A correction: In an attempt to make this laid back tongue-in-cheek approach a little easier to digest, I simplified some of the arguments, but on the cosmological argument I wen't a step too far. The first premise is not "Everything that exists has a cause" but rather that everything with a certain attribute (motion / contingency, e.g.) has a cause (or was put in motion, e.g.). Aquinas’ first way, for instance, argues that everything in motion is put in motion by another, and that since God is not in motion, we have an unmoved mover. Informally this translates to "Everything that exists has a cause except for God" since everything other than God has a mover, but the argument should not be presented as such. To give a few more examples, Aquinas’ second way puts the emphasis on “having a cause”, and his third way puts the emphasis on “being contingent”. These too can be translated as “Everything that exists has a cause / is contingent except for God", but shouldn't be when represented as a syllogism. Consequently, these arguments do not special plead. They don't issue a special exception to God, but rather assert that God lacks an attribute / status that everything other than God possesses, such as being in motion, having a cause, being contingent, etc. Sorry for the oversimplification. In hindsight I'd have approached this segment differently.
Thanks for admitting this, I know many atheists who always die on a hill for the sake of concretely asserting they are right about everything - specifically on this issue.
Simply if we said that God was in motion, that means he has a cause and was put in motion by another being (following the arguement), just by imposing the same process on every being who comes just after the previous being and since i would argue that the infinity sequence of causes is logically impossible i can conclude that this series of causes has a beginning, which implies the existence of an unmoved mover. We define God as an unmoved mover (along with some traits i can prove like being omniscient, omnipotent and conscious) I hope i can get your reply.
@@HoneybunMegapack Actually no, the "universe" as a thing doesn't exist outside, there is no such thing as "universe" itself, its a word we use on everything visible that exists, in case you meant the big bang thats also a no since the Big bang was in motion.
@@HoneybunMegapack oh the "motion" thing has a wider concept, since it was changing from status to status (getting bigger for example) that means its in motion, also i wonder what do you mean by " a valid object"
@@HoneybunMegapack Does the universe (as a thing) exists independently just like the big bang? And no its external status doesn't change, just think about it The big bang changed in its essence by getting bigger, what would change IN god as himself if he created anything?
As a software developer, I second this. The complexity of our role is in how simply we can write a piece of high functioning and robust code that maintains testability.
My personal response to the Kalaam is simply that we have never, ever seen anything begin to exist. We only have seen things change into different states of existence, because matter cannot be created or destroyed. There is no point when a chair "starts to exist," just a point where we call a particular arrangement of wood a chair.
That's not an argument, it's semantic wankery. When the wood reaches the particular arrangement we call a chair, that is when the chair "starts to exist". So if you've made a chair or been to a chair factory, then you've seen a chair begin to exist.
@@jayjeckel The point is "a chair" is just a concept in our minds. In reality it is just a certain arrangement of matter. And the arrangement of matter changes all the time. A chair starts existing only in our mind, because the notion is only in our minds. That's the whole point of this argument.
[02:09] 1. Imagination Game (Ontological Argument) [04:26] 2. Watchmaker [07:47] • Argument from DNA [08:44] 3. Cosmological Argument [11:20] • Kalam Cosmological Argument [13:34] 4. Moral Argument [14:51] 6235 Slides Missing 10:00 “Everything that exists has an _explanation,_ but not necessarily a cause. A cause is a very specific _type_ of explanation.”
@@TheDizzleHawke, I'm not a saint. I wouldn't touch God with a barge-pole. We're not speaking. And I boycott both Heaven and Hell. “The only explanation for the creation of the world is God's fear of solitude. In other words, our role is to _amuse_ Our Maker. Poor clowns of the absolute, we forget that we act out a tragedy to enliven the boredom of one spectator whose applause has never reached a mortal ear. Solitude weighs on God so much that he invented the saints as partners in dialogue. ¶ I can stand up to God only by confronting him with another solitude. Without my solitude I would be nothing more than another clown.” - Cioran
@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy I’m using the term ironically. I always appreciate people who take the time to timestamp videos in the comments. I call them TH-cam angels.
@@TheDizzleHawke, I know you didn't mean this literally. But it carries that bad taste. May you be well. You might like my playlist on the best of atheism:
I actually counter the ontological argument by using their argument against their God's existence. The greatest possible being must also be the most impressive being. It is more impressive to complete a task when one is handicapped; and the more handicapped one is, the more impressed. So, the most impressive being must also have the greatest handicap. The greatest handicap is non-existence. So, the greatest possible being (aka god) must be non-existent.
"But how could something as beautiful as Stephen Woodford come about through purely natural processes? " Beauty does not exist in the object; it is a judgment that relates to how it might enhance your survival and reproductive opportunities.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Are we supposed to believe that without any back up? 😆 No, beauty is imprinted, casted in Steph's.. see how easy to assert the opposite? 😆✨
@@nagranoth_ 1°- Make an argument 2°- See that argument get debunked 3°- Ignore that debunking because you are obviously right, or because only a fool says in his heart that you are wrong, or something, don't know...
@@tsinquisition3455 slight change to the order of things 1 -decide what you believe 2 -make an argument leading to your beliefs 3 -ignore any criticism because you of course were right in the first place 4 -profit!
@@nagranoth_ 2000 years? Not exactly. In fact that's actually one of few arguments they've made many of us still believe. The Bible in its current form is most certainly *NOT* 2000 years old. I think it's closer to 700 years old actually if your counting when it was put in one collection.
You did not defeat Christianity's best and unbeatable argument! Ray Comfort's argument "You just say you are an Atheist because you want to watch (Shrek) porn!"
What I most dislike about the DNA is language argument is the "we intuitively know it's a meaningful pattern" part. Our brains detect faces in rock formations and toast, we eat a room temperature pepper and our brain screams "Hot!" due to chemical signalling, our brains are so easily fooled and seeking patterns where there aren't necessarily any
It isn't DNA. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system. There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. There isn't even a way to test the claim that nature can. There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition.
@@sombodysdad idk what your last sentence is a definition for, but in a materialist (naturalist) perspective isn’t all systems we do have, that fall under the coded info systems, natural?
The problem us that their idea of 'codes is a misrepresentation of DNA. Biologists appropriated a linguistic term to describe a process that more closely resembles using a template. Code is more precisely used in terms of linguistics.
The whole pizza examples has been debunked. It's intellectually dishonest and doesn't even make sense within the ontological argument. It's impossible for the greatest pizza to exist because there is no objective definition of what the greatest pizza would be. It's incoherent. So it doesn't follow the first premise which is "is it possible?" because no it's not.
@@VileVendetta The same accusation van be levelled at any "greatest possible anything", up to and including god. Doubly so, because not only is there no coherent definition of greatest "X", I've yet to see a coherent definition of god.
The first premise of the moral argument can easily be rejected. No need to go on to the 2nd. “If god does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist”. I reject that premise. That premise cannot be shown to be true, therefore it can be rejected. Done.
Theists love to claim that atheists can't justify their morality, claiming that it must be subjective without God. My favorite response to this fallacious reasoning is to point out that morality is based on the fact of nature that suffering is undesirable. This is not a subjective opinion, every living creature in existence follows this pattern. Thus, objective morality without God.
@@loveableheathen7441 suffering is a subjective state experienced by living creatures to indicate to that damage is being done or some need is not being met. This is a description of a biological system, it is not a moral claim. Living things do not like being harmed is just an observation. Pain experienced is just a series of electro-chemical reactions in the nervous system. How is this fundamentally any different from any other chemical reaction. How is this any different from a computer throwing up an error message, or slowing down because it has malware? Just because creatures do not like pain is not grounds saying it’s wrong to inflict pain on others.
@@swihun8930 "This is a description of a biological system, not a moral claim" Suffering itself is not moral or immoral, but the concept of suffering is the basis of morality.
"look at these atheists repeating their daily prayers" or just commenting on TH-cam videos. (1) Find a youtube video about religion. (2) post the same comment you have posted on all previous youtube videos on religion. (3) Go To 1.
None that I know of would, because it doesn’t acknowledge the argument at all , and most would recognize your ad-hom ATTEMPT . Because atheists TH-camrs argue from emotion over any “ seeking truth claims”
PLEEEEEEASE make this into a full video! I dont care how long it has to be I will literally watch ALL of it! Many times ive needed to use these logical statements but didn't know enough to completely explain them to the theistic people I know. Your channel in an extremely valuable source of information for me and other atheists who need these brilliant counter arguments and you teach them in very digestible ways. Thank you for your good work, i can personally say that it was your debunking videos that helped me get out of christianity without a complete mental breakdown (though it still was very traumatic especially since it caused a lot of problems with my family) thank you so much!
The probability of life occurring on its' own is not statistically improbable, but statistically impossible. Cells have a 30% replication rate if there was to be a "primordial slime". Many scientists believe in God, and can't find a way science disproves God. Instead, how God is proved.
It's a miracle that you were born. Women are born with a few million ova and cannot make more. Men produce several million sperm each day. That one particular egg chanced to be fertilized by one particular sperm to result in you is miraculous. But wait... Since only 30% of fertilized ova make it all the way to baby-most of the rest failing to implant or being miscarried-your existence is even more miraculous. That you failed to be stillborn, suffer SIDS, die from a childhood disease or accident, and so on, and lived all the way to the point when you made this comment is a miracle of staggering proportions. However, your existence does not prove the existence of any god. You were not "chosen" to exist. Your existence is the chance result of an infinite craps game in which you managed to repeatedly avoid throwing a seven, at least up until your comment. Remember that "miracle" doesn't solely mean "the work of divine intervention," but also "a highly improbable event." Your existence is a miracle, a highly improbably event, but it does not prove that any god exists.
I am a complete village idiot when it comes to philosophy at this level, it makes me wish I had come across this kind of thing when I was a kid and having "deep" discussions with friends without knowing about all the knowledge that came before me. Thanks for exercising this old mans brain!
@@PGP2 We don't have to pay anything. I'm a protestant church attendee btw. I tithe but that's giving through a church not to a church. As in, our resources to the poor through a true church goes further than by myself. There's no requirement for any tithing or how to. I get the suspicion of all things through money, or all things through the lens of power, but let's remember martyrs during times of our cynicism. They're the seeds of the church.
@@PGP2 The "contradiction" as you call it, I would say "distinction" is that it comes from voluntary giving. Out of an over flowing love of Christ that flows out to the rest of creation. So your local homeless are being served by christians out of a love of Christ.
@@PGP2 Ha yes but it's not a subsription fee. It's like me saying whatever charity you're into is a scam, like BLM. And you say no, I voluntarily donated to it. And I say ah ha! You did give it money! See they're a scam! But its even more reductionist because the church is not merely a charitable organization. It's just one of 3 main things the church does- worships God, evangelizes, and serves the poor.
The probability of life occurring on its' own is not statistically improbable, but statistically impossible. Cells have a 30% replication rate if there was to be a "primordial slime". Many scientists believe in God, and can't find a way science disproves God. Instead, how God is proved.
@@braamhechter5053 It was tongue in cheek. But while the universe as we know it appears to have begun to exist, how does that equal a deity? And even if we could prove that nothing can begin to exist without a cause, can you demonstrate that timeless energy ever began to exist? Can you prove Tinkerbell did not kiss the void and make the universe spring forth? The best position to take when insufficient evidence is available is "I don't know." That's not a failure, it's a position of power, because you are then able to pursue a real answer that is backed up by all the evidence and contradicted by none.
If everything has a cause, so does God. It's just that His cause is metaphysical, and not physical. Namely, it is "Nothing Is Not". God is the source of Life. Nothing has no life, so God is free to create anything that can exist.
The Argument from contingency Fact 1: The universe is contingent Fact 2: Everything contingent needs a 'necessary being' (non contingent) to make it exist Conclusion: The universe needs a necessary being to make it exist Necessary being is God
"Everything that exists has a cause" is not a premise that I have heard theistic philosophers down the centuries defend, especially none of the scholastics like Aquinas. "no-one has defended a cosmological argument of precisely this form" (Arguing for Atheism, p.4).
@@Eng_Simoes existence must be proved, there is no point in proving non-existence, otherwise you also have to prove non-existence of ghosts, dragons, etc
Regarding the cosmological argument, "cause" assumes "time", and if spacetime "began" with the big bang, then the causal paradigm (dependent on the chronological sequences we are familiar with) doesn't apply to the universe itself.
Aquinas argument isn't looking for the "first cause" because he is not using a modern interpretation of "cause". As pointed out in the video a "cause" is only a certain type of explanation, Aquinas is actually using a different one. The cosmological argument in Summa Theologica is made based on Aristotle's causality. To compare the two: The modern version of cause and effect as developed in famous philosophical work "The Matrix Reloaded" can be described as the necessary connection between an action and reaction. You eat the sex cake and you have an orgasm. Aristotle's causation differs in that it has to do with the logical priority of efficient causal relations. It my vulgar terms, it is looking at a cause and effect hierarchy not a cosmological causational chain. For example, in Aristotelian causation, gravity is the cause of plant life, because gravity is necessary to form the planet in the first place for the plants to grow in. For black swans to exist, there would need to be the "form" of a swan first. If "nothing" is a human abstract concept, then what made possible abstract thinking? This is also why potentiality and actuality are key concepts, it is ordering things in terms of what makes things possible, he is not actually considering the timing of the cause. If a cause is a certain type of explanation, you could say that Aquinus is looking for what's the "top" explanation of the pyramid of explanations, not the first cause in a causation chain. This means Aquinas is NOT presupposing that everything must have an a cause that came first, its not necessary in this version of causation. In fact, the only thing he presuppose is that nothing (except for God) can cause themselves. Aquinas would probably actually would agree that you don't need a "first cause." but you do need the top one.
