Undeniable Proof Of God To Confound Atheists?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 มี.ค. 2024
- What happens when a friar, who I assume has a direct line to a god, has undeniable proof of said sky being? We're about to find out. Casey Cole has a few arguments that supposedly prove a supernatural sky wizard, and it's only right that I offer my two pennies...
Original Video here - • Is There Proof God Exi...
Open letter to atheists from Casey Cole - • ATHEIST responds to PR...
Atheist Responses - • Atheist Responses
** T-Shirts Are Here - my-store-cf9db1.creator-sprin... **
Patreon - / theskeptick
Facebook - / theskeptick
Instagram - / theskeptick
Twitter - / the_skeptick
TikTok - tiktok.com/theskeptick
Everything in this video is just an opinion, and should be treated as such - though it is important to ask questions. Any humour or sarcasm is aimed towards the words and actions of the individuals, and not intended to be a personal attack on any individual themselves, under the act of free speech
Title - Undeniable Proof Of God To Confound Atheists?
Tags - atheist response,casey cole,atheist,christian,catholic,catholic proves god,proving god to an atheist,agnostic,how to prove god,how to prove god to an atheist,is atheism wrong,catholic vs atheist,atheist vs cathotlic,confound atheist,proof of god,undeniable proof of god,friars proof of god,brother casey cole,is this proof of god,refuting claims of god,claiming god is real,atheist responds
"God is real because people from the past who didn't know what they were talking about acted like they did"
Sadly for Father Casey, assertions are not now - nor have they ever been - proof of anything.
It's all he's got now that he's no longer allowed to burn people at the stake.
I loved his suggestion that philosophical arguments are proof of god... I guess if anyone makes a philosophical argument for anything and it makes it true for him, but I know he would then turn around, special plead and disagree with that as proof for the thing other than his god...
Bro McFrockley: "Your honor, we believe we have evidence our client is innocent."
Judge: "Alright, present it."
Bro: "....what? But.. no... I said I believe I have evidence. That settles the matter, right...? My buddies at Closeted In Frocks Camp say it does..."
But assertions by Christian authority figures constitute "proof" of God to those who have faith. That leaves me out.
@@101stub i can prove spiderman is real , because talking! that's pretty much his whole argument.
(02:29) He's a Catholic, so it's going to be Aquinas again, isn't it? (03:14) >sigh< It's Aquinas again. (03:19) He's going to use cosmos and universe interchangeably, isn't he? (03:24) >sigh< He's using cosmos and universe interchangeably. (03:34) He's going to say that infinite regress is impossible, so there must be a dude at the start, isn't he? (04:27) >sigh< Infinite regress is impossible, so there must be a dude at the start. [sod it, you all know exactly where the next 13 minutes goes by now]
I wonder if he's going to take a clever step and define infinite recursion as god.
It’s always Aquinas. Reheated Aristotle.
Calling Sir Isaac Newton.@@Nocturnalux
"Cosmos" and "universe" ARE interchangeable, you twit!
Lucky me, my bingo card had the watchmaker argument on it.
This is why i dont have conversations with religious people. Its like talking to a 4 year old that insists their invisible friend is real.
That's because the critical thinking part of the brain switches off when it comes to their belief system.
@@pineapplepenumbra [Morgan Freeman Pointing Upwards He's Right You Know.meme]
You can even see it happen in real time. I've seen religious people being walked through an argument that categorically disproves, say, Bigfoot, and their eyes are bright and focused and it all makes sense, but as soon as the word 'God' enters the conversation because it was a 1-to-1 comparison, those same eyes go dull and glaze over, usually getting angry as well. It's a defense mechanism. They're trained to shut down their higher brain function when certain keywords come up, and to switch to Posturing Mode. Because making a grandiose Show Of Faith is exactly that: a show, a performance, posturing to gain approval from their fellow Indoctrinated. Virtue signaling, in other words.
See also: thought-terminating cliché. More or less the same system. They exist to shut the brain down.
@@EdwardHowtonthat phenomenon is known as cognitive dissonance.
@@lukepoplawski3230 Cognitive dissonance is discomfort from holding two mutually-contradictory positions at the same time. What I'm talking about is the defense mechanism theists have where their brains glaze over whenever a certain topic comes along so they don't even have to think about it.
