us good.
What shouldn't convince me?
Gaslighting. Circular reasoning. God of the gaps -arguments.
Wait, What ?
Those are all the classic ways of gracefully convincing people.
For thousands of years the
tried and true persuasive tactics of God's greatest coaxing and wheedling spokesmen.
All the best ...
Yeah... I'm under no obligation to worship or obey a narcissistic control freak manipulative insecure and delusional jealous murderer. 😂
Hey, Matt. Just wanted you to know that I'm glad I found your content. I was raised into a somewhat cult like spiritual environment. After years of estrangement, mental illness, and tough situations, my therapist helped me become agnostic and introduced me to a philosophy podcast.
You who have the courage to stare the world in the face (as you have in debates), and proclaim "You're wrong." While firmly planted in your reasoning, demonstrating your position eloquently and (I think) very patienly. While those firm in their faith can not fully appreciate the good you're doing in the world, the disillusioned of us, with unsupportive families, friends, and communities. Are now able to find people like you. Your efforts are most appreciated, and I can see you worked very hard to build something for the rest of us to appreciate.
Sorry for being long-winded, but your content stands out, and I learn a lot from your values. I'm sure you are a figure to more than just I. Please continue to stand in for us who maybe weren't given a fair chance at deciding what was important to us. Thank you for helping me become an individual. Sincerely - a 20 something minnesotan guy
I agree and I'd like to thank Matt also, however Matt isn't likely to give a crap about us. TH-camrs/public figures are in a position above us. I'd like to have talks with Matt about beliefs and get his views on my thoughts but it's not going to happen. It's like him saying he talked with Richard Dawkins, how else would we do this without also being a well known person in a particular community of people? As if Richard Dawkins is going to care to give any of his time answering out questions outside of organized debates? At best we'd get a hour at most and then they'll be too busy. We're nobodies to public figures or celebs of TH-cam.
I get people have lives but it's just strange that they have the time to talk to friends, family and maybe even acquittances but not to nobodies that just watch their videos. I also get they can't possibly talk to everyone but I doubt everyone here is wanting to talk to any of them and it's not like a conversation never ends either. I don't even feel comfortable emailing or messaging anyone to just see if they'll talk because I feel like I'm intruding and they wouldn't want to talk to just any random person. I wouldn't mind it if they could just read a message then reply at a later time but I doubt they would do, they'd just leave it on read indefinitely. I feel like I can't even attempt to reach out to these people.
It appears that the only way to get noticed by them is to either become a public figure ourselves or tweet something that triggers them, otherwise we mean nothing. The other option is call in shows like the Atheist Experience but this is a public place with 1000s watching and maybe some people don't want to talk in a public setting even if it is over the internet. There is also the option of paying them but will likely be a lot of money.
Matt is a pathological liar who runs a charade or lies and false 'atheist' doctrines, but if you are easily manipulated, I can understand why you mistake his ridiculous bluster for confidence and reason. I assure you, this Dillahunty clown is a huckster peddling nonsense claims and doctrines that nobody can defend.
@@Lillypad12 Thanks for the reply! I believe we the viewers are the beneficiaries of this (nearly) free content that matt has contributed. As a pretty quiet distanced type of person, I understand needing time. Time to be selfish, and time to choose what you want to do instead of dealing with others wants.
But to engage the wants and commentaries of an entire community aimed at his face, for better or for worse? I wouldn't be able to deal with all that.
@@parttimebrian2370 I get that for sure, however, There's things I'd like to converse about with someone like Matt with the knowledge and the experience he has and as Matt is someone I can find out about to some degree through his youtube videos and learn what things he knows about I know he's someone who has the knowledge and therefore I know he maybe a good person to talk to about the things I'd like to talk about. I don't know of many people in person with the expertise Matt has. There is no way to get a 1 on 1 conversation with him and the best way to contact would be to call into a show but then it's in front of 1000s of people watching the video. I get though he can't talk to everyone and may not have time for a nobody like myself, I just feel it's wrong to even attempt to contact someone like Matt who's in the public eye, maybe he would talk for a bit but I don't feel right trying because of this "class system" there seems to be.
@@parttimebrian2370 Yeah I get that. My rant was more about how I have questions that I'd like to discuss with someone like Matt with the knowledge he has. Doesn't necessarily have to be Matt but someone with similar knowledge. Getting Matt's opinion on something thought would be great though of course. The thing is though is there's no way to know if someone has that knowledge easily outside of people we see in the public eye and they seem out of reach to someone who is comparatively, a nobody such as myself. I'm not saying I'd like to have small talk with someone like Matt just to discuss thoughts I've had and maybe discuss religion and beliefs in general without having to be in front of 1000s of people on the internet.
The Licona debate was wild. Mocking Matt's skepticism while giving arguments from trash can lid ghosts and ouija board demons like a schoolgirl at a sleepover.
As a former school girl obsessed with the occult, even I didn't actually believe in that stuff and thus this is an insult to school girls at sleepovers everywhere lmao
@@vandal280Yeah, I was wondering 'why schoolgirl?' - seems weirdly specific
@@nicolab2075 the girls in my grade school often did these things at sleepovers. The comment comes from my personal experience, and that would explain the specificity. If you are still having trouble understanding, I will be happy to explain further. Hope that helps! :-)
@@hail_satan Yeah that explains it 😁👍
@@nicolab2075 lol I'm glad my sibling in christ ❤️
Matt you are looking like the logic Gandalf with that beard. I love it man❤
God should change my mind.
I've asked God to do this.
He won't do it so...
Me not believing in him is justified.
P1) God desires all people believe in him.
P2) God is capable of convincing all people who want to believe in him.
P3) I want to believe in God.
P4) God isn't convincing me.
C) This conception of a God that wants me to believe in it does not exist.
