You Can't Prove That God Doesn't Exist - Debunked
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 лип 2024
- It’s often said by skeptics and scientists that ‘You can’t prove a negative’ or that ‘It’s impossible to prove that god doesn’t exist’. Hell, I even used to say this, but it’s simply not true… you can prove a negative, and you can prove that god doesn’t exist (depending on the definition of god)... This, is You Can’t Prove That God Doesn’t Exist - Debunked.
--
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / rationalityrules
To support me through PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/RationalityRules
To follow me on Facebook: / rationalityrules
And, to tweet with me on Twitter: / rationalityrule
--
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you respond to the assertions that ‘You can’t prove a negative’ and that ‘You can’t prove that god doesn’t exist’. Stay rational my fellow apes. - Розваги
God promised an end to all sin. And I still see sin. Odin promised an end to frost giants. And I don't see any frost giants.
We have been worshiping the wrong guy this whole time!!
Phil Swift is the real god
Hail Odin!
Amen.. or Od-en?
😂 all hail Odin
when inventing a god it's important to make it completely invisible and always silent and it never has to DO anything. Otherwise people will become sceptical.
That would do it sceptical too
The only way you can notice it's existence is if you 100% blindly believe it and for it to be believed you have to be at a state of mental delusion. It's like schizophrenic people who believe they hear voices in their heads. They believe it because they are delusional
@@nightwalker9952 yeah but these people are so brainwashed by their churches that they ignore any contractions
@Ethan Gallegos Oh yeah a thousand year old book is enough "evidence" for you
It's a problem that occurs with any abstraction of reality. Likewise, the number 2 doesn't exist if we are going by this route.
“Prove god doesn’t exist”
Ok I’ll do that, right after you prove that the thousands of gods you don’t believe in don’t exist
We Never Do That.
what
That's NOT How It Works.
Lets Say That You Killed Someone.
If We Apply All The Evidence That You Did NOT Kill The Billions Of Other People On The Earth And Apply That Evidence To The One That You DID Kill, Then Does That Mean You Did Not Kill The Person?
Apoop
@@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes nope not the same thing. If I kill someone it’s not on me to prove I didn’t kill them, it’s on the prosecutor to prove I did. If you believe in the Christian god, that’s a monotheistic religion, meaning you only believe in that one god. Therefore, prove to me that all of the Greek gods never existed.
"Who all care deeply about who you sleep with and in what positions" GOT me XDD
It's one of Hitch's greatest lines 😂😂
@@sisyphus645 Hitch or Harris?
@@TheRobdarling Hitch. Harris got it from the great Hitch I believe
WHAT
well I honestly I studay enough to know God exists
My response to being told I cannot disprove the existence of God is to ask how I would disprove something they cannot prove in the first place?
I know right? It really makes his entire video rather redundant imo, especially when he's comparing situations that can have proof found in the positive, despite the "lack of proof" in the negative smh.
Spencer Ciuffo Typical ignorant fallacy. Stop trying to implement God into things. Simply prove he fucking exists with EVIDENCE not BS arguments.
Spencer Ciuffo Which God? Lmao
Spencer Ciuffo you still have no evidence, good going mate
Spencer Ciuffo what a good fictional character he is right
Kind of ironic that religion is being debunked by a guy that looks like Jesus
Edit: 1.2k likes and a comment war, I'm honestly not sure what I expected a year later. Also, looking at it now, debunked probably wasn't the right word, sorry to anyone that offended. :D stay safe and inside
Will Rawlinson2: Jesus looked a lot more like Saddam Hussein or Fagin from Dickens than like this English lad. He was a Jew from the middle east. Go figure. He'd have been tan or brown with black hair and dark eyes. At one point the bible says he had white hair like the wool of sheep...so that's weird. Meaning he was a negro/black albino?
Lol anyone with long hair looks like jesus... some people are so dumb
They should.
Jesus was a middle eastern Jew. So whatever that looks like... Besides, more and more scholars are finding no evidence for a "historic" Jesus at all. Chances are, he was legendary.
Will Rawlinson 2 Yeah, he just debunked all religion, totally.
As long as parents drum their beliefs into their children,we are stuck with god
Exactly why I believed in god as a kid because I had no choice my mom never let me decide wether I wanted to believe or not
@@thotmagnet3336 if everyone was given a blank page from early age and think for their selves ,religion would loose it's grip and eventually dissapear
@@philipmcguire5039 The word if if if dont exist in reality.
@@mehdialou9827 that's right no one knows really
@@1NumeroUno in the sixths seventys eighty's churches used to be packed to the rafters,every year it has been on a swift downward spiral,thanks be to God pardon the pun
"Q: Prove God doesn’t exist.
A: That’s a tough one. Show me how it’s done by proving Zeus and Apollo don’t exist, and I’ll use your method." - Pat Condell
Was Zeus held to make the rest of reality from nothing save his being?
@@nics4967 Does this prove the non-existence of Zeus and Apollo?
@@MrSitemaster2 I didn't say it did. A definition of x seems part of any negative proof.
The ancient pagan gods seemed more hedonistic.
I was 5 months ago watching your videos as a salafi muslim. Now i'm an ex muslim and I am so grateful you're alive man.
Thats cool, but you stopped listening to salafi fools to listen to another fool. Stop listening to fools.
you don't have the right to talk about "fools" when you're christian yourself lol. by the way what are you doing here?
+Ludovic Ovsepian Nobody did that. You probably want to re-read.
BlankFX Yeah you did.
Ludovic Ovsepian & predator H2O Nope, I didn't. You really might want to think about it before commenting.
*"... it's not full of tea but should be..."*
As every Englishman knows.
I liked that particular statement. I'd call it a joke, because it caused me to chuckle, but he may have been completely serious.
As someone who grew up drinking tea the English way (with milk and sugar), I know I speak at least for myself when I say that I drink, on average, a minimum of 3 pints of tea every day.
Only reason it's not full of tea is because my friends and I dressed up as Indians and had a tea dumping party. From America with love.
@@tevildo9383 A mere amateur......
and every irishman
I appreciate that you made a distinction between two separate definitions of God. When I first read the title of the video, I did not think it was possible to prove the non existence of the first definition of God you provided, but you addressed my concern clearly. Nice job as usual. Thanks.
I think my favorite part was the double-standard involved in desiring absolute proof for a negative, but not for a positive; really tied it all together. Excellent video!
Parents: *works hard to give food to their children*
Children: *thanks god*
Parents: am i a joke to you?
This is what those parents tell their kids to say tho
My friend's girlfriend's mum was visiting her. He took them out to eat, before she ate she thanked the lord for the meal!
He was like wtf??? I paid for that, and you thanked the lord??? LOL
Most parents'are a joke...
Would that count as false witness?
It's more of thanking god for their parents but ok
You can't disprove Zeus. Therefore Zeus exists. Worship him or he'll send you to Tartarus where you'll be bored forever, heathen.
+LordSlag How does that have anything to do with this video? We're talking about paradoxes here.
I'm lampooning the "logic" of theists, I use that term loosely.
Misrepresenting is the accurate term. There is plenty of objective evidence for God's existence.
Stop lying, ignorant moron. There is no such evidence for your superstitions being true. Define your god, present evidence and I'll definitively show how dumb you are:
1. Zeus had sexual relations
2. Sexual relations demand a body
3. A body is a physical reality
4. Physical reality is contingent
5. Therefore Zeus is contingent
6. If Zeus is by definition contingent and God is by definition the only necessary being, Zeus cannot be God.
7. Zeus could have existed, but he was not a God.
This argument can be used to disprove any God that has a physical reality by definition: Thor with his magic hammer, Zeus with his penis, Spaghetti Monster with his pasta and meatballs, Vishnu with his abilities to become giant or small, etc.
The particularity of the abrahamic God is that he is understood as an inmaterial, eternal, purely existing being which explains why there is something rather than nothing.
And then God "went, oh, I hadn't thought of that" and promptly disappeared into a puff of logic.
The most existential questions cannot be answered. "What is the meaning of life?" "What is the meaning of my life?" "How can the universe exist if there was a time before it existed?" "Does a higher force (some form of God) exist?" You can take the discussion to any level of human intelligence you like, but human intelligence is limited.
Thank for this comment.
When I ask my dad what is the purpose, the meaning of life etc, his answer was, to live it, and to learn. Still resounds in me. And sufficient to give me joy and ,meaning, and purpose at 64. No delusions of after life , or wish granting entity.
The meaning of life is "people are not wearing enough hats".
@@alkristopher Still better than the other way around.
Made from Chinese steel.
Boom. Debunked
Genius
America First, trump-familys businesses= NOT america= DEbunked ....................
Made from bone china - bones of Wolverine.
Chinese steel is like plastic.
Atheists destroyed with facts and logic
That is when they bring in His mysterious ways into the conversation
Ah, yes. Gawd works in mysterious ways his Horrors to behold.
@@blahblahblah4544 "Most" is the key part here. I think it's hilarious when atheists say "if God existed then bad things wouldn't happen to good people". That's ridiculous. Free will means people can do shitty things to each other. However, it doesn't explain the presence of natural diseases. Cancer and polio need not exist.
@@blahblahblah4544 I agree that pain can be used for good. I have a muscle-wasting disease called SMA Type 2. It has made my life extremely difficult in some regards. But it has also forced me to be better. I don't know that I would trade for being able-bodied. I don't think I would have learned as many lessons as quickly. Pain is critical for growth. However, there are two flaws in your argument.
1) Are you suggesting that a baby getting terminal cancer is justifiable for the potential growth of the parents? In many cases, the unpreventable death of a child can rip families apart. I would say the notion that God only gives you as much as you can handle is false. History shows that people get pushed off the edge repeatedly. One example of people getting cancer when it makes no sense is Nabeel Qureshi. He was building a powerful ministry for Christ. He got throat cancer and died at a fairly young age. Why would God kill such a potent weapon for Him?
2) You have a bias for the modern age. What about the young mother in 1900 who cannot afford this ground-breaking treatment? Just because sometimes it can be treated now, doesn't excuse deaths in 95% of human history. Unpreventable genetic mutations need not exist. I would say even malicious germs need not exist.
Rebuttal?
@@blahblahblah4544 also not here to argue, just curious, how do you know that, of all the religions in existence, yours is the correct one? And please dont say "faith" because thats what followers of every other religion can also say.
Ishan Manerikar natural disease came as a result of the first people on earth due to what they did they were cursed by God and that’s why stuff like this is happening
"Something cannot be two things that contradict each other"
Quantum Mechanics: So actually ...
They don’t actually contraddict anything, it’s just that we don’t know enough about em to understand shit😂
@@lilloponko1966 Lol wdym are you on about atheists or QM I'm getting confused in my own comment 😂
@@lilloponko1966 I mean, sometimes it does contradict itself. Just take a look at how matter behaves in the center of a neutron star. The behavior of matter violates the Pauli Exclusion Principal in the center of a neutron star.
