DUDE! I fuckin' hate you, because it's taken me 52 years to get to the place you've managed to stake out in probably 2/3 that time. AND that's when I already had a room-mate in college who was a philosophy major. FUCK!
TheMirabillis I'm always amazed at how you people use the term "subjective" differently than anyone else. What you mean by subjective is, not independent of a HUMAN mind. When sane people use that word they use it with it's ACTUAL meaning, i.e. not independent of a SINGLE mind.
Edmond Dantez For the purpose of the OP -- people can use subjective or objective. Notice immediately, how you're wanting to take the high ground. Making a distinction by "You People" which [ to you ] seems to be "not sane people". That being said, the OP is straightforward. However, it has not been refuted because everyone attempts the same path and they all fail.
I have to admit that at first I didn't watch your videos because philosophy is not one of my strong points. Then The Living Dinosaur named you as his favorite UA-camr of all time, and I knew I had to check your material out. I have not been disappointed. Your commentary about WLC has been very helpful in understanding the more subtle failings of the Kalam. For me the fact that no one has ever had any experience with a state of nothingness invalidates the entire argument from the outset, but I hadn't given it much more thought. Thanks for taking the time to produce these videos.
Of course, any false belief could be defended on the premise that the universe is set up not to provide evidence of it , your God or any of the tens of thousands of gods and spirits that of been imagined throughout history.
True, but not successfully. The reason Christianity has been and can be so successfully defended is because God leaves physical clues when He both created and continues to interact in His universe, so that, while He Himself is immaterial and timeless we can still see the impact of the effects of His interactions within the physical/material world. He is still the most reasonable/plausible explanation of the uncaused Cause.
@@jeffreypayne3344 Could you please bolster your assertions? I’m not an obnoxious “internet atheist.” Philosophy is my field, and I, to the best of my ability, pursue true conclusions. I have great respect for religion, particularly Christianity in the West, and I wouldn’t get rid of it even if I could. I think it serves genuine functions with regard to the realms of the personal, the social, and the cultural.
@@unconcernedcitizen4092 Super. I would simply point you to the classical arguments for the existence of God, especially the Kalam cosmological, the teleological, the moral and the minimal facts case for the resurrection, as well as the testimonial evidence from hundreds of millions (at least) of people such as myself, who have an interactive relationship with Him - including firsthand experience with the miraculous and beyond chance encounters with answered prayer as good places to start. The reasons those arguments are substantively unassailed in the literature goes beyond their mere construction and (imo) points strongly to a cumulative, albeit circumstantial case. I discovered that, when mixed with my own willingness to embrace Him - as a logical next step (again imo) in a process of open inquiry and discovery, that I was met with a God who made Himself known to me in concrete, but immaterial (paradoxical) ways beyond mere empiricism. In my experience one must be willing to embrace a way of knowing (epistemology) that comes to terms with both the ways He reveals Himself and the way He is, which cannot involve strict empiricism, but must, in fact recognize that He must (if existent) possess qualities outside of those possessed by physical/material entities. If He indeed was the Creator of all time, space and energy He could not logically be made of it or bound by it, at least not in any ordinary sense. I start with entertaining the possibility that He is the most logical inference as the Cause for the evidence we have - (Romans 1 in the Bible) and am willing to trust my reason and take the further step of a sort of "thought experiment" based on those inferences. I know what you mean about "obnoxious internet atheists," but I think anyone convinced strongly of their positions can come across in ways that appear obnoxious and condescending, so I (personally) do not differentiate and try not to be too dismissive of anyone's beliefs. I do believe, however, that their are some that are less well-founded than others.
@@CCCBeaumont You seem like a reasonable person. I don’t have time for a full response currently, but in reference to the Kalam specifically, I don’t think most atheists have terribly robust rebuttals to it. I would say that the foremost atheist expert on the KCA is Quentin Smith. He and William Lane Craig (they consider one another to be good friends) actually wrote a book together with dueling chapters, though the title escapes me. I’d highly recommend it if you’re looking for some more “sophisticated” takes on that particular argument, both in and against its favor. Anyway, I will hopefully remember to return to have a more engaging discussion if that’s something in which you’re interested. Epistemology is actually something of my area of expertise, so we could narrow in on that if that’s something that interests you. Thanks for the civility. Have a good one and stay safe and healthy. P.S. If you are interested in epistemology, check out J.M. Kuczynski. The man is singlehandedly revolutionizing the field. He’s solved Gettier problems, the problem of induction (in my opinion), etc. He’s also very anti-Marxist, which is a huge plus for me.
@@unconcernedcitizen4092 I am in essential agreement with you. I always enjoy a constructive, respectful dialogue. I too am over-educated, lol, two graduate degrees and currently working on an additional masters, this one in Apologetics. I've been thinking about these weighty (I would proffer eternal) issues for over four decades and I have seen, in that time, many former atheists find faith in the Lord Jesus. I have also seen dear friends go the other direction. I am sometimes baffled as to why but I do not think it always hinges on moral issues, as some "internet theists" often contend.
Hey, count yourself lucky that you have a following, TB. If you didn't, Veritas would just block you immediately, like he did with me. It's becoming very obvious that Veritas is a coward who blocks anyone who disagrees with him, as long as they don't have so many supporters that too many people would call him out on it. At any rate, great blog, and it's very nice to have you back.
As a teenager who turned away from Christianity and now uses agnostic vaguely as the label if asked what my beliefs are, you are such an inspiration. My peers first response is not knowing what it is, and when I explain that it's a loose term and how there are various other beliefs I hold that aren't defined by that label, they still ridicule me. You bring up many excellent arguments that help me explain exactly why I don't subscribe to any religion in a peaceful manner. Keep posting videos :)
As an experiment, I've played devil's advocate and tried to defend Christianity (yes, I realize the irony of that statement). It's really fucking hard. No longer can Christianity be called an intellectual position; it's a purely emotional position. Scott, there is one word that best describes you: smooth. Cut it out. You're making the rest of us look bad.
I've made my entire position on the subject of God very clear in this video. If something about that conflicts with the definition of Metaphysical Naturalism (which may or may not be the case) then we need to let go of Naturalism. It's lost it's usefulness in this conversation. If you want to know EXACTLY what my position is on the subject of a God's existence, all you have to do is watch the video. (Paying attention helps, by the way.)
The most inspiring thing about TBS's videos is that it really gets people to think more open-mindedly. It's refreshing to see someone who will analyze information and seek out as many available options as possible before coming to a thoughtful conclusion. There are far too many people out there who can only see things as black or white.
@mikechis101 Nono, I almost always prepare. I have notes on the computer screen that I can read, with the phrases I want to use to convey certain points, and so on. It's really not all that impressive. I'm good at cold-reading, and I want my viewers to feel like I'm just having a conversation with them, because I think it makes people feel more engaged, and thus receptive to the points I'm making.
