What if floating cause suffocation and redemption is in sinking? That's the whole issue we have a remarkable ability of questioning It's our mind's way of thinking even if the answer poured in front of us somehow our mind will doubt and decide that it is logical to ask, but who can tell the mind its absurd We don't live for thousands years, instead kiss your mom (or remember her) and tell her you love her, isn't that the ecstasy and satisfaction in its finest level (amazingly this was actually adviced by Quran that certain things should not be questioned)
While watching this. The things the I am immensely thankful for are the things that I didn’t work to achieve. These are my family, mountains, blue sky, sky with lots of stars, the sun, people who taught me something in life, beaches, white sand, my mistakes. Funny how most of us are so caught up in achieving something to be of worth. Oh life. Oh me
1:08 Okay no that's not what belief means. belief is to believe in the existence of something without any evidence. such as believing in a god. To not believe in something without evidence is lack of belief. Your argument is like saying I believe that goblins don't exist or some imaginary character anybody could come up with. So I have belief. Belief is an acceptance that something ''exists or is true'', especially one without proof. "his belief in extraterrestrial life" Atheists don't believe in gods existence because there is no proof. So they have a lack of belief. To believe in something is to believe in that things existence without any evidence. You can't believe that something doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence. Also if there is some type of incomprehensible cosmic god, then believing in him should not matter. He exists regardless of if I believe in him or not it makes no difference. Unless you believe that it is a vengeful spiteful god like the bible, which would not be beyond are comprehension. It would be giving a cosmic god of infinite power and splendor human emotions. sort of silly.
With the claim you make in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph, I can not agree. How can a belief be true if it has no proof? However, I agree with your explanations of lack of belief.
@@TheOpinionGuyy atheists DONT believe that there is no god. They say don’t believe there is a good due to lack of credible evidence towards the claim. You just don’t understand the meanings of the positions they hold. There is no “irony” here, you idiot.
*Science beautifully explains us "how" something is designed and "how" something works, but, spirituality explains us "why".* Example, we may see a car moving in a particular direction and then taking a turn and moving ahead. Science can explain how the car works, how the wheel rotates, how much force is applied, how the engine is running, etc, but science cannot tell us why the car is moving, why it is taking a turn. For that, we have to approach the person controlling the car. Similarly, science explains the working of the universe with the help of forces and energy, but it leaves us mysterious about why the universe exists, why does it work in this way, for which we must approach the creator of the universe.
It never gets better. But on the plus side, life goes by relatively quickly, before you know it you'll be dead and at that point you won't be plagued by anything anymore. In the meantime; find things that keep your mind busy. Sex, drugs, rock n roll tend to do the trick.
That's why I like Taoism. Listen to Alan Watts you'll feel better. There truely is nothing but this present moment. And you can't have light without darkness. One cannot entirely take over the other. Nothing is independent of its opposite.
You forgot perhaps the biggest question: is human life objectively a good thing? Is it a good thing that we exist on this planet? People don’t like to think about this one but it is definitely not proven. The implications of it being disproven are frightening, so I understand why it isn’t at the forefront of discussion
Well to answer that you'd need the answers to a lot of things. For one, what is good? What consequences of our being here, either destroying our ecosystem or improving all life on earth and potentially beyond, even matter? I believe that, reasonably, all we care about, being humans, is our own self-preservation which is derived from our instinct to live and thrive. Of course preserving other life on earth is a majority of humanity's goals (apart from people merely trying to survive), yet the ease and convenience of fossil fuels and less than pretty tactics from which we gain our energy and entertainment make it a delicate balance. Still though, the question of if our being here is a "good thing" relies on your definition of what consequences and to whom qualify as "good or bad". Personally, I think that as we are really just brought here against our will, that living a fulfilling life without regrets is perfectly ok, and the destruction of humanity should either be stopped as much and as soon as possible, or should happen so fast that more people won't have to suffer through scarce resources and pointless sad efforts to merely survive. Morality is entirely objective, as is the nature of our existence and the universe itself. Regardless of what we do, the sun will destroy any traces of such unless we get off this planet within 3.5 billion years. Even if we end up colonizing the entire universe, get into wars and go extinct, really the only answer to that question can only be found within yourself. We just end up here and go along doing what everyone else does, if that's good, if that's bad, so be it. For me, I think one of the good things that result from our existence is the exploration of all the different interests we can pursue here. The worst outcome of our existence to me would be prolonging the suffering of our fellow humans to no benefit. To me, the best possible outcome would be one in which we can all understand each other and follow our interests to their full extent. A place where people are the happiest. I think that the biggest real problem overtaking our civilization as a whole is just how fucking massive it is. There are too many people for everyone to individually care about anyone else. There are too many people for our scarce resources to be split amongst, and there are too many people that are forced to be at the bottom because there has to be people at the top.
We need to stop claiming that atheism is necessarily the belief that there is no god. It is simply a lack of belief in god. Some atheists go further in claiming that there is no god, but this is not necessarily implied by the term atheist.
I'd just like to point out that we atheists don't "believe there is no god", we simply don't see any evidence for any. So, we are not attesting that there isn't one or even multiples for that matter. Should evidence arise we would be open to it. Agnosticism is more like a guy that's been going to church and he's on the fence about it.
I have come to a conclusion. It doesnt matter at all, not at all, Just live your life the way you want because whether this life is an ilusion or not. This is the life we LIVE NOW, so there is no bigger point of trying to find an answer to our life. Simple, yet it took almost a decade for me.
Science may not be able to answer the many questions that religions have answered, but science time and time again finds evidence that refutse the answers that religions give.
A note on atheism - most of them do not claim to know that god doesn't exist (the 4 men pictured in the video certainly don't). They simply reject the claim that god exists on account of insufficient evidence, which is not the same. The burden of proof lies always on the one making the claim. For example, if I claimed I make the best pancakes in the world, but never allowed anyone to taste them, anyone would be fully justified from a logical standpoint to reject my claim without having to lift a finger to disprove it, as I have not offered any evidence to begin with.
1. There is always a god, we call it reality 2. Free will? What is freedom if not an illusion? We just react to thoughts and processes 3. The only meaning you have is the one you created yourself 4. Our intentions create a sense of good and evil. There will be good things and bad things to do about something that you want 5. If life = existence, then anything that isn't life does not exist
No there isn’t a god in your comment as you say. Saying simply that “god is reality” is the most delusional smug thing that anyone can say as that’s simply not true. That’s just the false conclusion that you want to accept as you mix up terms. Imagine calling yourself the thinker and not thinking about this to portray yourself as the biggest fool out here.
@@subject_x5276 god is not reality even within a metaphorical meaning because at that point words have become meaningless when you use them that uselessly.
The oldest religion, about 5000 years old is Hinduism which is a philosophy and way of life. It is very difficult to delve into because of the esoteric writings in Sanskrit. It is further complicated by not having these concepts in modern languages. The Vedas and Upanishads are a treasure house which explain Karma and Reincarnation. Buddhism was a derivative of Hinduism.
I don't know if I've heard that anywhere but I think I came to the conclusion that there is no good and evil or right and wrong. The only reason we have created those concepts is that we wouldn't like the "evil" thing to happen to us. Are animals who hunt for fun evil? Orcas for example hunt penguins and seals mainly for fun. In my opinion, it's only "bad" if we wouldn't like that to happen to us. If I for example murder someone but am prepared to get murdered, in my head it's not wrong. But then, what if you kill a lot of people and the only person who dies at price for them is you and you don't care about people in your life that could die as a result of your actions? And how do you know if you are being good? Don't you have to know what being bad is like? A truly good person must have been truly bad to know how and what is good. So are they born evil/bad if they can change it? I think a better word is irresponsible if we do have the mental capacity to not do "bad" things or just weakness. But then irresponsibility goes against the "free will" talk because we are supposed to have been wired to do that. I could write more but I need to sleep and am not very hyped to waste 2 hours to type something no one is going to read so, bye.
Good thinking, my definition is, or as close as I can get to it is there is no objective good bad righteous or evil, and what people usually mean when they talk about these concepts is benefit and lack of benefit/harm. Example: something good happened to person A/ in other words something beneficial, in opposite something bad happened to person A so something harmful or that resulted in loss of benefit, it is the difference between an executioner that "righteously" kills heaps of people compared to the "evil" serial killer who does the same, the action of killing itself isn't evil but is artificially assigned that status if it harms takes away benefit of a group or individual. It is harmful for the government that proclaims to be able to keep it's innocent citizens safe that someone is killing innocents and it is harmful to the individuals getting killed or the families of the victims, so no matter how you look at it for anyone but the perpetrator there is no benefit so we call it evil. While the executioner that also does the same act of killing, kills a person like a serial killer does something just or righteous since preventing the loss of benefit is beneficial in itself.
#1 Yes God exists. #2 No there isn't free will; there's free choice. #3 We are here to fufil our purpose & because our mother's & father's/ sperm donors brought us into this world. #4 Good & evil are like protons & electrons. You need protons to create but not always electrons (depending on what is to be created). #5 I hope there is an afterlife, specifically heaven.
Very few Atheist claim there is no god. The overwhelming majority of Athiests simply claim, when confronted with theism, "I dont believe that because I dont believe your argument."
1) Yes, as a concept, not as a defineable, measurable being. Holy books are terrible both as literature and moral guides. 2) No. Causality is infinite. Everything we can test shows causality. Everything that can happen, does happen, and that's one ongoing thing - change itself. 3) "Why" only exists within the human concept. External questions are actually "how?" The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. 4) Good and evil are relative to intent just as good and bad are relative to desired effects. It's a shortcoming of language that the word "good" is used in both contexts. All of that depends on desired results. 5) When life ends, you end, by definition. If there's anything after life it's not life.
1. Very probably not. The reason this is the case is that we can find absolutely no _concrete_ evidence for any god to exist, but we don't know for sure. 2. Many physics theories involving the fourth dimension say no. In the 'all of reality' perspective, _probably_ not. 3. We are here because of evolution, which arose from the inception of life. We don't know exactly where it came from. It could have come from Earth, of it could have been panspermia, the latter is becoming more and more backed up with evidence, though since we are on Earth, there is also a lot of evidence it came from here. 4. Good and evil is subjective, and imprinted in our minds through experience. Personally, I just think 'good' is what makes someone feel 'good' and 'evil' is what makes someone feel 'bad'. Like I said, subjective. 5. We have no idea. Quantum physics? Give us about 10^^6 years and the universe *_MAY_* be recreated.
