It took me twenty years to realize that I believed in a god because I was ordered to believe under the threat of eternal punishment if I didn't. When I finally decided to find out which god I believed in I was disappointed to discover it was only my own imagination. I really wanted to believe I had an invisible friend hiding in the clouds who cared about me.
I find I had a very strange way to atheism lol I believed in Yahweh, but after reading the Bible, mixed with the incorrect claim from pastors that the serpent of genesis was Lucifer, came to the conclusion god was clearly the villain in these stories. For a good while, I believed whole heartedly, that there was a god, and that he was evil, but more powerful than the hero of the story, Lucifer. Eventually I figured out the Bible was just bullshit, but it was a harrowing few years XD
Despite all hand-waving to the contrary, a plain-language reading of the bible clearly renders Satan as the more benign character. Unlike Yahweh, he never harms anyone in any way - with the possible exception of Job, purely at Yahweh's behest.
The hardest thing for me to let go of was ultimate justice. I liked the idea of evil people facing judgement in front of a judge who could not be lied to and who could deal out proper punishment. Now that I see that doctrine as an excuse not to tell the truth about crimes that people have done it makes me very angry. Vengeance is mine I will repay sayeth the Lord. This is what people who cover for child molesters like to say. I want to knock the faces off of people who leave justice to an imaginary God.
Just remember, you might not have a dude up in the sky shaking his head at you everytime you touch yourself in a fun way. Or let someone else touch you in a fun way out of wedlock. You are still important to real human beings who might actually care for you.
Can something omnipresence not be around. Hadn't thought about that, something to ask next time someone asks if I found Jesus. My usual reply is "I didn't know he was missing" or "Yes, he was under a rock in a galaxy far away"
God is the collective consciousness and can be found in solitude and calmness, for example in meditation in the desert. But what "Christian" does that and begin to act like Jesus? Not many. If all Christians did that, it would probably lead to a quick peaceful revolution, ending the military industrial complex, and then World Peace. Since most Christians believe Jesus died for their sins, they are not ready to take responsibility for their own actions and sins yet, so probably the spitit of Jesus loves an active descent Atheist more than a Christian. Well then, I guess I love the spirit of Jesus too. Great guy, it seems, but I do not have much trust in the rest of his people.
@@BionicDance I have to wonder if you two realize how disgusting that position is. I agree with a lot of the positions you guys take but I hope, for your sake, you are never falsely accused of a crime and forced to rely on twelve people "too stupid to get out of jury duty." Maybe intelligent and rational people like you should accept some of the civic responsibility that comes from being citizens in a democracy. Are things like serving on a jury and voting really that large of a burden?
@@sypherthe297th2 the dismally low vote counts in the US and Canada and the common trope of getting out of jury duty would suggest so, actually. I agree withyou on principle, but there's hardly evidence of Paul and Bionic being outliers on this. Indeed you take the decidedly minority stance here. Though I actually do disagree with voting as a civic duty, at least on its own. Educated voting I agree should be a responsibility, but I'd argue if someone has made no effort to get to know the candidates or the issues, it's their duty to abstain from voting. I don't vote in races where I don't know the candidates. Similarly with jury duty. If you don't believe you can be impartial in the courtroom, you shouldn't be on the jury. Your faith in our judicial systems is admirable. But the rate of false convictions would suggest the jury is not an adequate insurance against injustice anymore than it's a solid basis for theism.
I’m curious. When he was a detective, would he seriously consider a supernatural cause to a crime? A body is found with no apparent natural explanation, would he conclude a supernatural cause and call it a day? My guess would be that he would say he doesn’t know what happened and continue to look for a natural explanation.
The dumbest part is there isn't even any body, yet he goes on about how the body was removed by magic, therefore you can't see it, and that means the killer used magic, so it must be the butler who did it.
Going by his standards of evidence for GOd's existence it's a miracle he did not arrest people for a newspaper or comic book speculating they had committed a crime and calling that unrefutable evidence.
No detective would he just lying his ass off in order to defend his beliefs. Atheists see through his lies and nonsense. But his nonsense fools like minded believers.
@@Ugly_German_Truths JWW is full of 💩 and he knows he, targeting a Christian audience and he knows most aren’t gonna question what he claims. He knows the nonsense he claims wouldn’t work on atheists or other nonbelievers. He loves pandering and using confirmation bias to like minded believers.
@@匕卄モ匕卄丹れKち '...lying his ass off...' Are you trying to tell us that his donkey was telling so many lies that his arse fell off? 'Ass' is the original name for a donkey. 'Donkey' used to be the name for a baby or young ass. As the NT (Authorised Version) tells us, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on his ass. 'Arse' is the Old English word for backside, bottom or bum. 'Donkey' began to be more widely used from the late Eighteenth Century onwards. mainly in the USA. 'Arse about face,' means 'the wrong way round.' British people should be proud of their language and NEVER under any circumstances whatsoever ever use Americanisms.
11:53 DNA is literally chemistry. Which is an emergent property of physics. Physics and chemistry is how *all* DNA is being built, just 'cause the physics and chemistry are happening inside a cell doesn't stop it being physics and chemistry.
@daniel letterman Had this comment about the, "I don't want to be a theist, but I like all the crap that theists have forced down the throat of civilization.", types in Evolutionary Psychology (A non-sesense "science" that is right along the lines of Parapsychology). Their basic argument amounts, in every single case, in, "Because I see this stuff in my culture, it must have evolved." My point was that every damn thing they try to claim evolved is an emergent property and that going from, "I am stronger than my mate.", and, "I want sex now.", to "I can hold her down and do what I want.", doesn't make the behavior "evolved", it just means you got smart enough to come up with really stupid ways to connect the awareness of your physical strength to a primitive desire, and form a damn stupid solution to the latter "problem". Yet, this is exactly the sort of nonsense they try to defend - hierarchies, or rape, etc. It all has to be "adaptive". Only.. Its like lighting a fire - the property of fire is to follow the easiest path to fuel. If you build it well, the "property" you get is a cozy glow. Do it badly and you burn down your house. By "EP" logic, the existence of arsonists would be an "adaptation" of fire making skills to better be able to burn down your house. There is no freaking logic, at all, to this kind of conclusion, but.. they will use it to try to explain the color pink, or why teaching women to obey, and boys to just do what ever the F they want, by general comparison, is somehow "genetic", and the results *have to be* beneficial in some manner. Never mind *every single* possible example showing this is BS, and doesn't work the exact same way in every culture. Nope.. They "like" being assholes, in some cases, or they just generally the way the world works, and therefor, "We made up a story to explain it, which makes it, without any actual DNA evidence. and while ignoring all the contradictions, adaptive!" I get the impression that anyone who actually *does* research (instead of just writing books and going on speaking tours), especially those working with DNA, find the "field" to be about as credible as phrenology, or maybe the sort of "paid science" you get from think tanks, that try to prove that breathing diesel smoke is good for you, or something, so oil companies can avoid air pollution regulations.
@daniel letterman People seem to think that emergent means that it was already there. That orange juice is emergent from oranges. But that is not what it means. That concept and falsifiability are concepts that a lot of people have a hard time understanding.
@@patrickelliott2169 ...Dafuq does any of that have to with the topic? No one brought up evolutionary psychology. This has nothing to do with it. The term "emergent property" isn't exclusive to that field. It indicates a property that the whole has that the components may not share. The way you claim evolutionary psychologists use it-I don't know if they actually do use it that way, and don't care, it's not relevant-is not even the same usage as was used here. Or in most other fields. So thanks for the massive non sequitor.
@@notwhatiwasraised2b The Hebrews created their god Yahweh because it was time for war, and the people needed the motivation of a god who ordered the destruction of the enemies. Then this war god was basically "the last god standing" by the time the Christians came along, so a religion based on a pacifist man, ends up with a god of war. No wonder they are so schizophrenic. You can thank the Hebrews AND thew Romans for this disaster.
I love the retort to the "science of the gaps" claim about lots of claims about supernatural activity being shown to be natural phenomena, while nothing thought to be natural phenomena had been shown to be supernatural. So concise.
VoodooSixx said it well. "Number of natural explanations that have been replaced by supernatural ones - zero. Number of supernatural explanations that have been replaced by natural ones - too numerous to mention."
Exactlyy dude it's a great point. And there is also a reason why the multiverse hypothesis (and things like this, that hypothesize the state of being of the entirety of the cosmos or what happened before the big bang) are actual hypothesis and not recognized as scientific theory. They don't get to be a theory until proven by empirical evidence, we can however hypothesize as much as we want and it in no way is a so called "science of the gaps" because science recognize these propositions as hypotheses, they are possibilities and doesn't assert they are necessarily fact. Unlike Theists regarding the God question.
It's actually worse than that when you consider that the supernatural/natural divide is a red herring. Science isn't limited to the natural, it is limited to the _empirical._ A testable supernatural hypothesis that makes falsifiable predictions is just as accessible by science as a natural one. And if your hypothesis fails to offer these things, the problem is yours, not science's. Note that there is nothing inherent to the supernatural that makes it beyond testing. That those types of hypotheses are untestable says more about the people making those arguments than anything else.
“This one guy who used to think that there is no god now thinks that there might be a god, therefore there is a god” Solid argument my man..... I used to think there was a god, I no longer think that there is. Does that mean there is no god? Using someone’s personal opinion as evidence for anything is probably only one step above, just literally making shit up
Tu quoque fallacy. The difference here is in the burden of proof. Paulogia isn't stating there isn't a god. He pointed out the flaw in stating that because JWW changed his belief to that there is a god, that must make it true. The burden of proof was on JWW, not Paulogia. But you are right in saying that using someone’s personal opinion as evidence for anything is generally not good argumentation. in discussions like these.
@@SmangItDrums Yes, and that's what Jay Kamenski was commenting on. He was pointing out that Flew's "conversion" doesn't prove God exists any more than Jay's own deconversion proves God doesn't exist. He was not committing Tu Quoque.
@@timhallas4275 I am coming out of 35 years in the christian cult, and finally free from guilt, shame, idiotic laws that go against nature, etc, etc. I am stuck in an area of Florida that is almost totally saturated in religion and have only found a couple of people that I can talk to, others are on line and damn great full for them to help me with the residue of what I came out of. Cancer of the throat , heart disease, skin cancer hit me all at once as soon as I got here from California so med bills have crippled me and I'm on dissabillity and now being in my right mind I can feel good despite everything else. I appreciate your suggestion as that is what was put to me and why I longer believe the book that should say instead of In the beginning.....but....Once upon a time.......hahahahahahha...My deepest regret is that of wasting 35 years of life to it. But better late than never.
@@allenquartermane6134 It's never too late to have your eyes open and your mind free. I have heard this quote in the past, don't know who originally said it, but I use it all the time. Better to live a day on my feet with my eyes open than an eternity on my knees with them shut. Science may not save you from everything, but at least it gives you a fighting chance.
Most videos trying to "prove" gods existence have disabled comment sections. Because deep down they know their arguments are a house of cards and the scientific method is a series of tornados, it falls apart with the smallest breeze.
@@drumanddrummer465 It's because the whole goal isn't to convince non-believers, like one would think, but instead to make believers feel better about their own reasoning and faith.
@@20xx-mm-dd Let me correct that for you :- "It's because the whole goal isn't to convince non-believers, like one would think, but instead to make believers give him their money"
Remember as a kid being excited your favorite show was going to be on and scheduling your whole day around it? It's how I feel when I get the Paulogia notifications.
Did you know that, "The boy who went to heaven" was written by a different person than the book, "Heaven is for real" (which was about a boy who almost died from a ruptured appendix)? The first was not a true story, but the second is still claimed to be true by the father who wrote it about his son.
