Arguing God's Existence | Episode 106 | Closer To Truth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มิ.ย. 2024
- You've heard the raucous noise about God; now listen to the cogent arguments, con and pro. Not that determining the existence of God is up for vote; when searching for Truth, majority opinion counts for nothing. Featuring interviews with Keith Ward, Owen Gingerich, William Craig, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Alvin Plantinga, and Steven Weinberg.
Season 1, Episode 6 - #CloserToTruth
Archive episode. First aired in 2008.
▶Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth host Robert Lawrence Kuhn takes viewers on an intriguing global journey into cutting-edge labs, magnificent libraries, hidden gardens, and revered sanctuaries in order to discover state-of-the-art ideas and make them real and relevant.
▶Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
Who is obsessed with and haunted by the most interesting questions? 🥰😅
Are you.
@@jamesdolan4042 😁
The who behind the flashlight, I want that question debated by various experts! Loved the video though
Tremendous irony from the Dartmouth professor- after explaining that one should listen to the arguments of others to find fallacies, he still ignores the sage wisdom of his counterpart that “he believes God is not an entity which one can experience in the way one would experience a ghost- which is essentially an intangible human” and then throws the same “belief in ghosts” argument out there.
That’s not really an irony because what you call “sage wisdom” is very much undefined. If we throw out rules of observation and evidence, then suddenly the gates are wide open for any interpretation - same reason why atheists use the crude “flying spaghetti monster” analogy. If sensory experience and evidence based approach is thrown out, then any interpretation becomes plausible and valid. There is nothing stopping god from being the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that case
Small problem. Ghosts, are apparitions of the dead. Ghosts don't exist. The supernatural, however does exist. Charisma is an example. It is a power, outside the understanding of science, and 5 natural senses, yet real. All the important events in the universe, are outside the understanding of science, yet real. The universe itself. Origin of life, origin if mind\consciousness. Miracles have occurred, Miracles are supernatural. It is the realm in which God lives.
In my view, to say that one believes in God and then quote a holy book is to believe in a holy book.
I'm a former atheist who believes God definitely exists. Just not in the way most people conceptualize.
what is your definition and descriptions of the god you believe in?
*is god willing to remove the bad stuff from nature but not able?* or why did he even create them in the first place?
(diseases- for example cancer kills 9 to 10 million people every year worldwide. viruses, pestilence, congenital birth defects, natural disasters such as earthquakes from destroying peoples lives, hurricanes, tornados, deadly poisonous plants or animals- such as snakes kill 80-132k people every year worldwide or mosquitos that kill 1milion people every year)
*then he is not omnipotent, is he able but not willing? then he is malevolent, is he neither able nor willing? then why do u call it god instead of just nature*
"god" doesnt exist in any way
@@ShowMeYoBoob I'm an atheist but now that you've made a positive claim you bare the burden of proof. The proper answer is 'IDK" but I've seen no evidence of any god.
@@giantopinionsports6119 claim? its not a claim i always speak facts. Just saying idk implies that one doesn't have a rational, analytical and critical thinking brain.
Edit: I'm not sure if i understood correctly this part "you bare the burden of proof"
Some debates are just waste of time and no one ever win this one but it is humanly to try that because we want know even when we don't know.
I've been obsessed with Robert Lawrence Kuhn in the past.
Thanks for the update
So what?
😂
The real question is why there should be a God?
I'm not arguing one way or another, but to me that's the only question that matters concerning this subject.
With God comes Heaven - the easy living for eternity
Religion has reduced these people down to shameless prostitutes/gigolos/leeches/parasites looking around for the rich Sugar Daddy to GIVE them a life of ease & comfort
Down on their knees, they think all they have to do is beg & grovel a bit and nice forgiving "God" will help them cheat their victims and GIVE them an eternal life of ease & comfort
AND NOT ONE IS AWARE OF WHAT THEY HAVE BECOME! AMAZING!
@@ramaraksha01 u probably crazy
because the other option is total wild randomness. So reality exist or for a causation of some kind of intelligence, primordial or high, or for just some kind of very very lucky randomness. So God represent the most probable option still today.
Meanings come primarily from whole-part relationships. Without knowing the ultimate whole (God), the real meanings of things can't be correctly understood.
The same is true of purposes. The purpose of each part is to perform a function for the whole, so understanding the whole is necessary for properly utilizing the parts.
Before your question comes what is god. Define that label first then you can see if its something that falls in line with reality and visa versa or not. So far, no one has given a good definition about god. Same about reality btw...ok label reality. What defines reality, what is it based on, its foundation? No answer yet.
Humans spend entirely too much time thinking about God and not nearly enough thinking about God’s advice.
What is the point of trying to describe the destination when one has never been there and still not even sure what path to take.
For the vast majority of humans who still routinely struggle with anger, jealousy, pride, etc., God’s advice should be the focus.
And God’s advice is quintessentially reducible.
The top religions of the day are not spending millions pushing conversions, using threats of hell to innocents just to talk about God's advice - this is about gaining power!
And the billions of converts don't care for God's advice either - they view God much the same way as any prostitute/leech view the rich Sugar Daddy - their ticket to a life of ease & comfort
Humans spend entirely too much time thinking about God and not nearly enough time thinking about science.
@@ramaraksha01 unfortunately
I truly enjoy your journey, and as a sojourner I too ask myself all these questions, debating these idea and debacles over and over in my mind, when I heard you say I don’t want to be guilty of believing in God because of faulty reasoning ( I’m paraphrasing) I thought to myself, wow..I have been down that road too...in fact that very thought has directed my thinking continually through out my life, I think I have given over too accepting God as real, to fill my own longing for this to be true..I long for there to be A God I who is so intimate with me that I could never be alone or lacking....so As I give myself over to this idea, I find that I see that God in everything, and there is great joy and great peace in that...and even if I am delusional, I am delusion-ally at peace and have joy.....I hope you find your peace as well my friend!
Beware your desires. They will lead you astray. Life is what it appears to be - physical, difficult, and temporary. We don't want it to be that way so we imagine that dying is no different than moving to a new zip code where all will be made right. A child's dream.
@@fr57ujf And yet your actions have consequences: has Alfred Nobel redeemed himself? Did he have to? For a "greater good"? And, what's the truth of the matter? Spirituality can be childish, it doesn't have to be.
@@fr57ujf maybe as Donald Hofmann stated, our senses aren’t designed to see reality as it is, and therefore assuming we see any form of reality and understand it, well is impossible, maybe he is wrong and a few intellectuals do grasp it in its entirety, never the less I have wrestled for a long time and I’m far more settled and have far more joy in my own deluded dream, verses say for instance, yours(no offense intended)… I find that observing life ……love, or kindness generally speaking seems to be the way in which we all maximize our experience. Maybe all the laws of physics were born into existence in order to make this possible. Maybe all the perceived harsh brutality that comes along with these laws provides a back drop for kindness to exist and in that mix I for no reason I understand…. see what I call God. Of course even a mind doesn’t exist in reality the brain does the neurons do, but the mind is a subjective thing that we can observe, perhaps God is similar, or something our sense’s just can’t grasp.