All of these I can logically answer with a no, here is why: Is there god? No. not at least in the way depicted by any religion and if there is such a critter it is beyond human comprehension so god is an inappropriate title/ Also regardless of existences like gods being real or not I still denounce them unconditionally Is there free will? No. if life truly is a set of interactions from a sett starting point then every action and reaction and consequently all of existence is predetermined so free will does not exist objectively, however since this question even exists we can conclude that it does exist subjectively as an illusion of free will which is what ultimately matters to us shallow existences, as long as you think you can choose what to do it doesn't actually matter if you can or not all that matters is that you think you do and experience the same reactions as if you truly could. there is a very small probability however that consciousness throws this cycle off, once we learn how brains work we will be certain weather conscious thought brings probability and so true objective free will to the predetermined model Is there reason to existence; why are we here? No. We are an accident, that simple, we could choose to assign ourselves purpose but I doubt it can ever be objective and all inclusive, one could argue that the goal or purpose of life is to prolong life or avoid death of either the individual, group or even life itself, however it is not truly a goal nor purpose, not really, it seems that way only because that's a condition for life to even evolve to the point of consciousness, so a more accurate way to call it is a trend / in other words it just so happened to be this way, it is certainly not fixed since once we have consciousness we can actively stray from this trend if we desire What is good and evil? No. Hate to break it to you but good and evil just don't exist objectively, what you experience as good and evil you were preconditioned to experience as such by genetics and very subjective, learned concepts such as morality, even a most evil sounding concept to us may be the peak of what is considered good in a different culture (if it was for example a culture not of humans but other sentient or conscious life) from ours and vice versa there exist similar concepts such as good and bad types of actions towards accomplishing a certain goal and what we usually mistake good and evil for benefit and lack of benefit/harm Is there afterlife? No. Not much to say here, it's a concept made up by humans who wish to live longer or even more likely live in a better place, combined with the question of where do we go when we die, a misconception that we indeed go anywhere, over time it got perverted into the concept of hell as the antithesis or Buddhistic reincarnation cycle which is supposed to be bad and broken off consciously/intentionally. Unlike then, If we care about living in a better world today I suppose it would be quite a bit more productive to stop daydreaming of escapist fantasies and put in effort in bettering the life we already have rather than hoping for a miracle that may or more likely will never come. This was a good test to see how practical my philosophy was as I could quite easily answer the questions, one could argue that these answers are not satisfactory to all as stated in the title but I frankly do not care about comfort when I can have truth, comfort can come later if needed, but built on lies, false truths and lack of knowledge it is merely ignorance. Anyway, good video.
Question 2. Some studies similar to the one mentioned point to the impetous for the thoughts and decisions coming from somewhere the machines can't see. That is to say, the machines can see the functioning of the meat computer inside our skulls, but the spark for the decision impulses comes from an unseen place. Could this be the soul or input from the simulation.
Here are my answers that I do actually find satisfaction in, I urge you all to do the same to see what people think btw. The first philosophers didn't have universities afterall so you're basically at least on equal grounds with them so why not? 1) Factually unknowable and unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant 2) Factually unknowable and unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant, but also not affecting us anyways and so even more irrelevant 3) That's assuming that there has to be a meaning, but causality-wise, we are here because you were born from your mother, and her from her mother, down the chain of evolution to the first, most basic form of self replicating life, which only formed due to a chemical reaction creating a self replicating and sustaining system. Causality-wise we exist because life exists and life exist because of chemistry, and chemistry exists because the universe exists, so if our existence has meaning, it must be due to, and contained within, the meaning of the universe. if there is no "creator of the universe" or "cosmic truth" then the universe exists simply because it does, and so we exist simply because we exist since something being a reason for itself doesn't have any smaller element contained within it, existence being the reason for itself just like how happines is a reason for itself, but it is impossible to falsify this claim as the status of a creator or cosmic truth is unknown. If there is a creator, and they created the universe for a reason, or reality has a cosmic reason about it, our meaning is contained within that reason, but the ability to reject said reason shouldn't be off the table. And so long as we don't have communication to said creators, there are two unknowable possibilities. If they don't exist, in which case there either exists a cosmic truth or not, since the entire combined conciousness of all rational beings is contained within said cosmic truth, it should be impossible to fully grasp, otherwise there is no cosmic truth, in which case there is no meaning at all, so it doesn't matter if said truth exists because either way the meaning of life is undefinable or simply doesn't exist and both claims and any claims under those claims are unfalsifiable since something being either incomprehensible or nonexistent means it is impossible to find it no matter its actual status. If there ARE creators though, with comprehensible reasons, then we have a choice to either reject or accept their reason, but so long as communication with them isn't available it is impossible to identify what that reason is or falsify any claim for it, and so, it ends up ultimately being factually unknowable and unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant. 4) Good and evil is a question of morality, and morality is simply a construct of the mind, what the mind says is good, is good when concerned with that mind and since there are many minds with dissenting opinions, the only way for something to objectively be good or evil is for a bigger authority to forcibly make it so that all minds believe something is good or bad, in which case, since the moral will of the non-authority is imposed upon and uncontested by the moral will of the authority, the non-authority simply lose their moral will due to not having any moral response other than what the authority tells them, the only moral will in existance is the authority and so what the authority says is good, is good. Otherwise, so long as there is even a single mind that can contest a claim of good or evil, both concepts are strictly subjective, and so, as long as every single moral intelligence isn't in agreement, it is factually unknowable and unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant. I also want to add that nature isn't trees, it isn't wildlife, it's practically anything and everything, we as humans can't go against nature as we are contained within it, nature is space and supernovae and can devestate us if chances were to not be on our side. What we do, we do to our planet, not to nature. Our brains evolved to the current intellect simply because evolution led us to intellect, and after that, behavioral evolution is what drove us to build cities and armies. Black holes slowly swallows their surroundings, suns kill their solar systems, the universe at one point kills itself, and intelligent species harm their planet, nature isn't constrained to humanity in its supposed self harm if harm is how you see said events. Whatever that has happened, is happening, or will happen is all nature and it has no implication towards morality. 5) Factually unknowable and unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant
1) Concerning usable and sufficiently precise definitions of god, it is well knowable, and concerning the Most Common Theist notions, the answer is simply: No. 2) wrong again of you to say, that one cannot know it, Rendering it irrelevant. One can know it without the slightest doubt and the answer is: No, because Impossible. 3) you are heading in the right direction, but again, the Question has a definite answer, which is: for nothing If concerned Independent of lifes perspective. Concerned by this perspective, it would be for Happiness, or what could be hinted at by the Words 'unfold and experience '. 4) you are wrong in saying, that for objective goodness to exist, a authority would need to force it. A authority never Sets anything above the social interaction. It is dependent on what is called objective grounds, but which is Always confused to be something somewhere away from anyone. Objective simply means Not essentially dependent on the percieving subject. Not to be Independent of a subject at all, for Truth is never subjective, but never Not thought about by anyone. Good simply is the property of practical non-contradiction, and Bad its opposite, namely contradiction. No authority IS needed, Nor allowed to even mingle with simple rationality. Good and Evil are Matters of practical reason/Logic. 5) Again, although Not wrong by saying, that it cannot be observed, it is wrong to Claim, that it can therefore Not be known. Depending on the Nature of Things, the Question is answered accordingly. The answer is: for the particular No. As only particular Things live, there is No Afterlife at all, Not taking into Account the mere Impossiblity to live after/while Death, by Definition. I Hope i could illucidate Something of use and Truth.
Question 1: No Question 2: No Question 3: depending on which why. If why so: because it is simply necessary so by the Chain of causation. If why for: for nothing. If concerned by the perspective of us living: to be happy and unfold. Question 4: Bad is, what is practicaly contradictory, and good is, what is Not that. Question 5: as much, as there is a beforelive. So for the particular: No. Whats the fuzz about These Questions?
A building is just as natural as an anthill. Both made by naturally made organisms rearranging existing matter in some way, to say that it doesn't count with humans for one reason or another, it's merely arbitrary in nature and it's distinction is futile.
1) gods were invented to explain natural phenomenons, now we have science 2) freewill is clearly an illusion, but forget about this if you want to live a good life 3) the word "why" has 2 meanings, if you mean why are we here in the sense, what has lead to us, then the answer is evolution, if you mean "what for", the answer is survival, reproduction and any other goals you please to give to yourself 4) there is no absolute good or bad, because there is no god to judge objectively, you can nevertheless ask yourself if your actions are good, listen to your instinct 5) afterlife is a myth to ease the fear of death and the pain to see others die
every question we ask truly has no answer because WE CANNOT BE SURE OF ANYTHING I CANNOT BE SURE I EXIST BECAUSE IM NOT SURE THE LAW OF NON CONTRADICTION APPLIES IN EVERY POSSIBLE CASE
1. Does god exists? No, because there is zero reason or independently verifiable (testable) evidence to indicate that magic is real. 2. Do we have free will? Yes, because there is no fate. Why else would you look both ways before crossing the street? 3. Why are we here? We exist as a natural consequence of the laws of physics. 4. What are Good and Evil? Good is the voluntary interaction of people, while evil is the violation of consent. 5. Is there an after life? No. See answer #1.
On your second point: looking both ways before crossing the street doesn't prove there is such a thing as free will. And even if there is no such thing as fate, and our actions are to some extent random, that still doesn't prove we can consciously choose
1. Your statement is supposition. This is like claiming we know black holes don't exist before the 20th century. So all you can really say is that god probably does not exist. You cannot give any certainty. 2. Looking both ways across the street does not prove we have free will. As to why you came to this action is determined by past events, which are determined by outside forces beyond your control. However, if the multiverse theory is correct then you probably have free will. The certain the chain of events that led you to comment on this video were not by your own fruition. They were influenced by past events which you experienced, but maybe had very little control over. 3. The laws of physics explain how things work not what they are. What unforeseen events could have led to the creation of the physical universe that might have been are reason for are existence. 5. Even if there was no god that doesn't mean there's no after life. This is another one of your baseless assumptions. The fact is we have never seen nothing. We cannot be sure if nothing even exists so it's foolish to dismiss the possibility that a something after as opposed to nothing might exist after death.
