They are so comfortable NOT believing in all those other gods but can't understand why Atheists don't believe in their god either, and have no reason at all to do so.
When a hinduist tells a christian they don't believe in their god the christian will just say "they believe, they just think its a different god". But when an atheist tells them they don't believe in their god the christian only hears "your god isn't real and i think you are wrong" so they break down and freak out. This applies to all theists, just used christian as an example.
Was this caller advocating for a specific God? I don't remember the caller doing that. Their argument had nothing to do with one specific God existing and other specific Gods Not existing.
@shaggytheshaman They all say that they're not advocating for a specific god until the mask slips and they admit they're smuggling in the Abrahamic god.
I refuse to apologise for the comments made by my fellow Englishman. He was offered the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a Free, First Class, Globally respected, State School Education. He had the opportunity to attend school from the age of 4 to 18. University was an option for him to pursue. He had every opportunity to pursue a career in Cosmology, Astro-Physics and the sciences that would not only answer part of his question, but allow him to discover the answer... A Nobel Prize is a damn fine incentive. Instead, he has chosen to ignore all that and call in to a North American radio show to ask them. What a Cozy Dunt.
Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago. To deny the existence of a Creator is an error. The theory of general relativity: the universe began at a “singularity” (Big Bang) where all matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at an infinitely small point and expanded outward from there. Space-time Theorems recognizes the union of space and time. General relativity has been proven to be true. The universe has mass, and the universe is expanding. Thus the universe had a singularity/Big Bang/beginning.
@@djsarg7451 You deserve a resounding 'Three Cheers' and round of applause for your kind comment. Heck a standing ovation should be called for. I am absolutely astounded to note that you have discovered these profound words in the bible. Goodness me I am shaking with excitement. Once you show the world the words just as they appear in the bible, lives are going to change. I have read my bible many times through, ever since I was first instructed do so in infant school. That was many moons ago. Your single statement; "Just as the bible stated thousands of years ago..." is an extremely potent claim. If this is true, I expect most people will be driven to accept that The Lord is slightly Scientifically Literate. There will be no denying that The Lord has at least some knowledge of Cosmology. Incredible. I have been unable to find your stated quote, in my copy of the KJV. I am often wrong, so would please be so kind as to point out chapter and verse where your citation; "...that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding" is written in the bible. Word for word as you claim. I am not doubting you, but I have encountered individuals before. And they had nothing, nothing as specific as you, that's fore sure. (One fellow waffled on about spreading tents, I think he was a sot). All you have to do is demonstrate to me that this is "Just as the bible stated...". This should be no problem for you. Who knows, my bible may have missing pages, and all my other versions are somehow misprints. I thank the Lord for sharing his extremely specific scientific and abridged knowledge with all his children. Oh Heavenly Father, Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair. You will not only earn yourself a Nobel Prize, but every single person on the planet will be forced to reconsider the value of their religious beliefs, now that you have proven beyond doubt that Our Heavenly Father knows a little bit about Cosmology. It matters not one jot that you are wasting your time with a wretched creature like me. Honestly I am humbled to note that you decided to tell me first. You really need to get your discovery out there. Press, media, News channels, Science papers, journals. Can you imagine the look on the faces of all those Hindus, Taoists, Sikhs, Shintoists Agnostics and Atheists when they see your cited finding printed in the bible? Once you are rich and famous beyond the dreams of all the Gods, I will be able to say with Pride; "djsarg told me first" and I will weep with joy. My best wishes to you.
If god is the answer, what was the question? Hmmm... I guess anything is, then. That is about as useful as the answer to everything being 'a little aubergine'. God is an explanation that doesn't explain anything, can't be the source of further understanding, and, even worse, blocks people from trying to find a real explanation. But I think I didn't really had to tell you that.
@@EdithBromfeld Explanations are only useful when they can be understood and lead to further knowledge. Saying "god did it" isn't a useful explanation for anything.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills but, once again: How can "god" be the best answer to something if it doesn't actually explain anything, and nobody can define it or justify its existence?