Beautifully articulated. 🙏
Do not underestimate what you don't understand
Yes, do not underestimate science.
Sometimes I wonder if we're a product of God or is God product of us.
Since the current "god" is the just last out of about 35000 previous god's the whole thing can only be man made, a human phantasy if you will.
God was created by man
Even if man-made, I feel the only possible answer is both. Just as we give words meaning and they give meaning back to us, or a chair makes sense through us but 'reflects' that sense back to conFORM us to it (think of how a child HAS to interact with the world to 'model' reality and learn to exist within it. He is both molded by the things around him and projects meaning unto them, even when they're man-made objects).
We can only exist through our relationship with things(physical or not), and things only derive meaning through us. God(s) seem to exist in that same space. The very fact that you know of the concept of god makes you a product of it. However much importance you decide to put in one thing over another is for you to figure out
God doesn't need for us to argue His existence. He can prove it with ease. He just wants us to obey the first commandment, and give praise to Jesus.
So it's a test... We have to believe something that makes no sense for what? To get into heaven? Why wouldn't an all intelligent all powerful God at least come up with a story that didn't demand a total suspension of disbelief and an uncomfortable lowering of our standards of intellectual rigor?
@@longcastle4863 intellectual rigor? what is your point? to sound intelligent?
@@johnjeffreys6440 If the presence of that phrase makes you think someone is trying to "sound intelligent" then obviously you're not used to discussing your thoughts with anyone who might challenge your thinking. Maybe you should get off this channel and go back to your Bible study group where everyone thinks everything you say is just hunky dory and a-okay.
@@longcastle4863 i don’t need you to challenge my thinking.
just make a clear on what you’re saying
don’t try and sound intelligent and bury your meaning under a bunch of obscure phrases.
Why, does my being on this channel threaten you?
@@johnjeffreys6440 which Jesus ?? The Jesus or fake Jesus ??
Good discussion. 🙏🙏🙏🙏
William Lane Craig is rhe only person that I am aware of who describes MY situation. I watch everyone arguing about the existence ( or lack thereof) of God. I have no need to argue. I KNOW for sure without a shadow of a doubt that God IS - that He/She/It exists. 🙏❤️
My dog does an excellent job of convincing me he's real.
Why is omnipotent God less competent than my dog at this simple task?!
To be fair, your dog is a relative being like you.
God's work is all around you, you just choose to close your eyes when you see his power. Using simple logic and reasoning you can come to the conclusion of God.
Particle physicists only observe how atoms work they have never explained why they work .
Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is Creator/God. How would that knowledge help us in any way?
I think it would be one step closer to “the truth”...
We can then ask, how to get its powers/ favors/ etc...
Well, it's important to realise that the individual's brain power is not wasted at death, but continued in the afterlife. It will be morally tested if it is liable to do so.
@@jimliu2560 So, knowing that a Creator doesn't help, it just leads to more questions, yes? The Creator grants favors?
@@grijzekijker How can one's brain power be morally tested?
At a trial before a court of justice.
Fascinating how limited our perspective is. We are laboring with the narrowest possible definition of God and listening to Atheists who have no explanation for anything. If I saw a ghost it would make me a believer. It would make God a certainty and my finite perspective infinite. It would also make the question of "why?" a legitimate one as there would indeed be an answer. We may well be made in God's image and that is a plausible answer. To restrict my thinking to Atheism and materialism is too local. But I can wait a billion or so years to test the science to see if evolution can produce a Porsche 911 through natural selection which can randomly land on my doorstep.
This a very interesting argument,
I see a pattern in this particular video and many like it, when one ponders the existence of a god and the words of wonder, beauty, perfection...etc...etc...blah..blah, pour out or their mouths as smooth as silk. Around the 20-minute mark Alvan talks about the beauty of Mozart and how this god "appreciates beauty"....and never once does he consider the horror and ugliness of Hitler...or Jeffery Dalmer. Does this god also "appreciate" and love them and their atrocities?
Does he love it when an asteroid zips pass the earth?...Is he sitting on his golden throne throwing them past us just to get a chuckle when we shake in fear?
Does he reach out with his mighty hands and pop volcanoes like a pimple just to see its contents pour out like puss over his precious children?
Must I go on?...please...take off the rose-colored glasses.
There is beauty in this world/universe but there is also ugliness. Accept it for what it is...your one life to live.
Love your family...love your friends. Live your life like this is your last day.
As with many infected with the coronavirus (another blessed gift from god?) this may be their last.
Agreed. The religious people who claim to be concerned with humanity are nevertheless amnesiac when it comes to the suffering in the world - much of it at the hands of monothiests.
subtitle: A Losing Argument.
I keep hoping I will finally KNOW something, but I'm still confused about it all. I will keep looking.
Sacred Geometry is where you should start on your journey for the "Truth"
Always baffles me that anyone buys into these Apologetics.
@@Graewulfe Yes their talking points are unoriginal and trite. Lots of intelligent theists waste time debating with atheists. The theists just don't operate on the same level of rationale. Might as well debate with your house cat, every mew means "God done it".
Do you want to stay baffled, or learn?
@@PaulHoward108 Always looking to learn. Teach away sir.
@@TurinTuramber, If only the Abrahamic religions existed, I wouldn't have been able to believe in God. So I'm not interested in their apologetics. However, the Vedas offer a holistic theory, including a description of matter that I find compelling. It reduces all experience to three types of meanings, called sat-cit-ānanda. Sat is the capacity for relation; cit is the capacity for cognition; and ānanda is the capacity for emotion.
This is important because of the obvious existence of meanings and purposes, which depend on relationships. Classical physics treats things as independent objects, and that supposed independence contradicts the possibility of meaning. To have meaning, things must be part of something, and knowing the meaning requires understanding the whole, the parts, and the relationships. For example, to know what 11 means, it's necessary to understand whether I'm writing a decimal number (eleven) or binary (three). The possibility of various number bases shows the necessity of choice, which is motivated by a purpose.
Everything, including numbers, exists in three modes that are reflections of sat-cit-ānanda, as each object is a thing, an ability, and a concept. Things map to cardinal numbers; concepts map to ordinal numbers; and abilities map to Gödel numbers. Mathematics is proved to be incomplete or inconsistent because it cannot distinguish between these three number types. That problem leads to several paradoxes in science, which arguably proves a physical theory cannot be correct.
To solve this problem requires a semantic theory instead, in which parts are divisions of a whole, rather than wholes being constructed of parts. Such a whole is conceptually real and forms the space in which the parts are displayed. Parts are also wholes (my whole finger is part of my whole hand, which is part of my arm, part of my body, part of this ecosystem, part of this planet, etc.), but there must be an ultimate whole to avoid postulating an infinite regression. God simply means that ultimate whole, independent from any parts.