Thank you.😂
@@malirk"Free will, that's why ... except you can't not believe."😂😂😂
@@JordanDCGehl Can you explain your comment? Trying to understand your viewpoint.
@@malirk It's about how contradictory, and worthy of mockery, the standard responses to this point are.
We could have empirical evidence that an entity with extreme power exists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a God - or even any specific God.
All we would gather from this entity appearing is that it exists.
It still has a lot of work to prove that it’s divine, should be worshiped, has the power over life and death, created the universe, etc.
When you follow these thoughts logically, it is insane to believe that people accept belief in a specific God claim without any of the above claims getting met by any form of evidence.
Honestly, if a personal God did exist, we don’t live in that universe solely based off how ours operates.
I particularly don’t see the logic relation between god and afterlife. Even granting we had solid evidence that there’s a god that created our universe, still that doesn’t entail that afterlife/heaven/hell and all the rest exists.
Materialism and imperialism have led people to destruction in the last century. It is not possible to be happy with material gain alone. Human nature, by nature, exists with peace, family ties, love, respect, faith and cooperation. Atheism drags people into emptiness, and the thought of disappearing after death makes people sad. People are filled with the feeling of eternal existence. A believer will attain eternal heaven in return for his good deeds.
It's not that they just accept the belief, but that they believe they must behave in very specific (& silly) ways: Speak in tongues, Genuflect, go door-to-door, align your chakras, bow to the East 7 times per day, wear a beanie cap with no propeller, hold e-meter cans, etc.
@@brightroarttttbbbbNot all atheists are empty. You're just pulling false biased claims out of your anal cavity.
@@Specialeffecks I disagree. The unverifiable fiath is a big part of it. From the Christian view, if I were to grant that a God made the universe, a god made the Earth, and a God made men, The christian would then still have no idea how many if any of those three feats was done by his god. It is entirely possible that a god made the universe and then went away, and another god came along, found the universe and claimed credit. Heck, it is entirely possible that Satan wrote the bible and installed himself as god. Everything we get from god, is, at the end of the day, unverifiable hearsay.
Which may be fine to some degree, but not if it is ALL we have.
I have no doubt many Theists will be annoyed by Matt`s answer to this question but the answer he gives (that he just doesn`t know) is really a practise in humility and not arrogance or dogmatism. For Theists to think otherwise really shows their own unhumble and unsophisticated understanding of this topic.
I ask them this: if Satan came to your door, what could he do to convince you he was God?
@@goldenalt3166 Oh lol I like that that`s a great thought experiment!
Another excellent video! Thanks Matt, glad to see you're not just looking well, but looking great. Hope you're feeling great too.
re - 12:30
That decapitation thing happens in The X-Files. It turns out that the headless corpse had a twin brother.
Anytime this decapitation thought experiment is brought up I think of The Prestige
@@vandal280
Oh yeah... The secret thing in that movie!!
Uh oh, looks like someone forgot to “look at the trees” 🤣
???
@@SLADHuntter-du6pv it’s a joke. There’s an “argument” that theists give that implies the evidence for their god is all around us, you just need to “look at the trees”
Matt, I've always liked your answer. 👍💙💙💙🥰✌
What should? Show me the god. What shouldn't? Not showing me the god.
How would you know what/ who you had been shown?
@@Theslavedrivers He wouldn't. He might think he was shown a god, and have no way of verifying that, and since there's a 100% chance it's something natural, like a trick or mistake, and a 0% chance it's a god, I'd say it's a terrible way to go about things. But I could totally sell Phil a golden swan that lays wooden eggs. I'd just just have to show it and offer it for a good price. I could use some money.
Hey, Phil! Wanna buy a golden swan? It lays wooden eggs. I can show it to you. I have a whole shed full of them, you can have one for only $7000.
But yeah, if being shown something convinces someone, they're easy prey for religions and other abuses and scams. It's even explained repeatedly in this very video how that doesn't work. You at least need other evidence, like evidence that shows that a god is even an option, which it isn't. For that it needs to at least be shown possible or existing.
With the track record of theists trying to come up with arguments and evidence, it's absolutely fair to not even hear them out, let alone consider their arguments and evidence. There's a 100% chance it's fallacious and/or worse.
What would convince me that (a) god exists: showing up in person.
What would convince me that the being is, in fact, a (or the) god: I’m unsure. But the god should know what would convince me.
I'm busy. I can't show up. But thanks for noticing.
Looking sharp! Good videos lately.
5:00 I grew up in a Pentecostal church. They taught that there were tongues prayer languages that were quiet utterances between you and the Christian god and there were also messages for the church that were vocalized loud enough for everyone to hear. Those messages that were allegedly for the edification of the church body were always supposed to have a prophetic message from someone (usually a separate person) who offered the interpretation of the gibberish message. A couple of things were funny about this.
1. once in a while, two people started calling out an interpretation message, and they almost never started the same way. (oops) One person always backed down and the other person continued.
2. there wasn't necessarily any correlation between the length of the message in tongues and the length of the interpretation. Most of the time, the interpretation went for considerably longer than the gibberish.
Obviously the one who went quiet had a different god on the line.
Let me go to that church. I will demand "controls" like raising of hands by anyone claiming to be able to interpret. Then have them write down their interpretations in separate rooms to be collected, read, and compared.
Nothing but nicely dressed con men/women/people
Thank you for the reasoned and well thought through exposition. It is refreshing to hear this debated without heated emotion.
The Vogons were able to send a message on every speaker in the world, tuned to the language of every listener. (from Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
Sounds like a better idea than the bibble.😂
And they understood it even without putting fish in their ears?
@@lebojay 😂
I've seen lots of people get chopped into pieces and then come back to life. They're called magic tricks.
Regarding a god interacting with us? I like to paraphrase Spock from Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan "There are two possibilities. He is unwilling to respond. He is unable to respond". The unwillingness is probably because he is a dick. The inability is because no god exists.
