How Evolution Might Disprove God
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ย. 2024
- This clip is taken from "Analyzing 10 Atheist Slogans w/ Alex O'Connor": • Analyzing 10 Atheist S...
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/c...
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
John Early
Dmitry C.
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskept...
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
This clip is taken from "Analysing 10 Atheist Slogans" with Capturing Christianity: th-cam.com/video/yo1VrBKTza8/w-d-xo.htmlsi=oHmk7C5ZMHdUna8J
Darwinian Evolution (i.e. Macro-Evolution) and Micro-Evolution are not the same thing. Mainstream misinformation / disinformation propaganda has cloudied and mixed these distinctly different issues for decades. Darwinian Macro-Evolution (i.e. Common Descent of All biological systems from a single-celled ancestor) has Not been confirmed through the scientific method. It is un-observable, presumably because it may have occurred over a span of millions/billions of years. Additionally, Macro-Evolution has Not been observed in nature to the present. On the other hand, Micro-Evolution Has been confirmed through the scientific method and Is observable in nature to the present.
*_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863)
Why is Darwin's macro-evolution speculations on the hypothetical common descent of all biological systems from a single celled common ancestor (which is not supported by the standard scientific method, the historical scientific method (i.e. there are no "presently acting causes" that support a common descent belief), Gene Regulatory Network mutation limitations, DNA mutation plasticity limitations, mathematical / computer modeling, information theory, etc.) referred to as a "theory" by the scientific community? Most importantly, the common descent illusion is not supported by the fossil record as revealed in the Cambrian geological layer.
*_“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857)
Just like the Spontaneous Generation "Theory", Charles Darwin's out-dated 1800's self-proclaimed "theory" of common descent macro-evolution from the materialist ideology / worldview DOES NOT meet the present day definition requirements of being a "Scientific Theory" in modern science and should be immediately downgraded by the modern scientific community.
Countries' indoctrination of the masses in the pseudo-science of Darwinian Common Descent Macro-evolution and Social Darwinism, has continued to breed false scientific justification for racism and war in the modern era for over a century and could potentially lead to total human genocide through World War 3.
@@John777Revelation Let me educate you. In Scotland, we have an old saying: many a mickle maks a muckle. String up a lot of micros together and you have a macro. Since we have demonstrated what creotards like to call micro-evolution, and can see macro-evolution in the historical record, they are one and the same. It's just the creotards who refuse to see what's in front of their noses for religious reasons.
@@John777Revelation *Countries' indoctrination of the masses in the pseudo-science of Darwinian Common Descent Macro-evolution and Social Darwinism, has continued to breed false scientific justification for racism and war in the modern era for over a century and could potentially lead to total human genocide through World War 3.* - Now there's a whole bunch of twaddle. In my experience, most racists are devout religious believers. They think they are the image of god, and so assume that everyone not in their image is inferior. Darwinian theory does explain why we have races - it's a combination of natural and sexual selection. It says nothing at all about about superiority or inferiority, though religion has lots to say about those.
When a religious believer gets as divorced from reality as you evidently are, it leads them to reaching the wrong conclusion. Perhaps some elementary biological education would help in your case. Have you ever considered getting any? Because nothing in your inane screed against evolution makes any sense, except in the darkness of religion.
So chimps are your closest cousins. Why is that so objectionable? Do you seriously think you're the image of your god? Maybe you need to abandon your grandiose ideas about yourself and see yourself from the proper perspective, as just another animal. If there is another genocide, it will undoubtedly be a religious believer that instigates it, to purge non-believers.
@@Leszek.Rzepecki Exactly. Isn't that what the retarded islamist' scary goal is?. For Islam to reign supreme?
@@lisadabbs2181 Theocrats love theocracy I can't see much if any difference between Christianist and Islamist ones.
While it can't disprove God per se, evolution certainly disproves a lot of creationist notions and farfetched Biblical tales about the Flood, etc.
the modern versions of christianity (and other current religions) is what evolved via human selection. humans will continue to select the traits they want to pass on and select the traits to slowly leave behind. perhaps all the different religions and denominations can be considered mutations, species, or subspecies, themselves.... the process of evolution describes religion better than religion can describe evolution
@@360.Tapestryreligion can't really describe anything accurately to be fair
@@360.Tapestryreligions also are subject to the consistent pattern of evolution. how many religions suffered and died to give birth to abramistic religions and christianity )) the dna of old religions is still present in bible.
Maybe not the general idea of God, but it can disprove the existence of a God as described in Christianity and from other Abrahamic religions like Islam and Judaism.
and this is why i personally believe if there is a god its an egragor and not a physical being or one above all type creationist construct. reason is one requires a spark to be able to create and have free will, while the other is an embodiment/spark of reality but lacks free will as it just is.
of course i also understand why people dont believe in them because egragors are weird, hard to describe and pointless to pray to. it would be like praying to the strings of fate or karma and we all know that's a bitch.
Alex's thought processes and arguments are just exactly what I like from philosophical thinking. I love to binge listen to Within Reason and just gobble up all there is.
As an atheist, I will say I'm not an atheist because of evolution, and I don't believe evolution because it disproves religion. I believe evolution because the evidence overwhelmingly supports it, and as of now no evidence supports any competing theory...in fact, there really is no competing theory, it's only competition is a set of assertions of faith.
I'm an atheist for other reasons entirely.
I'm a theist and feel similarly. Whatever the truth of evolution and its causes, the inference to the best explanation is evolution and there aren't any competent competing theories. I would say that for the general theme of biological evolution as opposed to its mechanisms.
@@blusheep2 The problem with theism is it relies on magic, but is unable to produce evidence for a magician, nor for the magic he/she/it weaves. Without natural selection, evolution makes no sense at all. If you regard it as directed, then why have it at all?
I agree with what you said about evolution. Separately I am only an Atheist because I do not find any of the god claims believable or creditable.
Evolution is all assertions of faith
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Then you clearly haven't bothered educating yourself on evolution. There are mountains of evidence. Faith is for theists. If there were clear evidence against evolution, or even just evidence for a better theory, I would have no problem dropping evolution. It isn't a belief, it is just the best explanation for the evidence we have.
i love how fair and rational alex is
i love how green the sky is
How is "evolution might disprove God's existence" a rational statement?
@@michaelarojasDid Alex make that claim? Not in the video I just watched...
Did you listen to him at all?
In debate you start with a premise then argue for or against it.
@ericvulgate I did. Please offer the time index where he makes that claim. Should be easy; the video's only 10 minutes long.
*edit:* go to 6:20, where Alex literally says that evolution doesn't disprove god.
“I think there might be a few other problems…” Dry humour there, Alex…😂 Touché!
?
Yes! With the biggest problem, as many fundamentalists will admit, being the collapse of the Christian narrative on salvation. Their claim is that death entered the world through sin, and only the perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the cross reversed that sentence of death. Obviously that story collapses with evolution, because death was part of nature from the beginning. There never was an Eden! Therefore, there never was a need for a savior to restore us to that perfection.
My father unironically used the "look at the trees" argument on me once.
It is truly a testament to Divine willpower and resilience that I didn't die from cringing so hard in that moment.
I grew up Jehovah's Witness and dad would watch nature programs all the time but when then narrator would describe how an animal evolved he'd be quick to point out that they didn't evolve, god made them that way. Once I went on a "home Bible study" with a prominent elder to try and convince this one dude that he needed to join our cult and we were discussing creation and dude literally exclaimed "look at the trees!"
@@cygnustspfellow ex Jehovahs witness, this is so relatable
Im a programmer and when i see a tree i get a matrix moment when i realize that the tree its built using specific dna code.
Having been raised atheïst I genuinely don't get the argument lmao does he mean look at the trees because God created them or something? How do trees prove god? Sorry if I'm being stupid, I'm a bit slow
It’s not an argument that I like, but it’s not ridiculous. The idea is that trees (and nature in general) are so complex and work in a perfect system according to a specific set of patterns, and that this could not have occurred without an intelligent creator.
Evolution does disprove specific claims like Christianity that there was a sudden creation of life in its modern form, but not in a general sense.
Where does Christianity reject theistic evolution?
Isn't God's response to Job, basically, "If you cannot grasp how living organisms actually come to have their properties, how can you demand I show you the utter complexity behind all of reality and how everything interacts in ways your mind is too limited and cannot grasp?
@@glenliesegang233 The main problem is original sin, which was Jesus's whole purpose and mission to save mankind. What "theistic evolution" are you referring to? and with that model, then who committed the original sin?
@@glenliesegang233 In the majority of Christian circles, this isn't an actual problem. The only place where this 'issue' comes up is in Christian Apologetics, and the best way I can describe them is that they're... a hot mess of contradictions and blatant falsehoods.
@@MG-ot2yr It goes a bit deeper than that. A basic foundation of any religion is that some god or gods created humanity and that's why that/those god/gods have authority over us. With some form of divine reward system in place for those who follow the rules and a punishment for those that don't. And thousands of years ago, when nobody knew how man came to be that "god of the gaps" answer made sense. But once we figured out we're just specialized monkey fish that mythology falls apart. That's not to say there still aren't societal norms like "Don't steal" or "Don't murder" that aren't applicable but claiming "do it or else after you die you'll be sorry" gets really hard to sell.