@@inyobill As far as I can tell that's been the most practical and effective application for religion throughout history! That said, basing something as beneficial as social cohesion on an unfalsifiable narrative that can be co-opted in a variety of ways has drawbacks too...
@@shassett79I’d go so far as to say that religion was only really beneficial as a driver of social cohesion before we started figuring out how the world works. “God has a plan” was a useful narrative at a time when we didn’t understand the fundamental forces of the universe, to stave off existential dread. Now we have a semblance of that understanding, and “God’s plan” is just in the way. I mean…. When you have not yet figured out that gravity is a property of mass, “little invisible angels that hold you down on the earth” is fine as an explanation. It becomes a problem when the “gravity” people are being murdered by the “angels” people for “heresy.”
Caller - I think a God makes the most sense. Seth - Can you define what you mean by a God, even just a few properties something would have to have to be considered a god? Caller - I don't think thats important for this conversation. Amir, please, my brother in science, listen to yourself. If you don't mean anything specific when you say god, than your not saying anything at all. Or at best your saying "I think, whatever the reason for existence is, that we should use the word god to describe it." which, okay, but then say that. A word with out a defined meaning is no word at all, its just a series of sounds/letters. Consider if I said "I think the reason there's something instead of nothing is ajkldjklejkewu8diojewa'cxoix and you ask me what that means, and I say, lets not get bogged down in the weeds with definitions, lets just all agree ajkldjklejkewu8diojewa'cxoix is the best explanation even if we can't say for sure its the explanation.
An eloquence to your message that theists can't grasp. Callers like Amir are stunningly dense. They say, the universe is complicated & only a god can be the reason why, yet when pressed for explanation of that conclusion, out come the smoke & mirrors, decoys, distractions, & changing of the subject. They like to press us for proof their god doesn't exist, yet never provide evidence to prove their god does. Special pleading for the absent divine nothingness. Just once I'd like to see some god appear on an atheist show. JUST ONCE ! Come out, come out wherever you are.
In fairness, they'd probably argue that their god has always existed-- but don't expect them to explain how that works or why the universe can't also have always existed.
@@richardbradley1532 Dang, what a way to spend an afternoon. If I click on an apologist video, the comments are usually too depressing to even want to bother with.
Let's say that proposition is true. Still, i don't know how 'God' is the best explanation, because 'God' is not just a meaningless word for something we don't know, but it carries a heavy baggage. Let's say something, timeless or not, spaceless or not, is the origin of everything else. With that little knowledge, is there a reason to call that something God?
@@wickedcabinboywell the caller made the question pretty clear: “why does anything at all exist?” now, i don’t really see how god answers that question. “why does a god exist?” could be a question asked in response. “how did this character perform this feat?” is another that never seems to be answered or considered.
"How did the universe start?" "God made it." "How did god make it?" "Magic." vs "How did the universe start?" "Magic." This is exactly occam's razor. Don't add unnecessary entities.
@@TaeyxBlack These are easily answered if you are sincere and willing to think. The question involves contingent existence (Read Leibniz on Contingency for the proof). I can nutshell it for you, but it requires careful thinking. Per your question why does a god (a contingent being) exist is misguided, as all contingent beings owe existence to something causally prime and non-contingent (timeless/eternal/no-beginning/necessary). That would be God, not a god. I think you really mean why God would God exist rather than nothing. The answer is that God is that rationally NECESSARY Prime being, having no beginning, thus no necessity for a causal priority. All non-necessary being (contingent being) such as you, me, the universe, and other beings must have an explanation for their existence in a prior cause. Why? Because something exists and Nothingness cannot cause something into being. Nothing has no existence or capacities or will. How God creates by mind/will is a bit esoteric. I don't know how I create my thoughts or pictures in my mind. I just know it happens.
