Challenge to Theists (short version)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 сер 2010
- The main version (10 mins) of this challenge is here: • Challenge to Theists
(Read on...)
---------------
website and blog: www.nonstampcollector.com
twitter: / nonstampnsc
BUY ME A COFFEE: www.buymeacoff.ee/nonstampNSC
PATREON: / nonstampcollector
-----------------
Great comment from SauerKraut537, not exactly on the topic of THIS particular video but beautifully stated: "I have the hardest time believing that the creator of the entire cosmos put on a 'meat suit' to masquerade as a human for thirty something years... Just so this deity could undergo some form of blood ritual sacrifice so that the other 2/3 of his triune self could then feel good about forgiving humans for not living up to an impossible standard of perfection."
All the planets are shaped like meatballs. Ergo, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true god.
Checkmate, atheists!
May you be blessed with ramen!
er... there is the possibility that all planets are shaped like meatballs because the Dutch Vegetable Soup Entity has made them? And there is no Dutch vegetable soup without any meatballs in them so... not as checkmate as you thought?
The Noodles,The sauce and the The chopsticks are one but not the same.Hail The holy Trinity!
Piece of pie be unto you all, for he filleth the hungry who inviteth him into their stomachs! R'amen!
May Parmesan Be Upon Him. Ramen!
As far as I'm concerned, there are 42 gods who made everything.
And those were made by the God deep thought, and it was made by the gods of magrathea, and who made those? 😜
Makes sense to me. The supercomputer of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" took millions of years to figured out what is the meaning of life, and its answer was "42".
if you give a task to a group of people, they typically end up producing nothing. The universe is made up of atoms (which are mostly nothing), thus the universe is mostly nothing. Therefore, the universe was created by a group of people and not a singular person
@@annn2780 that actually makes more sence than most religions lol
I agree
I am a theist and I love this. I can't stand the nerve of people who say every other religion is ridiculous when they believe in something just as ridiculous. I may believe there is a higher power, but I don't dare to claim I know exactly what that higher power is when I have no proof.
I have proof! "Banana" Behold, the Atheist nightmare.
Oh no, not the dreaded banana!
Doesn't prove that it's only one deity.
Is it Hanuman the monkeygod? Does Ray even know that?
Get that thing away from me I am scared😱
Bocaan The Humble: you nana bastard! You godless, banana-eating atheist! I like you.
@mabo612 Have you ever seen a Pruis car? It's so amazingly put together. All the component parts work together with amazing precision.
Obviously, each and every Prius was designed and made by one person.
Surely, if more than one person had been involved in designing and making the Prius, then the car would be utter chaos, right?
Can confirm, I own a Prius.
Makes sense
i am not trying to criticize u, but i have a reason god is real. I can prove my god is real later but this is proof A god or at least A designer/creator exists.
1. which makes more sense GOD or nothing creating the earth?
If I said that my computer built itself from nonexistence u would call me insane wouldn't u?
2. MATTER CAN NOT BE CREATED NOR DESTROYED look it up many scientists even Newton says this.
Which makes more sense something bound to laws like light, dust/nothing/an explosion or something that CREATED these laws and is not bound to it?
3. If u believe in the big bang, what caused it? many atheists are atheists because they say "god cant have always been there."
If u believe nothing created everything, its wrong in itself.
But if u believe dust/light/ an explosion, why not believe in a creator instead?
4. Can nothing/light/dust/an explosion create sound? SOUND, was that always there too? Or did SOMETHING but preferably SOMEONE create it?
5. HOW DID HUMANS SURVIVE? did they know how to eat? how to look for food KILL IT and somehow put it in their mouth and chew and swallow it? How did they reproduce, cmon did they ACCIDENTLY have "u know." Its not like they could've figured it out.
6. If u believe in EVOLUTION, apply NUMBER 5 to monkeys.
7. Evolutionists believe in crazy stuff. THEY SAY THAT BECAUSE CHAMELEONS WERE BEING ON THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOD CHAIN, THEY "ADAPTED" TO CHANGE COLORS. How come flies can't change colors, same for whales, deer, gazelle?
8. I have some more proof, PLS PLS PLS reply to me AT LEAST CONSIDER IT PLEASE. It would be nice to at least show u some reasons. THANKS IF U READ THE WHOLE THING.
@@themeaningoflife1215 Thanks for trying but I read the whole thing and here are my answers for what they are worth. Nothing you've said here proves anything.
1. You're comparing a lump of rock covered in organic matter to a computer... nuff said.
2. You are referring to the conservation of mass - this is a good point, but depending on how you look at nuclear reactions you are destroying/creating matter (destroying hydrogen by fusing the atoms together to produce helium for example which is exactly what is happening inside of our sun continuously)
3. You are correct, the cause is unknown and I've never heard a scientist try to convince anyone that they know why it happened. What evidence do you have to suggest a God caused it? You can't crap on a model of the universe without being able to bring something to the table to refute it.
4. The fact that you're asking this question shows you lack a fundamental understanding of physics. Sound is a series of pressure waves moving through a medium, so yes, sound as we know it could happen without someone creating it.
5. The same way that all animals learn what can and cannot be eaten - through their senses. That's why certain things taste bitter and terrible because they are not safe. If someone one time decided that they liked the taste of poisonous frogs, they die and would be unable to pass that gene on to their offspring. The individuals whos tastes and ability to identify safe foods reproduce and pass their genes on resulting in a population that instinctually knows what can and cannot be eaten. In the case of humans it's much simpler because we don't rely purely on instinct, we learn from others. If Fred craps himself to death after eating those weird berries from that one bush, the rest of the group knows to not eat those berries.