If you want to see this all explained in depth, my teacher's site is www.Shabda.co, but I'm also happy to discuss it.
Most atheist don't stop long enough to think them true in fact of them can't lol.
Oh, god, not another dumb diatribe I feel dissolving my brain when I watch these. So why do I even bother? Because first you have to understand the tormented mental processes all these deluded guys go through before you can attempt to quell the harms they create.
Like the new hair color. I get tired of the gray too sometimes :)
*_“… Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner
Regardless the source, how does an argument from authority help here?
@@justahuman2244 I don’t see it as an argument. It is a reference… it points to the informed conjecture of someone who we can justifiably believe saw further and clearer than many others of us. NOT knowing what Einstein thought- to censor him, as you’d like- is nutty. Just mentioning what he thought on a topic, when relevant, is just good scholarship. Who the phulk made an argument?
Cherry picker. Well two can play at that game.
*_''...They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves."_* Moses (fl. c. 14th-13th centuries bc), Hebrew prophet and lawgiver, brother of Aaron.
If Einstein said this, he was obviously wrong. Because obviously everyone doesn't end up being convinced in a spirit superior to that of men from studying science. Often quite the opposite in fact.
@@longcastle4863 “obviously wrong” is arrant ignorance and arrogance. That is neither a disprovable formal hypothesis, nor a statement of empirical fact. The very nature of that surmise is conjectural, it’s purpose provocative. It appears to be of the sort one reads in forecasts, poems, and Psalms. Only a halfwit dolt will puke his ugly folderol over the suggestive communication of a mere intuition.
Another approach in the search for God is starting from looking at what the attributes of God are. It's kind of important to start from describing what you're looking for to begin with. Then consider what signs would be expected to be evident of those attributes.
I do respect Dr. Craig in that he is clear that proof is not what he presents. But arguments that might present some plausible convincing aspects.
But then I don't believe I've seen any arguments on this that he presents that aren't fallacious.
The search for truth requires an unbiased approach. When you are looking for something you are apt to find it. I don't respect Craig just because he admits that he has no proof for his claims.
Not a theist, but wholly smokes it’s crazy to me just how many things in our human existence could go wrong and how many instead go right and just how amazingly privileged and lucky we are. I mean if I have been popped into existence and given this so very fortunate life I lead, it’s becomes hard to believe that all happened through sheer chance. Feels so utterly, oddly improbable, but hey, what do I know? Also, the fact that we are essentially floating in a black expanse of nothingness. It’s just so hard to picture being on a rocky ball suspended in seemingly nothing. So much wonder!
@@BuddyLee23 The improbability of any given sequence of actions happening can easily grow astronomically huge. If you look at almost anything in any detail, everything is improbable.
It's hard to think of anything that can't be shown in some way to be extremely improbable.
That improbable things happen incredibly frequently, in no way demonstrates a controlling force.
I do agree there's a lot to find wonder at though. And plenty to be grateful about.
@@stevewebber707 Fine-Tuning in Cosmology
The Anthropic Principle
An Overview of the Fine tuning argument.
For many, the regularity of the universe and the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more evidences for the existence of God. This evidence technically known as the Teleological argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design."
The Teleological argument goes like this:
1. Every design has a designer
2. The universe has high- complex design
3. Therefore, the universe has a designer
The Anthropic Principle .
Scientists are finding the universe is like that watch ( anology of William Paley ), except even more precisely designed. These highly-precise and interdependent environmental conditions (called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as the "Anthropic Principle"-- a title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing the universe is extremely fine tuned (designed) to support human CONSCIOUSNESS on earth (Thats why some notorious atheists including Antony Flew later believed in God).
Some Anthropic constants example include:
1. birth date of the star-planetary system
* if too early: quantity of heavy elements would be too low for large rocky planets to form
* if too late: star would not yet have reached stable burning phase; ratios of potassium-40, uranium-235, -238, and thorium-232 to iron would be too low for long-lived plate tectonics to be sustained on a rocky planet
2. flux of cosmic-ray protons (one way cloud droplets are seeded)
* if too small: inadequate cloud formation in planet's troposphere
* if too large: too much cloud formation in planet's troposphere 3. rotation period
* if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great
* if shorter: atmospheric jet streams would become too laminar and average wind speeds would increase too much
4. fine structure constant (a number, 0.0073, used to describe the fine structure splitting of spectral lines)
* if larger: DNA would be unable to function; no stars more than 0.7 solar masses …
* if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields …
* if smaller: DNA would be unable to function; no stars less than 1.8 solar masses
5. oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere
* if larger: advanced life functions would proceed too quickly
* if smaller: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly
6. Jupiter's mass
* if greater: Earth's orbit would become unstable; Jupiter's presence would too radically disturb or prevent the formation of Earth
* if less: too many asteroid and comet collisions would occur on Earth
@@dongshengdi773 Perhaps you could provide a fine tuning argument in the format of an actual argument. I've heard versions presented a number of times, but mostly in broad strokes, rather than actual arguments. But I can perhaps address some of the general issues I've seen with such presentations.
In short, what exactly is the fine tuning argument arguing for?
And the word tuned, is seemingly left rather vague, despite it being the central point of the argument.
So far we have a lot of facts indicating that if certain things were different, there would be potentially dramatic differences and consequences. And apparently some implied assumptions that we can know all those things actually could be different. And no actual knowledge of how such things actually could be different.
I'm not particularly bothering with the part implying fine tuning of our solar system for supporting life. Because in our massive universe, there's enormous numbers of planets matching the general characteristics typically listed.
If I can summarize a bit:
If attributes of the universe could be and were different, the universe would be different. Why is the universe being different a problem exactly? Is it supposed to be implying the purpose of the universe is to create and support humanity? I honestly don't know.
As far as I've been able to tell, the fine tuning argument seems to entail a necessary intent and goal of supporting intelligent life, preferably humanity.
Which means that the argument seems to begin with major assumptions of the attributes and goals of a creator. Which I hope you could see would be a problem.
Life, and the universe is complex of course. But it's complexity does not particularly share elemental properties that we would identify in any items we know to be designed. If anything, the excessive complexity of life, or the natural world, implies it wasn't designed. In a nutshell, there's no reason to assume complexity requires design. We can observe properties of watches and the ways people make them. We can't observe God creating life or the universe.
On top of which we have one universe to examine and consider. It's not a large sample size to making such assertions about.
As to the teleologic argument you posted a brief version of, you included:
2. The universe has high- complex design
Asserting that the universe is designed within a premise, is entirely begging the question. Using the word designed, by definition requires a designer. The entire argument is about whether the universe is designed. Which is perhaps why you followed with the fine tuning stuff.