I got a chuckle when the narrator puts the burden of proof on the atheists, instead of on the believers. Believers... not Provers. If I claimed there was an invisible pink unicorn, you can bet I'd be expected to provide proof.
*Nothing happens by chance.* Suppose an inexperienced child goes in front of the airport door, due to the sensors and a well designed mechanism, the doors open on its own. The child may conclude, due to his lack of knowledge, that it just happened somehow, or automatically, or by chance. He cannot appreciate the intelligence behind the mechanism, but he concludes that these things happen on its own without a person controlling it or designing it. Similarly, when we see the beautiful universe and it's unimaginable working complexity, we do not see an intelligent being, so we conclude everything was created by chance or big bang happened by chance. Due to lack of knowledge we do not appreciate the intelligence behind the creation. It's not very difficult to understand that a creation must imply a creator.
So: 1- You don't know if he exists, nobody does. 2- Yes, we have free will, because people can decide if we have free will therefore they would need free will themselves to do so. 3- Why not? If we were in different place we would ask the same thing. 4- Good and evil is subjective. They are controlled by emotional part of thinking. 5- You don't know if there is afterlife, nobody does. There you go Btw.: the video is cool, you're very intelligent dude.
Does God exists? The really question is do you exist? Did you make yourself? Do you make your heart beat; make you breath when you sleep; fight infections 24/7; etc? Definitely God exists! No doubt. And God is one and OnLY ONE. Free will, yes! Definitely. When you take a test you have choices. Life is a test and you have choices. Make the right one. Think! Think about yourself and think about the Great Creator, God!!! Why are we here? Simple, we are here to worship God and pass this test! Good and evil? This is defined by God by the great books (original versions of Bible) and Quran (still in original language). Good is from God with an extra “o”. Evil is evil! Afterlife? Definitely, there is an afterlife. Energy can neither be destroyed nor created; only transferred. Absolutely! In the Quran when the person dies the spirit goes to a world called the Barzakh-a sort of different dimension. Please think and think more. Read the Quran and the life of the prophet Mohammad pbuh. God bless! Islam is peace and submission to the will of God. This is the way of life for all humans. All are welcome. It’s simple and very logical. Just look into it. You won’t regret it.
The belief in the existence of God is a deeply personal and subjective matter, influenced by a multitude of cultural, social, and psychological factors. The question of God's existence goes beyond the realm of empirical evidence and delves into the realms of faith, spirituality, and individual conviction. These factors may shape an individual's beliefs about God's existence, they do not provide definitive proof or disproof of God's existence. The question of God's existence ultimately lies beyond the scope of scientific inquiry and empirical evidence. It resides in the realm of faith, spirituality, and personal conviction, where individuals draw upon their own experiences, introspection, and philosophical contemplation to form their beliefs. Whether there is a god or isn't, the pursuit of knowledge and understanding remains an essential part of our human experience. It is through questioning, exploring, and seeking answers that we expand our horizons and evolve as individuals and as a society. Regardless of one's beliefs or lack thereof, the journey of discovery is a testament to the power of human curiosity and the limitless potential of our minds.
Agnostic isn’t the middle point between atheist and theist. You could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You could be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist. Theism or atheism is just to do with what you believe based on your reasoning or evidence. Gnosticism refers to what you know and don’t know. For example, I can say I know my mind exists and I believe yours does.
What would happen if my parents had made out sooner or later than they did that led to my birth? Would I still be born? Is the difference between me and my younger or elder sibling just the fact that she has different spatio-temporal coordinates? Had my parents never met, would I come into being at all?
You most definitely would not have been born if anything other than that perfect chain of events happened to happen. It's quite funny how something so unlikely as you being born can actually happen. The odds are so low that it seems impossible but yet here you are. That is also why i believe animals on earth are the only intelligent life in the universe - we think that because we are here is must be possible but only because we were than one in a gazillion chance did we get the opportunity to question those odds
Let me tell you the answer to each of them. All of these are compatible with each other. Whether you're satisfied by them depends on whether you recognise truth. 1) God exists as a concept. The concept of god is not measurable and is therefore indistinguishable from fiction. Things are more or less real depending on how distinct they are, which means measurability, in particular replicable measurability. That is an attribute that the concept of god does not have so the concept is not real except as a concept. Igtheism is the idea that even the concept of god is so ineffable/indistinct/fuzzy that it's impossible to talk about plainly. Holy books are far from great either as literature or as a moral compass. Miracles have never occurred in a measurable way so they are also indistinguishable from fiction. Anecdote is the lowest form of evidence. The "god of the gaps" idea shows that science constantly explains away things people previously thought were done by a god or spirit. This means that religion is constantly receding. Science will eventually wipe it out. 2) Free will, like god, is real as a concept. But also like god constantly recedes as science shows how more and more things work. If there is any non-causal thing in the universe (not governed by the laws of physics and the state of things immediately before) then everything must be arbitrary because the thing not subject to causality could affect anything else at random. Causality must be absolute if it exists at all and as far as we can tell, cause and effect rule everything. In other words, there is no sense in which you are free. Even if you were somehow free to make decisions, would you be free to choose in advance whether you would notice the ice cream stand or the girl walking next to it? Clearly those options lead your mind in different directions. Are you free to avoid hearing your mother's voice in your head when you're doing wrong? Are you free to be the sort of person who only wants what's best for you? There is no sense in which we are free. But because we have the real experience (all experiences are real, even if they're not of something else real) of freedom, and because the alternative is anarchy, we should act ethically in the world as if that were true except in cases where we can show how it is not. Even if a criminal didn't choose to become that way, we still can't let them run around stealing. As for the Muslim concept, if you are limited to certain choices then you will end up in one of several predetermined outcomes no matter which you choose. Just like letting someone else choose the candidates you can vote for, that's not really a free choice. If you're presented with two evils, are you "free" to not choose evil? Freedom is an illusion. We must always choose between the options before us and only the ones we happen to notice. If we live in a simulation, just like the idea of god, there's no way we can access that transcendent thing in order to measure it, so we cannot consider it real, even if it is. Besides being just the story we tell ourselves about what our subconscious already did, Brownian motion (apparently random activity at the micro scale) disproves free will because there is no mechanism by when you can be in control of that activity. The way your neurons fire is dependent upon the strength of each connection but also by that and other apparently random inputs, at every scale. They can be effected by what you had for breakfast or by sun spot activity (but not by the relation of the planets when you were born, which is many orders of magnitude less of an effect than the other things mentioned here). There is a useful concept called "free won't" which is that when you do happen to be paying attention you can override what your subconscious is About to do instead of explaining it to yourself afterward. Even though any version of freedom is not actually free, the more the idea matches up with your experience, the more useful it is and "free won't" at least gives us a way to Apparently gain control of our decisions. The real problem is how to be paying attention all the time (also called mindfulness (wrongfully, it's really embodiment)). 3) There are many different ways to answer why questions because there are many layers of understanding of causality. The meaning of life on an individual scale is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. The answer on a human scale is the same - whatever we collectively choose for it to be. As for external whys, the universe doesn't care whether we exist or not. The only explanations beyond our desires are how questions, not why questions. Our lives certainly are absurd and the universe really is indifferent to any meaning we try to impose upon it, but we don't impose meaning on the universe, we impose it mostly on ourselves and when we do impose it on the universe, the universe is perfectly fine with that. Meaning is whatever we say it is because meaning is a human concept. If you want to be nihilistic, the evidence supports you. If you want to see that a flower is beautiful and only love is worth living for, the evidence supports that also. It is specifically because the universe doesn't care that we get to make it whatever we want it to be. As long as it's compatible with how the universe actually is, it will work to head us in the direction we desire. That direction changes as we get new information so it's a constantly adjusting thing - meaning. Daoism is incoherent. "Embracing the journey itself" is no different than any other meaning of life. If it works for you, use it. Or as the Dali Lama says, "If it doesn't work for you, forget it." But the more specific you can make your goals, the more actionable they are and therefore the more likely you are to be able to reach them, or at the very least feel good about trying. When daoism says "go with the flow of nature" (The Way), it is a meaningless statement. nature produced the kind of species that produced other things we call technology. Everything is natural. If they meant something else it could be a coherent thought but Daoism simply isn't coherent. 4) Good and evil are very simple to define. Good is intending to make things better, evil is intending to make things worse. (Good/bad, on the other hand, is all about effects rather than intents.) Whether you agree that something is good or evil depends on whether you think the intent will lead to things being better or worse. There is no agreed definition of these things to the extent there is no agreement on what a better or worse world is, especially since people have different perspectives, experience, and information. Happiness and misery are in no sense the same as virtue and vice. You can be a perfectly virtuous person in a state of misery, for example if you are unable to practice your virtues. Happiness and misery are effects. Virtue and vice are intents. 5) The definition of life is that which ends at death, so if there's something else going on afterward, either you're not dead or it's something besides life. We are the apparent continuity of our experience. When our experience ends, we end. To others we are their apparent continuity of their experience of us. When that continuity ends, we end to them. That is what death is, the end of life. There can be no life after death by definition. If there is continuity of experience beyond what seems to others to be our death, that is another transcendent experience which we cannot measure and like free will and god, cannot therefore be considered real Except as an experience. Even if someone is experiencing life after death, either they're dead to everyone else so it doesn't matter to anyone else, or they're not really dead at all. There are infinite things which cannot be tested by science. We call those things fiction until they can be, then we call them real. They're more or less useful according to how specific they are.There are plenty of useful fictions (like math) but they're only useful if they can be used to produce positive effects, not just because they offer an explanation for something that we can't explain in any measurable way. If you want more answers, contact me.
The first question, the existence of god is something we can feel, and only people who believe in god can feel it, is it hard to explain how to feel the existence of god, just as it is to explain black to a blind man, and he never sees anything
A lack of belief in gods (which is what a-theism strictly speakiing is) is not the same as saying there is no god. Therefore I don't agree with your statement: "atheists say god doesn't exist". The four atheists you show directly afterwards have way more nuanced views than you portray them to have. Richard Dawkins for example has put forward the spectrum of theistic probability: in which a "1" is equal to strong theism (100% convinced there is a god) and "7" is equal to strong atheism (100% convinced there is no god). Even Dawkins himself has pointed out he's not a 7, but the one who is making a positive claim ("There is a god") has the burden of proof if he wants others to be convinced of this as well. Also, and perhaps even more importantly, you should first define what you mean by god before you can even answer the question if you are convinced it exists.