There's can be an element of dissonance there, but for most theists that I've seen this happen with they don't even hold an opposing position at all. They just go blank. You say 'god' and you may as well be talking to an empty bag. This protects them _from_ cognitive dissonance.
Although I do not disagree with your statement entirely, firstly because from what I've been told my invisible friends were very real in my young boys eyes, the evidence in my case says categorically that I thought they were real, as in I in no way thought I had made them up or was pretending.
Especially the day they left, I have no memory of this, all evidence has been from my Mum and Dad.
Some religious people I have found can have great discussion on all topics..
when a theist uses the word "Proofs" in anything but a math question, I honestly stop listening😅😅😅😅
Literally 🙄
7:53 "the idea of god, god exist", that line could be used for Odin, Zeus, Ra, and every other myth god.
Spider-Man
It actually can be used for damn near everything anyone wants to dream up. I kind of like Shara the universe burping pixie.
And even any clearly made up gods from fiction and games. May the Mighty Gruumsh shatter your enemies and all Elves.
Aron Ra exists.
Or any fictional character.
If arguments were proof for anything then a whole bunch of mythical creatures exist.
Silly atheist, All those mythical creatures were destroyed by a magical myth eating unicorn, Who intrinsically exists to devour all mythical creatures. I imagined it, So it must be real.
@@uncleanunicorn4571 sorry but Shara farted you’re mythical creature away the power of baked beans compels you!!!!!!
@@FeelFREESuper the flying spagehtti monster compels your compel!!!!
@@TRA69the flying donkey:
Except for Bigfoot! Bigfoot is real! 🤪
Take a shot everytime friar superior-than-thou says "must be" while asserting something that didnt follow from his previous statement.
Just have poison control on speed dial first.
I'm not as think as you drunk I am 😵💫
Most annoying part of this whole thing
Somehow, the logical proof of a god lacks a whole lot of logic.
What? You don't find the argument that the fact that people can conceive of a god must mean that the Christian God exists, convincing?
"We believe we have arguments!"
The arguments: [mouth making fart noises and lots of eye-rolling while smugly pointing at atheists]
About what we'd expect from a guy who thinks wearing a frock makes him special. How goddamn _sheltered_ does he have to be to think his mother/grandmother/auntie/younger sister/they're all the same person are proud of him.
It never ceases to amaze me. That some theist's think that they're being perfectly logical. Smdh
"Teleological argument" is a pretty fancy way to say "argument from ignorance/incredulity."
Does that surprise you?
Why does "first cause" always, *always* equal "a being" to these people?
because they are dumb. No other explanations.
lack of imagination?
Because the argument exists only to justify their pre-existing convictions rather than to honestly investigate reality.
Indcotrination
They are told that this is good evidence but they haven't thought about it much.
ARGUMENTS for something existing is not evidence of the existence of this something
Especially Anselm's argument, which is literally defining his god as having to have the quality of existence because that's just better than one that doesn't exist.
what if the evidence is just so immensely hard to comprehent because you can't isolate it and test on it, due to it being all of reality
@@pauliusiv6169 that means it is STILL untestable and not falsifiable
And this comment of yours has nothing to do with my original post, arguments for something existing is not evidence of that something existing, if that was the case where are arguments for something existing meant that thing existed then you good argue for ANYTHING and it would exist
@@kaliban4758 it's more that we can test small parts of it within our own range of the universe, but we simply do not have the tools to test the entirety of the universe all at once
@@pauliusiv6169 and this god hypothesis will remain just that, hypothetical
Ah, Casey, the Holier-Than-Thou Himbo. He's like a bottle of altar wine: empty from the neck up.
There is more stuff in that part of the bottle. At least, the neck of the bottle contains some vapour...
I dunno about himbo... he looks more like a football jock, if cartoonish 90s comedy film football jocks could peak while they were still in elementary school and then went on to join the swim team because they got tingles in their no-no place when they saw the other boys in swim suits and then mommy got upset and forced him to wear a brown trashbag for the rest of his life. Is there a word for that?
I’m dead lmao so good 😂
6:21 "Why is there something rather than nothing?" - Why is there a god, rather than no god? Not how, not who made it, but why? It's the same problem.
S'actually a _worse_ problem for God, because Occam's Razor. God has WAY more unfounded assumptions underlying it than mere existence does.