@ashman165 - I think the point is that, as God (the very concept of God) is metaphysical, then defining God in physical terms means He is no longer metaphysical (and therefore no longer exists as "God"). That does NOT imply any physical definition - i.e. that when something physical (x) is defined that it cease to exist.
Shit man, I didn't realize who was in my subscription box for a moment, it had been so long. But it is always well worth the wait for a TBS video. Well done.
Good to have you back, and having seen the list of questions you recieved I don't think any "reasonable" person would object to you not answering them. You seem pretty damn sharp but to adress that entire list of questions you might aswell construct an encyclopedia of philosophy whilst you're at it.
If you want to know specifically what my position is on the existence of a god, listen to this video, not FB. On FB, all I did was provide a word we could use. That's it. Just a word to help us communicate better. It worked for that conversation, it doesn't work for this one, because we're talking about different things here. I never switched POSITIONS, John. My position has always been the same. It's only the words I've used to communicate that position which has changed.
wooo welcome back! i think your arguments are sound and your presentation is immaculate as always. unfortunately there's only so many times I can watch your back catalogue without getting bored so it's good to have a new vid to be impressed by =)
William Lane Craig opens every debate with the question, "What is the evidence for atheism?" and it makes my eyes roll back so far in my head it hurts.
You don't need God to have hope. The recipe for hope is this: A goal, The willpower to think positively, and an idea of how to achieve that goal. A Belief in God or reading the bible can offer some people hope, but ultimately hope is an emotion which is susceptible to change just like every emotion.
what about the second definition in merriam webster for the word agnistic? 2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something what if I am unwillilng to commit myself to the belief in a god or its non existence? what are my then?
Good to have you back... and having seen the list of questions you recieved I don't think any "reasonable" person would object to you not answering them all. You seem pretty damn sharp but to adress that entire list of questions you might aswell construct an encyclopedia of philosophy whilst you're at it.
You're right for once, John. I do experience a bit of dissonance about that. On the one hand, Metaphysical Naturalism is the best way to characterize my worldview (I'm always open to a better term), but on the other, I do not *claim* that "NO god exists", I only claim that there are no sufficient REASONS to believe one does. Epistemically, I believe I can't "know" that NO god exists. So does that disqualify me for Naturalism? What do you think?. But in the end, it's just a word. So who cares?
What's wrong with it? Is there a different word or label that means 'lack of belief in a God(s)"? How would you define Atheism and why is it a better definition?
« Essentially, I'm arguing that you derive its purpose by looking at the functions » Ah, but the point is that the word purpose usually implies intent, and that while things may have an effect, there is not always intent behind the effect, and so the word purpose (implying intent, at least to the theist) may not be the ideal word to use.
« Then one of us has a very poor understanding of the word purpose » Usually, purpose means intent, or intended goal. The word implies that there is intent. But even if the word can refer to effect as well as intent (I don't understand (4), but you may be right if (5) is accurate), then it still remains a dangerous word to use in relation to the effect of various organic characteristics - especially when engaged in theological discussions.
Not the type of faith under discussion. There is faith that is the inevitable consequence of partial ignorance, which is gradually replaced with knowledge, and then there is the promotion of Faith as a virtue to be strived for, used as a tool to stifle inquiry and as a substitute for knowledge.
You know, most of the time I end up defending Noah from criticisms from atheists, but..... this does ring true, to a degree. I've experienced this problem with him in my interactions... Mild, but it's there.
@Emrys93 I may be missing your point, but how is loving God a matter of free will if the only alternative choice is eternal hellfire? Two choices - extra crispy or loving God? Help me out here. I realize that more fundamentalists than mainstream Christians lick their chops at the idea of eternal torture for non-believers, but hell IS a standard part of the belief structure, right?
You are right that there is no way to prove or disprove their existence, but on that basis it would be illogical to assume that one exists, or to assume that the chance of them existing is equal to the chance that they do not exist. You know, a bit like unicorns, faeries and hobgoblins.
My friend just realized everything he does in life will be ultimately for nothing and now he can't find the motivation to do things and i don't know what to tell him because he's right...any suggestions as to how to snap him out of it?
@cornutus11 He's not saying that agnosticism and atheism are exactly the same, only that they aren't mutually exclusive. Some agnostics are atheists (lacking both the belief in god/god(s) and acknowledging that they lack definitive knowledge of whether god/gods exist(s)), and some agnostics are theists (having a belief in god/gods but acknowledging that they lack definitive knowledge of whether god/gods exist(s)), but not all atheists and theists are agnostics.
Yes, Veritas, but please don't lose hope (I know you will not). As a Christian, I am so appreciative to see a fellow believer who is willing to lead open debate without a domatic position of any particular theism; as that would stifle any valuable discussion. The semantics debate has uncovered misunderstandings on both "sides" - good progress to move on to the next phases; thanks.
I would agree with those 2 propositions, and as you may have noticed, I am personally in group 1. For #2a, I would point out any method of finding truth that works will demonstrate convergence. Since revealed truth does not demonstrate convergence, it cannot actually be a method of finding truth.
« A goal needn't be a conscious thing » Whether the result of conscious or subconscious effort, a goal implies the intentional stance. The word goal is only used when regarding the behavior of organisms complex enough to be said to have intentions. Gasses do not have goals.
A credible definition and understanding of the Judeo-Christian God is so poor and incomplete (to be kind), it cannot and should not be believed at face value. If such a god does indeed exist, (he) has definately been so wretchedly misrepresented by (his) believers and defenders all along, the treatment (or mistreatment) literally amounts to slander. Therefore, any mythology is just as fine and inconsequential. Have a good life, folks, and live well (whatever that is for you).
@molyvenson we were not talking about religions. Complete the sentence: I know it is impossible to exist any kind of supreme being because... Notice I´ve used the verb to know. By the way, the natural history is full of descripitions of unicorns, maybe not the ones described in mithology, but again, we are not talking about religion. I understand the point of view of atheists, I just don´t think that theists are any more unreasonable as defended on this video.
Umm... yes, I believe in my own existence. How exactly does that make me different than Christians? Is there any reason to accept Joshua of Nazareth as the creator of the universe over say Vishnu?
why have all of veritas48's videos been deleted i can gather the basic idea's of what he says from watching your vids but i am interested in seeing his responses and arguments.. any other way i might be able to see them?
@Schroeder88 Your example with unicorns actually amounts to you saying that absence of evidence for flying unicorns is not PROOF of the non existence of them. I am sure you would agree that something can class as evidence towards a position and still fall way way short of proof. IMO having watched many wildlife documentaries and understanding equine evolution to some degree, the absence of any unicorn evidence is substantial evidence (tho not proof) of absence in this example.