Q2. is no longer a question for me as a Muslim, thanks to one book, that destroyed my world and freed me at the same time. Unfortunately it's not available anymore. I guess the author was "deactivated"
Well, here's a tough one: can you be "twice a jerk" because you _correctly_ predicted someone would do something wrong? To give you context, l have a cousin who has a learning disability that often limits and delays his general understanding, processing, and visual/motor skills. Well, the science fair was coming up, and I didn't want him to do badly, so I was going to recommend he do the paper towel experiment, but his friends told me I shouldn't. How my cousin had a project in mind he really wanted to do. How I should let him do what he wants. But the thing is, I wanted him to do something simple so he wouldn't risk messing up and getting a bad grade. After all, he may be a hard worker, but he is a slow learner. He even has to depend on others to help set up the chemistry equipment we all can do individually. It's really not hard, but you know...his hand-eye coordination issues. As far as I'm concerned, it's better for him to stick with whatever is easy and simple, given his learning disability. That's why I _hope_ he doesn't choose to go to college; I'd much rather he just get a job at a store or something. It's safe there. Anyway, I told his pals that I didn't think it was a good idea for him to do a science project without any pointers or guidance from me whatsoever. That I doubted he would successfully use the scientific method and get a good grade. They lectured me on, quote them, _"underestimating the boy who is full of potential."_ That's just it---I was right and they were wrong. In the end, my cousin got a bad grade, not only because he was incorrect about some things regarding scientific nature, but because he misunderstood the scientific method. I said to his friends, _"See? He didn't do so hot, now did he? I told you this would happen if he didn't get any tips from me. It would've been a lot easier if he'd just done the classic paper towel experiment. Safe and simple. But because you insisted I leave him alone entirely, he got a bad grade, as I predicted. Who's right now?"_ They told me that while my prediction was right, it didn't make _me_ right. That my prediction coming true just makes me twice a jerk. I don't get it. I'm "twice a jerk" just because my prediction came true? I'm the one to blame because what I anticipated would happen...happened? It's not my fault my cousin did exactly what I thought he would. It's not my fault he has a learning disability. My friends said that they may have been wrong when they predicted he would do well, but that they were still right because they believed in him. Well, they can lecture me on not believing in him, but they can't lecture me for _how_ he did._ I expected this to happen, and it did, and now I'm the bad guy here? But for what? For being right about my prediction?? Someone clarify his friends' philosophy. I'm wrong and twice a jerk while still being right because...?
About 5th question. It can't be proved, of course, but in my opinion our life is too short in comparison to all universe and other important matters...
How do you define nature?. Arent all life forms manifested by basic particles and atoms and together inducing chemical reactions part of nature? Doesn't our brain that is practically composed of the same molecules present around us and driven by chemical reactions part of nature? So how does the results of thinking such as invention of machines which are also composed of the same matters surrounding us isnt natural? And so isn't change, devopment, evolution and sophistication of living part of nature?
That's the whole issue we have a remarkable ability of questioning It's our mind's way of thinking even if the answer poured in front of us somehow our mind will doubt and decide that it is logical to ask, but who can tell the mind its absurd We don't live for thousands years, instead kiss your mom and tell her you love her isn't that the ecstasy and satisfaction in its finest level (amazingly this was actually adviced by Quran that certain things should not be questioned)
WHY ARE WE HERE?? The truth is plain, we are here cause we once failed and we were sent here as prisoner to be punished for our trespasses,it is like a life sentence on earth,if the punishment is over each one goes back home where we from,back to our creator!
I would like to discuss about some of the philosophical theories with other listeners of that channel. Any interesting questions? Don't joke please, thank you.
Concept of god exist. Therefore theists and atheists follow it in their own way and that concept affects to human progression. Free will. Hmm..Maybe the developed skill of reasoning is one way to "free" ourselfs from daily problems. Of course it must be learned first. Maybe as parts of this universe, we could ask, that does our environment, our universe, have free will when everything including the thought of free will, is from the universe? Maybe the meaning of life is the life itself. Every transient event of life creates its "individual" meaning. From birth to death, we affect to our environment and it affects to us. Good/Evil. Different sides of the same coin. Both define each other. Our way of thinking might be hell and heaven. We can see things as ugly or beautiful. ...just thoughts. A point of view. Maybe all religions, philosophies and science look the same point, but from different angles. Maybe all parts serve the same "big picture".
Atheists simply reject the God claim. An atheist is not necessarily someone who says, "there is no god." There are theists (those who are convinced that a God exists), and there are atheists (those who are not convinced that a God exists). Agnosticism/gnosticism are both claims of knowledge, not belief (although belief is a subset of knowledge). Atheism/theism are questions of what you believe and agnosticism/gnosticism are claims of what you know to be true. Agnosticism is not a position one can hold on it's own as that would mean one is both convinced and not convinced at the same time. You can be an agnostic atheist/theist or even a gnostic athiest/theist, but no one is a true agnostic. I couldn't watch the video anymore after I heard him break down the subsets of religious belief that way.
Religious beliefs are human, all too human. Further the Bible is not very complex overall, so I doubt you’ll convince anyone by saying that the Bible is “too complex” to be made by humans. Also most abrahamic religions are based of the philosophy of Zarathustra so I would not call it to complex for humans to create.
warning :I have proved all given answers experimentally. 1)God exist. 2)we are not free to do. 3)You are here for nothing 4)Nothing is evil or good 5)You were ,are or will be in life never. For experiment you can askme
Good morning, I hope you don’t mind my asking - your content is specifically developed for men - do you object if I subscribe to it? I studied and continue to study philosophy and a lot of advice you post is just really great & helpful. I just wanted to make sure it’s not offensive to you in any way if I use it. Thank you so much,
What is a God? And 'holly' scriptures are anything but sophisticated but rather crude and self-contradictory, just what we would expect from the era in which they were written
I have to disagree with the definitions here. atheism is just without god or not god. so it is not a religion within itself. Anti-theism would be making the claim of "there is no god". now if you wanna call that a religion, i wouldnt really care although i would say the absence of evidence could be the evidence of absence. also i dont think " not believing in fairies" is a religion or "there is no santa claus" a religion as well.
I know nobody asked me but eveything that is "proven by science" does not make it right or by any means an absolute fact... I mean science is based on human perception and logic and we as humas are limted in our being. So what we perceive is not absolute. Of course you can argue that we as human beings only need knowledge that is appealing to a human mind but if so we should not act as if our kowledge is absolute. And our limited human relativ knowledge is always changing. I mean in the past people thought what they knew was right, was a fact but now with time we see things differntly. To be honest i am not impressed by human knowledge but I accept it because we need some kind of basis for our thinking that is and always will be limted and actually wrong in the sense of not being really right.
"Whatever floats your boat." There! All of these questions answered in one tidy little aphorism.
Once again, people want satisfaction rather than truth
Or sinks it...
@@shorx9199 and what is truth?
@@shorx9199
What if the truth is satisfaction for them?
What if floating cause suffocation and redemption is in sinking?
That's the whole issue we have a remarkable ability of questioning
It's our mind's way of thinking even if the answer poured in front of us somehow our mind will doubt and decide that it is logical to ask, but who can tell the mind its absurd
We don't live for thousands years, instead kiss your mom (or remember her) and tell her you love her, isn't that the ecstasy and satisfaction in its finest level
(amazingly this was actually adviced by Quran that certain things should not be questioned)
It's good to show point of views of different religions. That is hard work and research , Thanks !
Truly.
While watching this. The things the I am immensely thankful for are the things that I didn’t work to achieve. These are my family, mountains, blue sky, sky with lots of stars, the sun, people who taught me something in life, beaches, white sand, my mistakes. Funny how most of us are so caught up in achieving something to be of worth. Oh life. Oh me
I discovered this channel a few days ago and I love it so much! Keep it up dude!
Thanks a lot, Jukes!
1:08 Okay no that's not what belief means. belief is to believe in the existence of something without any evidence. such as believing in a god. To not believe in something without evidence is lack of belief. Your argument is like saying I believe that goblins don't exist or some imaginary character anybody could come up with. So I have belief. Belief is an acceptance that something ''exists or is true'', especially one without proof.
"his belief in extraterrestrial life"
Atheists don't believe in gods existence because there is no proof. So they have a lack of belief. To believe in something is to believe in that things existence without any evidence. You can't believe that something doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence.
Also if there is some type of incomprehensible cosmic god, then believing in him should not matter. He exists regardless of if I believe in him or not it makes no difference. Unless you believe that it is a vengeful spiteful god like the bible, which would not be beyond are comprehension. It would be giving a cosmic god of infinite power and splendor human emotions. sort of silly.
With the claim you make in the last sentence of the 1st paragraph, I can not agree.
How can a belief be true if it has no proof?
However, I agree with your explanations of lack of belief.
It's kinda ironic that atheists believe that there's no god.
@@TheOpinionGuyy atheists DONT believe that there is no god. They say don’t believe there is a good due to lack of credible evidence towards the claim. You just don’t understand the meanings of the positions they hold. There is no “irony” here, you idiot.
@@TheOpinionGuyy Atheism ISN’T a “belief” you idiot. Image being that stupid to say so. There is no “irony” here, just your idiocy.
*Science beautifully explains us "how" something is designed and "how" something works, but, spirituality explains us "why".*
Example, we may see a car moving in a particular direction and then taking a turn and moving ahead. Science can explain how the car works, how the wheel rotates, how much force is applied, how the engine is running, etc, but science cannot tell us why the car is moving, why it is taking a turn. For that, we have to approach the person controlling the car.
Similarly, science explains the working of the universe with the help of forces and energy, but it leaves us mysterious about why the universe exists, why does it work in this way, for which we must approach the creator of the universe.
Dalia Lama said, Life needs no purpose. It is it's own purpose.