In basic (BASIC, hah) programming terms, the universe/existence/the "something" has only a single IF THEN, while "God" has a literal infinite number of them, the first of which being "If the universe exists" and it goes on from there.
My question is, why wouldn't there be something instead of nothing? What fundamental law of reality dictates that something cannot exist and that nothing is the natural and default state of everything?
@@LadyDoomsinger Fair point.
Especially given the fact that “nothing” has never been (and never could be) observed.
Nothing is a totally unscientific and abstract term, not a state of reality.
@@Oxus21 If you want to get philosophical, by definition, "Nothing" cannot logically exist - because if it did, it would be "something" 😆
"You don't know how the Universe came about, therefore it must have been the guy who doesn't want us to eat pork, use clothes made of two different threads or gives us his own son to eat so he doesn't torture us forever after we die for one of our ancestors stealing from his apple tree. Hoo boy, stealing from apple trees, only a perfect being would nurture an eternal grudge over that!"
Fr. Casey: "We have proof! It's these philosophical arguments."
Me: *Groan* "Those aren't proof. They're word games trying to convince people of something. And they don't convince me."
Grab a couple of joints, and some friends, toke up and think about the meanining of life.
That's basic philosophy, imho.
They are proof of something.
They are proof that theists will believe anything as long as it's served with a generous helping of word salad ;-)
They are hypotheses. The faith you need to have is to accept that God exists beforehand, because only then do these things logically follow. The statement made is: "If God exists, then we must logically conclude God exists." Which is logically valid. And completely debunked by stating: "if".
@@drakesilmore3760 -- That's an interesting take of the video.
But philosophical arguments aren't hypotheses by definition. At least not in the scientific sense. A hypothesis begins with an observation of a specific phenomena. The next step is to see how it can be tested and if the hypothesis is falsifiable. Even though the philosophical arguments are based on apparent phenomena, there is no way to test for the proposed magic used to explain these phenomena. And no reason to try to insert magic as a causal influence.
By invoking faith in the unseen and unproven to accept the arguments, we have already bypassed logic. Nothing logically follows with faith as the chosen methodology. The arguments, themselves are often based on logical fallacies.
You wrote: *The statement made is: "If God exists, then we must logically conclude God exists." Which is logically valid.*
I don't see how that constitutes a logically valid argument. That's a single premise and a conclusion which doesn't necessarily follow. Tiny animals who poop gold might exist on a planet on in a galaxy far, far away. But their mere existence doesn't necessitate that we can logically conclude they exist. We would need direct observation of the little gold-poopers.
All of which further explains why Fr. Casey's routine is not at all convincing to me. 😸
@@drakesilmore3760 No, they are generall NOT "Hypotheses". A hypothesis must be falsifiable, theological philosophical arguments are usually only fallacious as they forego the proof for their premises.
The Watchmaker argument has one of my favorite rebuffs: if God designed everything, everything would appear designed, so how would you ever be able to tell a watch you find on the beach as apart from the sand you found it lying in? If God designed everything, the watch would look natural...just like everything else around it.
You did the circular loop-de-loop Bro! Congratz!
The watchmaker argument is really dumb. (Like all other theist arguments) but I don’t think that’s a good rebuff. A theist can come back and say that what appears not design is done so intentionally and is just a component of the whole. So, a fish lying on the sand is clearly designed, the sand does not appear designed but it is part of the whole since everything is god’s creation.
I know super dumb but that could be a rebuff to your rebuff
Been pointing that one out for years, hardly ever hear anyone else actually mention it. Hold up a computer and a chunk of granite and they're both supposed to be "designed" so where can they even get the argument from? The argument from design disproves _itself_ by its very existence. I think it's the argument that fails the hardest, and it's a competitive field of failed arguments with that lot.
The real problem with the watchmaker argument is that the analogy is deeply flawed.
A watchmaker makes the watch out of existing materials. What they are saying is that the watch implies a wizard, who caused it to appear from nothing.
It's even worse because the wizard formed the concept of time and set it in motion because not only did the watch not exist neither did the fundamental functions required for a watch to be a watch. @@HatstandTuesday
"There must be" is christian code for " I desperately need to believe there is and will baselessly assert there is." When are these types going to grasp the era of philosophizing your god into existence is long over with..?