The other alternative is that we cannot hear it/him. Which is pretty pathetic for a god's attempt to communicate.
@@insouciantFoxThat falls under the "unable to respond" category
Invisible, intangible, undetectable, uncommunicative, unresponsive... And yet there's something preventing theists from connecting the dots and realising that "God" is functionally identical to something that isn't there.
Your thinking is 1 dimensional and binary. There are plenty of other possibilities. Such as we aren’t listening, refusing to open communication, God might want us to figure out the answers on our own (I have 4 kids, I don’t just tell them the answers to things I try to give them pieces so they kind find the answers themselves).
I am not sure what I believe about the actuality of a God, but almost all the atheist criticisms of the concept are easily dismissed with the injection of good reason. If god exists and has good reason for behaving like he does then there simply is no issue to complain about. I am not convinced fully either way but many atheists annoy me and sound just as dogmatic and closed minded as the religious people they belittle.
@@patrickthomas2119"Your thinking is 1 dimensional and binary. There are plenty of other possibilities. Such as we aren’t listening, refusing to open communication, God might want us to figure out the answers on our own (I have 4 kids, I don’t just tell them the answers to things I try to give them pieces so they kind find the answers themselves).
I am not sure what I believe about the actuality of a God, but almost all the atheist criticisms of the concept are easily dismissed with the injection of good reason. If god exists and has good reason for behaving like he does then there simply is no issue to complain about. I am not convinced fully either way but many atheists annoy me and sound just as dogmatic and closed minded as the religious people they belittle."--
From your post I believe you are dishonest. It is possible you are just utterly ignorant about atheists, but that would be the best case scenario.
Your language is typical theistic apologietics, which is why I call you dishonest. Most atheists simply dont accept the evidence that a god exists. Existence claims are the ones that have the burden of proof to convince people. I am sorry that you are incapable of understanding that it is not the responsibility of someone to make up reasons to be convinced if you are terrible at providing evidence that doesnt convince them. In fact expecting someone to take a claim seriously anyways, despite the lack of evidence is the 'dogmatic' view.
Personally, being asked what would make me believe in god is on the same level as: What evidence would you need to believe that the earth is flat?
What evidence would you need to believe that Santa is real?
What evidence would you need to believe that astrology is a serious science?
And so on.
It’s not that there’s no evidence for god, it’s that there’s ton of evidence that religion is a social phenomenon and gods are manmade mythology.
The more I think of it, watching religious fanatics speak amongst themselves is identical to watching Star Wars fanatics discuss the Force and Jedi. The subjects are equally real.
I'll go one step further and say that all evidence that shows that religion is a social phenomenon and gods are manmade mythology also includes that all evidence and arguments for those being real/true are fallacious and/or worse, and it's fair to dismiss them based on that unbroken pattern. A god hasn't even been shown possible. A black swan is at least possible even if there are none. Swans exist and black feathers exist. That can't be said about anything of and about a god. We are not obligated to consider theists arguments or evidence or to even listen to them, and it's completely fair to dismiss them completely without listening or consideration.
Imagine there was this person who was physically present wherever you are, talking to you, relating to you, doing things with you, AND visible to everyone else. Now imagine there was such a person for everyone, and wherever we would go, we would see our person and also everyone else's person, AND they all look totally identical. And anything you would tell your person would be known by every other such person. And all of them recognized you. AND all of reality is otherwise just as you see today, nothing more, nothing less, not a dream or hallucination. I think we would know this person exists and is totally different from every other person.
Could be a powerful alien who learned that many primates seem to worship this idea without good evidence and poses as a god, provides the evidence that even skeptical people demand - as an efficient means to take over the planet.
The religious leaders then joyously but mistakenly lead their flock to the slaughter.
I love that your hypothetical is basically a babel fish.
42
Nicely concordant with making a god disappear:
“I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy
Materialism and imperialism have led people to destruction in the last century. It is not possible to be happy with material gain alone. Human nature, by nature, exists with peace, family ties, love, respect, faith and cooperation. Atheism drags people into emptiness, and the thought of disappearing after death makes people sad. People are filled with the feeling of eternal existence. A believer will attain eternal heaven in return for his good deeds.❤❤
@@brightroarttttbbbb You forgot the part where for *millennia* materialism and imperialism were hallmarks of theistic societies, including and especially Christian ones.
@@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinuesExactly. That's why so many fake Christians believe in and preach the false gospel of prosperity.😂
The Furgle-Burgler strikes again !
Another thought provoking , concise and entertaining blow to the irrational God ideology.
What did god do to make you so angry at him?
Kidding, kidding … 😜
@@lebojay
I hear that you're just kidding but,
Being mad at God isn't something I've ever felt , in any way shape or form.
It simply NEVER crossed my mind.
Though I've been plenty irritated at
and disappointed with those people
who confidently tried their best to spread to me the fake news of religion.
to pass on the misinformation of false history , religious narratives, and superstitious ideologies as if they
were 100% accurate and factual.
This is so insightful, i recently made the same argument during my call but they seem to be a discrepancy. If Matt says his standards of evidence most only led directly to a god, then that will also mean that the evidence that would make Matt believe in a god most not fit in our naturalistic worldview. This makes things hard because i can't think of anything in that category of evidence. But great points and breaking down of both side of the arguments.❤
When I speak with believers who ask me what would convince me to believe in a God, I say I don't know what would convince me. But I do know what shouldn't convince me.
Maybe he/she/it can come and present itself to every human at once, maybe break a couple laws of physics like maybe stopping time and just set the record straight, provide us with some kind of script that contains every single commandment
It's still a enormous leap even from being able to read every mind on the planet to an omni-god.
Yep, miracles are useless. We shouldn't care if God exists because doing what he wants brings happiness and what he doesn't brings pain.