My life is plagued with these questions in limbo in my mind. Causes a lot of existential depression in my daily life.
It never gets better. But on the plus side, life goes by relatively quickly, before you know it you'll be dead and at that point you won't be plagued by anything anymore. In the meantime; find things that keep your mind busy. Sex, drugs, rock n roll tend to do the trick.
That's why I like Taoism. Listen to Alan Watts you'll feel better. There truely is nothing but this present moment. And you can't have light without darkness. One cannot entirely take over the other. Nothing is independent of its opposite.
@@Yamaazaka Acceptance is freedom.
Take a few tabs, meditate for 12 hours and search deep for your answers
@@josephgeorge9704 , do that in a graveyard if you want a real horror show.
You forgot perhaps the biggest question: is human life objectively a good thing? Is it a good thing that we exist on this planet? People don’t like to think about this one but it is definitely not proven. The implications of it being disproven are frightening, so I understand why it isn’t at the forefront of discussion
Well to answer that you'd need the answers to a lot of things. For one, what is good? What consequences of our being here, either destroying our ecosystem or improving all life on earth and potentially beyond, even matter? I believe that, reasonably, all we care about, being humans, is our own self-preservation which is derived from our instinct to live and thrive. Of course preserving other life on earth is a majority of humanity's goals (apart from people merely trying to survive), yet the ease and convenience of fossil fuels and less than pretty tactics from which we gain our energy and entertainment make it a delicate balance.
Still though, the question of if our being here is a "good thing" relies on your definition of what consequences and to whom qualify as "good or bad". Personally, I think that as we are really just brought here against our will, that living a fulfilling life without regrets is perfectly ok, and the destruction of humanity should either be stopped as much and as soon as possible, or should happen so fast that more people won't have to suffer through scarce resources and pointless sad efforts to merely survive.
Morality is entirely objective, as is the nature of our existence and the universe itself. Regardless of what we do, the sun will destroy any traces of such unless we get off this planet within 3.5 billion years. Even if we end up colonizing the entire universe, get into wars and go extinct, really the only answer to that question can only be found within yourself.
We just end up here and go along doing what everyone else does, if that's good, if that's bad, so be it. For me, I think one of the good things that result from our existence is the exploration of all the different interests we can pursue here. The worst outcome of our existence to me would be prolonging the suffering of our fellow humans to no benefit. To me, the best possible outcome would be one in which we can all understand each other and follow our interests to their full extent. A place where people are the happiest.
I think that the biggest real problem overtaking our civilization as a whole is just how fucking massive it is. There are too many people for everyone to individually care about anyone else. There are too many people for our scarce resources to be split amongst, and there are too many people that are forced to be at the bottom because there has to be people at the top.
Oh dear...
Yes, the title is 100% on spot - because these questions still exist pretty much only because people want satisfaction instead of truth.
pretty much😂😂😂
And what actually is ' truth'?
@@imkongao1610 truth is opposite of lie. just kidding
@@imkongao1610 Speaking about truth, is there anything that is absolutely true? That a truth that no argument is needed?
@@TheOpinionGuyy absolute truth exists
We need to stop claiming that atheism is necessarily the belief that there is no god. It is simply a lack of belief in god. Some atheists go further in claiming that there is no god, but this is not necessarily implied by the term atheist.
I'd just like to point out that we atheists don't "believe there is no god", we simply don't see any evidence for any. So, we are not attesting that there isn't one or even multiples for that matter. Should evidence arise we would be open to it. Agnosticism is more like a guy that's been going to church and he's on the fence about it.
I have come to a conclusion.
It doesnt matter at all, not at all, Just live your life the way you want because whether this life is an ilusion or not. This is the life we LIVE NOW, so there is no bigger point of trying to find an answer to our life.
Simple, yet it took almost a decade for me.
What if I want to live my life as a serial raper.
Science may not be able to answer the many questions that religions have answered, but science time and time again finds evidence that refutse the answers that religions give.
A note on atheism - most of them do not claim to know that god doesn't exist (the 4 men pictured in the video certainly don't). They simply reject the claim that god exists on account of insufficient evidence, which is not the same.
The burden of proof lies always on the one making the claim.
For example, if I claimed I make the best pancakes in the world, but never allowed anyone to taste them, anyone would be fully justified from a logical standpoint to reject my claim without having to lift a finger to disprove it, as I have not offered any evidence to begin with.
I have a question, you never taste the pancake but why you said it's the best pancake ever?
1. There is always a god, we call it reality
2. Free will? What is freedom if not an illusion? We just react to thoughts and processes
3. The only meaning you have is the one you created yourself
4. Our intentions create a sense of good and evil. There will be good things and bad things to do about something that you want
5. If life = existence, then anything that isn't life does not exist
No there isn’t a god in your comment as you say. Saying simply that “god is reality” is the most delusional smug thing that anyone can say as that’s simply not true. That’s just the false conclusion that you want to accept as you mix up terms.
Imagine calling yourself the thinker and not thinking about this to portray yourself as the biggest fool out here.
@@Gadget-Walkmen Metaphor, that was a metaphor
@@subject_x5276 I’m not using a “metaphor” I’m explains why your wrong in your first comment.
@@Gadget-Walkmen But that thing (god is reality) was a metaphor
@@subject_x5276 god is not reality even within a metaphorical meaning because at that point words have become meaningless when you use them that uselessly.
I have a good question. If there are 8 billion people, does that mean there are 8 billion birthdays or 365 birthdays?
Great video once again! :)
Thank you!
*What's the meaning of life?*
There is no meaning... That's all.
Easy question.
"The answer to that question in given by a person...who you can see in the mirror."
7
Have children.
Thats how mother nature designed us.
@@forthelulz5411 , so homosexuals have meaningless lives?
What's the meaning of truth is another question that entices our minds,
what is meaning.
The oldest religion, about 5000 years old is Hinduism which is a philosophy and way of life. It is very difficult to delve into because of the esoteric writings in Sanskrit. It is further complicated by not having these concepts in modern languages. The Vedas and Upanishads are a treasure house which explain Karma and Reincarnation. Buddhism was a derivative of Hinduism.
Western people are jealous
Such a neat work of content. I very much enjoyed it.
I don't know if I've heard that anywhere but I think I came to the conclusion that there is no good and evil or right and wrong.
The only reason we have created those concepts is that we wouldn't like the "evil" thing to happen to us. Are animals who hunt for fun evil? Orcas for example hunt penguins and seals mainly for fun.
In my opinion, it's only "bad" if we wouldn't like that to happen to us. If I for example murder someone but am prepared to get murdered, in my head it's not wrong. But then, what if you kill a lot of people and the only person who dies at price for them is you and you don't care about people in your life that could die as a result of your actions?
And how do you know if you are being good? Don't you have to know what being bad is like? A truly good person must have been truly bad to know how and what is good. So are they born evil/bad if they can change it?
I think a better word is irresponsible if we do have the mental capacity to not do "bad" things or just weakness. But then irresponsibility goes against the "free will" talk because we are supposed to have been wired to do that.
I could write more but I need to sleep and am not very hyped to waste 2 hours to type something no one is going to read so, bye.
Good thinking, my definition is, or as close as I can get to it is there is no objective good bad righteous or evil, and what people usually mean when they talk about these concepts is benefit and lack of benefit/harm. Example: something good happened to person A/ in other words something beneficial, in opposite something bad happened to person A so something harmful or that resulted in loss of benefit, it is the difference between an executioner that "righteously" kills heaps of people compared to the "evil" serial killer who does the same, the action of killing itself isn't evil but is artificially assigned that status if it harms takes away benefit of a group or individual. It is harmful for the government that proclaims to be able to keep it's innocent citizens safe that someone is killing innocents and it is harmful to the individuals getting killed or the families of the victims, so no matter how you look at it for anyone but the perpetrator there is no benefit so we call it evil. While the executioner that also does the same act of killing, kills a person like a serial killer does something just or righteous since preventing the loss of benefit is beneficial in itself.
@@nikolaristicii-9995 уер
This is some 3am thinking right here
@@rat7570 wow massive disrespect
That moment when I realized I was laying almost like Buddha in the video.
#1 Yes God exists. #2 No there isn't free will; there's free choice. #3 We are here to fufil our purpose & because our mother's & father's/ sperm donors brought us into this world. #4 Good & evil are like protons & electrons. You need protons to create but not always electrons (depending on what is to be created). #5 I hope there is an afterlife, specifically heaven.
science proving the limits of science, what can actually be proven and what cannot, would be the pinnacle of science
Very few Atheist claim there is no god. The overwhelming majority of Athiests simply claim, when confronted with theism, "I dont believe that because I dont believe your argument."
1) Yes, as a concept, not as a defineable, measurable being. Holy books are terrible both as literature and moral guides.
2) No. Causality is infinite. Everything we can test shows causality. Everything that can happen, does happen, and that's one ongoing thing - change itself.
3) "Why" only exists within the human concept. External questions are actually "how?" The meaning of life is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves.
4) Good and evil are relative to intent just as good and bad are relative to desired effects. It's a shortcoming of language that the word "good" is used in both contexts. All of that depends on desired results.
5) When life ends, you end, by definition. If there's anything after life it's not life.
1. Very probably not. The reason this is the case is that we can find absolutely no _concrete_ evidence for any god to exist, but we don't know for sure.
2. Many physics theories involving the fourth dimension say no. In the 'all of reality' perspective, _probably_ not.
3. We are here because of evolution, which arose from the inception of life. We don't know exactly where it came from. It could have come from Earth, of it could have been panspermia, the latter is becoming more and more backed up with evidence, though since we are on Earth, there is also a lot of evidence it came from here.
4. Good and evil is subjective, and imprinted in our minds through experience. Personally, I just think 'good' is what makes someone feel 'good' and 'evil' is what makes someone feel 'bad'. Like I said, subjective.
5. We have no idea. Quantum physics? Give us about 10^^6 years and the universe *_MAY_* be recreated.
Remember me when u get 1M subs
It's been 1 year and I remember you homie, gang gotta stick together😎
All of these I can logically answer with a no, here is why:
Is there god?
No. not at least in the way depicted by any religion and if there is such a critter it is beyond human comprehension so god is an inappropriate title/
Also regardless of existences like gods being real or not I still denounce them unconditionally
Is there free will?