Scott, you're absolutely brilliant. A daytime TV star, musician and now I think it's time for your next achievement: best-selling author! I would be one of the first to buy a book on all your arguments and general thoughts on theology and philosophy.
"That is entirely subjective" Not really. While the level of evidence required by people does vary, the two different types of faith are still distinct.
Yes, the vast majority of those I have met say they would accept evidence. A fair number have even given examples of things they would accept as evidence, and how compelling different forms of evidence would be. The minority position I was referring to was strong atheism, including provisional strong atheism.
« It's hardly a necessary implication » You'll notice that all definitions and examples in the dictionary refer to an intentional stance, even if the definitions when taken literally might not necessarily imply intent. This implication is why I think it is prudent to think about when to use the word, and when not to. In order to prevent ambiguity, I'd argue that use of the word purpose be limited to situations where intent is established.
« It's kind of like saying: A) I know X B) I believe I know X » Yes it is, and I still see the difference. In case (B), one at least implicitly acknowledges that ones belief is not absolutely necessarily an accurate representation of reality, that there is a chance that future evidence may convince one otherwise. While this is also true in (A), the statement implies no acknowledgement of the possibility.
So, for the sake of this project, and to acknowledge the constructive responses by Theoretical, DasAA, and others, I propose that we separate the question of GOD from that of organized religion (which is what I think Veritas48 had in mind when he proposed to hold off on specific religion) because that will get us beyond the idea of "knowing God", or believing, because some specific book tells us we should. I do believe in God (there can only be one) thus I am a theist.
No, not the syllogism he used with James. There was one he used in an earlier video. The one he used with james was invalid. (even though it had the same conclusion.)
Awesome....especially at around 10:00. I tried to express the same idea (not as eloquently as you can) in my response to Noah. All I said was: CONSEQUENCES. One cant argue that the god one is espousing doesn't want to give proper evidence yet the consequence for non-belief in the absence of this evidence is eternal damnation. Its plain silly. Anyways...great work and glad you are back Scott.
You are right to a certain extent, the reversed sequence you mention seems to apply to English. It indeed comes from Greek "atheos", which means "godless", but the word is still built up from ἀ- (a-), not) + θεός (theos), god. And to use a privative-a you obviously have to have the word "theos" first! :)
(1/2) John, you're getting WAY to stuck on words. Language is a servant to US, we are not servants to language. If a term or phrase is useful to us in communicating a concept clearly, we should stick to it. If it creates confusion, we should abandon it. In some conversations, "Metaphysical Naturalist" is informative and helpful. In others, it isn't. If there's a worldview whose definition suits me better than that, I'd abandon the word "naturalist" in a heartbeat.
Ok so which account do I listen to? This video, or the one where you told me what your primary position was on FB? I did pay attention to the video, but I also remember what you said elsewhere to me. You cant just switch positions mid-way here.
I don't know about everyone else, but watching TBS videos is actually fun! It's like I want to throw a party on around them. Great works in the making. Keep it up.
@DickJohnson3434 Sorry to jump into this exchange, but let me just offer some facts. Metaphysical Naturalism is the belief that all that exist is physical (natural). Hence, supernatural things do not exist. It would probably be wiser that TBS call his belief a sort of "weak naturalism" or "methodological naturalism".
@TBS I was hoping you'd chime in on this argument, and this video certainly didn't disappoint. Intelligent, entertaining, and incisive, you definitely put your views over with aplomb. Thanks.
Welcome back - good timing also!!Another favourited video from Scott; such clarity of logic (grayscale or black and white?!) Beyond definition of terms (which is extremely valuable) I'm looking forward to debate around what "spiritual" or other guiding elements might enter the life of a declared non-theist. Seems to me that humans have a need for something - for which religion around [a] God has provided the guiding framework for many -and for which has become a traitor for many others.
@Emrys93 To continue with your last questions, if "i's dotted and t's crossed" doesn't describe how salvation (compliance enforced by eternal punishment as the "logical" consequence of non-compliance) works, how would you say it? Why my disbelief? The illogic of Christian dogma (as covered throughout my posts...there are plenty more examples) AND lack of substantiating evidence outside of texts. I disbelieve in your God for the same reason(s) you probably disbelieve in Krishna, Zeus, etc.
@cornutus11 I think what he means when he says that "an agnostic is an atheist" is qualified by what follows: basically, "an agnostic without a postive belief in god/gods is atheist" by definition. By the same logic, an agnostic is a theist if he/she has a positive belief in god/gods. The belief is what qualifies the agnostic as atheist or theist, not the idea of what is ultimately knowable. He makes that distinction as well.
asmall89: "I'm pretty sure [babies] know who Momma is which is basically a supreme being in their view." Biggest Non-Sequitor of the Year Award, folks.
@XGralgrathor But then you have a problem with the word "know". You see, if you say that the term "believe" affects the certainty of the statement, then you are also affecting the definition of "know". To say "I know" and to say "I believe I know" should not be different... Statement B with the word "know" becomes incoherent as it means then "I am uncertain of being certain of X".
@Emrys93 Hey man. Sorry for the delay - very busy time of year at work for me. First off, thanks for your intellectual honesty in acknowledging that atheism may be a logical worldview despite what you see as lack of evidence. You'll get excoriated for that by some of your compatriots, as I'm sure you know, but I applaud your candor and integrity. You are the first Christian from whom I've heard such a statement, and I find it refreshing. Although we're each unlikely to convince the other, (cont)
@Emrys93 Hey man...thanks for the response. Two things. 1) I'm neither loving nor hating God because I can neither love nor hate something that I don't believe exists. I can, however, be very distressed and opposed to much of what happens and is taught/acted upon in the name of that idea (God), especially because I don't believe it exists. 2) I'm responding to your post about free will and why you think God wants us to have it. I'll continue in next post because I'm running out of room.
Excellent summary and very articulate presentation. For me, the infinite regress problem is the ultimate deal-breaker for god's existence. If complex things had to be created, then god had to be created by an uber-god, who was created by an uber-uber god. Ad infinitum... So, theists should really worship *Ms. uber-uber*..., instead of her puny little great-great... grandson, god. I mean, Ms uber-uber... can create universe-creating gods, while god could only create one crappy universe. No theist can answer this without resorting to special pleading (i.e. calvinball). My addition, as someone involved in AI is: *1)* Humans have already created decent AI, so we know the *regress is real* *2)* The regress has to terminate somewhere, with a "creator" that *evolved* on its own, from simpler components, otherwise you have *infinite regress* *3)* We have evidence that humans evolved, so it's a well-supported termination point *4)* Drawing the line at god is *completely arbitrary* without similarly proving that god evolved. But then, it wouldn't be god...