I have great admiration for Lawrence Kuhn's courage to question the existence of God. ❤👍🏻
Why is there information? How does it follow entropy?
Could subconscious free will be in the blood of human body; when blood interacts with physical information of brain consciousness / mind is produced?
The binge continues....😊
There's no problem with William Lane Craig insisting on the existence of the deity.
When he starts telling me what god thinks and requires, then we have a problem. Because that is damnable presumption.
Can't argue what you don't understand for all we know God is all of us like a blanket over all of humanity
"For all we know" disregards all that we do know. Belief in God is like a security blanket - it assuages our fears. But like any Panglossian precept, it beguiles and decieves. If we are to survive, we must use both love and reason.
What is information?
All gods, all religions, all "holy" texts are the creations of mankind.
Like Robert, I want to believe there is a God but struggle with belief. I find great arguments on both sides of the spectrum from studious men and women and wonder why some believe and others don't. My conclusion is "Faith". Hebrews describes it," The assurance of things hoped for,the conviction of things not seen". It is hope that directs/drives our daily activities. Similarly,we get on a plane and hope it will not crash. We send our kids to school and hope they are not abducted. We drive our cars and hope someone doesn't t-bone us and takes our life. We take chemo and hope it will destroy the cancer before it destroys us. All faith based actions. The probabilities of something going wrong outweighs the risk/result of the action and that is what gives us the assurance.To believe without seeing is difficult!!!
NONE of those things are faith-based decisions.
They are decisions based on ones reasonable expectations based on actual evidence and experiences and facts and probabilities calculated based on those facts.
Hope and Faith are not the same thing.
When I drive a car and hope I dont get t-boned, that is not a faith based decision to drive a car and my hope to not get t-boned has nothing to do with faith
I dont have "faith" that I will not get into a car crash.
I hope I wont.
And if I had nothing to go by regarding safety in cars before I get into a car and drive on a road, then my decision is STILL not faith based unless my decision is based on faith.
Im tired of people conflating hope/confidence/trust/etc, with "faith"
They arent the same thing.
Also, if you dont believe in a god, why did you reference something from a specific religions book regarding a specific god? The bible has tons of diff versions and interpretations, and its weird for a non believer to use one versions definition of faith as if it can be used in an argument about how faith is the same as hope.
?
@@UnderWaterExploring I think you are using your own words and you basically repeated what I said. First, I did not say I didn't believe, I struggle with belief. I am open to the possibility. Second, hope and faith are the same.Look at the dictionary definitions,they are both used similarly. What you describe about making a decision when getting in a car and not crash, is based on a level of trust/ability of yourself, as you say, probabilities of not occurring/avoiding a crash. Agree. But that assurance comes from faith,trust.You have no idea if a drunk will come across your path and kill you. If you are on chemo, you have no way of knowing if it works until you go through it, and many don't make it. that leaves you hoping you are not one of them. That is hope,faith, my friend, and not making a decision based on evidence. Most of us, think faith and hope are only used in religious beliefs, but I conclude they are part of our everyday life. They define,confidence,conviction,optimism,reliance,expectation and so forth.
@@davidsfuntimes9899 you just said that hebrews defines faith as the assurance of things hoped for
but you also say that hope and faith are the same thing...
???
you dont see the problem there?
@@UnderWaterExploring The same as being interrelated. You cannot have hope without faith. Hope speaks for the future,while faith in the present. Hebrews is saying, faith is confidence or trust on someone or something not based on proof(things unseen). Hope is an optimistic or expectation or belief it may happen in the future. Without faith you cannot have hope. Your hopeless!!!🙂
What really is belief?
Dr Lawrence your a smart one. Listen if you want the true interview your self you will get it. The same of many of your followers.😎
I am claiming that I exist. I am living like you,you, you and all of you. I always say the true 😎
“Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.”
If that's true then God is two steps beyond logic.
Then you don't understand what "logic" is and how it is used.
What you are saying is; If everything inside the quotations is True, then God is "This" (two steps beyond logic).
In Logic, this is called an IF; THEN statement.
The problem is that it must work in order for it to be a valid statement.
Is God only two steps beyond logic? Not Three or Four steps?
Is the fact that mankind does not have an answer for all questions, proof of the existence of a supreme being? No. Very Logically, No.
@@StephenLewisful Logic is a relative thing because it depends on something,. Logic depends on our senses gathering information and then it depends on our mind conceptualizing what the sense perceive, but since our senses are limited logic and intelligence will also be limited. And what makes this casual chain of knowledge exist is consciousness because without awareness the mind, senses, and logic could not perform their functions.
If 'god' were true 'argument' would not exist..
So here is one of the main problems.. People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!). Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.
spaceandmotion
The gaps in the explanation of the universe scientists now fill with dark energy and dark matter.
God must have done it because everyone else don't know what it is. Hmm, simply god of the gaps that plays out over and over and over. Prove god! Then claim it!
@@giantopinionsports6119 God doesn't have to be working miracles, constantly. He only did between the gaps. The between, being the miracles.
If you have to rely on a cumulative case where all the individual parts in the cumulation are not convincing on there own you still have a construction of poor evidences which doesn't help each other. It has lead to many people spending a serious amount of time in a prison cell actually without evidence but there was a cumulative case that has been proven ramshackle afterwards.
Another way to address the question of God work backwards. If you first accept the premise that God exists and that he created the universe so that the intelligent life that arises within that universe will love Him. There can be no question that if God does exist, he created man (and possibly other intelligent biological beings) because He needs us, not because we need him. Start by accepting the premise that God exists, and that he created a physical universe with intelligent biological beings because He needs us to love him. Then work backwards, and ask questions such as why would there be a need for three generations of quarks, or why would there be a need for neutrinos in order to produce the desired result of having intelligent biological life come in to existence to love God.
Feelings and faith are not the same thing. I don’t feel the tires on my car will not come off while driving I have faith based on the evidence that the tires will remain on. Feeling, emotion should not drive someone to God. It can’t per the Bible. God says it is through faith. Shalom
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
1 Corinthians 13:1-6 KJV
His word has the answers to truth.
This was quit possibly his best episode. It is quite correct to say that you can not absolutely prove the existence of God using experimentation, nor can you disprove. I find that using the "best explanation" method works best for me, while others won't believe anything that they can't prove. Seems to me that they already have their minds made up from the start.
"Faith is (..) the evidence of things not seen" Heb.11;1
Yes, that is true. I have made my mind up from the start, that I will not believe something to be "a Truth" without evidence. I believe there is a lot of evidence to show that humans "feel" more content when they aren't burdened with doubt. So If you cling to a strong conviction, even if it is false, you will "Feel" as if "Truth" is on your side. Religions are just comfortable illusions. I choose to put my faith in the outcomes of the Scientific Method, which is designed to help reduce the influences of my own biases and increases the odds of learning something new and beneficial to the survival of the human species.