No. if life truly is a set of interactions from a sett starting point then every action and reaction and consequently all of existence is predetermined so free will does not exist objectively, however since this question even exists we can conclude that it does exist subjectively as an illusion of free will which is what ultimately matters to us shallow existences, as long as you think you can choose what to do it doesn't actually matter if you can or not all that matters is that you think you do and experience the same reactions as if you truly could.
there is a very small probability however that consciousness throws this cycle off, once we learn how brains work we will be certain weather conscious thought brings probability and so true objective free will to the predetermined model
Is there reason to existence; why are we here?
No. We are an accident, that simple, we could choose to assign ourselves purpose but I doubt it can ever be objective and all inclusive, one could argue that the goal or purpose of life is to prolong life or avoid death of either the individual, group or even life itself, however it is not truly a goal nor purpose, not really, it seems that way only because that's a condition for life to even evolve to the point of consciousness, so a more accurate way to call it is a trend / in other words it just so happened to be this way, it is certainly not fixed since once we have consciousness we can actively stray from this trend if we desire
What is good and evil?
No. Hate to break it to you but good and evil just don't exist objectively, what you experience as good and evil you were preconditioned to experience as such by genetics and very subjective, learned concepts such as morality, even a most evil sounding concept to us may be the peak of what is considered good in a different culture (if it was for example a culture not of humans but other sentient or conscious life) from ours and vice versa there exist similar concepts such as good and bad types of actions towards accomplishing a certain goal and what we usually mistake good and evil for benefit and lack of benefit/harm
Is there afterlife?
No. Not much to say here, it's a concept made up by humans who wish to live longer or even more likely live in a better place, combined with the question of where do we go when we die, a misconception that we indeed go anywhere, over time it got perverted into the concept of hell as the antithesis or Buddhistic reincarnation cycle which is supposed to be bad and broken off consciously/intentionally. Unlike then, If we care about living in a better world today I suppose it would be quite a bit more productive to stop daydreaming of escapist fantasies and put in effort in bettering the life we already have rather than hoping for a miracle that may or more likely will never come.
This was a good test to see how practical my philosophy was as I could quite easily answer the questions, one could argue that these answers are not satisfactory to all as stated in the title but I frankly do not care about comfort when I can have truth, comfort can come later if needed, but built on lies, false truths and lack of knowledge it is merely ignorance.
Anyway, good video.
Question 2. Some studies similar to the one mentioned point to the impetous for the thoughts and decisions coming from somewhere the machines can't see. That is to say, the machines can see the functioning of the meat computer inside our skulls, but the spark for the decision impulses comes from an unseen place.
Could this be the soul or input from the simulation.
Here are my answers that I do actually find satisfaction in, I urge you all to do the same to see what people think btw. The first philosophers didn't have universities afterall so you're basically at least on equal grounds with them so why not?
1) Factually unknowable and unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant
2) Factually unknowable and unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant, but also not affecting us anyways and so even more irrelevant
3) That's assuming that there has to be a meaning, but causality-wise, we are here because you were born from your mother, and her from her mother, down the chain of evolution to the first, most basic form of self replicating life, which only formed due to a chemical reaction creating a self replicating and sustaining system. Causality-wise we exist because life exists and life exist because of chemistry, and chemistry exists because the universe exists, so if our existence has meaning, it must be due to, and contained within, the meaning of the universe. if there is no "creator of the universe" or "cosmic truth" then the universe exists simply because it does, and so we exist simply because we exist since something being a reason for itself doesn't have any smaller element contained within it, existence being the reason for itself just like how happines is a reason for itself, but it is impossible to falsify this claim as the status of a creator or cosmic truth is unknown. If there is a creator, and they created the universe for a reason, or reality has a cosmic reason about it, our meaning is contained within that reason, but the ability to reject said reason shouldn't be off the table. And so long as we don't have communication to said creators, there are two unknowable possibilities. If they don't exist, in which case there either exists a cosmic truth or not, since the entire combined conciousness of all rational beings is contained within said cosmic truth, it should be impossible to fully grasp, otherwise there is no cosmic truth, in which case there is no meaning at all, so it doesn't matter if said truth exists because either way the meaning of life is undefinable or simply doesn't exist and both claims and any claims under those claims are unfalsifiable since something being either incomprehensible or nonexistent means it is impossible to find it no matter its actual status. If there ARE creators though, with comprehensible reasons, then we have a choice to either reject or accept their reason, but so long as communication with them isn't available it is impossible to identify what that reason is or falsify any claim for it, and so, it ends up ultimately being factually unknowable and unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant.
4) Good and evil is a question of morality, and morality is simply a construct of the mind, what the mind says is good, is good when concerned with that mind and since there are many minds with dissenting opinions, the only way for something to objectively be good or evil is for a bigger authority to forcibly make it so that all minds believe something is good or bad, in which case, since the moral will of the non-authority is imposed upon and uncontested by the moral will of the authority, the non-authority simply lose their moral will due to not having any moral response other than what the authority tells them, the only moral will in existance is the authority and so what the authority says is good, is good. Otherwise, so long as there is even a single mind that can contest a claim of good or evil, both concepts are strictly subjective, and so, as long as every single moral intelligence isn't in agreement, it is factually unknowable and unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant.
I also want to add that nature isn't trees, it isn't wildlife, it's practically anything and everything, we as humans can't go against nature as we are contained within it, nature is space and supernovae and can devestate us if chances were to not be on our side. What we do, we do to our planet, not to nature. Our brains evolved to the current intellect simply because evolution led us to intellect, and after that, behavioral evolution is what drove us to build cities and armies. Black holes slowly swallows their surroundings, suns kill their solar systems, the universe at one point kills itself, and intelligent species harm their planet, nature isn't constrained to humanity in its supposed self harm if harm is how you see said events. Whatever that has happened, is happening, or will happen is all nature and it has no implication towards morality.
5) Factually unknowable and unfalsifiable and thus irrelevant
Wow🤔
1) Concerning usable and sufficiently precise definitions of god, it is well knowable, and concerning the Most Common Theist notions, the answer is simply: No.
2) wrong again of you to say, that one cannot know it, Rendering it irrelevant. One can know it without the slightest doubt and the answer is: No, because Impossible.
3) you are heading in the right direction, but again, the Question has a definite answer, which is: for nothing If concerned Independent of lifes perspective. Concerned by this perspective, it would be for Happiness, or what could be hinted at by the Words 'unfold and
experience '.
4) you are wrong in saying, that for objective goodness to exist, a authority would need to force it. A authority never Sets anything above the social interaction. It is dependent on what is called objective grounds, but which is Always confused to be something somewhere away from anyone. Objective simply means Not essentially dependent on the percieving subject. Not to be Independent of a subject at all, for Truth is never subjective, but never Not thought about by anyone.
Good simply is the property of practical non-contradiction, and Bad its opposite, namely contradiction. No authority IS needed, Nor allowed to even mingle with simple rationality. Good and Evil are Matters of practical reason/Logic.
5) Again, although Not wrong by saying, that it cannot be observed, it is wrong to Claim, that it can therefore Not be known. Depending on the Nature of Things, the Question is answered accordingly.
The answer is: for the particular No. As only particular Things live, there is No Afterlife at all, Not taking into Account the mere Impossiblity to live after/while Death, by Definition.
I Hope i could illucidate Something of use and Truth.
Question 1: No
Question 2: No
Question 3: depending on which why. If why so: because it is simply necessary so by the Chain of causation. If why for: for nothing. If concerned by the perspective of us living: to be happy and unfold.
Question 4: Bad is, what is practicaly contradictory, and good is, what is Not that.
Question 5: as much, as there is a beforelive. So for the particular: No.
Whats the fuzz about These Questions?
A building is just as natural as an anthill. Both made by naturally made organisms rearranging existing matter in some way, to say that it doesn't count with humans for one reason or another, it's merely arbitrary in nature and it's distinction is futile.
Can you do a video on the process or the science of deductive reasoning, and how fallable it might be?
He shouldn’t because based on this video alone he’s proven to be an absolute idiot.
1) gods were invented to explain natural phenomenons, now we have science
2) freewill is clearly an illusion, but forget about this if you want to live a good life
3) the word "why" has 2 meanings, if you mean why are we here in the sense, what has lead to us, then the answer is evolution, if you mean "what for", the answer is survival, reproduction and any other goals you please to give to yourself
4) there is no absolute good or bad, because there is no god to judge objectively, you can nevertheless ask yourself if your actions are good, listen to your instinct
5) afterlife is a myth to ease the fear of death and the pain to see others die
it's not beliefs but thoughts
Have you experience afterlife?
if you are dead, you don't experience anything by definition so "experiencing afterlife" has no meaning
Are you able to admit that you can be wrong on all of those? If you claim to be intellectually honest you would.
everybody can be wrong about anything bro, that's not very usefull to the discussion
every question we ask truly has no answer because WE CANNOT BE SURE OF ANYTHING I CANNOT BE SURE I EXIST BECAUSE IM NOT SURE THE LAW OF NON CONTRADICTION APPLIES IN EVERY POSSIBLE CASE
SO I CAN SIMULTANEOUSLY BE THINKING AND YET NOT EXIST THUS DESPROVING I THINK THEREFORE I AM
1:07 ever heard of the burden of truth??
other than that good video:-)
1. Does god exists?
No, because there is zero reason or independently verifiable (testable) evidence to indicate that magic is real.
2. Do we have free will?
Yes, because there is no fate. Why else would you look both ways before crossing the street?
3. Why are we here?
We exist as a natural consequence of the laws of physics.
4. What are Good and Evil?
Good is the voluntary interaction of people, while evil is the violation of consent.
5. Is there an after life?
No. See answer #1.
On your second point: looking both ways before crossing the street doesn't prove there is such a thing as free will. And even if there is no such thing as fate, and our actions are to some extent random, that still doesn't prove we can consciously choose
@@nick6269 Truth
You know that none of your points explain anything right?
@@michelhebert9832 Watch the AronRa videos for the explanations.
1. Your statement is supposition. This is like claiming we know black holes don't exist before the 20th century. So all you can really say is that god probably does not exist. You cannot give any certainty.