@@enlacostaizquierda christianity has evolved beyond the eternal life or special reward aspects. now it's all about developing this deep, unwavering loyalty to god so much so that you want to please god even if you are condemned because he is the rightful god above all else - they do it because it's the "right" thing to do. the more it upsets a secular world, the more they feel they are doing a service for the cause. it's a pretty bald "us vs them" situation. but when someone is that radicalized, it's the only light, truth, and way. a bit drastic, a bit perverse (they would say transcendent), but they're reaching into every nook and cranny to make the narrative bulletproof
The longer conversation between these two was just fantastic. Alex is so very pragmatic and fair. Also Alex, I have a video I am working on concerning your debate with Trent Horn. If there would ever be a chance to connect, I’d love to.
Oh man i hope someday Alex gets wind of you, MindShift. You are killing it!
I'd love to see y'all link
So how did living organisms arise, you POS?
No one cares
@@CanadianLoveKnot Anyone rational cares whether God exists or not.
I love watching these clips. Partly because I'm interested in the subject matter, but also because I enjoy watching how Alex argues something out. He is extremely fair and dispassionate whilst remaining both interesting and opinionated
It doesn't disprove a god, but it does prove one of a couple things:
- If said god exists it is a god that creates life and then sits back and watches while nature takes its course (a deistic god).
- If said god exists it is absurdly wasteful and brings forth needless suffering on a mind-boggling scale.
The argument can also be made that if evolution is true, then there is no Adam and Eve. If there is no Adam and Eve, then there is no original sin. If there's no original sin, then God has no need for Jesus to die and absolve mankind of its sins. The whole mythology falls apart.
Why does evolution exist if God does not
@@michaelarojas Nonsensical question. Prove God exists, first, before you go any further. All you're doing is just putting your favored deity in front of the equation and saying "Oh look, God did it!" This is like a math teacher asking you to show your work and you're just saying 'you just know'.
It disproved my fundamental extreme christian believe for sure
But you're still Christian you just don't hold to the super strict literal interpretation about Genesis creation account?
@@blappappa3836 No. I was raised in the belief, that the bible is the literal word if god. To discover, that it contained lies, made it completely unbelievable to me, because what omnipotent god would reveal himself to humanity trough an old flawed book. I am atheistic now. What i was saying is, that evolution alone disproves a creationist christianity and literal interpretation of the bible.
I was awakened by my curiosity of physical reality over my mystical religious upbringing. Biology and chemistry tuned me into the real world.
The opposite happened with me. In studying mathematics, I became fascinated with infinite series and saw something mystical about them. We can get an approximation of Apery's constant as close as we want, but there's something amazing about knowing its exact value, which nobody knows yet. It's useless, but fascinating.
A decade ago I committed myself to argue against human evolution for a unit at university. The incompatibility between Islam's claims about the origin of life and the scientific proofs for human evolution was a major stepping stone in journey out of religion.
evolution proves the universe wasn't created for the benefit of humans, which is a fundamental tenet of most religions.
Please elaborate. I really want to know.
Evolution is a process ''from'' not a cause of .
There were a lot of disappointing statements from Muslims on the matter. I went to an Islamic presentation on human evolution, expecting a melding of science and religion that acknowledged scientific findings, but the speaker was a finance graduate who presented fairly staunch evidence that evolution was incompatible with the quran and sunnah. And only then did he go into 'disproving' human evolution using the same sorts of 'missing link' and 'human uniquemess' arguments that I'd seen Christians make.
@infamousshinkicker6924 I also found that denying human evolution felt desperate. Like a child being presented with evidence that their parent was guilty of a crime but looking for loopholes in the story or accusing the forensic scientists of having a wicked agenda because of the uncomfortable sense that the truth destroyed the perfect role model and any sense of stability.
The reality of biological evolution doesn't disprove God, but it does disprove the Biblical depiction of a deliberately created order.
Very well put. I get so tired of the hysterics on BOTH sides of these arguments, it's refreshing to see a calm and collected commentary like this for a change.
"Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee." St. Augustine
That's pretty silly.
Watch the video, dont start preaching like a r*tard. Doesnt make christians look good at all
@@Leszek.Rzepecki Well the restless part seems pretty accurate. I've seen many believers and non-believers strive for that goal.
@@theboombody Curiosity or boredom make us restless. The contented are at peace!
alex take this as you will but as someone who has seen popular figures rise and fall, I fully believe that within 30-40 years you will essentially be viewed as the next Christopher Hitchens.
wonderful work as always.
They're both useless douchebags so I'll credit that possibility.
He is far kinder, humbler and more fair-minded than Christopher Hitchens and although extremely smart will probably never match Hitchens in wit and even less in world experience. I can't see Alex going to war zones just yet....still there's time.😊
Christopher Hitchens was rube and a hack who got absolutely spanked by William Lane Craig. You better hope Alex can exceed that drug addicted forked-tongue Hitchens.
No. Very very different styles, almost opposite.
Hitchens isn't exactly perfect either he was a huge Bush Jr fan
1:40 I've heard some professor say that the slogan "survival of the fittest" is really not up to date with current understanding of evolution by natural selection. If there were such an easy rule of thumb, it'd sound more like "thriving of the most adapted", as fitness is associated with physical strength or endurance (which is not necessary, see sloth) and survival is less important than successful reproduction.
Someone in a youtube comment told me survival of the fit enough. It stuck with me.
I also think there is a confusion with "survival of the strongest" as an argument to implement Social-Darwinism in society, as justification that "less fit" people should perish, be that people born with handicaps, or even non-aggressive pacifists, not taking and doing things with sheer force when they can. That is a confusion ascribing "fittest" relative to an idea of "nature", when it is really fittest relative to the environment the organism live in.
Contrary to many animals, human beings have the capability to largely change the environment/society, and by doing so a choice whether "fittest" correspond to a cruel and indifferent society, or a more humane one.
You are so smart, eloquent, and well-educated. Thanks for sharing your perspective, I'm a long-time subscriber, keep up the good work.
Evolution disproves all theist gods till 1858. After that theists reinterpreted their god and origin of species concepts to fit evolution.
Nah, it was more of the other way around since the evangelical, fundamentalist literal interpretation of the Bible was an invention of the 19th century.
Someone hasnt read any Christian literature.
@@crushinnihilism All those who read it either become atheists or Muslims,some become hindus or buddhists.😂
Alex is now my go to podcast every time I see his name. Such a superb thinker. So special & rare instead of following ancient beliefs.
Ancients could be pretty smart. Most people today still can't understand things Eratosthenes could. Like how he used the alternating interior angles are congruent geometrical theorem to calculate the circumference of the earth.
The way some theists try so hard to 'disprove' evolution makes me think that it's theists that think that if evolution is true then their deity is disproven.
The universal fine-tuning argument disproves the Theist God. It also disproves atheism. We have observable evidence for one universe with the inherent Physical Constants. Unless some evidence can be produced to refute this, then it's fine-tuning. Universal fine-tuning precludes any physical interference in the universe, therefore any Religious idea of God is out. No miracles. The System itself is fine-tuned with free-running processes within the System i.e Evolution.
It *would* disprove young earth creationism entirely, which is why the vast majority of opposition to evolution in religious circles comes from people with young Earth creationist views
@@PeterBarkerMusicTrue.
But I assume it would also disprove any creationism story that had us 'made in the image of a deity' irregardless of old or young.
Some of them probably do. I'm not one of them. I will always believe in some kind of inherent absolute morality even if we have difficulty interpreting it sometimes. Relative morality is even more of a minefield of pitfalls to justify than the ridiculous magical supernatural stuff. Avoid relative morality at all costs. It will lead you to a bad place.
It’s conversations like this that reminds me why I subbed.
I’ve made these exact arguments before and I’m glad to see you representing it
Look at the cities. That proves there are giant space babies playing with lego blocks. To me, that seems to be the theists position.
Oh i like that
@@F-hj9mz 😆 🇦🇺
So these cities just popped into existence through random chance?
No, the argument really is that living organisms could not form from raw materials without intelligent guidance.
Are you smart enough to understand that?
@@CanadianLoveKnot Nope, they were built by us ants. 😉
To my understanding, the Christian concept of “image” doesn’t necessarily mean physical shape or appearance, but rather the representative of a deity in the physical realm, much like how an owl signifies Athena, an Eagle signified Zeus/Jupiter, or a trident signified Poseidon. For many Christians, it would be more appropriate to think of Humans as God’s representatives or stewards meant to participate in his creative works, rather than having a certain physical shape.
I appreciate you steel manning the Christian perspective verses a strawman approach. Much respect.
You can't really disprove the general idea of 'God'
but you can disprove a specific God (or at least it's portrayal) by comparing the traits/words/actions attributed to it, to what we find in reality
Can you give us some examples so we can understand?
@@andrewdouglas1963The Christian god is said to be good, loving and merciful...but according to Christianity the majority of humans are burning for eternity in Hell ...that's a contradiction that suggests Christianity isn't true.
@@nakkadu
That's the person's choice.
Not God's choice.
God wants people to choose him.
Sorry but that in no way whatsoever suggests Christianity isn't true.
Try again.
Btw, hell is eternal separation from God. The analogy of what that is like is burning in flames.