You can go to your church and pray, I'm going to go fill sandbags and reinforce the levee.
I feel like we are still in the dark ages when it comes to understanding "God". I consider myself an atheist by definition, but I also "believe" in "God". I quote "believe" and "God" because my definition is outside the standard definition of them. I loosely define God as "the source of all that is" and "believe" as "I have a theory on". I've given a great deal of thought on "God", reality, and the meaning of life, and have concluded that "what is", seems perfectly imperfect. Too perfect to be a mere coincidence. Now, I think more about the imperfections, and the why(s). "Why must there be imperfections?", "Why is life so short?", "Why is life kinder, more generous to some, and not others?", etc. I do this by considering the "what ifs". "What if life was perfect??" (What would my idea of a perfect reality be.), "what if I lived for ever?", "What if every one were equal?", and I seem to always arrive at the same answer. I would get bored, I would not appreciate what we have, etc. Life really is perfectly imperfect. Whether we believe in God or not, it does not change the truth about "what is". It is the "what is", that is not always definable and provable, ... that I refer to as God. The "what" is, that is definable and provable, I refer to as reality which can understood with our intellect, and through science.
@@charlesbruno990 I think that is perfect. You have a belief yet you do not "feel" it as a truth that is unquestionable.
For myself, I find the theory of evolution to fit very closely to what you believe, That we were created by those forces and pressures of nature. I believe we are watching evolution play out with the virus as it mutates and gains new functions. And I don't feel the need to add an Unknown to an already complicated equation in order to fit my own narrative.
What does god need Pearly Gates for, gold paved streets, many mansions, an eternal life of bliss? These are all man-made desires and they are the same ones humans have always had.
@@StephenLewisful In your last paragraph, you are defining God in line with theists. Their God never made sense to me either. I, too, have found no evidence that evolution and nature are not in line with reality, but atheists seem to be short sighted in its significance. The reason being is, I am having a great deal of difficulty with the meaning of terms, (definitions). Definitions were intended to quantify and qualify/give meaning to individual aspects of our reality in order to understand them better, and to be able to communicate with others. They are just a tool. It has proven to be a very important/effective tool in mans evolution, but definitions can also be mis-used, mis-understood, and limiting. You say, (quote) "I believe that we are watching..." as if that should be clear to me. It is not. Your term "believe" has much more meaning to you than to me. It seems to me, and this is just a guess, that you are affected by what is going on in the world. I as well. Who is right, and who is wrong? Should Rogan be dropped from Spotify? (Rhetorical) We all have our ideals. We want the perfect world. Is there a perfect world? I'm guessing not, and that's probably why E.T.s have not made contact with us. 8o) They do not want to influence us. They are just observing to see how it all plays out.
Tho whole existence is just one energy manifesting itself in millions of way.
If I love god,
Then that love is god.
He who loves himself becomes great in himself;
He who loves others becomes great through his devotion;
He who loves god becomes greater than all.
The knight of faith is a dancer with high elevation
All this mass of becomings always changing and in motion, all these creatures, existences, things, breathing and living forms cannot contain God either in their sum or in their separate existence. He is not in them; it is not in them or by them that he lives, moves or has his being, - God is not the Becoming. It is they that are in him, it is they that live and move in him and draw their truth from him; they are his becomings, he is their being.
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, then our enquires about His existence will be futile if He doesn't want to be found.
Equally true if no God exists. Often the simplest explanations are the right one.
Anyone seen any miracles lately? Consider what omnicience entails - to know the location and momentum of every particle in the universe. First, quantum mechanics makes that impossible and, second, it would take a mind much larger than the universe to specify it's state with that level of detail We throw words around without understanding what they really mean. And it is uncomfortable for me to see athletes crossing themselves before a game to ask god to help them win. What are we supposed to think? That god doesn't care about the other side?
@@fr57ujf Quantum mechanics as you said makes it impossible but the creator is not subject or constraint to the physical laws He created. These physical laws are His slave. If he was subject to these physical laws, then He wouldn't be God.
@@fr57ujf You are wasting your breathe. You can't use facts and logic against someone who if free to make anything up as they go along. Theists claims should be ignored until they back them up with evidence.
If theists had to debate using the same standards as science, then any debate would be like clubbing seal pups.
My first and worst problem is "GOD".
If all you do is ask other people rather than learn to meditate (to create a relationship with the Creator), then you will never know.
Or you can understand that God is with those who are in pain & suffering and need His help
Where would you find Rama or Jesus? Look for them in the Leper Colony
But that's the problem right? We don't want to go into a leper colony
But ah sit and meditate? Sure, easy breezy
Good to know you're on a first-name basis with the creator of the universe. You know, back when we thought that stars were little pin pricks of light and the Earth was the center of the universe, that position was a little more understandable. Today when we know that the observable universe has maybe a trillion galaxies and that each galaxy has billions of stars and that we live on a planet orbiting one rather middling star in an average galaxy, the idea of having a personal relationship with god seems pretty strange to me.
@@fr57ujfdespite your oozing ridicule and sarcasm, everyone has the Creator within.
The wises thing mentioned here.
They think looking outside will they find truth, when in truth it's only division, dualistic.
They have not the eye or Intuition or intellect.
That relationship is given through reading his word. If you don't acknowledge his word then how can you acknowledge having a relationship with him. Reading his word and talking to him about it is how we have a relationship with him. By reading his word and drawing from it is how you develop a relationship with him.
How do you decide whether a word is God's?
@@PaulHoward108 the texts of the Bible and those texts with the other texts. Plus there is no testaments without a testator. Jesus Christ is the testator of both testaments and there was eyewitnesses of him.
Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
1 Corinthians 15:1-9 KJV
Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it. When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth. But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, and said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God. Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord, and cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man's feet, whose name was Saul. And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit. And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.
Acts 7:51-60 KJV
And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, and desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink. And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias. And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord. And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, and hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: and here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel: for I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake. And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized. And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.
Acts 9:1-22 KJV
And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.
Acts 12:25 KJV
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, And will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, Saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia: forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: it seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; that ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well. And some days after Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other: and so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed, being recommended by the brethren unto the grace of God. And he went through Syria and Cilicia, confirming the churches.
Acts 15:8-12, 15-29, 36-41 KJV
Plus with all the archeology discoveries that help confirm.
I can't take the religions of meat eaters seriously, including the Bible, because of the lack of morality in relation to animals. A benevolent God would not make animals so sensitive to pain and then tell religious people to eat them. It's incoherent.