lnpilot Hi there. I disagree. A regression ad infinitum implies that nothing would exist, the same way that but for our ancestors 1.000.000 years ago we wouldn't be here. That's why IF we assume causality as necessary then theists/believers are winning this debate since for the series of precedence to exist there should have been an uncreated outsider to that ultimate series. We agnostics are open to either stance but so far we can say there is no evidence of no causality which gives them theists/believers the upper hand. Cheers
ratio veritas *No*, it does *not* imply that. Infinite regress, in *any* system is caused by *divergence*. In this case, it is *specifically* the theist claim's *divergence of complexity*, as you go backward in the causality chain. They claim a *nonsensical* direction of complexity change: nothing -> super complex (god) -> simper stuff (particles that started the universe). This is because theists don't understand what complexity is, so they incorrectly think that things had to start with the most complex thing of all: a super-intelligent, infinitely powerful being! (god). It's like claiming that you can have a brick house *before* you have bricks! This is *nonsense*, because complex things are made of simpler things, by their *very nature*. Complexity arises as a large number of interactions between a large number of simpler components of a system. You can't have complexity without it a *large number* of *simpler components* that *interact* with each-other. Before you can have a brick house, you need bricks. Before you can have bricks, you need the molecules that make up clay, before that, you need the atoms in those molecules and so on. As you go back in time (the causality chain), *complexity must converge toward zero*, otherwise you'll end up with an *infinite regress* problem regarding the origin of the initial, complex entity. The theist view causes a *divergence* in complexity, as you go back, which *inevitably* creates an *infinite regress problem*. The scientific view is *convergent*. As we go back in time, the evidence shows that things get *simpler*, until you reach the eternal multiverse with its quantum fluctuation (that starts universes). This quantum fluctuation is as simple as we know it gets. No intelligence, no matter, just virtual particles that pop in and out of existence. It's so simple in fact, that this is one of the modern definitions of "nothing". And nothing is simpler than nothing! :)
ratio veritas No matter how you slice it, god's simpler components had to exist *first*. And those components had to form god *on their own* (otherwise, you have infinite regress). But, if those components could form super-intelligent gods, on their own, they could just as well form universes on their own! So, god is *redundant*. So, the theist "first cause" argument *defeats itself*, if you just dig 2 levels deep!
Wrong! Christians do not believe in a created God the God of the bible is eternal and infinite regression proves it because God can create universes easy but you have no cause as an atheist and so you are breaking infinite regression.You are thinking of acreated straw man god and trying to make it apply tothe God of the bible but we will not accept it.It is you as an atheist that has a problem because you have no cause and you cannot borrow from re;igion,instead you must use yourimagination.
abelcainsbrother And there's the *big problem* with your argument: if god was not created, then it has to be either eternal, or he had to form/evolve on its own! God is much more complex than the simple particles that start universes (i.e quantum vacuum), so: *1)* If a super complex intelligent being can be eternal, then much simpler things, like the quantum vacuum are much more likely to be eternal *2)* If a super complex intelligent being can form / evolve on its own, then universes and humans can much more easily evolve on their own. Either way, claiming that a super complex god can be eternal and did not need a creator, but much simper things (humans etc.) needed a creator is *ass backwards* and *plain stupid*.
Nothing that exists in one's conscience can be verified by other people. It is, and ought to be, personal. Caring about truth is important in itself, but what value is there in simply knowing a God exists to personal development? The value exists in becoming alike to God through grace - the means of the end. The point I was making was that saying there is only a problem with the lack of evidence or rationale if God wants us simply to believe - that is not the case.
believers and non believers need to connect for 1 goal ! help out your fellow man whatever it may be homeless family friends coworkers whoever just be goodhearted when u can an if u can depending on daily life !
While I often 5 Star many atheist argument videos I don't often Favoritize many. This is amongst those I've Favoritized. I can't add anything to what you've said because you have a profound ability to construct, what I consider to be, a "slam-dunk" argument for your position. It doesn't need any "and this too" or "to further back you up" statements. Well done!
It's as simple as, if the theist concedes that there are no good reasons for supposing that a god exists, then they have conceded that their belief in God is irrational. If they seem fine with believing in things that are irrational, what else is there to debate? Do you plan on using rationality to persuade them to be rational? It's a lost cause. Best case scenario, they do NOT want to have irrational views, and will have been persuaded to abandon those views for ones that are rational.
Excellent video! Even after being a non-believer for over 15 years, I still get confused between atheism & agnosticism. I became a christian as a child because I wanted to follow what was purely good and purely true. I am a non-believer as an adult because I held true to these moral values and researched what I was taught as a child to see if it was true.
But that's the problem JUST being not-theistic does NOT put someone in a higher intellectual class. (In fact I think intelligence has nothing to do with the belief or disbelief in a god, but that's another issue). Babies don't believe in god. That does not put them in a higher intellectual class than William Lane Craig.
Scott's got it right. You can be Agnostic and Theistic at the same time, you can ge Atheist and Agnostic at the same time. You can even be Atheistic and Theistic at the same time, as how Richard Dawkins puts it, that you can believe in Buddha, but be atheistic when it comes to the Christian God.
« unless you are not being intellectually honest with yourself » But we already know there are very few people who would be willing to claim that there is absolutely no possibility of any god existing whatsoever. Of course, when one is discussing specific, internally contradictory notions like the christian god of the bible, such claims become somewhat easier to make.
DUDE! I fuckin' hate you, because it's taken me 52 years to get to the place you've managed to stake out in probably 2/3 that time. AND that's when I already had a room-mate in college who was a philosophy major. FUCK!
If there is no God -- then meaning, value & purpose are subjective & relative to the opinions and preferences of human beings.
TheMirabillis I'm always amazed at how you people use the term "subjective" differently than anyone else. What you mean by subjective is, not independent of a HUMAN mind. When sane people use that word they use it with it's ACTUAL meaning, i.e. not independent of a SINGLE mind.
Edmond Dantez For the purpose of the OP -- people can use subjective or objective.
Notice immediately, how you're wanting to take the high ground. Making a distinction by "You People" which [ to you ] seems to be "not sane people".
That being said, the OP is straightforward. However, it has not been refuted because everyone attempts the same path and they all fail.
TheMirabillis Using a conventional definition, the contention is demonstrably false.
Edmond Dantez I will save you a lot of time. If you take the same path as many others -- then you will fail.
I have to admit that at first I didn't watch your videos because philosophy is not one of my strong points. Then The Living Dinosaur named you as his favorite UA-camr of all time, and I knew I had to check your material out. I have not been disappointed. Your commentary about WLC has been very helpful in understanding the more subtle failings of the Kalam. For me the fact that no one has ever had any experience with a state of nothingness invalidates the entire argument from the outset, but I hadn't given it much more thought. Thanks for taking the time to produce these videos.
Of course, any false belief could be defended on the premise that the universe is set up not to provide evidence of it , your God or any of the tens of thousands of gods and spirits that of been imagined throughout history.