@@andrewdouglas1963 The Bible tells us that the only way into heaven is to accept Jesus as lord. How is it someone's choice to go to Hell if they've never even heard of Jesus? Your comment is nonsense.
@@nakkadu
The bible says you will be judged by what you know.
If you have heard of God and rejected him, you will be judged accordingly.
If you haven't heard of God, (which is a very tiny fraction of the human race) you will also be judged accordingly.
God is the ultimate justice and people will be judged fairly.
Alex is the most rational atheist I have ever seen 😊. I learnt a lot from your conversation about atheist slogans with Capturing Christianity - both of you were so fair and charitable to each other's opinions. One year ago, I was an anti-theist. Now, I am just an atheist. I still find it irritating when people try to defend the indefensible superstitions (may or may not be related to God) using philosophical arguments - they usually attack axioms of science and mathematics asking me "Can you prove these axioms are true" 😢.
Also, please try to make a video on your views on - "what should be considered as evidence", "evidence that convince you vs evidence that makes the argument more compelling", "probability of occurrence of miracles".
The mind's logic is built off of organizing the emotion. The emotion is built off of organizing instincts. Therefore not cutting out your humanity can lead to further arguments a 'proper' person wouldnt do. Which is why academia has garbage, like was it stanford recently or harvard that got caught faking studies?
Yet, you cannot defend atheism as an intellectual position negating God. Nobody can. Atheism is intellectually lazy and weak.
I don’t know whether you can, but science and mathematics absolutely can be proven. It’s the most hilarious thing that a superstitious person would ask for proof.
@@LeanAndMean44 He's lying. Atheists lie incessantly. They always strawman whatever theists argue. I'll smoke any atheist on the science and evidence. They have none. The atheist has nothing but pretense, posturing, evasion, burden shirking, endless lies and cheap excuses.
My experience of Alex is that he regards an argument as "evidence." It isn't, not in any scientific sense. Arguments are just exercises in philosophy, they aren't grounded in reality. Science is, because it is based on factual observations, and relates to objects and processes that can be seen and tested by others. Science is objective in that regard. If I make a scientific discovery, it can be checked by others, who will find the same result, or who will disprove the claim. Science doesn't prove anything, it can only disprove claims, which is why science cannot disprove a god - there's nothing there to test.
Awesome room, great conversation!😀
Kudos to Cameron for keeping his cool and listening. Heck, he even hosts the full video on his channel.
Although I have a tendency to blame problems on religion as a whole, it really is "fundamentalism" (religious or not) that poisons the well of humanitarian progress. This isn't exclusive to religion, we see it in conspiracy theory and political advocacy groups as well. We make decisions based on our limited knowledge. So, how can we be expected to flourish if these limits are arbitrarily imposed by us onto ourselves and others?
I share your tendency to blame problems on religion, and it's not just fundamentalism that creates problems, it's the entire enterprise. Religious thinking is all magical thinking, and nothing good ever came of it.
@Leszek.Rzepecki
I think that's totally unfair to blame religion. Atheism is relatively new to us. So, to just put all "bad" things onto religion is lazy noncritical thinking.
I can easily turn back and say this about atheism.
Well, the 20th century was by far the bloodiest century in human history because of the rise of atheist led nations. Communist China, Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia alone brought the most needless death on human race.
Then I could quote some Nietzsche.
Make a decent argument about how when people of power don't fear a higher power than themselves, like God, they always seem to look at the common folk as worthless. Dehumanizing them and that's what leads what happened in the 20th century.
And if I put some serious thought on these I could make a strong argument against atheism at least on that topic can I not?
@@Leszek.Rzepecki
Nothing good ever came of it. Christianity specifically can be credited with Hospitals, even to this day christian hospitals like St. Luke's is FREE for any child that needs taken care of.
Universities, historically started by Christians. That's why they graduate with cap and gowns like a church choir members wore. The scientific revolution was started by Christians.
Christian theology can be credited with the start of western society.
This doesn't necessarily prove that the Christian God is true. But we can definitely debunk the claim that nothing Good came from religion. Specifically Christianity brought us so much great things today.
In Communism, atheism is the motor, not the steering wheel. Hitler wasn't an atheist. So.....
Have a conversation with any christian, and they'll disprove God for you, without even meaning to!
No, that won't happen with me, Curtis you ignoramus.
Sounds like nonsense which is exactly what atheism is.
So, please explain your hypothesis about the origin of the base 4 encoded data for pyruvate decarboxylase, motor proteins, flagella motor complexes of 2 types, the 2 different hosts of nanomachines involved in DNA replication, and the whole of data driven protein synthesis in 2 forms.
Both the machines and the code had to co-exist simultaneously. No random process can do this.
The Superintelligence which did is awfully close to God.
Any god which can be disproven is not God.
When you reject the existence of God, all you are truly rejecting is an image you create in your own mind of what you have decided this ridiculous "god" must be like.
And to call the Creator of Space-time and Author of the laws of physics a " Flying Spaghetti Monster" only serves to show how ridiculous the human who claims to smugly know "the Truth", actually is.
Even Hitchens admitted he felt guilty when he took a cheap shot and stopped an honest discussion with ridicule when debating Christians. Why did his conscience bother him?
The Holy is destroyed at the price of something utterly irreplaceably beautiful being lost. And the atheist mocks the very concept of the holy.
Read Solzhenitzyn if you wish to see the actual consequences of deliberately eliminating a belief in God from a society.
(hint- the death toll exceeded 100-1000-fold all who died in every battle committed in the name of Jesus since His death.)
Evolution is not a random process.
Your 5th grade understanding of it does not prove it wrong.
Well said, Alex. I think the way to go for Christians is not to deny Evolution by natural selection but to figure out how it is compatible with Christianity. It may not disprove Christianity as such, but it may well be problematic for some of the very common Christian narratives and approaches.
@chandir7752 - and there are many christians who have done that already. Then there's the fundamentalists, a vocal minority, who can't even think about it.
Theistic evolution, inspiring phylosophy has a vid on that
From my understanding, most Christians today accept evolution and interpret Genesis as metaphorical.
@@PeterBarkerMusicThat's also my experience, but recently I was invited to some kind a Bibleclub that I was told aimed to critically discuss Christian belief. And after a few sessions it turned out they were basically orthodox creationists, the guy I talked even went so far as to say that Christians who don't take Jesus literally aren't real Christians, and that the Bible has an objective moral authority. Not representative but man, it was wild to see how lost people can get when they attach themselves scripture. Which is kinda incentivized by the common framing of the Bible as literally God's word.
@@chandir7752 What do you mean by "take Jesus literally"? I don't think I've ever met a Christian that didn't literally believe that Jesus physically resurrected. 😭
Like said, it does not disprove God. It disproves an intelligent designer and we are getting closer every year to showing abiogenesis in action. Getting pretty clear to me that if God is real, he is more of a background character than anything.
It has been stated...You can't disprove or prove God -
Yet the scriptures state he is seen in creation, nature!
There is solid evidence that someone (or something) created all that has existed/exists!
An intelligent designer who bought forth an intelligent design!
Sweetie, if you clowns had any evidence for your magical sky-daddy, you'd be falling over yourselves to produce it. Instead, you just thump your bibles harder and harder under the delusion that makes them more plausible.
Evolution presents epistemic issues,
if all beliefs, propositions, evaluations and conclusions are determined by biological chemical reactions, Then any methodology for coming to knowledge is also determined. If that’s the case, we have no access to what’s true.
*_...we have no access to what’s true._* - what we have is trial and error. That's how science arrives at the knowledge we have. We test theories, all the way to destruction if need be. Science cannot prove some theory is true, but if it makes reliable predictions, then we can reasonable assume it's true. That's why we accept the earth is a planet revolving around a sun. Evolution is no different.
There is a difference between what the bible says and religious beliefs about what it says. Even among the Christian religions they disagree on how much of the bible is to be taken literally and how much is metaphor. A central theme prevalent throughout the bible is that you are not "alive" until you are spiritually alive. It says that if you are not spiritually alive, then you are dead... spiritually dead. I would argue that Genesis is a metaphorical story about the first "spiritually alive" people. This interpretation of Genesis also answers a lot of contradictions when taken literally. It would mean there were tons of "spiritually dead people" in the world and would explain how Cain could go out, take wives, and build a freakin city lol.
Anyway, I'm atheist so I'm not saying this is true. I am merely pointing out something I think is relevant to the argument.
The reason Christians disagree on how much of the bible is to be taken literally is purely based on the fact that science has soundly disproven so much of it.
Let me put it this way: The naturalistic atheist puts himself with his pleas in the position of the hare in the race against the hedgehog. In his materialistic arguments, the immaterial (spaceless and timeless) logic is always “already there”.
Logic and mathematics are obviously not reducible to matter: The Euclidean Prime Number Theorem, or the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, for instance, applies IN, before and after every conceivable universe....
Not only every theistic argument, but also every atheistic argument needs the immaterial laws of logic. Exactly in this point naturalistic atheism (unlike theism) is inherently inconsistent.
Let me put it this way: religious believers are no better than believers in voodoo, because they have no evidence for their magical sky-daddy.