@@excuseyou7198 there is a huge difference between an occurence contradicting a MODEL or a principle than a thing being two things that contradict each other.
If something contradicts a model, then the model is not fitting to describe that thing. So yeah, that is enough proof to know that the model isn't correct in that particular case.
Do you know what a principle is?
@@nathd9746 you don't understand shit about quantum mechanics if you say such a thing. What is your example of a thing that is two things that contradict each other in QM?
english is not my first language, but you speak so clearly and slow just-in-the-accurate-amount - so you help not only the english speakers in the world, but also the much higher number of people who speaks a little bit of english. thanks!
He would be a great professor at the university I think.
Well, on a subject he knows sufficiently for such a job
He has a bit of an accent, but still easy to interpret.
Sir Hasslich he would colleges love gender studies majors and the person who made this comment that I am commenting in seems to speak a lot of English for knowing very little
@@sirhasslich536 he unfortunately would probably get fired for offending people.
Jesus is lord
"Depends on your definition of God"
(Jordan Peterson has entered the chat)
Not necessarily. A "god" could be some hyperintelligent AI from another galaxy or something.
Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
On another note, I go back to a great quote from an awful film: "What does _God_ need with a starship?"
-James Tiberius Kirk
@@ParadoxapocalypSatan stop lying to yourself
Everyone knows that the flying spaghetti monster is God
@@milesandrews6711 Correct.
@@flyingspaghettimonster2925 greetings God
You can definitely prove religious “gods” to be false,but not the existence of a superior being (not associated to a religion.)
It's called agnostic atheism
@@DomainAspect Yup
Yeah, mainly because the idea of a god (one not associated with a religion) is so under defined that there’s no possible way of knowing what would disprove it as we don’t know what it is. Religion tries to add detail to their god claim but all this does is make it possible to disprove.
@@DomainAspect not only agnostic atheists believe in God not associated with religion philosophical theists do also
@@arcticpangolin3090 people who believe in God outside of religion all this "proof" that God doesnt exist like what is in this video is nothing more than comedy
Thanks for tackling this. This "science can't prove a negative" meme has bothered me for ages.
Man the Greeks was way ahead of their time
Indeed
Perhaps that's why we continue to study them...?
Not really
Maybe we’re just really behind
Jacob Adams I think it’s important to be careful that Greek thought just so happened to survive, whereas there certainly have been highly intellectual cultures who have no ideological remnants. The Mayans supposedly were one such culture
Thank you for this video.
Now, since we all, atheists, going to hell for not believing, can anyone tell me why satan punishes, not praises the sinners? :-)
Or why god hates the devil for doing gods work and giving the ppl who don’t “believe”a place to burn and be torture, I mean god gave satan dominion over the earth and bibles says God is the creator of all evil btw loIsaiah45:7
Because Jesus sins and Christian hell both have zero probability, and that these contradictory verses were intentionally written that way to cater for all people.
I don't think the men who wrote the Bible were stupid. It is quite clear they certainly didn't believe in this nonsense, or that their delusional level was worse than any Christian ever! Its MORE likely they intentionally wanted to deceive and manipulate the population of ignorant and superstitious desert Arabs, oh and obviously women in particular.
I find it even more shocking when conversing with a female Christian! I mean they AGREE to be submissive to their man, and that they are worth less!! Its like the most pathetic anyone could ever get.
Well, Hell from a Christian Theological perspective isn't ruled by Satan, Satan is just another prisoner there and most somewhat intelligent Christians believe that Humans follow him there because they sin and "forsake" God, using their free will in ways that aren't in line with God's vision. Like if an Artist draws something and it sounds great and feels great, but then gets interrupted by things, and isn't focused on the painting, it doesn't align with the original vision anymore. Which then the Artist usually would have to throw it away and start over, which is basically an analogy for how a Christian's baptism works, theologically speaking(and not the literal dunking in water).
@@fenrirsilver6441 Except an artists analogy with a believer is not the same, because belief is not a choice.
IF the artist believed his painting was the best ever, then even if it didn't align with the original vision, he would not agree UNLESS he stopped believing first.
Since this is confusing to get it straight, the point is the analogy is not correct. It would be similar to the 'Christian Theological perspective' that a Christian believer felt that natural gays CHOOSE to be gay, when we know this cannot be correct, as it would be like you (if straight) choosing to be gay, I'd say most (straight) people could not get sexually aroused by this. Therefore why think the gay is doing that.
I realize this is not about gays, but we are talking Christian Theological perspective here :D
The artist analogy doesn't work. A better analogy would be gays who don't then 'throw it away and start over'! Although we are aware that Recovery From Religion does exist, but to help someone to reason effectively again is not an instantaneous action, as most tend to continue the irrational false fears of hell, for some time before they are cured.
Merely informing deluded Christians the simple fact that there is zero sufficient evidence and zero good reason to believe in ANY claimed God, usually takes time to accept. Mainly because the church (and then parents etc) have safe guards in place for questioning! (ie a GOOD thing) And for placing the burden of proof on, you can't prove him false! But under that poor reasoning then all Christians should believe in lepricauns and Bigfoot and any mythical character until proven false, which would be ridiculous obviously.
We believe in things when there's sufficient evidence and good reason to do so.
OTHERWISE (if you believe without this) then you are classed as gullible; naive; weak-minded; deluded and indoctrinated into nonsense, by definition.
@@kimsland999 Yeah, true there was a guy that I meet back in high school, been a while so I forget what kind it was but it was during some kind of summer camp. This guy was a Catholic, and he told me something I had never been aware of at the time, it seemed so absurd, the Priest and his family had to literally make sure he only read things that aligned with the Catholic ideals. Makes sense I mean(gating a kid's education out of safety, because it might lead to unsavory paths; still don't agree at all with the extent though), but it shocked me as a kid to hear that, I sort of came from an open-minded family, it was Christian based sure but my mom was really open to the ideas I would come up with, probably too open if I am being honest(seeing as once in middle school I had convinced myself that a belief in that the world was a slain dragon from some otherworldly knight, happened to be true and even preferred that dragonology book that said it over the bible... I was a weird kid). However, I came into my own beliefs, I may have been grown up in a Christian family, and I may even consider myself Christian, however, my own actual reasoning behind a lot of things actually is probably very different from most Christians. Hell, I have yet to find a pastor or church that agrees more than disagrees, if anything a lot of my beliefs actually comes from nigh anti-theist works like say Nietzsche, as a single example. I even really rely on conventional science, or even metaphysics that heavily lean on it, like say Determinism(to some degree; and not Predeterminism, big difference). If you want somewhat of a glimpse I do actually have a comment directly to this video, somewhere in the feed, albeit it is just a glimpse.
God is timeless, yet he has a a birthday exactly two thousand years ago. God is everywhere, yet, some people are still waiting for his second coming. It's either he is not everywhere, or no one can see him.
Before you were a driver, you are a person. Before God became man 2000 years ago, he is God. He is in everywhere and people still waiting that man to come back. You cannot see God and you can see a man. I cannot find any contradictions on that.
Alternative universe: “you can’t prove that invisible eight legged dinosaurs don’t exist!”
😂
What about invisible 10ft purple dragons? Because mine's having an existential crisis right now...
Please answer... She's quickly falling into a nihilistic viewpoint.
@Ethan Gallegos Help me please! You obviously have some insights into this matter!
She's almost gone entirely at this point... How do I save my invisible friend?
Is the path to truth achieved by not knowing what punctuation is?!
I'd like to point out that I'm responding to a person who thought that a serious theological debate was taking place when they commented on a thread involving two users talking about imaginary creatures... Neither of which claiming said creature to be remotely close to that of a supreme being...
Theists: Yeah but you can't disprove my God.
Me: I can't disprove a God that's never been proven.
Well that actually shouldn't even trigger any theist.
Proven can be only facts.
Religion is about faith.
Therefore it has nothing to do with facts or proving really. By common sense it can't be disproved neither obviously. Theist telling that God has been proven lacks selfawarness.
@@Reality-Distortion its worse. too many theists say the assumption that god exists is a fact not an assumption. even worse a fact that doesn't need to be proven.
there are so many things necessary to create the abramic god that are contraditrory and so many say this definitions are only . . . "guidelines" makes the discussion with them blurry and intangible, so basically worthless. no clear definition of their god as defense to a nonexisting intagible thing that only belongs to the realm of fantasy.
And their logic is weak A.F. that is the basis of their proof. weak logic. the debunk of abramic god is good. the one by epicure and even more. occams razor in regard to creation is just saying if you need something to create everything, why you need to come up with a nother thing that has not part of it. you do not need to make things more complicated by adding "god was there too". but remember Bob was there too.
ask Andy Weir!
Yuikichi Ichigo
Just saying, Christians could be wrong as well.
@@Reality-Distortion Faith: The absolute absence of logic and sense.
@Yuikichi Ichigo -- ironic that you use the human element to say that an atheist "could be wrong" about god, yet you have no problem accepting that those same humans have created a god that you willingly accept.
I entered into this a touch more skeptical than usual, but I have to say, Steve, phenomenal work here. I've heard arguments made which were similar to this, but never found them convincing. However, your argument here was so well articulated that I've changed my line of thinking on this issue. Thanks for teaching me something, RR!
Genetically Modified Skeptic
Hey, could you and or Steve (Coop ftw) make a video on this guy "Irving Copi"and his razor? That would be Awsome.
Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard Irving Copi writes:
"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."
- Copi, Introduction to Logic(1953), p. 95
Lets see, by considering and understanding the whole quote this bit becomes True.
"it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."
Ergo,
*Burden of proof met.
ERGO, God doesn't excist.
Still, we have more than that as evidence. Such as the consistent failure to prove god, the consistent failure of everything associated with or supposedly from god, faith healing, prayer, basically magic (holy or other), all historical and scientifical knowledge, the absence of evidence for anything assurted/claimed in the Bible, the inaccuracy and extrodinary contradictive nature of scripture, the fact we know the Bible and all scripture was written by man and then there's Aron Ras entire fucking channe,lol.
Did i miss something? OH yeah, the Fact Adam and Eve are allegory making the supposedly son of gods sacrifice completely irrelevant and pointless as the Sin as generated by Adams and Eves actions never actually excisted in the first place. And finally the fact that the very religion itself is a amalgamation of most if not all ancient mythologies. I'd give ample examples and comparisons however, a UA-cam comment only holds so much.
So, in light of everything presented: God Absolutely Do Not Excist.
God is Dead and there's so many nails in his/it's coffin it looks like a 3rd graders poor excuse of a woodwork hedgehog after he whent ham on it with the Nail Gun. Lol.
*As there's no evidence for god this negative claim doesn't have a burden of proof because it is a Null hypothesis.
These are not good arguments. They've all already been addressed many, many times over.