6. See above.
7. Evolution does not work like that. Evolution consists of thousands of random variations in individuals. If an advantageous variation appears, that individual is more likely to survive, more likely to reproduce, and more likely to pass on it's genes. I'll admit, color changing skin is a wild variation, which is probably why so few species have the ability, but that's how it works. It's not like a fly looks at a chameleon and goes, "that's pretty effective, Imma get me some of that" and then tries really hard and develops that ability. Again you are showing a fundamental lack of understanding of how the process works. To give you a real world example - I know a guy who came from a family of below average height (mother and father were well below average height), Their first son, was about the same as them in height, their next child (a daughter) was also fairly short, and then my friend was born and grew up to be 6'7". We don't experience the same life/death struggles as animals or prehistoric people do but height is an advantage to reproduce because today's women like tall men. Which of the three got married first? The youngest/tallest one, which one had kids first? The tall one, who's kids are all super tall thanks to their dad's freak genes? Yep, the tall one.
I see this time and time again - devout Christians such as yourself dismiss things like the big bang and evolution without taking the time to understand the science behind them. I can read Genesis in what? An hour? It's not exactly thorough and leaves a lot of open questions. But when people like you look at evolution you basically just go, "I didn't grow out of some damned monkey!" without even a basic understanding of it.
@@FRYSMASH "2. You are referring to the conservation of mass - this is a good point, but depending on how you look at nuclear reactions you are destroying/creating matter (destroying hydrogen by fusing the atoms together to produce helium for example which is exactly what is happening inside of our sun continuously)"
the matter is fused
We live in a universe that is able to have us to exist. Shocker.
Was the hole created in the perfect shape for the puddle or did the water adapt to the shape of the hole. This is what it boils down to (excuse the pun).
Right, that's a common response to the fine-tuning of the universe. The proponents of the fine-tuning argument say that the precisely tuned initial conditions of the universe and constants and equations governing the universe are proof of design, but a lot of atheists (like you, it seems) suggest that evolution *adapted* to the tuning, not the other way around. Here's why this "evolution would find a way" response does not work. There would be no universe in which evolution would even be possible if the initial conditions or constants were even altered a hair's breath. Alter the cosmological constant an extraordinarily small amount and the universe collapses back in on itself... no space, no life. Or matter would disperse too quickly for stars to form, eliminating any stable energy sources whatsoever. Alter other things and you lose basic properties of chemistry. On and on I could go. This response to fine-tuning does not work. Without astronomically precise fine-tuning, you don't even have a universe in which evolution or any life is possible.
@@CaptainCrunchOwns that's a good point, but I think Orpheus 010 meant it in terms of adapting to this planet, not this universe. We just simply don't know why the parameters are the way they are.
@@TheMagicalTaco
Not to be pedantic, but he started his comment with "We live in a *universe* that is able to have us to exist." Then goes on with the Douglas Adams puddle analogy.
"We just simply don't know why the parameters are the way they are." We have no certainty, but they do make for a premise to a good deductive argument for divine design. Cheers!
@Julian Baxter I would commend to you Robin Collins' fine-tuning argument as presented in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology. Essentially, there's only one assumption you need to make in the fine-tuning argument: that God, as a personal being, would want to create what Collins calls (if memory serves) embodied moral agents. Thus, given this reasonable assumption, a life permitting universe weighs towards God's existence over a naturalistic "lucky" universe. Collins breaks down that comparative part of the argument quite rigorously with math and logic. The only assumption undergirding the comparison is God's likelihood to desire to create life. To reiterate, I'm comfortable with this assumption. I suppose the assumption cannot be proven, but the fine-tuning argument is still more sophisticated than, "Hey, look at this pattern. Goddidit!"
@Julian Baxter
I never once mentioned Pascal's wager or even alluded to it.
I'd like to thank you for being the only person I've ever debated who has argued the "destructive capability" of my penis as evidence for atheism XD That was entertaining. Have a good one!
your asking people that can't think for themselves to think outside the box!?!?!?!?!?!?
Is that a question or are you making a point?
yes it was rhetorical.
@@boaz4581 It could be perceived as both, I guess. She/He is asking us to comment on the point She/He is making.
@@davidbrown8763 actually yes, both are correct, but you're "feels" more right to me doe
Did you ever get any responses?
Proof: Everything is rushed and designed terribly. If there were more Gods there would’ve been more manpower, and maybe things wouldn’t have turned out so bad.
godpower*
I have worked on design projects in teams. It’s chaotic as hell.
@@cratonorogen9208 Less chaotic that doing a massive project by yourself though.
@@PythonPlusPlus difficult but not chaotic per say..
I'm a former Christian and now I pretty much consider myself an atheist so this is my answer... I really don't know how we all got here, I don't know if a God created the universe or not. I don't even know what there is a God or not. All I know is that I simply don't care, I'm just thankful to be alive.
I just speak my believe in logic in common sense.
This guy obviously just became an atheist to reconcile his rape urges
Then you're an Agnostic
Agnostic
yesgredfred burger: only evil people need a supernatural power to muffle their rape urges. Decent people do it for themselves. Including decent women and The Flying Spaghetti Monster, all praise him, who, as we all know, has plenty of appendages and big, saucy balls. Piece of pie be unto you all, and R'amen.
no thats atheist not agnostic
Everybody knows there's one god for every knob of the Fine Tuning Machine®.
nefaristo ?
I love the idea of the universe being created by a committee of God's!
@zfish50 I'd rather keep searching for a good answer, than simply settle for an ill-informed one.
@Hehe Hehe that was 9 years ago
@Hehe Hehe The comment system on UA-cam used to work different 10 years ago.
@@TrueFool188 ah the good ol days
Because MY GOD said so! ... I WIN!