Fortunately, the Bible is known to be composed by human beings, but the Vedas have no such defect. The Vedas explicitly and credibly identify themselves as directly spoken by God. For example:
SB 11.21.38-40: Just as a spider brings forth from its heart its web and emits it through its mouth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as the reverberating primeval vital air, comprising all sacred Vedic meters and full of transcendental pleasure. Thus the Lord, from the ethereal sky of His heart, creates the great and limitless Vedic sound by the agency of His mind, which conceives of variegated sounds such as the sparśas. The Vedic sound branches out in thousands of directions, adorned with the different letters expanded from the syllable oṁ: the consonants, vowels, sibilants and semivowels. The Veda is then elaborated by many verbal varieties, expressed in different meters, each having four more syllables than the previous one. Ultimately the Lord again withdraws His manifestation of Vedic sound within Himself.
Www.vedabase.io/en/library/sb/11/21
There is nothing comparable in the Bible.
@@PaulHoward108 why would you ask a question if you already had no intention of taking the persons answer seriously because of your views about eating meat??
@@PaulHoward108 prove his animals are sensitive to pain, cause the part of the brain that gives sensitivity to the brain is smaller than ours. Plus we and them all die at some point.
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Hebrews 9:27-28 KJV
He that spareth his rod hateth his son: But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
Proverbs 13:24 KJV
40 different authors all agree. No contradictions. So prove how it doesn't have comparisons. Cause you just saying it isn't proof.
The consciousness of all sentient beings is hardwired to the spirit world. Brains do not run on software. The spirit world therefore dwells within sentient beings.
You're just making proclamations without scientific proof. Without even an interesting philosophical argument to back up your claims.
Some unfortunate children are born without a cerebral cortex. They cannot think, but they are perfectly conscious of their surroundings and respond emotionally to it. On the other hand, damage even a tiny portion of the critical part of the brainstem and a person with a completely intact cerebral cortex goes into an irreversible coma. It is hubris to make pronouncements on a subject on which you apparently know nothing. This is what makes some of the religious so unappealing - they are willing to say anything to support their beliefs. Evidence and truth are not even considered relevant.
There's updates to computers. So the creator of the computer, computer program needs to sustain it.
I AM GOD.
Religion doesn't explain anything, it never did, it never even tried.
I wish, i hope... i have a theory... But i don't know... Anything else without scientific evidence isn't intellectually honest.
The point is that non believers do not need a knock down argument. There is no obligation to demonstrate that god doesn't exist. All that is needed is to demonstrate that there is no reason to believe the god hypothesis true absent a knock down argument.
The fact of feeling / emotion argues for the existence of God?
Theism has run out of intellectual steam. Not recently but four hundred years ago.
yes it would seem, but then you must assume and accept all that you know of this imaginatary being come to existence. For me that would loudly say 'I MUST ACCEPT THIS IMPERFECT RACIST GOD''. talk about a dour future.......
Could even the mind's perception of infinity / infinitesimal and irrationality argue for the existence of God?
No.
Probably not since our minds perception of infinity will always be flawed. We can't really grasp what infinity truly is.
@@StallionFernando Untrue. You cannot apply your own lack of reason to others.. What CAN be perceived is the nature of our own existence, being as we must by default be aspects OF that existence.
Deduction from necessity and plausibility is the way to truth. If you are using 'faith' or 'belief' you do not have the required tools for the job..
So here is one of the main problems.. People have a very poor understanding of what the word 'infinite' actually means.. This is not any kind of 'fault', but just that we have evolved within the confines of what appears to be a finite environment, and we thus try to look at things in finite ways, also justifying those 'finite' thoughts. When I first approached the 'problem' I had the same difficulties, so it takes our minds a lot of effort to reach another perspective of understanding, but it IS achievable..
Firstly, there cannot be more than one 'instance' of infinitude, otherwise a secondary 'thing' would render them both 'finite'. So we are describing a 'oneness'.. Also, it can have no 'beginning' nor 'ending' as these would also necessitate a secondary 'thing' (or the utter nonsense of a 'nothing'!). Then, we have to admit that it can only be the one thing that interconnects all other 'things', and we deduce this to be 'Space', necessarily..
All references to 'size' or 'direction' do not apply to the nature of infinitude, and thus have no relevance to our understanding of the true nature of existence. 'Measurement' has limitations.. When we point to any position in Space, we effectively create a 'beginning' to any subsequent forms of measurement, which only has relevance to the entity desiring to understand said 'measurement'. This does not make it a feature of the nature of reality, only a desire from a Human perspective.
spaceandmotion
What are God's powers as they influence you now?
Intellect, essence or wisdom, reason and meaning, experience and expression -- soul; which recieves and soul which moves.
@@S3RAVA3LM how do those powers manifest themselves?
FATHER.
To go beyond belief and actually understanding God requires devotion, or a blend of knowledge and contemplation.
Or how about understanding that God is with those who are in pain, suffering
Where would you find Rama or Jesus? look for them in the Leper colony
But that's the problem isn't it? No one wants to go into a leper colony
Devotion, knowledge and contemplation? Now, this we like, this is easy
@@ramaraksha01 Whoever is born in this world has to suffer. To think otherwise is an illusion. Karma can only give temporary good and bad results, therefore it must be transcended by dharma, The door to dharma is open for everyone, but it's usually and more easily crossed by those who are in pain.
@@bluelotus542 Yes but running away is not the answer. You are not transcending to a life of ease & comfort in some magic land in the sky
How is disease eradicated? By finding new medicines, lots of research, hard work, patience
How is poverty eradicated? By creating good jobs, again lots of hard work, suffering
This is the only way to end suffering
But most people focus on themselves - "How can I escape this suffering"? And Death Cults prey on such people - cheap ease promises of a grand life AFTER death!
Fools will end up dead or as Ghosts or as lower life forms - they WILL get their life of ease - what worries does a Dog have? none! What work does a Dog do? nothing!
Free food, shelter, protection and care - there's your Transcendence!
By definition, there cannot be _anything_ beyond having faith. Believing, having 'faith', is to purely and simply do so, _without_ further contemplation or inquiry. To ask even the first question is to disavow that one 'believes', because that is 'almost believing'. By definition, _faith is blind._ There can be nothing more.
@@simesaid And all this belief goes to the same destination - the easy lazy life, easy lazy life forever! No one asks if any WORK gets done. No one asks about their loved ones down on earth, their country - are they suffering? Are children going to bed hungry? Is my family homeless? Is my mother sick? Nothing!
God is just a ticket to the easy good life, seen much the same way a prostitute/leech sees the rich sugar Daddy
And God sees people the same way the rich Sugar Daddy view the prostitute/leech - with contempt and disgust
'God' is just a word that we human create .
As a general rule, if you believe in some entity because belief will benefit you in some way (whether material or imaginary) the belief is irrational, the entity doesn't exist and the benefit is either imaginary or randomly distributed without any influence of your belief.
But everyone believes in something they cannot prove. So who does not believe in anything? None
@@1stPrinciples455 as long as believers acknowledge that they are engaged in fantasy.