Seriously, how do we know it's God, and not Satan or aliens or smtg?
@sad_doggo2504 First we'd need to know what the difference is. After all we don't claim God was born here so he is an alien and Satan seems to operate as an agent or at least with permission.
I've had people PRETEND they could read minds.
Indeed, I've had people pretend that I could read minds - one guy accused me of reading his mind to find the one thing that would make him uncontrollably lose his temper (I told him that "Kamikaze" isn't Japanese for "suicidal attack", but rather for "Divine Wind" - don't ask me why that was the one thing that would make him lose his temper)
BTW I was wrong - "Kamikaze" is the Southern Chinese pronunciation of the characters which in Japanese mean "Divine Wind"
Kami is Japanese for god or spirit, and kaze is wind, right?
One of the biggest questions is why do so many of the (current) faiths require belief as a core tenet? Surely such powerful beings would be able to demonstrate their existence as the first step, before requiring you to pray or worship or act in specific ways. Surely belief would be so obvious as to not even be a question in the first place. Why are we left (reasonably) debating the existence of a god rather than only smaller details such as how to please it/them ?
Good thought. You would not pay a bank for a mortgage on a house unless you knew the house existed. Why pay tithes and worship for a make-believe god?
It's Natural Selection as it applies to religions: the ones that have survived have better survival traits, one of which is the requirement to believe, among many other thought stopping traits. The one that don't have well-honed, time-tested survival traits have died out long ago.
Religions are integrated with cultural eco-systems. If the cultural eco-system is destroyed so is the religion. Islam pushed Christianity out of much of the Middle East, Balkans, etc. Was it that better designed as a religion than Christianity (as the Islamists might argue) or was the Byzantine eco-system weak? Did the Aztec religion disappear because Catholicism was stronger, or because of European diseases wreaking havoc on urban populations in Mexico?
The eco-system that is poisonous to all religions, of course, is the interaction of science, reason education. As this eco-system spreads, religion declines. We see the secular decline of all religions in the West quite inevitable. USA is behind the rest of the West, but there too.@@Specialeffecks
@@oldpossum57 ...As the environment any given religion finds itself in begins changing, just like for life - the religion can either adapt (or possesses survival traits suitable for this new environment) - or it will tend to die off to varying degrees. Also, there is likely a 'holding capacity' for religions - too many in one environment and it starts becoming obvious that these are simply a preference rather than some underlying truth, and again the one less suited for the environment tend to die off via survival of the fittest.
Given the tiny genetic variation across Homo sapiens I am going to presume that the elementary mind of individuals is pretty similar across populations. That elementary mind will have instincts, brain functions, basic behaviours, out of which social groups construct cultures. To the extent that the habits of the social group accord with the elements, that culture will be stable in a given environment. If on the other hand, the cultural practice goes against instinct, the practice will cause disruption. E.O. Wilson pointed to an old Taiwanese practice of “minor marriages”, or raising future wives within the nuclear family. This expression of patriarchal control over girls had the unintended consequence, according to the research of Westermarck, of triggering incest avoidance repugnance. (If my example is no longer scientifically accepted, another such will suffice to make the point.)
Given the building blocks of behaviours and beliefs provided by the elemental and individual mind, I can’t imagine there is any limit to the sorts of cultural practices we can invent.
I don’t know why religions should be especially vulnerable. To me they seem fairly insignificant I don’t think it is inevitable that they consume the same amount of social resources as they currently do. @@Specialeffecks
Well we've all seen the prestige so even if somebody's head got chopped off and they seemed to come back to life how could you rule out it wasn't a twin?
Well if it won't happen until you're not looking, it's certainly not true :D
Oh yeah, a built in universal translator for listening and talking would be awesome 😊
Great talk. Even better shirt.
I know the exact answer to this video, that I would have given when I was a believer.
"Matt, you are so arrogant, that you think you can tell God, how he should provide evidence for his existence"
Damn! I still have it in me😢
Me to the bank teller: You are so arrogant to tell me to show my ID in order to be able to withdraw money from my account...
@@AquaPeet The Audacity 😱
Telling someone they have no right to expect evidence is still not evidence.
Matt looks like a philosopher now
Thanks Matt! Thou rocketh!
I've pretty much narrowed this down. What would or should convince me? God. To the best of my knowledge anything capable and desiring for me to know it exists, hasn't had a problem. People, animals, insects, viruses, bacteria. Whether I want to know they exist or not, sure as I'm typing this, they figure it out. Seems to me that concept of a god, should be able to as well.
With my skeptical mind, the only way I "could have" believed is - if I was raised from birth in a world that God was as obvious as any other everyday fact that all people from all cultures agreed upon (unlike how it is with religion).
The fact that the world has one or more conflicting religions does it for me alone.
This was the best session, in all of your discussions, that I have ever listened to. I have an earnest question for Matt. I would also like to note that in no way am I asking in a facetious way; If a [g]od did actually provided you undeniable proof, and you acknowledged it as such, but yet you cannot test it (it was a one time occurrence) nor provide the evidence to anyone outside of yourself, how do you surmise that you would handle that particular situation?
As a child i attended a Pentecostal bible camp where a preacher taught us to speak in tongues by reciting "I tie your tie you tie my tie" in fast repetition. Later in life i was quite amused watching a television preacher using the same ridiculous fakery.
My tongues usually went like shadda kadda badda byunda bedunda cyunda...or something like that. I even googled the words at one stage thinking I was speaking some foreign or ancient language 😅
When you have something that is the answer to every question, any event can be attributed to that something. I see these events as validation of my magic universe creating socks, yet somehow I'm wrong. I get called arrogant and conceitful, but if you change it from socks to (insert god here), suddenly it's all okay. It seems arrogance and conceitful are an accurate assessment.