+Steven Parker (stevencp75803) Show me 10 videos from around the world of your god doing miracles.
+bryan pacheco
Show me 10 videos from around the world showing YOUR God doing miracles.
+bryan pacheco As soon as you do it first.
+Steven Parker (stevencp75803) Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong. You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong~!
I think it was intended as sarcasm...
Ingenious challenge, NSC - I like the way you have side-stepped the most common debates and found an equally valid one, for which people will be less prepared with existing "stock arguments". Neat!
I am a Christian and I don't have any evidence that you can observe using the modern scientific method so using your standards I fail this challenge.
Well, good for you. If you're happy to take it on faith, and ok with admitting that to yourself and others without claiming that you KNOW it, then I can certainly give you credit for consistency.
NonStampCollector Its a lot more deep than 'blind faith', but thanks.
NonStampCollector except faith itself is irrational and with It literally anything can be justified. Its dishonest and a willful suspension of critical thinking
Mario Pendic 'Faith' as you describe it is like taking the first step before you see the path. Many of us participate in acts of blind faith throughout our life and some of them lead to better things, while many do not. It would be a sad life if no one had blind faith once in a while!
Scott S uhh no. Faith is.belief without proof or reason. how the hell would it EVER be justified to believe things blindly?? It NEVER is. thats why religion is a cancer to society it tells people that its okay to.believe things for no good reaon and to be "blind" which anyone can justify ANYTHING with it. This is how you get people blowing themselves up or praying for their child to get better instead of taking them to the hospital and end up dying. any atrocity can be excused with it. So no its never okay to be irrational or be "blind" to things. It affects everyone people should be reasonable and have good reasons for things that's how society progresses. How the hell do u think it's a good idea to believe things blindly without evidence or reason???
@pseudoknife Yes, I've done all that, done it all. Done it, done it, done it, & believed the voices in my head for several years.
And so what if I have? Are you saying that the answer I get THERE, by doing THAT, is the true answer?
Coz guess what it showed up, in actual fact, in the long run, long after the tears streaming down my face as I accepted Christ had dried up - it showed up that the whole thing is a fabricated bunch of unsubstantiated bollocks.
Yeah, I've "met" this "I am". It isn't.
Not sure you will see it. And I am not sure why I am even doing this to be honest :D but for the first time it sounded like you were asking genuinely, not mockingly. I am a Muslim who is not very knowledgeable but I'll give it a try.
First of all, disclaimers and definitions.
Existence or non existence of God can't be proven scientifically. Just due to the fact that "science is a tool we use to get temporary conclusions using limited information we gather about this universe". It can't say anything about what's beyond the universe. We can't even see beyond 130k years since beginning (number might be wrong, but approximately). I understand your question is not this, but this is important to mention.
Also, proving (with 100% certainty) God's existence would mean injustice towards those who believed without proof.
Who is God? Thing that created universe. All Powerful, eternal (actually time (as we perceive it) does not apply to Him since time starts with universe.). All knowledgeable. Etc etc.
So with these, we have two rational arguments (that are actually very similar and can be one argument)
1. If there were several gods, there would be chaos, not order. And this argument is mentioned in Quran, too. (You might come back with "perfect team" that never does, thinks or knows anything other than other members of team. Which eradicates necessity of calling them several. Because they would be acting as one entity)
2. Several gods can't all be all powerful. What if one of them says "let the sea be blue" and the other wants red. Either one of them will end up being "not all powerful" which makes Him non-God.
I am a bit familiar with Christianity and how they tend to remove reason from believe. In Islam that is not the case. God keeps asking "Why don't they think?" In Quran. (You can search for a lecture by a former Christian Gary Miller on the topic of reason and revelation. Was quite interesting to listen to him as he is a professor of logic)
Do we have prove of God? No.
But we say believe God is the most natural (there is an Oxford study in this I believe) and rational thing to do. It explains a lot, answers questions of "why". So for us as Muslims Quran is the biggest evidence of God. We read to understand and we conclude that it can't be written by anyone but God (I know this is fallacy. I understand it. But I am personally not writing a scientific proof. I am searching for answers to my questions. And Islam answers those questions better than anything else. And Quran really seems miraculous. So I conclude "I can't ever think of anything other thank God who could write this". All other theories are usually made up (not based on any historical event, not based on any evidence etc etc) and are generated randomly. So that's why I conclude it is from God (this is a long discussion out of topic, but I felt like I needed to mention)
@@belirsizkisi7991 I find that your arguments for are good ! :D congratulations for that !
as for "I can't ever think of anything other than God who could write this [Quran]" , well unfortunately that might be for lack of thinking... Just the simple fact that you say you might be inclined to accept tellings not because they're true but because they answer your questions, shows an obvious basis that manipulative storytellers would want to exploit for power...
On that subject I may recommend you the book "God and the State" by Bakounine, which is available for free read at this link : www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/godstate/index.htm
Have a nice day, and congratulations again for your good reasoning ! :)
@@belirsizkisi7991 a god doesn't require being all powerful, just look at the Greek gods.
@@belirsizkisi7991 You have a number of logical fallacies. I have no complaint with that, but you might if it is important to you to claim your beliefs are rational and scientific. Examples:
- You define a god to have certain features and then argue that he therefore must be singular. Maybe so. But the god we have may not be the god you accepted as a premise.
- Gods do not have to be all-powerful to create the universe, or even perfect. The universe we see has a great deal of chaos in it, perhaps conflicting opinions are why. Or perhaps the gods are perfect and thus can work in perfect harmony. Or perhaps one god directed the work, as with angels. The fact that you wouldn't term the subcontractors as gods doesn't mean they don't. Or perhaps the gods are both perfect and still all powerful. How do they manage that? All powerful has its privileges. Or when a band produces a song they are not required to be considered one person. The point here is that arguing from an inability to come up with alternatives is unwise.