First, in regards to the paradox of omnipotence, there is a very straightforward answer. If what it means to be omnipotent is that an omnipotent being can do all (but only) things logically possible (i.e. he can't make a contradiction true), then an omnipotent God would not be able to create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. But, that wouldn't count against his omnipotence, because the existence of a rock so big that an omnipotent being can't lift it entails a contradiction. But, suppose being omnipotent means an omnipotent being can do anything - even make contradictions true. Then, if God is omnipotent, then he can create a rock so big that he can't lift it, but then he'll just go ahead and lift it. That is a contradiction, but if you assume God is omnipotent (to get the thought experiment off the ground), and if omnipotence entails the ability to make contradictions true, then God can make contradictions true.
Second, on the paradox of omnipotence, omniscience, and free will, this is simply made a common mistake of modal logic. The argument goes like this.
Premise 1: Necessarily (If God knows you will do A, then you will do A).
Premise 2: God knows you will do A.
Conclusion: Therefore: Necessarily (You will do A). In other words, you *must* do A.
The problem is that this argument is invalid. Here's an example that illustrates the point.
Premise 1: Necessarily (If Bill is a bachelor, then Bill is unmarried).
Premise 2: Bill is a bachelor.
Conclusion: Therefore: Necessarily (Bill is unmarried). In other words, Bill can never get married!
From the fact that God knows you will do some action, it doesn't follow that you must do that action, only that you will do it.
Third, the problem of evil? Really? This has been addressed by countless philosophers and theologians both historically and contemporarily. Philosophers (even atheistic philosophers) have almost universally abandoned the logical problem of evil as you present it here; they did so 50 years ago after Alving Plantinga's "The Nature of Necessity". RR might not be persuaded by any of it, but to just pretend like they don't exist, or dismiss them by calling them "back flips" is, well, dumb.
your dumb.
@Josh Heter - why is making a rock so heavy that you can't lift it an invalid demonstration of the contradictory nature of omnipotence. I can make something so heavy I can't lift it. No contradiction there.
You seem to misunderstand the nature of omniscience and free will. If a being knows the outcome of every choice you will make, then you do NOT have the freedom to choose otherwise.
Finally, here is another contradiction. If god is omniscient and knows every future outcome, what is the point of praying to that entity to alter an already fixed outcome?
Voice of Reason did you not read my response? There are easy responses to those first two "problems". If you'd like to learn more about the prayer issue...
philosophy.osu.edu/sites/philosophy.osu.edu/files/Peititionary%20Prayer%20Eleanore%20Stump.pdf
When I started this video I was agnostic and when it ended I was atheist. Interesting.
I see a lot of christians who are confused about how omniscience makes free will a non-existent thing.
Let's put it in a simplistic sense:
Free will:
- You have choice A or choice B
- You can choose which one you want (key aspect of free will)
Now let's put omniscience in the mix:
- I know absolutely everything
- I know you will pick B
Therefore
- You cannot pick A, otherwise my knowledge isn't absolute
Therefore
- You don't have a choice. You WILL pick B.
I hope that clears it up.
Ah yes a finite being with a very limited understanding trying to explain omniscience...wonderful buddy you are something else
@@sonysunny2147 This is hypothetical. I'm yet to see someone actually prove these concepts even exist. I'm giving them (you too maybe?) the benefit of a doubt. And besides, I'm not the one who started to throw around these concepts to begin with.
@@patrikgrguric535 fair enough...its just the arrogance (not @ you) "proving god does not exist" claim that ticks me off. The problem with these arguments are its humans arguing against each other proving or disproving whatever they believe. So the debate itself is mute. For instance someone argues that dog is more intelligent than cat and another argues against. Unless the dog or cat can argue for themselves the argument is nonsensical.
@@sonysunny2147 true that. god may exist. we only interpret him through religion. hence, god is holy, but religion is not. to put it bluntly, how dare some shepherd a thousand years ago tries to form whole cult around this amazing being? what's crazier is that, people still follow these same ideas even now. but then again, for the common people religion helps them understand this concept of god, so religion is okay. but at least we can keep them up to date.
Let me first clear up one thing, I am not religious myself. I am agnostic, if you want me to use a fancy word.
I do want to say that free will and omniscience are not necesarily contradictory though. Free will does often come down to making a choise. The claim you make is that because God, conceived of as an omniscient being, knows what your choise will be, the choise is not really free. But this is of course rediculous. Merely knowing what someone will choose is not necesarily the same as robbing them of their freedom. If I give you the choise between getting slapped amd getting a nice gift, I can be quite sure you'll pick the latter. Knowing this im advance does not imply that the choise is any less free tho!
The claim of omniscience is, if I understand correctly, strongly related to the notion of "God's plan". God, so say believers, has a plan for you. He has made you who you are, which in turn leads you to make the decision you make. This does not mean that you do not decide tho! You do decide for yourself, based on the person that you are, your hopes, desires, weaknesses, etc. There may or may not be a God who created those and knows about them. Either way, they are still yours. Even if there is a God who knows what you'll do, you still have to do it.
It's not "You can't prove a negative", it's "you can't provide evidence for a non-existing thing".
It is the religious who must prove their gods, the onyx of the proof is with them.
@The Great SteveO No one says that. What we say is, "since you claim gods exist, how about you provide some evidence."
to everyone here, if you have the time please read this. just wanted to share my view.
quantum fluctuations, the idea of nothingness, gravity, and everything else we perceive to exist in the universe can never just exist for no reason whatsoever. even if we say that time is infinitely old (which it is not) such as the singularity expanding and reverting endlessly (found this from another comment) that infinite loop couldnt have started without the singularity, and the singularity could have never existed out of nowhere. in short, reality has an infinite amount of origins and that infinite amount of origins can never exist without anything and everything starting from something. and that something is god.
god is an existence you perceive as something that is affected by space, matter, time, and even reality itself. the god i believe in is not limited by these things, as he is the creator, the omnipotent being and the beginning of everything. as i said earlier, nothing can ever exist out of nowhere and as everything has an origin and something it came from, comes an infinite amount of origins and the only possible reason regardless of era or advancements that we could ever get is that it came from something. something that is above all, something that is not limited by trivial things such as it being created or being compared to the universe and our idea of existence. youre mind is too limited on your idea of reality without even questioning itself. science explains the origin through the "big bang theory" as that bang couldntve existed out of nowhere as well, science has never been and will never be able to answer how that event even happened, with an exception of the existence of god.
im going to become an astronaut one day and secretly throw a teapot out into space. in fact ill do 2- 1 of steel and another of china
Cosma lol
You.
You will bring chaos into this world.
why not just 1 steel teapot made in China?
Thank you, you're a great person
I'm fairly sure some astronaut has already done that just for the memes. :) Don't know if they've gotten far enough into space yet for it to be Russel's teapot, though. :P
woah, I have been an athiest since I was old enough to understand what religion meant, and this video still blew my mind
So a related tangent I wanted to share concerning the impossibility of debating Theists on the non-existence of God. So the original question was "Atheists how can something come out of nothing?" Which to me, is an argument that is begging the answer God created the universe. Or how can the universe exist if nothing created it? Which the short answer is, we know the universe exists, we don't know god exists and the universe existing does not prove that god exists. The argument for a prime mover, first cause is one that attempts to resolve a seeming paradox. That you cannot have an infinity. Solved by creating a prior infinite being. So I get the following response and I think the guy works from scripts trying to appear intellectual debunking Atheists.
“The universe exists it either sprung into existence or it has always been here. Theists make the same claim for God, without any proof of God’s existence.”--Adrian Frost
#1 Thus far Adrian Frost, you are unable to cite any objective data which supports your claim of a “sprung universe” or an “always been here” universe.
#2 Furthermore, you have cited no objective data showing objectively that an “always” can be proven, nor have you cited objective data showing objectively that a “here” exists.
#3 Also, you have cited no objective data which supports your claim about “Theists make the same claim for God” which is why your unsubstantiated claim is dismissible for a lack of credibility.
Can you see? Number 1. Is there a third option? Even if God created it or there was a big bang, it sprung into existence, it had an origin.
It is the beginning of a pattern of willful misinterpretation. It is all "Responding to tone" argument. Which criticises the tone of the writing without addressing the substance of the argument.
He takes objection to a specific phrase such as Sprung universe without referring to the context there or elsewhere in the answer where the word origin is used. How insane is it that he then argues for using the words always and here, because I can't cite objective data. I was merely offering alternatives at this point, not insisting one was true. The universe exists - we don't know its origin.
My point being Theists make the same claim that either god always existed or in some mythologies such as the greek and roman pantheons the gods were born out of chaos to be specific. It is not an unsubstantiated claim but there are only two options. Born or not born. There is a third, but no Theists believes this and that is god is imaginary.
I responded but he got very hung up when I used the word we in the answer - when I said things like We know the universe exists. Meaning quite clearly me and him.
He responded. Furthermore, “Adrian Frost” is not a plurality of persons, nor a multitude, and it is an error to refer to yourself as “we” in public media. I was replying directly to him remember.
In response to the following...
Also, you have cited no objective data which supports your claim about “Theists make the same claim for God” which is why your unsubstantiated claim is dismissible for a lack of credibility.
I wrote a lengthy reply that began
Some theists may believe that their god was created after the universe was born. But as the question is - How can something, come out of nothing? I am assuming the point of the argument is God created the universe.
He replied - The phrasing that refers to “some theists” cannot be substantiated as a factual claim, and even if you cite “some theist or some theists” that would be representative I wager, of a Fallacy of Composition, because it will perhaps fail to show a totality “theistic” claims.
It continued for a while longer, with many references to types of logical argument. Such as Ipse Dixit. No objective data whatsoever confirms the verity of the conclusion. In response to the statement you either can have infinity or not, not both, With the context - Infinity is impossible - thus god. Tomas Aquinas - countered by God is infinite. So either infinity is possible and not paradox to resolve with the inclusion of God. Or infinity is impossible, meaning as God is infinite - god is impossible.
He took exception to the word you....
Neither have you defined what “you” is and how “you” has a bearing on the subject. What you offer here Adrian my friend is a form of populist thought which advances to no credible status.
Which was in response to this... Yet he was able to use the word in his own reply to refer to me - insanity.
If you assume God exists it appears to prove his existence.
Atheists go one step further and ask - How can God exist? What created God? If you assume all things must have a beginning, then God must have one too. Because God is exempt, God becomes an impossibility and impossible things either don’t exist or are imaginary.
And...
“The only acceptable proof of gods existence is to produce him.”--Adrian Frost
You have not demonstrated the truth of that claim, and the claim is in fact, illustrative of the common logical error titled The Fallacy of the Ipse Dixit.
There are numerous such logical fallacies in your public communications. For that reason your commentary is dismissible for lacking in credibility.
As for “producing him” [God] you cite no objective evidences substantiating that claim. Moreover, you have no operating definition of “produce” which demonstrates what that means.
Ignoring the whole drive of the argument that the universe's existence is proves god. My objection being that is not valid proof and it is only a flawed inference. it isn't an Ipse Dixit argument. Which is - The theory of ipse dixit involves that an unproven statement that the speaker claims is true because it was uttered by "an authority" on the subject. The opinion may carry some weight based solely on the authority or standing of the person said it.