2. Looking both ways across the street does not prove we have free will. As to why you came to this action is determined by past events, which are determined by outside forces beyond your control. However, if the multiverse theory is correct then you probably have free will. The certain the chain of events that led you to comment on this video were not by your own fruition. They were influenced by past events which you experienced, but maybe had very little control over.
3. The laws of physics explain how things work not what they are. What unforeseen events could have led to the creation of the physical universe that might have been are reason for are existence.
5. Even if there was no god that doesn't mean there's no after life. This is another one of your baseless assumptions. The fact is we have never seen nothing. We cannot be sure if nothing even exists so it's foolish to dismiss the possibility that a something after as opposed to nothing might exist after death.
Interesting video, though I disagree with some of it. Does anyone know what the painting is at 7:02?
Please make a video on how to apply stoicism in everyday life.
I got a chuckle when the narrator puts the burden of proof on the atheists, instead of on the believers. Believers... not Provers. If I claimed there was an invisible pink unicorn, you can bet I'd be expected to provide proof.
Such good argument,,keep up🔆
I'm pretty convinced there is no man in the sky. However, I still wonder why we exist and why the big bang happened in the first place.
Zufall
*Nothing happens by chance.*
Suppose an inexperienced child goes in front of the airport door, due to the sensors and a well designed mechanism, the doors open on its own. The child may conclude, due to his lack of knowledge, that it just happened somehow, or automatically, or by chance. He cannot appreciate the intelligence behind the mechanism, but he concludes that these things happen on its own without a person controlling it or designing it.
Similarly, when we see the beautiful universe and it's unimaginable working complexity, we do not see an intelligent being, so we conclude everything was created by chance or big bang happened by chance. Due to lack of knowledge we do not appreciate the intelligence behind the creation.
It's not very difficult to understand that a creation must imply a creator.
🤔Calling the universe creation is dumb.
Universe is complex we don't understand it therefore god? Thats stupid reasoning.
So:
1- You don't know if he exists, nobody does.
2- Yes, we have free will, because people can decide if we have free will therefore they would need free will themselves to do so.
3- Why not? If we were in different place we would ask the same thing.
4- Good and evil is subjective. They are controlled by emotional part of thinking.
5- You don't know if there is afterlife, nobody does.
There you go
Btw.: the video is cool, you're very intelligent dude.
And #6 (not even close to "why are we here") Why did things or the universe or anything ever ceased to *exist*?
Does God exists? The really question is do you exist? Did you make yourself? Do you make your heart beat; make you breath when you sleep; fight infections 24/7; etc? Definitely God exists! No doubt. And God is one and OnLY ONE.
Free will, yes! Definitely. When you take a test you have choices. Life is a test and you have choices. Make the right one. Think! Think about yourself and think about the Great Creator, God!!!
Why are we here? Simple, we are here to worship God and pass this test!
Good and evil? This is defined by God by the great books (original versions of Bible) and Quran (still in original language). Good is from God with an extra “o”. Evil is evil!
Afterlife? Definitely, there is an afterlife. Energy can neither be destroyed nor created; only transferred. Absolutely! In the Quran when the person dies the spirit goes to a world called the Barzakh-a sort of different dimension.
Please think and think more. Read the Quran and the life of the prophet Mohammad pbuh.
God bless!
Islam is peace and submission to the will of God. This is the way of life for all humans. All are welcome. It’s simple and very logical. Just look into it. You won’t regret it.
The belief in the existence of God is a deeply personal and subjective matter, influenced by a multitude of cultural, social, and psychological factors. The question of God's existence goes beyond the realm of empirical evidence and delves into the realms of faith, spirituality, and individual conviction.
These factors may shape an individual's beliefs about God's existence, they do not provide definitive proof or disproof of God's existence. The question of God's existence ultimately lies beyond the scope of scientific inquiry and empirical evidence. It resides in the realm of faith, spirituality, and personal conviction, where individuals draw upon their own experiences, introspection, and philosophical contemplation to form their beliefs.
Whether there is a god or isn't, the pursuit of knowledge and understanding remains an essential part of our human experience. It is through questioning, exploring, and seeking answers that we expand our horizons and evolve as individuals and as a society. Regardless of one's beliefs or lack thereof, the journey of discovery is a testament to the power of human curiosity and the limitless potential of our minds.
Agnostic isn’t the middle point between atheist and theist. You could be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You could be a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist. Theism or atheism is just to do with what you believe based on your reasoning or evidence. Gnosticism refers to what you know and don’t know. For example, I can say I know my mind exists and I believe yours does.
What would happen if my parents had made out sooner or later than they did that led to my birth? Would I still be born? Is the difference between me and my younger or elder sibling just the fact that she has different spatio-temporal coordinates? Had my parents never met, would I come into being at all?
You most definitely would not have been born if anything other than that perfect chain of events happened to happen. It's quite funny how something so unlikely as you being born can actually happen. The odds are so low that it seems impossible but yet here you are. That is also why i believe animals on earth are the only intelligent life in the universe - we think that because we are here is must be possible but only because we were than one in a gazillion chance did we get the opportunity to question those odds
They simply wouldn't.
Let me tell you the answer to each of them. All of these are compatible with each other. Whether you're satisfied by them depends on whether you recognise truth.
1) God exists as a concept. The concept of god is not measurable and is therefore indistinguishable from fiction. Things are more or less real depending on how distinct they are, which means measurability, in particular replicable measurability. That is an attribute that the concept of god does not have so the concept is not real except as a concept. Igtheism is the idea that even the concept of god is so ineffable/indistinct/fuzzy that it's impossible to talk about plainly.
Holy books are far from great either as literature or as a moral compass.
Miracles have never occurred in a measurable way so they are also indistinguishable from fiction. Anecdote is the lowest form of evidence.
The "god of the gaps" idea shows that science constantly explains away things people previously thought were done by a god or spirit. This means that religion is constantly receding. Science will eventually wipe it out.
2) Free will, like god, is real as a concept. But also like god constantly recedes as science shows how more and more things work. If there is any non-causal thing in the universe (not governed by the laws of physics and the state of things immediately before) then everything must be arbitrary because the thing not subject to causality could affect anything else at random. Causality must be absolute if it exists at all and as far as we can tell, cause and effect rule everything. In other words, there is no sense in which you are free.
Even if you were somehow free to make decisions, would you be free to choose in advance whether you would notice the ice cream stand or the girl walking next to it? Clearly those options lead your mind in different directions. Are you free to avoid hearing your mother's voice in your head when you're doing wrong? Are you free to be the sort of person who only wants what's best for you? There is no sense in which we are free.
But because we have the real experience (all experiences are real, even if they're not of something else real) of freedom, and because the alternative is anarchy, we should act ethically in the world as if that were true except in cases where we can show how it is not. Even if a criminal didn't choose to become that way, we still can't let them run around stealing.
As for the Muslim concept, if you are limited to certain choices then you will end up in one of several predetermined outcomes no matter which you choose. Just like letting someone else choose the candidates you can vote for, that's not really a free choice. If you're presented with two evils, are you "free" to not choose evil? Freedom is an illusion. We must always choose between the options before us and only the ones we happen to notice.
If we live in a simulation, just like the idea of god, there's no way we can access that transcendent thing in order to measure it, so we cannot consider it real, even if it is.
Besides being just the story we tell ourselves about what our subconscious already did, Brownian motion (apparently random activity at the micro scale) disproves free will because there is no mechanism by when you can be in control of that activity. The way your neurons fire is dependent upon the strength of each connection but also by that and other apparently random inputs, at every scale. They can be effected by what you had for breakfast or by sun spot activity (but not by the relation of the planets when you were born, which is many orders of magnitude less of an effect than the other things mentioned here).
There is a useful concept called "free won't" which is that when you do happen to be paying attention you can override what your subconscious is About to do instead of explaining it to yourself afterward. Even though any version of freedom is not actually free, the more the idea matches up with your experience, the more useful it is and "free won't" at least gives us a way to Apparently gain control of our decisions. The real problem is how to be paying attention all the time (also called mindfulness (wrongfully, it's really embodiment)).
3) There are many different ways to answer why questions because there are many layers of understanding of causality. The meaning of life on an individual scale is that everyone must choose the answer to that question for themselves. The answer on a human scale is the same - whatever we collectively choose for it to be. As for external whys, the universe doesn't care whether we exist or not. The only explanations beyond our desires are how questions, not why questions.
Our lives certainly are absurd and the universe really is indifferent to any meaning we try to impose upon it, but we don't impose meaning on the universe, we impose it mostly on ourselves and when we do impose it on the universe, the universe is perfectly fine with that. Meaning is whatever we say it is because meaning is a human concept. If you want to be nihilistic, the evidence supports you. If you want to see that a flower is beautiful and only love is worth living for, the evidence supports that also. It is specifically because the universe doesn't care that we get to make it whatever we want it to be. As long as it's compatible with how the universe actually is, it will work to head us in the direction we desire. That direction changes as we get new information so it's a constantly adjusting thing - meaning.
Daoism is incoherent. "Embracing the journey itself" is no different than any other meaning of life. If it works for you, use it. Or as the Dali Lama says, "If it doesn't work for you, forget it." But the more specific you can make your goals, the more actionable they are and therefore the more likely you are to be able to reach them, or at the very least feel good about trying. When daoism says "go with the flow of nature" (The Way), it is a meaningless statement. nature produced the kind of species that produced other things we call technology. Everything is natural. If they meant something else it could be a coherent thought but Daoism simply isn't coherent.
4) Good and evil are very simple to define. Good is intending to make things better, evil is intending to make things worse. (Good/bad, on the other hand, is all about effects rather than intents.) Whether you agree that something is good or evil depends on whether you think the intent will lead to things being better or worse. There is no agreed definition of these things to the extent there is no agreement on what a better or worse world is, especially since people have different perspectives, experience, and information.
Happiness and misery are in no sense the same as virtue and vice. You can be a perfectly virtuous person in a state of misery, for example if you are unable to practice your virtues. Happiness and misery are effects. Virtue and vice are intents.