No all it means is that the cause which brought the universe and time or spacetime into existence, must necessarily exist outside of time. Because the cause that created time cannot exist within time. So time which, ""began" with the big bang" and by implication the causal paradigm does not apply to the cause, not the effect.
@@SunlightSentinel I’m not gonna listen to the fact all of my arguments have BEEN debunked because I’m right! In my own mind! Also why?why does it need an “intelligent creator,”?
@@accountlol7409 nobody has "debunked" my arguments. Atheists mostly become epistemic nihilists when they see the arguments are sound and thereby concede to the debate. If I continue I guarantee you'll do the same. My favourite atheist line- "But we can't know" or "Arguments aren't evidence" lmao
@@spongbobsquarepants3922 To answer your question it's something that could have failed to exist. Like you or me. Something necessary can not fail to exist it's necessary. It exists in all possible worlds.
Snowflakes are incredibly complex; they must therefore be the result of design. They are also unique, nor do they breed. It follows, therefore, that there must be a god of snowflakes crafting each one on the fly.
@@norelfarjun3554 It's no problem at all...to a rational person. It simply demonstrates that the notion of linking complexity to intentional design is utter nonsense.
Spend time studying Advaita Vedanta (Non dual Vedanta) and argue against their understanding of God. That would make for an interesting video. Or better yet, make a vid of you having a dialogue with an Advaitin monk. That would make for a very interesting video. I recommend Swami Sarvapriyananda of the RamaKrishna Order. Just an idea.
Funnily(and also kind of sadly) these rebuttals have been around for some decades at least if not centuries and yet theists don't let go of their arguments or their position
Tbf you could turn that around. If the rebuttals are still being used centuries later without success, then there's something wrong with the rebuttal (as far as the audience is concerned anyway).
Yes they do, these arguments have been responded to several times and the arguments have been modified several times, if all philosophical positions could be defeated by rebuttals found in a highschool textbook then there would be zero philosophical or theological research, yet people still study it.
@@benholroyd5221 point taken, so the conversation should be zeroed in on the specifics of arguments, rather than their ability to convince. Otherwise, flerfers' arguments are valid.
I look at these rebuttals as mainly for the undecided. Since theists didn't reach their beliefs through logic it is not going to be very effective to convince them to change. Most people incorporate held beliefs into their identity, Admitting you were mistaken is not possible for some.
2 minutes in and I hope the reality of this video is noticed by everyone. There are two basic categories as I see it, that arguments for god fall into. They can overlap as well, but we have two routes: 1. I don't KNOW something(s), therefore, magic. 2. I don't CARE to know something(s), therefore, I will not face my own beliefs. Ultimately, it's that simple. God arguments are just primitive ideas that occasionally get a facelift, but they weren't correct centuries ago and aren't correct now. It's either argument from ignorance/incredulity, or they don't care about truth, at least in this one category. I'm not trying to clump everyone into this realm that sounds like extreme idiocy or anything; it's not about intelligence-it's about knowledge and the efforts people take to acquire it accurately. The majority of people I'd say are fairly rational but have been brainwashed to exempt theism specifically from examination.
The 2 arguments for not being a god I hear are. 1)There is no evidence.2)If there is a LOVING god why does evil exist.If you are perceiving reality through duality,what evidence can be presented of that what is not in duality and not bound in time/space. If there is duality then non duality also exist..As love is beyond good and evil this cannot debunk the existence of god.If you have not perceived that understanding you have not faced your belief .
The problem with the Kalam is just that we have no reason to think anything that began to exist has a cause. Everything that we see isn't something that began to exist, it's just a rearrangement of existing material that happened to stumble its way into a shape that we had a definition for. A more honest argument would have been P1: all things that exist are rearrangements of other existing things P2: the universe is a thing that exists C1: therefore the universe is a rearrangement of existing things
Humans have evolved moral senses, as a shitload of evidence shows. These are innate in us, though given enough time and evolutionary stress, they could morph. But they seem objective to us, and are functionally ‘objective’ in how we interact with people. Killing another person or stealing, cheating etc just seems wrong, no matter how we justify it post hoc. That’s an objective value that did not need a god to implant it in us. Psychology, animal behaviour studies, anthropology and sociology have shown this.
I think this is based upon the universal quality that all living creatures have, that they tend to avoid suffering and seek pleasure. This is the basis of our morality
When humans lived in small tribes, everyone that was able to was expected to contribute towards the needs of the tribe. Those that were selfish, thieves, or murderers would most likely be killed or abandoned. Thus they wouldn’t reproduce. Only people who contributed to the tribe’s well-being would. These days, unfortunately, the immoral individuals are put on a pedestal instead of being punished. Sometimes they are even worshipped by the ones that suffer the most from their actions. I don’t know what’s to become of this world.
The evidence counters your own reasoning though. Evolutiona could create objective morals, it could only respond to them. In much the same you have evolved to 20c a comfortable temperature
@@st.michaelsknight6299 I don’t understand the structure of your sentences. Please elaborate. What I stated is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the latest research and some of the leading researchers in evolutionary psychology and anthropology
@@billkeon880 What I mean is this. Evolution didn't create cold, but it did give polar bears a nice warm fur coat to deal with the cold. Morality is the same way in humans, evolution didn't create morals, but it responded to the moral reality. We can prove this with rape. From a naturalistic evolutionary perspective, rape is quite effective in spreading ones genes. But yet we find it utterly repugnant, and rightly so.
@@dmitriy4708 It's not recent, it was always this version bro. I've never heard of a historical Cosmlogical argument that had such premises, because they obviously aren't dumb to consider that.
@@u_phil Ok. It does not make this argument less fallacious. Inductive argument structured as deductive (begging the question fallacy here), fallacy of composition, equivocation fallacy for 2 types of beginning to exist (ex materia and ex nihilo), lies about the Big Bang cosmology, lies about Guth-Vilenkin theorem, lies about impossibility of infinite regress being established, omission of this argument's reliance on A theory of time, disregard for Einstein's relativity, complete non sequitur about timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal creator as a result. It is a ridiculuosly flawed argument.
Ontological: The greatest in quality not quantity. Evil is the lack of good, it's doesn't/cannot exist on its own. Cosmological: Nothing has no potential. God is eternal. Infinity means endless. You know that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dichotomy, right?
This guy took 15 minutes to fail to debunk Christianity. I guarantee I’ll pin him to the floor in 10 minutes but guaranteed he won’t debate me publicly
Yeah, i think you are correct, he will not waste his time with you, but I am one of his students, and if you can present a single argument for your god that I can not debunk or if you can counter a single one of my arguments, I will do my best so that you get your debate. Sounds fair?
I gave you 2 months to come up with anything valid or interesting. Do you still need more time, or do you now understand why a debate with you wouldn´t make any sense?
@@truthrevealer771 There are at least seven ancient law codes that predate Mosaic law, the priestly rules we know as the biblical commandments. The oldest for which we have documentary evidence is the Code of Ur-Nammu from about the middle of the 20th century BCE, which is at least 10 centuries prior to the biblical law code. Among the Ur-Nammu laws that survived are rules against murder and robbery (=coveting your neighbor’s goods). The Laws of Eshnunna from the 19th century BCE have rules against theft and bodily injury. The Code of the Nesilim from the 16th-17th centuries BCE also has explicit laws against theft and bodily harm. The best known is the Code of Hammurabi from about the 18th century BCE. The idea of the monarch being the shepherd of his people was a common theme in the ancient Near East for what should be obvious reasons and we see that echoed in the Bible. Laws 1-5 in the Code prohibit bearing false witness; 6-25, coveting and stealing property; 127-194, murder and adultery, among other things. It even follows the principle of _lex talionis,_ the “eye for an eye” principle found also in Mosaic law. In other words, the biblical commandments reflect legal concerns that had been common to many of the peoples living in the ancient Near East, concerns that had been extant for over a millennium before the Hebrews produced their Mosaic law. There’s nothing unique about the latter in this respect. Even the source of the laws follows existing forms, where the laws were said to be given by a god to the human lawgiver.
@@truthrevealer771I'm late to the comments but I think morals come from evolution and society/culture which explains how morals can differ across time and around the world
It's a pity you didn't have enough time to do more debunking, cause I'm sure theists would use the "god's very nature is good" counter-argument to answer your last debunking attempt. Great video as always, Steven! Thanks!
The dilemma still stands: Is something good because it's God's nature or is it God's nature because it is good. E.g. is honesty good because it's God's nature or is honesty part of God's nature because it is good (in of itself). Then ask why is dishonest not part of God's nature?
@@justanotherhomosapian5101 Obviously according to their mindset God's nature's nature is good. And if you ask the same question about God's nature's nature, theists will keep on adding more "nature's" between 'God' and 'good'. Perhaps not ad infinitum, but definitely ad nauseam. The honest ones that is. The dishonest ones will simply derail the conversation with any baseless assertion, usually about your motives.
His speedrun wasn't Max%, his speedrun was just 100% aka debunk all common arguement for God so he did fine in this speedrun, he just needs to do some optimization.
They are basically saying it's empty. Not much difference from gibberish. You get absolutely nothing. Asserting nothing. X is X that's it, no ifs, no buts. How uncanny that all arguments for and its properties seem to point out to NOTHING. 🤭
0:55 Stephen should explain if that side-shave haircut is of freewill, him being trendy and falling in line with what's fashionable, or is he determine to hide the truth of that receding hairline.
10:10 One of the tricks they use to sneak up their god is say "A cause" instead of causes. Many things have many causes but if they accept that they are accepting politheism.
@@batman-sr2px who said I'm "attached" to Islam? I enjoy learning about all myths, Islam included. Plus this video isn't about Islam specifically anyway, relax😉
@@drsatan9617 Well, let's look at the first argument. Honestly, I don't like the ontological argument, but he chose one of the weakest ontological arguments to present and then didn't even refute it. He said that if a greatest possible being exists, the same logic would also get us a greatest possible island. That argument only works if you can prove that there is no greatest possible island. Since at least one island exists, a greatest possible island exists.
@@_Gormakesh_ it's not a strawman at all, yours is the strawman methinks This is your argument in a nutshell: A greatest possible island exists but this doesn't work unless you can prove there is no greatest possible island We can prove that islands exist but the existence of one island doesn't mean that its not possible for other islands to exist that you aren't aware of It would be the logic of a total simpleton to look at one island only and assume that they can't be any greater What else ya got lol
@@drsatan9617 I think you missed the point. If an island exists, then there is a greatest possible island. Let's say that there is only one island that exists in all of reality. That island would be the greatest possible island.
@@_Gormakesh_ not true. Just because you have one island now doesn't mean another greater one can't form later One island is the biggest island that currently exists but there's literally nothing preventing us from building a greater island
@@oliverhug3 As a former Christian, I would agree, but only because at least that would give one a legitimate foothold. Moving forward towards a personal god, however... ...I don't see it.
Furthermore, like Steven already stated, nobody would ever assume a watch was made by Mr.Fixitall but rather by someone who specializes in making watches, so even if the argument worked it would more or less imply that humans had a humanmaker, birds had a birdmaker and mountains had a mountainmaker. But to this very day we can see new humans coming into life and we can observe the land changing its shape without a single hint of influence by a deity.
I have officially unsubscribed and stopped donating to the ACA after I learned that they cancelled you. Such a shame. All they talk about nowadays is lgbtq and veganism instead of atheism. I’ll be donating my previous ACA payments to you from now on. Thank you for everything you do 👏
Very interesting channel,I just found out about it and after watching 3 episodes, I hit that subscrizzle button because you sir, deserve a bigger audience!
How to actually, really debunk literally _all_ arguments for God. In just 4 words: Arguments are not evidence. If God exists in the real world, his existence could be objectively verified. But precisely because God does not exist in the real world, theists are forced to argue their God into existence.
@@ceceroxy2227 I'm talking about existence here. Do. You. Get. This? Great. Unlike reality denynig believers, I have evidence - if not absolute proof - for the truth of what I said: It's the total lack of evidence of any imaginary, forever undemonstrated being that ever magically turned into a real being just because some funny stuff is said about it. According to theist 'logic', Jahveh Stickman exists just because I just made up the claim it's an eternal, uncaused, forever existing being (I could make Jahveh Stickman say all arguments for God). If you deny the existence of Jahveh Stickman based on what I said here or based on what I could make him say in a speech bubble, then you have proven my case: Arguments are not evidence.