I am not claiming to be an expert. I am not claiming to have some kind of authority. Simply asking for real proof of gods existence. Those that make the claim that God is real without real proof, are the ones making Ipse Dixit argument. As often they claim authority themselves. So the Theist must have heard that so often, when arguing this kind of thing, he is pre-emptively making the counter claim even though he does not understand what Ipse Dixit really is and how its used.
I also got the impression from how fast he would reply that he was using some kind of pre prepared script, for his answers and select quotes of mine that he could use for his standardized responses
Sorry for the long off topic post - but I though I would share a personal anecdote that you might find interesting as a window into the insanity.
www.quora.com/How-can-something-come-from-nothing-as-atheism-suggests/answer/Adrian-Frost-18?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=45153325252&comment_id=301969370&comment_type=2
"'Oh dear! Said God, I hadn't thought of that', and vanished in a puff of logic." -- D. Adams
Later the man proofed that black is white and got killed on a street crosswalk.- D.Adams
My favorite author, love it :)
That's one of my favourite jokes from the entire series, and that's saying something.
Would you praise a rancher who lets his old, worn-out horses starve in the snow? Or sends his dogs after them?
If you treated one animal the way God treats all of his, you'd go to prison.
You treat your kids the way "god" treats his "children" and not only will you go to prison, the likelihood is that the other prisoners would make sure you never got out alive - even prisoners love their families.
dude, God is no babysitting your ass!
he gave us freedom, that a nice way to say "you're on your own"...
make some money, stay out of jail...
period.... 😁 😁
@@nabokkills5435 it's not actual freedom if you are still going to be punished if you do bad stuff when you die. You're still technically doing what HE wants.
@@genericbro2440, wrong... you CAN absolutely do what he doesn't want you to do....
but if you're doing what HE wants, why would you be punished?...
the punishment element applies to the rapist, murder, thief....etc.
not to the liar, lazy, bully, you're not going to hell for cursing or looking with desire other women than your own....
am not saying I know this from God,
but that's what a logical mind would do....
hell is just a contract clause...
something that you want to put in paper, just in case!...
of course God never would say it with these words...
you have to be able to INFER IT...
think outside the box!!!
@@nabokkills5435 i mean ... I don't think this is being free. If there are consequences, people are not going to want to live free. People are going to force others not to live free in order to not get the punishment. But I see where you're coming from.
I like when theists insist god made a divine plan long before we existed, and that we all must abide by it, yet this would also mean god is literally responsible for every terrible act, crime, disaster, and even who goes to hell by his will.
What kind of divine guidance is that?
This is sadism, pure and simple.
God made the divine plan and within that divine plan is free will. He gave the Nazis free will to kill the Jews; it wasn't God himself killing the Jews. He allowed the Nazis to kill them because he wont make them do anything unwillingly; he never wanted or forced the Nazis intohis plan. In fact, that's probably something he knew he would have to work with when executing his plan because of their decisions. However, one of the biggest aspects of his divine plan is Jesus, whom was and still is so divine and perfect in nature that, when he died in the cross, he made the ultimate sacrifice which could atone for everyone's sins if they WILLINGLY (not him forcing them to because that's not true belief or love) believe in him to be the only way to heaven. I don't say this with argumentative intentions, but if you'd like to further discuss it or more aspects of the divine plan or any other aspects of Chrisitianity, I encourage you to reply and we can discuss
@@snickerdoodle3711 That makes no sense. You’ve basically confirmed that your god truly has no control over our lives and therefore no control of the outcome, meaning there actually is no divine plan.
Try using consistent facts instead of just preaching to me your subjective beliefs.
@@2l84me8 Well, moving forward, I hope you could see my responses as more of an insight to my beliefs than a sermon. I completely understand that free will amongst humans may seem like God never has control but thats simply not true. Some examples: The Bible teaches God parted the sea to save his people so they could escape from the Pharoah's army instead of snapping the army out of existent (which he could do because he's omnipotent) and God gave Daniel the faith and courage to kill Galiath instead of zapping him out of existence because he can. Why does God not just strike down his enemies to take full control since he's omnipotent? Why doesn't he choose to take control of their free will? I want you to explain to me what kind of world you think that would be if God chose to work like that, genuinely
@@2l84me8 Also, rereading your reply, I think I should clarify those instances I mentioned do show how God takes control even with free will within the world.
@@snickerdoodle3711 I personally don’t believe in your god and I don’t understand why you would take the bible literally when mankind has had way too much influence on its writing, resulting in several hundred different sects of said religion.
If the sun was created on the fourth day, how did he count the first 3 days
He can do anything
@@CaiBuster he cant
Christopher Hitchens said it best when he said, “An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” Full stop. Nothing more necessary. Mic drop.
"By simple common sense, I'm an atheist" Charlie Chaplin
@Phil Tonge Charlie Chaplin was an atheist?
common sense, is not scientific. if science is the understanding of material reality, and reality of itself, common sense , won t do! common sense is the least common of the senses.
common sense = rational thinking in this case
+Paul Schultz *_"If this is 'common sense', I would HATE to see stupid!!!"_*
Then I'd advise you not to look in the mirror.
@Paul Schultz Then who created god?
You cannot prove a "god" of some kind does not exist. You CAN however prove that certain claims of gods is false.
definition of God never worked and is not a real definition but a claim to a definition refused because it is nonsense that does not function as a definition as the attributes conflict as well as are impossible to function as just words used to HIDE a god in that do not permit such lies... tell me a square round hole is there and i call you a liar...that is how Atheist know and theist serve lies and so are SATANIST so deep as victims they have no clue what they are and think they are the opposite despite proof in face they are in fact OPPOSING TRUTH WITH LIES and false ways to claim truth is there when not.
God being against his own commands and order to murder and kill babies just to steal land and how he is so terrified of IRON CHARIOTS makes it clear god is goat headers piles of lies.
Fred: It is impossible to prove there was NOT some kind of "first mover" god(s)(ess)(esses). While I do not believe in any claims of gods, I accept the POSSIBILITY of one existing outside of the established claims of a god. There is no flaw to my notion, until and unless someone can assert with evidence to have the entirety of knowledge in the universe, the concept or possibility of a god always remains.
Peter: Take a deep breath... lay off the Tequila...then try editing your post to make some sort of sense....
first mover was MOTION ITSELF and proof nop gods exist as all and any gods would need to move and movement is as old as infinity so motion from weak frail imperfect link is 1st cause and god...has zero place to even try to be anything but MYTH!
But then you AGAIN come back to the original problem of "what caused the first motion". To assert YOU have all the answers or know for a fact things that are unknown is ridiculously arrogant and shows how fragile your ego truly is. If you have empirical evidence of HOW the universe formed and what CAUSED the Big Bang, please go collect your Nobel Prize, otherwise I'd suggest spending your time trolling Christian forums, since that seems to be around your intellectual capability.
You missed one, if God is omnipotent, meaning that he knows the pleasure in doing something unjust or evil, then he is not omnibenevolent, and if he is omnibenevolent, then he can't know the pleasure in doing something unjust or evil, meaning that he isn't omnipotent.
Also, God cannot be both entirely just and merciful at the same time, as that is contradictory in most definitions.
@@skaetur1 Yep that too. Although, Crhistians will use their favorite (iT wAS sAtiN!!1!1!) excuse.
Unfortunately an argument isn’t defeated until nobody uses it anymore
Unicorns do exist. They are a type of rhinoceros.
Oh yeah ? Do you have a nose on your forehead?
Pete Grusky lol
@@petegrusky2715 wut?
according to mythology you can only see a unicorn if you are a virgin female, and at the end of a rainbow, which is impossible since a rainbow goes in a complete circle around the globe.
@@CryoticMienshao nope
"You can't prove God doesn't exist."
It is not me who should prove you that God doesn't exist. It is YOU who must prove that he exists.
Burden of Proof.
why? u cannot possibly think that it is a good evidence for his not existence.
@@LeventeCzelnai I never said he didn't exist.
Rule of Burden of Proof, if you argue something exists or is true it is on you to prove it, not me to prove the contrary.
Otherwise...you can't prove that a dog didn't made the universe, so it is ON you to prove that I AM WRONG.
@@Jose-yt3qz if u want to get a 100% confidence in God , of course u won't get it. this is why its faith. there are some questions like 'is there God', we need answers to and have to live by that fact our chance for error is pretty significant.
my point was, it's not reasonable to reject its non existence based on that we can't prove it exist. even if the Christian theology doesn't adds up, there are 1000000 possible ways to think about the concept.
@@LeventeCzelnai Oh yes, certainly, notice that I never made the claim that any divine figure doesn't exist, for all what I know the Real Gods can be the Aztec Ones, problem?
We can stay the whole day discussing it, but eventually the end question is always 'So, okay, nice metaphysical theory, but how do we know that actually exists?' And to make it worse, how do YOU know that the existing dvine figure is this one you worship?
Why is there so much suffering?
Theist:" god has a plan. Its gods will "
If thats true then god is just playing games here. Letting horrible things happen just to watch.
It is very scary to me that in this case of God's non existence I'm left all alone in the times of tragedy and depression and crisis in my life
I have a giant tortoise that lives in my house but only comes out when no one else is around.disprove it.
Sotiris Krol We actually have compelling evidence that giant tortoises exist, unlike God, so it's more likely you have a giant tortoise in your house than that God exists.
Patrick Hackett the his tortoise is YUUUGE.i actually have to live in a mansion to give it enough room for a bed.the entire state of Massachusetts is its habitat.
Videotape it with a camera... your rule was no one else is around but a camera is not a person
Sotiris Krol
Lol, That's more like it 👍
Sotiris Krol I don't think this one can be disproved.
You saying the fake dude ain't real?! Dang..
Cameron Youngs I’m glad God made me an athiest, you agree?
@@Ellie_2810 I'm an athiest I swear to god
Yes I'm an atheist I swear to Prometheus
@@pard3sh15 ooh the irony 😂
This isn't funny. You all will be begging for forgiveness from that thing that birthed himself to himself and then sacrificed himself to... Uh .. himself for stuff that all people even the ones not existing yet so HA... I Think... Idk now my head hurts. And THATS proof! Of .. dammit.... I'll be back I gotta go read and misinterpret some stuff..
This was great!!! Thanks!!! Let me know if I can help you in any way. Keep up the good work!!!
Nicely put and well presented. Keep it up.
You Cant proof you dont own me 100million so pay up
Very easily
He can very easily prove he doesn't owe you millions
@@dag_will2615 he can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt
@@kohhkeith3788 s
@@Sednas WTF happened lol
This is exactly the logic I used to come to come to the same conclusion. God can not be omnipotent and omnibenevolent if such a being did exist
I'm not asserting such a being does exist, but I would suggest that omnipotence and omnibenevolence could easily be reconciled with a being who possesses the _power_ to act, but whose _love_ causes _self-restraint_ .