His whole argument amounts to “I don’t understand anything, therefore god. “
As smug as the last one the monk made
Some people are just SO punchable
The cut price brother Cadfael with absolutely nothing new, And no evidence whatsoever.
Just as I predicted from the title alone.
Do NOT besmirch brother Cadfael. He at least did something useful and beneficial for humanity.
Cadfael understood logic.
In fairness, there's been nothing new in centuries. That's why they reach for Aquinas & Anselm. Or even further, to Greek philosophers who weren't even christians.
@@FrikInCasualMode This is true he was a brilliant detective and forensic scientist.
I love BionicDance's answer to the question "What happened before the Big Bang?" ------ "The Big Second Date"!
Johnny Carson’s reply to what happened _after_ the Big Bang ---- the Big Cigarette.
the big buying of dinner
It's Obi-Wan Kenobi AKA Auggie Ben Doggie.
"the gift of faith" LOL
"To repeat this series infinitely would not make any sense."
Not to us humans living in a world surrounded by macro objects in a physically stable environment, but something not making sense to us is not the same as it being logically impossible. There is no contradiction entailed by an infinite regress, therefore it is possible that there was a infinite regress.
"The only way for this to be true is if there is a being that is causality itself."
That's reifying.
"Existing outside of time and space"
... and that's an oxymoron. To say that something exists is to say that it has extension in time and space. We're not being given any reason why that should be broadened.
"In pure actuality"
We have no reason to think it's possible for a being to exist "in pure actuality," or even a coherent description of what that constitutes or how it works. It's just a bald assertion.
Causality holds outside of the quantum world, but the origin of the universe would have been quantum and we have no reason to think causality applies there. Quantum is weird. Quantum events are probabilistic and spontaneous.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
We have no reason to believe philosophical nothing is or ever was a state that can obtain.
"There must be a first cause and the only explanation for this would be a being that has always existed and was never cause by anything else."
We have no reason to think any being can always exist and no reason to think a being exists that was not caused by anything else. This is special pleading 101. He arbitrarily exempts his god from the causal principle he insisted applies to everything to make this argument in the first place.
"The very idea of God necessitates God's existence."
Wrong. Having a great idea doesn't mean the great idea has a physical referent. We accept this in all fictional human literature. It doesn't matter if one of the characters is "the greatest." It's still not real. It's imagination.
This apologist brought nothing new to the table. Same old tired and debunked claims for his preferred supernatural entity. Not surprised in his epic fail.
But he said it so calmly and confidently... Doesn't that mean it's definitely true?
@Mythraen no it isn't.
@@binbinbin3026 Shucks! Now I don't know what to believe!
Thanks, All hail Lisa the rainbow giraffe!
(Leaf be upon her)
@@hankamania "Moor Hen!"
You're in this week!
@@TheSkepTick Cool, Thanks.
Monky: "God must exist because we think he does. Does that mean unicorns exist? No, of course not."
Look mate, based on your logic either unicorns exist or your god does not. Pick one.
There are plenty of one- horned animals.
@@goldenalt3166 ¬¸¬
@goldenalt3166 that's not a horn you been grabbing 😂😂😂
@@goldenalt3166 there are 8 including 2 beetles, a whale, a bird, a fish, a silkworm, a lizard and the occasional deer and the Indian rhino. No gods yet
@goldenalt3166
Does that include the one eyed one horned flying purple people eater?
I dont think ive ever seen any theist ever explain why infinite regress is "illogical", they always just handwave it away. surely, if infinite progress, time going forward for infinity, makes sense, the inverse would too
The human brain cannot cope with the concept of infinity. It is not within human experience.
The simple fact that the bible distinguishes between the treatment of Hebrew slaves and non-Hebrew slaves is proof positive that this guy's idea of morality is wrong.
Replace every time he says something like "Therefore there must be a god" with "Therefore we chose to explain this by believing in a god instead of finding out the answer to something we don't intuitively understand"
my running theory is that the skeptick isnt actualy the circle but the green algea cloud. i am still collecting evidence, but soon this charade will end!
😂😂😂
It could be worse.... he could be a super-intelligent shade of the color blue.
He is Foo Fighters
If you do your own research he's definitely an alcohol friendly algae.
Dig deeper... This goes far... Seek a therapist i before you find out too much. You'll need one...