Not in the scientific world, yes in the philosophical world And there is some overlap The point is that a logical conclusion from a series of verified facts should be true as well. In the philosophical and (pure) logical world it usually ends here In the scientific world this is the starting point for experiments that will refute or prove the conclusion (which serves as a model prediction)
@@norelfarjun3554 If God is a real-world phenomenon so to say and not a mere idea, then the philosophical world does not matter. Anything else is a theist's admission that God is nothing but a construct in the minds of some people. *_"The point is that a logical conclusion from a series of verified facts should be true as well."_* Keyword is 'verified'. If God could be verified, and if it could be verified that real-word fact X is the product of God and only of God, then yes, it would be true that without God, we wouldn't have X. But then, one no longer needs to argue God into existence. God doesn't magically turn into a real being just because some funny stuff is said about him. What theists refuse to admit is that God is not their conclusion but starting point from which they work backwards to confirm.
@@TheBastius You have phrased that better than I ever managed to when talking to theists. It's annoying how hard it is to explain the concept of "evidence" to them, and I've never been sure if I didn't do it right, or they weren't listening. I once told one that I would believe in his God if a delegation of angels came down in front of witnesses and cameras, and handed me a Bible engraved on pages of pure technitium foil with dimensions perfect 8 x 11 inches down to the atomic level. He said "Well, God doesn't care enough to do all that."
think my favorite answers to the watchmaker argument, is to say, "sure, but evolution in it self is the intelligence, no outside intelligence is needed, and we have tested that genetic algorithm can solve problems", so I can accept both premises and the convolution, but the watchmaker argument still fails
My favorite answer (to the version with the story of walking by the sea) is: "Did you notice that you chose a watch and not a stone, a branch or a shells? Why not?" Very quickly they explain by themselves the difference between natural things and unnatural things, and realize that this is what is really behind the story (and not the complexity)
I am a theist and I dont believe in magic men in the sky. God is the only logical conclusion for the existence of the universe so what speaks volumes is that people still try to pretend he doesn't exist in 2021
What always has fascinated me is that someone naively can think one youtuber can debunk thousands of years of philosophical thinking with a video of 15 minutes. That's shows the level of arrogant stupidity that mankind is achieving nowadays.
Not that we worry much about it, but there are at least four hundred years of often very carefully thought-out science that has been thrown onto the dustheap, “debunked” if you will. With every hypothesis that is firmly established, many others are pushed aside. And as you know, very good science is often subsumed by better theories that understand the older hypothesis as a special case. The aether theory for the propagation of light was a very serious contender in the minds of truly great physicists like Rutherford. We likewise can expect a number of philosophical problems to evaporate, and new ones to present themselves. This is all to the good. Otherwise we would still be sacrificing animals to the gods. (Are kaporos hens and roosters an exception? ) Now we know that god doesn’t need sacrifices. He just likes to watch when people masturbate.
Unnecessary and pointless, but, they gotta protect snowflake's feelings. Big mean viewers shouldn't dislike it if they like it. Something along those lines, I'm sure.
@@acrazedtanker1550 Someone at TH-cam's HQ said they made the decision in order to protect small youtubers from targeted dislikes, and made the point that other social media platforms eg. Instagram, Twitter don't have dislike buttons but in my opinion that's obviously a pretty shitty example because TH-cam is unique, in the way that it is also a search engine, we come to TH-cam specifically to seek information at times, and if that information is false I'd like to be able to observe a like to dislike ratio on a video to determine whether or not I think it may be a waste of my time ...
My take on likes and dislikes selection, is that it should be about me being able to signal to the algorithm God which type of content I prefer to see or not. If I like a type of video I get more choice for that. If I don't like it I get less of it. It should not, in my opinion be a censorship tool. If I think something is dangerous or very offensive to me, I should be able to report that through the reporting system for further vetting. There will always be minority taste that can earn the creators a platform. But these don't buy the buttons on the the next exec suite so they have to go. If dislikes meant people didn't get that stuff presented to them they would have to spend their entire life searching to be offended.
I did a mini series on my antifascist channel where I broke popular arguments in under a minute each. Actually got a little traction on those but it turned my channel toxic. I started it because atheist TH-cam was spending 20+ minutes debunking arguments that didn't deserve that amount of time--like Pascal's Wager. PW is a total non-starter; you have to confuse pragmatic reason for evidentiary reason. Done. SO, anyway, I'm glad someone else has picked this up and run with it.
All of history did happen in about 6000 years, probably less though. Cause history is based on written records, so stuff like the Stone Age and our interactions with the Neanderthals would technically be considered prehistory. Sorry, just had to nitpick
I don't think you can use the black swan fallacy against the cosmological argument, because the fallacy relies on the opposition ignoring evidence to draw a universal conclusion from a set of facts, and there does'nt seem to be any evidence that there is an exception to the "law" of causality, except that there have been discovered exceptions to a few universal conclusions we've made in the past, but then that becomes a statistics game for how often there are exceptions to rules we make, and i do not have the data to say one way or the other.
Theists should pray to god everyday that he send them better arguments...because so far in history they haven't been able to come up with any. It would take a miracle...
Man is the only living being that very special to God. And yet they're not thinking the same to God. And then this happen and that happen. And then God became human. But then Son of the Man got killed. And then.... .... ... to this day. And then in the future.... He came again. And then so many realize that they didn't believe and are not saved... and then.... I don't know... I hope I know the continuity, but that's just it. I'm not Eternal, but my God is. And I want to live with Him forever.
before starting this video, I had assumed that this is a Video from an angry atheist or just someone who is condescending towards others. Now that I watched this, its seems really respectful and just nice. A pleasant suprize.
I love how this video was made as an argument repertoire to counter theistic philosophical arguments. “If the theist says this, respond with this”, as if philosophical debate is like a chess a game where you memorise certain move orders. This approach has nothing to do with pursuing truth.
I hate to break out to you, but apologetics is all about playing this chess game. The works of theologians are often in pursuit of truth, but for the herders keeping their flock in check, it's 95% rhetoric. But in any case, take my advise as a hint of where to head first, should you be interested in a given argument.
@@rationalityrules Accusing the “theologians” of the same folly that you yourself are committing simply cancels both of you out. I understand that apologetics can be a form of flock herding, but your and and other atheist channels are doing the same thing by providing bias affirming content on a regular basis, it’s really no different from theists weekly congregating at church, but with the roles reversed.
@@moderncaleb3923 well, actually it is different. Having been on both sides of the isle on this one I have to side with facts and evidence as opposed to unsubstantiated claims of magic. Now if you’ve only been on one side of the isle your whole life there is no way you can even begin to comprehend what the view looks like from the other side.
4:58 A watch is not complex. A pinion or wheel is formed of a simple circle. A tooth on a wheel or pinion is a simple item. A wheel or pinion is a simple collection of simple teeth arranged around a simple circle. There are several of these simple wheels and pinions coming together. A simple spring stores energy. The only complexity is the _design_ _process_ by which we take these simple items and bring them together to carry out a particular function - in this case keep regular time. A C G & T/U are simple atomic structures. Proteins are simple molecular structures. They interact in simple ways. It would be extremely complex to _design_ a pet dog. But some other simple collection of simple molecules is inevitable. Whether the particular collection makes a suitable pet is up to the perceiver. Complexity enters the argument only when one _assumes_ _design_. Problem: God-botherers are arse-endian, assuming design.
“But some other simple collection of simple molecules is inevitable. Whether the particular collection makes a suitable pet is up to the perceiver.” It is really a matter of marketing. Consider the Tamagotchi. In my classroom I saw several of these very demanding pets being very well cared for. Consider the 1970s fad, The Pet Rock. The manufacturer claims not one was returned. Retailers were told to release unsold pets: they could fend for themselves. They returned just the bit of cardboard that had the product name.
So in 14 minutes, you figured out what has been wrestled with by man for thousands of years, and continue to do so today. Someone alert the media, this guy is a genius!
Well, he didn't figure it out. People over the course of hundreds of years have debunked these arguments. He just used their debunkings in a 14 minute video.
Question regarding the watchmaker argument. If we assert that "A is a product of B" is a transitive relation, which means that if "A is a product of B" and "B is a product of C" then by transitivity "A is a product of C", then the argument of natural selection is not a rebuttal, because you can still say "yes, complex organisms evolve via natural selection, but natural selection is a product of laws of physics which is in turn a product of lets call it God, therefore via transitivity complex organisms are a product of God". I also dont think that the argument from ignorance fallacy is a good rebuttal, since when it comes to the theory of gravity, we basically take for granted that if we let go of something, it falls to the ground, and we assert that this will always happen, simply because we have never observed otherwise. All empirical evidence is based upon this and surely we wouldnt say that any theory thats based on empirical evidence alone is an argument from ignorance? IMO, a much better way to go about a rebuttal is to point out that the definition of "complex" is all but precise, which causes the argument to turn into some sort of Sorites paradox.
That's a good way of putting it. Genesis says the EARTH brought forth every living thing (maybe with the exception of Adam) and God's participation seems to be observing that "it is good".
@@benholroyd5221 "so you're quoting God in your argument that God isn't God? " Precisely! God is [God, not God] simultaneously, rather like Schroedinger's Cat en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat Until "God" is defined (observed) the uncertainty exists. BUT since my observation might not match your observation, God is still God and not God, just not to the same person. God for me but not you; God for you but not me.
Agree that natural selection is besides the point about whether or not a God exists. Even still, the argument from ignorance takes the general form, "we are ignorant about how X thing happened, therefore X thing happened because Y." But, if we stated empiricism as an argument it might say, "we know X has only happened because of Y every time we've observed it, therefore it's highly probable that the next time X happens it's because of Y." One is making an inference based on nothing, the other is making an inference based on evidence.
How does natural selection explain the complexity of the universe? Galaxies dont undergo natural selection. Also what do you mean by nature? Looks like you dont believe in God but believe in Nature, so didnt you just make nature your God?
Your Arguments for God Debunked speedrun is impressive RR. But it needs a lot of optimisation. Still tho, I'm eagerly looking forward to the next speedruns from you :) Maybe the next one should be " Miracles of Quran and Bible, debunked in less than 10 minutes" Although I'm sure you can optimise it to 6 minutes considering how repetitive the miracles are in terms of their fallaciousness. I also wish you did some 100% speedruns, aka debunked ALL all arguements, from mainstream one's to more niche arguements, after all, you said you still had a lot of slides left :)
If he does the intro skip and uses the “busses leaving the station” frame rule, I recon we could see a Summoning Salt vid on the history of debunking by early next year. 😁
@@andresgarciacastro1783 For sure he could've done it faster, it's just what category was he aiming for? Any% would mean he'd use bugs but he didn't, 100% would mean he'd debunk all official theist arguements and not the common one's. But considering this is RR first speedrun, we should be lenient on him, everyone has to start from somewhere, he just needs a guide like DarkViperAU
I’ll do you one better- I’ll debunk every argument for theism in two words. You ready? Objection: conjecture! Seriously, try to name an argument for the existence of a god that doesn’t make at least one baseless assumption.
@@ceceroxy2227 why does anything exist in your worldview? I know you say that god is the reason, but then comes the inevitable question: why does god exist? Why does he exist rather than nothing existing? You can take a causal chain back far, but that doesn’t work forever. Eventually, you have to reach a point where you just say that something just does exist-that it exists by necessity. You may argue that it is God, I will go with it being the universe until such a time as a god is demonstrated to exist.
@@ceceroxy2227 For me, and as Sean Carroll puts it, "the universe may not need a *why* but it just is". My opinion: You don't need a book or anyone else to tell you what your purpose is, you can find it yourself. When you see life as finite then it is infinitely precious because this is the only and last time we can do something. Sure, it's scary when I put it like that but it is reality. We must make the most of the little time we have.
@@ceceroxy2227 What makes you think that no one is right or wrong? Clearly steal, rape, and murder are wrong. We have laws to take care of those people. Some people's purpose are also doing God's will such as Hitler. Well, they believe and justify that to be their purpose. I certainly don't take all of my wisdom from Sean Carroll but I thought it would be fitting for the question you posed. Please don't tell me there's a god because we know what is right and wrong. This is the moral argument.
Does the morality-argument not have another problem in premise 1? If it's god that decides what is objectively moral, doesn't that automatically make the morality in question a subjective morality? Since a being/person/entity has made the decision, that seems to me the definition of subjectivity.
In their world, the term “objective” describes God’s supreme subjectivity This is a serious problem of definition, but given this definition there is no problem with the first premise
That makes morality arbitrary yes but not really subjective, all beings are below god, no one is on the same level of god so there is no reason why his moral code wouldn’t apply to all things, truth is above all things, that’s what makes it objective.
@@uekvowzkaebbzuvrgipqxhemmwbhe It's still subjective to him, though. Sure, it might be the highest understanding of morality, or "supreme understanding," but it's still subjective nonetheless.
@@cy-one ontologically god isn’t just a random being, he is the source of truth and meaning for the universe, if you think truth and reality is objective, then gods word is also objective, otherwise everything will be subjective to god, and that’s not what people mean when they talk about subjectivity, they refer to a disconnect between an objective reality and what a subject says about that reality, but in a universe where god exists reality itself is subjective to god
@@uekvowzkaebbzuvrgipqxhemmwbhe *"ontologically god isn’t just a random being, he is the source of truth and meaning for the universe"* Supposedly. The issue is, any argument of this kind for God can be redirected to anything similar at leisure. _The fundamental source for truth, reality and morality is the Invisible Pink Realicorn. Without it, there is no truth. Without it, there is no reality. Without it, there is no morality._ Is there truth? Is there reality? Is there morality? Ergo the Invisible Pink Realicorn exists.