- Christians believe exactly that the universe was created by three gods. You can declare that this debunks all of Christianity, but ya know, there's a lot of that going around.
- You said that your faith explains things to you better than anything else. Posit a Koran which did not contain contradictions or direct violations of your intuitive moral sense. Certainly you have put a lot of work into accepting those things, but wouldn't it be a better faith if you didn't have to?
@jamesrobertdobbs
Can't prove it's not, : therefore, IT IS!
:)
@valu777
Judges 1:19 "And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Any God that can't fight iron chariots isn't worth getting worried about anyways.
As far as a non-theistic explanation behind fine-tuning, I think that at first, there was nothing. Not 'nothing' in the sense that we usually mean it, where it's a bit of the same universe with the same physical laws that doesn't have stuff in it, I mean a complete lack of any defining traits. Something lacking any defining properties isn't going to be stable, since stability is a property, so I figure it collapsed into a chaotic inflationary period, leading to eternal inflation, yielding a multiverse that's constantly inflating somewhere or other, occasionally shitting out bubble universes with their own set of constants, leading to some collapsing rapidly, some which don't allow atoms at all, some which have such minimal gravity that galaxies never form, and some that have properties that allow chemical patterns that can lead to life, such as our own.
There's no specific basis for the nothing-to-chaotic-inflation bit, but to me, it feels like a semi-plausible explanation for why there's stuff instead of no stuff. Chaotic inflation is an actual model of inflation proposed by people that aren't random, uninformed jackasses like myself, and it can provide an explanation for apparent fine-tuning.
If you look at trends of trends of trends of any initial turring-complete system, I'd imagine youd get something like our universe pretty quickly. Physics abstracts to chemestty abstracts to biology abstracts to scociology. Like an infinite stack of turtles. Life which develops in any stack can only look at their immediate neigbors.
@tmesist The conditions I 'impose' are the sort of conditions that are always, always imposed when the truth of something is being ascertained in every field of human interest EXCEPT FAIRYTALES.
So I'm quite happy to accept those limitations if they're similarly 'imposed' on me. I have no fairytales to defend.
Thank you NonStampCollector for your thoughtful contributions to this issue that too often is full of defensive argument.
And The Survey Says!
I'll give the challenge a go- (though, I'm not a believer myself).
I would assume that they'd respond like this: "I think a "challenge to prove" is the wrong kind of question. God doesn't want his reality to be proven. God's plan is to prevent harm coming to those that don't follow or believe in him. If someone commits a wrong, they are held accountable. Just like you can't explain why the speed of light is the speed it is, I cannot explain why god exists. The reason is that it is a spiritual question. I'm not sure if you've ever taken LSD or the like, and had some kind of profound experience that can't be put into words, but the nature of spiritual answers is elusive. Empiricism can provide us with a description of reality that is incredibly accurate in some areas- but empiricism relies on assumptions such as "things in the past will resemble things in the future". How does one prove a question like that without relying on the very assumption that you're trying to prove?
Spiritual questions need spiritual answers. God doesn't give empirical answers to people about his nature, because just like saying a punchline before a joke ruins the humor of the joke, understanding the empirical reality of god before taking the necessary spiritual steps ruins the growth that would come about. The humor is impossible without the proper order, just like the growth is impossible without the proper order. If god does exist, and his task is to help us grow, and the only way to grow is by having necessary experiences of faith prior to a complete understanding of god's empirical reality, then asking for empirical proof is the wrong kind of question. It doesn't mean that truth isn't out there. And you could easily ask why does this special kind of growth god has in mind for us require a particular order. The very nature of the answer is going to be like humor itself as well.
How do you prove to someone that the empirical method works to explain why the world is an oblique spheroid? You start with what they know, and take them through a knowledge learning process involving a lot of empirical proofs that they can accept.
How do you give someone the understanding of the spiritual method to prove to them that god does exist? You start with what spiritual understanding they have, and take them through a spiritual learning process involving a lot of spiritual things that they can accept.
If someone isn't willing to accept basic axioms of empiricism, spirituality, or logic itself, then there is nothing that you can do to "prove" to them that god exists.
Pray, act in faith, turn to god, meditate, fast, open your mind to the nature of the universe in whatever ways that you can- and then you will get your spiritual answers about god's nature.
If you can't do that, then how can you expect someone to accept axioms of empiricism? Is it because the axioms are easier? Is the ease of understanding something indicative of it's truth? If that were the case then general relativity would be one of the most false ideas in existence. However, it is not.
God's method of learning the truth of his nature is merciful in a way that might be possible for you to understand logically given certain assumptions. Assuming that there is an element of balance in the universe (like entropy and the like), and that god does exist/holds us morally culpable for wrongs we commit, then if god were to let people that didn't have any spiritual capacity to understand the reality of his existence, then those people were to doubt, turn away from, and deny god later on - then because the degree of knowledge of god's existence was full, then the punishment for turning away from that knowledge must also be full. That is why the spiritual punchline comes after the spiritual set-up. But to even understand that requires certain assumptions.
If that bothers you then this is the challenge as a believer that I give to all atheists: "Show me some kind of proof that doesn't rely on any assumptions whatsoever." If you can do that, then you can doubt my assumptions. If you want proof, you need to go on the spiritual search like I said before.
Can I prove that god exists? Yes. Can I prove it to you? No, you can only prove it to yourself (or rather, god is the only one that can prove it to you).
You might say to yourself: "What would it take to prove you wrong? What would it take to admit that you're wrong, believer?" I'm going to say probably the most unsatisfying answers for you: "You cannot, because I've had it made spiritually manifest that there is a god."