That is to say, a parent will allow a child to fall, so the child can learn to stand and ultimately walk _because_ the parent loves the child and _wants_ the child to learn. The child isn't allowed to fall because the parent _doesn't_ have the power to prevent it, nor because the parent _doesn't_ love the child.
The same could apply to omnipotence and omnibenevolence (assuming that inaction is motivated _by_ love).
@@truerealrationalist A baby with cancer and many other people doesn't get this chance so his goodness would be limited and only apply to some.
omnipotent (limitless abilities) means that one can do the evilest evil
@@truerealrationalist an all powerful all knowing all good God would be able to create perfect beings with all the knowledge possible therefore making a painful process of learning unnecessary
@@vladimirchobgto9691
If we had infinite knowledge, but lacked the ability to act on it, would this not also lead to suffering? The image of the main character from Black Sabbath's Iron Man comes to mind.
you seem to have a huge misunderstanding of omniscience, knowing everything does not mean that the future is fixed. I will give you a simple example, think of a computer that has a prediction algorithm on it, and that takes three inputs to determine an output, after enough training the algorithm will be able to determine all possible outcomes based on the inputs, hence it "knows everything" about the phenomena is analyzing. The fact that the algorithm "knows everything" doesn't mean that the future (outcome) is fixed, but that depending on the inputs it already knows all possible outcomes, hence Freewill can be understood as the ability to change the outcome of an event based on your inputs and omniscience would come to be as the ability to know what will happen in all possible scenarios.
A similar extraction can be seen as you based God's benevolence or goodness in our moral plane, in other words you are humanizing God and for that reason you are doing your assumptions with an already wrong baseline.
All the other statements on the video follow a similar train of thought and are equally flawed, but it's a very interesting video nonetheless.
Wanna try to explain on what “moral plain” children with cancer makes sense?
According to apologists human morality comes directly from god. Too convenient to suggest that goodness has a different meaning for god when facts don’t add up.
As for humanizing god, sorry but it’s the other way around. God allegedly created humans in his image, usually intended as physical and/or spiritual. Can’t have it both ways. Always shifting the goal post every time a contradiction is pointed out.
The old excuse of the inscrutability of god is just that: an excuse to wiggle out of explaining an untenable position.
Yes I agree with that. In the quran God is described as merciful and oft forgiving to those who repent rather than benevolent so it clears up some of that debate for us Muslims.
@@pansepot1490 God and Humans are still different beings so it is wrong to give God human qualities when we dont understand what "His image" means. Otherwise, in the Quran atleast, God says that all shall be compensated for their suffering in the mortal world in the here after. Ironically I was born with cancer, in the end I am to be compensated an equal amount of what I had suffered. In fact any mother who dies in childbirth, no matter her religious orientation, she will go to heaven. But again, atleastin the Quran.
Knowing the future certainty and making educated guesses(computer)of limited possibilities can't be equated. Thus the computer supernatural diety comparation is flawed.
Further strengthening my point by the 'eternal' and 'omni present' creator doctrines - in this perspective it's always " *ME NOW HERE*, so how can anything be Free of ME"
It's valid even if there are infinite possibilities and any nbr of reality.
Simply, 3O deities don't work.
Pretty controversial.
That's why politeis make a bit more sense in Morality and Power disputes.
God created you, he's omniscient, he knows whether you'll sin or not even before creating you, thus he knows whether you'll be damned to hell or not before your birth, how's that indicative of freewill?
If I know all your actions with 100% certainty before you even get to make them, then how are you free if I'm able to absolutely predict your every move?
God knows what'll do so there isn't any point at all. If there's two choices, A and B that I can make, and God knows I'll pick choice A then I cannot ever pick B, otherwise God will be wrong and that cannot happen.
Equating God with a machine-learning algorithm that learns predictions that doesn't even come close to "omniscience" or 100%, that're based on existent limited data is not only a laughably false equivalence but also shows the complete lack of critical thinking one needs to have in order to possess faith in any kind of deity.
The critical thinking capacity is so sub-par that anyone can become complacent in their sense apparatus of rationality, casually coming up with half-baked responses in order to swiftly assuage that uncertainty in their ego-investment while smugly being self-satisfied with their comforting familiarity with the deity they have deemed to exist.
Saying you can't prove god doesn't exist is the equivalent of saying you can't prove unicorns don't exist, it's a meaningless statement that doesn't go anywhere.
Exactly
Unicorns don't exist because if they did, we would have already found them or something related to them. Same with God - we absolutely can disprove specific God hypotheses, and we have. That's why the concept of God evolved from a literal guy in the sky who moves mountains and makes donkeys talk to a non-interventionist entity beyond space and time. Theist beliefs have been forced to protect themselves from falsifiability, which made them epistemically meaningless. Now it's just conservative morality with some extra bells and whistles.
To be fair, i do believe we cant disprove god in a board sense, but i am fully confident we can dismiss quantifiable gods such as the god of abraham, odin, etc.
That's the point, he did say depending on the definition.
Let's deal with this statement.
ua-cam.com/video/yH2X8Vmu5TY/v-deo.html
NPC #34254334 Response: no
Sun Flower Lmao stfu . There’s no errors or contradictions. You haven’t even read it in the slightest. Looking up in google “bible errors” it’s not reading it. And nobody said God doesn’t know about the laws of the universe, dumbest shit I’ve heard. Of course he does. He’s the creator.
@@mr.punkie5872 Claiming that there are no errors or contradictions doesn't make those errors and contradictions go away.
“Miracles”: the proof that placebo effect is real
@@blahblahblah4544 me j
@@blahblahblah4544 to be fair I don't expect people to believe my weird experiences.
@@ghuttsmckenzie4269 more people like you man!!! 🙌
@@pavelm.gonzalez8608 how am I supposed to tell them I saw a hellhound, the grudge girl ghost, and a creepy floating black stick In the middle of the night and expect them to think I shouldn't be in a an insane asylum. It doesn't seem realistic.
@@ghuttsmckenzie4269 And these HAVE to be Abrahamic God-sent visions and not for example 1) dreams 2) delusions 3) tall tales / lies 4) signs from some other God or telepathic being you don't believe in 5) drug-based hallucinations 6) some other weird brain chemisty shit - how? Could you please break down the method how you conclude these are definite signs from your God and not some of those other things mentioned? I'd be very interested to know how you know it.
Weren't you playing bass at that Metalica concert I saw last year?
The question about the rock does not have logic. If the rock is too heavy for God, this means that the rock is infinite, and stops being a rock. God cannot be bad, cannot die, cannot create circle squares, cannot create single husbands.
@@Atlas718 Hi! I understand the paradox. My point is that you could have infinite power, and still you can't do things. As I said before, even if you have infinite power, you can't make circled squares, or single husbands/wives, or 4 sides triangles, because those things are against their own definition. So, the solution for this paradox may be to understand correctly what omnipotence means...Omnipotence is NOT the ability to do everything, even if the thing is absurd or contradictory. According to Aquinas, omnipotence is doing everything that is possible, the power to do all POSSIBLE things, but the absurd/contradictory/illogic cannot be done.
@Satan McDougal II In my opinion, the problem with that claim is that confuses limitless power with the power to do all the possible things. Could a limitless power being be a being with limited power? The answer is NO, otherwise is contradictory, but that does not means that is not a being with limitless power. In other words, being omnipotent is not the ability to do all things, just the possible/logical things.
This will lead to Oolon Colluphid's best selling book in the galaxy, 'Well That About Wraps It Up For God.'
"Who Is This God Person Anyway?"
There's another proof that the Christian God (the God of the Bible) cannot exist. In the same way that a four-sided triangle cannot exist because "four-sided" and "triangle" are contradictory statements, if the Bible contains even a single contradiction regarding God's words, deeds, or attributes, then we can state unequivocally that God, as described in the Bible, cannot exist. I'm sure you or I would have an easy time finding contradictions.
bibviz.com
Here is a site that lists all the contradictions in the bible. You can also find it by googling "Bible Contradictions."
It's funny just how terribly written the bible truly is! Sometimes God contradicts himself in the bible. So how can we even give him the title of omniscient? How would God know everything when he doesn't even know what he really wants?
Edit: In the bible God also regrets making Saul king, because Saul turns his back on God (for some reason.) However if God were omniscient, why wouldn't he already know that making Saul king would in turn lead to him turning his back on God?
Debunkosaurus The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster says the contradictions were placed in it to test your faith.
But i cannot find a statement in the bible that every letter in the bible has been proofread by god.
B Sto Irrelevant. If there is a contradiction in the Bible, then God (as described in the Bible) cannot exist because His's description would be self-contradictory.
That would be like saying: if there is any contradiction in all biographies about your mother, your mother cannot exist.
God violates the omnipotence paradox. For anyone who doesn’t know what that is, essentially, god is omnipotent, meaning he has infinite power and can do whatever the hell he wants. If he can do anything that means he can make a paperweight so heavy he can’t lift it, but since he’s omnipotent he can, but the paperweight was specifically made so god couldn’t lift it, but he can do anything.
Ah, actually, I’ve learned that there are multiple ways of looking at omnipotence.
There’s people who believe that God’s omnipotence works in a way that simply defies all laws of logic. That way, He can do anything, even illogical absurdities. He can bypass any logical problems. Regarding your question about the paperweight, I believe that people who believe God’s omnipotence works this way will probably answer “yes”, just like how Rene Descartes notoriously did.
There’s also a way of looking at it that God’s omnipotence doesn’t mean He can do absolutely anything, but instead, He can do anything logically possible. Logic is a part of His nature. He is THE logic. For one, He can’t create a square-circle, or perhaps a ten sided triangle, and even a married bachelor. These don’t logically make sense. How can one be a bachelor despite being married? So He cannot do anything illogical this way. Regarding your question about the paperweight, people who believe God’s omnipotence works this way would probably answer “no.”
There’s also an argument that says that the language humans employ in order to understand omnipotence is simply not sufficient for understanding it. For one, when you describe something, you use words to say what it is. People who hold this view towards omnipotence would say that the attempts to describe omnipotence in human language are attempts to limit what omnipotence is. Can omnipotence be limited? If not, then don’t the words we use to describe it limit it from what it really is?
There’s also a lot more of other understandings of what omnipotence could be. Quite fascinating, don’t you agree?
@@leahcimoyatse5511 I'd say those forwarding the third interpretation of omnipotence are not adding to the debate, as it appears to just be "God's omnipotent characteristic is ineffable". God is already described as ineffable, making the point redundant.
I'd like to ask your opinion on something though; can a non-omnipotent being perform an act that an omnipotent being cannot?
@@TheBahamunt Regarding your opinion on the third interpretation, I would like to say that perhaps you are right. But nonetheless, I believe it is a valid interpretation of God’s omnipotence. I personally see that the people who hold that view simply say that they don’t know and perhaps wouldn’t ever know how God’s omnipotence works.