Edit 1: I only find the existence of order in the universe convincing for Theism, as it requires some ordering principle. This does not contain assumption about a good, simple, beautiful or whatever order. Just order. However, obviously minds rise from this order and follow other or additional principles, I claim. Since I assume I'm not determined by physical laws when I act (at least not entirely). OP: Despite being not a theist I find some counterarguments little weak. Like against the Watchmaker argument. Evolution is not an argument against Theism, since there is an order emerging from simpler rules. It would rather be an argument for God's genius. Also, I don't think it's the best argument; the best argument might be that there is an order in nature, things are obviously not random on many levels, emerging from lower levels we can't even analyse by definition. How language has emerged and was never invented is part of this order. Or the argument that why is there something, instead of nothing. Or tracking back the causal chain which needs to have a fixed first cause, there are also different types of causes, of course. I find this arguments more convincing, because they go at the very foundations of logic and reasoning.
I would counter that evolution in my book is not a showcase for God's genius, 100% not for the "all-loving" group of gods - as it requires an insane amount of death and suffering, the tools driving evolution (mutations) are often detrimental as they are beneficial - so many creatures were born with disadvantages and had to suffer through (often short) life as they were on the short stick of evolution game and were picked by predators / didn't survive their environment.
He is not saying evolution is an argument against theism. He is saying that it is an argument against the watchmaker argument. Edit: Although, I would like to point out, that while it is fashionable now by many to make the case that evolution is not an argument against theism, it definitely was to many theists, and still is where I grew up in South Africa. Evolution was smeared by many churches, and mosques, and I have met many highly intelligent people still to this day, who reject it because of their theism. The fact that theism has had to make a retreat is, in my opinion, something of an indictment that should not be forgotten.
"Evolution is not an argument against Theism" Quite right. Essentially irrelevant. Genesis says that the EARTH brought forth every living thing and apparently that is indeed the case.
Evolution shows that we have no reason to believe the premise of "complexity is always a product of intelligence", because it shows plenty of things where we have evidence to suggest it's _not_ the product of intelligence (but you can still appeal to ignorance and say God made it happen). Although I prefer to simply say it's an appeal to ignorance or a generalisation fallacy, because that emphasises that we don't actually _need_ another explanation for intelligence to dismiss that premise. The premise is just a bad one, with or without evolution. The rebuttal doesn't disprove that God exists, and that's not what it sets out to do. It shows that the Watchmaker argument is a poor argument and fails to prove that God exists. It addresses why the very specific reasoning presented in that argument is not valid. An analogy I posted in another comment: consider me saying there's an elephant in my back yard because the sky is blue. You can say that there being an elephant in my back yard doesn't logically follow from the sky being blue. This doesn't mean you disprove there being an elephant in my back yard, but it does mean you "debunk" the argument I presented to prove it. If I want to prove there's an elephant in my back yard, I'll need to fix my argument, or find other arguments.
"Evolution is not an argument against Theism, since there is an order emerging from simpler rules. " This is like saying gravity is not an argument against god pushing people back down, because the end result is the same. " the best argument might be that there is an order in nature" yeah okay bud. "Or tracking back the causal chain which needs to have a fixed first cause, there are also different types of causes, of course." Causality only works until logic breaks down, be that of I don't know, you never observed it? Our knowledge only goes back so far, so it's stupid to assume there was a "first cause".
Great! I enjoyed every second of the 15 minutes and 37 seconds! I just wanted to add a thought. It's one that relates to all these arguments for the existence of God. In every case, we are never actually presented with anything that could remotely qualify, from a scientific standpoint, as "evidence" for the existence of God. We are given logical arguments of more or less strength. But that's all... words. A strong, logical argument MAY point us in a direction to look for evidence of God. But in itself, it is not evidence. Suppose a jogger has gone missing and I happen to know that jogger's routine. I could make an argument that there is a strong likelihood the jogger might have gone missing in the dark forest with the deep lake. No matter how well reasoned my argument is, I have not actually produced evidence of the whereabouts of the missing jogger. But when the search team goes to the lake in the wood, and dredges the lake and finds the body, ... then ... and only then ... do we have evidence for the location of the jogger. (edit - and it's entirely possible I could have been wrong, despite knowing the jogger's routine. He might have decided to take an unfamiliar route and fallen down a disused well and was never found. So my knowledge, despite being soundly based on knowing the jogger's routine, was actually wrong.) All these arguments for the existence of God have yet to lead to a single shred of anything remotely resembling actual evidence for the existence of God, or gods, or goddesses, or unicorns, or...
If logical arguments are just "words" then there's no way to justify science, because it can't justify itself. God isn't proven by science because science doesn't "prove" things.
@@evangelium5376 Natural Science provide evidence... Formal sciences , like philosophy and mathematics, can prove that certain things are consitent with their internal rules...that all. What verifies the evidence in the natural science, is the ability to make correct prediction BASED on them. "If logical arguments are just "words" then there's no way to justify science, because it can't justify itself" And here is evidence that you don't know what science is... " God isn't proven by science because science doesn't "prove" things." ...nope, because there is no rational evidence for the exitence of any gods...
@@RoninTF2011 - No. Apparently you aren't aware of things like the problem of induction: science can't justify itself because it relies on metaphysical categories that are outside its scope of inquiry.
Nothing in this video is about Jesus or any religion whatsoever. No one (somewhat intelligent anyway) has ever said that arguments for the existence of god prove Christianity or any other religion
@@earlofdoncaster5018 Christians use the cosmological argument to prove A God exists. They then use other arguments in conjunction with this one to prove Christianity true. Your creating a strawman and applying it to the general Christian community as if we as a whole say the cosmological argument then proves Jesus died for our sins.
@@bigfoot3763sorry your wrong. The video depicts a image of the christ opposite the narrator. Most modern day theists are either Christian or muslims, so indirectly this video is directed at Christians. ( go to Ecce Homo (Martinez and Gimenez) Wikipedia for proof of first statement.
@@bigfoot3763 the second half of your comment is correct. Evidence of a god or gods existence wouldn't validate Christianity or any other religion. Logic dictates that only one, if any set of spiritual beliefs proposed by humanity, from any point in history, could be correct but all human spiritual concepts could be wrong. Therefore evidence of a god/ gods existence wouldn't necessarily please the followers of the bible .
A correction: In an attempt to make this laid back tongue-in-cheek approach a little easier to digest, I simplified some of the arguments, but on the cosmological argument I wen't a step too far.
The first premise is not "Everything that exists has a cause" but rather that everything with a certain attribute (motion / contingency, e.g.) has a cause (or was put in motion, e.g.). Aquinas’ first way, for instance, argues that everything in motion is put in motion by another, and that since God is not in motion, we have an unmoved mover. Informally this translates to "Everything that exists has a cause except for God" since everything other than God has a mover, but the argument should not be presented as such. To give a few more examples, Aquinas’ second way puts the emphasis on “having a cause”, and his third way puts the emphasis on “being contingent”. These too can be translated as “Everything that exists has a cause / is contingent except for God", but shouldn't be when represented as a syllogism.
Consequently, these arguments do not special plead. They don't issue a special exception to God, but rather assert that God lacks an attribute / status that everything other than God possesses, such as being in motion, having a cause, being contingent, etc. Sorry for the oversimplification. In hindsight I'd have approached this segment differently.
Thanks for admitting this, I know many atheists who always die on a hill for the sake of concretely asserting they are right about everything - specifically on this issue.
Simply if we said that God was in motion, that means he has a cause and was put in motion by another being (following the arguement), just by imposing the same process on every being who comes just after the previous being and since i would argue that the infinity sequence of causes is logically impossible i can conclude that this series of causes has a beginning, which implies the existence of an unmoved mover.
We define God as an unmoved mover (along with some traits i can prove like being omniscient, omnipotent and conscious)
I hope i can get your reply.
@@HoneybunMegapack Actually no, the "universe" as a thing doesn't exist outside, there is no such thing as "universe" itself, its a word we use on everything visible that exists, in case you meant the big bang thats also a no since the Big bang was in motion.
@@HoneybunMegapack oh the "motion" thing has a wider concept, since it was changing from status to status (getting bigger for example) that means its in motion, also i wonder what do you mean by " a valid object"
@@HoneybunMegapack Does the universe (as a thing) exists independently just like the big bang?
And no its external status doesn't change, just think about it
The big bang changed in its essence by getting bigger, what would change IN god as himself if he created anything?
As a software developer I can positively say that complexity is usually a product of lack of intelligence.
So why listen to you then?
@@PieJesu244 Why not? Am I saying something complicated?
As a software developer, I second this. The complexity of our role is in how simply we can write a piece of high functioning and robust code that maintains testability.
@@waterfrodo4304 To him, it is.
lol This is great
My personal response to the Kalaam is simply that we have never, ever seen anything begin to exist. We only have seen things change into different states of existence, because matter cannot be created or destroyed. There is no point when a chair "starts to exist," just a point where we call a particular arrangement of wood a chair.
Exactly
You get two thumbs up 👍👍
Sean Carroll thoroughly destroyed Kalam in his debate with William Lane Craig. Check out that debate if you are curious.
That's not an argument, it's semantic wankery. When the wood reaches the particular arrangement we call a chair, that is when the chair "starts to exist". So if you've made a chair or been to a chair factory, then you've seen a chair begin to exist.
@@jayjeckel The point is "a chair" is just a concept in our minds. In reality it is just a certain arrangement of matter. And the arrangement of matter changes all the time. A chair starts existing only in our mind, because the notion is only in our minds. That's the whole point of this argument.
[02:09] 1. Imagination Game (Ontological Argument)
[04:26] 2. Watchmaker
[07:47] • Argument from DNA
[08:44] 3. Cosmological Argument
[11:20] • Kalam Cosmological Argument
[13:34] 4. Moral Argument
[14:51] 6235 Slides Missing
10:00 “Everything that exists has an _explanation,_ but not necessarily a cause. A cause is a very specific _type_ of explanation.”
You’re a saint!
@@TheDizzleHawke,
I'm not a saint. I wouldn't touch God with a barge-pole. We're not speaking. And I boycott both Heaven and Hell.
“The only explanation for the creation of the world is God's fear of solitude. In other words, our role is to _amuse_ Our Maker. Poor clowns of the absolute, we forget that we act out a tragedy to enliven the boredom of one spectator whose applause has never reached a mortal ear. Solitude weighs on God so much that he invented the saints as partners in dialogue.
¶
I can stand up to God only by confronting him with another solitude. Without my solitude I would be nothing more than another clown.” - Cioran
@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy I’m using the term ironically. I always appreciate people who take the time to timestamp videos in the comments. I call them TH-cam angels.
@@TheDizzleHawke,
I know you didn't mean this literally. But it carries that bad taste. May you be well. You might like my playlist on the best of atheism:
@@TheDizzleHawke,
th-cam.com/play/PLIacjWbHUdUCucW9wcQZKKtvUP0lklDU1.html
I actually counter the ontological argument by using their argument against their God's existence.
The greatest possible being must also be the most impressive being. It is more impressive to complete a task when one is handicapped; and the more handicapped one is, the more impressed. So, the most impressive being must also have the greatest handicap. The greatest handicap is non-existence. So, the greatest possible being (aka god) must be non-existent.
It’s so ridiculous that there are many directs from which to attack that argument.
Hmm, not bad. I'll give that some thought but I like it.
@@Leith_Crowther yeah, like when I respond to any unsupported assertion with the equally unsupported "false". It works just as well haha.
This is the Monty python reply… therefore 👍👍
thanks for sharing, sounds bulletproof
But how could something as beautiful as Stephen Woodford come about through purely natural processes? That is what convinces me there must be a God.
"But how could something as beautiful as Stephen Woodford come about through purely natural processes? "
Beauty does not exist in the object; it is a judgment that relates to how it might enhance your survival and reproductive opportunities.
@@thomasmaughan4798 So basically you're saying that @The Spirit of Hegel is into Stephen Woodford? 🤣
Stephen is a witch and has cast a spell on you. No god needed.
@@thomasmaughan4798
Are we supposed to believe that without any back up? 😆 No, beauty is imprinted, casted in Steph's..
see how easy to assert the opposite? 😆✨
@@omkarnaik2758 correct… do you blame him?
Even if this does debunk all the arguments, you know theists will keep using them.
why would they stop after having used debunked arguments for 2000 years?
@@nagranoth_
1°- Make an argument
2°- See that argument get debunked
3°- Ignore that debunking because you are obviously right, or because only a fool says in his heart that you are wrong, or something, don't know...
@@tsinquisition3455 slight change to the order of things
1 -decide what you believe
2 -make an argument leading to your beliefs
3 -ignore any criticism because you of course were right in the first place
4 -profit!
@@nagranoth_ 2000 years? Not exactly. In fact that's actually one of few arguments they've made many of us still believe. The Bible in its current form is most certainly *NOT* 2000 years old. I think it's closer to 700 years old actually if your counting when it was put in one collection.
@@uninspired3583 I don't think people can decide what their beliefs are 😉
You did not defeat Christianity's best and unbeatable argument!
Ray Comfort's argument "You just say you are an Atheist because you want to watch (Shrek) porn!"
what is yhis argument
No, "He has a book"!