"What about the lack of free will?!" You'll say. "Free will is preserved in god." "
... Normal me: So yeah. That would go on forever. The spiritual claims that theists make rely on spiritual assumptions. And if you "go on the spiritual journey" that they talk about and didn't get an answer that god doesn't exist, then they would of course say: "You did it wrong". So... That's pretty much why I gave up trying to prove that god doesn't exist. I still point out, like you do, stupid things that specific religions believe in, but I don't think that proving that god doesn't exist is possible. I know that's not the point of your video- but my yeah. Let me know what you think of my best attempt at an answer (actually, attempt to dodge an answer) to a question I don't even believe.
Love your videos, by the way. Seriously funny, and I think they do a good job of pointing out errors in theists' thinking. Plus telling stories/ showing people is one of the best ways to convince them that they're not as correct as they think. Everyone could use a little bit more humility.
I will pay you the compliment that you did a piss-poor job at defending the impossible. Points for trying to be open minded.
I won't bother with all the counter arguements that we both know. I will stick with the usual: Your beautiful and evocative defense of the unquantifiable works equally well to prove the unicorn in my garden.
"Just like you can't explain why the speed of light is the speed it is, I cannot explain why god exists." Maxwell can explain it to you. c=1/sqrt(permeability0 * permittivity0), where permeability0 is permeability of a vacuum and permittivity0 is permittivity of a vacuum. This is a constant value regardless of frame of reference, as permeability and permittivity don't change with one's frame of reference. It was believed at first to refer to an inertial frame of 0 with regards to the "aether," which wasn't helped in the slightest when the concept of aether was disproven, and testing showed that even when measuring the speed of light from one inertial from one inertial frame to another, the speed of light STILL held to this constant. Einstein came along and resolved this mess with his theory of relativity.
So your statement sounds profound, but it just demonstrates a complete lack of research. That's typical for a theist, but you're claiming to not be one.
Maybe there was another profound point in that wall of text, but I TL;DR'd as soon as I saw the statement I quoted.
Update:
Oh dear, the unicorn is no longer in my garden. Therefore I must accept that the only logical alternative is to give my life over to the divine. All glory to the one true Frejya!
What?
Based on just a few of the comments that have been posted so far, I'd say it's likely that not only has no one proven anything, but many have provided me with a good laugh. I may just spend a little extra time reading some of these "gems." Thanks folks!
@SauerKraut537 That was such a beautiful summation that I had to copy it into the description box. Hope you don't mind. :)
And by the way, thank you for asking good questions. It's refreshing.
While I personally don't believe in any gods, the existence of multiple gods seems more likely to me than only a single god existing.
It's way easier to explain inconsistencies in "god's plan" if it's multiple powerful entities with different visions, compared to a single, all-powerful entity that just can't seem to stick to their ideals.
From the times I was catholic (I'm a happy atheist now), I clearly remember this logic: a god created the universe and consequently *for us* it was the trinitarian god of the bible. Even then, it was really clear no one attempted to go further. There was NO proof that this allegedly "creator" was one, particularly the trinitarian one. That was accepted by faith and revelation only. So, no, believers have zero evidence or proof for this connection.
I laugh at believers trying to "prove" it. By definition, religion goes with faith and faith alone (subjective faith and the faith of others that become the authority). And when confronted with the question "how do you know it must be your god?" There is NO evidence whatsoever. Zero. Nada. Only their subjective faith, hoping that is the right one...
@Hehe Hehe Can you prove your god did it, no, you weren't there. I laugh at theists trying to prove that.
@Hehe Hehe Go right ahead. I'm listening
@Hehe Hehe Ok course we can prove Big Bang and evolution, hundreds of thousands scientist work on those theories every day, don't you think they would notice if it had no grasp with the observable reality ?
@Hehe Hehe I'm still waiting. Prove it instead of just claiming it
.
@Hehe HeheMy "claim," "Can you prove your god did it, no, you weren't there. I laugh at theists trying to prove that."
Your answer, "I can"
Please prove this claim.
“Ray, when someone asks if you are a god, you say YES!” -Ghostbusters. Boom proof that there are multiple gods. Just claim that you are a god and you instantly become one. I don’t know why more people don’t do this, seems so obvious.
well 10 years have passed and im sure there were 1000s of water tight arguments brought forward?
It took, likely, 42 gods.
I feel as though this is a bad challenge as proving that a singular god created the universe begs the claim of the existence of God. As a Christian i believe that such a being exists, however I also believe that if a God could be proven to exist then there would be no atheism or any other religions because someone smarter than me would have already figured it out.
That being said, in terms of Christianity, i feel as though this frames the debate of the existence of God or Yahweh poorly. For Christianity, the existence of Jesus points to the existence of a loving God. However I also believe that the universe and everything in it is a creation that points to a non-specific creator/creators. For me, I believe in jesus which means i also believe the creator is God. A definition by association.
You can add an "s" to each instance of "God" and remove the "a", and your gibberish makes equal sense.
Hindus believe in 330,000,000 gods. Now that we have a better idea of how complex life is, that sounds like a better answer than 1.
Excellent challenge...
this has to be entitled challenge for monotheist since i'm a polytheist i was going to answer this
Omega - .3 (the density of matter in the universe) and lambda - .7 (density of dark energy in the universe) what does .3 and .7 add up to? You guessed it... 1. I'm an atheist, and physics is my god.
Honesty!
The banana. It was so perfectly made for my hand and for to stick in my hole. bam, evidence. Nobel prize please. :-)
@ravenprey666 "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it."
-Mark Twain
Creation and entropy the only gods I need
I'll attempt to deliberate the issue from a logical approach, yes, logical, believe me.