@@Leszek.RzepeckiSo you declare Plato, Newton, Leibniz, or for example (one of the greatest mathematicians) John von Neumann, who presented good arguments for God, all idiots. What's strange is that, unlike all of these, I've never heard of a notable work of yours. 😂
My personal take on this would be 'Evolution discredits God as defined by Apologists,' since they are typically the faction of any given religion that both pushes a more literal interpretation of their faith and are vehemently opposed to anything which doesn't fall in line with said interpretation.
You could further reduce that to evangelical apologists. I'm not sure people, especially in the US, realize how fringe evangelicals are on a global scale.
Somebody can defend his faith (which is what apologists do) without believing the mythical parts of the Bible that were never read as literal truths before the 19th century. This whole evangelical concept of literally inerrancy is a modern concept.
@@MrSeedi76no it is not lol. Go back to the 1400s and tell that to the pope. They burned people for much less theological difference than that.
@@MrSeedi76 I'm pretty sure that most of the really faithful Christians believe in Original Sin. And that isn't compatible with "there were never only two humans alive."
Thanks much for this video.
Short answer - Disproves several specific versions of a god.
God as a term is so broad a term is becomes almost irrelevant without properties attached to it
From wiki
"According to some estimates, there are roughly 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, "
Of these groups, sub groups with separate belief properties of their god. Within each sub group people have there own interpretation of a gods properties.
So a statement "disprove god" is ridiculous. You would have to disprove every current version or historical past or future interpretation of a version of any god for the statement to be correct
In this speculative scenario, let's consider Leibniz's Monad (first emanation of God), from the philosophical work "The Monadology", as an abstract representation of the zero-dimensional space that binds quarks together with the Strong Nuclear Force:
1) Indivisibility and Unity: Monads, as indivisible entities, mirror the nature of quarks, which are deemed elementary and indivisible particles in our theoretical context. Just as monads possess unity and indivisibility, quarks are unified in their interactions through the Strong Nuclear Force.
2) Interconnectedness: In the Monadology, monads are interconnected in a vast network. In a parallel manner, the interconnectedness of quarks through the strong force could be metaphorically represented by the interplay of monads, forming a web that holds particles together.
3) Inherent Properties: Just as monads possess inherent perceptions and appetitions, quarks could be thought of as having intrinsic properties like color charge, reflecting the inherent qualities of monads and influencing their interactions.
4) Harmony: The concept of monads contributing to universal harmony resonates with the idea that the Strong Nuclear Force maintains harmony within atomic nuclei by counteracting the electromagnetic repulsion between protons, allowing for the stability of matter.
5) Pre-established Harmony: Monads' pre-established harmony aligns with the idea that the strong force was pre-designed to ensure stable interactions among quarks, orchestrating their behavior in a way that parallels the harmony envisaged by Leibniz.
6) Non-Mechanical Interaction: Monads interact non-mechanically, mirroring the non-mechanical interactions of quarks through gluon exchange. This connection might be seen as a metaphorical reflection of the intricacies of quark-gluon dynamics.
7) Holism: The holistic perspective of monads could symbolize how quarks, like the monads' interconnections, contribute holistically to the structure and behavior of particles through the strong force interactions.
em·a·na·tion
noun
an abstract but perceptible thing that issues or originates from a source.
Metaphysics
Context
The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System.
Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others.
This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance.
Summary
The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances),
then it turns to their principle or creator and
finishes by using both to explain the world.
(I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible".
Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered:
(1) entelechies or created monads (§48),
(2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and
(3) spirits or rational souls (§82).
Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of
(1) living beings and animals
(2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable.
The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul.
(II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will.
(III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90).
In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite."
The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves.
(IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”.
This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.
[2D is not the center of the universe,
0D is the center of the mirror universe]:
The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped.
In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge.
Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed.
Leibniz or Newton:
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe.
In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective.
On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view.
Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective.
Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view.
What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz?
There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible.
What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus?
Newton's calculus is about functions.
Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints.
In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation.
In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation.
What are the arguments against Leibniz?
Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.
Metaphysics is old ppl jerking off in a circle.
GISHGALLOP!
@@ready1fire1aim1 None of what you described about Leibniz has anything to do with suffering, even to the extent it's correct. Truths of reasoning can have opposites that are also truths of reasoning - see Axiom of Choice or Euclid's Parallel Postulate. If you stick with pure reasoning, it can tell you anything. You have to link your axioms to the real world for your reasoning to give accurate results, and faith-based religion explicitly rejects that.
4:10
Bro's gulping.
There is no need to disprove "God" . The onus is on believers to prove there is a "God" ! Atheists do not make ridiculous claims !
They do actually that life happens as random chance (an extremely low chance that calling it a miracle -intentional work- would billions time more convincing than betting on the chance itself) or conciousness, feeling, and so on are just atoms, chemical, no meanings whatsoever behind it. You love someone is just some chemicals playing around inside your head, and you should trust those random chemical playings inside your head (your consciousness, your thoughts) seem to be ridiculous to me.
If atheists can prove that by injecting "loving" materials inside your brain, make them reacts the "exact" way so it makes them "love" someone -this is controllable- then I'll believe it. Otherwise, The onus is on the non-believers to prove the meaningless of life.
Darwin himself wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." One shuch "organ" would be cell, given that contemporary scientific discoveries, such as molecular machines in cells, suggest a more complex and purposeful organization than previously thought.
So... who made god?
wtf? he said that if a complex system cannot evolve with simple and sucessive achievement, his theory would fail. why a cell couldn't evolve?
🗣"Strange that out of all the multitudes of lifeforms that have existed, only our species can sit on man-made chairs and philosophize about the meaning of life like this. I've never seen an ape or giraffe quote Shakespeare or read philosophy, or do anything beyond their purely animal instincts. 🤔 Here's KJV Romans 1:22-23 on evolution, for the discerning."
It's almost like we are smarter
Interesting history I didn't know about
Disproves idk.
But it doesn't leave room for one.
All of science points to a deep intrinsic order which underpins all of reality. All discoveries demonstrate parts which interact with great precision. Living systems require massive amounts of both base 4 digitally encoded data, and a massively parallel operating system of logic gates with feedback loops which create flexible responses to subtle environmental cues. The DNA in your body, if uncoiled and linked together, would reach from the Earth to the Sun and back, not once, not twice, not 5 times, but 30 times.and every nanometer in every healthy cell is doing precisely what is needed for you to be free to both be a healthy atheist, and deny the evidence I have discussed for a good average of 80 years.
God does not exist as something within and bound by the Universe. "Exist" is too limiting a word to explain how a Superintelligence which creates reality ,"Is."
A hard concept, but hope you are up to it: the creator of anything it has created is outside of their creation. If you make a beautiful painting, and someone demands to be shown you, the creator of the painting somewhere within the frame and on the canvas- no. It is impossible. Monet is not within his paintings.
Alex is a thinking atheist, and I respect that. But, if he drops who he thinks he is looking for, and serves others, and looks deeply into what science has revealed, he will find what is outside his conception.
@@glenliesegang233"Complexity therefore god."
@@shassett79"complexity therefore nothing" - atheism
No, unlike theism, atheism doesn't require thought-terminating cliches because atheism has no dogma. An atheist might choose to study complexity with the goal of deepening their understanding, or they might not. It's really up to the individual.
It's soo satisfying to see a atheist who is very "astute intellectual". This is good. We don't want to be represented by guys who smokes weed, eats Cheetos and masturbates all day.
Right?!
Lmao I'm not sure what part of the atheist community is that. Haven't encountered such thing yet
@@justaway6901 Many people actually doesn't know that a atheist can also be intellectual and enjoy studying things that most people doesn't. A intellectual just has some natural curiosity and likes talking things that are not in the stream.
99% sure a few of the Great philosopher did just those thing and worse. Homeless, drunk... I can't remember names off the top of my head... sorry
Not disagreeing with you, just remembered it when reading your post.
Cheers
He only masterbates after tea
I’ve had similar feelings about the theory of evolution posing a problem for Christianity. Since death came as the result of sin, as it says in Romans, it’s questionable that God would choose evolution to bring humanity into existence. However, I disagree with the idea that the apostles believed that the second coming was going to happen at once (although they may have believed this). The Apostle Peter says that a day with with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day, so I see no reason to think that the Day of the Lord should come immediately. Nowhere in the New Testament is it explicitly stated that God would be returning immediately upon the heels of the incarnation of Christ, only that it would be future and at a fixed time.
4:52 god's a geologist confirmed
I'm so glad for these types of conversations. It has helped clarify my thoughts and position of God. For example I don't believe in God and for the longest would say Evolution disproves God... Alex improves or should I say clarifies the position of using Evolution as proof of no God 🤯🤯🤯
How did living organisms arise, Steve?
@@20july1944 let me guess...magic?
@@20july1944
I don't know the answer but my best guess would be abiogenesis.
It's an understandable mistake. Apololists themselves typically conflate refuting evolution for an argument for God. Between 20-40% of USA adults are young earth creationists.
Apparently evolution hits a sensitive nerve.
The concept of an all-loving god at least. It won't disprove for example, a god that doesn't care. Or an evil god.
For 1/2 of Americans, their God is orange.
Idiot
More like 1/3rd of potential voters.
Not half of Americans but around half of the voters.