Exactly, and then you just have to refer back to Hitchen's pronouncement in which he said even if he conceded, say, the Kalam, or the fine-tuning argument, or whatever, the theist still has all his/her work cut out for them to get from a generic creator god to the god of the Bible.
I see a lot of people doing the appeal to authority fallacy or hasty generalization which is more harder to detect within dialogue then might seem in court criminal cases
The murder analogy is even worse for Warner, because we're not saying, "We think that she was murdered by her roommate." We're saying, "I'm not sure the evidence even leads to murder." There's a bloody knife with her DNA on it, but the only cut we see is on her hand. Her body is surely dead, but that's about all that points directly to murder. The rest of the evidence could be explained at the moment by a stroke or seizure. She was in her 90s, so it could be old age. We need a lot more evidence to come to the conclusion of a murder, let alone hone in on a murderer.
What is wrong with these people who talk so fast you can’t understand them? If they think it keeps your attention, they are wrong. If they think it makes them sound more knowledgeable, they are wrong. They could take a public speaking from you, Paul!
Thank you for another series of concise, measured, kind responses, Paul. Yet again you’ve managed to say what I’d like to say, but in a calm, comprehensible, gentle manner. Your communication skills are inspiring.
I think Warner's dirty little secret is that he found God at a low point in his life, at a time when he desperately needed a savior, but he wants people to think that evidence and logic led him to believe in God.
That's why I don't use that type of statement....in favor of "no compelling evidence"...or the like. :-) BTW,....this was an amazing video full of well thought out responses to Mr. Warner.
@@Paulogia Also,...one of the most important parts for christians to understand about former christians is when you said, "....I just didn't KNOW then what I know now." It is the same for me. I once "truly and sincerely believed". But that was in a time of misinformation in my life...and lack of quality investigation.
@@Paulogia I am like Deavon. I've been known to say things like, "I've seen no *convincing* evidence or arguments," for me to believe. Alternately, I've said things like, "I've considered the evidence and arguments put forth by theists and find them unconvincing." Btw, I like your points made about experiences.
Love your content, Paul. FYI, you probably already know this, but eyewitness testimony is now considered the weakest evidence because eyewitnesses are often wrong. Btw, I would LOVE to interview you on my channel, if you don't mind.
Can we really call disproven or bad evidence, evidence? Evidence that doesn't indicate the validity of your hypothesis, or can be used to validate several competing hypothesis doesn't sound like evidence.
You already answered yourself in your own first sentence. It's disproven evidence and bad evidence. Both fall under evidence. They don't have to have good or convincing evidence to claim to have some. That's how apologists do.
All evidence falls on a spectrum from bad to good, which is why we have criminal courts with judges that weigh the sum of all evidence presented, and decide if, taken all together, it all meets the standard called *_"beyond reasonable doubt."_* And in the case of Christianity, the sum of the evidence falls _woefully_ short of proving the existence of their god beyond reasonable doubt.
This is the hiccup in our understanding of evidence. As leypeople ,We simply see evidence as that whitch stands up to scrutiny to some degree. Were we then disqualify anything as being evidence which doesn't.
@@guytheincognito4186 - yeah, this is a lame word-game played by Christian apologists where they like to point out that Christianity actually does have evidence, *_even though it's really, really, bad evidence,_* which they then falsely imply is somehow equal to good evidence. They pretend that there is no such spectrum from bad evidence to good evidence. Their evidence is no stronger than the evidence for the claims of Islam, which they hypocritically dismiss on the basis that Islam only has bad evidence. Christian apologists are just _sooo_ pathetic. To prevent their stupid word game from getting traction, I always insert the word _"reasonable"_ before the word "evidence", and that cuts them off at the knees before they can even start. Christian apologists hate it when their pathetically bad evidence for their god is compared to the equally pathetic evidence for the claims of Islam and its god.
"There is no evidence that is positively indicative of or exclusively concordant with the God hypothesis over any other." Aron Ra. A sentiment that I am in agreement with.
This is why I find myself agreeing with Aron more than Paul on the nature of evidence in regards to theism. If we call any old claim evidence, the meaning of the word will be lost.
@@Paulogia I agree that it does work though it does seem to me that this is rather a sort of "fancy" or well a more wordy way of saying "There is no evidence for God's existence."? Let me be clear I do agree that it is not a very engaging or proactive way to discuss the top of religion with a theist. However I don't believe that would make it any less true.
@@Valarien010 I find it to be just a fancier way of saying: "there is no positively conclusive evidence that demonstrates gods existance as an better explanation over any other alternativ explanation".
Note that the free will/determinism science has recently been called into question. The Bereitschaftspotential may be just related to general waves of neurophysiological activities rather than indicating a pre-awareness action. This was recently covered in the September 10th Atlantic issue that points to Schurger, et. al.'s paper in PNAS: An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement.
It's okay. Jesus came to me in the park one day, and told me that he was cool with anything I did so long as I didn't become a cop. He offered loads of evidence. For instance, he told me that he wrote three whole books in the bible in a single weekend. I mean how would anyone who isn't a god pull that feat off? He also showed me a rock he made that contained every element in the universe in it. I know it's true because he showed me a rock and said he made it. Like how can you contest with that sort of direct evidence? It was so compelling, I'm so glad he saved me from my atheistic ways. Thank you jesus for being so real and objective as to come talk to me in the park.
Great video. Keep up the great work. As an ex Mormon I know the fight it takes to get clear of that life. Good to see so many willing to help those who need/want it.
My "favorite" evidence sited by many Christians for the historicity and supernatural ability of Jesus is the "500 witnesses" that were described in some of the Gospels. You haven't lived until you try to explain to one of these people that a mention in a book that "500 people witnessed X" does not actually demonstrate that anyone witnessed anything. Oh, what joy! Bliss, I tell you!
If there were independent verification, the witnesses were identified, etc. maybe it would count as evidence. But none of that applies. It's like me claiming 500 women say I have a 14" penis therefore that is proof I have a 14" penis. Everything hinges upon the word of a single person, who could be lying about those 500 people. More convincing are the hundreds of people who saw the events commonly known as "Our Lady of Fatima" and their accounts were independently verified by multiple reporters. Perhaps the most convincing, because it is the best attested, of all the miracles claimed by the Catholic church. Convincing until you figure out how three schoolgirls tricked those hundreds of people. And that's all it was, a trick. A good trick, but still only a trick.
@@bdf2718 There's also the fact that there as many or more people in the same part if the world that didn't see the sun dance. It also begs the question how such a miracle would function with the heliocentric model etc.
@@guytheincognito4186 Your point ignores the magic aspect of it all. Here is the theological explanation... Sure, some people would have to be seeing an illusion. The simplest explanation is that the Fatima people were seeing the illusion (the other way around gets *way* more complicated). Nonetheless, it would an illusion that even David Copperfield could not perform but one that would require either god-level magic or very, very advanced alien technology, and we don't believe in aliens. Don't believe me? Invisible, intangible, perfect VR technology slipped onto everyone's heads. Miracle! Direct tinkering with optic pathways. Miracle! Giant gawd-made holographic lens in space. Miracle! A miraculous explanation is always possible because *magic.* However, there's a far simpler, non-miraculous explanation. Not only is it a more plausible explanation, once you figure it out then you understand it *had* to be a trick. Because for it to be a miraculous illusion, gawd would have had to simultaneously perform another miracle suppressing the effects of the trick, in order to have people see what the trick *would* have caused them to see yet what they saw wouldn't actually be because of the trick. Can you figure out what the trick was? Richard Dawkins had a stab at it and got the right general idea but couldn't figure out the mechanics so left it as a vague "maybe." Hint: the reason Dawkins couldn't figure it out and I could is because he is *more* intelligent than I am. Yes, I said Dawkins is more intelligent than I am (obviously true) and that's why he couldn't figure out what the trick was (less obviously true).
@@bdf2718 So in order for them to have seen what they saw, God had to perform a second miracle that supresses the first in order for the miracle they claimed the saw, to be seen. Soo..what's this trick your going on about? I'm not sure i'm fully following you here.
@@guytheincognito4186 It's difficult to follow. :) In order for it to truly have been a miracle, gawd would had to have performed two miracles. The first, to suppress what they would have seen *naturally.* The second, to give the illusion of exactly what they would have seen naturally had gawd not suppressed that. I.e., it was no miracle at all, just a trick and a lot of gullibility. Give yourself another try at figuring out the trick. :)
1:50: This seems more like a semantic objection. I think the term "evidence" implies that it points to a specific idea & defies explanation by any other means. Otherwise, I could just point to an arbitrarily large set of objects & go, "Look at all of that evidence!" "If you actually want to continue a conversation with a believer" Ehhhh.... The guy who believes in literal magic says that I watch too much TV. See, again, I'm confused about this idea that "there's no evidence for God" can't be backed up. Where is this standard ever used anywhere else? I've never heard a geologist get mad at the claim that there's no evidence for a global flood, & I would think that the lack of evidence for an event that should logically leave a ton of evidence is good warrant for the claim that it didn't happen. So, if you want to get me on some technicality about how there could be a very obtuse god that wants to hide all evidence of his existence, I guess you got me, but apparently I'm doing what it wants by saying it doesn't exist. I would say that deism is a specialized form of theism. Deism (a non-interventionist god) requires theism (the belief in at least one god), but theism does not require deism (since gods can be interventionist). Even if Flew was of completely sound mind when he made his change, what would that prove? How many atheist scientists do religious apologists feel smugly superior to? This "Well, if the evidence was good enough for an expert" thing they do never goes the other way. Cherry picking for me, but not for thee. And I'm unconvinced by his disclaimer that he's TOTALLY not trying to get us to convert based on one guy's story. Aside from the fact that, y'know, that really seems to be the point of him naming precisely one guy, it's presumptuous to think I don't know anything about DNA. Whoa, okay, what, only like really dumb atheists on social media comments think that there aren't any smart people who believe. The typical explanation given is compartmentalization, that people can be really good at reasoning about some topics & really bad at reasoning about others.
01:55 Objection: people believing in gods is not "a form of evidence for [a] god", it is only evidence of belief. Likewise people telling stories about gods, even if they write them down and venerate the books, is not evidence for those gods.
Evidence is evidence...it either is in support of or not in support of...I cannot say I understand the concept of "shades" or "levels" to facts. They either are or are not.
Divided what is hard to understand that evidence has both a direction and a strength? A rumor may point in the same direction as video footage but the video footage is stronger than the rumor.
My Go To "There is no God" statement is: "There is no argument or assertion for the Abrahamic Theist God that does not commit a Fallacy of Argumentation"
I am not saying you are wrong but I think most people don’t know fallacies and that there are vauge things like personal testimony can I suggest that you say I have not found an argument convincing for anything I would call god
hegyak I have a simpler answer for people who would not know what that means (which is what we are dealing with here): you can’t believe in God without jumping to conclusions.
@@JiveDadson There's a few different fallacies, as I suspect he's referencing or learning from Matt Dillahunty, I'll list a few favorites. Special Pleading Fallacy: "God/Religion/My knowledge is special, therefore god/religion/my knowledge doesn't need evidence" God of the Gaps (Or Argument from Ignorance) Fallacy: "We don't know, therefore god" Begging the Question: (I couldn't think of an example of this one offhand) Any argument where one assumes the conclusion as one of the premises. Appeal to Authority: "90% of scientists say" "My pastor said" etc etc. Argument Ad Populum: "Millions of people have believed..." Circular Argument: "I believe in god because I believe in the bible. I believe in the bible because I believe in god." False Dichotomy: Insert Pascal's Wager here (I point to Pascal mainly because even if you ignore the varying denominations of Christianity and treat them all as Christians for Salvations' sake, there's also hinduism, buddhism, daoism, pantheism, and so many more options that, while they might not be popular, have equal odds of being true.)