I was born into the catholic religion through a devoutly Irish catholic family. Five aunts who were nuns two uncles and a cousin priests.
My family wanted me to pursue holy orders .
I want to stress this point I never believed .
I never felt the presence of god it never moved me as far back as I can remember. After nine years of catholic education I was just unmoved and I was lucky enough to get kicked out for my behavior in other words I didn't pay attention to the priest ..... growing up with priest I wasn't in awe of their power the nuns didn't fare much better though I wasn't a total shit to them I loved my aunts and therefore was easier on nuns . I stopped going to church with the family. Before I go further I was never sexually violated by a priest I was corporally punished by nuns and one male teacher but that's what made me as they told my parents I was incorrigible and would not comport with their rules and regulations. I have never looked back.
When I was in church, many years ago, I recall several times when someone "spoke in tongues", and after they were done, two people started to "give the interpretation", at the same time, but were saying different things. Then the pastor had to step in and stop both of them. Clear that it was all just what they were THINKING was "an interpretation". No reason to consider either of them were right at all, of course.
It's still unclear to me how actually one goes about changing one's mind about an unfalsifiable proposition. *_Evidence?_*_ How does one produce evidence for that which is unfalsifiable?_
One must learn to think critically - do NOT accept any (important) claim as true that is unfalsifiable.
But, if a god has any detectable effect on reality, in principle this should be testable/detectable, though maybe not falsifiable (this god may be claimed to "be taking a vacation for the next 10K years", for example).
I am always curious to ask "if your god is all-powerful and can make everything continue just as it has always done if he leaves, what would be the detectable difference between him - A) having left yesterday, or B) leaving tomorrow (either of which never interacting with the universe in any way ever again)?
Put another way (to counter all the deistic first cause arguments): How do you know God STILL exists and/or STILL interacts with anything in the universe?
Right, the issue of infinite Gods as an explanation is that they will always fail parsimony. And then the issue of any kind of deity in general becomes an issue of definition.
Here's another logical problem for modern Christian dogma:
God is all knowing, all powerful, and benevolent, right?
Does evil exist?
Well if evil exists in the world then he is either not all knowing, all powerful, and certainly NOT benevolent, therefore the Christian god does not exist.
Yeah, which is a weird stance to take from the Bible
Because it seems like the God of the Bible isn't benevolent
@@mobrocket especially the god of the old testament. Let's remember too that Yahweh is the god of the Israelites. Likely started as a hearth-god. Ancestor worship. This is a heroic or legendary tribal figure from the ancient Jewish past. The Jews are "its" chosen people, so do non-Jews really have a place worshiping this god?
Matt proves my gf's axiom that men are like wine -- they get better looking as they age.
That having been said, Matt, you have fulfilled your calling as a pastor as you have helped hundreds of us (safe guesstimate) to break the shackles of superstition and religion and towards the light of reality and truth.
Now, when I run into religious folks, I am shocked at how brainwashed they are...and I am not saying that in a militant atheist way...am just genuinely sad...and then glad of the series of circumstances which lead me out of religion.
I'm so grateful you are on the atheist side, I genuinely haven't seen a debate that you lost
😂
The writing in the sky would be convincing if it was seen to be written in the language of the viewer, regardless of what language I read it in. If it could be photographed and this quality translated to the photograph. Maybe it gives off a little hum which audibly voices the message in whatever language the listener understands, for the visually impaired.
If the contents of the message was claiming to be about God and from God and all the specifics are so well-understood that nobody could honestly disagree about the contents, I’d have a very difficult time not accepting it tentatively. Although it’s not definitive, I cannot imagine anyone but the author going to such lengths to communicate that message to us.
This “indestructible message” is the answer I’ve given when asked “would anything convince you?”
I heard an analogy once about those posters in the 90s with hidden images behind the pixels where you had to adjust your eyes to see the image. That was compared to God and explained that you have to spirtitually adjust your vision to "see" god as you do physically with your eyes to see the hidden pixel image.
Grown ups believing in god without evidence is baffling to me.
Especially since none of them can clearly define their god in the first place
Yes! Past a certain age, children give up playing “Let’s pretend”. We expect adults to distinguish between their fantasies (sports, fame, sex, wealth) and real life. Indulging in fantasies is normally done with intimates only. Perhaps that is why the public displays of religiosity are unsettling. It is as if they were in a Pride parade: okay once in a while, but every day of their lives?
They define their relationship with cheeses perfectly because they make it up based on the direction of the wind that day.
Some cheeses are ok when you are downwind. Others you definitely want to be upwind.
@@oldpossum57
You hit that one right on the nose.
If they haven't clearly defined that God how can you say they don't have evidence for it?
Nailed it again.
If I could read other people's minds, I would wish I couldn't. It would drive me insane. Imagine standing in a crowded room with access to everyone else's thoughts! How would I determine which thoughts were mine? I would lose all sense of myself. I would be insensible.
If belief isn't voluntary (it's not), then what _should/shouldn’t_ make one believe something is irrelevant. To _not_ believe a proposition without proper justification is an _"ought,"_ *not* an _"is"._
Matt! Are you turning into Randi mk ii?
Interpretation of your speaking in tongues, you said very clearly, "Ferglebergle Manerglebergle".
Exactly! And through the power of god we all know what it means! It means... oh, hang on... I got a phone call. I'll finish this comment later. :p
the Simulation Hypothesis covers all bases - in fact the designer of the simulation may itself be inside a higher simulation and never know. Mind reading, changing the laws of physics etc are all built-in features of any simulator.
Do you have a name for your religion?