For my opinion on that matter, to be perfectly honest with you, I am sorry but I am not sure how I am going to answer that. I do not take a position on how God’s omnipotence works as of the time I’m writing this comment down. I’m still looking into how people interpret God’s omnipotence and so far I believe I have yet to see much. I would say however that the interpretations and understandings I’ve seen so far all seem to hold weight and will probably help me in forming the position I’ll take in the future, if I ever decide to take a position.
To provide something, however, the first answer that came to mind was “no” but as I’ve pointed up above, I am not so sure about that.
By the way, how about you? Do you maybe have your own answer to that question? Also, how do you personally interpret or understand how omnipotence works?
@@leahcimoyatse5511 Like you, I'm still exploring how best to define/interpret the notion omnipotence when applied to a being such a god.
My answer to my question is yes. The very paradox brought up in the video would suggest this to be so. A non-omnipotent being can logically create something so heavy that they cannot lift it.
I'm not really in the right frame of mind to argue further right now as the pubs opened again today and I got a bit carried away.
@@TheBahamunt Ah I see. I hope you had a good one! Take care out there!
The Law of Noncontradiction has nothing to do with the real world; it is entirely about the nature of human language/logic.
When debating something that can't be proven to be real logic is all we have
The rain it raineth every day, on both the just and unjust fella, but mostly on the just because the unjust has the just's unbrella.
umbrella
You get a pass on that one. The 'm' and the 'n' are right next to each other. ;-)
What does 'raineth' mean?
It is an archaic or poetic third person verb form of rains used to ensure that a line of verse scans.
The first time I heard this quotation (from NZ's first Chief Youth Court Judge the late Mick Brown) I thought "This guy's on to it."
"Shit happens" (and often to the good fella) as The Buddha might say.
The deistic claim is that god is the creator if the universe. When asked "who created god" , the answer is always "god doesn't require a creator"......god exists as an 'ucaused first cause' and requires no creation.
This idea can be shown to be false (or, more accurately, I have yet to get a real answer from a theist or deist that wasn't a flat out 'i don't know') with the following line of thinking:
When asked "what is more complex: god or the universe", the deistic argument is 'god would have to be more complex than the universe it created'.
From there, the next question is "If something as complex as god is able to just exist without creation....why would something less complex, like a universe, somehow require a creator?" If it is so hard for some to fathom that our reality could exist without creation....and the complexity of our reality is used as the evidence for that claim....why is it so easy to accept that something even more complex and amazing can just pop into existence without a creator?
Simple as.
KandaPanda And how did the universe just pop into existence? Checkmate atheist.
@@evangelistkimpatrik I wouldnt be so mindlessly arrogant as to claim to 'know how it started (if, in fact, it did)' and then use 'faith' as 'evidence'. ;-)
Your post is far from 'checkmate' as its merely restating the issue I posted about the theistic claim that god exists. If you can explain how god was 'created' and give evidence to support it, then there is zero reason for anybody to accept your claim that god didnt require a creator. Sadly for you....you still have yet to provide tangible evidence that a god exists in the first place, let alone that it didn't require a creator.
I'd give you a bit of credit, however, if you could list the main logical fallacy your post is based on....
KandaPanda Lawrence Krauss argues that the universe came from literary nothing. Now where did that ”nothing” come from? Same as first cause. We simply need a first cause.
@@evangelistkimpatrik 1) no he didn't. If youd of actually read his work youd see that he *created his own definition for nothing.*
2) attacking his argument instread of what I said....is a logical fallacy. Atheism isn't dogmatic....thus, not all atheists believe the same or even similar things. You can say 'one atheist says this' and pretend like _all atheists agree._ That would be yet another logical fallacy.
3) if a first cause is needed, your god would require it too. If your god doesn't require one....then you just figured out why its possible for something less complex, like a universe, to do the same. If your incredulity is such that you feel that 'nothing can exist without a first cause'....then be intellectually honest and include your god in that.
KandaPanda I just pointed out that we need a first cause. For many atheists it’s nothing, as Lawrence Krauss defines it, and for theists it is God. The point being that our position is no different. Without a first cause we end up in an infinite regress, which is logically impossible.
Frankly, I have lived with and without the Holy Spirit. WITH is better.
I have been rich and I have been poor. RICH is better.
Pascal, a renowned mathematician said, “If my belief in God is wrong, I have lost nothing. If I am right, we’ll, I am prepared to be fulfilled forever.”
Sure do dislike telling so many cops who have had near death experiences that they are delusional. One can say just about any foolish thing in our ignorance of truth. No blame there. God bless this speaker for what he believes is true. He is living evidence that God, unlike Satan’s plan, has truly granted everyone the free will necessary to both create and destroy health or happiness.
I like that you accept that one debunking doesn't debunk every definition of that word, I see alot of strawmen about definitions in the 'rational' community
The same question I asked my religion teacher, If God is omnipotent and nothing can happen without his wish (there is a proverb, "you cannot even shake a leaf of tree without his wish"), how can men sin. We must agree sin is also wish of God, then why should we be punished for that????? I got no fair answer.
Arifur Rahman Because God gave free will to humans they choose what to do they make choices on their own so sin is what a human has chose to do
God wants mankind to choose him and for that to happen there must be free will which raises the possibility of sin but thats just how things work for light to exist so must darkness and for good to exist so must evil
So your teacher is a novice?
if you consider there is something like god it would have a intelligence that is infinite times bigger than ours. Therefore we would never be able to understand it... It's like ants tries to understand string theory...
either everything is god's will (therefore no free will), or humans have free will (and nothing is god's will) - the two are mutually exclussive, can't have both at the same time
You sound pretty certain about the fact that we can’t know anything with certainty.
That always cracks me up🤣
I mean, we know nothing for certain, not instead of having an existential crisis every moment of every day, we use logic to confirm what we can prove to most likely to be true.
That's why he says it's the exception
There is no fucking god that's the answer there is no god we pray it does not work god promises all sins would be over but nothing happens who says something like that if they don't do it that's proves god does not exist there is so much suffering I this world but god does not help he says he will help he does not does not matter when he should do it he should do it right away to end all suffering so the people who are going through so much fucked things I. There life can live a good life is that not enough proof
@@dinarusso1104 See my response above to @SmashEX Entertainment
Very well done. Thank you for this
This is an immensely entertaining channel. Not a philosopher or a believer in the Abrahamic God, but a few thoughts came to mind...The question "Can God create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it." reminds me a lot of Kurd Godel's question about the set of all recursive sets being recursive or non-recursive" and perhaps should be looked at in the same light.
Second, in practice, it can be difficult to know when two things are actually mutually exclusive. For example, before the advent of quantum mechanics, I think that most scientists and philosophers would have said that something cannot be simultaneously both a wave and a particle (and of course, there is still arguments over this.)
Third, while it is easy to propose a world that is better than the one we inhabit, that is not enough, imo. You have to prove that such a world is realizable. For example, I can propose a causal low pass brick wall filter (one that only passes low frequency signals and has an infinitely steep transition, causes no time delay and works only in the direction of positive time) with zero phase shift and I can even describe its properties in detail, but what I cannot do is implement one because that is, by first principles, impossible.
Although, you cannot prove A god exists.
Again this depends on the definition of what you're willing to call "A god"
Why call any being "A god" at all? Why not just call it Steve.
Oh Yeah! Joe Pesci
I suppose you could - if one would appear at your request. Hasn't happened so far.
Coda You can always attribute it to space aliens, or embrace solipsism. I wouldn't, because I want atheism to be in principle, falsifable.
Michael Jones You still cannot, technically- it could be a hallucination or aliens with technology indistinguishable from magic.
Ha, I heard 'entirely made of China, and entirely made of stihl' and immediately thought of a teapot made of little chainsaws.
DeathsHood
Lol, chainsaw teapots.
Do your lumber while also having tea time and don't forget those crumpets.
It could be a steel teapot made in china though
i've got one for you: disproving god depends on how you define god, but it also depends on how you define good/evil. when i was a theist (who broke free thanks to people like you helping me process what the churches and their representatives and congregations did, so thank you!!), i said to my evangelical friend, "it's all good. it's literally all good." meaning, that i was defining evil as good--basically an opportunity for the faithful to demonstrate faith, look for silver linings, stay positive, rise above, etc. i was actually trying to support his beliefs! he was absolutely horrified at the notion of evil being good, but that never stopped him from believing in his inherently contradictory god. how would you debunk the notion that it's literally all good?
Nice video, but I think when people say "you can't prove a negative" it is almost always in the context of existence. As in "prove god doesn't exist". That is why the term is used, not just for negative statements.
Epicuro was a really bright guy, for some one to actually figure this out almost 3000 years ago
with just logic, baffles me why people 3000 years after still believe in some thing that has been
debunked already 3000 years ago!
Rather than baffle me, it saddens me...
But I'll keep spreading his quote all over Morocco regardless...
+Shawnaldo75 This is one of the worst examples of revisionist history. It baffles me that it's so commonly accepted as true.
I'll focus on the history of the relationship between Christianity and science, since I'm more familiar with it as a Christian than I am with other religions' relationships with science.
While there are sadly some notable exceptions, the Church has been one of the most important institutions in history for the advancement of science. It's true that the Enlightenment helped bring about great scientific progress, but it's simply false to say that there were "1800 years of mental retardation" before that.
Case in point - the following scientists were/are Christians (or at least semi-Christian theists):
- Robert Grosseteste
- Albertus Magnus
- Francis Bacon
- Nicolaus Copernicus
- Johannes Kepler
- Galileo Galileo
- Isaac Newton
- Antoine Lavoisier
- Michael Faraday
- Louis Pasteur
- Gregor Mendel
- Max Planck
- Robert Andrews Millikan
- Georges Lemaître
- John Lennox
- Francis Collins
- Fabiola Gianotti
As you should be able to see, some of the most important scientists in history have been Christians. I should note that that list of nowhere near complete.
One of the most interesting examples is perhaps Fabiola Gianotti, the current director-general of CERN and a key figure in the discovery of the Higgs boson. She has said of her religious views, "Science and religion are separate disciplines, though not antithetical. You can be a physicist and have faith or not."
Now, as I mentioned above, the Church's history with science hasn't solely been positive. Some scientists were mistreated or even persecuted for pushing scientific theories that were considered to be antithetical to certain aspects of Christian theology. But even then some of the popular stories contain more legendary aspects than truth (as is the case with Galileo). Also, some of the scientists were punished not because of their scientific views but rather for holding to heretical theology. And, yes, the Church has an ugly history in terms of how it has dealt with atheists and skeptics - but then again that was over heresy, not science.
Basically, your argument is about as silly as the idea that Christopher Columbus proved that the Earth isn't flat.
(Note: Mostly for simplicity's sake, my use of the term "Church" refers to Christians worldwide, not any specific denominations.)