Once again Paul you calmly, politely, but firmly respond with logic and sound reason to make a clear case for your position. As I have come to watch more and more atheist videos I have come to respect you more and more. Your work has matured to a truly professional level. You are respectful, professional, polite, empathetic, and extremely humane while never wavering from thoughtful, rational logical points. Thank you for being an advocate for both logical discourse and respectful discourse simultaneously. Parody and mockery has its place. I have laughed plenty at such methods, but genuine discourse that has the possibility of changing minds happens through respectful conversation. Please continue. Your work is very important.
Wow, did he study at the Ben Shapiro school of "How to talk fast to make yourself sound smarter than you really are and to avoid being cornered" or what?
YHWH, (aka "god"), has had thousands of years to communicate telepathically and physically to all his suffering children that he loves so much. But he hasn't and he won't. Instead I receive arguments and proclamations from long ago eyewitnesses that contradict my own direct experience over a lifetime. Now which should I believe?
Thank you for exposing the details surrounding Anthony Flew's statements and his ghost-writteh book. The Christians who use Flew as an example of conversion are usually well aware of what went on; they just don't care that an elderly man was conned, lied to and abused by a group of Intelligent Design Creationists to serve their needs. They do it all the time to their parishioners, so they have no problem with their actions. Ach, this makes me ill.
The book (and Flew's conversion to Deism) has been the subject of controversy, following an article in The New York Times Magazine alleging that Flew's intellect had declined due to senility, and that the book was primarily the work of Varghese;[4][11] Flew himself specifically denied this, stating that the book represented his views; although he acknowledged that due to his age Varghese had done most of the actual work of writing the book.[12] Wikipedia
A small but, I think, important point. A history of human belief in gods is not evidence of gods, it is merely evidence of belief. This is not just my subjective opinion. It is possible to be 100% convinced of something and be wrong. Faith and facts are not the same. Webster gives 2 definitions of Evidence. 1. an outward sign or indication. 2. something that furnishes proof. When the word is employed in discussing the existence of God, it is the second definition which is intended. No-one uses the word evidence in this context to say there is an indication that God 'might' exist, the debate is concerned with whether God is real or not. In this way, there is simply no evidence for the existence of God, only 'signs' that require biased or subjective explanations and are open to other interpretations.
Around 22:00 I started thinking about how I felt about all the conversions I'd heard about and the options I was presented with as I grew up. The fact that I was Christian, yet was allowed to explore options and even convert to a different religion was disorienting. It felt like too much to deal with. I remember that I occasionally thought about the possibility that I would some day convert to another religion, and I just couldn't think of either a reason to do so, or any reason to refrain. I think this did a lot of damage to my attachment to religion, and turned it into a complete nonissue for me for years. It took fundamentalism in other denominations bullying their followings into delusions to abandon agnosticism and adopt antitheism.
The last time someone told me god was real i looked them dead in the eye and said: prove it! That was the end of the conversation. They just seemed suprised and confused. I was lucky they didnt take me up on it
If god is all powerful and can be everywhere at once, why goes he need other humans to kill other humans? And why can't he speak to everybody at once and give them the same message?
stephen wedderburn -- so true. Supposedly an all powerful god inspired Saul, who was so changed by the experience he changed his name to Paul and then went on to write many very detailed letters. So why are missionaries required? Why doesn't that all powerful god inspire at least a few people on every continent and in every nation as it did with Saul?
To be fair with people saying "there's no evidence for God," if you say "there's no convincing evidence" or whatever then some will take that as you admitting there is evidence and by extension God's existence. Then they'll accuse you of ignoring the signs of God so you can sin or something stupid.
@Paulogia Well there those Christians who say "the atheist believes god but pretends he isn't real so he can live a life of sin." And I've argued to many people (science deniers and such) who will latch onto you not outright dismissing something as meaning it's true. So I don't think it's a stretch to think they'd do that for God, especially considering science deniers and religious people often overlap.
Here's the so called evidence for God's existence: Logical Fallacies Religious Philosophy Personal Convictions Inferring God into existence None of these would stand up in a court of law.
question: Recently i saw a meme basically stating that a scientific study showed that any faces we see in our dreams that we do not recognize are ghosts trying to communicate with us because "the brain cant make up faces". I am paraphrasing here. So the idea that the brain can't make up faces is ludicrous since the brains of artists have created faces, landscapes, animals, aliens, airplanes, etc that no one has ever seen before. My question is: Did I made a mistake in commenting on the meme stating "There is no scientific evidence or proof for ghosts therefore there cannot be a scientific study based on ghosts communicating through dreams." In other words: You have to show evidence of ghosts before you can claim there are ghosts trying to communicate through dreams. I suppose that there is a stark difference between evidence (general) and scientific evidence (specific) so i hope this distinction will keep me in the right.
Not all alleged evidence doesn't "hold up to objective tests", because much of it cannot be objectively tested. Paul is correct. There is evidence, but it is poor and most definitely insufficient to convince any reasonable person. To assert that there is "no evidence" is objectively and demonstrably false.
11:30 Why not make a case for "limited free will". Why does everyone argue: "either you have it operating 100% or you don't have it at all?" How about: "you have a little bit of it. It's one factor in decision making, among many others." As in: "it's an influence, but not the sole determinating factor at play." As someone who used to be addicted to alcohol, but made a series of intentional decisions to change that, I feel SOME free will was at work. Lotsa years of sobriety, and no, I didn't HAVE to choose that. Would have been a lot easier to NOT choose that. I stood at a crossroads. Could have gone either way. Subjectively, I experienced a free will decision, against lotsa impulses to the contrary. Can't explain that, without free will. Choice.
Evidence for God meet, just a second it was here a minute ago, where are you burden of proof. ok there you are Burden of Proof meet uh just a second he was here a minute ago. Where did you go evidence of God. They are never in the same place at the same time.
I love the scenario with the hypothetical partners arguing over who committed the crime. I just imagine JWW interrupting both of them saying, “you’re both wrong, it’s obvious an unfalsifiable magical spirit did it!”
At 1:45 you note that "the fact that people throughout history have believed in gods is a form of evidence for god"; I disagree. This is simply an "ad populum" argument and in no way constitutes evidence. That until very recently all generations would have thought the universe was geo-centric (if they thought about it at all) does not make that "a form of evidence for geocentrism". It was simply an unsupported hypothesis.
@@tenaciousminion8753 Over a billion people must be wrong. They can't all be right. And I am pretty sure that even the biggest group has a billion believers believing other things.
Note that Paul does not claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus. That is in the much later (over 100 years) fable called "Acts". Thus there are NO eyewitness testimonies to a resurrected Jesus.
How likely is it that a real God (person), would condone slavery or use the previous Gods stories of "men and gods" from Babylon and Sumer? It becomes apparent (once one is familiar with the Sumerian mythology), that everything from the Old Testament back to Sumer ( who's civilization ended roughly 6,000 years ago) is influenced from the previous generations writings. I believe we can safely say that Yahweh, (the character developed out of the earlier tradition of Elohim, ' plural') is as fictitious as any other God character in history. ( or possibly Legend). If one is not convinced by evidence or refuses to examine it, what can we say? The magician's trick has been revealed; typical Mesopotamian warlord religion. Fly, be free. I can't thank you enough for your work.
I hate the "fine tuning" argument so much. We would die instantly in 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of possible coordinates in visible space-time. Even on Earth, without protection and tools, we still lose over 99% of the time. Where is this "fine tuned" universe? And they still look at you like you're the one that isn't getting it. 🤣
As an atheist how do I present evidence for a thing that I believe no evidence exists? My lack of belief is not a positive claim for the non existence of God.
_"I mean the fact that people throughout history have believed in gods is in and of itself a form of evidence for God"_ No, it isn't. It is only evidence that there are people that believed [in] something.
I mean when you consider the fact that we actually somewhat know what would have caused such an effect but you know creationists don't like accepting demonstrable facts especially when it relates to humans being apes
I had a problem with that statement as well. The fact that something is believed gives no credence to said belief, nor does the number of people who hold that belief. We still have flat-earthers, for instance.
Wait, it's not evidence? It's not just *bad* evidence, it's non-existent? Are you saying evidence is only evidence if the conclusion is ontologically true? We don't know whether string theory is true. Can there be evidence for string theory?
@Tom Paine It's evidence that they believe their assertion that god exists, but not evidence that that god actually exists. Neither belief, nor the number of those who believe, are evidence of the truth of their belief. As to string theory, you're conflating a scientific model with a belief. A scientific model isn't asserting anything to be true, while a belief is.
@@mikkj1 Scientific models aren't based on truth? String theory doesn't say that the cosmos is fundamentally made of vibrating strings? A pile of crap in my yard is evidence my neighbors bought a llama, but it's better evidence that my dog was outside recently. Are you saying the crap is *not* evidence for my neighbor's llama? Let's say we test the DNA and find it's dog DNA. Is it not evidence my neighbor's llama has dog DNA? (Isn't that how the God game is played?) How is your claim different from saying, "evidence is only evidence if I believe the conclusion?" What *would* be evidence that God exists?
It seems that this evidence stuff around 1:50 is open to nitpicking because this kind of evidence is not evidence for god but evidence for belief in god.
09:57 I make the claim that there is no god. I look around my room and find no god, therefore there is no god. If anyone has a problem with this, then THEY must point out where I should go to find a god and what this god should look like. Until then I am done.
The best place to go to find God is to the Bible. In the Bible God promises that if a person seeks Him with all his heart he will find God. (Jeremiah 29:13; Matthew 7:7)
@@bertmast2022 I have looked there and found that this is a man made book making claims about what a god is supposed to be. But I think you might be ignoring a couple things, the Hindu Veda's and the Qur'an all so say similar things, as do most other religions of the world. And there is a further thing you are ignoring, I, personally, have no need for gods, I am fine without them around. My point was that what the religious offers as evidence for their gods is not evidence, just refined claims about them.
@@Balstrome1 Thanks for your reply. Yes, the Bible is a big book. It helps to have someone show us were to start. When someone is looking for gold they don't usually find it everywhere, but have to know where to search or dig. Most of us feel like we are okay when we have our physical needs met. Yet, one does not buy fire insurance for the good days. It is very important to be ready when the trials of life come. There is a parable about a rich man who had a really good harvest, but his barns were not big enough to hold everything. So he decided to build bigger barns and then take it easy. He was shown to be a fool because he was only thinking about the here and now and didn't properly prepare for his eternal future. (Luke 12:16-20) I am glad that someone pointed me in the right direction so that I could find that which is worth much more than gold!
@@bertmast2022 And the Israelite's managed to get to Mt. Sinai not knowing that Murder, Theft and Lying were bad for society. I suggest that there is nothing in the Bible or any other holy book that can be considered to be morally good, which humans had not worked out for themselves before these books came to be. But the opposite is true, that there are lots of commended things in these books which are morally bad. If you ascribe the good to God, you have to also read Isaiah 45:7. So show me a good in the bible that I can not find outside the bible. And explain why it is a good thing.
The question of what would you do if God appeared before you, what would you say? My first question is are you the right God for my non belief? Why after all your mistakes do you come out of hiding now when your creations needed you for centuries? Can God falsify himself?
I'd probably say something more like "I have not yet seen sufficient evidence to warrant belief." if I was trying to be really careful and cover all my bases, maybe in a formal debate or something. But I don't think it's terribly bad to say "There is no evidence for god." It's a little presumptive but not much considering that the reason apologists can't seem to form a valid and sound argument isn't because they're not clever enough. It's because of the nature of the claim. The claim is such that there shouldn't be any kind of acceptable verifiable evidence. Not in our universe anyway.