To begin with, let's get a few things clear:
1. There is no restriction upon the types of beings created by a god, including those that may not be known to man. God is beyond human comprehension and there is no reason to believe that God has revealed all his plans to mankind
2. A being that creates nothing is not a god
3. A being that creates something but in turn is created by some higher beings is not god, he's just one form of creation
4. By definition god is timeless and spaceless, so any 2 beings having same attributes and properties can only be the same being since its existence cannot be delineated by time or space.
Now the argument starts:
Anything with a complex organization must be created by intelligent design by one or more godlike beings
But such creator beings must in turn be designed and created by another group of higher beings according to the fundamental hypothesis and therefore by 3 above is just one form of creation (though godlike) and not god
Since God cannot be created it then follows that this hierarchy of creation by intelligent design, higher level creations must assume a simpler structure of organization with reduction of complexity
By deduction, the levels of creation thus converge to the simplest form that cannot be further reduced.
There may still be more than one beings at this top end of the creation tree following different streams of creation paths, but then when we reach the top, this top level must have the same level of least complexity nonreducible further so as to negate the need for a higher creator. But by 4 above, these beings must be the same being
Therefore there can only be one God or no God, it doesn't resolve the dilemma between atheism and monotheism but prove that this can be the only logically possible duality in theology, so the argument may go on for ever.
Some important corollaries that follows are:
The one God must have no form and organized structure and is of no substance and matter
God must have no emotion nor consciousness
Only fulfilling this can there warrants the simplicity that requires no higher creator
I can't believe I could have demonstrated this thesis so brilliantly without divine inspiration!
’2. A being that creates nothing is not a god’. Rly? Are you implying that an omnipotent, all powerful being is incapable of not creating? I recon he could stop for a brief moment. In bible he apparently rested after created the world (as if he could get tired?). Did he stop being a god for a day? Or are you trying to say that he can not create nothingness which tells us a lot about his limits of power? Which reminds me of a question 'can a god create a stone heavy enough so that he couldn't lift it up himself?'. Or do you need to create something just once to become a god yourself?
Let's humor you for a second and let's assume your god exists.
You are making a lot of assumptions about this god of yours but the truth is since nobody could possibly understand the nature of god (because by your definition he is beyond universe he created) you CAN NOT know all of this. All these definitions are baseless human assumptions and thus any further logical considerations are futile.
CA18DETHK You can't give something a bunch of attributes before you try to prove it exists. That's called making shit up.
InfiniteCube congratulations
you get 100 marks for what I wanted to convey. But mind you, this is only in response to the quest to prove a creationist god.
CA18DETHK In your very first point, you say that "God is beyond human comprehension" and yet by the rest of your statements, you claim to know about this god of yours and all of its attributes. So which is it?
Personally, I think you had it right the first time and that theists attribute so many incompatible qualities to their god(s) that they truly are beyond human comprehension.
You're saying god is beyond human comprehension, yet here you are, comprehending god saying he has no emotion or substance. You just shot yourself in the foot mate... Also if god is beyond human comprehension, what is the point of even believing in god. Just seems like a waste of time and burden to my brain beliving in something that has no influence on my life, especially knowing i don't even know any specific details on what this god (or gods) is.
Challenging a theist to test their faith is like challanging a fish to walk on land.
but that happens....they are called mudskippers - strangely appropriate
very well put!
I find avicenna proof of the truthful to be very Convincing that there is one god
Ooh here comes the science deniers to the comments
Ya gota love when religious people try to bring science down to their level by calling science a " religion " .
It's not just a coincidence that the words 'god' and 'dog' are quite similar.
The fact that you are unable or unwilling to understand the arguments, does not make them invalid.
Non stamp collector is the one true god.
(Real gods just love to be buttered up)
Metaphysics 1075a7
"If the Unmoved Mover were composite, understanding would change in understanding different parts of the whole. Perhaps we should say that whatever has no matter is indivisible."
Love your work, NSC!
I'm jew and this is my answer (even if nobody will read it but ok)
monotheism come after polytheism.
The first monotheist saw polytheist gods and said to himself : "which is the most powerful god"
first answer: "the sun, because it provide us with light, heat, crops, and if I look at it I become blind, proof of how powerful it is."
But a cloud pass in front of the sun and a storm rage on, blocking the light.
"So it's the cloud, the weather, because it provide us for water and can block sunlight, yes the cloud are a more powerful god"
But wind disperse the clouds, make tree fall, tremendous forces that can't be stopped.
"Ok it's the wind, he beat the cloud who beat the sun, he must be the most powerful god"
etc.
Then the monotheist said to himself "all that is nonsense, every time I find a god, I find another one more powerful"
so here there is two major conclusion:
1) There is no god and all of that is just reality that we perceive strong or not, but it's our human conception that make sun/wind/cloud a god
2) There is only one god, invisible, immaterial, one we could never apprehend.
Now because I'm a jew and I love questions : Are these two conclusions different?
I'm not talking about the Bible, the bible come after.
The "FACT" of god existence come after a HUMAN perception of reality. You can say there is and that there isnt a god with the same argument.
So the fact that god exist is nonsense. It's not even a question.
Actually that's why jew don't call nor represent god (sorry for you pal but yaweh is a christian misconception. actually god has no "humanly speaking" name so we call it "lord")
because it is important to REMEMBER that god isn't a "thing" nor a "consciousness"
It's the full force of nature around us that we don't apprehend
God is the horizon of knowledge.
And religion is the mean to thanks being alive and here to enjoy. It's a vector of philosophical knowledge. A cement of people around something beautiful.
And of course religion is dangerous because it can block you from reality and I see it and i'm very sad of it.
Well feel free to discuss this with me if you want.
I'm a biologist btw, so before you ask I hate creationist as much as you atheist.