What I most dislike about the DNA is language argument is the "we intuitively know it's a meaningful pattern" part. Our brains detect faces in rock formations and toast, we eat a room temperature pepper and our brain screams "Hot!" due to chemical signalling, our brains are so easily fooled and seeking patterns where there aren't necessarily any
It isn't DNA. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system. There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. There isn't even a way to test the claim that nature can.
There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition.
@@sombodysdad idk what your last sentence is a definition for, but in a materialist (naturalist) perspective isn’t all systems we do have, that fall under the coded info systems, natural?
@@HoneybunMegapack 😂
The problem us that their idea of 'codes is a misrepresentation of DNA. Biologists appropriated a linguistic term to describe a process that more closely resembles using a template. Code is more precisely used in terms of linguistics.
That doesnt make it false lol you atheist need a lesson in logic and reasons itsl seems
The masterpiece of art at the thumbnail is perfect
Why thank you kindly
As someone who lived close to the original i think it's an awesome choice
@@Fistrike the -jesus- JeeBZuZ painting
I now tend to see it as a portrait of Ray Comfort.
Came to the comments just so I could thumbs-up whoever said it first haha
My favorite rebuttal to the ontological argument is "Where's my pizza?"
"Where's my pizza?" Waiting for you at Caesar's. It might be getting cold by now.
The whole pizza examples has been debunked. It's intellectually dishonest and doesn't even make sense within the ontological argument. It's impossible for the greatest pizza to exist because there is no objective definition of what the greatest pizza would be. It's incoherent. So it doesn't follow the first premise which is "is it possible?" because no it's not.
@@VileVendetta The same accusation van be levelled at any "greatest possible anything", up to and including god. Doubly so, because not only is there no coherent definition of greatest "X", I've yet to see a coherent definition of god.
The first premise of the moral argument can easily be rejected. No need to go on to the 2nd.
“If god does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist”.
I reject that premise. That premise cannot be shown to be true, therefore it can be rejected.
Done.
Theists love to claim that atheists can't justify their morality, claiming that it must be subjective without God. My favorite response to this fallacious reasoning is to point out that morality is based on the fact of nature that suffering is undesirable. This is not a subjective opinion, every living creature in existence follows this pattern. Thus, objective morality without God.
Aye that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence
That's basically how I rejected all theist arguments faster than RR did :p
I just say that I reject fallacies as arguments. Done.
@@loveableheathen7441 suffering is a subjective state experienced by living creatures to indicate to that damage is being done or some need is not being met.
This is a description of a biological system, it is not a moral claim. Living things do not like being harmed is just an observation.
Pain experienced is just a series of electro-chemical reactions in the nervous system. How is this fundamentally any different from any other chemical reaction. How is this any different from a computer throwing up an error message, or slowing down because it has malware?
Just because creatures do not like pain is not grounds saying it’s wrong to inflict pain on others.
@@swihun8930 "This is a description of a biological system, not a moral claim" Suffering itself is not moral or immoral, but the concept of suffering is the basis of morality.
Some theist will say one day I'm sure: "look at these atheists repeating their daily prayers." 😀
"look at these atheists repeating their daily prayers"
or just commenting on TH-cam videos. (1) Find a youtube video about religion. (2) post the same comment you have posted on all previous youtube videos on religion. (3) Go To 1.
@@thomasmaughan4798 No U
None that I know of would, because it doesn’t acknowledge the argument at all , and most would recognize your ad-hom ATTEMPT . Because atheists TH-camrs argue from emotion over any “ seeking truth claims”
They'd really have to twist the semantics of "prayers".
But they're experts at that.
We'll have to try to make them as catchy as "our father" and the rest.
PLEEEEEEASE make this into a full video! I dont care how long it has to be I will literally watch ALL of it! Many times ive needed to use these logical statements but didn't know enough to completely explain them to the theistic people I know. Your channel in an extremely valuable source of information for me and other atheists who need these brilliant counter arguments and you teach them in very digestible ways. Thank you for your good work, i can personally say that it was your debunking videos that helped me get out of christianity without a complete mental breakdown (though it still was very traumatic especially since it caused a lot of problems with my family) thank you so much!
I really enjoy his videos as well. They open my mind to things I’ve never even considered
You might also want to check out "Appropriating Morality" and "Creating Sickness" by TheraminTrees
The probability of life occurring on its' own is not statistically improbable, but statistically impossible. Cells have a 30% replication rate if there was to be a "primordial slime". Many scientists believe in God, and can't find a way science disproves God. Instead, how God is proved.
Why are you an atheist?
Now I unironically want you to do all the arguments with no time restraints
No you don't. You think you do, but you don't. 😅
Salute playa💪🏾 you had to break it down once more for the viewers at home unfortunate enough not to be there during your presentation.
Hmmmm, how about a compromise: a 30,000 word essay
@@ceceroxy2227
What a condescending comment!
@@randomperson2078 what was the comment by ceceroxy?
You forgot "Look at the trees!".
And do not forget to eat a banana, the most perfect fruit in nature
You should make More SERIES with people like Joe (Majesty of Reason ) Like Your KALAM Series on different philosophical and other Topics
Would love to :)
That's because the flip side of the coin is *still the same coin* and your beliefs are as likely strongly held as anyones.
@@rationalityrules there is an Israeli religious TH-camr that would love to have a talk with you, if you are interested- I'll hook you up.
Surely if you debunk every argument for the existence of God in 15 minutes, that would itself be a miracle and proof that God exists?
Unirocially yes
It's a miracle that you were born. Women are born with a few million ova and cannot make more. Men produce several million sperm each day. That one particular egg chanced to be fertilized by one particular sperm to result in you is miraculous.
But wait... Since only 30% of fertilized ova make it all the way to baby-most of the rest failing to implant or being miscarried-your existence is even more miraculous. That you failed to be stillborn, suffer SIDS, die from a childhood disease or accident, and so on, and lived all the way to the point when you made this comment is a miracle of staggering proportions.
However, your existence does not prove the existence of any god. You were not "chosen" to exist. Your existence is the chance result of an infinite craps game in which you managed to repeatedly avoid throwing a seven, at least up until your comment. Remember that "miracle" doesn't solely mean "the work of divine intervention," but also "a highly improbable event." Your existence is a miracle, a highly improbably event, but it does not prove that any god exists.
I am a complete village idiot when it comes to philosophy at this level, it makes me wish I had come across this kind of thing when I was a kid and having "deep" discussions with friends without knowing about all the knowledge that came before me. Thanks for exercising this old mans brain!
th-cam.com/video/MWVriIxLZVc/w-d-xo.html here’s a link to continue on your journey. Merry Christmas
@@PGP2 that analogy doesn’t work though because grace is freely given. There’s no subscription fee to pay.
@@PGP2 We don't have to pay anything. I'm a protestant church attendee btw. I tithe but that's giving through a church not to a church. As in, our resources to the poor through a true church goes further than by myself. There's no requirement for any tithing or how to. I get the suspicion of all things through money, or all things through the lens of power, but let's remember martyrs during times of our cynicism. They're the seeds of the church.
@@PGP2 The "contradiction" as you call it, I would say "distinction" is that it comes from voluntary giving. Out of an over flowing love of Christ that flows out to the rest of creation. So your local homeless are being served by christians out of a love of Christ.
@@PGP2 Ha yes but it's not a subsription fee. It's like me saying whatever charity you're into is a scam, like BLM. And you say no, I voluntarily donated to it. And I say ah ha! You did give it money! See they're a scam!
But its even more reductionist because the church is not merely a charitable organization. It's just one of 3 main things the church does- worships God, evangelizes, and serves the poor.
Thoroughly enjoyed this. Well done!
The probability of life occurring on its' own is not statistically improbable, but statistically impossible. Cells have a 30% replication rate if there was to be a "primordial slime". Many scientists believe in God, and can't find a way science disproves God. Instead, how God is proved.
1. Everything that exists has a cause.
2. God does not have a cause.
3. Therefore, God does not exist?
@noname
ex·ist
verb
have objective reality or being.
Where did you come up with the definition of existing as being born and dying?
Everything that Begins to exist, like he said in the video you just watched.
@@braamhechter5053 It was tongue in cheek. But while the universe as we know it appears to have begun to exist, how does that equal a deity? And even if we could prove that nothing can begin to exist without a cause, can you demonstrate that timeless energy ever began to exist? Can you prove Tinkerbell did not kiss the void and make the universe spring forth? The best position to take when insufficient evidence is available is "I don't know." That's not a failure, it's a position of power, because you are then able to pursue a real answer that is backed up by all the evidence and contradicted by none.
If everything has a cause, so does God. It's just that His cause is metaphysical, and not physical. Namely, it is "Nothing Is Not". God is the source of Life. Nothing has no life, so God is free to create anything that can exist.
The Argument from contingency
Fact 1: The universe is contingent
Fact 2: Everything contingent needs a 'necessary being' (non contingent) to make it exist
Conclusion: The universe needs a necessary being to make it exist
Necessary being is God
BRA-FUCKING-VO!! 😂
"Everything that exists has a cause" is not a premise that I have heard theistic philosophers down the centuries defend, especially none of the scholastics like Aquinas. "no-one has defended a cosmological argument of precisely this form" (Arguing for Atheism, p.4).
Even Kierkegaard said "You can't prove God, so stop trying" and he was a hardcore Christian.
@@hisjoeness you can't disprove either.
@@Eng_Simoes Not the point. I was quoting Kierkegaard.
@@Eng_Simoes I mean, you can't disprove the _"Invisible Pink Realicorn rainbowpooping the Universe into Existence"_ either, soooo...
@@Eng_Simoes existence must be proved, there is no point in proving non-existence, otherwise you also have to prove non-existence of ghosts, dragons, etc
I would love to see you and Craig have a sit down. I think it would be fun.
Regarding the cosmological argument, "cause" assumes "time", and if spacetime "began" with the big bang, then the causal paradigm (dependent on the chronological sequences we are familiar with) doesn't apply to the universe itself.
Explanations aren't entailing.
Aquinas argument isn't looking for the "first cause" because he is not using a modern interpretation of "cause". As pointed out in the video a "cause" is only a certain type of explanation, Aquinas is actually using a different one. The cosmological argument in Summa Theologica is made based on Aristotle's causality.
To compare the two:
The modern version of cause and effect as developed in famous philosophical work "The Matrix Reloaded" can be described as the necessary connection between an action and reaction. You eat the sex cake and you have an orgasm.
Aristotle's causation differs in that it has to do with the logical priority of efficient causal relations. It my vulgar terms, it is looking at a cause and effect hierarchy not a cosmological causational chain.
For example, in Aristotelian causation, gravity is the cause of plant life, because gravity is necessary to form the planet in the first place for the plants to grow in. For black swans to exist, there would need to be the "form" of a swan first. If "nothing" is a human abstract concept, then what made possible abstract thinking?
This is also why potentiality and actuality are key concepts, it is ordering things in terms of what makes things possible, he is not actually considering the timing of the cause. If a cause is a certain type of explanation, you could say that Aquinus is looking for what's the "top" explanation of the pyramid of explanations, not the first cause in a causation chain.
This means Aquinas is NOT presupposing that everything must have an a cause that came first, its not necessary in this version of causation. In fact, the only thing he presuppose is that nothing (except for God) can cause themselves. Aquinas would probably actually would agree that you don't need a "first cause." but you do need the top one.
@@SOLOcan Thanks for your comment.
No all it means is that the cause which brought the universe and time or spacetime into existence, must necessarily exist outside of time. Because the cause that created time cannot exist within time.
So time which, ""began" with the big bang" and by implication the causal paradigm does not apply to the cause, not the effect.
@@jess4728 they spoke Greek and Latin, being semantic about the english translation is missing the point
My favorite part of Stephen's videos is when he rebuts arguments, but fails to provide the claimed refutation (which is what debunking entails).
Can you rephrase this? I have no idea what you mean and I feel stupid
That was fun, and I have been using all those arguments in my conversations with theists it was nice to hear them described in such a fun way.
A necessary unlimited being must exist to explain all the contingent limited beings. Therefore God exists.
@@SunlightSentinel I’m not gonna listen to the fact all of my arguments have BEEN debunked because I’m right!
In my own mind!
Also why?why does it need an “intelligent creator,”?
@@accountlol7409 nobody has "debunked" my arguments. Atheists mostly become epistemic nihilists when they see the arguments are sound and thereby concede to the debate. If I continue I guarantee you'll do the same. My favourite atheist line- "But we can't know" or "Arguments aren't evidence" lmao
@@SunlightSentinel What do you mean by contingent?
@@spongbobsquarepants3922 To answer your question it's something that could have failed to exist. Like you or me. Something necessary can not fail to exist it's necessary. It exists in all possible worlds.
my 15 year old asked for the debunked card game for Christmas. you are doing real good in the world, Steven.
Have you played it? I bought it but I haven't had anyone to play with, so I don't know if it is good.
This is a man of focus, commitment, and sheer fucking will.
He wrote this entire debunking with a pencil...A f***ing pencil.
The "fucking" did it for me
Snowflakes are incredibly complex; they must therefore be the result of design. They are also unique, nor do they breed. It follows, therefore, that there must be a god of snowflakes crafting each one on the fly.