1:50 i was surprised to realize you're right. but then i realized why i was surprised. i was making the mistake of conflating proof (evidence pointing EXCLUSIVELY towards a single hypothesis), with evidence (facts pointing towards several possible hypotheses, including the one in question). i think most people, when claiming "there's no evidence for god" are making the same mistake, and what they actually mean is "there is no proof, therefore evidence pointing exclusively towards existence of god". therefore, you are right, there is evidence, but since that evidence is not a proof, it's insufficient evidence.
People on the other side of the fence make the same mistake. One guy kept using the word evidence but kept describing the concept of proof when asking for evidence of abiogenisis.
@@Paulogia I don't think anyone will complain if you have an episode without Ken. ... ... Though now that I mention it, Avery is annoying, Gabriella is incomprehensible, and Roger is the person who comes to mind when I picture Lennie from Of Mice and Men. But yeah, Georgia acting scientific and Bodie's fallacies could get me through an episode.
The fine structure constant can change to ANY value, it was discovered a few years ago in a paper, as long as the other values of the other constants can change.
Hi Paul, natural/supernatural is a red herring. You would do well to avoid it next time. For instance, if we demonstrate the existence of souls tomorrow, is that a discovery of the supernatural? Or just a heretofore undiscovered natural entity? What is the difference? Or, said differently, granting that supernatural is other/outside/beyond natural, what characteristics determine whether something is natural? Which of these does the supernatural lack?
In addition to my comment below, at around 9:30, Wallace is saying that hard evidence is not a legally defined term. Again, he is assuming that the subject wr're discussing is a legal matter, where in fact it has nothing to to do with legal matters (for explanation, see my comment below). He might as well have said that the term home run is not legally defined when he's saying something about what a baseball commentator said. Edit: again, at around 13:50, Wallace makes a legal comparison, in this case with a crime scene.
I disagree. The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Gods have the same origin. And believers of all three believe they have the true version of said deity. But beyond the basics they aren't the same god any more than Zeus and Thor are the same god for their apparent common Proto-Indo-European origins.
I could be wrong about this and would be the first one to admit I don't know everything about this and correct what I get wrong. With that said, I have done some studying in ancient gods and religions and I think it can be boiled down to the fact that they seem to be describing the same entity. The Zues/Thor metaphor would be apples to oranges. I do get where you are going with it however. Your analogy would be better served with Zues / Odin, but again describing the same type of entity. A King, God, father of all the other gods, etc... if you look into the historical religions it is interesting to see the similarities with Jesus/Horus, Isis/Mary, and some others. It almost seems as if someone heard things they liked about a religion and "borrowed" traits, characteristics, historical "truths", eye-witness testimonies, etc... from their origins and made them fit their societies understanding and meaning. Just an observation and opinion. It really is very interesting, though.
@@strangeandwonderful247 you might be interested to look into Proto Indo European religion. You'll find that Zeus and Thor come from common mythos , just like the Christian God and Allah. There are a lot of commonalities between most Indo-European polytheistic faiths, including similar gods between pantheons as far removed as the Vedic gods and the Celtic gods. They aren't identical, by any stretch. But neither are Allah and Yahweh. The reason being, just like the abrahamic faiths share a common root, the Indo-European faiths also share a common root. Up to and including common traits like predecessor deities like giants in conflict with the Gods and a general focus around a sky deity is the central figure. In some cases the sky deity has been demoted and a different deity has been put in its place, but they're still there. Zeus, Dyeus Pater, Jupiter, are all derived from this deity, despite wild differences between them. So Central is it to Indo European cultures that the modern words for God in many Indo-European languages, like deus and deity, are derived from the same linguistic root.
@@diyi75 give this a try sometime. Set a Jewish person, a Muslim, and a Christian in a room and ask them to describe in detail the traits of their God and see how quickly it turns into an argument. If I'm wrong, then you can tell me they're the same God.
A great way to deal with this genetic information and design argument would be to show the difference between designed software and evolved software. I've done evolutionary algorithms before, so I'm working on developing a simplified example that I could possibly make a video about.
Curious. Would the assertion "There is no evidence of the Christian God." be a better statement as 'belief' is not evidence? No one can walk into a courtroom, sit on the witness stand and claim "I believe he did it."
1:50 "The fact that people throughout history have believed in god is in and of itself a form of evidence for god" It is evidence only that people throughout history have believed in god. It is NOT evidence *for* god. Evidence that people make a claim X is not evidence *for* X.
9:36 Continuing his criminal case/court room analogy, then no, the defence have no responsibility to suggest the defendamt is innocent, nor has the jury. This is only a temper tantrum, "it isn't fair" and as a former police, I would expect him to know better!
23:38 Every time I look deeper, I find less and less. Which leads me to think you're the one who might look deeper. Especially given your example (Antony Flew) that turned out to be wrong.
When I hear the word "evidence" brought up in discussions of a god my mind always rings with the quote (which I believe is from Christopher Hitchens): An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Since those who wrote the bible tacitly imply they have received the information from an invisible god, I think that -- by definition -- is an assertion without evidence; and so I summarily dismiss it.
As someone obsessed with malicious code as a teen (dont ask). I wouldnt use computer programs as a metaphor in that context. As polymorphic viruses can change their code when they infect a new host. The Dark Avenger's virus Leech comes to mind.
I too wonder about a given theist only accepting personal experiences that lead to their own god. I have posed the question of why this is the case to a few theists and the answer I get back is never satisfactory, usually I get no real answer. The usual answers I get break down into "Well they're just wrong/mistaken" or "Only 'WE' have the right experiences." If we have to accept the experiences of whichever variety of Christian that a specific theist is as evidence for their god then we, and they, should have to accept the experiences of those who don't match our theoretical Christian, such as those from Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Satanists, various Polytheists, Wiccans, etc... The only responses I've had so far simply dismiss these experiences without any real reason. Maybe the few I've talked to about this realize that if they give me a good reason to debunk another's personal experience then they'd be providing a good reason to debunk themselves.
2:14 The word god is meaningless, unless you are willing to define it. I like the blanket and bold dismissal tactic, making an affirmative claim, however I prefer the above tac. Christians, by in large, assert the existence of god in the most pitiful, child-like way imaginable. They can't describe him, except using vague and generally self-refuting terminology like omnipotent or omniscient. Asking a christian to define god in a meaningful, useful way that one could use to create a REAL argument from (eg not simply a deistic god, but THEIR god) generally is a good approach to begin this conversation. The Christian God does not exist. I know, because logically incoherent ideas are, by definition, self refuting.
Exactly. I usually ask how an omniscient god could ever experience 'regret' as described in the biblical flood story and elsewhere. By definition an omniscient god would know the results of any actions (including its own) in advance, and thus could never experience regret when those results become actual.
Very entertaining. The pictures! Perfect visualizations. I personally do not perceive a god. Not by feel, by sound, or by name. My choice is to not believe in things I cannot perceive. Why should I? Because others say I should? A lot of his answers are just twists on arguments used against religion. Down to the wording! The world keeps turning. No god necessary. -Thank you.
The funny thing is in every other scenario when someone says "there's no evidence for..." we know exactly what is meant. The fact that people try to split hairs when it's used in a theological context should tell you something.
Some languages don't distinguish between "evidence" & "proof". In Dutch, for example, the word "bewijs" is used as a translation for both "evidence" and "proof", and no such distinctions are made. Therefore, to a native Dutch speaker, "evidence" and "proof" appear synonyms. It seems to me that when people say "there is no evidence for God", what they really mean is that "there is no proof of God"... which is a totally precise and accurate statement. Considering both statements would have the exact same translation in Dutch, it shouldn't surprise anyone that some native English speakers fail to distinguish between "evidence" and "proof" as well.
Honestly instead of saying “god doesn’t exist” or “there is no proof of god” my position is more “until you have more than the claims made in a book I don’t believe you when you say god exists”
It took me twenty years to realize that I believed in a god
because I was ordered to believe
under the threat of eternal punishment
if I didn't.
When I finally decided to find out which god I believed in
I was disappointed to discover it was only my own imagination.
I really wanted to believe I had an invisible friend hiding in the clouds
who cared about me.
I find I had a very strange way to atheism lol I believed in Yahweh, but after reading the Bible, mixed with the incorrect claim from pastors that the serpent of genesis was Lucifer, came to the conclusion god was clearly the villain in these stories. For a good while, I believed whole heartedly, that there was a god, and that he was evil, but more powerful than the hero of the story, Lucifer. Eventually I figured out the Bible was just bullshit, but it was a harrowing few years XD
There was a time I would have preferred to believe in a god but I made the connection between fear and the collection plate at an early age.
Despite all hand-waving to the contrary, a plain-language reading of the bible clearly renders Satan as the more benign character. Unlike Yahweh, he never harms anyone in any way - with the possible exception of Job, purely at Yahweh's behest.
The hardest thing for me to let go of was ultimate justice. I liked the idea of evil people facing judgement in front of a judge who could not be lied to and who could deal out proper punishment. Now that I see that doctrine as an excuse not to tell the truth about crimes that people have done it makes me very angry. Vengeance is mine I will repay sayeth the Lord. This is what people who cover for child molesters like to say. I want to knock the faces off of people who leave justice to an imaginary God.
Just remember, you might not have a dude up in the sky shaking his head at you everytime you touch yourself in a fun way. Or let someone else touch you in a fun way out of wedlock. You are still important to real human beings who might actually care for you.
If God does exist, he's trying very hard not to be found and I think we should respect that.
Can something omnipresence not be around. Hadn't thought about that, something to ask next time someone asks if I found Jesus. My usual reply is "I didn't know he was missing" or "Yes, he was under a rock in a galaxy far away"
@@agimasoschandir or, he's serving taco's in Mexico
Jadin Andrews -- actually, Jesus is mowing my neighbor's lawn.
Amen!
God is the collective consciousness and can be found in solitude and calmness, for example in meditation in the desert.
But what "Christian" does that and begin to act like Jesus? Not many. If all Christians did that, it would probably lead to a quick peaceful revolution, ending the military industrial complex, and then World Peace.
Since most Christians believe Jesus died for their sins, they are not ready to take responsibility for their own actions and sins yet, so probably the spitit of Jesus loves an active descent Atheist more than a Christian.
Well then, I guess I love the spirit of Jesus too. Great guy, it seems, but I do not have much trust in the rest of his people.
I've dealt with this guy before, and he _loves_ talking about evidence that would stand up in a _courtroom._
Not a lab. A courtroom.
Twelve people not smart enough to get out of jury duty could never be wrong.
I'm smart enough to get out of jury duty. Done it every time I've been called.
@@BionicDance I have to wonder if you two realize how disgusting that position is.
I agree with a lot of the positions you guys take but I hope, for your sake, you are never falsely accused of a crime and forced to rely on twelve people "too stupid to get out of jury duty."
Maybe intelligent and rational people like you should accept some of the civic responsibility that comes from being citizens in a democracy. Are things like serving on a jury and voting really that large of a burden?
@@sypherthe297th2 the dismally low vote counts in the US and Canada and the common trope of getting out of jury duty would suggest so, actually. I agree withyou on principle, but there's hardly evidence of Paul and Bionic being outliers on this. Indeed you take the decidedly minority stance here.
Though I actually do disagree with voting as a civic duty, at least on its own. Educated voting I agree should be a responsibility, but I'd argue if someone has made no effort to get to know the candidates or the issues, it's their duty to abstain from voting. I don't vote in races where I don't know the candidates.
Similarly with jury duty. If you don't believe you can be impartial in the courtroom, you shouldn't be on the jury. Your faith in our judicial systems is admirable. But the rate of false convictions would suggest the jury is not an adequate insurance against injustice anymore than it's a solid basis for theism.
@@sypherthe297th2 That said, voting and jury of peers are their respective problems' best solutions. They're just very imperfect ones.