The Simulation Hypothesis is intriguing. Many fail to recognize the extent of similarities between religion and simulation theory. The difference is that the illusion of our world, in one case, is of technological nature, while in the other, it's an illusion of consciousness. All the mystics have described the world as a divine dream, a purely mental creation. And since consciousness is inherently creative, a creator can in turn be the creation of a higher creator. Hence, all religions describe creation as a tree, a fractal structure whose beginning cannot be found (God is without beginning and end). Upon careful analysis of scriptures, one realizes they describe a nested structure of consciousness, akin to nested Russian dolls, as you described.
@@gabormuller9850 yeah and of course our brains are running a neural-net simulation of 'reality' (whatever that is). Then there are lucid dreams when you become aware you are in a simulation or waking up from a dream to find yourself still in a dream (ala Inception). Or Plato's metaphysics of a world of appearances as an image of an underlying universe of Perfect Forms and its influence on Christian doctrine in Neo-Platonism down the centuries.
You are right matt. Your ideas are so clear to those who don’t believe in god. The only reason it is hard to get these idea across to a theist is because they have believed their whole lives. The more people that don’t believe the easier it is for others to understand. Slowly but surely rational thinking will prevail
Not “a painful eternity.” The punishment, after a judgment, verdict, and a mutual agreement; with the decision; will be destruction; ceasing to exist.
Whatever potential demonstration people can give... would at *least* be a start to move the needle in the direction of a deity existing. But it never happens.
I once heard the argument, and I believe it was Matt who said it, that I may not know what would convince me of a god, but wouldn't that god know what would convince me?
Hi,matt you got annoyed at me because i kept asking you during a live show in chat. (you asked me to call in), it's all good though,i was wondering if at some point in your talks you'd address this point i hear often from thiests ,"the scientific method is circular" , I'd love to hear your take now, in a week or next year ,i watch your shows religiously so i won't miss any response, even if it's a sentence,ty in advance .
I'd say that, while nothing could really, truly PROVE the existence of some sort of god, what would CONVINCE ME to start believing in a god, would be...
Some kind of deeply personal experience. Something that blows the mind and exceeds what i could ever imagine as possible. For example, god himself, or i guess a messenger, taking my consciousness into a separate dimension at some random time. They would take the time to talk with me, introduce themselves to me, explain things to me, show me things i couldn't possibly see otherwise. Like the past, or bits of the future. They would keep me in this separate dimension for a time that would feel like YEARS to me, and i would get to know this new reality which would otherwise remain hidden to me. Then, i'd be returned to the present time. Right to the point where this "debate with the divine" started. My life would continue, maybe as if nothing happened, or maybe they would leave me with some sort of proof, an artifact of sorts, just to make the point very clear - I was in a very, VERY special encounter.
I understand that at that point, there would still be other possibilities. Aliens, capable of stopping time, travelling through dimensions. The programmers of the Matrix of our universe, pretending to be gods. An exceptional sort of brain hyperactivity, which conjured the whole thing in my mind alone. Or even some sort of different spiritual entity, interacting with me - godlike or not so godlike. But i'm just saying, an event like this would seem to me pretty convincing.
The best evidence I could think of would be if we could somehow demonstrate or be confident that uncontacted tribes had never had missionaries/evangelists and had developed the bible independently.
If the conquistadores had showed up and the Inca had been like "Yeah no doy, of course we know about Jesus. God wrote it on all our hearts, that's how we knew what to write in our Bibles. Did you even READ his message that you claim is so important?"
Interesting how God is so obvious and makes himself known to everyone, yet the annals of Christian history are replete with writings about how the "savages" must be educated/converted, and even appear to have "no concept of religion" in certain cases, since the religious practices of many peoples were so alien to what Christians expected that they didn't even recognize them as religious.
I came up with something that would convince me that a book is divinely inspired. 1. It would have to be verifiably written in one go and in a short amount of time like a number of weeks. 2. There should be gematria or other mathematical links between the words, phrases, sentences, skipping letter methods, the verse numbers, etc in the book that point directly towards there being a god and are so unlikely that it happened at random that its basically impossible. There is no current computational method to write a narrative that has these numbers embedded within that doesnt involve checking every possible phrase that could go there and hoping that one of them has the numbers you are trying to put there so that the numbers seem divinely inspired. I cant even put 2 sentences together that have the same number but have a coherent meaning when put together. So if someone has done it thousands of times when writing a book in a short time that would be evidence that some sort of higher being was really inspiring them word for word what to write.
If I had a voice that could get me to understand and even solve thus far unsolved mathematical problems, I’d be strongly inclined to believing in god. Only if my understanding could be backed by experts.
Since I have dyscalculia, and thus not likely to ever even grasp mid-level mathematics, I would know something, at any rate, had changed.
That seems fair, but you'd only consider a god because you're already primed that it's a likely option, which it isn't. It's neither likely or an option. It's just primed in your mind by people/society repeating the idea of it.
If you lived in a society where the more prevalent idea was a sort of life stream where souls that have lived here share their knowledge, you'd consider that a likely option, which is also neither likely nor an option, but at least it could be more plausible because people and energy at least are things that exist.
And the fact that you didn't name the latter option proves my point because it isn't reasonable to consider a god, but if you do, it's far more reasonable to consider spirits, which you didn't, showing how much your mind is primed and not actually considering the infinite options that haven't been shown possible, which you should if you want to be consistent, which you're not because you're biased through conditioning to consider a god and dismiss other things that are also not shown to be possible options.
I know I am repeating the same point over and over, but I really want to hammer it in, and you know how hammers work, you repeat the action, unless you're David Wood, then you hammer once and then continu to use manipulation instead to avoid the consequences he denies. But that's beside the point.
@@stylis666 So what? The fuck you’re going on about?
As I said, I’d consider something had changed, because something most definitely would have had. From there on, more investigation would have to be done.
Get out of your soap box, ffs.
Nothing can change my mind, eccept my mind, my sences give me input to use to change my mind, i can use it, or ignore it, my mind will change, what do i let change my mind, ... i'm open to information, i am willing to learn and change, are you?