True, but not successfully. The reason Christianity has been and can be so successfully defended is because God leaves physical clues when He both created and continues to interact in His universe, so that, while He Himself is immaterial and timeless we can still see the impact of the effects of His interactions within the physical/material world. He is still the most reasonable/plausible explanation of the uncaused Cause.
@@jeffreypayne3344 Could you please bolster your assertions? I’m not an obnoxious “internet atheist.” Philosophy is my field, and I, to the best of my ability, pursue true conclusions. I have great respect for religion, particularly Christianity in the West, and I wouldn’t get rid of it even if I could. I think it serves genuine functions with regard to the realms of the personal, the social, and the cultural.
@@unconcernedcitizen4092 Super. I would simply point you to the classical arguments for the existence of God, especially the Kalam cosmological, the teleological, the moral and the minimal facts case for the resurrection, as well as the testimonial evidence from hundreds of millions (at least) of people such as myself, who have an interactive relationship with Him - including firsthand experience with the miraculous and beyond chance encounters with answered prayer as good places to start. The reasons those arguments are substantively unassailed in the literature goes beyond their mere construction and (imo) points strongly to a cumulative, albeit circumstantial case. I discovered that, when mixed with my own willingness to embrace Him - as a logical next step (again imo) in a process of open inquiry and discovery, that I was met with a God who made Himself known to me in concrete, but immaterial (paradoxical) ways beyond mere empiricism. In my experience one must be willing to embrace a way of knowing (epistemology) that comes to terms with both the ways He reveals Himself and the way He is, which cannot involve strict empiricism, but must, in fact recognize that He must (if existent) possess qualities outside of those possessed by physical/material entities. If He indeed was the Creator of all time, space and energy He could not logically be made of it or bound by it, at least not in any ordinary sense. I start with entertaining the possibility that He is the most logical inference as the Cause for the evidence we have - (Romans 1 in the Bible) and am willing to trust my reason and take the further step of a sort of "thought experiment" based on those inferences.
I know what you mean about "obnoxious internet atheists," but I think anyone convinced strongly of their positions can come across in ways that appear obnoxious and condescending, so I (personally) do not differentiate and try not to be too dismissive of anyone's beliefs. I do believe, however, that their are some that are less well-founded than others.
@@CCCBeaumont You seem like a reasonable person. I don’t have time for a full response currently, but in reference to the Kalam specifically, I don’t think most atheists have terribly robust rebuttals to it. I would say that the foremost atheist expert on the KCA is Quentin Smith. He and William Lane Craig (they consider one another to be good friends) actually wrote a book together with dueling chapters, though the title escapes me. I’d highly recommend it if you’re looking for some more “sophisticated” takes on that particular argument, both in and against its favor.
Anyway, I will hopefully remember to return to have a more engaging discussion if that’s something in which you’re interested. Epistemology is actually something of my area of expertise, so we could narrow in on that if that’s something that interests you. Thanks for the civility. Have a good one and stay safe and healthy.
P.S. If you are interested in epistemology, check out J.M. Kuczynski. The man is singlehandedly revolutionizing the field. He’s solved Gettier problems, the problem of induction (in my opinion), etc. He’s also very anti-Marxist, which is a huge plus for me.
@@unconcernedcitizen4092 I am in essential agreement with you. I always enjoy a constructive, respectful dialogue. I too am over-educated, lol, two graduate degrees and currently working on an additional masters, this one in Apologetics. I've been thinking about these weighty (I would proffer eternal) issues for over four decades and I have seen, in that time, many former atheists find faith in the Lord Jesus. I have also seen dear friends go the other direction. I am sometimes baffled as to why but I do not think it always hinges on moral issues, as some "internet theists" often contend.
Hey, count yourself lucky that you have a following, TB. If you didn't, Veritas would just block you immediately, like he did with me. It's becoming very obvious that Veritas is a coward who blocks anyone who disagrees with him, as long as they don't have so many supporters that too many people would call him out on it.
At any rate, great blog, and it's very nice to have you back.
As a teenager who turned away from Christianity and now uses agnostic vaguely as the label if asked what my beliefs are, you are such an inspiration. My peers first response is not knowing what it is, and when I explain that it's a loose term and how there are various other beliefs I hold that aren't defined by that label, they still ridicule me. You bring up many excellent arguments that help me explain exactly why I don't subscribe to any religion in a peaceful manner. Keep posting videos :)
As an experiment, I've played devil's advocate and tried to defend Christianity (yes, I realize the irony of that statement). It's really fucking hard. No longer can Christianity be called an intellectual position; it's a purely emotional position.
Scott, there is one word that best describes you: smooth. Cut it out. You're making the rest of us look bad.
I've made my entire position on the subject of God very clear in this video. If something about that conflicts with the definition of Metaphysical Naturalism (which may or may not be the case) then we need to let go of Naturalism. It's lost it's usefulness in this conversation.
If you want to know EXACTLY what my position is on the subject of a God's existence, all you have to do is watch the video. (Paying attention helps, by the way.)
God you have no idea how much I was hoping you would jump in on this conversation TBS :) Welcome back!
Fantastic clarification as always.
Simply brilliant. IMO the most intelligent person on UA-cam when it comes to debating religion.
....why?
5:50 i would say that the right definition for who does not believe AND is also SURE that there is no god is "Gnostic Atheist".
As Stephen Colbert but it, "An agnostic is just an atheist without BALLS."
...Love it.
The most inspiring thing about TBS's videos is that it really gets people to think more open-mindedly. It's refreshing to see someone who will analyze information and seek out as many available options as possible before coming to a thoughtful conclusion. There are far too many people out there who can only see things as black or white.
Can one be considered free under the influence and hindrance of others? If so, to what extent would God allow freedom and free will?
@mikechis101 Nono, I almost always prepare. I have notes on the computer screen that I can read, with the phrases I want to use to convey certain points, and so on. It's really not all that impressive. I'm good at cold-reading, and I want my viewers to feel like I'm just having a conversation with them, because I think it makes people feel more engaged, and thus receptive to the points I'm making.
@ashman165 - I think the point is that, as God (the very concept of God) is metaphysical, then defining God in physical terms means He is no longer metaphysical (and therefore no longer exists as "God").
That does NOT imply any physical definition - i.e. that when something physical (x) is defined that it cease to exist.
Shit man, I didn't realize who was in my subscription box for a moment, it had been so long. But it is always well worth the wait for a TBS video. Well done.
Good to have you back, and having seen the list of questions you recieved I don't think any "reasonable" person would object to you not answering them. You seem pretty damn sharp but to adress that entire list of questions you might aswell construct an encyclopedia of philosophy whilst you're at it.