I disagree with those conclusions. It could still be multiple gods, each representing one of those things and equal in power or working in harmony, OR it could be that there are just a handful of gods that represent dualistic principles; Say, a god of love and a god of apathy, or a god of hedonism and a god of stoicism, etc. So to me, you've still failed the challenge, you've jumped to a lot of assumptions for that conclusion. I also think your incredibly vague definition of "God" is only proof that you yourself understand the _actual_ definition of God being an intelligent omnipotent creator is deeply flawed when you add traits like them being omnibenevolent or personal, though I could admittedly be grasping at straws.
You sound really confused......you sound like you’re basically an atheist but you want to believe in “god” at the same time. That’s cool, if that’s what you’re into...it just sounds really confused. And when you say you’re a Jew, do you mean religiously, ethnically or both? Plus, why does being a Jew increase your love of questioning things? Sorry but I’m a non Jew so I really love to ask questions.
It seems to me that part of your reasoning is based on the 'power' of god(s), since you seem to imply that since polytheists believed in multiple gods, the power of their gods must therefore somehow be split apart and shared between them, concluding that there should instead be one god, since that would make that god more powerful than all others. But by that line of reasoning.... The god who is more powerful than a mono-god, is one who can accomplish the same things, while not even existing! That's how powerful the atheists' 'god' is. Therefore, if you want the absolute most powerful god imaginable, you should simply come to realize that our universe with no god is more powerful than any god imaginable that could ever exist.
@mjmenjivar
When I said "At least close their mouth" I mean they don`t make fun of things they DON^T KNOW....
So, in case you feel offended...
I'll be taking this challenge.
How did it go?
The question he posed was harder than the first one
@SauerKraut537 Fantastic. I have saved this summation offline. Great stuff!
@TheJovialprince Thank you for clarifying: when you said, "they have already been carbon dated..." you were referring to the gospel of Judas and not the four gospels typically included in the Christian Bible. In retrospect, was your statement a little misleading?
"multiplicity only exists within space and time" if we accept this is true what reason do we have to believe that singularity would be any different than multiplicity in this respect? Wouldn't space and time be just as much of a requisite for the existence of one thing as for the existence of two things?
Yep. I'll watch this one, too. 💖
@LumieX >You don't need thought to be able to aggregate together and form e.g. a cell membrane. It just happens because of hydrophilic attractions... If a huge amount of energy is released in a mixture of all those units, units of life can come to exist => Millers experiment. Lightning can cause that huge amount of sudden energy.
So, in Metaphysics, Aristotle then addresses whether this Mover is composite. His theory of Being is known as hylomorphism, or matter-form. Substance, or matter, assumes the form of particular things. But the Mover is pure form, without substance. It must be since it is changeless and matter is that which undergoes change.
This was posted 13 years ago. I wonder if anyone ever tried to answer it.
@chul
"i'm not asserting that there is no designer. I'm simply rejecting your assertion that a designer exists"
What`s the difference?
Rejecting the assertion makes u hold an assertion, like it or not. And ur assertion will be "there is NO designer"
Reject the assertions doesn`t prove u r right, just prove u lack of knowledge to build an argument in your favor. You hold an assertion, like it or not.. the problem is that you have NO arguments in favor of your position but rejection of mine
@NonStampCollector I never did understand how anyone couldn't distinguish those voices as only being their own thoughts. I guess that's why I don't fight too hard against religion, as I was never taken by it in the first place. Love the Special Investigation videos, saved them to my PC.
@ishgood100 There's absolutely no reason to believe that. How many people designed the Prius? One? The team of engineers and designers managed to come up with something that exists and works.
@rlondo I'm not debating whether the first observation is correct. I'm asking how you know that empiricism works in the first place. As a method of finding truth, how do we know that that empirical measurement and observation is legitimate? They are independent (empirical) observations, but they are both dependent on empiricism to begin with. How do you prove that empiricism is effective without observing the results?
I think that philosophically it makes sense that everything ultimately began with one source and not multiple. Scientifically, we see this with evolution which began with LUCA and the Big bang which began with a singularity. Assuming that gods do exist, I would say it’s more likely that one all-powerful god is responsible for creation.
Interesting perspective. I don’t agree but this is the most logical way to argue for one god existing. If we assume a god created the universe as described in most monotheistic texts this would be very strong reasoning. However since the nature of god is kinda unknowable it’s not really fair to assume that multiple gods couldn’t have done a singularity together and worked from there. Or that one god created the universe and other gods actually did all the morality deciding and stuff, like how a group might work on a google doc. I think that the challenge is unfair because there is no way to prove any religious beliefs scientifically, at least not with the tools we have now.
I used the example of gravity because it is a basic force. All tectonic plate shifting is gravity keeping the landmass from flying upward (as well as keeping sediment on the seabed), and heat is the component that moves it (billions of atoms shaking rapidly). While 2+ beings perhaps wouldn't necessarily fight, I find that hard to believe. Imagine if you were one of those gods. The other god could betray you at any point between now and eternity. Who will strike first? Who is the strongest?
1. There would be conflict. Any more than one entity will result in 2+ different beings, each with their own opinions, personality, etc. They have the ability to argue, and this could escalate into full out war. Wouldn't we as humans observe the aftermath/brunt of these battles?
2. They would disagree on how nature would behave (laws of physics). We don't see gravity sometimes making a rock fall to the ground and sometimes pushing it towards the sky.
- Acuity in Apolegetics blog
@observersearcher NOTE: I am not claiming the ULINK as a point of belief. I created the concept to address the issue of conjecture. Since, many people don't seem to understand that non-refutable DOES NOT mean that any given thing is true.