And why this is a problem in itself?
@@norelfarjun3554 It's no problem at all...to a rational person. It simply demonstrates that the notion of linking complexity to intentional design is utter nonsense.
Spend time studying Advaita Vedanta (Non dual Vedanta) and argue against their understanding of God. That would make for an interesting video. Or better yet, make a vid of you having a dialogue with an Advaitin monk. That would make for a very interesting video. I recommend Swami Sarvapriyananda of the RamaKrishna Order. Just an idea.
Funnily(and also kind of sadly) these rebuttals have been around for some decades at least if not centuries and yet theists don't let go of their arguments or their position
Tbf you could turn that around. If the rebuttals are still being used centuries later without success, then there's something wrong with the rebuttal (as far as the audience is concerned anyway).
Yes they do, these arguments have been responded to several times and the arguments have been modified several times, if all philosophical positions could be defeated by rebuttals found in a highschool textbook then there would be zero philosophical or theological research, yet people still study it.
@@benholroyd5221 point taken, so the conversation should be zeroed in on the specifics of arguments, rather than their ability to convince. Otherwise, flerfers' arguments are valid.
I look at these rebuttals as mainly for the undecided. Since theists didn't reach their beliefs through logic it is not going to be very effective to convince them to change. Most people incorporate held beliefs into their identity, Admitting you were mistaken is not possible for some.
@@faustzxc true. I've never been a fan of any emotional appeals but we can't ignore their power.
2 minutes in and I hope the reality of this video is noticed by everyone. There are two basic categories as I see it, that arguments for god fall into. They can overlap as well, but we have two routes:
1. I don't KNOW something(s), therefore, magic.
2. I don't CARE to know something(s), therefore, I will not face my own beliefs.
Ultimately, it's that simple. God arguments are just primitive ideas that occasionally get a facelift, but they weren't correct centuries ago and aren't correct now.
It's either argument from ignorance/incredulity, or they don't care about truth, at least in this one category. I'm not trying to clump everyone into this realm that sounds like extreme idiocy or anything; it's not about intelligence-it's about knowledge and the efforts people take to acquire it accurately. The majority of people I'd say are fairly rational but have been brainwashed to exempt theism specifically from examination.
It’s not ignorance to ask if our universe has a cause when causality is a self evident thing for everyone
@@uekvowzkaebbzuvrgipqxhemmwbhe agreed more or less
So you can have your own beliefs as long as there not God related!
Words of courage, i see
The 2 arguments for not being a god I hear are. 1)There is no evidence.2)If there is a LOVING god why does evil exist.If you are perceiving reality through duality,what evidence can be presented of that what is not in duality and not bound in time/space. If there is duality then non duality also exist..As love is beyond good and evil this cannot debunk the existence of god.If you have not perceived that understanding you have not faced your belief .
The problem with the Kalam is just that we have no reason to think anything that began to exist has a cause. Everything that we see isn't something that began to exist, it's just a rearrangement of existing material that happened to stumble its way into a shape that we had a definition for. A more honest argument would have been
P1: all things that exist are rearrangements of other existing things
P2: the universe is a thing that exists
C1: therefore the universe is a rearrangement of existing things
Humans have evolved moral senses, as a shitload of evidence shows. These are innate in us, though given enough time and evolutionary stress, they could morph. But they seem objective to us, and are functionally ‘objective’ in how we interact with people. Killing another person or stealing, cheating etc just seems wrong, no matter how we justify it post hoc. That’s an objective value that did not need a god to implant it in us. Psychology, animal behaviour studies, anthropology and sociology have shown this.
I think this is based upon the universal quality that all living creatures have, that they tend to avoid suffering and seek pleasure. This is the basis of our morality
When humans lived in small tribes, everyone that was able to was expected to contribute towards the needs of the tribe. Those that were selfish, thieves, or murderers would most likely be killed or abandoned. Thus they wouldn’t reproduce. Only people who contributed to the tribe’s well-being would.
These days, unfortunately, the immoral individuals are put on a pedestal instead of being punished. Sometimes they are even worshipped by the ones that suffer the most from their actions. I don’t know what’s to become of this world.
The evidence counters your own reasoning though. Evolutiona could create objective morals, it could only respond to them. In much the same you have evolved to 20c a comfortable temperature
@@st.michaelsknight6299 I don’t understand the structure of your sentences. Please elaborate. What I stated is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the latest research and some of the leading researchers in evolutionary psychology and anthropology
@@billkeon880 What I mean is this. Evolution didn't create cold, but it did give polar bears a nice warm fur coat to deal with the cold.
Morality is the same way in humans, evolution didn't create morals, but it responded to the moral reality.
We can prove this with rape. From a naturalistic evolutionary perspective, rape is quite effective in spreading ones genes. But yet we find it utterly repugnant, and rightly so.
Nicely done.
I enjoyed this "condensed" version very much.
Please, do carry on. 👍
9:00 I've never heard a theist say "everything that exists has a cause". Everything that *began* to exist, maybe.
Yup. That was a strawman.
@@u_phil and he addressed exactly that. Everything that began to exist is a more recent version.
@@dmitriy4708 It's not recent, it was always this version bro. I've never heard of a historical Cosmlogical argument that had such premises, because they obviously aren't dumb to consider that.
@@u_phil Ok. It does not make this argument less fallacious. Inductive argument structured as deductive (begging the question fallacy here), fallacy of composition, equivocation fallacy for 2 types of beginning to exist (ex materia and ex nihilo), lies about the Big Bang cosmology, lies about Guth-Vilenkin theorem, lies about impossibility of infinite regress being established, omission of this argument's reliance on A theory of time, disregard for Einstein's relativity, complete non sequitur about timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal creator as a result. It is a ridiculuosly flawed argument.
Spreading the glorious signature words “thus” and “hence” to the old colonies. Great job! :-)
I really like those words
They sound great, their meaning is very understandable and they are terribly useful
A new title for your video could be “How to Build Strawmen for 14 minutes”
Can you timestamp them?
@@blausgschpangschtvohindere2210 Sorry, I just saw this. Is it possible to timestamp an entire video?
@@kyleroode5217the entire theology is a strawman :))
As always I love the content and I also especially appreciate you doing this again for TH-cam!
The easiest way to prove a god exists is to have it show up. God is the all time reigning champion of hide and seek.
God is already shows up, sadly humans kill the God. 😢
@clashcon11 how do humans kill an all-powerful being?
@@briannyob7799 Do you even think human able to do that? Since The God is still alive.
Ontological: The greatest in quality not quantity. Evil is the lack of good, it's doesn't/cannot exist on its own.
Cosmological: Nothing has no potential. God is eternal. Infinity means endless.
You know that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dichotomy, right?
This guy took 15 minutes to fail to debunk Christianity. I guarantee I’ll pin him to the floor in 10 minutes but guaranteed he won’t debate me publicly
Yeah, i think you are correct, he will not waste his time with you, but I am one of his students, and if you can present a single argument for your god that I can not debunk or if you can counter a single one of my arguments, I will do my best so that you get your debate. Sounds fair?
Okay. I'll bite. Name your argument and go ahead I'll play along
I gave you 2 months to come up with anything valid or interesting. Do you still need more time, or do you now understand why a debate with you wouldn´t make any sense?
You are amazing! Thx for all those awesome instructive , brain shaking productions. Merci Beaucoup from Quebec (it challenge my english a lot lol)
Excellent work.
Aquinas’ “proofs” were the first warning I received that the emperor had no clothes.
I thought it was the pope...
I am so glad there are some sane people like 'rationality rules' on the planet. Good work.
LOL. You atheists are funny. How did morals come into existence?
@@truthrevealer771
How did the Ten Commandments come into existence? Hint: Neither the Hebrews nor their god invented them.
Diogenes lamp so where did the Ten Commandments come from according to you. Also provide evidence that proves this statement.
@@truthrevealer771
There are at least seven ancient law codes that predate Mosaic law, the priestly rules we know as the biblical commandments. The oldest for which we have documentary evidence is the Code of Ur-Nammu from about the middle of the 20th century BCE, which is at least 10 centuries prior to the biblical law code. Among the Ur-Nammu laws that survived are rules against murder and robbery (=coveting your neighbor’s goods). The Laws of Eshnunna from the 19th century BCE have rules against theft and bodily injury. The Code of the Nesilim from the 16th-17th centuries BCE also has explicit laws against theft and bodily harm.
The best known is the Code of Hammurabi from about the 18th century BCE. The idea of the monarch being the shepherd of his people was a common theme in the ancient Near East for what should be obvious reasons and we see that echoed in the Bible. Laws 1-5 in the Code prohibit bearing false witness; 6-25, coveting and stealing property; 127-194, murder and adultery, among other things. It even follows the principle of _lex talionis,_ the “eye for an eye” principle found also in Mosaic law.
In other words, the biblical commandments reflect legal concerns that had been common to many of the peoples living in the ancient Near East, concerns that had been extant for over a millennium before the Hebrews produced their Mosaic law. There’s nothing unique about the latter in this respect. Even the source of the laws follows existing forms, where the laws were said to be given by a god to the human lawgiver.
@@truthrevealer771I'm late to the comments but I think morals come from evolution and society/culture which explains how morals can differ across time and around the world
Straw man simulator theism edition. You should debate jay dyer with such “solid” arguments
He really should.
It's a pity you didn't have enough time to do more debunking, cause I'm sure theists would use the "god's very nature is good" counter-argument to answer your last debunking attempt.
Great video as always, Steven! Thanks!
The dilemma still stands: Is something good because it's God's nature or is it God's nature because it is good. E.g. is honesty good because it's God's nature or is honesty part of God's nature because it is good (in of itself).
Then ask why is dishonest not part of God's nature?
Oh, that one. Very sneaky WLC. It is good, because it is good. 😌
@@justanotherhomosapian5101
Obviously according to their mindset God's nature's nature is good. And if you ask the same question about God's nature's nature, theists will keep on adding more "nature's" between 'God' and 'good'. Perhaps not ad infinitum, but definitely ad nauseam. The honest ones that is. The dishonest ones will simply derail the conversation with any baseless assertion, usually about your motives.
His speedrun wasn't Max%, his speedrun was just 100% aka debunk all common arguement for God so he did fine in this speedrun, he just needs to do some optimization.
They are basically saying it's empty. Not much difference from gibberish. You get absolutely nothing. Asserting nothing. X is X that's it, no ifs, no buts. How uncanny that all arguments for and its properties seem to point out to NOTHING. 🤭
0:55 Stephen should explain if that side-shave haircut is of freewill, him being trendy and falling in line with what's fashionable, or is he determine to hide the truth of that receding hairline.
Brodie I agree with you on most of this but god might be the only thing that can save your hairline 😂
Nah, you're not saved. You're just an ape.
10:10 One of the tricks they use to sneak up their god is say "A cause" instead of causes. Many things have many causes but if they accept that they are accepting politheism.
Great job bro! Keep up the good work
This was an excellent video. I'm especially impressed that you did this off the cuff in the side room at Faithless.
As an ex Muslim I love your content! Keep up the great work dude!
you are an atheist now. stop being attached to islam.
@@batman-sr2px who said I'm "attached" to Islam? I enjoy learning about all myths, Islam included.
Plus this video isn't about Islam specifically anyway, relax😉
Quran:-86:5-7 says that sperms comes from spinal chord is it true?
@@proscreed6189 actually it's more specifically coming from the backbone of the man, and the ribs of a woman.... So it's hopelessly wrong
@@thenun1846 Thanks man btw can you tell me a website where I can read Quran for free (I like to read this stuff so I could annoy theist people )
Well done. You absolutely destroyed those scarecrows. The explosion of straw was fun to watch.
How was any of those a strawman?
Wiling to bet you fail to explain
@@drsatan9617 Well, let's look at the first argument. Honestly, I don't like the ontological argument, but he chose one of the weakest ontological arguments to present and then didn't even refute it. He said that if a greatest possible being exists, the same logic would also get us a greatest possible island. That argument only works if you can prove that there is no greatest possible island. Since at least one island exists, a greatest possible island exists.
@@_Gormakesh_ it's not a strawman at all, yours is the strawman methinks
This is your argument in a nutshell: A greatest possible island exists but this doesn't work unless you can prove there is no greatest possible island
We can prove that islands exist but the existence of one island doesn't mean that its not possible for other islands to exist that you aren't aware of
It would be the logic of a total simpleton to look at one island only and assume that they can't be any greater
What else ya got lol
@@drsatan9617 I think you missed the point. If an island exists, then there is a greatest possible island. Let's say that there is only one island that exists in all of reality. That island would be the greatest possible island.
@@_Gormakesh_ not true. Just because you have one island now doesn't mean another greater one can't form later
One island is the biggest island that currently exists but there's literally nothing preventing us from building a greater island
The watchmaker argument is only good if, the individual is scientifically illiterate.
Which works in the church's favor, every time.
My personal view is that the original Kalam argument (not WLCs) is the best one. It doesn’t even need to be a known entity more of a deistic god.
@@oliverhug3
As a former Christian, I would agree, but only because at least that would give one a legitimate foothold.
Moving forward towards a personal god, however...
...I don't see it.