I’m curious. When he was a detective, would he seriously consider a supernatural cause to a crime? A body is found with no apparent natural explanation, would he conclude a supernatural cause and call it a day? My guess would be that he would say he doesn’t know what happened and continue to look for a natural explanation.
The dumbest part is there isn't even any body, yet he goes on about how the body was removed by magic, therefore you can't see it, and that means the killer used magic, so it must be the butler who did it.
Going by his standards of evidence for GOd's existence it's a miracle he did not arrest people for a newspaper or comic book speculating they had committed a crime and calling that unrefutable evidence.
No detective would he just lying his ass off in order to defend his beliefs. Atheists see through his lies and nonsense. But his nonsense fools like minded believers.
@@Ugly_German_Truths JWW is full of 💩 and he knows he, targeting a Christian audience and he knows most aren’t gonna question what he claims. He knows the nonsense he claims wouldn’t work on atheists or other nonbelievers. He loves pandering and using confirmation bias to like minded believers.
@@匕卄モ匕卄丹れKち '...lying his ass off...' Are you trying to tell us that his donkey was telling so many lies that his arse fell off? 'Ass' is the original name for a donkey. 'Donkey' used to be the name for a baby or young ass. As the NT (Authorised Version) tells us, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on his ass. 'Arse' is the Old English word for backside, bottom or bum. 'Donkey' began to be more widely used from the late Eighteenth Century onwards. mainly in the USA. 'Arse about face,' means 'the wrong way round.' British people should be proud of their language and NEVER under any circumstances whatsoever ever use Americanisms.
11:53
DNA is literally chemistry.
Which is an emergent property of physics.
Physics and chemistry is how *all* DNA is being built, just 'cause the physics and chemistry are happening inside a cell doesn't stop it being physics and chemistry.
@daniel letterman Had this comment about the, "I don't want to be a theist, but I like all the crap that theists have forced down the throat of civilization.", types in Evolutionary Psychology (A non-sesense "science" that is right along the lines of Parapsychology). Their basic argument amounts, in every single case, in, "Because I see this stuff in my culture, it must have evolved." My point was that every damn thing they try to claim evolved is an emergent property and that going from, "I am stronger than my mate.", and, "I want sex now.", to "I can hold her down and do what I want.", doesn't make the behavior "evolved", it just means you got smart enough to come up with really stupid ways to connect the awareness of your physical strength to a primitive desire, and form a damn stupid solution to the latter "problem". Yet, this is exactly the sort of nonsense they try to defend - hierarchies, or rape, etc. It all has to be "adaptive". Only.. Its like lighting a fire - the property of fire is to follow the easiest path to fuel. If you build it well, the "property" you get is a cozy glow. Do it badly and you burn down your house. By "EP" logic, the existence of arsonists would be an "adaptation" of fire making skills to better be able to burn down your house. There is no freaking logic, at all, to this kind of conclusion, but.. they will use it to try to explain the color pink, or why teaching women to obey, and boys to just do what ever the F they want, by general comparison, is somehow "genetic", and the results *have to be* beneficial in some manner. Never mind *every single* possible example showing this is BS, and doesn't work the exact same way in every culture. Nope.. They "like" being assholes, in some cases, or they just generally the way the world works, and therefor, "We made up a story to explain it, which makes it, without any actual DNA evidence. and while ignoring all the contradictions, adaptive!"
I get the impression that anyone who actually *does* research (instead of just writing books and going on speaking tours), especially those working with DNA, find the "field" to be about as credible as phrenology, or maybe the sort of "paid science" you get from think tanks, that try to prove that breathing diesel smoke is good for you, or something, so oil companies can avoid air pollution regulations.
So true my friend and, it obeys Occams razor as expected. ;)
@@patrickelliott2169 Read your own post m8. I think it,s doing strange things. ;)
@daniel letterman
People seem to think that emergent means that it was already there.
That orange juice is emergent from oranges.
But that is not what it means.
That concept and falsifiability are concepts that a lot of people have a hard time understanding.
@@patrickelliott2169 ...Dafuq does any of that have to with the topic? No one brought up evolutionary psychology. This has nothing to do with it. The term "emergent property" isn't exclusive to that field. It indicates a property that the whole has that the components may not share. The way you claim evolutionary psychologists use it-I don't know if they actually do use it that way, and don't care, it's not relevant-is not even the same usage as was used here. Or in most other fields. So thanks for the massive non sequitor.
I believe our ancestors started believing in the supernatural. Because there was a lot in their world they just couldn't understand or explain.
Douglas Adams asserted that God started as an explanation for everything and is now something that needs a lot of explanation. 😀
It might be more insidious than that. More likely, some early trickster invented god(s) in an effort to rule or control other people through fear.
@@notwhatiwasraised2b True
What else could have happened?
@@notwhatiwasraised2b The Hebrews created their god Yahweh because it was time for war, and the people needed the motivation of a god who ordered the destruction of the enemies. Then this war god was basically "the last god standing" by the time the Christians came along, so a religion based on a pacifist man, ends up with a god of war. No wonder they are so schizophrenic. You can thank the Hebrews AND thew Romans for this disaster.
I love the retort to the "science of the gaps" claim about lots of claims about supernatural activity being shown to be natural phenomena, while nothing thought to be natural phenomena had been shown to be supernatural. So concise.
VoodooSixx said it well. "Number of natural explanations that have been replaced by supernatural ones - zero. Number of supernatural explanations that have been replaced by natural ones - too numerous to mention."
Exactlyy dude it's a great point. And there is also a reason why the multiverse hypothesis (and things like this, that hypothesize the state of being of the entirety of the cosmos or what happened before the big bang) are actual hypothesis and not recognized as scientific theory. They don't get to be a theory until proven by empirical evidence, we can however hypothesize as much as we want and it in no way is a so called "science of the gaps" because science recognize these propositions as hypotheses, they are possibilities and doesn't assert they are necessarily fact. Unlike Theists regarding the God question.
It's actually worse than that when you consider that the supernatural/natural divide is a red herring. Science isn't limited to the natural, it is limited to the _empirical._ A testable supernatural hypothesis that makes falsifiable predictions is just as accessible by science as a natural one. And if your hypothesis fails to offer these things, the problem is yours, not science's.
Note that there is nothing inherent to the supernatural that makes it beyond testing. That those types of hypotheses are untestable says more about the people making those arguments than anything else.
“This one guy who used to think that there is no god now thinks that there might be a god, therefore there is a god”
Solid argument my man.....
I used to think there was a god, I no longer think that there is. Does that mean there is no god?
Using someone’s personal opinion as evidence for anything is probably only one step above, just literally making shit up
Tu quoque fallacy. The difference here is in the burden of proof. Paulogia isn't stating there isn't a god. He pointed out the flaw in stating that because JWW changed his belief to that there is a god, that must make it true. The burden of proof was on JWW, not Paulogia. But you are right in saying that using someone’s personal opinion as evidence for anything is generally not good argumentation. in discussions like these.
@@SmangItDrums This was about Antony Flew's "conversion".
It only counts if you convert from non-believer to believer. Going the other way doesn't count. 😁
jursamaj Anthony Flew’s conversion story is just as BS as JWW’s. 🤷♂️
@@SmangItDrums Yes, and that's what Jay Kamenski was commenting on. He was pointing out that Flew's "conversion" doesn't prove God exists any more than Jay's own deconversion proves God doesn't exist. He was not committing Tu Quoque.
I think it's funny how sharing your videos on my facebook page has cleaned out my friends list so quickly! hahahahahhahha..........
happy to help?!?
Allen Quartermane: Best way to get rid of the superstitious is to challenge their beliefs.
@@timhallas4275 I am coming out of 35 years in the christian cult, and finally free from guilt, shame, idiotic laws that go against nature, etc, etc. I am stuck in an area of Florida that is almost totally saturated in religion and have only found a couple of people that I can talk to, others are on line and damn great full for them to help me with the residue of what I came out of. Cancer of the throat , heart disease, skin cancer hit me all at once as soon as I got here from California so med bills have crippled me and I'm on dissabillity and now being in my right mind I can feel good despite everything else. I appreciate your suggestion as that is what was put to me and why I longer believe the book that should say instead of In the beginning.....but....Once upon a time.......hahahahahahha...My deepest regret is that of wasting 35 years of life to it. But better late than never.
Allen Quartermane. Really sorry. Best of all.
@@allenquartermane6134 It's never too late to have your eyes open and your mind free. I have heard this quote in the past, don't know who originally said it, but I use it all the time. Better to live a day on my feet with my eyes open than an eternity on my knees with them shut.
Science may not save you from everything, but at least it gives you a fighting chance.
"Comments are turned off."
He doesn't seem so eager to give responses to people in his comment section.
Most videos trying to "prove" gods existence have disabled comment sections. Because deep down they know their arguments are a house of cards and the scientific method is a series of tornados, it falls apart with the smallest breeze.
I barely objected to a tweet of his and was instantly blocked. Christian apologists can only survive in an echo chamber
Strangely, the thumbs are still operable. Hint.
@@drumanddrummer465 It's because the whole goal isn't to convince non-believers, like one would think, but instead to make believers feel better about their own reasoning and faith.
@@20xx-mm-dd
Let me correct that for you :-
"It's because the whole goal isn't to convince non-believers, like one would think, but instead to make believers give him their money"
Your style of calm investigation is my favorite.
Remember as a kid being excited your favorite show was going to be on and scheduling your whole day around it? It's how I feel when I get the Paulogia notifications.
Did you know that, "The boy who went to heaven" was written by a different person than the book, "Heaven is for real" (which was about a boy who almost died from a ruptured appendix)? The first was not a true story, but the second is still claimed to be true by the father who wrote it about his son.
AND... bonus: My favorite show won't be canceled due to overtime for some baseball or football game.😬
The Christian argument. The evidence for Jesus' resurrection is so strong that I am gong to talk about vague Deism.
Exactly, and then you just have to refer back to Hitchen's pronouncement in which he said even if he conceded, say, the Kalam, or the fine-tuning argument, or whatever, the theist still has all his/her work cut out for them to get from a generic creator god to the god of the Bible.
I see a lot of people doing the appeal to authority fallacy or hasty generalization which is more harder to detect within dialogue then might seem in court criminal cases
The murder analogy is even worse for Warner, because we're not saying, "We think that she was murdered by her roommate." We're saying, "I'm not sure the evidence even leads to murder." There's a bloody knife with her DNA on it, but the only cut we see is on her hand. Her body is surely dead, but that's about all that points directly to murder. The rest of the evidence could be explained at the moment by a stroke or seizure. She was in her 90s, so it could be old age. We need a lot more evidence to come to the conclusion of a murder, let alone hone in on a murderer.
What is wrong with these people who talk so fast you can’t understand them? If they think it keeps your attention, they are wrong. If they think it makes them sound more knowledgeable, they are wrong. They could take a public speaking from you, Paul!
...its almost 1am and you REALLY need to get some sleep... but a TH-cam notification informs you Paulogia has posted new content..... :)
Gary Priestley same
Gary Priestley guessing you are also Australian
@@matthewwhitford9818 yep - so how can we convince Paulogia to do a trip "Down Under"? ;)
Thank you for another series of concise, measured, kind responses, Paul. Yet again you’ve managed to say what I’d like to say, but in a calm, comprehensible, gentle manner. Your communication skills are inspiring.
I think Warner's dirty little secret is that he found God at a low point in his life, at a time when he desperately needed a savior, but he wants people to think that evidence and logic led him to believe in God.
Interesting theory.
That's the story of them all, if they weren't indoctrinated as children.
That's why I don't use that type of statement....in favor of "no compelling evidence"...or the like. :-)
BTW,....this was an amazing video full of well thought out responses to Mr. Warner.