The construction of the ULINK is based on what we know and the logic of things to the extent that we know it. I took advantage of our gaps of knowledge in the construction - like we don't know about ultimate beginnings so it fills that in as conjecture...
Now to check the comments for the answer
@LumieX then how do you explain viruses mutating and evolving? How do you explain that some humans have evolved to be able to drink milk, and others can't?
Major evolution is simply a bigger (and longer over time) step of these same things.
@NonStampCollector Excellent response.
1. Bull, we know the neurological and biochemical antecedants to such experiences
2. Bull, you have no reason to believe a deity exists + see last point
3. What do you call the phenomenom between a thought and action? TIME!
"true wisdom is simple"
Bull, you're trying to escape infinite regress of complexity by inserting a contradiction.
"as the phsycial components demand something prior to bring them into being"
No, they dont. Tell me why matter cant be eternal and has to be created.
The Fibonacci sequence shows up all over the place in natural stuff from ears to shells to the Galaxy to waves, unless multiple gods agreed on this style which still holds up as a possibility then it would be one God with a specific Style, tho I'm uneducated on the Fibonacci sequence tbh and am atheist/agnostic anyways, I just thought I'd make a crappy argument for the one side that I can't find any comments from in the mountain of mocking comments from the other side
On a perhaps more interesting note, the concept of self gets weird when you don't have physical bodies, would Gods even have a concept of self well enough to discriminate between each other? just a thought
God #1: "Let's use the Fibonacci sequence."
God #2:"OK, good idea."
Next?
I don't see why you're making this so complicated, it says quite clearly in the Edda that Odin & His brothers slew the frost giant Ymir and built the world out of Ymir's corpse. :P
@LumieX That reference is entirely accurate and is exactly as I described, so what's your point? Note the terms are given in ascending order of importance and note that "(laws) are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true." Laws aren't proven, they are simply accepted from simple observation. A law can't be used to refute a theory since a theory is based on many multiples of observed facts and experimental proofs.
You should reread that article.
@LumieX - No, Abiogenesis demonstrates how the forces of physics alone could create a self-replicating molecule that was capable of mutation, forces such as surface tension and electrostatic forces are sufficient to create the machines that molecules use which you call life. Spontaneous generation was disproved by Louis Pasteur. It is not spontaneous and has a very definite mechanism.
Even the results of the Miller-Urey experiment yielded much more than they realized at the time.
good one!
@nwankwourf After 40 years since becoming an atheist, I don't think I'll going to change my mind. I've been much happier for 40 years as an atheist than I ever was for 10 years being a christian.
@narco73 (continued) what about abiogenesis did it show was impossible?
36+2 gods, of course
Such is the number of elementary particles
Plus two dark gods for dark matter and dark energy
brutal attempt at an answer
Reasonable evidence that there was more than one designer: the platypus, a mammal-by-committee. :)
I'm a Polytheist Priest and I'm looking for an Atheist or Monotheist to debate on the truth of Polytheistic religions.
@zfish50 Yeah, it was a bad example, I just wanted to use it somewhere and this was the first place that offered the opportunity. My purpose in life is to figure out how the universe works, and to figure out how humans can more effectively explore it. This is a purpose of my own choosing, not handed down from On High. I don't really know any other way to describe it.
@Strangerinasland The big bang. I mean at the moment we can't say whether that sudden expansion was due to the generation of all matter and energy. Or whether it was due to the conversion of pre-existing energy into matter.
@yotrash
Endorphins are not love. I am gonna use that for my next improvisation in violin. Really.
This should be a fun read...
I miss the reply uploads that UA-cam used to allow
The proof will set you free.
Where there any responses?
Obviously Jackie Chan made life, the universe and everything. Anyone who has seen that guy in action could tell you that he can do any thing. Yup, the answer is Jackie Chan.
@LumieX I fail to see the major problem here though? micro evolution = short time. macro evolution = long time.
Whether the virus stays a virus is merely determined by what name we choose to give it.
I"m worried one of us will miss a message here, can we move to inbox's?
(although, I do think this is important information for the public to read)
I don't know about the other aspects of the universe, but it's pretty clear life was designed by committee.
@mabo612 just for you know there is about a 65million mile gap for the earth to rest in that could sub-stain life. Its not exactly fine tuned. Kepler telescope has discovered many planets about 60 that are in a "Goldilocks zone" that revolve around stars. And these are just planets that have less than 180 day orbit cycle in the parts of the sky it was pointed. Out of the non fine-tuned gluttony of billions of stars and planets there will be some temp sub-staining planets.
Well there's matter and antimatter, which are opposites, and actually "normal" matter's gravity will repel antimatter.
@LumieX About life originating naturally: Ever heard of Miller and urey's experiment? (search it on wiki) I'm not saying that life originated from that experiment, but amino-acids are the basis of all living things. Along with sugars, fats and Nucleic acids.
@LumieX The defining of the code is what we humans did to understand DNA. DNA translation just happens because of the sterical configuration within the DNA-t-RNA bond. It's just a bunch of chemical reactions that happen. We defined the code so we could understand how DNA works. DNA isn't that complex at all, it just exist out of 4 different nucleic acids. Whats so complex about that?
@nwankwourf And sorry for using the word 'WE' actually i was referring to Human Beings i understand that you hate that word, You want to feel special as you are the favorite of your space daddy.
@domm
Yes,a musician can still ask th question but he point I`m getting is that Theist are not into debate w/ Atheist in HOW many gods created the Universe. This`s a question between a Theist vs a Theist. Religious lengauage is to be use, revelation lenguage is to be use and filosofical lenguage is to be use. An Atheist can ask th question but he has nothing to say, just as a musician will have nothing to say to scientist unless th musician becomes a scientist
The answer will not show Atheism