Furthermore, like Steven already stated, nobody would ever assume a watch was made by Mr.Fixitall but rather by someone who specializes in making watches, so even if the argument worked it would more or less imply that humans had a humanmaker, birds had a birdmaker and mountains had a mountainmaker. But to this very day we can see new humans coming into life and we can observe the land changing its shape without a single hint of influence by a deity.
@@oliverhug3 Seeing god as an entity is quite ignorant.God is beyond subject object..The particle and a wave.
You don't know anything about science.
Whosoever does not follow Gandalf, follows Saruman
I have officially unsubscribed and stopped donating to the ACA after I learned that they cancelled you. Such a shame. All they talk about nowadays is lgbtq and veganism instead of atheism.
I’ll be donating my previous ACA payments to you from now on. Thank you for everything you do 👏
Based Rationality Rules :3
Atleast one of my favourite Atheists didn't became woke.
What happened?
It’s truly a shame that fascist wokeism has infiltrated the skeptic community. Cancel culture is gonna devolve into them eating their own.
Ummm... I guess we're glad you're gone then if you have to needlessly slag on legitimate movements & causes.
@@atmike It's not unnecessary when it's part of the topic.
The best arguments for god are themselves bad arguments in general.
@Dewyu Nohmi They have to resort to bad philosophical arguments because they dont have any empirical evidence.
Everyone always shitting on the devil. You know, the only honest character in that ridiculous story book.
Also, far more fun at parties.
Very interesting channel,I just found out about it and after watching 3 episodes, I hit that subscrizzle button because you sir, deserve a bigger audience!
How to actually, really debunk literally _all_ arguments for God. In just 4 words:
Arguments are not evidence.
If God exists in the real world, his existence could be objectively verified. But precisely because God does not exist in the real world, theists are forced to argue their God into existence.
@@ceceroxy2227
I'm talking about existence here. Do. You. Get. This? Great.
Unlike reality denynig believers, I have evidence - if not absolute proof - for the truth of what I said:
It's the total lack of evidence of any imaginary, forever undemonstrated being that ever magically turned into a real being just because some funny stuff is said about it.
According to theist 'logic', Jahveh Stickman exists just because I just made up the claim it's an eternal, uncaused, forever existing being (I could make Jahveh Stickman say all arguments for God). If you deny the existence of Jahveh Stickman based on what I said here or based on what I could make him say in a speech bubble, then you have proven my case:
Arguments are not evidence.
Not in the scientific world, yes in the philosophical world
And there is some overlap
The point is that a logical conclusion from a series of verified facts should be true as well.
In the philosophical and (pure) logical world it usually ends here
In the scientific world this is the starting point for experiments that will refute or prove the conclusion (which serves as a model prediction)
@@norelfarjun3554
If God is a real-world phenomenon so to say and not a mere idea, then the philosophical world does not matter. Anything else is a theist's admission that God is nothing but a construct in the minds of some people.
*_"The point is that a logical conclusion from a series of verified facts should be true as well."_*
Keyword is 'verified'. If God could be verified, and if it could be verified that real-word fact X is the product of God and only of God, then yes, it would be true that without God, we wouldn't have X. But then, one no longer needs to argue God into existence. God doesn't magically turn into a real being just because some funny stuff is said about him. What theists refuse to admit is that God is not their conclusion but starting point from which they work backwards to confirm.
@@TheBastius You have phrased that better than I ever managed to when talking to theists. It's annoying how hard it is to explain the concept of "evidence" to them, and I've never been sure if I didn't do it right, or they weren't listening.
I once told one that I would believe in his God if a delegation of angels came down in front of witnesses and cameras, and handed me a Bible engraved on pages of pure technitium foil with dimensions perfect 8 x 11 inches down to the atomic level. He said "Well, God doesn't care enough to do all that."
Cringe
The ontological argument is bollocks! That's all there is to say!
By the way - "mystery is the safe space for God" - love it.
think my favorite answers to the watchmaker argument, is to say, "sure, but evolution in it self is the intelligence, no outside intelligence is needed, and we have tested that genetic algorithm can solve problems", so I can accept both premises and the convolution, but the watchmaker argument still fails
Yes, everything is self-contained. No external non-material, non-interactive being exists.
That's what happens when they reify NOTHING. 😏
My favorite answer (to the version with the story of walking by the sea) is:
"Did you notice that you chose a watch and not a stone, a branch or a shells?
Why not?"
Very quickly they explain by themselves the difference between natural things and unnatural things, and realize that this is what is really behind the story (and not the complexity)
The fact that you need a video debunking magic men in the sky speaks volumes about 2021.
I think it speaks larger volumes we need people to show the Earth isn't flat in 2021.
I am a theist and I dont believe in magic men in the sky. God is the only logical conclusion for the existence of the universe so what speaks volumes is that people still try to pretend he doesn't exist in 2021
What always has fascinated me is that someone naively can think one youtuber can debunk thousands of years of philosophical thinking with a video of 15 minutes. That's shows the level of arrogant stupidity that mankind is achieving nowadays.
Sorry, not his mistake that there is not evidence or sound argument for any of the gods...
@@RoninTF2011There's no evidence that God loves you ...
Oh wait.... Jesus.
You're a Sinner and Repent.
Not that we worry much about it, but there are at least four hundred years of often very carefully thought-out science that has been thrown onto the dustheap, “debunked” if you will. With every hypothesis that is firmly established, many others are pushed aside. And as you know, very good science is often subsumed by better theories that understand the older hypothesis as a special case. The aether theory for the propagation of light was a very serious contender in the minds of truly great physicists like Rutherford. We likewise can expect a number of philosophical problems to evaporate, and new ones to present themselves.
This is all to the good. Otherwise we would still be sacrificing animals to the gods. (Are kaporos hens and roosters an exception? ) Now we know that god doesn’t need sacrifices. He just likes to watch when people masturbate.
What do you think about TH-cam opting to remove public dislikes?
Unnecessary and pointless, but, they gotta protect snowflake's feelings. Big mean viewers shouldn't dislike it if they like it. Something along those lines, I'm sure.
I'm not a fan
@@acrazedtanker1550 Someone at TH-cam's HQ said they made the decision in order to protect small youtubers from targeted dislikes, and made the point that other social media platforms eg. Instagram, Twitter don't have dislike buttons but in my opinion that's obviously a pretty shitty example because TH-cam is unique, in the way that it is also a search engine, we come to TH-cam specifically to seek information at times, and if that information is false I'd like to be able to observe a like to dislike ratio on a video to determine whether or not I think it may be a waste of my time ...
My take on likes and dislikes selection, is that it should be about me being able to signal to the algorithm God which type of content I prefer to see or not. If I like a type of video I get more choice for that. If I don't like it I get less of it. It should not, in my opinion be a censorship tool. If I think something is dangerous or very offensive to me, I should be able to report that through the reporting system for further vetting. There will always be minority taste that can earn the creators a platform. But these don't buy the buttons on the the next exec suite so they have to go. If dislikes meant people didn't get that stuff presented to them they would have to spend their entire life searching to be offended.
I did a mini series on my antifascist channel where I broke popular arguments in under a minute each. Actually got a little traction on those but it turned my channel toxic. I started it because atheist TH-cam was spending 20+ minutes debunking arguments that didn't deserve that amount of time--like Pascal's Wager. PW is a total non-starter; you have to confuse pragmatic reason for evidentiary reason. Done.
SO, anyway, I'm glad someone else has picked this up and run with it.
Who cought the “6000 slides to go through” reference? Like how young earthers try to claim that all of history happened in 6000 years?
All of history did happen in about 6000 years, probably less though.
Cause history is based on written records, so stuff like the Stone Age and our interactions with the Neanderthals would technically be considered prehistory.
Sorry, just had to nitpick
I don't think you can use the black swan fallacy against the cosmological argument, because the fallacy relies on the opposition ignoring evidence to draw a universal conclusion from a set of facts, and there does'nt seem to be any evidence that there is an exception to the "law" of causality, except that there have been discovered exceptions to a few universal conclusions we've made in the past, but then that becomes a statistics game for how often there are exceptions to rules we make, and i do not have the data to say one way or the other.
Theistic arguments be like:
Premise 1: I do nothing all day.
Premise 2: Nothing is impossible.
Conclusion: Hence, I do the impossible all day.
Theists should pray to god everyday that he send them better arguments...because so far in history they haven't been able to come up with any. It would take a miracle...
And whats the point in arguing youre just a bunch of meat and bones on a floating rock according to you
@@Albania_Footballwhy simplify the complexity of human existence and awareness in the cosmos?
Man is the only living being with a "god"
Man is the only living being that very special to God.
And yet they're not thinking the same to God.
And then this happen and that happen.
And then God became human.
But then Son of the Man got killed.
And then.... .... ... to this day.
And then in the future.... He came again.
And then so many realize that they didn't believe and are not saved...
and then.... I don't know... I hope I know the continuity, but that's just it. I'm not Eternal, but my God is. And I want to live with Him forever.
i love so much how you evolved ... you are great
Well, goats have horns. My car has a horn.
Therefore, my car is a goat.
Checkmate.
Damn, this guy debunked the whole universe in 15 min. I guess that's it guys, pack up.
theism=universe???
@@pedrov.8087 Apparently 😂😂😂 probably the most rare theistic argument: existence, therefore God 😂😂😂😂
@@ZackMaddox-gd1zk its more logical to believe in God than in whatever bullshit atheists want to believe
@@Albania_Footballatheists dont “believe”. it is the lack of belief
Argument for god without evidence is not an argument.
How much evidence do you want before you stop rejecting all the evidence?
Learn to present one lol@@wprandall2452
before starting this video, I had assumed that this is a Video from an angry atheist or just someone who is condescending towards others.
Now that I watched this, its seems really respectful and just nice. A pleasant suprize.
Thanks for the extra effort! Great video
I love how this video was made as an argument repertoire to counter theistic philosophical arguments. “If the theist says this, respond with this”, as if philosophical debate is like a chess a game where you memorise certain move orders. This approach has nothing to do with pursuing truth.
I hate to break out to you, but apologetics is all about playing this chess game. The works of theologians are often in pursuit of truth, but for the herders keeping their flock in check, it's 95% rhetoric.
But in any case, take my advise as a hint of where to head first, should you be interested in a given argument.
@@rationalityrules Accusing the “theologians” of the same folly that you yourself are committing simply cancels both of you out. I understand that apologetics can be a form of flock herding, but your and and other atheist channels are doing the same thing by providing bias affirming content on a regular basis, it’s really no different from theists weekly congregating at church, but with the roles reversed.
@@moderncaleb3923 well, actually it is different. Having been on both sides of the isle on this one I have to side with facts and evidence as opposed to unsubstantiated claims of magic. Now if you’ve only been on one side of the isle your whole life there is no way you can even begin to comprehend what the view looks like from the other side.
So how should we proceed then? Are you saying we should not question or examine the arguments?🙂
It feels like a game of chess because it is. 🙂 Now, if you run out of move. Checkmate. You are wrong. Checkmate atheist. 😏
4:58 A watch is not complex.
A pinion or wheel is formed of a simple circle. A tooth on a wheel or pinion is a simple item. A wheel or pinion is a simple collection of simple teeth arranged around a simple circle. There are several of these simple wheels and pinions coming together. A simple spring stores energy.
The only complexity is the _design_ _process_ by which we take these simple items and bring them together to carry out a particular function - in this case keep regular time.
A C G & T/U are simple atomic structures. Proteins are simple molecular structures. They interact in simple ways.
It would be extremely complex to _design_ a pet dog. But some other simple collection of simple molecules is inevitable. Whether the particular collection makes a suitable pet is up to the perceiver.
Complexity enters the argument only when one _assumes_ _design_.
Problem: God-botherers are arse-endian, assuming design.
Not a clue
“But some other simple collection of simple molecules is inevitable. Whether the particular collection makes a suitable pet is up to the perceiver.” It is really a matter of marketing. Consider the Tamagotchi. In my classroom I saw several of these very demanding pets being very well cared for. Consider the 1970s fad, The Pet Rock. The manufacturer claims not one was returned. Retailers were told to release unsold pets: they could fend for themselves. They returned just the bit of cardboard that had the product name.
So in 14 minutes, you figured out what has been wrestled with by man for thousands of years, and continue to do so today. Someone alert the media, this guy is a genius!
He's done a fair few videos on the topic but yeah defo alert the media
Man hasn't been so much wrestling with it as it has been attempting to untangle thousands of years of indoctrination. It doesn't happen overnight.
Well, he didn't figure it out. People over the course of hundreds of years have debunked these arguments. He just used their debunkings in a 14 minute video.
@Jack Achkinsheinz they havent debunked anything lol. If you think the arguments have a been debunked its clear you dont have a pHD lol
I always love when people think they can solve philosophy and quantum physics in a single TH-cam video
Question regarding the watchmaker argument. If we assert that "A is a product of B" is a transitive relation, which means that if "A is a product of B" and "B is a product of C" then by transitivity "A is a product of C", then the argument of natural selection is not a rebuttal, because you can still say "yes, complex organisms evolve via natural selection, but natural selection is a product of laws of physics which is in turn a product of lets call it God, therefore via transitivity complex organisms are a product of God".