@@willschrankthey may not actively say it but they certainly have views which make it close to that. Hitler and other tyrants didn’t portray themselves as a god but absolutely as some superior being. Just because you don’t know anyone doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. You’re not a good philosopher if you think you have availability to all the evidence in the world. Many Trumpists consider themselves superior while there’s no evidence that the commenter you responded to feels superior to Trumpists.
The other half their God is the money
I'm not an atheist but I would absolutely love to have a conversation with you, Alex. Not to prove any points on my part but simply to dwell on yours. Lol. Your insights are so thought-provoking!
But as always, it's impossible to disprove a god in general but possible to disprove a specific god. Evolution disproves christianity as it is. No creation = no original sin = no fault of humans that there is sufering and sin = no need for Jesus to forgive all sins = no christianity
It's funny how the amazing complexity of life is sometimes the proof (for some people) that the characters of old mythologys like gods or spirits are real. Like, "this is to difficult to understand, therefore god".
But is the exact same complexity of life the reason we suffer every day. We have evolved to feel pain, fear, anxiety. We have all kind of malfunction, problems, deseases. All the problems we have is because that biology.
God with all his love and all intelligence decided to create ebery single organism in this specifically way to suffer all kins of horros while we are in this "battleground" where some are trying to go to heaven.
Just think in all the avances in medicine, genetics, neuroscience.
Just think is those horrifying deases, is you think in evolution and biology like everyone, ist normal and there many explanations for those things, is wat you expect, but if you are a believer in the love of gods, how can you say that life is the proof of god?
Yep, "god" made us flawed and were urgently trying to correct that with medicine, biotechnology and so on.
We are straightening out every garbage that he placed here to make our lifes worse, but sure its all about heaven and hell 🤡🤡
As you say, the fact of universal suffering is a major problem with respect to the question of a loving God. It's my view that something set this System up so that Life might come about. The universe seems to be fine-tuned and that precludes any physical interference in the universe. The Creator cannot stop the suffering on Earth. The Physical Constants have to be what they are for a universe and Life to arise. That means the universe can't be any other way, and suffering is an unavoidable price we pay for Life. It's rough, but i don't think it can be any other way.
Much of the advancement in science from the 1500's to today was achieved by believers who wanted to know more about God's creation. Mendel, Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, Euler, etc. Even the guy who found the vaccine against smallpox was religious. But of course the politics of today don't want people to know that. They want it to be religious blue collar conservatives vs academic LBGT democrats. They don't want people to pay any attention to LBGT blue collar workers or religious academics. It doesn't fit their narrative. That's why I try my best to ignore the two-party system since I think it's really just one party pretending to be two in order to stir internal conflict.
Christians: "God is perfect. His creation is therefore perfect."
Me: "Why do we see DNA damage in humans, then?"
Christians: "Huh?"
Me: "If God’s creation is perfect, why do people get cancer, or Multiple Sclerosis, or Parkinson’s, or Alzheimer’s…? Those diseases prove that God’s creation is not perfect."
Christians: "Original Sin. We get diseases because Eve made Adam eat the forbidden fruit."
Me: "Huh? How is that related to our DNA and the mutations that cause disease?"
Christians: "We fell from grace. Therefore disease and DNA damage."
Me: "But if we were created to be ‘perfect,’ then our DNA would have been perfect, too, as in impervious to damage. Why would God create DNA that is so easily damaged by things like UV radiation from the Sun…which he also created?"
Christians: "."
Me: "Wouldn’t a ‘perfect’ creation also be impervious to dangerous viruses…which God ALSO created?"
Christians: "But -…"
Me: "How about our eyesight and hearing? Wouldn’t a perfect God have created humans with eyes that were impervious to problems or damage? With ears that would always work perfectly throughout our lives?"
Christians: "Humans can’t understand the mystery of God’s plan…"
Me: "Yeah, sure, whatever. Your ‘perfect’ God couldn’t create a human body that works perfectly, like a dude who decides to build a house without knowing anything about framing, plumbing, electrical work, drywall installation, roofing…you get the picture."
Christians: "God knows all about how humans work. God knows everything."
Me: "So he put humans together wrong on purpose? He made us susceptible to about a million diseases and ailments because he wanted to? Your God is an asshole!"
…and yet they still worship him and tell him he’s perfect.
Now replace "Christian" in that little essay with "US evangelical" and you're closer to the truth. I hate how the whole TH-cam debate between religion and atheism always revolves around these fringe evangelicals.
@@MrSeedi76 except that argument is Biblical. If there are Christians who don’t believe their god is perfect, then they’re just fools worshipping a imbecilic sky-daddy.
@@MrSeedi76I’m pet sure any Christian has to believe god is perfect.
I think your conception of God is wrong. You can’t just rationalise something that’s deeper than the material world down to these surface-level questions you’re asking.
God is perfect, humans are just made in the image of God but we are no where near perfect.
Evolution/natural selection certainly disproves the existence of a god that is both benificent and all-powerful
The argument really is that living organisms could not form from raw materials without intelligent guidance.
Are you smart enough to understand that?
But how can unproven theory be itself a proof
abiogenesis is a scientific problem. if you don't know how it is done, fine. me neither. saying it can't be solved is an odd claim. it seems your best reason for saying abiogenesis is impossible, is that you wish to introduce magic, in the form of god. just on principle, any scientist would say Id rather have the problem unsolved than admit magic;. Once your theory includes magic as a theoretical entity, you don't have science any more. If Magic is in the theory then the things we say are physically impossible suddenly are possible. We can't explain anything at all unless we can say firmly there are (an infinite number of) things that cannot happen. Science says no human walks on water. No human dies and is resurrected days later.
If you want to do science and be able to explain things, do not introduce magic. Live with unanswered questions.
If you want to answer questions with magic, then by all means do magic.
Nonsensical claim
What about the living things' own souls?
God is *an unnecessary* add on.
As redundant as the fifth fire extinguisher 🧯 in a small room.
@@20july1944
Well said, sir. I am a theist, and I agree with all of that.
the Apostle Paul also mentions those at the second coming of Christ as "we who are alive and are left until the coming of the Lord" -words which Paul, a highly trained rhetorician who clearly believed in the bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the ultimate resurrection of mankind, couldn't have chosen by accident or without forethought.
I don't see how any scientific discovery can disprove something so nebulous. I think evolution removes the need for a god to explain the existence of animal species, but with god they can make up whatever bs they want to shield him from the effect of reason and logic.
It would be reasonable and logical for me to want to be an accountant instead of an artist, but reason and logic sure can be duller than you can imagine.
@@theboombody I prefer to live in the real world instead of a fun fantasy.
Evolution explains how belief in unseen agents, like potential predators or enemies, helped our ancestors survive which eventually became belief in gods and spirits
I’m pretty sure they were seen a lot but probably people even feared them before they had seen them.
Science does not disprove religion.
Religion disproves religion.
The argument really is that living organisms could not form from raw materials without intelligent guidance.
Are you smart enough to understand that?
I think both can be true and both can not be true.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🧬 Evolution doesn't disprove God, but it does provide evidence against specific claims about certain gods, such as those in Christianity.
01:25 🌍 Evolution by natural selection raises concerns about the existence of a good God due to the suffering inherent in the process.
02:50 🐾 The common ancestry shared by humans and other animals challenges the idea of humans being uniquely special in the eyes of God.
04:26 🕰️ The ongoing process of evolution raises questions about when, if at all, humans cease to be in the image of God.
08:50 📚 Historical reactions, like Darwin's addition of "by the Creator" in later editions of his work, suggest that Evolution has posed challenges for certain religious beliefs, particularly in Christianity.
I'm an atheist and I don't think evolution disproves god.
It's simply our best idea about how living beings came to be so diverse. And it doesn't even discuss the origin of life.
Proving evolution doesn't disprove god and Disproving it doesn't prove god.
If evolution was proven then god could've used it. If evolution was disproven then saying it proves god is god of the gaps fallacy.
You can't prove god by saying i don't know how this thing came to be so it must be god.
It depends on which concept of god you are talking about. Evolution contradicts abrahamic god who created people from clay. But it doesn't contradict deistic concept of god
@@mc-x4l i mean, you can argue (and some do) that what is meant was the primordial soup in which the first cell originated from.
This is good, but i didn't watch the video
😂😂 your comment is good, but I didn't read it
You say "This" then "video". Is "This" and "video" the same thing in your sentence? If not, then what exactly is "This" as utilized in your comment?
What methodology you are using to determine "This" is "good" (what is the criteria of "good" that applies to your "This".
The content you are consuming (Alex O'Connor) correlates higher quality of logic and articulation than your response seems inflict).
I note "didn't watch" does not necessarily exclude 'listening', but that's a colloquially inconsequential distinction.
@@thequietintrovert8605 1. "This" and "Video" are the same.
2. Just because the comment was simple doesn't mean it excludes any video more complicated than that comment.
3. You didn't mention anything about the fact that saying the video was good without watching it was irrational, so I won't respond to that theoretical arguement.
@@justforfun9780
This is a fun exercise.
Just because 'X' was simple doesn't mean 'X' excludes any 'Y' more complicated than that 'X'.
2.