Casey makes a premise and then concludes that a god is the answer to the premise. But what is obvious to an atheist and amazingly not to Casey is that the gap between the premise and the conclusion is extremely wide! Theists either don't have the knowledge, intelligence, or desire to explain that gap, so they conclude a god. Atheists will search for the facts or theories that can explain that gap. That can often be a many step process that can take years to pursue. To me, that search makes life much more meaningful than giving up and saying a god is responsible for things we cannot readily explain.
All apologists, without exception, rely on special pleading.
I only became aware of Obi Wan Pedobi a couple of years ago, but in that short time I have heard him repeat himself at least 5 times on every talking point. He is insufferably smug and dull.
Every single argument is one that I could use, except change the ending to, "And this is how we know that Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe exists."
His arguments can only survive under the misleading assumption that HIS god exists.
His utter lack of self-awareness is impressive.
He starts by assuming all things are created and aren't possibly rearranged atoms that have always existed in the singularity. Then, he concludes that it's not only about faith but faith you have to be given. So it's not up to us then, is it? If we're not given that "gift" we're to assume we were created to burn forever?
Found the modern Mad Monk with this one.
Even when I was an evangelical Christian I thought these contingency arguments were stupid. "Nothing can exist unless it was created, which proves that the first thing that existed was created by something that wasn't created." Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. I'll never understand how they don't get that their own first premise disproves their own conclusion.
I think these "arguments" are just filler. Vapid fluff meant to fill the air so the idiots in the pews have something to nod along to while they aren't actually listening and want to get their weekly dose of feeling superior.
The words don't even matter, if you ask me. It's not intended for people with functioning brain cells, like you; it's intended for the beer-swilling hicks who are just there to be told who to vote for and why they should be angry at the people trying to help them.
But Magic.
"All ravens are black. Therefore, a white raven exists'. That's what they are saying.
Right? If your conclusion violates your premise, you need to re-evaluate one, or the other, or both!
@@DenisLoubet cosmological arguments are nothing but special pleading
I can go to the Halloween Store, get a costume, and BAM. I'm a spiritual advisor. Weasel words be upon you.
I'm now of the opinion that if a theist apologist ever did manage to stumble across an actual decent argument, they would fail to recognize it and go back to all the ones so comprehensively refuted over the last two millennia.
that bloke is a clown and only preaches to the choir, his so-called arguments only work if you already believe and work to affirm your 'faith' in christianity. Religious faith is the excuse people use when they don't have credible evidence for their assertions and it is not a pathway to truth. Using religious faith it is possible to believe something is true and using exactly the same faith can also lead you to believe something false. This is why religious faith is a dishonest position and I want nothing to do with it.
Everything he presented was fallacious.
"Father" Casey is pretty annoying. He is always very condescending towards people who don't see things his way.
Anyway he says there are 4 categories of arguments but there is really one: "I want to believe in this religion therefore I'm going to accept bad evidence and bad reasoning"
Not to mention his faith being bolstered a lot by the fact that if he lost it publicly, he'd be out of a lot of friends, his career and maybe home too. His TH-cam channel might be revitalized though.
7:23 "It is a logical fact that if there is a god, it must be greater than anything else conceived."
There are several issues with that. First, how did you arrive at a "god" singular? Also, lots of cultures, past _and_ present, have gods (even "creator" gods) that are _not_ the greatest thing.
Every portion of that argument is one example after another of Begging the Question fallacy.
Oh, and because the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists in my mind, it therefore must exist in reality. Are you _sure_ that's where you want that line of "reasoning" to go?
I can imagine an absence of god. Guess one doesn't exist!
They need FOUR reasons to extend the watchtime, Skep. That's what they have four of 'em for.
I have nothing but contempt for this supposed holy man. Ever since, he said that people who live in parts of the world where life is tough and miserable, they should just move.
He and others of his ilk have a strange idea of what the word 'undeniable' means.
The God of the Bible condones rape, slavery and murder, he is not against it.
Andre the Ibex God is identical to the Christian God, with the crucial difference that he’s always ready and able to show his face and have a personal relationship with you.
There, I just conceived of something greater than God. Checkmate, Anselm!!