Exactly.
cool. be like Deavon.
@@Paulogia Also,...one of the most important parts for christians to understand about former christians is when you said, "....I just didn't KNOW then what I know now." It is the same for me. I once "truly and sincerely believed". But that was in a time of misinformation in my life...and lack of quality investigation.
@@Paulogia I am like Deavon. I've been known to say things like, "I've seen no *convincing* evidence or arguments," for me to believe. Alternately, I've said things like, "I've considered the evidence and arguments put forth by theists and find them unconvincing."
Btw, I like your points made about experiences.
@@DRayL_ What did you learn that caused you to disbelieve God?
Love your content, Paul. FYI, you probably already know this, but eyewitness testimony is now considered the weakest evidence because eyewitnesses are often wrong.
Btw, I would LOVE to interview you on my channel, if you don't mind.
I was about to bring up the same though process and saw you had beat me to it. Lol
Or you could drop in to his channel and be animated. You'd end up square-jawed, though (everybody he animates does).
Having only one eyewitness can be problematic, but having more than one is eyewitness is compelling.
Then you need to show that the eyewitnesses themselves are wrong. Don’t just assume that they’re wrong, show that they’re wrong.
@@Nameless-pt6oj Not how it works, buddy. Try again
Can we really call disproven or bad evidence, evidence? Evidence that doesn't indicate the validity of your hypothesis, or can be used to validate several competing hypothesis doesn't sound like evidence.
You already answered yourself in your own first sentence. It's disproven evidence and bad evidence. Both fall under evidence. They don't have to have good or convincing evidence to claim to have some. That's how apologists do.
All evidence falls on a spectrum from bad to good, which is why we have criminal courts with judges that weigh the sum of all evidence presented, and decide if, taken all together, it all meets the standard called *_"beyond reasonable doubt."_*
And in the case of Christianity, the sum of the evidence falls _woefully_ short of proving the existence of their god beyond reasonable doubt.
This is the hiccup in our understanding of evidence. As leypeople ,We simply see evidence as that whitch stands up to scrutiny to some degree. Were we then disqualify anything as being evidence which doesn't.
@@guytheincognito4186 - yeah, this is a lame word-game played by Christian apologists where they like to point out that Christianity actually does have evidence, *_even though it's really, really, bad evidence,_* which they then falsely imply is somehow equal to good evidence.
They pretend that there is no such spectrum from bad evidence to good evidence.
Their evidence is no stronger than the evidence for the claims of Islam, which they hypocritically dismiss on the basis that Islam only has bad evidence. Christian apologists are just _sooo_ pathetic.
To prevent their stupid word game from getting traction, I always insert the word _"reasonable"_ before the word "evidence", and that cuts them off at the knees before they can even start.
Christian apologists hate it when their pathetically bad evidence for their god is compared to the equally pathetic evidence for the claims of Islam and its god.
"There is no evidence that is positively indicative of or exclusively concordant with the God hypothesis over any other." Aron Ra.
A sentiment that I am in agreement with.
that works
This is why I find myself agreeing with Aron more than Paul on the nature of evidence in regards to theism. If we call any old claim evidence, the meaning of the word will be lost.
@@Paulogia I agree that it does work though it does seem to me that this is rather a sort of "fancy" or well a more wordy way of saying "There is no evidence for God's existence."? Let me be clear I do agree that it is not a very engaging or proactive way to discuss the top of religion with a theist. However I don't believe that would make it any less true.
@@hobosorcerer I share the exact same sentiment.
@@Valarien010
I find it to be just a fancier way of saying: "there is no positively conclusive evidence that demonstrates gods existance as an better explanation over any other alternativ explanation".
Note that the free will/determinism science has recently been called into question. The Bereitschaftspotential may be just related to general waves of neurophysiological activities rather than indicating a pre-awareness action. This was recently covered in the September 10th Atlantic issue that points to Schurger, et. al.'s paper in PNAS: An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement.
'Influenced by the last person he talked to.'
Sounds like a certain president...
I think he talks at, rather than to.
Thank you Paul, for your continued work. You are greatly appreciated!
It's okay. Jesus came to me in the park one day, and told me that he was cool with anything I did so long as I didn't become a cop. He offered loads of evidence. For instance, he told me that he wrote three whole books in the bible in a single weekend. I mean how would anyone who isn't a god pull that feat off? He also showed me a rock he made that contained every element in the universe in it. I know it's true because he showed me a rock and said he made it. Like how can you contest with that sort of direct evidence? It was so compelling, I'm so glad he saved me from my atheistic ways. Thank you jesus for being so real and objective as to come talk to me in the park.
Brack Carmony -- damn, now I'm jealous. Jesus never talks to me, although sometimes he'll wave as he mows my neighbor's lawn.
Great video. Keep up the great work. As an ex Mormon I know the fight it takes to get clear of that life. Good to see so many willing to help those who need/want it.
My "favorite" evidence sited by many Christians for the historicity and supernatural ability of Jesus is the "500 witnesses" that were described in some of the Gospels.
You haven't lived until you try to explain to one of these people that a mention in a book that "500 people witnessed X" does not actually demonstrate that anyone witnessed anything. Oh, what joy! Bliss, I tell you!
If there were independent verification, the witnesses were identified, etc. maybe it would count as evidence. But none of that applies. It's like me claiming 500 women say I have a 14" penis therefore that is proof I have a 14" penis. Everything hinges upon the word of a single person, who could be lying about those 500 people.
More convincing are the hundreds of people who saw the events commonly known as "Our Lady of Fatima" and their accounts were independently verified by multiple reporters. Perhaps the most convincing, because it is the best attested, of all the miracles claimed by the Catholic church. Convincing until you figure out how three schoolgirls tricked those hundreds of people. And that's all it was, a trick. A good trick, but still only a trick.
@@bdf2718
There's also the fact that there as many or more people in the same part if the world that didn't see the sun dance. It also begs the question how such a miracle would function with the heliocentric model etc.
@@guytheincognito4186 Your point ignores the magic aspect of it all. Here is the theological explanation... Sure, some people would have to be seeing an illusion. The simplest explanation is that the Fatima people were seeing the illusion (the other way around gets *way* more complicated). Nonetheless, it would an illusion that even David Copperfield could not perform but one that would require either god-level magic or very, very advanced alien technology, and we don't believe in aliens.
Don't believe me? Invisible, intangible, perfect VR technology slipped onto everyone's heads. Miracle! Direct tinkering with optic pathways. Miracle! Giant gawd-made holographic lens in space. Miracle! A miraculous explanation is always possible because *magic.*
However, there's a far simpler, non-miraculous explanation. Not only is it a more plausible explanation, once you figure it out then you understand it *had* to be a trick. Because for it to be a miraculous illusion, gawd would have had to simultaneously perform another miracle suppressing the effects of the trick, in order to have people see what the trick *would* have caused them to see yet what they saw wouldn't actually be because of the trick.
Can you figure out what the trick was? Richard Dawkins had a stab at it and got the right general idea but couldn't figure out the mechanics so left it as a vague "maybe." Hint: the reason Dawkins couldn't figure it out and I could is because he is *more* intelligent than I am. Yes, I said Dawkins is more intelligent than I am (obviously true) and that's why he couldn't figure out what the trick was (less obviously true).
@@bdf2718
So in order for them to have seen what they saw, God had to perform a second miracle that supresses the first in order for the miracle they claimed the saw, to be seen.
Soo..what's this trick your going on about? I'm not sure i'm fully following you here.
@@guytheincognito4186 It's difficult to follow. :) In order for it to truly have been a miracle, gawd would had to have performed two miracles. The first, to suppress what they would have seen *naturally.* The second, to give the illusion of exactly what they would have seen naturally had gawd not suppressed that. I.e., it was no miracle at all, just a trick and a lot of gullibility.
Give yourself another try at figuring out the trick. :)
1:50: This seems more like a semantic objection. I think the term "evidence" implies that it points to a specific idea & defies explanation by any other means. Otherwise, I could just point to an arbitrarily large set of objects & go, "Look at all of that evidence!"
"If you actually want to continue a conversation with a believer" Ehhhh....
The guy who believes in literal magic says that I watch too much TV.
See, again, I'm confused about this idea that "there's no evidence for God" can't be backed up. Where is this standard ever used anywhere else? I've never heard a geologist get mad at the claim that there's no evidence for a global flood, & I would think that the lack of evidence for an event that should logically leave a ton of evidence is good warrant for the claim that it didn't happen. So, if you want to get me on some technicality about how there could be a very obtuse god that wants to hide all evidence of his existence, I guess you got me, but apparently I'm doing what it wants by saying it doesn't exist.
I would say that deism is a specialized form of theism. Deism (a non-interventionist god) requires theism (the belief in at least one god), but theism does not require deism (since gods can be interventionist).
Even if Flew was of completely sound mind when he made his change, what would that prove? How many atheist scientists do religious apologists feel smugly superior to? This "Well, if the evidence was good enough for an expert" thing they do never goes the other way. Cherry picking for me, but not for thee.
And I'm unconvinced by his disclaimer that he's TOTALLY not trying to get us to convert based on one guy's story. Aside from the fact that, y'know, that really seems to be the point of him naming precisely one guy, it's presumptuous to think I don't know anything about DNA.
Whoa, okay, what, only like really dumb atheists on social media comments think that there aren't any smart people who believe. The typical explanation given is compartmentalization, that people can be really good at reasoning about some topics & really bad at reasoning about others.
One of the great mysteries of existence is why is this guy talking so fast?
01:55 Objection: people believing in gods is not "a form of evidence for [a] god", it is only evidence of belief. Likewise people telling stories about gods, even if they write them down and venerate the books, is not evidence for those gods.
“There is No *Good* Evidence for God’s Existence”
Evidence is evidence...it either is in support of or not in support of...I cannot say I understand the concept of "shades" or "levels" to facts. They either are or are not.
Divided what is hard to understand that evidence has both a direction and a strength? A rumor may point in the same direction as video footage but the video footage is stronger than the rumor.
I always say "There is no demonstrable evidence of anything supernatural."
that works
"There is no _reasonable_ evidence for any god that would be found sufficient to prove its existence by an honest judge in a fair courtroom."
Outstanding job deconstructing Warner's arguments. Kudos!
My Go To "There is no God" statement is:
"There is no argument or assertion for the Abrahamic Theist God that does not commit a Fallacy of Argumentation"
I am not saying you are wrong but I think most people don’t know fallacies and that there are vauge things like personal testimony can I suggest that you say I have not found an argument convincing for anything I would call god
hegyak I have a simpler answer for people who would not know what that means (which is what we are dealing with here): you can’t believe in God without jumping to conclusions.
What is the Fallacy of Argumentation? Googling is no help.
Edit: I misread the post. I read "a" as "the".
@@JiveDadson There's a few different fallacies, as I suspect he's referencing or learning from Matt Dillahunty, I'll list a few favorites.
Special Pleading Fallacy: "God/Religion/My knowledge is special, therefore god/religion/my knowledge doesn't need evidence"
God of the Gaps (Or Argument from Ignorance) Fallacy: "We don't know, therefore god"
Begging the Question: (I couldn't think of an example of this one offhand) Any argument where one assumes the conclusion as one of the premises.
Appeal to Authority: "90% of scientists say" "My pastor said" etc etc.
Argument Ad Populum: "Millions of people have believed..."
Circular Argument: "I believe in god because I believe in the bible. I believe in the bible because I believe in god."
False Dichotomy: Insert Pascal's Wager here (I point to Pascal mainly because even if you ignore the varying denominations of Christianity and treat them all as Christians for Salvations' sake, there's also hinduism, buddhism, daoism, pantheism, and so many more options that, while they might not be popular, have equal odds of being true.)