If you want to know specifically what my position is on the existence of a god, listen to this video, not FB. On FB, all I did was provide a word we could use. That's it. Just a word to help us communicate better. It worked for that conversation, it doesn't work for this one, because we're talking about different things here.
I never switched POSITIONS, John. My position has always been the same. It's only the words I've used to communicate that position which has changed.
wooo welcome back! i think your arguments are sound and your presentation is immaculate as always. unfortunately there's only so many times I can watch your back catalogue without getting bored so it's good to have a new vid to be impressed by =)
Anyone know why CreationistTroll is marked as being suspended???
William Lane Craig opens every debate with the question, "What is the evidence for atheism?" and it makes my eyes roll back so far in my head it hurts.
You don't need God to have hope. The recipe for hope is this: A goal, The willpower to think positively, and an idea of how to achieve that goal. A Belief in God or reading the bible can offer some people hope, but ultimately hope is an emotion which is susceptible to change just like every emotion.
@bananabread119 which god??
Welcome back.
And such a fine time to return. I'd almost accuse you of staging your return deliberately to coincide with this project.
what about the second definition in merriam webster for the word agnistic? 2 : a person unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
what if I am unwillilng to commit myself to the belief in a god or its non existence?
what are my then?
Good to have you back... and having seen the list of questions you recieved I don't think any "reasonable" person would object to you not answering them all. You seem pretty damn sharp but to adress that entire list of questions you might aswell construct an encyclopedia of philosophy whilst you're at it.
I was getting tired of watching Schuyler for entertainment. This makes my day.
You're right for once, John. I do experience a bit of dissonance about that. On the one hand, Metaphysical Naturalism is the best way to characterize my worldview (I'm always open to a better term), but on the other, I do not *claim* that "NO god exists", I only claim that there are no sufficient REASONS to believe one does. Epistemically, I believe I can't "know" that NO god exists. So does that disqualify me for Naturalism? What do you think?.
But in the end, it's just a word. So who cares?
"...anything AFTER that... is just having FUN!" That was beautiful!
What's wrong with it? Is there a different word or label that means 'lack of belief in a God(s)"? How would you define Atheism and why is it a better definition?
« Essentially, I'm arguing that you derive its purpose by looking at the functions »
Ah, but the point is that the word purpose usually implies intent, and that while things may have an effect, there is not always intent behind the effect, and so the word purpose (implying intent, at least to the theist) may not be the ideal word to use.
« Then one of us has a very poor understanding of the word purpose »
Usually, purpose means intent, or intended goal. The word implies that there is intent. But even if the word can refer to effect as well as intent (I don't understand (4), but you may be right if (5) is accurate), then it still remains a dangerous word to use in relation to the effect of various organic characteristics - especially when engaged in theological discussions.
Not the type of faith under discussion.
There is faith that is the inevitable consequence of partial ignorance, which is gradually replaced with knowledge, and then there is the promotion of Faith as a virtue to be strived for, used as a tool to stifle inquiry and as a substitute for knowledge.
You know, most of the time I end up defending Noah from criticisms from atheists, but..... this does ring true, to a degree. I've experienced this problem with him in my interactions... Mild, but it's there.
@Emrys93 I may be missing your point, but how is loving God a matter of free will if the only alternative choice is eternal hellfire? Two choices - extra crispy or loving God? Help me out here. I realize that more fundamentalists than mainstream Christians lick their chops at the idea of eternal torture for non-believers, but hell IS a standard part of the belief structure, right?
Thanks for your presentation... keep seeking... you will come to find Jesus at the end of your search... Keep seeking!
You are right that there is no way to prove or disprove their existence, but on that basis it would be illogical to assume that one exists, or to assume that the chance of them existing is equal to the chance that they do not exist. You know, a bit like unicorns, faeries and hobgoblins.
My friend just realized everything he does in life will be ultimately for nothing and now he can't find the motivation to do things and i don't know what to tell him because he's right...any suggestions as to how to snap him out of it?
@jerf241 Unfortunately, someone hacked his account and deleted his entire channel. He's in the process (hopefully) of creating a new one.
@cornutus11 He's not saying that agnosticism and atheism are exactly the same, only that they aren't mutually exclusive. Some agnostics are atheists (lacking both the belief in god/god(s) and acknowledging that they lack definitive knowledge of whether god/gods exist(s)), and some agnostics are theists (having a belief in god/gods but acknowledging that they lack definitive knowledge of whether god/gods exist(s)), but not all atheists and theists are agnostics.
Yes, there is a difference between a belief and a claim.
A belief is just a belief. A claim is an outspoken belief.
How did they make these elements?
We (hubby and I) missed you!!! So glad you are back. I squealed with glee when I saw you made a new video! Another perfect smack down. :)
Yes, Veritas, but please don't lose hope (I know you will not). As a Christian, I am so appreciative to see a fellow believer who is willing to lead open debate without a domatic position of any particular theism; as that would stifle any valuable discussion.
The semantics debate has uncovered misunderstandings on both "sides" - good progress to move on to the next phases; thanks.
I would agree with those 2 propositions, and as you may have noticed, I am personally in group 1.
For #2a, I would point out any method of finding truth that works will demonstrate convergence. Since revealed truth does not demonstrate convergence, it cannot actually be a method of finding truth.
« A goal needn't be a conscious thing »
Whether the result of conscious or subconscious effort, a goal implies the intentional stance. The word goal is only used when regarding the behavior of organisms complex enough to be said to have intentions. Gasses do not have goals.
Finally, You're back! You were one of the first youtube atheist I'd seen, although I don't remember how I found you video.
A credible definition and understanding of the Judeo-Christian God is so poor and incomplete (to be kind), it cannot and should not be believed at face value. If such a god does indeed exist, (he) has definately been so wretchedly misrepresented by (his) believers and defenders all along, the treatment (or mistreatment) literally amounts to slander. Therefore, any mythology is just as fine and inconsequential. Have a good life, folks, and live well (whatever that is for you).
« the word generally denotes an intentional act »
More often than not, it can be read as such, and is, yes.
Thanks man! It'll be really interesting to see how this whole thing plays out.
@molyvenson we were not talking about religions. Complete the sentence: I know it is impossible to exist any kind of supreme being because... Notice I´ve used the verb to know.
By the way, the natural history is full of descripitions of unicorns, maybe not the ones described in mithology, but again, we are not talking about religion. I understand the point of view of atheists, I just don´t think that theists are any more unreasonable as defended on this video.
Umm... yes, I believe in my own existence. How exactly does that make me different than Christians?
Is there any reason to accept Joshua of Nazareth as the creator of the universe over say Vishnu?
why have all of veritas48's videos been deleted i can gather the basic idea's of what he says from watching your vids but i am interested in seeing his responses and arguments.. any other way i might be able to see them?
@Schroeder88
Your example with unicorns actually amounts to you saying that absence of evidence for flying unicorns is not PROOF of the non existence of them.