5) The definition of life is that which ends at death, so if there's something else going on afterward, either you're not dead or it's something besides life. We are the apparent continuity of our experience. When our experience ends, we end. To others we are their apparent continuity of their experience of us. When that continuity ends, we end to them. That is what death is, the end of life. There can be no life after death by definition. If there is continuity of experience beyond what seems to others to be our death, that is another transcendent experience which we cannot measure and like free will and god, cannot therefore be considered real Except as an experience. Even if someone is experiencing life after death, either they're dead to everyone else so it doesn't matter to anyone else, or they're not really dead at all.
There are infinite things which cannot be tested by science. We call those things fiction until they can be, then we call them real. They're more or less useful according to how specific they are.There are plenty of useful fictions (like math) but they're only useful if they can be used to produce positive effects, not just because they offer an explanation for something that we can't explain in any measurable way.
If you want more answers, contact me.
Hello pls help me on my essay
@@jnarcellesv You'll need to be a little more specific than that.
The first question, the existence of god is something we can feel, and only people who believe in god can feel it, is it hard to explain how to feel the existence of god, just as it is to explain black to a blind man, and he never sees anything
A lack of belief in gods (which is what a-theism strictly speakiing is) is not the same as saying there is no god. Therefore I don't agree with your statement: "atheists say god doesn't exist". The four atheists you show directly afterwards have way more nuanced views than you portray them to have. Richard Dawkins for example has put forward the spectrum of theistic probability: in which a "1" is equal to strong theism (100% convinced there is a god) and "7" is equal to strong atheism (100% convinced there is no god). Even Dawkins himself has pointed out he's not a 7, but the one who is making a positive claim ("There is a god") has the burden of proof if he wants others to be convinced of this as well. Also, and perhaps even more importantly, you should first define what you mean by god before you can even answer the question if you are convinced it exists.
As no evidence for any gods has been presented yet, any gods questions are moot.
"free will"...isn't that more like addiction.. whether right or wrong ?
How have you forgotten him
There is no meaning to life, anyone that disagrees is wrong.
Q2. is no longer a question for me as a Muslim, thanks to one book, that destroyed my world and freed me at the same time. Unfortunately it's not available anymore. I guess the author was "deactivated"
Questions always have answers -it will be solutions which may be missing.
Well, here's a tough one: can you be "twice a jerk" because you _correctly_ predicted someone would do something wrong? To give you context, l have a cousin who has a learning disability that often limits and delays his general understanding, processing, and visual/motor skills. Well, the science fair was coming up, and I didn't want him to do badly, so I was going to recommend he do the paper towel experiment, but his friends told me I shouldn't. How my cousin had a project in mind he really wanted to do. How I should let him do what he wants. But the thing is, I wanted him to do something simple so he wouldn't risk messing up and getting a bad grade. After all, he may be a hard worker, but he is a slow learner. He even has to depend on others to help set up the chemistry equipment we all can do individually. It's really not hard, but you know...his hand-eye coordination issues. As far as I'm concerned, it's better for him to stick with whatever is easy and simple, given his learning disability. That's why I _hope_ he doesn't choose to go to college; I'd much rather he just get a job at a store or something. It's safe there.
Anyway, I told his pals that I didn't think it was a good idea for him to do a science project without any pointers or guidance from me whatsoever. That I doubted he would successfully use the scientific method and get a good grade. They lectured me on, quote them, _"underestimating the boy who is full of potential."_ That's just it---I was right and they were wrong. In the end, my cousin got a bad grade, not only because he was incorrect about some things regarding scientific nature, but because he misunderstood the scientific method. I said to his friends, _"See? He didn't do so hot, now did he? I told you this would happen if he didn't get any tips from me. It would've been a lot easier if he'd just done the classic paper towel experiment. Safe and simple. But because you insisted I leave him alone entirely, he got a bad grade, as I predicted. Who's right now?"_ They told me that while my prediction was right, it didn't make _me_ right. That my prediction coming true just makes me twice a jerk. I don't get it. I'm "twice a jerk" just because my prediction came true? I'm the one to blame because what I anticipated would happen...happened? It's not my fault my cousin did exactly what I thought he would. It's not my fault he has a learning disability. My friends said that they may have been wrong when they predicted he would do well, but that they were still right because they believed in him. Well, they can lecture me on not believing in him, but they can't lecture me for _how_ he did._ I expected this to happen, and it did, and now I'm the bad guy here? But for what? For being right about my prediction?? Someone clarify his friends' philosophy. I'm wrong and twice a jerk while still being right because...?
Pre-rendered simulation, yes. What about real-time simulation?
About 5th question. It can't be proved, of course, but in my opinion our life is too short in comparison to all universe and other important matters...
Nice video
How do you define nature?. Arent all life forms manifested by basic particles and atoms and together inducing chemical reactions part of nature? Doesn't our brain that is practically composed of the same molecules present around us and driven by chemical reactions part of nature? So how does the results of thinking such as invention of machines which are also composed of the same matters surrounding us isnt natural? And so isn't change, devopment, evolution and sophistication of living part of nature?
That's the whole issue we have a remarkable ability of questioning
It's our mind's way of thinking even if the answer poured in front of us somehow our mind will doubt and decide that it is logical to ask, but who can tell the mind its absurd
We don't live for thousands years, instead kiss your mom and tell her you love her isn't that the ecstasy and satisfaction in its finest level
(amazingly this was actually adviced by Quran that certain things should not be questioned)
WHY ARE WE HERE?? The truth is plain, we are here cause we once failed and we were sent here as prisoner to be punished for our trespasses,it is like a life sentence on earth,if the punishment is over each one goes back home where we from,back to our creator!
I would like to discuss about some of the philosophical theories with other listeners of that channel. Any interesting questions? Don't joke please, thank you.
I can't get no satisfaction!!!
Well my argument here is that can you imagine yourself in the nothingness ? That tells it all حجتي في هذا هل يمكنك تخيل نفسك في العدم؟ هذا يلخص الكل
the universe is full of things, how can you call it nothingness?
Atheist say We don't believe in any Gods and we see no sufficient evidence to believe in any Gods.
is there a philosophical equation or formula?
an Egg or a Chicken?
As fr atheism, atheist believe there is nothing called god, so i dont think proving something's non-existence is necessary.
Concept of god exist. Therefore theists and atheists follow it in their own way and that concept affects to human progression.
Free will. Hmm..Maybe the developed skill of reasoning is one way to "free" ourselfs from daily problems. Of course it must be learned first. Maybe as parts of this universe, we could ask, that does our environment, our universe, have free will when everything including the thought of free will, is from the universe?
Maybe the meaning of life is the life itself. Every transient event of life creates its "individual" meaning. From birth to death, we affect to our environment and it affects to us.
Good/Evil. Different sides of the same coin. Both define each other.
Our way of thinking might be hell and heaven. We can see things as ugly or beautiful.
...just thoughts. A point of view. Maybe all religions, philosophies and science look the same point, but from different angles.
Maybe all parts serve the same "big picture".
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
the egg. Haven't you learned evolution?
Why question more important than the answer in philosophy?
Atheists simply reject the God claim. An atheist is not necessarily someone who says, "there is no god." There are theists (those who are convinced that a God exists), and there are atheists (those who are not convinced that a God exists). Agnosticism/gnosticism are both claims of knowledge, not belief (although belief is a subset of knowledge). Atheism/theism are questions of what you believe and agnosticism/gnosticism are claims of what you know to be true. Agnosticism is not a position one can hold on it's own as that would mean one is both convinced and not convinced at the same time. You can be an agnostic atheist/theist or even a gnostic athiest/theist, but no one is a true agnostic. I couldn't watch the video anymore after I heard him break down the subsets of religious belief that way.
I'm pissed off.. How dare you saying I do not exist.. God..
UA-camr, "God is dead". One hundred years later. God, "UA-camr is dead."
UA-cam is a god today. Lifespan of this god could be approx. 50 years? :)
free will definitely doesn't exist, even in any imaginable universe :/ It's just not widely known / accepted
Deos God exist?😇
Do we have free will?😎
Why are we here?😏
What is good and evil?😋
Is there an afterlife? 😜
SO...maybe we are just a self learning AI some being developed
Religious beliefs are human, all too human. Further the Bible is not very complex overall, so I doubt you’ll convince anyone by saying that the Bible is “too complex” to be made by humans. Also most abrahamic religions are based of the philosophy of Zarathustra so I would not call it to complex for humans to create.
Who created god ? That's hard to answer
You lost me with the god thing... :(
warning :I have proved all given answers experimentally.
1)God exist.
2)we are not free to do.
3)You are here for nothing
4)Nothing is evil or good
5)You were ,are or will be in life never.
For experiment you can askme
on 4 you failed to mention entering space. In the Quran ,God mentions .If it be done It's {Gods} will.
Good morning, I hope you don’t mind my asking - your content is specifically developed for men - do you object if I subscribe to it? I studied and continue to study philosophy and a lot of advice you post is just really great & helpful. I just wanted to make sure it’s not offensive to you in any way if I use it. Thank you so much,
What the hell 😂😂
I need answers
What is a God?
And 'holly' scriptures are anything but sophisticated but rather crude and self-contradictory, just what we would expect from the era in which they were written
Does GOD really that important for people to question he is exist or not?
You did Islam a justice. Thank you for that you're a true scholar.
If god doesn’t exist would it be necessary to invent one🧐
From the comments I can see alot can't get past the first question
I have to disagree with the definitions here. atheism is just without god or not god. so it is not a religion within itself. Anti-theism would be making the claim of "there is no god". now if you wanna call that a religion, i wouldnt really care although i would say the absence of evidence could be the evidence of absence. also i dont think " not believing in fairies" is a religion or "there is no santa claus" a religion as well.
A very good presentation but the concept you have given of free will in islam is not true plz make a research on it....
I know nobody asked me but eveything that is "proven by science" does not make it right or by any means an absolute fact... I mean science is based on human perception and logic and we as humas are limted in our being. So what we perceive is not absolute. Of course you can argue that we as human beings only need knowledge that is appealing to a human mind but if so we should not act as if our kowledge is absolute. And our limited human relativ knowledge is always changing. I mean in the past people thought what they knew was right, was a fact but now with time we see things differntly. To be honest i am not impressed by human knowledge but I accept it because we need some kind of basis for our thinking that is and always will be limted and actually wrong in the sense of not being really right.
🙌💯
❤❤❤❤❤
So Nirvana/Heaven is NOTHINGNESS... 🤔