@@chameon378 I've read that "begging the question" and circular argument are the same type of fallacy, assuming the conclusion in the premise...
I always look forward to seeing your video in my alerts! My most favorite channel and host! Thank you Paul!
Hey Paul love your videos keep it up mate. :D
Once again Paul you calmly, politely, but firmly respond with logic and sound reason to make a clear case for your position. As I have come to watch more and more atheist videos I have come to respect you more and more. Your work has matured to a truly professional level. You are respectful, professional, polite, empathetic, and extremely humane while never wavering from thoughtful, rational logical points. Thank you for being an advocate for both logical discourse and respectful discourse simultaneously. Parody and mockery has its place. I have laughed plenty at such methods, but genuine discourse that has the possibility of changing minds happens through respectful conversation. Please continue. Your work is very important.
Thank you, Russell.
Wow, did he study at the Ben Shapiro school of "How to talk fast to make yourself sound smarter than you really are and to avoid being cornered" or what?
YHWH, (aka "god"), has had thousands of years to communicate telepathically and physically to all his suffering children that he loves so much.
But he hasn't and he won't.
Instead I receive arguments and proclamations from long ago eyewitnesses
that contradict my own direct experience over a lifetime.
Now which should I believe?
Your videos rock- so happy to able to support you on Patreon!
Greatly appreciated, Anthony!
Thank you for exposing the details surrounding Anthony Flew's statements and his ghost-writteh book. The Christians who use Flew as an example of conversion are usually well aware of what went on; they just don't care that an elderly man was conned, lied to and abused by a group of Intelligent Design Creationists to serve their needs. They do it all the time to their parishioners, so they have no problem with their actions.
Ach, this makes me ill.
How do you know that Anthony Flew was conned, lied to and abused?
I listened to this video and read the links listed under Antony Flew articles.You might do the same.
The book (and Flew's conversion to Deism) has been the subject of controversy, following an article in The New York Times Magazine alleging that Flew's intellect had declined due to senility, and that the book was primarily the work of Varghese;[4][11] Flew himself specifically denied this, stating that the book represented his views; although he acknowledged that due to his age Varghese had done most of the actual work of writing the book.[12] Wikipedia
A small but, I think, important point. A history of human belief in gods is not evidence of gods, it is merely evidence of belief. This is not just my subjective opinion. It is possible to be 100% convinced of something and be wrong. Faith and facts are not the same.
Webster gives 2 definitions of Evidence. 1. an outward sign or indication. 2. something that furnishes proof. When the word is employed in discussing the existence of God, it is the second definition which is intended. No-one uses the word evidence in this context to say there is an indication that God 'might' exist, the debate is concerned with whether God is real or not. In this way, there is simply no evidence for the existence of God, only 'signs' that require biased or subjective explanations and are open to other interpretations.
I love the humility of these apologists when they claim they have "the best" answer to the origins of life and the universe!
42
Around 22:00 I started thinking about how I felt about all the conversions I'd heard about and the options I was presented with as I grew up. The fact that I was Christian, yet was allowed to explore options and even convert to a different religion was disorienting. It felt like too much to deal with. I remember that I occasionally thought about the possibility that I would some day convert to another religion, and I just couldn't think of either a reason to do so, or any reason to refrain. I think this did a lot of damage to my attachment to religion, and turned it into a complete nonissue for me for years.
It took fundamentalism in other denominations bullying their followings into delusions to abandon agnosticism and adopt antitheism.
The last time someone told me god was real i looked them dead in the eye and said: prove it! That was the end of the conversation. They just seemed suprised and confused. I was lucky they didnt take me up on it
If god is all powerful and can be everywhere at once, why goes he need other humans to kill other humans? And why can't he speak to everybody at once and give them the same message?
stephen wedderburn -- so true. Supposedly an all powerful god inspired Saul, who was so changed by the experience he changed his name to Paul and then went on to write many very detailed letters. So why are missionaries required? Why doesn't that all powerful god inspire at least a few people on every continent and in every nation as it did with Saul?
To be fair with people saying "there's no evidence for God," if you say "there's no convincing evidence" or whatever then some will take that as you admitting there is evidence and by extension God's existence. Then they'll accuse you of ignoring the signs of God so you can sin or something stupid.
Hrm. That would be a new one to me.
Right. That's like the annoying fantasy that you can love the sinner but hate the sin.
@Paulogia Well there those Christians who say "the atheist believes god but pretends he isn't real so he can live a life of sin." And I've argued to many people (science deniers and such) who will latch onto you not outright dismissing something as meaning it's true. So I don't think it's a stretch to think they'd do that for God, especially considering science deniers and religious people often overlap.
Here's the so called evidence for God's existence:
Logical Fallacies
Religious Philosophy
Personal Convictions
Inferring God into existence
None of these would stand up in a court of law.
question: Recently i saw a meme basically stating that a scientific study showed that any faces we see in our dreams that we do not recognize are ghosts trying to communicate with us because "the brain cant make up faces". I am paraphrasing here. So the idea that the brain can't make up faces is ludicrous since the brains of artists have created faces, landscapes, animals, aliens, airplanes, etc that no one has ever seen before.
My question is: Did I made a mistake in commenting on the meme stating "There is no scientific evidence or proof for ghosts therefore there cannot be a scientific study based on ghosts communicating through dreams."
In other words: You have to show evidence of ghosts before you can claim there are ghosts trying to communicate through dreams.
I suppose that there is a stark difference between evidence (general) and scientific evidence (specific) so i hope this distinction will keep me in the right.
Thanks Paul. You make excellent, well reasoned videos clearly demonstrating the fallacies of opposing arguments (or non-arguments).
There are claims of evidence. But those claims don't hold up to objective tests. That is effectively no evidence.
Glad I'm not the only one who disagreed with Paul on this one.
Not all alleged evidence doesn't "hold up to objective tests", because much of it cannot be objectively tested. Paul is correct. There is evidence, but it is poor and most definitely insufficient to convince any reasonable person. To assert that there is "no evidence" is objectively and demonstrably false.
@@1970Phoenix If it cannot be objectively tested, how is it evidence? A claim is not by itself evidence.
11:30
Why not make a case for "limited free will". Why does everyone argue: "either you have it operating 100% or you don't have it at all?"
How about: "you have a little bit of it. It's one factor in decision making, among many others."
As in: "it's an influence, but not the sole determinating factor at play."
As someone who used to be addicted to alcohol, but made a series of intentional decisions to change that, I feel SOME free will was at work. Lotsa years of sobriety, and no, I didn't HAVE to choose that. Would have been a lot easier to NOT choose that. I stood at a crossroads. Could have gone either way. Subjectively, I experienced a free will decision, against lotsa impulses to the contrary.
Can't explain that, without free will. Choice.
I would say that no evidence for God has ever met its burden of proof.
that works
Evidence for God meet, just a second it was here a minute ago,
where are you burden of proof.
ok there you are Burden of Proof meet uh just a second he was here a minute ago.
Where did you go evidence of God.
They are never in the same place at the same time.
I love the scenario with the hypothetical partners arguing over who committed the crime. I just imagine JWW interrupting both of them saying, “you’re both wrong, it’s obvious an unfalsifiable magical spirit did it!”
At 1:45 you note that "the fact that people throughout history have believed in gods is a form of evidence for god"; I disagree. This is simply an "ad populum" argument and in no way constitutes evidence.
That until very recently all generations would have thought the universe was geo-centric (if they thought about it at all) does not make that "a form of evidence for geocentrism". It was simply an unsupported hypothesis.
I used to think, how could a billion people be wrong? 🤔
@@tenaciousminion8753
Over a billion people must be wrong.
They can't all be right.
And I am pretty sure that even the biggest group has a billion believers believing other things.
Note that Paul does not claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus. That is in the much later (over 100 years) fable called "Acts". Thus there are NO eyewitness testimonies to a resurrected Jesus.
Or even a living Jesus.
How likely is it that a real God (person), would condone slavery or use the previous Gods stories of "men and gods" from Babylon and Sumer?
It becomes apparent (once one is familiar with the Sumerian mythology), that everything from the Old Testament back to Sumer ( who's civilization ended roughly 6,000 years ago) is influenced from the previous generations writings.
I believe we can safely say that Yahweh, (the character developed out of the earlier tradition of Elohim, ' plural') is as fictitious as any other God character in history. ( or possibly Legend).
If one is not convinced by evidence or refuses to examine it, what can we say? The magician's trick has been revealed; typical Mesopotamian warlord religion.
Fly, be free.
I can't thank you enough for your work.
Well said. 😎👍
I hate the "fine tuning" argument so much. We would die instantly in 99.99999999999999999999999999999999% of possible coordinates in visible space-time. Even on Earth, without protection and tools, we still lose over 99% of the time.
Where is this "fine tuned" universe? And they still look at you like you're the one that isn't getting it. 🤣
💚 *quality content* 💚
As usual :)
Thanks, Owl.
Wisely put!
As an atheist how do I present evidence for a thing that I believe no evidence exists? My lack of belief is not a positive claim for the non existence of God.
Yeah, they'll Romans 1:20 you...
If that's the case then God shouldn't have set into motion what he knew would happen. The whole religion is predicated on redundancy.
_"I mean the fact that people throughout history have believed in gods is in and of itself a form of evidence for God"_ No, it isn't. It is only evidence that there are people that believed [in] something.
I mean when you consider the fact that we actually somewhat know what would have caused such an effect but you know creationists don't like accepting demonstrable facts especially when it relates to humans being apes
I had a problem with that statement as well. The fact that something is believed gives no credence to said belief, nor does the number of people who hold that belief. We still have flat-earthers, for instance.
Wait, it's not evidence? It's not just *bad* evidence, it's non-existent?
Are you saying evidence is only evidence if the conclusion is ontologically true? We don't know whether string theory is true. Can there be evidence for string theory?
@Tom Paine
It's evidence that they believe their assertion that god exists, but not evidence that that god actually exists. Neither belief, nor the number of those who believe, are evidence of the truth of their belief.
As to string theory, you're conflating a scientific model with a belief. A scientific model isn't asserting anything to be true, while a belief is.
@@mikkj1 Scientific models aren't based on truth? String theory doesn't say that the cosmos is fundamentally made of vibrating strings?
A pile of crap in my yard is evidence my neighbors bought a llama, but it's better evidence that my dog was outside recently. Are you saying the crap is *not* evidence for my neighbor's llama? Let's say we test the DNA and find it's dog DNA. Is it not evidence my neighbor's llama has dog DNA? (Isn't that how the God game is played?)
How is your claim different from saying, "evidence is only evidence if I believe the conclusion?" What *would* be evidence that God exists?
At the 0:1:50 mark: From where did you get that illustration? I have seen this before, but I can't think where.
Now you know why he said "there is no god" and not "I don't believe in God"
It seems that this evidence stuff around 1:50 is open to nitpicking because this kind of evidence is not evidence for god but evidence for belief in god.
09:57 I make the claim that there is no god.
I look around my room and find no god, therefore there is no god.
If anyone has a problem with this, then THEY must point out where I should go to find a god and what this god should look like.
Until then I am done.
You must first wear peril-sensitive sunglasses and then you will see that God looks exactly like that omni thing you couldn't see..
The best place to go to find God is to the Bible. In the Bible God promises that if a person seeks Him with all his heart he will find God. (Jeremiah 29:13; Matthew 7:7)
@@bertmast2022 I have looked there and found that this is a man made book making claims about what a god is supposed to be. But I think you might be ignoring a couple things, the Hindu Veda's and the Qur'an all so say similar things, as do most other religions of the world. And there is a further thing you are ignoring, I, personally, have no need for gods, I am fine without them around. My point was that what the religious offers as evidence for their gods is not evidence, just refined claims about them.