+brenden95delaney
And? How many of those scientists breakthrough discoveries came from reading the bible? How many came from attending mass, and singing the praises of The Yaweh? How many came from saying "if god created everything, then it logically follows that: ... ... ..."
And how many came from the completely rational belief that, through experiment, measurement, and/or observation, we can learn true things, and that those things have an innate and unquestionable truth to them, because we can observe and measure them, irrespective of whatever the bible, or the church might say on the matter?
And how many scientists did the church crucify, in the meantime?
Yes, it's possible to compartmentalize one's beliefs, and still conduct science. At it's core, that is the purpose of science, to prevent preconceived notions from clouding truth... that, however does not mean that it is a great aid to the scientific process to hold firm, unwavering beliefs in magic, or that there is a major institutionalized pressure that exists in direct opposition to knowledge from reason/knowledge from science.
+TheBrothergreen, You know what they say: "With so many scientists in Hell, the place must be fully air conditioned by now.
+TheBrothergreen Even with your points having some validity, I don't think that you've really disproved my argument. It's simply not true that, prior to the Enlightenment (and perhaps also the Renaissance), scientific progress was hindered to a great extent by religious authorities. There's a reason why historians by and large no longer use the term "Dark Ages" and instead call that time period the Middle Ages. Though it hasn't had a positive relationship with science in every instance, the Church has consistently been a major patron of science.
Even though I think that what I said still stands, I'll certainly respond to your points. I'd appreciate it if you could read my whole comment (apologies for it being a little long-winded):
"And? How many of those scientists breakthrough [...]"
I never made that claim. In my view, the Bible isn't a scientific book, and I know that many Christians would agree. This is a major part of why so many scientists in history haven't seen contradictions between their faith and their scientific study. Theology and science are two different aspects of learning; theology tells us about God, and science tells us about the universe that He created. Christian scientists can worship God in a church service on Sunday and then continue their worship throughout the rest of the week by studying God's Creation. I'm not saying that science progresses is through Biblical or theological studies or by participating in church activities, but I also don't think that doing any of those things precludes people from doing scientific work.
"And how many came from the completely rational belief [...]"
I actually largely agree with you here. Science is done best via empirical experiments. The scientific method has certainly been of immense value due to its contribution toward scientific progress. Interestingly, though, the origins of the scientific method has clear links to Christianity, as Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, among others, proposed theories about the kinds of knowledge that could be obtained by observation and induction.
I do my best to balance my interpretation of the Bible in light of sound scientific discovery, in a similar way to how certain theological claims shape my interpretation - for example, I'll never interpret a passage as literally saying that the Earth is flat, just as I'll never interpret a passage to mean that God is evil. (However, I do also try to allow the text to speak for itself, and I actually do admit that I might be at least initially more skeptical of certain scientific claims in part because of that. I won't claim to be free of all bias.)
In terms of what the Church says, I may not be the best person to ask, since I'm more of a "low-church" Protestant and don't hold to ecclesial authority as strongly as Christians from some other denominations do. I know that other faithful Christians disagree with me on this point - and have strong arguments - but I'd say that this exact issue should temper the notion of the "infallibility" of the Church. The Church (meaning the historic body of believers, so as to encompass all denominations) can certainly be wrong, and it has been a number of times in the past.
Plus, scientists can actually be very helpful in guiding the Church in matters of our knowledge about the universe. In fact, in certain cases, the Church has been inextricably linked with scientific discovery, such as in the formulation of the Big Bang theory; Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe (widely misattributed to Hubble). Thus, the Catholic Church's position is that the Big Bang theory doesn't conflict with its doctrine.
"And how many scientists did the church crucify, in the meantime?"
It's certainly true that the Church doesn't have a spotless history when it comes to its dealings with contrary teachings. The Inquisition definitely happened, and I lament that. However, I do know that many instances of persecution were over orthodoxy and heresy rather than scientific views (though at times the two intersected, as some scientific views were declared contrary to Scripture and Church doctrine).
For example, Giordano Bruno was most likely burned at the state not because of his heliocentric views but rather because of his refusal to recant his belief in Hermeticism. Likewise, although Galileo's conflict with the Catholic Church did center around the heliocentricism, it seems to be the case that he was put under house arrest more so for other reasons. The character in his book that advocates for geocentrism - named Simplicio, meaning "simpleton" - was likely based on the Pope (some of his dialogue is direct quotations from conversations with Galileo). Since Galileo refused to deny this, on top of not renouncing heliocentricism, he was arrested. Without this, he might've avoided the conflict, given that the book was a dialogue between two characters and technically didn't advocate one position over the other.
"Yes, it's possible to compartmentalize one's [...]"
Again, I definitely agree with the notion of doing science as objectively as possible. But I would take it one step further and say that non-theists are not immune from bias. The way I see it, the best way to conduct scientific research would be to operate with an agnostic mindset, although only while in the process of said research. I don't think that this disallows a scientist from believing that good science will point us to God, as long as that perspective is set aside while conducting experiments.
Furthermore, calling theism (whether Christian or otherwise) a belief in "magic" is not only an oversimplification but also a misrepresentation. I could go into an explanation for why that is, but I won't due to the fact that it'd be slightly off-topic and because of how long this comment is already.
Finally, the idea that the Church exists as an institution in "direct opposition" to science seems to be a relatively recent one. As I said above, famous theologians and other Church figures were directly involved in formulating what a few centuries later became the scientific method. It's only in about the past two centuries that a large amount of Christians have become so suspicious of science and scientists, and I honestly think that that's very unfortunate. I even have to admit that, as a more "low-church" Protestant, my (overall) theological viewpoints - which might be characterized as "Evangelical" - have some roots in (some of) the very movements that originally began to distrust modern scientific research. I find that very regrettable, as it seems to me like the people who began these movements were simply overreacting to new challenges to the faith.
In spite of my Protestantism, on this matter I actually find myself agreeing very much with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason." There really isn't a dichotomy between Christianity and science, and thus Christians shouldn't make objections to good scientific research. It's unfortunate that it's happened in the past and is definitely being done by some Christians nowadays, but at its best the Church actually promotes science (and it has done so).
You can only prove that the DEFINITION of God is contradictory and thus logically impossible, because this god was defined by people who probably wanted to impress other people with the god's power and didn't actually think through what they were saying to its logical conclusion. Or was defined gradually over time, thus introducing contradictions. A being with the ability to create a universe may or may not exist, there's no way of proving or disproving it unless that being actually reveals itself in some way.
Omnipotence paradox and omniscience paradox have been debunked since a long time. And it's not that difficult to understand.
Son Goku ho Son of goku how are you;)
Only the proven existence of string theory would prove any existence of God or some being(s) able to create life and obfuscate its existence thanks to particle wave duality displaying retro causality. This is also a solid argument against omnipotence because strings are not always benevolent.
What is the definition of God and how is it contradictory?
What contradictions are you referring to?
@@zeraphking1407 Those in the video. It's a month since I wrote that, and I can't remember exactly to what I was referring, but it should be pretty self-explanatory. Note, I'm not arguing the case for or against the existence of a deity, just the definitions as stated in the video.
Sorry to be nit-picky, the assertion that no proof of any kind is absolutely is not correct. Mathematical proofs are absolute by definition.
My favourite objection to this argument is that if an inability to proof that something or someone does not exist proofs its existence (as it is often impilied by your opponent), then you can ask your opponent to proof that there are no arguments against god's existence. If he can't do that (and he can't) then such arguments must exists which proves that there are no god.
MAN! I've used these exact arguments COUNTLESS times. It's awesome to see someone out there (who is smarter than me) who talks about them! Specifically the free will one. I've always pointed out that if something created you, knows everything, and has a "plan," then free will cannot exist.
Really, I've yet to have anyone actually explain how they come to that conclusion. And my brother and best friend are Atheist. And my uncle has been agnostic for 40+ years. Free will absolutely exists. The only way free will does not exist is if we know our own future, or if some Omniscient being tells us what our future will be and then gives us no choice in the matter. Since neither of these things are true statements we have free will since "God has not revealed our future to us" even if he told us what our future was and showed us. I would bet we would feel cheated to not have a chance to prove it to ourselves since we still don't have perfect knowledge or understanding.
What if in the most hypothetical of situations. All the outside circumstances, past consequences, and genetics/luck puts us in a situation where we can consciously make a choice one way or the other with no perceived negative or positive reactions. An inconsequential choice is just that. But we still call it a choice. we have habits that are so routine we don't even do them consciously. I was told when I was 23 that I make an audible clicking noise with my throat that I never knew about. I constantly crack my knuckles at games loading screens. and I can choose not to whenever I desire. Nothing is making me do anything.
@@AKABattousai because simply, if there was some almighty being that created you, who had a "plan," and was omniscient, he would know, by default, every decision you were going to make. And, since he created you in the first place, in order for his plan to work, you would have to do exactly what he created you to do, or.....well, the plan wouldn't work. It's paradox of omniscience and omnipotence. So, there is no free will. You were "created" to do what the Christian god wanted you to do, if you prescribe to that nonsense.
@@trelane88 That wouldn't prove that free will doesn't exist. The key issue here is that whatever choices we make, the consequences of those choices are not something we have a full understanding of. So by definition. and things like trial and error, we can still make wrong choices. and learn from mistakes.
Can you explain something to me? If you don't have a belief in a God figure. Can you really scrutinize a made up behavior that you are attaching to him. How do you know he has a set plan for each of us. If a Baby dies 3 seconds after it's born that isn't much of a plan. Unless you then figure what caused that baby to suffer. Was it the product of poverty or basic medical needs. Warlords, Dictators, etc. Free will being part of those situations makes us all alot more responsible than God who we can't even prove is there. To go through life and not believe in a free will would be quite depressing to me.
"Oh look here come the rapists again. guess I can't be upset about the situation or even hope that it can change."
I can understand not wanting to be subjected to Faith based concepts because those require effort. But to go around trying to kill Hope as well. That I don't understand. Hope in itself starts with the belief that things beyond our control can change. E.I. Free Will
@@AKABattousai People who believe in the Abrahamic God say that he is omniscient and knows everything. That’s one of the biggest things people say about him. If that isn’t true, what about all the lesser known things about him?
@@zacharygilmore1075 If we are assuming things aren't his characteristics. There would have to be some form that the concept is being imagined as.
Many mythical Gods are figures that aren't omniscient. usually becoming a character in a story. And the character can be used to teach some moral. and the story is used to be part of the people's culture.
I'm an atheist.
At religion classes, we got told that you shouldn't see the bible stories & god as actual facts ; but as lessons for in real life. An example : Jesus arising from his grave, we saw it as that when someone dies that they remain in our heart.
Idk why people take these religious books so literally.
Feel free to have a different opinion over them though.
I agree, i dont like religions because followers take it as 100% true, no questions, but as a story book with life lessons the bible is much more acceptable
Ludovic Ovsepian no no no! Me niether, i said SOME lessons, mostly the lessons you teach your kids, be nice to eachother that kind of stuff, hating gay people because a book told you to is retarded
But the morality of the Bible is horrific in places.