That's a fine concept. I don't disagree with that sentiment. In the context of this discussion, that sentiment is a red herring. I didn't mention any subject excluding another subject or 'exclusion' at all. The predicate I utilized was "correlates".
The term I utilized was "quality" (specifically; quality of "logic and articulation"), not "simple". I don't regard "simple" and "quality" to be mutually exclusive. Something can be simultaneously "simple" and of high "quality".
My comment was merely observing a disparity in the "quality of logic and articulation" between your comment and the video you are commenting on. I did not express a perceived principle of exclusion between the quality of your comment and the quality of the video. So, it's cool that you have that opinion dude, I don't disagree with that sentiment, but I also did not imply anything contradictory to that sentiment if that was the impression you got.
3.
You seem to suggest that it is a "fact" that; "saying the video was good without watching it was irrational" (your words, not mine). At first glance your 1st comment did seem to harbor a contradiction, yet under linguistic examination, I noted potential validity in your first comment as one can 'listen' to the video without 'watching' said video and still determine said video to be "good". No linguistic contradiction. The only potential contradiction is more behavioural than linguistic (linguistic behaviour is still behaviour but let's graciously ignore that minutiae) as most people would colloquially register no significant distinction between 'listen' and 'watch' within the context of your 1st comment but that is not enough information by which for me to honestly conclude your 1st comment was irrational (but you seem to) hence why I asked questions and made no arguments. I observe that you did seem to make a response that correlates to that section of my comment.
Thanks for participating. This sort of exercise/procrastination is a pleasant distraction.
@@thequietintrovert8605 I did read this comment, but I'm not going to respond to it because school exists. This was still a very productive coversation, and by productive I mean absolutely unnecessary.
Pray for Alex ❤️🙏🏽✝️
Hoping you get help, troll.
I don't think it can ever really disprove the existence of **a** god. It definitely rules out an insane amount of specific deities and myths.
some of the best arguments i've ever heard
While death and suffering is part of natural selection and I agree that this disqualifies a loving God, survival of the fittest just means that the organisms that are able to produce offspring are more "fit."
reality causes a lot of problems
for all religions
Cringe take. Thiest can easily say the same about atheism
What is reality?
man made god in his image
He didn't really though did he
If there is a God (or gods), humans did not create it (or them), but humans have created religions with anthropomorphized deities.
What created man
@michaelarojas DANGER: You're about to get into the rabbit hole. Take with you the Golden Thread. You may need it later.
@@michaelarojas It's good you're asking WHAT, instead of WHO.
Evolution doesnt disprove god. It just disproves adam and eve and creation and original sin. So it disproves almost all versions of Christianity. Just not god
Not just Christianity, but all Abrahamic religions.
Not really, because the church for most of its history didn't view the creation account as a literal story. We have learned quite a bit about the ancient world and their stories. So, at best, it would just disprove an interpretation found in Christianity that has a hyper-literal interpretation of the story.
@blusheep2 every Christian I ever met believe in a literall adam and eve and original sin. Cause without it there's no need for Jesus.
@@davidspencer343 I believe you. Most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, and even Muslims, I believe, still hold to a young 6000 year old earth. I'm talking though about the church at large and its history. But, even in this majority there is a rising crowd of Christians that are beginning to look at the Bible in its ancient context and when they do they are learning that Genesis isn't meant to be hyper-literal, modern, enlightenment story. It actually quite fascinating, in my opinion. The story becomes really incredible and fun to study.
You will find that many if not all of your youtube apologists of note aren't YECs. This is because they all have to study these things to defend them well and so they get exposed to the scholarship. Inspiring Philosophy, WLC, Cameron, Dr. Tour, Michael Meyers, etc are all theistic evolutionists, as far as I am aware.
A deep dive into the story of Genesis actually allows for evolution, the death of man before the fall, and a literal Adam and Eve. Even a literal 6 days but I'm not going to outline it, unless your truly interested in it, because it takes some time to write out.
So the point is that, though your encounters have primarily been with YEC types, there are a growing host of other Christians that don't find Genesis and evolution to be at odds and so your Critique only applies to those who believe in a literal modern interpretation of Genesis.
Posting these tidbits now as notes to myself in preparation for a later rebuttal:
"The process of evolution by natural selection is good evidence against the existence of a good [and omnipotent] God"
"Human beings are supposed to be special"..."to be a Christian you have to think that THIS creature is subject to an eternal law... God draws a line somewhere [between the mother and its offspring]".
"Also evolution is still occurring... If we're made in the image of God, is there a point where we stop being in the image of God?"
"God told people in the gospels that the [kingdom] was arriving soon, sure what is soon to God, but it seems a bit unfair to to tell people it's going to happen soon when he means now in a couple thousand years"
"Many Christian organisations... seem to find evolution by natural selection to be a huge problem for Christianity"
"These things wouldn't disprove God but they might disprove Christianity" [in which case the title of the video is a bit on the clickbaity side, eh 😉]
-Everything that has a beginning has a cause. The universe had a beginning, therefore the universe has a cause. Whatever caused it has to be outside time, matter and space. It would need to be personal, powerful and intelligent. 😇
Evolution is amazing and it proves and disproves a lot of things, but it doesn’t prove or disprove God. If you want to disprove the Christian God then use the Bible. The Bible does a fine job of disproving the Christian God. If you want to disprove the Islamic God then read the Quran. The Quran does a fine job of that.
Probably the most moronic line of reasoning I have heard in the last ten days. Ignorance at its finest.
You can actually make a solid case when it comes to the all-loving Abrahamic God. Since evolution favors certain individuals (the well adapted one). The rest are basically made to suffer
It disproves the events of Genesis which claim Adam and Eve were the first humans. That creates a problem when it comes to original sin.
The Christian god, is the Jewish god is the Muslim god, Gods of the Levant? I dunno but peoples should have a better way to account or describe the mythical beings that may have different proper names and yet all be foundational of the same mythos.
@@jonc4719 They are based on the same story but they’re distinct differences. Judaism and Islam don’t believe Jesus is one head of the three headed God. Islam callas God Allah and in Judaism God is Yahweh. Islam says Allah is a forgiving God and that is illustrated in Adam and Hawwa in the garden after taking a bite of the fruit. Allah isn’t vengeful while Yahweh punishes Eve. There is no concept of original sin in Islam but in Judaism God punishes Eve with a painful Pregnancy and they must leave Eden because they are sinners.
You might say all three Abrahamic religions have the same God, but they describe this being in very different ways.
Christianity provides a 1st century view of life;
Evolution provides a 21st century understanding of life.
The argument really is that living organisms could not form from raw materials without intelligent guidance.
Are you smart enough to understand that?
@@20july1944 I said an understanding of life, not the origin of life. Anything outside of that is an appeal to a god of the gaps
Christianity provides a way to live life, evolution provides a way to justify enslaving your neighbor bc his cranial structure is different
@@adsffdaaf4170 false. god in the bible is pro-slavery and people used the bible to justify slavery
@@20july1944
Quick IQ test...
Solve: 4, 5, 14, 185, ...
you don’t need the “theory” of evolution to disprove christianity, all you need is the bible.
The fact Christians don't even follow what their own book goes without saying. But it doesn't disprove God.
When was Mecca founded, murder monkey?
Lol the classic midwit atheist burn. Y’all truly suffer from the Dunning-Krueger effect
Whether it's historical, scientific or moral, the Bible seems to be unreliable.
Are you a Muslim or a Jew?
Darwin sat on his research for years before he released it. He had a pretty good idea of the kind of backlash it would receive.
For all of its history, whether polytheist or monotheist, with the exception of a few lonely philosophers, humanity assumed its origins in creative intelligence.
The reason was simple, it was at that time the only known mechanism that could produce complexity.
It was the best and only rational explanation at that time.
Now we have discovered that our creator is a blind algorithmic process.
The discovery of this, changes our judgment about our origins and place in the universe, this is of great consequence, but it still has to unfold itself. And once it does, our evaluation-schemes might be completely different from what we see today.
This is just totally untrue though. In most of the east and even much of the west, the pagan conception of the world viewed it as impersonal and unified, operating on fixed eternal principles deriving from the infinite one. Monotheism specifically identifies God as a creative intelligence who makes particular choices, and was extremely controversial, confusing even pagans of the modern day.
@@lisleigfried4660
Do you mean there where pagans who thought that biological complexity originated from a eternal principle rather then a deity?
Or do you mean that the deities and the world itself originated from a eternal principle?
The existence of suffering or evil isn't a issue for Christianity, or any of the Abrahamic religions, because Yahweh is pretty consistently portrayed as a narcissistic and sadistic psychopath with limited capabilities who only asserts that he's good or omni-anything despite not having any on screen feats to that extent.
Meanwhile, if evolution is true (or more importantly, if The Garden of Eden story is falsified), then Christianity is arguably falsified as there would them be no original sin for Jesus to sacrifice himself to himself for.
Of course it’s a problem for an all-powerful all-good God. Why can’t he just get rid of this Yahweh?
The denial of evolution by some religious adherents is a bewildering stance, especially given our triumphs in artificial intelligence and machine learning. In the world of computer science, we proudly wield the tools of evolution itself to train and refine our algorithms. Genetic algorithms, neural networks, and deep learning are rooted in the principles of natural selection, mutation, and adaptation. If evolution is merely a fantasy, then how do we explain the success of these methodologies that mimic nature's own processes? Are we programmers truly wizards? Or are we harnessing the very mechanisms that have shaped life itself?