@@Balstrome1 Thanks for your reply. Yes, the Bible is a big book. It helps to have someone show us were to start. When someone is looking for gold they don't usually find it everywhere, but have to know where to search or dig. Most of us feel like we are okay when we have our physical needs met. Yet, one does not buy fire insurance for the good days. It is very important to be ready when the trials of life come. There is a parable about a rich man who had a really good harvest, but his barns were not big enough to hold everything. So he decided to build bigger barns and then take it easy. He was shown to be a fool because he was only thinking about the here and now and didn't properly prepare for his eternal future. (Luke 12:16-20) I am glad that someone pointed me in the right direction so that I could find that which is worth much more than gold!
@@bertmast2022 And the Israelite's managed to get to Mt. Sinai not knowing that Murder, Theft and Lying were bad for society. I suggest that there is nothing in the Bible or any other holy book that can be considered to be morally good, which humans had not worked out for themselves before these books came to be. But the opposite is true, that there are lots of commended things in these books which are morally bad. If you ascribe the good to God, you have to also read Isaiah 45:7.
So show me a good in the bible that I can not find outside the bible. And explain why it is a good thing.
Hi Paul, thanks for the channel and for staying focused on education and argumentation.
My pleasure, R. Thanks.
I guess J. Warner used his time in law enforcement to learn what the best grift on the planet is.
Your best vid to date! Great research and responses :)
My god creates universes and loves the smell of burning flesh. Makes sense to me.
The question of what would you do if God appeared before you, what would you say? My first question is are you the right God for my non belief? Why after all your mistakes do you come out of hiding now when your creations needed you for centuries? Can God falsify himself?
If the god of the 'bible' appeared in front of me I would kick the filthy SOB smack in his balls.
RIP Bill Ludlow
I'd probably say something more like "I have not yet seen sufficient evidence to warrant belief." if I was trying to be really careful and cover all my bases, maybe in a formal debate or something. But I don't think it's terribly bad to say "There is no evidence for god." It's a little presumptive but not much considering that the reason apologists can't seem to form a valid and sound argument isn't because they're not clever enough. It's because of the nature of the claim. The claim is such that there shouldn't be any kind of acceptable verifiable evidence. Not in our universe anyway.
I see no evidence of a God and no a sunset isn't good enough for me.
@Stefan Dingenouts Those poor people knew nothing about light refraction.
BLOODY POND LIVES Would you say Christians use nothing but weak evidence?
@@illuminaughty3200 Not very convincing evidence.
BLOODY POND LIVES Weak evidence is still evidence therefore you just contradicted your original comment.
@@illuminaughty3200 oh I also see that you are nothing more than a troll.
1:50 i was surprised to realize you're right. but then i realized why i was surprised. i was making the mistake of conflating proof (evidence pointing EXCLUSIVELY towards a single hypothesis), with evidence (facts pointing towards several possible hypotheses, including the one in question).
i think most people, when claiming "there's no evidence for god" are making the same mistake, and what they actually mean is "there is no proof, therefore evidence pointing exclusively towards existence of god". therefore, you are right, there is evidence, but since that evidence is not a proof, it's insufficient evidence.
People on the other side of the fence make the same mistake.
One guy kept using the word evidence but kept describing the concept of proof when asking for evidence of abiogenisis.
I miss your Ham and Egg news, where you react to Ken Ham reacting to things.
They're not gone... but Answers News is on half-as-much and Ken is rarely there. :(
@@Paulogia I don't think anyone will complain if you have an episode without Ken. ... ... Though now that I mention it, Avery is annoying, Gabriella is incomprehensible, and Roger is the person who comes to mind when I picture Lennie from Of Mice and Men. But yeah, Georgia acting scientific and Bodie's fallacies could get me through an episode.
So it is just Egg/Aig news...rotten eggs.
The fine structure constant can change to ANY value, it was discovered a few years ago in a paper, as long as the other values of the other constants can change.
Seriously, though, there actually is no evidence for god.
Pink socks are evidence that all ravens are black.
There is evidence of God.
It just does not hold up.
Hi Paul, natural/supernatural is a red herring. You would do well to avoid it next time.
For instance, if we demonstrate the existence of souls tomorrow, is that a discovery of the supernatural? Or just a heretofore undiscovered natural entity? What is the difference?
Or, said differently, granting that supernatural is other/outside/beyond natural, what characteristics determine whether something is natural? Which of these does the supernatural lack?
Comments on the original video are disabled, but thumbs are not. Hint.
Thanks to you, I just took full advantage and thumbed down, and thumbed up on Paul's!
In addition to my comment below, at around 9:30, Wallace is saying that hard evidence is not a legally defined term. Again, he is assuming that the subject wr're discussing is a legal matter, where in fact it has nothing to to do with legal matters (for explanation, see my comment below).
He might as well have said that the term home run is not legally defined when he's saying something about what a baseball commentator said.
Edit: again, at around 13:50, Wallace makes a legal comparison, in this case with a crime scene.
Allah is the very same god asWarrner believes in. It's simply an Arabissation of the original Hebrew.
I disagree. The Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Gods have the same origin. And believers of all three believe they have the true version of said deity. But beyond the basics they aren't the same god any more than Zeus and Thor are the same god for their apparent common Proto-Indo-European origins.
I could be wrong about this and would be the first one to admit I don't know everything about this and correct what I get wrong. With that said, I have done some studying in ancient gods and religions and I think it can be boiled down to the fact that they seem to be describing the same entity. The Zues/Thor metaphor would be apples to oranges. I do get where you are going with it however. Your analogy would be better served with Zues / Odin, but again describing the same type of entity. A King, God, father of all the other gods, etc... if you look into the historical religions it is interesting to see the similarities with Jesus/Horus, Isis/Mary, and some others. It almost seems as if someone heard things they liked about a religion and "borrowed" traits, characteristics, historical "truths", eye-witness testimonies, etc... from their origins and made them fit their societies understanding and meaning. Just an observation and opinion. It really is very interesting, though.
@@strangeandwonderful247 you might be interested to look into Proto Indo European religion. You'll find that Zeus and Thor come from common mythos , just like the Christian God and Allah. There are a lot of commonalities between most Indo-European polytheistic faiths, including similar gods between pantheons as far removed as the Vedic gods and the Celtic gods. They aren't identical, by any stretch. But neither are Allah and Yahweh. The reason being, just like the abrahamic faiths share a common root, the Indo-European faiths also share a common root. Up to and including common traits like predecessor deities like giants in conflict with the Gods and a general focus around a sky deity is the central figure. In some cases the sky deity has been demoted and a different deity has been put in its place, but they're still there. Zeus, Dyeus Pater, Jupiter, are all derived from this deity, despite wild differences between them. So Central is it to Indo European cultures that the modern words for God in many Indo-European languages, like deus and deity, are derived from the same linguistic root.
@@diyi75 give this a try sometime. Set a Jewish person, a Muslim, and a Christian in a room and ask them to describe in detail the traits of their God and see how quickly it turns into an argument. If I'm wrong, then you can tell me they're the same God.
@@TerenceClark they are the same god.
Wallace is excruciating to listen to. I enjoyed this thorough lashing. Cheers Paulogia.
A great way to deal with this genetic information and design argument would be to show the difference between designed software and evolved software. I've done evolutionary algorithms before, so I'm working on developing a simplified example that I could possibly make a video about.
Such an excellent video! Awesome work as always Paul.
Amazung how dishonest this former law-enforcement agent can be
Curious. Would the assertion "There is no evidence of the Christian God." be a better statement as 'belief' is not evidence? No one can walk into a courtroom, sit on the witness stand and claim "I believe he did it."
1:50 "The fact that people throughout history have believed in god is in and of itself a form of evidence for god"
It is evidence only that people throughout history have believed in god. It is NOT evidence *for* god. Evidence that people make a claim X is not evidence *for* X.
9:36 Continuing his criminal case/court room analogy, then no, the defence have no responsibility to suggest the defendamt is innocent, nor has the jury.
This is only a temper tantrum, "it isn't fair" and as a former police, I would expect him to know better!
Who's god, which god? There seem to be too many to choose just one. Why the Christian God particularly?
There are those that argue that only a Three-in-one God could have created the Universe.
@@stephenolan5539I thought that 3 in 1 was a brand of light oil.
23:38 Every time I look deeper, I find less and less. Which leads me to think you're the one who might look deeper. Especially given your example (Antony Flew) that turned out to be wrong.
When I hear the word "evidence" brought up in discussions of a god my mind always rings with the quote (which I believe is from Christopher Hitchens): An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Since those who wrote the bible tacitly imply they have received the information from an invisible god, I think that -- by definition -- is an assertion without evidence; and so I summarily dismiss it.
As someone obsessed with malicious code as a teen (dont ask). I wouldnt use computer programs as a metaphor in that context. As polymorphic viruses can change their code when they infect a new host. The Dark Avenger's virus Leech comes to mind.
I too wonder about a given theist only accepting personal experiences that lead to their own god. I have posed the question of why this is the case to a few theists and the answer I get back is never satisfactory, usually I get no real answer. The usual answers I get break down into "Well they're just wrong/mistaken" or "Only 'WE' have the right experiences."
If we have to accept the experiences of whichever variety of Christian that a specific theist is as evidence for their god then we, and they, should have to accept the experiences of those who don't match our theoretical Christian, such as those from Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Satanists, various Polytheists, Wiccans, etc... The only responses I've had so far simply dismiss these experiences without any real reason. Maybe the few I've talked to about this realize that if they give me a good reason to debunk another's personal experience then they'd be providing a good reason to debunk themselves.
2:14 The word god is meaningless, unless you are willing to define it.
I like the blanket and bold dismissal tactic, making an affirmative claim, however I prefer the above tac. Christians, by in large, assert the existence of god in the most pitiful, child-like way imaginable. They can't describe him, except using vague and generally self-refuting terminology like omnipotent or omniscient. Asking a christian to define god in a meaningful, useful way that one could use to create a REAL argument from (eg not simply a deistic god, but THEIR god) generally is a good approach to begin this conversation.
The Christian God does not exist. I know, because logically incoherent ideas are, by definition, self refuting.
Exactly. I usually ask how an omniscient god could ever experience 'regret' as described in the biblical flood story and elsewhere. By definition an omniscient god would know the results of any actions (including its own) in advance, and thus could never experience regret when those results become actual.
I know a lot of older people who start to hedge there bets when the end gets closer. They think what if and Pascals wager becomes a big draw.
Great job!!! None shall pass!!!
Great work, proud to support this.
Very entertaining. The pictures! Perfect visualizations.
I personally do not perceive a god. Not by feel, by sound, or by name. My choice is to not believe in things I cannot perceive. Why should I? Because others say I should?
A lot of his answers are just twists on arguments used against religion. Down to the wording!
The world keeps turning.
No god necessary.
-Thank you.
The funny thing is in every other scenario when someone says "there's no evidence for..." we know exactly what is meant. The fact that people try to split hairs when it's used in a theological context should tell you something.
It means that they are not OCD on the distinction between evidence and proof.
Some languages don't distinguish between "evidence" & "proof". In Dutch, for example, the word "bewijs" is used as a translation for both "evidence" and "proof", and no such distinctions are made. Therefore, to a native Dutch speaker, "evidence" and "proof" appear synonyms.
It seems to me that when people say "there is no evidence for God", what they really mean is that "there is no proof of God"... which is a totally precise and accurate statement. Considering both statements would have the exact same translation in Dutch, it shouldn't surprise anyone that some native English speakers fail to distinguish between "evidence" and "proof" as well.
Honestly instead of saying “god doesn’t exist” or “there is no proof of god” my position is more “until you have more than the claims made in a book I don’t believe you when you say god exists”