I can grant every single point he made. (Which I don't) he still doesn't get anywhere near a god as he describes it. He still has all his work yet ahead of him. Theologists need to get it through their thick skulls. You can't define something into existence. If that were the case, the. I Present George the god-eating penguin. If a god exists, George must exist to eat that god because that's the nature of George. Therefore, if a god exists that means George has already eaten him, therefore there is no god. See how insane that sounds?!
I am endlessly frustrated by the line of reasoning in cosmological arguments where they reason themselves into a corner, invent an implausible explanation, and then declare that it's their god.
Maybe explain how something can be "outside of time" before just asserting that whatever that is can only be your god?
The same worn fallacies.
I was born into the catholic religion through a devoutly Irish catholic family. Five aunts who were nuns two uncles and a cousin priests.
My family wanted me to pursue holy orders .
I want to stress this point I never believed .
I never felt the presence of god it never moved me as far back as I can remember. After nine years of catholic education I was just unmoved and I was lucky enough to get kicked out for my behavior in other words I didn't pay attention to the priest .....
I got kicked out for questioning why 'God' is male and if so, does he have a penis. The next question is why would he need it?
Regarding the cosmo argument :
Premise 1 is false.
It's an assertion which MUST be proved and ANY philosophy student in a 101 level class realizes that the statement cannot be proved. Thus it's false, unless proved true. It's like saying that all socks are comfortable. You'd need evidence supporting that for ALL socks.
Disproving premise 1 doesn't even require a counterexample. But there are some -- for instance virtual particles, and decay events -- but most importantly "time" itself.
Secondly, the first premise has the 'special pleading' attempt built right in by the weasly wording which tries to shoe-horn in god as needing no creator.
The T Aquinas premise 1 disproves the god thing since god cannot have created itself.
Poor priest.
As a terminally ill 51 year old with three children fighting a disease that is slowly paralyzing and killing me, for eleven years……
Guess how much we “believe “
……
'Why is there something, rather than nothing.' First prove nothing is possible.
To say If something, aka god exists outside time and space, is tantamount to admitting their fictitious sky fairy doesn't exist, nothing can exist outside time and space, obviously.
I can conceive of a being greater than his "God."
Oh heck, it's not even hard. Here's one. I just conceived of a god who is almost exactly the same as the same as the Christian god -- except for a few tiny differences. They (my god is non-binary -- so is already much better than the patriarchal Christian god) answers the prayers offered to them in a positive manner at a slightly higher percentage than could be accounted for by random chance. This makes Them a being that is greater than the Christian god -- and is therefore now the only god. They have now commanded that all peoples must tithe ten percent of all that they have and give it to Their Grand Poo-Bah (Which They have also commanded is me) for exultation of Their glory. Please send your offerings post haste to forestall the destruction of everything by means of miniature giant invisible space hamsters.
It's always painful when they insist that their evidence is unassailable, we just aren't convinced anyway.
Just another person in the Saint Aquinas fan club. I wonder if they jump up and down and pull their hair out every time they read some words he said.
He says a god that doesn't care about the world can't exist!? I would like to hear his twisted view of "caring about the world".... The babies with cancer or other painful or deadly illnesses maybe aren't a part of this world?
Don't need to. Not that I don't care about human lives but right now, there is a war between two Abrahamic religion of the same God. Earthquake in Lisbon, 1775, during All Saint's Day with the majority of Christians living there. God did nothing too
Anselm’s Ontological Argument:
If there is a god, he must be greater than anything that can be conceived.
If we can conceive of anything greater, then _that_ would be god and not the first thing.
I can conceive of a god greater than the Biblical god. To wit, a god exactly the same as the Biblical god, but one that doesn’t allow child r*pe.
Sadly, child r*pe does occur.
Hey! I think I just proved the Biblical god doesn’t exist!
Thanks Anselm!
Jesus promised the end of wicked people. Odin promised the end of all frost giants. I don't see any frost giants around.
Can we just not allow rape period? Like put in a law of physics that causes intense pain when someone attempts it?
Two gods..
A god who proves his existence by having a TV show on a Sunday night and personal appearance to sign his book at evert shopping mall at the same time (yes only the TRUE GOD could do that).
It's just crazy how he'll claim god has no limitations then turn right around and put limitations on said god
"The gift of Faith" Really? I always thought when I get a gift, I'd have MORE than I had before - but the gift of faith is taking something away: Reason and logic.