People have designed gods that are so incredible that I'm unable to evaluate the evidence that they exist and then claim that disbelief is somehow my fault.
I thought that was my phone ringing, and it is silent.
Hi Matt, Ive recently began living with a christian that is very annoying about his beliefs. We've talked a couple times and I keep identifying several fallacies within his arguments. I think he is being greatly dishonest and won't listen to me because he calls me ignorant since I've never read the bible in detail. What should I do?
Break up
I’m not Matt, and this sounds like a tall order, but maybe give the Bible a read. And when you do, you can say “it hasn’t convinced me” should you not be convinced.
Because you read it thoroughly and hypothetically would not have been convinced, you can’t be at fault.
@@trythelight8319 I appreciate the tip, but I'm not willing to waste my time reading +60 books
I would normally say "Matt doesn't read these comments," but it appears that he does. Or at least, he sometimes does.
You can generally tell these things by how many responses are made by the host. Matt almost never replies to any comments here. However, I must admit, I've occasionally found that Matt has replied to some of the comments I've left on his vids. So it DOES happen, but in my experience, it doesn't happen very often. So don't be overly disappointed if Matt doesn't respond to you.
Maybe remind them that the Bible IS the claim, not evidence of the claim. The Bible being true is the thing your roommate is trying to prove, so reading it, hypothetically, would just help you better understand the claim, something that your roommate could do by just telling you more about hsi beliefs himself. Telling you to just read the Bible is just dodging the issue, as it isn't actually evidence as that would be circular. You can read it, you'll just have even more issues with it honestly, but if he's actually trying to engage in evidence and debate, you don't actually need to read the Bible to engage him in that. If you're "ignorant" he can feel free to tell you what you're ignorant of. If you were ro disagree with his interpretation or something, then yes turning to the Bible could be useful. However the issue is that if it's ignorance of Christianity that is his problem with you, he can just fix that himself by talking to you. If it's evidence you're ignorant of, you wouldn't find that from reading the Bible anyway, so he can feel free to share his evidence. To skip to the chase though, there is no scientific or empirical evidence of God, only philosophical or anecdotal evidence. Unfortunately you can come to many false beliefs with only those kinds of evidence, as there are other religions that I'm sure he disagrees with that use the same exact epistemology as him. If it's truth he cares about, faith and religion are not a reliable pathway to truth. And if it's not truth he cares about, then he can just be honest and say that it gives him comfort or whatever. You probably won't be able to see eye to eye, so I'd honestly reccomed not even talking about it with him, if he isn't "open" to talking about it. He has to choose one though, if it's truth he cares about, backed by evidence, religion ain't it. And you reading the Bible would do nothing to help your current disagreement. BUT you don't have to read the whole thing cover to cover. If he wants to talk about the bible, ask him about the many many inconsistencies with itself and reality, and moral atrocities. If you want to have a good time living there though, again, just drop it lol
If I could manipulate your memory or especially the memories of a group of people, I could make you or them sincerly believe that they had witnessed/experienced literally anything. Therefore any power greater than that would necessarily be less plausible.
Hahaha! Ah, my childhood! Never got it...never could mimic that bull...shish! Happy atheist day, Mr. Dillahaunty!
How do you deal with someone who thinks they heard the literal voice of God telling then to do something? I tried asking them how they knew it was their god speaking to them and got no response.
Goat.
Language and natural human communication are mimicry behaviours. The only universal language (for a better word) among animate forms of life are states of calmness, tranquility or fear and worry. It doesn’t matter if it’s an ant, human, dog, elephant, bird, tiger, they all can have a state of inner frightening and uneasiness or peace and tranquillity with a feeling of safety.
Yes
I believe that when people say that god spoke to them, they are actually just using their own desire as the speach.
I can't believe you had that discussion of coding, you get that basic concept, and yet you didn't use the phrase "one time pad." If you just made that up, your brain's working really well man. Good for you
We are at a stage in science and technology where we can fairly reasonable say what is and is not possible even in the most advanced technology, and that we now essentially have the ability to tell the difference between magic and advanced technology. So defining what evidence is needed to prove a god is possible, but relies on a definition of god and its properties in order to do so. In the video you raised a number of examples of events that are considered beyond the scope of any possible technology, one of which is be able to read someone's mind remotely. Our understanding of physics clearly predicts that a reading of a human mind done completely remotely and in a normal environment is impossible. Were this to be demonstrable it would definitely be evidence of something supernatural, that is beyond the properties of this universe. Of course you are correct in stating that the evidence of something supernatural existing is not remotely evidence of a god, but it does demonstrate that if the properties of a god were given examples of evidence could be devised that would demonstrate the something with the properties of a god existed. Having said that I will extend your statement that there hasn't been any demonstrated evidence for a god to say that there has been no demonstrable evidence of anything even supernatural despite extensive research. For me an example of something that would be conclusive evidence of a god would be the simultaneous projection into everyone's mind of a person talking to them and telling them exactly the same thing that the entity is the god of the bible. Such a thing cannot be done under the laws of the universe, so native alien inhabitants of advanced technology can be ruled out.
When you use the word "god". What conceptualization is in your mind? There must be something you are thinking of when using the word. Atleast it seems probably to me.
If you look at the original formulation of gods from plato, he viewed them as the transpersonal "spirits" of a nation. For instance, he referred to athena and hephaestus as the gods of athens, because they were spirits associated with the literary arts and crafting.
If you look at the roots of the word religion, it comes from lation "religio" or "to bind." If you follow reductionism backwards, you get religion. One way people bind together is through stories, and the way stories bind people together around mythic characters is not arbitrary or subjective.
How can this logic escape any Christian who was willing to listen?