The acceptance of evolution isn't just a matter of scientific consensus; it's a seismic shift that shakes the very foundation of Christian theology. By acknowledging the evolutionary processes that shape life on our planet, we are forced to confront the unravelling of the story of Adam and Eve. No Adam and Eve, no original sin. No original sin, no need for redemption, no crucifixion, and no resurrection. The entire theological structure begins to collapse like a house of cards.
We can't simultaneously embrace the tools of evolution in one breath and deny its existence in the next. The connection between biology and technology makes this cognitive dissonance all the more stark and indefensible. To deny evolution is to cling to a belief system that is rendered logically incoherent in the face of modern understanding. It's a refusal to see the world as it truly is, and an insistence on holding onto a myth that has been laid bare by science. Recognizing evolution doesn't merely challenge faith; it obliterates the very heart of Christian doctrine.
Brilliant!
Scientific consensus has been wrong many times in the past.
Science is actually moving closer to the Adam and Eve story all the time.
It used to be thought a group of 10000 slowly evolved into humans.
Then science advancements showed that there was almost certainly a single first woman and single first man that we are all decended from.
One prominent genetisist admits that the dating of genetic history is woefully inadequate so further advancements in the future could well bring the first man and first woman to within the same timeframe as each other.
How does evolution shake the very foundation of Christian theology?
In science, we have high confidence science and low confidence science.
High confidence science is like what we see in micro evolution.
High confidence science is observable, testable and repeatable.
Low confidence science is like we see in macro evolution.
Low confidence science is not observable, testable or repeatable.
Macro evolution is basically an extrapolation of micro evolution.
Nope, big assumption and a whole lotta pontificating.
Evolution is proven, and accepted by Christians, but what's better known as Macro Evolution is NOT. There is 0 good evidence for any species ever becoming another species. You're talking about Macro as if it's been proven like Micro. That's not the case and Macro Evolution remains a weak theory.
You're right about how it would disrupt the Gospel. You seem to understand the basics of the gospel. Some "Christians" couldn't tell you what the Gospel is.
If the process of genetic algorithms, neural networks, and deep learning defacto prove evolution, in a kind of immanent, tautological sense, shouldnt they also prove the existence of a creator?
All three of those processes required an intelligent design. You wouldnt say the existence of, say, ford trucks “proves” a grand creator.
This is a faulty argument. I’ve actually heard many religious apologists use that argument for the existence of God, saying that God is directly analogous to a computer programmer and a simulation.
Does the english language and it’s reliance upon the king james Bible prove that the King James Bible is the word of God?
Without the king james Bible you dont have english as we currently understand it, and without english as we currently understand it we dont even have the widespread concept of computer engineering.
To say nothing of the discovery of arithmetic and it’s association with belief in a deity, the study of the natural sciences etc.
the origin of all these advances in human understanding are contingent on belief in God, many are specifically contingent on belief in the Christian God.
Therefore, belief in God is a fundamental necessity in human development, which, of course, is a fundamental rule we would expect if all natural processes were developed by a God who desired human belief in Himself.
These are the natural implications of your logic.
I'm a CHRISTIAN and a CREATIONIST, and I'm not threatened at all by another FALSE RELIGION like this:
th-cam.com/video/ZX6J62QSI4Q/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Which happens to be also a big lie:
th-cam.com/video/sWecPwrQv2c/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
In fairness, MICROEVOLUTION or ADAPTATION is OBSERVABLE and scientifically proven, but MACROEVOLUTION or NEO-DARWINISM IS JUST A THEORY DEVOID OF ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
NEO-DARWINISM or MOLECULES-TO-MAN EVOLUTION represented by Darwin's Evolutionary Tree is the one that is NOT true.
Spoiler: *It can't*
Alex is working logically, and he is looking inside "Evolution disproves God" to build arguments for God non existence. However I think that most people saying that are actually being even more conversational in their use of "disprove", and when they say "Evolution disproves God" they actually mean "Evolution by Natural Selection avoids the Watchmaker argument", that was always the main argument _for_ God. Debates before Origin of Species were meaningless because the Watchmaker argument is intuitively very appealing, but the Origin of Species really eliminated the _key_ evidence for the existence of a Creator: the existence of such an organized and complex Creation, something that - apparently - could not happen at random.
Yes indeed. Evolution is so powerful as evidence against the beliefs of so many people. That there are multiple conspiracy theories about how is all an invention just to discredit christianity. That is how much they are afraid of evolution
Evolution pretty much dismantles the basis of abramitic religion thou
The God that's not disproven needs to be something else entirely
@@randomusername3873I'm still waiting for any scientific evidence based on natural selection to prove that species gain genetic data and become more complex. So far all of the data I have seen shows the complete opposite and disproves any theory that humans could have evolved from monkeys or fish.
If you look at artificial selection in dogs which is micro evolution where dogs are selected based on their size, colour behaviour etc, characteristics are bred out of each generation. For example miniature show poodles will not be producing anything remotely similar to a wolf no matter how many generations of poodles are used to bred them.
Evolution is a philosophy and thus can be rejected on philosophical grounds. It doesn't "disprove" God. It conceptually cannot.
While it is true that evolution doesn't disprove the notion of a god as the Aristotelian prime mover, it does undermine the fundamentalist Christian notion that humans are made in god's image. How, exactly, did god evolve?
You're making quite a few presumptions, which, is part of my point. It doesn't at all. It assumes so.
@@egonomics352 I see like all apologists, reality and the facts fly right over your head. Evolution disproves the book of Genesis as a literal account. All that's left is an allegory and a piss-poor one at that. Period.
He posts at 1am. 😂
That would be 7 PM in England.
As long as Earth exists it will likely always be 1am somewhere on Earth by that standard metric of time.
Your comment seems to convey an egocentric arrogance, as if the time zone that you are referencing is the only time zone of relevance. Time is relative.
@@vladtheemailer3223nope, one hour ago was one on the morning
The brain damage it takes to not understand time zones
@@vladtheemailer3223 no it would not. I live in the Uk. It posted at 1am
Sanity disproves God
The argument really is that living organisms could not form from raw materials without intelligent guidance.
Are you smart enough to understand that?
Insanity proves atheism
Great ad hominem
That is a completely fallacious statement. I don't see any evidence for a god or even a creator, but making ridiculous statements like that is not helping the situation. Many people believe in god because given the fallacies and poor thinking skills they've been indoctrinated with, their theistic worldview is the rational conclusion. Using decent critical thinking skills, along with the evidence behind the science disproves the naive forms of religious belief, but not all forms. Intellectual honesty is extremely important here.
@@tschorsch “…given the fallacies and poor thinking skills they’ve been indoctrinated with…” huh it’s almost like you committed an ad hominem fallacy. And to think you were an anti-sophist😂
You could argue that Evolution is a tool that God used to create everything. Alteast, that's the line I argue with Christians who don't believe in Evolution. As for struggle and suffering, of course, God wants to test you. He's not a good being. He just wants to test your faith regardless of how difficult it is.
Yeah you really want the most helpful thing you can work with. What you're talking about is good for young earth creationists. The arguments in this video wouldn't make much sense to them. But they are great for less literal creationists.
God is the only truly good being
@@jessestone117lol no
That's not a good answer because the dinosours aren't going to heaven
@@jessestone117 Of course - only a truly good entity would create the eternal conscious torment of hell. 🤔 😂
Everything prove that god exists because of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Everything is decaying, not the opposite.
What, exactly, is the second law of thermodynamics?
“Look how beautiful the world is” is a classic line I hear.
Yeh you wouldnt be saying that if you were stood under mt Vesuvius just before it exploded
Evolution disproves the Bible.
God disproves atheism
Imagine to be a godless alone idiot (without God) with No God and no dignity, into an empty worthelss cult called atheism that does not lead anywhere but your own lonlyness run any time you see godless ass to kiss it, because you do not have God in your miserable alone godless life.
what? Are you the godless alone idiot, you be f those instead him something done does when he stopped to believe in God? And that you removed God from your heart to put lies and shit from for this empty cult that both JG gives you, but BS and lonlyness... Let's hope this godless worthless generation will he over soon just as their stupid atheism. You are worthless to anyone, and also to you, godless alone (or Godless ass kisser without any dignity) LET'S BE CLEAR TO THOSE GODLESS PEOPLE... WE ARE JUST TIRED OF YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT YOU DO NOT EVEN BELIEVE;as obsessed idiots.
That why they always come here "saying they were Christian", or "Saying personal stuff about themselves" or "Saying something superficial" or "Makes stupid jokes" or "Laugh as stupids" (They do that because they have less secret things in their miserable life)... As be a Christian or a believer makes you have more to have more precious things in your live, and much worst to be a godless and soulless desperate (alone) idiot.
But any way... LET'S START AND SHOW HOW MUCH NONE WILL MISS THOSE PEOPLE AN THEIR EMPTY CULT WHEN IT WILL GO BACK FROM THE NOTHING IT COMES FROM... ALSO BECAUSE IT IS WORTHLESS... (And without God you are more worthless then the believers... that is simple the true).