You should take a look at a new propaganda film "The Ark and the Darkness"
That guy is a fake. To wear a monk robe is a bit like a professor dressing up in a white lab coat to explain something on the Internet, those clothes for monks were made to be simple to show they did not need any riches or luxury, that they could live a humble and simple life. But he have a rather expensive watch and at least a studio with a green screen to cover up his rather nice and expensive home, and the robe is so fresh that it almost never been used, the hood and shoulder cover was made when walking in the rain, but my guess is that he never walked outside with it nor done any farming or work while wearing it. He is a studio monk.
Monks can own phones and so on, be on TH-cam and be modern, but there is no need for them to dress like that to do so, so he have just created a character, but he is not honest about it. For even TheSkepTick is a "made up character", but that is rather obvious and nothing he try to hide.... unless he is a triangle;, but anyhow, the monk feel and look so faked, that he is more a office worker than an actual "father" or "brother" (tuck).
Why do they not understand that argument is not evidence?
You can argue almost anything to be true and put up a great argument. It still don't make it true without evidence
16:13 "... a nearly irrefutable view of the world."
"Nearly irrefutable" is just another way to say "refutable."
When we talk about cause, we're talking about something material affecting something else that is material, but you, Mr. Friar, are implying there is something immaterial causing a material effect. How could this be? What would the interface between the two look like? Would any evidence be left behind? Would this immaterial cause become material, even for just a moment? Your philosophical argument depends on the lack of evidence; therefore, I'll ignore it.
I still don't understand how something can exist outside of time and space. Like, aren't time and space exactly where things exist in? If there's no time and no space, what exactly did god do? My brain hurts. . .
If something outside of time and space interacts with something within time and space, that makes the thing ‘within’ time and space, right?
Plus, the Bible is full of stories of God interacting with humans. So he did exist in time and space, but now he doesn’t because…um….reasons.
Multi-layered universes? Maybe, idk. I'm not really clear on what, if any, limits are on the whole "other universes could have have different laws of physics" part of the multiverse hypothesis. It may be theoretically possible for one to exist with laws that allow both the development of intelligent life and the existence of sub-universes.
@@TheSkepTickDon't read j power hahahahaha
“There must be a god that writes these truths on our hearts.“ No, people don’t like to have their pockets picked or their legs broken, and they don’t like it when people they care about have their pockets picked or their legs broken, so they create a society where is it illegal to pick pockets and break legs!
This isn’t hard!
Here is a brilliant question to ask the religious.
But first, a few build up questions:
Is your god all powerful?
Is your god all knowing?
If they say "Yes" to these questions, ask them this:
Why did your god create angels?
Because if he created angels because he wanted to see far distances, but the religious said that god was all seeing. If they say because he needed to interact with creation, but the religious say he is omnicient, but is god imnicient, so why does he not know everything?
If your god is not all seeing, then why worship it?
Brilliant video.
There is only one real proof of a supreme being. I don't remember all of it, but it ends with "Stevie Wonder is God."
No, Eric Clapton is God, everybody knows that. I've even seen it in black and white on a t-shirt!
I actually have more respect for theists that have faith that their god exists, without trying to come up with a proof that it exists.
Yep 👍
"More" doing a lot of work there. Amount of respect -5 instead of -6.
Because they seem to understand that the stories are allegory to uphold certain philosophical principles,, not that they actually happened.
They lend credence to belief by holding to the principles. Jesus is an idea. Not a being.
Agree, atheists like myself really have no answer for theists who believe in god without proof and just faith except our feelings of how improbable it is and make up our own gods to show how easy it is to think up alternatives.
Blaise Pascal, who was quite good at logic, was quite clear there was proof of god, and criticised all the god proofs of the day, which is why he came up with the wager. A cynic might say that it was important someone taking a stance on god proofs had to have someway to be Catholic, though his Pensees were published posthumously.
@@psychologicalprojectionistMy favorite "got ya" from theist on here was when I wrote a story about a god to show how easy it is to make one up and he said "see you do believe in god."
When you go to the costume rental to get a clown outfit but all they can give you is a monk
Cosplay Casey is back. I appreciate the extra effort.
1st!
Well I don't know about you but I'm sold. This guy was so convincing that I am going to immediately exchange every question I've ever had for "God did it so it must be true"
Oh good, the cosmological argument. Never heard that one before.