@@sentientflower7891 thats not likely unfortunately. Most humans need religion to keep them sane
This comment is inane. If the purpose of doing something is to pass on genetics, and having a belief in an entity provides a material advantage in that pursuit, then said belief is completely logical to have. Thus, the argument should be if there is a material benefit to belief systems, and this would determine if it is logical or not to have a belief. Also, whether or not it is beneficial to believe in an entity has no bearing on the entity’s existence. This should not require an explanation if you think for a few moment.
@@itisikrazzle7148 it is a little known fact among religious people that their personal beliefs do not impact their reproductive success in any way whatsoever. But if reproductive success is the standard you ought to worship of the god of the microbes.
Truth is that which is realized to be true and you can't have a realization if consciousness doesn't exist so it is consciousness that brings us not only closer to truth but is actually " truth " itself.
How can you have consciousness without a mind/body first?
@@jimliu2560 Consciousness and matter are just two sides of the same coin called reality but consciousness is " not of " matter. In truth, you could study the chemicals of the human body for as long as you want but studying them won't reveal to you the knowledge of what it is like being a human being because that is a subjective experience and since you can't put an experience under a microscope and examine it the conscious self who is the witness transcends the physical.
@@williamburts5495
Sure you can. Just make clones.
God made us in his imagine which is why we are conscious beings. Jesus (God in flesh) claimed to be "truth" so we are a murky reflection of Truth/God.
@@StallionFernando
Please Reconcile God; Climate Change; human intestinal parasites!
god damn
By definition, there cannot be _anything_ beyond having faith. Believing, having 'faith', is to purely and simply do so, _without_ further contemplation or inquiry. To ask even the first question is to disavow that one 'believes' - because that is 'I believe... Sort of'. By definition, _faith must be blind._ Period.
And what happens if you put your blind faith in the wrong thing? Blind faith has a tremendous potential for manipulation and failure.
Which makes by your argument believing in God, Santa Clause, the Great Cosmic Egg, Fairy Crystals and that Elvis is alive all pretty much the same thing...
Faith is that wonderful elixir that produces tyranny and incites wars over ideological differences. It is the worst characteristic of mankind.
Why do people cling with such ferocity to the belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the illusion of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism."
～ Richard Conn Henry is an Academy Professor of Physics and Astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, author of one book and over 200 publications on the topics of astrophysics and various forms of astronomy.
What intoxicating vanity to imagine that your little mind has a greater claim to reality than the entire universe.
I always get a good laugh when solipsists try to engage with people in the real world and present their ideas about the other things they claim to "know" aside from "the mind"
@@UnderWaterExploring It is kind of strange that while it would be perverse to declare that only you exist and all else is illusion, it would be equally perverse to imagine that your acceptance of the existence of reality means anything once you no longer exist.
Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that no man who lives should doubt existence, and no dead man cares.
God or gods may or may not exist. They can be personalised (eg in the simulation hypothesis) or impersonal, as in the pantheistic view, in which he is the world, the universe or the abstract mathematical concept on which physics is based. The search for God will never bring us closer to the truth, but it lets us know a lot about ourselves. About our desires and fears, how we socialise and where the limits of our mental freedom lie.
GOD IS
What if God is Love?
Then, obviously, he's not very good at it... Ask the gazelle being eaten alive by a pack of wild dogs on the plains of the Serengeti.... if she finds comfort in the notion that "God is love".
True in the primal beginning. True throughout the ages. True here and now. (wherever you are and in whichever time frame) . Forever and ever true
What is true is humans can't explain why they exist. What is false is the ideas that these imaginary gods that are contingencies of history, not truth, would exist without the primitive minds that invented them.
@@jackarmstrong5645 Yes, everyday i see food on my breakfast table prepared by an imaginary cook
@@dongshengdi773 you have no explanation for that "breakfast". It could be one gods, 700 gods, something other than a god, could be a nice god, a mean god, satan... You literally have no idea. You are 100% guessing
@@dongshengdi773 Existence itself is a mystery, but gods are primitive human inventions. God is not an adult answer to the mystery of existence. It is a pretend answer for children that just want an answer.
@@jackarmstrong5645 you have no basis on that claim other then that's your own opinion lol. All you need is some basic logic to know God exist.
Can anything come to exist out of nothing? I don't think. There must have been something before the beginning of the universe and of course it's a good argument for God's existence,but I'm an agnostic and I want to become a true believer, but I don't find any solid proofs for God's existence.I think it's easier to disprove God than to prove.
I like this TH-cam channel so much.
If you want more God evidence then look up abiogenesis. Atheists claim life came about by a chemical accident. But abiogenesis is scientifically and mathematically impossible.
"Does God exist??" Is there an understanding of God that is not self contradictory or obtusely vague? "There is something beyond it all."
Note that any time this question is presented no one bothers to define "God" and operates under the assumption that whatever the god they imagine is what their listeners accept.
Young Craig 😂😂
Robert - You aren't searching for the truth. You believe in a supernatural being. That is a non-falsifiable belief so no facts are going to change your mind. It amazes me that you talk to some of the world's brightest scientists who provide you with the most lucid arguments for physicalism, and yet you still cling to your religious ideas. Your series should be called "Ignoring Reason and Embracing Faith".
Falsifying an argument is an empirical necessity. Ontological truths are by their nature unfalsifiable. Not because the are groundless, but because they are arrived at by falsifying everything else until one arrives at a conclusion that can be no other way. It is the art of retroductive reasoning.
THEY HAVE NO EXPLANATION of anything.
Did you ignore this fact.
They spend their lives separating and categorizing: Light here, vibration over there, and here this is gravity, that is magnetism, and this electricity.
They have quantum this, quantum that, next year they realize they have to make a new physics to fit the equation of their newely discovered revelation. Continuely dismissing their preceding beliefs and models.
String theory this, theory that... theoretical science is your truth?
There's no Truth in science as it's revised continuously.
And you can have your belief, but why not apply Reason in though?
These brightest sciencetists of today you mention cannot even comprehend the Greats of antiquity or the books of high level metaphysics..
As long as humans are afraid of death they will always have an imaginary friend that he promised an after life
Yes , they are not ready to go back to forever darkness..
As long as people are afraid of Hell and being held accountable for their sins there will always be Atheist pretending that God doesn't exist.
@@StallionFernando you just proved my point , you don’t need to be afraid of an imaginary Celestial friend to be a good person, most of crime and human misery exist Within religious societies , take for example Brazil almost 100% of the country believe in some sort of cosmic wizard but still the number 1 in the world for Homocide
Do electrons and photons love each other? Will they save each other from antimatter and other natural disasters? If they do love each other then does that mean God exists?
They have flings, but rarely marry. And in one night stands -- sorry one
\ /
\ /
\ /
> b l i p <
/ \
/ \
/ \
stands -- God, like alimony is never a concern. ; _)_
What’s the point about arguing something is true that is not provable. I could argue that leprechauns are true, but for what purpose?