Why godless alone people are obsessed with God?? and talk about him more then a believer? Well for many reason.... 1) About that BS called atheism there is not much things to say, no value, no sacred things and and it leads to nothing. 2 And then because they know they are so many godless alone people that will run to kiss their ass... 3 they do that so this cult can be alive, otherwise is destined to vanish, exactly from the nothing it comes... because is nothing but a cult that has nothing to offer to us and neither to the godless alone people who belonged to 4 And finally this cult will be vanished without those videos and those godless alone people will be just alone.
And who said the opposite is a godless alone hypocrite.
This cult called atheism is so empty... And those godless alone people really have nothing to offer to themselves.
They have less sacred things then us... what an idiots they are for that too.
Let's hope in a better generation because this is so lost.
You are into an empty cult that leads you nowhere... No respect for you, godless ass kisser.... You really left God to put BS and emptiness in your miserable Life. No Pity for you. (God is always you do not know)..... We need to move to a better generation, and Hope godless alone people like you will not exist anymore in the future (you are worthless your cult called atheism).
What you realised that Atheism is just an empty cult?
That Have nothing to offer to you, or to the humanity?
It leads to nowhere?
To the Obsession for God?
For Christianity?
That there is not comfort on it???
And that live and die as an alone godless person is not the best you can have?
Just as have the idea that once you die you will be Nothing (and Nothing you are now, as you become what you think you will be once death) is not the best for your mental and psychological stability?
Or have sacred things (as other people have) and you do not (such God) is so idiot that you are rething about everything and start to believe that Atheism is not but a BS, and a trap you are in???? They are patethic and worthless as their empty cult called atheims, which will not lead them anywhere, but a alone godless desperate life that they will never admit it. No respect for them. THAT IS JUST AN EMPTY CULT, AND WHEN IT AND THOSE GOLDESS WORTHELSS SOULESS PEOPLE WILL BE BACK TO THE NOTHING THEY COME FROM, NONE WILL COMPLAIN ABOUT THAT. NO RESPECT FOR THEM AND THEIR NO SENSE CULT (godless ass kisser, with no dignity)... THEY BRING EMTPTYNESS as their cult called atheism... Shame on them and their desperation....
Anyway only a pathetic person can learn something from someone who explain you a thing obsessively that does not even believe... (with videos that are not helpful for their life...) WHAT AN EMPTY NONSENSE MODERN CULT YOU ARE TRAPPED IN, AND YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF........ Atheism is just empty BS, but those godless alone people are so sad to do not get... Let's hope in the new generation, this one is so lost, and none will cry when their worthelss atheism will be over.
Your wortheless empty Atheism is dragging you to the nothing it give to you (and to us) but you are too pathetic (as atheism) to get it. No repesct for you godless ass kisser. No respect for you Godenier...
You just worth as your atheims: 0.
For real what an empty cult... when this worthelss cult will be over none will complain... Our faith is much stronger then your empty BS. Deal with it. (it is far better to be a God believer, then a godless alone person as you in an empty cult that does not give us and even to you anything)...
I'm a CHRISTIAN and a CREATIONIST, and I'm not threatened at all by another FALSE RELIGION like this:
th-cam.com/video/ZX6J62QSI4Q/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
Which happens to be also a big lie:
th-cam.com/video/sWecPwrQv2c/w-d-xo.htmlfeature=shared
In fairness, MICROEVOLUTION or ADAPTATION is OBSERVABLE and scientifically proven, but MACROEVOLUTION or NEO-DARWINISM IS JUST A THEORY DEVOID OF ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
NEO-DARWINISM or MOLECULES-TO-MAN EVOLUTION represented by Darwin's Evolutionary Tree is the one that is NOT true.
Christianity is the reason why people think religion is completely irrational
People find to God through common sense and logic but the Christian claim is to throw both over board in order to understand and accept God
This is just terrible untrue. To think that atheistic or non religious worldviews make you inherently more logical than one of a theistic worldview is just egotistical. Both theists and atheists alike have their far share of sophistry. That’s why I enjoy listening to atheists and theists who speaks rationally. But to throw out an entire worldview because you don’t think it practices logic is just ignorant.
@@wmh6958 let a Christian explain to you why Jesus died for your sins, how Jesus can be God and man at the same time, what the trinity is, contradictions in the Bible they won’t use logic to explain the issues
"Faith" is the reason why people think religion is completely irrational. Because faith is by definition irrational. That's not to say it's necessarily bad, but it's exactly the opposite of rational, in the same way that fictional is the opposite of factual.
@@darrennew8211 Not believing in God is completely irrational without involving any religion
@@acecream1411 Which god should I believe in? And why that one?
Well if evolution is true, Adam & Eve story is definitely not true. Which means there’s no original sin, which means nobody needs a “savior” because we don’t need to be saved from anything.
Unless that story describes Alex’s first point, that god eventually just chose humans to be special and those were his first two special humans.
St. Luke
Saint of the Day
St. Luke the Evangelist (1st c.) was a well-educated Greek physician and a native of Antioch in Syria. He was a follower of St. Paul the Apostle and spent most of his life evangelizing with him in Asia Minor up until the time of Paul’s martyrdom in Rome. Luke wrote a canonical account of his apostolic journeys with Paul (the Book of Acts) as well as a biography on the life of Christ (the Gospel of Luke). The two books of Luke’s Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles were originally a single work. The intimate accounts contained in Luke’s gospel of the early years of Christ’s life (the Visitation, the Nativity, the Presentation, etc.) lead many scholars to believe that one of the eyewitnesses he interviewed was the Blessed Virgin Mary herself. According to tradition he was also a skilled artist and painted the first icons of Our Lady with the Child Jesus. Several of these icons are still venerated today, the most famous of which hangs in the Church of St. Mary Major in Rome. St. Luke is the patron saint of many trades including artists, painters, doctors, surgeons, and bachelors. His feast day is October 18th.
I think evolution absolutely disproves the christian god. If all life originated from a single cell organism, then there wouldn’t be two original humans like it states in the bible. Thus eliminating original sin and the need for jesus’ safrifice
The argument really is that living organisms could not form from raw materials without intelligent guidance.
Are you smart enough to understand that?
It absolutely disproves a literal reading of the old testament. If a Christian then wants to argue that the creation myths were a metaphor for something, then it's on them to explain exactly what the Adam and Eve story are actually describing. I've yet to come across any apologist even attempt to do that. Then, as you say, it's like pulling a loose thread on a tapestry and the whole thing unravels.
@@JEQvideos I don't care how you interpret Genesis, I want to talk science about God, and then if you want, history about Jesus.
@@20july1944 Scientific observations disprove every religious text that I'm aware of. While science doesn't preclude some concept of a "god(s)," it at a minimum helps of us define what that "god(s)" isn't.
abiogenesis is a scientific problem. if you don't know how it is done, fine. me neither. saying it can't be solved is an odd claim. it seems your best reason for saying abiogenesis is impossible, is that you wish to introduce magic, in the form of god. just on principle, any scientist would say Id rather have the problem unsolved than admit magic;. Once your theory includes magic as a theoretical entity, you don't have science any more. If Magic is in the theory then the things we say are physically impossible suddenly are possible. We can't explain anything at all unless we can say firmly there are (an infinite number of) things that cannot happen. Science says no human walks on water. No human dies and is resurrected days later.
If you want to do science and be able to explain things, do not introduce magic. Live with unanswered questions.
If you want to answer questions with magic, then by all means do magic.
Your presuppositions of evolution disproving God doesn't explain how evolution came into being out of nothing. Yet another nonsensical argument for atheists.
instead magic makes much more sense right?
@@kalma8216Define magic do you really believe we came into being out of nothing? How does that make sense.
@@michaelarojasno, thats what theists believe actually
@@michaelarojas who ever said out of nothing?
Alex literally says that he doesn't think evolution disproves god around 6:20 in the video. What are you on about?
if only you could actually prove the “theory” of evolution but you cannot!
Nothing is "proven" in science. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a well-supported scientific theory. You don't seem to have any objections to the theory of electromagnetism or cell theory, or germ theory of disease or atomic theory.
The best evidence for evolution is chromosome number 2 in humans. When compared to the DNA of chimpanzees and bonobos, you can see that chromosome number 2 points to a fusion event. This evidence is so strong they've renamed chromosomes number 2 and 3 in chimps and bonobos to 2a and 2b. This shows we share a common ancestor with chimps and bonobos. They are our closest living ancestor. Through the use of genetics we are also more closely related to the other great apes (gorillas and orangutans) than lions are related to tigers.
Evolution is fact and it has been proven, cope
@@Druid75when was it proven? I didn’t get the memo! lol
@@muslimresponse103 In science, a theory is an explanation for something that is a fact. Scientists do not need you approval.
@@muslimresponse103 it was proven generations ago, long before you decided to be a useless bible thumper instead of paying attention in science class
Well played, sir.
Thank you
"During the whole of his life, Christ was unceasingly in possession of the Beatific Vision, up to the time of his agony in the Garden of Olives. Then, by an act of his free will, this delight was withdrawn from him. What human suffering, even if provoked by the most burning desire, could be compared with the torment that the Man-God must have experienced?"
-St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein)
quoted in the book, Women Mystics