Even if it's a finite regression, who says the first cause has to be a god? Maybe it's a rainbow giraffe or a shplimboob.
I think theists tip their hand when they use logical arguments, especially the cosmological argument, to prove their deity. If someone was convinced by these arguments and decided that to investigate the properties of this first cause I would respect that. But this is clearly post hoc rationalization.
If you believe in a invisible God in the sky, no one's ever seen. Then you also must believe in the tooth fairy!
“Infinite regress is totally illogical nonsense…and is a quality my deity possesses.”
Uh huh.
all casey proofs is that apologetics is not for convincing the unconvinced. its to keep the guillable believing
I've said this a few times: "The greatest villians in the history of human history do not get to define peace and moral authority for everyone else."
If god were a maximally great being, it's just as likely he's maximally evil as all loving.
I knew it was downhill when he said that the laughably bad cosmological argument probably the strongest.
"Leaf Be Upon Her." That was a nice touch.
the biggest assumption of the cosmological argument is that what applies to what is in the universe also applies to the universe itselt. its nonsense
So as I understand it the main reason any of these people have faith in this god, or possibly any god, is because: “some very important people a long, long time ago created all that is ‘this religion’ so HOW could all of them be wrong? Therefore I must share their beliefs.”
[sigh]😔
If a Christian ever took a college class in LOGIC ... they wouldn't spew these ridiculous claims.
The moral argument is self defeating. Humans are social animals. We evolved to live and survive as a group. As such, we seek to improve overall well-being in the group - so anything that increases well-being is good. Anything that detracts from it is bad.
This is why when humans want to do bad things to others, we justify it by first disconnecting our targets from the group, and the more global our thinking, the less likely we are to want to do harm to others.
Once again, no god required
" if my stupid fallacious arguments don't convince you, infidel, that's your fault." I swear sophistry is really tiring.
If he has a direct line, he should have asked his god what to say, and if he did ask - his god is making him look bad.
I always enjoy the “outside time and space” magic space fairy story because it totally precludes that thing also being an interventionist magic sky fairy who answers prayers, talks to people in gardens, etc. etc.
That “proof” makes the Abrahamic god impossible. If that’s what they want to go with I guess that’ll be fun to watch when they start preaching it from the pulpit.
"Oh mighty Arkleseizure, thou gazed from high above. And sneezed from out thy nostrils, a gift of bounteous love. The universe around us emerged from thy nose. Now we await with eager expectation, thy handkerchief, to bring us back to thee.
Let us pray. Oh mighty one, we raise our noses to you blocked and unblown, send the handkerchief O blessed one that we may be wiped clean.
Bless you."
That's what i don't like about the watchmaker argument. Nothing that is created is created from nothing. Every creation is just a rearrangement of preexisting parts. To apply that logic to the universe can only mean that a god rearranged stuff to create the universe. It still doesn't account for the preexisting parts. If those parts were brought into existence from nothing, than they're not a creation and therefore we can't compare it to creations.
"You can't have an infinite regress into the past" says the guy who believes the existence of his god extends infinitely into the past.
So depressing that a young good looking man like Casey should be missing out on the pleasures of the flesh. Or does he feel guilty afterwards and then confess to himself how sinful he had been ? Poor boy is missing out !
who is he supposed to be, brother Tuck or Obi Wan Kenobi?
"If a koala had wings, it would be a camel."
---Old Australian Proverb
(from WikiAustralia, subsection Australian Proverbs)
If the cosmological argument is the strongest...and they have been at this for hundreds of years...oh dear, you are in trouble!😂
father casey's best skill is projection.
He's wrong on the R word claim. R was legal here in the US until 1865. Slave masters didn't need the consent of the slave to have sex with them. If R was innately known to be evil by these Christian slaveholders, not only did god do a poor job of communicating this, as they didn't get the message, the entire world also failed to get the message as this was common in other slave holding countries as well.
That’s upsetting!!!
If it is possible for a magical fairy to exist outside of time and space, why can it not be possible for anything else to exist outside time and space? If it is possible for the magical fairy to 'always exist' , why isn't it possible for everything to always exist? There is no logic in these arguments at all!
I always ask them, why one god, why not multitudes of them. I know the answer of course.