I also dont think that the argument from ignorance fallacy is a good rebuttal, since when it comes to the theory of gravity, we basically take for granted that if we let go of something, it falls to the ground, and we assert that this will always happen, simply because we have never observed otherwise. All empirical evidence is based upon this and surely we wouldnt say that any theory thats based on empirical evidence alone is an argument from ignorance?
IMO, a much better way to go about a rebuttal is to point out that the definition of "complex" is all but precise, which causes the argument to turn into some sort of Sorites paradox.
That's a good way of putting it. Genesis says the EARTH brought forth every living thing (maybe with the exception of Adam) and God's participation seems to be observing that "it is good".
@@thomasmaughan4798 so you're quoting God in your argument that God isn't God? (for some value of God).
@@benholroyd5221 "so you're quoting God in your argument that God isn't God? "
Precisely! God is [God, not God] simultaneously, rather like Schroedinger's Cat
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat
Until "God" is defined (observed) the uncertainty exists. BUT since my observation might not match your observation, God is still God and not God, just not to the same person. God for me but not you; God for you but not me.
@@thomasmaughan4798 ah the theory of God relativity. My god says that doesn't exist, and your God doesn't exist to back you up!?!
Agree that natural selection is besides the point about whether or not a God exists. Even still, the argument from ignorance takes the general form, "we are ignorant about how X thing happened, therefore X thing happened because Y." But, if we stated empiricism as an argument it might say, "we know X has only happened because of Y every time we've observed it, therefore it's highly probable that the next time X happens it's because of Y." One is making an inference based on nothing, the other is making an inference based on evidence.
How does natural selection explain the complexity of the universe? Galaxies dont undergo natural selection. Also what do you mean by nature? Looks like you dont believe in God but believe in Nature, so didnt you just make nature your God?
Your Arguments for God Debunked speedrun is impressive RR.
But it needs a lot of optimisation.
Still tho, I'm eagerly looking forward to the next speedruns from you :)
Maybe the next one should be " Miracles of Quran and Bible, debunked in less than 10 minutes"
Although I'm sure you can optimise it to 6 minutes considering how repetitive the miracles are in terms of their fallaciousness.
I also wish you did some 100% speedruns, aka debunked ALL all arguements, from mainstream one's to more niche arguements, after all, you said you still had a lot of slides left :)
Looking at it this way, I see quite a lot of potential in collaboration with DarkViperAU
He didn't use the "problem of evil" bug though. Do you think it would be faster?
If he does the intro skip and uses the “busses leaving the station” frame rule, I recon we could see a Summoning Salt vid on the history of debunking by early next year. 😁
@@andresgarciacastro1783 For sure he could've done it faster, it's just what category was he aiming for?
Any% would mean he'd use bugs but he didn't, 100% would mean he'd debunk all official theist arguements and not the common one's.
But considering this is RR first speedrun, we should be lenient on him, everyone has to start from somewhere, he just needs a guide like DarkViperAU
That was fun. Now I am off to say my prayers.
Ok
You are good sir, and you remind me of Christopher Hitchens, which is always a good thing in my book.
I thought Ragnar Lodbrok was a Pagan not an atheist ???
Just a poke. Great video!
I’ll do you one better- I’ll debunk every argument for theism in two words. You ready?
Objection: conjecture!
Seriously, try to name an argument for the existence of a god that doesn’t make at least one baseless assumption.
Ahhh … but if you assume there is a god, then it all makes perfect sense.
@@ceceroxy2227 why does anything exist in your worldview? I know you say that god is the reason, but then comes the inevitable question: why does god exist? Why does he exist rather than nothing existing?
You can take a causal chain back far, but that doesn’t work forever. Eventually, you have to reach a point where you just say that something just does exist-that it exists by necessity. You may argue that it is God, I will go with it being the universe until such a time as a god is demonstrated to exist.
@@ceceroxy2227 For me, and as Sean Carroll puts it, "the universe may not need a *why* but it just is".
My opinion:
You don't need a book or anyone else to tell you what your purpose is, you can find it yourself. When you see life as finite then it is infinitely precious because this is the only and last time we can do something. Sure, it's scary when I put it like that but it is reality. We must make the most of the little time we have.
@@ceceroxy2227 What makes you think that no one is right or wrong? Clearly steal, rape, and murder are wrong. We have laws to take care of those people. Some people's purpose are also doing God's will such as Hitler. Well, they believe and justify that to be their purpose. I certainly don't take all of my wisdom from Sean Carroll but I thought it would be fitting for the question you posed.
Please don't tell me there's a god because we know what is right and wrong. This is the moral argument.
@@ceceroxy2227 We don't know, so we try to find out, instead of inserting conjecture like all theists do.
If God wanted us to be rational he wouldn't have created any religions.
Does the morality-argument not have another problem in premise 1? If it's god that decides what is objectively moral, doesn't that automatically make the morality in question a subjective morality? Since a being/person/entity has made the decision, that seems to me the definition of subjectivity.
In their world, the term “objective” describes God’s supreme subjectivity
This is a serious problem of definition, but given this definition there is no problem with the first premise
That makes morality arbitrary yes but not really subjective, all beings are below god, no one is on the same level of god so there is no reason why his moral code wouldn’t apply to all things, truth is above all things, that’s what makes it objective.
@@uekvowzkaebbzuvrgipqxhemmwbhe It's still subjective to him, though.
Sure, it might be the highest understanding of morality, or "supreme understanding," but it's still subjective nonetheless.
@@cy-one ontologically god isn’t just a random being, he is the source of truth and meaning for the universe, if you think truth and reality is objective, then gods word is also objective, otherwise everything will be subjective to god, and that’s not what people mean when they talk about subjectivity, they refer to a disconnect between an objective reality and what a subject says about that reality, but in a universe where god exists reality itself is subjective to god
@@uekvowzkaebbzuvrgipqxhemmwbhe
*"ontologically god isn’t just a random being, he is the source of truth and meaning for the universe"*
Supposedly.
The issue is, any argument of this kind for God can be redirected to anything similar at leisure.
_The fundamental source for truth, reality and morality is the Invisible Pink Realicorn. Without it, there is no truth. Without it, there is no reality. Without it, there is no morality._
Is there truth? Is there reality? Is there morality?
Ergo the Invisible Pink Realicorn exists.
Edit 1: I only find the existence of order in the universe convincing for Theism, as it requires some ordering principle. This does not contain assumption about a good, simple, beautiful or whatever order. Just order. However, obviously minds rise from this order and follow other or additional principles, I claim. Since I assume I'm not determined by physical laws when I act (at least not entirely).
OP:
Despite being not a theist I find some counterarguments little weak. Like against the Watchmaker argument. Evolution is not an argument against Theism, since there is an order emerging from simpler rules. It would rather be an argument for God's genius. Also, I don't think it's the best argument; the best argument might be that there is an order in nature, things are obviously not random on many levels, emerging from lower levels we can't even analyse by definition. How language has emerged and was never invented is part of this order. Or the argument that why is there something, instead of nothing. Or tracking back the causal chain which needs to have a fixed first cause, there are also different types of causes, of course. I find this arguments more convincing, because they go at the very foundations of logic and reasoning.
I would counter that evolution in my book is not a showcase for God's genius, 100% not for the "all-loving" group of gods - as it requires an insane amount of death and suffering, the tools driving evolution (mutations) are often detrimental as they are beneficial - so many creatures were born with disadvantages and had to suffer through (often short) life as they were on the short stick of evolution game and were picked by predators / didn't survive their environment.
He is not saying evolution is an argument against theism. He is saying that it is an argument against the watchmaker argument.
Edit: Although, I would like to point out, that while it is fashionable now by many to make the case that evolution is not an argument against theism, it definitely was to many theists, and still is where I grew up in South Africa. Evolution was smeared by many churches, and mosques, and I have met many highly intelligent people still to this day, who reject it because of their theism. The fact that theism has had to make a retreat is, in my opinion, something of an indictment that should not be forgotten.
"Evolution is not an argument against Theism"
Quite right. Essentially irrelevant. Genesis says that the EARTH brought forth every living thing and apparently that is indeed the case.
Evolution shows that we have no reason to believe the premise of "complexity is always a product of intelligence", because it shows plenty of things where we have evidence to suggest it's _not_ the product of intelligence (but you can still appeal to ignorance and say God made it happen).
Although I prefer to simply say it's an appeal to ignorance or a generalisation fallacy, because that emphasises that we don't actually _need_ another explanation for intelligence to dismiss that premise. The premise is just a bad one, with or without evolution.
The rebuttal doesn't disprove that God exists, and that's not what it sets out to do. It shows that the Watchmaker argument is a poor argument and fails to prove that God exists.
It addresses why the very specific reasoning presented in that argument is not valid.
An analogy I posted in another comment: consider me saying there's an elephant in my back yard because the sky is blue. You can say that there being an elephant in my back yard doesn't logically follow from the sky being blue. This doesn't mean you disprove there being an elephant in my back yard, but it does mean you "debunk" the argument I presented to prove it. If I want to prove there's an elephant in my back yard, I'll need to fix my argument, or find other arguments.
"Evolution is not an argument against Theism, since there is an order emerging from simpler rules. "
This is like saying gravity is not an argument against god pushing people back down, because the end result is the same.
" the best argument might be that there is an order in nature"
yeah okay bud.
"Or tracking back the causal chain which needs to have a fixed first cause, there are also different types of causes, of course."
Causality only works until logic breaks down, be that of I don't know, you never observed it? Our knowledge only goes back so far, so it's stupid to assume there was a "first cause".
Ah that was disappointing. He didn't debunk anything.
Yeah, I was thought. We'll need to make more excuse to make more "god" 😂 Man, this is really the fun video
He did you just dismissed his debunking
@@bapputikkis1979you wanna tell me an 15 min video can possibly debunk every agrument for God? 😂😂
@@KsnaBabsns You must've missed the first 2 minutes of the video. Try watching it again. 😂
Oh nice! Just found this and it's like a smaller version
of HBomberguy!
Hope he grows to become like said TH-camr one day!
Great! I enjoyed every second of the 15 minutes and 37 seconds!
I just wanted to add a thought. It's one that relates to all these arguments for the existence of God.
In every case, we are never actually presented with anything that could remotely qualify, from a scientific standpoint, as "evidence" for the existence of God. We are given logical arguments of more or less strength. But that's all... words.
A strong, logical argument MAY point us in a direction to look for evidence of God. But in itself, it is not evidence.
Suppose a jogger has gone missing and I happen to know that jogger's routine. I could make an argument that there is a strong likelihood the jogger might have gone missing in the dark forest with the deep lake. No matter how well reasoned my argument is, I have not actually produced evidence of the whereabouts of the missing jogger. But when the search team goes to the lake in the wood, and dredges the lake and finds the body, ... then ... and only then ... do we have evidence for the location of the jogger. (edit - and it's entirely possible I could have been wrong, despite knowing the jogger's routine. He might have decided to take an unfamiliar route and fallen down a disused well and was never found. So my knowledge, despite being soundly based on knowing the jogger's routine, was actually wrong.)
All these arguments for the existence of God have yet to lead to a single shred of anything remotely resembling actual evidence for the existence of God, or gods, or goddesses, or unicorns, or...
If logical arguments are just "words" then there's no way to justify science, because it can't justify itself. God isn't proven by science because science doesn't "prove" things.
@@evangelium5376 Natural Science provide evidence...
Formal sciences , like philosophy and mathematics, can prove that certain things are consitent with their internal rules...that all.
What verifies the evidence in the natural science, is the ability to make correct prediction BASED on them.
"If logical arguments are just "words" then there's no way to justify science, because it can't justify itself"
And here is evidence that you don't know what science is...
" God isn't proven by science because science doesn't "prove" things."
...nope, because there is no rational evidence for the exitence of any gods...
@@RoninTF2011 - No. Apparently you aren't aware of things like the problem of induction: science can't justify itself because it relies on metaphysical categories that are outside its scope of inquiry.
@@evangelium5376 lol, not
@@RoninTF2011 - It's true. I'm sorry you're willfully ignorant.
I love the Cosmological Argument. Everything that exists has a cause, etc, therefore Jesus died for our sins. Greatest non-sequitur of all time.
Nothing in this video is about Jesus or any religion whatsoever. No one (somewhat intelligent anyway) has ever said that arguments for the existence of god prove Christianity or any other religion
@@bigfoot3763 Christians use Cosmological to prove a god must exist and they have no doubt that it's theirs.
@@earlofdoncaster5018 Christians use the cosmological argument to prove A God exists. They then use other arguments in conjunction with this one to prove Christianity true. Your creating a strawman and applying it to the general Christian community as if we as a whole say the cosmological argument then proves Jesus died for our sins.
@@bigfoot3763sorry your wrong. The video depicts a image of the christ opposite the narrator.
Most modern day theists are either Christian or muslims, so indirectly this video is directed at Christians.
( go to Ecce Homo (Martinez and Gimenez) Wikipedia for proof of first statement.
@@bigfoot3763 the second half of your comment is correct.
Evidence of a god or gods existence wouldn't validate Christianity or any other religion. Logic dictates that only one, if any set of spiritual beliefs proposed by humanity, from any point in history, could be correct but all human spiritual concepts could be wrong.
Therefore evidence of a god/ gods existence wouldn't necessarily please the followers of the bible .