Knowledge is power.If you don't have knowledge then it still pays to pretend.
@@TurinTuramber It pays to pretend leprechauns exists? Really? There is no knowledge to be gleaned from this fallacy, except the depth of humans imagination.
@@anthonycraig274 Ever heard of the Loch Ness monster? Zero evidence but it does wonders for Scotland's tourism industry.
@@TurinTuramber True, although the person who made up the myth confessed upon doing so. But hey, people liked to be fooled to believing in make believe.
@@anthonycraig274 Humans are prone to thinking they are better, more functional than they are. Really most people are far more fickle, afraid, impressionable and superstitious than they would ever want to admit.
God exist, because we both exist! Or you couldn’t even ask?
Magnificent waste of time. There are no cogent coherent logical arguments to be made about statements of belief or disbelief.
Perspective. Inside looking out? Or, outside looking in?
Is God falsifiable? Is falsifiable a matter of opinion?
Are imaginary numbers falsifiable or just a matter of opinion? Are real numbers falsifiable or just a matter of opinion?
Your soft touch with William Lane Craig was sad. Earlier in the video you reference the “god of the gaps” but then don’t even discuss when Bill invokes it as one of his proofs. This video was not in the spirit of inquiry.
2:27 Why isn’t it morally abhorrent to send even one person to hell for eternity?
But there’s more logical reason to believe that there’s a creator behind the universe that there is to believe there’s a ghost in the closest and then we’re left with something that actually does exist: a straw man. The argument for the existence of God isn’t simply a “feeling”.
If there is an all powerful god, then it can do anything, so it can prove it exists to me. If it dose not then it does not want me to believe in it, or it does not exist.
9:00. 'God is the reason anything exists. God created the world. God created nature.' So, what's nature?-- the natural? The natural is what exists of and by itself. To say that something exists of and by itself means it was not created. So, God created that which was not created. To accept that God is the reason anything exists is to undercut the connection between language and meaning.
Craig's incredulity of universe, therefore god. Okay.
How is placing a God at the beginning of every big question a satisfactory explanation. 🤷♂️
An important observation. Beginning. Not conclusion after analysis. When god precludes analysis the outcome is preordained.
I've left the door open for 35 years. There's nothing there. I found my answer.
Just having kept the door open may have been an insufficient way of seeking the Truth. "He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for My sake shall find it". Mat.10;39
It's not about leaving the door open it's about seeking, "seek and you shall find, knock and it shall be opened to you" the most beautiful and important things in life don't just end up at your door, you have to go out and seek them.
What if humans are Gods? Reality may be spooky
As man is, God was, and as God is, men will be. A line from Mormon theology.
Well, we'd probably do a better job for one reason: if we were Gods at least we wouldn't be believing in any other God who was going to save us and could finally start focusing on saving ourselves.
Wheres wlc
Craig Tries to Make Sense of God, Fails
The ultimate test for God is a profoundly personal one and that is the effect of God's wisdom on one's life. Does life get better with such knowledge as measured over regular intervals and one's most trying tribulations?
The atheists I listen to tend to get agitated quite easily, a pretty reliable sign that they are not becoming more peaceful with time due to their knowledge of things.
As a monk, I challenge any atheist to join me in a unique experiment. Agree to Truman Show intrusion into your life. Cameras everywhere all the time, within reason of course. Agree to lots of challenges that are designed to irritate and annoy and we shall see who can better cope.
Why do this? If you do not believe that developing calmness, kindness, and clarity is the fundamental purpose of human life, you are lost, and your life will certainly not get better with time given the inherent challenges in living. My contention is that science does not provide one with the wisdom to achieve these things, but religion does.
Nope - God is the ticket to an eternal life of ease & comfort
Just as prostitutes/leeches look for the rich Sugar Daddy to GIVE them a life of ease & comfort
My contention is that you don't have a clue about what science actually is...
Belief in a personal god who is particularly interested in you requires self-absorption. Measuring your success in life by the extent to which you achieve relief from your own tribulations seems pretty shallow to me.
@@fr57ujf So a God who acts like a Putin, a Saddam who only cares whether you support him or not is better?
To get to Heaven we must do what they do in Corrupt/Communist countries - kiss the right butt - that is better?
These ideas came from people living under Kings/Dictators - they used these people as a template - Kings/Dictators only cared whether the subject/slave was loyal or not.
In a violent world, you could be the greatest guy but if you are not loyal to the King/Dictator you would be lucky to escape with your life
Here is a mathematical sequence that might compel belief that God Exist in an Energy?
If God is to equal the total sum of all energy then I would like to think it would look like this
God or total sum of all energy is = to any things existence +/- wisdom ÷ ( 5 Elements x 6 senses ) and multiply that by the Evolution of Communication. The total sum of all experiences known to man through communication leads me to believe that any thing is possible.
I'm not surprised that you believe that anything is possible after all that gobbledegook. We have become a nation of people who have no idea what it means to think logically and rationally. It is a discipline, but one that most apparently have not learned and aren't interested in learning. Social media is a platform to say any nonsense you want.
at 25.55 Robert says _ "Im please that the existence of god is not determined by human vote majority opinion does not get us closer to truth. "_
Turning to God asking God to guide you to truth that God have revealed can get you closer to truth.
That is the message I have for Robert.
God is a waste of belief.
@@stnbch3025 This Jewish American asked God to guide him to the correct religion that is accepted by God, please watch this it was a miracle in the broad daylight how God guide him to Islam, th-cam.com/video/3Y8Tr8-bSx4/w-d-xo.html
@@stnbch3025 An Identical miracle reported by U.S corporal in marine went to Afghanistan, it was a miracle in the broad daylight, how God guides whom HE wills, th-cam.com/video/1ogm2ILpy9s/w-d-xo.html
My morals come from my own experience and contemplations. It has nothing to do with god.
@@RT710. 7.5 billion versions of your "morals" version out there.
*_“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”_* --- Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner
lol you diss Science whenever you can but take advantage of any quote as long as it suits you - shameless hypocrite
FYI The "God" of Einstein is NATURE - the world as it is - not some magic King/Dictator in the sky rewarding his loyal supporters
Oh please. Not again. This trope has been so overused. When Einstein said "god" he was referring to nature. He even said so. This misrepresentation is dishonoring his memory and misleading others. Shame on you.
Om namah shivaya 🙏🙏🙏🙏
Don’t argue the existence of gods, demonstrate the existence.
Oh…you can’t.
There are limits to what you can demonstrate. You cannot demonstrate history
@@onestepaway3232 Difference is, history is the past. God still exists, theoretically.
If you accept that God (whether he exists or not) is a non-physical consciousness, isn't it an exercise in foolishness to seek an answer to this question from an expert in the physical sciences? It reminds me of the story about a guy looking for his dropped quarter under a street light because that is where the light is, even though he lost the quarter at a different location.