I am sure you would agree that something can class as evidence towards a position and still fall way way short of proof.
IMO having watched many wildlife documentaries and understanding equine evolution to some degree, the absence of any unicorn evidence is substantial evidence (tho not proof) of absence in this example.
Scott, you're absolutely brilliant. A daytime TV star, musician and now I think it's time for your next achievement: best-selling author! I would be one of the first to buy a book on all your arguments and general thoughts on theology and philosophy.
"That is entirely subjective" Not really. While the level of evidence required by people does vary, the two different types of faith are still distinct.
Yes, the vast majority of those I have met say they would accept evidence. A fair number have even given examples of things they would accept as evidence, and how compelling different forms of evidence would be.
The minority position I was referring to was strong atheism, including provisional strong atheism.
NOT if its an ontology.
An ontology is a description, or statment of what *IS* the case.
« It's hardly a necessary implication »
You'll notice that all definitions and examples in the dictionary refer to an intentional stance, even if the definitions when taken literally might not necessarily imply intent. This implication is why I think it is prudent to think about when to use the word, and when not to. In order to prevent ambiguity, I'd argue that use of the word purpose be limited to situations where intent is established.
You are an excellent speaker and should have your own television program.
You are lucid, well spoken and very intelligent.
« It's kind of like saying: A) I know X B) I believe I know X »
Yes it is, and I still see the difference. In case (B), one at least implicitly acknowledges that ones belief is not absolutely necessarily an accurate representation of reality, that there is a chance that future evidence may convince one otherwise. While this is also true in (A), the statement implies no acknowledgement of the possibility.
So, for the sake of this project, and to acknowledge the constructive responses by Theoretical, DasAA, and others, I propose that we separate the question of GOD from that of organized religion (which is what I think Veritas48 had in mind when he proposed to hold off on specific religion) because that will get us beyond the idea of "knowing God", or believing, because some specific book tells us we should.
I do believe in God (there can only be one) thus I am a theist.
No, not the syllogism he used with James. There was one he used in an earlier video. The one he used with james was invalid. (even though it had the same conclusion.)
Awesome....especially at around 10:00. I tried to express the same idea (not as eloquently as you can) in my response to Noah. All I said was: CONSEQUENCES. One cant argue that the god one is espousing doesn't want to give proper evidence yet the consequence for non-belief in the absence of this evidence is eternal damnation. Its plain silly.
Anyways...great work and glad you are back Scott.
You are right to a certain extent, the reversed sequence you mention seems to apply to English.
It indeed comes from Greek "atheos", which means "godless", but the word is still built up from ἀ- (a-), not) + θεός (theos), god. And to use a privative-a you obviously have to have the word "theos" first! :)
I can't even begin to understand how you do this all in one take. I'm speechless.
(1/2) John, you're getting WAY to stuck on words. Language is a servant to US, we are not servants to language. If a term or phrase is useful to us in communicating a concept clearly, we should stick to it. If it creates confusion, we should abandon it.
In some conversations, "Metaphysical Naturalist" is informative and helpful. In others, it isn't. If there's a worldview whose definition suits me better than that, I'd abandon the word "naturalist" in a heartbeat.
Ok so which account do I listen to? This video, or the one where you told me what your primary position was on FB?
I did pay attention to the video, but I also remember what you said elsewhere to me.
You cant just switch positions mid-way here.
I don't know about everyone else, but watching TBS videos is actually fun! It's like I want to throw a party on around them. Great works in the making. Keep it up.
@DickJohnson3434
Sorry to jump into this exchange, but let me just offer some facts.
Metaphysical Naturalism is the belief that all that exist is physical (natural). Hence, supernatural things do not exist.
It would probably be wiser that TBS call his belief a sort of "weak naturalism" or "methodological naturalism".
That last line was like something out of a movie. Brilliant.
"...Anything beyond that is just having fun". I don't think I can express how to-the-point that is.
@TBS I was hoping you'd chime in on this argument, and this video certainly didn't disappoint. Intelligent, entertaining, and incisive, you definitely put your views over with aplomb. Thanks.
Dammit I want to play too! Is this Veritas dude gone? I can't find his video.
Welcome back - good timing also!!Another favourited video from Scott; such clarity of logic (grayscale or black and white?!)
Beyond definition of terms (which is extremely valuable) I'm looking forward to debate around what "spiritual" or other guiding elements might enter the life of a declared non-theist. Seems to me that humans have a need for something - for which religion around [a] God has provided the guiding framework for many -and for which has become a traitor for many others.
@Emrys93 To continue with your last questions, if "i's dotted and t's crossed" doesn't describe how salvation (compliance enforced by eternal punishment as the "logical" consequence of non-compliance) works, how would you say it? Why my disbelief? The illogic of Christian dogma (as covered throughout my posts...there are plenty more examples) AND lack of substantiating evidence outside of texts. I disbelieve in your God for the same reason(s) you probably disbelieve in Krishna, Zeus, etc.
Good to see you again! Welcome back.
« But for the purpose »
But for the purpose of teaching them. The intended goal of teaching them.
@cornutus11 I think what he means when he says that "an agnostic is an atheist" is qualified by what follows: basically, "an agnostic without a postive belief in god/gods is atheist" by definition. By the same logic, an agnostic is a theist if he/she has a positive belief in god/gods. The belief is what qualifies the agnostic as atheist or theist, not the idea of what is ultimately knowable. He makes that distinction as well.
asmall89: "I'm pretty sure [babies] know who Momma is which is basically a supreme being in their view."
Biggest Non-Sequitor of the Year Award, folks.
@XGralgrathor
But then you have a problem with the word "know".
You see, if you say that the term "believe" affects the certainty of the statement, then you are also affecting the definition of "know".
To say "I know" and to say "I believe I know" should not be different...
Statement B with the word "know" becomes incoherent as it means then "I am uncertain of being certain of X".
@Emrys93 Hey man. Sorry for the delay - very busy time of year at work for me. First off, thanks for your intellectual honesty in acknowledging that atheism may be a logical worldview despite what you see as lack of evidence. You'll get excoriated for that by some of your compatriots, as I'm sure you know, but I applaud your candor and integrity. You are the first Christian from whom I've heard such a statement, and I find it refreshing. Although we're each unlikely to convince the other, (cont)
Who is this person whose video shows up on my subscriptions?!
Welcome back Scott! :)
@Emrys93 Hey man...thanks for the response. Two things. 1) I'm neither loving nor hating God because I can neither love nor hate something that I don't believe exists. I can, however, be very distressed and opposed to much of what happens and is taught/acted upon in the name of that idea (God), especially because I don't believe it exists. 2) I'm responding to your post about free will and why you think God wants us to have it. I'll continue in next post because I'm running out of room.
Those last 20 seconds were just legendary...