Stoning of alleged non virgins on their wedding night on her fathers doorstep?
God sending 2 bears to kill 42 children for mocking Elijas bald head?
Setting out the specific rules on owning other human beings as slaves?
Global genocide?
instructions to take no thought for tomorrow, sell all your possessions?
Saying you have to hate your immediate family if you want to follow Jesus.
Stopping the sun in the sky so as to facilitate a slaughter?
Make a deal to win battle if a General will kill the first thing that comes out of his house?
I cant think of a less moral book.....
jon fromtheUK yes but the lessons i meant were the dumbed down lessons you teach kids and thats it, the book can teach SOME good lessons and the rest is shit, i dont get why people are misunderstanding me
the cub zion storm
Exactly what I meant.
This is actually one of the big things I realized that made me deconvert.
While I wholeheartedly agree that the god of Abraham can be disproven, in a number of various ways, your "nail in the coffin" example is fundamentally flawed. To say that evil could not exist under an omni-benevolent god, there must a universally understood and accepted definition of both good and evil. There is not. Any evil acts recognized by some must be recognized by all. Clearly that is not the case.
abrahamic religions assume there is objective good and evil
This is a ridiculous rebuttal because remember we are not talking about different cultural view points. The criteria for sin is laid out in the bible of which the God of Abraham stems from. That said, there is stated thou shall not kill. We all know this is one of God's rules and in the bible God enforces said law with his own hand. This is not the case in the real world. Regardless of man's definition of evil or sin God has his own and we see no examples of God interfering in man's affairs to enforce his definition of good and justice. That's why his argument is sound #peace
@@magnumopus8202 actually it is not. The bible clearly states evil will not be done unpunished but goodness will be greeted with eternal life. We as humans can say why does god let people die, but if you’ve actually read the bible it clearly gives goodness the chance for eternal life. And also don’t come with any foolish argument like ”why does evil exist” beacuse that is also written in the bible, just as everything else. The biggest problem in non-believers is they don’t actually read the book. Also god does interfere with evilness by giving people the chance to live by the law of God and therefore, gifting them with eternal life.
So what you’re saying is basically the same as saying the government does not interfere with illegal activity, beacuse it happens all the time. But just as almost all societyes, God punishes evil, therefore he interferes.
The problem is getting a theist to clearly and specifically define the traits & qualities of the god that they believe in...
Im so glad I found this channel. Thanks man keep up the good work.
Essentially, we can never know if God exists.
So we can prove that many of the attributes given to this God are false, but not that a god doesn't exist?
In the end, we are just showing that people have a tendency to spin and exaggerate.
I'm an atheist because I have seen no credible evidence to support the existence of any god. Nuff said.
Love your work Stephen. I would love to have a conversation with you. But I’d end up questioning whether I existed or not. Keep up the great content.
My 1st year philosophy prof did that to our entire class one day
We could not prove we existed lol
i got mine tho one day
i was late for class and apologized for tardiness
He said "No problem,time is just a confidence trick invented by the Swiss"
i replied
"It is a confidence trick,but perfected by the Swiss"
"Who all care very deeply about who you sleep with, and it what position"
Hahaha well played mate x'D
I have realized that God sounds very much like an animal-breeder who is trying to breed us for docile domestication... like we did with sheep.
You Can't Prove That Atheist Doesn't Exist. From where does Atheist don't Exist or come into existence?
@@user-xr3ye4do5v "you can't prove atheist doesn't exist"
Do you even know what atheist means?
@@wahidahmed2525It a concept. But that concept is never proved. Even It cannot explain what claim.
@@user-xr3ye4do5v that's like asking to someone prove the position that they don't think Santa Claus exists.
You claim there is a God, I say "I'm not convinced". I'm an atheist, what is tehre to prove?
Please debunk Bashar’s “Four laws of Creation”. I know you’ve done “new age channellers”, but I think this deserves a bit of extra scrutiny. Thanks
Any time someone says "you can't prove a negative," I point out how you can rephrase the claim to say "there are no proofs that can prove a negative," or "No proofs that prove a negative exist" - the claim is itself a negative in disguise.
Well you can't prove god doesn't eat waffles, Checkmate, Atheists.
you cant prove i don't eat my applesauce
@@Lilly-fh7re touche
I could just ask you if you do or don't. If you don't answer, I assert you don't exist.
@@korytoombs886 :L
the Jiminator All Gods eat their own shit, prove me wrong.... Which one of the shit breaths do you believe in.....
You’ve committed the fallacy fallacy by assuming an argument incorrect just because a fallacy has been made
Lol jk
Wait, if there's a fallacy in the argument then the argument is incorrect right? The conclusion may still be correct but the argument isn't. That's my understanding.
A fallacy in an argument means that the argument is invalidated. Also, the odds that an argument with a false premise reaching a true conclusion is far far smaller than reaching a false conclusion, unless you contrive it.
(If "I am a person", then "the sky is blue") is a fallacy, even if "the sky is blue" is true. However, this argument is as valid as directly making the assertion ("the sky is blue").
Thus an argument with fallacy is usually equivalent to an assertion. Plus showing how illogical the person is.
lol how ironic
Brilliant! No more arguing ever!
There are some apologists that say there is a reason for evil too complex for us to understand. That is a meaningless claim because it is unfalsifiable
If it's unfalsifiable there's a good chance it's true and therefore far from meaningless. Find a better reason.
@@j.kilgore8664 There is a teapot too small no human instrument can detect. Would you believe that its blue? Wow its light blue and it spins! Find a better thing to believe in lol
@@j.kilgore8664 things in the bible are always too dificult to explain or impossible to prove because they belong to another "plane of reality" and the all powerful god you all talk about has so little force, he doesnt affect matter or energy in a way it can be measured.
If I say you cant prove god its because god doesnt affect material reality in a measurable way. Therefore you can say he exists or he doesnt exist and that doesnt change anything. Thats why he is unfalsifiable and meaningless.
@@j.kilgore8664 Your eternal master doesnt impose orders and the coward general doesnt show up when battle is due. We have to believe he looks down to us, watching us suffer from space or smth and doesnt ever show up or make some damn signs.
That is more easily explained by believen that guy doesnt even exist in the first place. Everyone can exist but never show up, thats an easy criterion. But Its much harder to actually interact with stuff.
I set my lower bound for belief there.
Santa exists according to oral criteria and written books but he never shows up in christmas and there is a bunch of guys that have proof that he is just a regular guy in cosplay.
That is the exact same scenario we have with god and I would never believe santa actually exists and does the thinks people claim he does.
Only children do, and they cry when they discover they have been lied to. Think about that slowly. You have been lied to.
On your own you would have never believed on the exact same god as the rest of the people around you If you hadnt been taught to believe on him.
While I am an atheist myself, I think one argument presented in this video is flawed. The argument about reality, omnipotence and omnibenevolence is contradicting is pretty convincing and its one of the reasons I dont believe in a god. However, the argument that omnipotence contradicts itself has a flaw. Because omnipotence is defined as unlimited power, it is logically contradicting for something to be heavier than an omnipotent being to lift is contradicting. Its like the example of the teapot being made entirely of china and entirely of steel at the same time. It is logically impossible for an object existing such that unlimited power cant lift it. It would suggest that a number bigger than infinity exists. Similar example would be no matter how good you are at drawing or mathematics, you cannot draw a square that has no corners. Because by definition a square needs to have corners and if it doesnt, it isnt a square anymore.
I want to reemphasize that I do believe you can prove that god doesnt exist. I just believe that spesific argument is not valid.
"It's not full of tea...but it should be." Some how this sums up my day
Science: **Exists**
Math: *Are You challenging me?*
Lots and lots of people get stuck on the most common use of the definition of Deity/God being tied to how Christianity, Islam and Judaism define it. I believe the definition is broader than that.
From dictionary definitions:
1. A God can be the supreme or ultimate reality such as the God of Abraham, Vishnu, or incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as an eternal Spirit and infinite Mind.
2. A God can be a being or object that is worshiped as having more than natural attributes and powers.
3. A God can be a person or thing of supreme value.
4. A God can be a powerful ruler.
5. Other examples I’ve left out.
The term “God” is an honorific “Title” given to an “Object” that the believer feels that object has some property, some “Godlike Quality” about it that justifies the believer giving that honorific “Title” of “God” to. In almost all cases a God is worshiped, which simply means that the believer/worshiper has great or even extreme honor, respect, adoration, devotion, reverence and/or similar feelings towards the object the grant the title of God to.
It is the believers who grant the title and what the nonbelievers in any God should do is consider the following list of possibilities which can be scientifically examined about any God defined by any believers.
A God can be an imaginary object
A God can be a real object
A God can be a mixture, part imaginary and part real
The Godly Qualities can be imaginary
The Godly Qualities can be real
The Godly qualities can be a mixture, part imaginary and part real
Thus, the real question is: “For any defined God, what, if any, parts are real vs imaginary?”
**********************
When groups of people worship some object granting it the title of God, this can be very dangerous to those who do not believe in that title and do not worship that object. It is like having a group worship some object and grant that object the title of “Supreme Absolute Leader of All Existence”, which is what the God of Abraham is supposed to be. When a group gives that kind of title to something, the nonbeliever should really find out if there is anything real to either that object of the powers of that object, because if there is any reality behind something given the title of “Supreme Absolute Leader of All Existence” the nonbeliever is in even greater danger than if it is 100% imaginary.
The word God has and is always used as an honorific title given by those who believe the object of the title deserves the honor that title bestows. It is the believer who grants the title along with the details of what that title means to the believer. The title of God is virtually always given to an object of great reverence, but there have been occasions where the title has been given to fill in a believed social order of Gods or in folklore where it has sometimes been easy to qualify as a God so something otherwise considered a minor spirit could become granted the title of God.
A God is the object that believers grant the title of God to. That object can be real or imaginary. The godlike quality a God can real or imaginary and the believers decide what those qualities are. It is all in the eye of the believers, they are the ones who decide what the object is and what the qualities are.
We have a range of the two things the God and its qualities which range from all imaginary to all real.
1. 100% imaginary, 0% real
2. 75% imaginary, 25% real
3. 75% imaginary, 25% real
4. 50% imaginary, 50% real
5. 25% imaginary, 75% real
6. 25% imaginary, 75% real
7. 0% imaginary, 100% real
When a believer gives the title of God to an object the believer worships for some qualities the believer thinks are Godlike, the nonbeliever needs to look at that object and those qualities and decide to what degree the object is imaginary/real and to what degree the qualities are imaginary/real.
For many Gods this seems an easy choice for the nonbeliever, just consider it all 100% imaginary. But the truth is, not all Gods are 100% imaginary and throughout all of recorded history some Gods have been defined by their worshipers which have been partly real and on occasions even 100% real. This is because what really determines what a God is, is the believer who chooses the object of worship for the qualities the believer chooses.
things that don't exist don't leave evidence behind.