Oh iv'e gotta find that tweet Matt i wanna share it. The guy and his kids
I think you will love my book when it is done. It's a sci-fi story but the contents of it are ridiculously close to the topics that you talked about in this video.
What is “crated?”
I feel confused when some arrogant people tell me "Dont be so arrogant!". Like, who are they to tell me how to behave, act, think or even be? And do they expect me to change who i am in a second, just because they told me so? Doesnt work that way, just as it doesnt work with belief in God. If someone thinks that evidence X is insufficient, then he has to remain skeptical, whether he wants to or not.
I figured out Matt's cipher.. But it was just a crummy commercial..
Matt Dillahunty is one of the coolest humans alive today. Thanks Matt!!!
I suspect I’ll believe when I have no choice but believe. I realize this appears to violate the virtue of volitional belief, but I’ve never ascribed virtue to volitional belief and if God necessitates such a condition for belief then it’s unclear to me why such a condition is necessary. If belief requires a leap of faith, consider me faithless and I’ll take my lumps if I’m wrong.
The difference between tech and magic is that magic does not rely on naturalistic processes however it requires an acting personal agent.
While it is philosophically true that one cannot trust one's own senses and emotions in order to distinguish magic from a deceptive application of alien tech, for practical purposes I'm more than happy to operate under the assumption that even the most advanced tech cannot just accomplish anything on a whim. Meaning that if I can decide on the spot and have my arbitrary "3 wishes" fulfilled instantly by an anthropomorphic agent, I'll be satisfied and willing to accept that this very agent is a god.
The _supernatural_ and the _unknown natural_ both have the ability to explain anything. There is no advantage for either to serve as an explanation for an unexplained phenomena.
Is there a philosophical study of how the idea of god is unlikely?
If every prayer addressed to God had a measurable effect on reality (effect does not mean that the prayer must have the desired effect, but merely that reality after and because of the prayer is no longer exactly the same as before), would that be a sufficiently strong indicator that God or at least a transcendent entity existed?
How would you measure the effects of every single prayer to a god and which god are you talking about? You'd have to prove that the prayers were fulfilled at a higher rate than just by pure chance.
@@ga6589 well this is purely hypothetical and the assumption would be that all the prayers had an effect, no matter to which God.
@@ThePianoenergy The assumption can also be that the outcome would be the same, whether you prayed to a god or not. Since you cannot verify or demonstrate the existence of any god, you can never verify that a prayer had any effect at all, so your hypothetical is moot. I could just as easily substitute praying to a god with making a wish on a star, and claim that the wish had impact.
I know many theists claim that god answers prayers, but not always in a way you wanted or expected. This gives the prayer argument a convenient cover, as no matter what happens, prayers were answered.
@@ga6589 I know, of course there could also be a completely different assumption, but this is mine and the question is: if we assume that what I outlined above, would it be a strong argument for the existence of a God or not?
@@ThePianoenergy If you assume something is true, you're doing so without evidence to prove it. So no, IMO your assumption would not be a strong argument for the existence of a god, because it lacks evidence.
It's like saying, "I prayed to Zeus for a raise. Two days later I got one. Then, I prayed to Zeus that he'd make my cold go away. I started to feel better a few days later. Therefore I can assume Zeus answered my prayers, because the reality after the prayer is different from the reality before it." To me, this isn't logical, as our reality changes all the time, regardless of whether or not one prays.
Would you not agree that "God answers prayers" is an extraordinary claim, as is the Zeus claim? I think so and believe such claims requires some very extraordinary evidence.
if there's something "wrong" with me that a god cannot prove itself to me... well, I didn't make myself. if someone thinks their god made me, then they should hold their own god responsible for it having a lack of a method to prove itself to its own creation. especially when it allegedly made everything and everyone else in the world as well.
Whenever a feast asks me if anything would convince me that there is a God I answer. If at this precise moment in time that Im talking to them I got every superpower of superman permanently plus invisibility whenever I want and written in the sky (IT IS I, GOD). I’d believe in god if it was something else that did it at least I have superpowers.
What would convince me is very simple: God just has to make me omniscient. It's impossible for me to have certainty that God is God without omniscience, because not even God can PROVE they're all-powerful and not just sufficiently-powerful, all-knowing and not just very knowledgeable, etc. However, omniscient beings would possess certainty with respect to all propositions, including propositions that should normally be impossible to prove. And it wouldn't tread on God's toes to make me omniscient long enough to know with epistemic certainty that "The set of omniscient beings at this present time is: Me, God", since I wouldn't have any more power and thus couldn't interfere with God if God doesn't want me to. I would then also know everything about God including whether I should trust them.
One could, I suppose, argue that a very powerful being could simply trick me by deluding me into thinking I've gained all knowledge when I've only gained a whole lot, but I'm not convinced omniscience is that easily faked. And if I am being duped so convincingly that I legitimately believe myself to be omniscient, then I've at least been PERSUADED to believe in God, and thus convinced, even if it was by deception.
I have pondered what it would take to convince be to believe in a deity. Well I would at the very least need a face to face meeting with this deity, a little sit down, and then of course I would need truthful answers to the many questions I would ask this "deity", then maybe I might believe this deity is a deity. but I would always be skeptical the deity was actually a deity because unless there are other known deities that exist I would have no way of verifying anything I saw or anything the deity told me.
My understanding is its their _personal God_ which is clearly contradictory to all other claimed Gods.
The issue is they have been poorly instructed they can personally make up facts in their head!
Whoever deceived such theists (Christians etc) to believe this should be ashamed of themselves.
No matter how I look at the world I just cannot seem to reject the existence of God...The unique imprints of God all around us
and you chose NOT to mention any example of those imprints. I wonder why.
I also wonder what the g0d is, by the way. Sadly, nobody has ever demonstrated it. Again, I wonder why. (scam, money, lies, scam, money, lies, scam, money, lies...)