Excellent summary and very articulate presentation.
For me, the infinite regress problem is the ultimate deal-breaker for god's existence.
If complex things had to be created, then god had to be created by an uber-god, who was created by an uber-uber god. Ad infinitum...
So, theists should really worship *Ms. uber-uber*..., instead of her puny little great-great... grandson, god.
I mean, Ms uber-uber... can create universe-creating gods, while god could only create one crappy universe.
No theist can answer this without resorting to special pleading (i.e. calvinball).
My addition, as someone involved in AI is:
*1)* Humans have already created decent AI, so we know the *regress is real*
*2)* The regress has to terminate somewhere, with a "creator" that *evolved* on its own, from simpler components, otherwise you have *infinite regress*
*3)* We have evidence that humans evolved, so it's a well-supported termination point
*4)* Drawing the line at god is *completely arbitrary* without similarly proving that god evolved.
But then, it wouldn't be god...
lnpilot
Hi there. I disagree. A regression ad infinitum implies that nothing would exist, the same way that but for our ancestors 1.000.000 years ago we wouldn't be here. That's why IF we assume causality as necessary then theists/believers are winning this debate since for the series of precedence to exist there should have been an uncreated outsider to that ultimate series. We agnostics are open to either stance but so far we can say there is no evidence of no causality which gives them theists/believers the upper hand. Cheers
ratio veritas *No*, it does *not* imply that. Infinite regress, in *any* system is caused by *divergence*. In this case, it is *specifically* the theist claim's *divergence of complexity*, as you go backward in the causality chain. They claim a *nonsensical* direction of complexity change: nothing -> super complex (god) -> simper stuff (particles that started the universe).
This is because theists don't understand what complexity is, so they incorrectly think that things had to start with the most complex thing of all: a super-intelligent, infinitely powerful being! (god).
It's like claiming that you can have a brick house *before* you have bricks!
This is *nonsense*, because complex things are made of simpler things, by their *very nature*.
Complexity arises as a large number of interactions between a large number of simpler components of a system. You can't have complexity without it a *large number* of *simpler components* that *interact* with each-other.
Before you can have a brick house, you need bricks. Before you can have bricks, you need the molecules that make up clay, before that, you need the atoms in those molecules and so on.
As you go back in time (the causality chain), *complexity must converge toward zero*, otherwise you'll end up with an *infinite regress* problem regarding the origin of the initial, complex entity.
The theist view causes a *divergence* in complexity, as you go back, which *inevitably* creates an *infinite regress problem*.
The scientific view is *convergent*. As we go back in time, the evidence shows that things get *simpler*, until you reach the eternal multiverse with its quantum fluctuation (that starts universes).
This quantum fluctuation is as simple as we know it gets. No intelligence, no matter, just virtual particles that pop in and out of existence.
It's so simple in fact, that this is one of the modern definitions of "nothing".
And nothing is simpler than nothing!
:)
ratio veritas No matter how you slice it, god's simpler components had to exist *first*. And those components had to form god *on their own* (otherwise, you have infinite regress).
But, if those components could form super-intelligent gods, on their own, they could just as well form universes on their own!
So, god is *redundant*.
So, the theist "first cause" argument *defeats itself*, if you just dig 2 levels deep!
Wrong! Christians do not believe in a created God the God of the bible is eternal and infinite regression proves it because God can create universes easy but you have no cause as an atheist and so you are breaking infinite regression.You are thinking of acreated straw man god and trying to make it apply tothe God of the bible but we will not accept it.It is you as an atheist that has a problem because you have no cause and you cannot borrow from re;igion,instead you must use yourimagination.
abelcainsbrother And there's the *big problem* with your argument: if god was not created, then it has to be either eternal, or he had to form/evolve on its own!
God is much more complex than the simple particles that start universes (i.e quantum vacuum), so:
*1)* If a super complex intelligent being can be eternal, then much simpler things, like the quantum vacuum are much more likely to be eternal
*2)* If a super complex intelligent being can form / evolve on its own, then universes and humans can much more easily evolve on their own.
Either way, claiming that a super complex god can be eternal and did not need a creator, but much simper things (humans etc.) needed a creator is *ass backwards* and *plain stupid*.
ummm your brain is a clean machine dude - well done - this is lucid, detailed, concise, unpretentious and brilliant. thanks - keep it up!
Nothing that exists in one's conscience can be verified by other people. It is, and ought to be, personal. Caring about truth is important in itself, but what value is there in simply knowing a God exists to personal development? The value exists in becoming alike to God through grace - the means of the end.
The point I was making was that saying there is only a problem with the lack of evidence or rationale if God wants us simply to believe - that is not the case.
Can you really decide for yourself to believe or not believe something? Do you have a choice?
believers and non believers need to connect for 1 goal ! help out your fellow man whatever it may be homeless family friends coworkers whoever just be goodhearted when u can an if u can depending on daily life !
Welcome back Scott, your video was worth the wait. I admire your techinque of slicing and dicing through the BS.
What is the external world then Samm?
While I often 5 Star many atheist argument videos I don't often Favoritize many. This is amongst those I've Favoritized.
I can't add anything to what you've said because you have a profound ability to construct, what I consider to be, a "slam-dunk" argument for your position. It doesn't need any "and this too" or "to further back you up" statements.
Well done!
It's as simple as, if the theist concedes that there are no good reasons for supposing that a god exists, then they have conceded that their belief in God is irrational. If they seem fine with believing in things that are irrational, what else is there to debate? Do you plan on using rationality to persuade them to be rational? It's a lost cause. Best case scenario, they do NOT want to have irrational views, and will have been persuaded to abandon those views for ones that are rational.
Excellent video!
Even after being a non-believer for over 15 years, I still get confused between atheism & agnosticism.
I became a christian as a child because I wanted to follow what was purely good and purely true. I am a non-believer as an adult because I held true to these moral values and researched what I was taught as a child to see if it was true.
But that's the problem JUST being not-theistic does NOT put someone in a higher intellectual class. (In fact I think intelligence has nothing to do with the belief or disbelief in a god, but that's another issue). Babies don't believe in god. That does not put them in a higher intellectual class than William Lane Craig.
Scott's got it right. You can be Agnostic and Theistic at the same time, you can ge Atheist and Agnostic at the same time. You can even be Atheistic and Theistic at the same time, as how Richard Dawkins puts it, that you can believe in Buddha, but be atheistic when it comes to the Christian God.
« unless you are not being intellectually honest with yourself »
But we already know there are very few people who would be willing to claim that there is absolutely no possibility of any god existing whatsoever. Of course, when one is discussing specific, internally contradictory notions like the christian god of the bible, such claims become somewhat easier to make.
I FOR MY SELF prefer expression Heretic.Heresy meen " To think" by ancient Greek and later Roman translated word as "To chose"