I hate the whole "atheists am closed minded because they deny the spiritual". I used to be a theist, then a deist, and now an atheist. All of those changes corresponded with my learning about the nature of reality. The more I learned the less capable I was of accepting things that do not comport with reality. It was my open very mindedness that led me to where I am today. Not accepting someone else's sophomoric take on reality does not make me closed minded, it makes me a critical thinker.
While it is uncertain we will ever figure out what was before the big bang we should continue to explore that possibility and not default to some 'god' did it.
Yes, matter and energy has possibly always existed in some natural form. Perhaps the universe is in an eternal natural loop. As the last universe expanded and reached maximum entropy it then collapsed into a singularity and when the singularity reached maximum density it expanded again into our universe, and the cycle continues... That is infinitely more LIKELY than an omnipotent entity from another dimension magically poofing everything into existence from nothing. We exist in a natural universe, not a magical one.
Hilarious how theists never argue the god they actually believe in but only some vague, nebulous concept that doesn't even mean anything. Worse than that, they refuse to even define what they're talking about and can't give any attributes. Amir, you're not saying anything. You're uttering gibberish.
You need a better excuse. Most theists believe in God, not a god. The evidence and arguments are for God, irrespective of secondary sectarian/religious difference.
@@EdithBromfeld At 3:00 Amir says, "I don't necessarily feel it's important to discuss these attributes of God". Why are you saying the other side should be talking about things tha Amir himself said not to include? That seems like trying to force a change of subject while claiming you are sticking with the original subject.
@@EdithBromfeld "Most theists believe in God, not a god." Thing is, your "God" _is_ "a god." I get that theists like to pretend that their god is capital-G "God" and is, therefore, beyond question, but your god is Yahweh, plus a bunch of ad hoc stuff tacked on by theologians over the last few millennia.
I always say there are just as many gods as people who believe in them. It's funny that the god they made up in their head is THE god that everyone should follow.
The question, here, being: "Can atheists admit God might be the best answer?" As an atheist, I would interpret that question to mean "can an atheist assert a falsehood?" To which (as an atheist) I would answer "yes", with the possibility that my answer of "yes" is me asserting a falsehood.
What fictional skywizzardaddy do billions of people believe they are Best Friends Forever with?? .. I think I could actually admit “God” might be the best answer.. 😜
I speculate that the best explanation is Lisa the rainbow giraffe, leaf be upon her. 😂 Amir cannot fathom any way the universe could be eternal, but apparently has no issue imaging there was/is some eternal, super powerful sky daddy (who also has no origin explanation) that is responsible for creating the universe. He believes the more complex idea is the more likely idea... 🤔🤦♂️
"There's no compelling evidence, but it's still the best answer." Is fucking wild and such a frustrating thought-stop. If God were real, there would be at least a little bit of compelling evidence, yet this guy is willing to believe it full stop with ZERO good evidence. Such a weak level of thinking.
Also in most cases the better answer is “we don’t know yet.” Theists haven’t seemed to figure out that every time they insert the sky wizard into the situation where the correct answer is “we don’t know”, the whole premise of their diety looks more stupid and pathetic once we figure it out.
Amir is a pos. Saying that people thought Madeleine McCann’s parents had something to do with her disappearance, and rightfully so, is disgusting. There is no evidence whatsoever to justify making that accusation. It shows he has no empathy for the parents.
Yes, I understand the point he was trying to make, but there were plenty of examples he could have used, either hypothetical or real, that didn't involve making a potentially very hurtful suggestion like that.
I'm pretty sure "god" can be the best answer to a variety of questions: - What's an emotionally satisfying thing to appeal to if you're frustrated by our inability to explain everything? - What can you use to minimize/ignore the existential dread caused by the prospect of your inevitable death? - What do you wish could impose inescapable justice in a seemingly amoral and indifferent universe?
“Best explanation” isn’t supposed to be subjective. Whenever someone presents this argument, they seem to mean something like “I like it best” or “It’s easiest.” That a reason might be easiest to give because one doesn’t have to resort to any evidence at all doesn’t make it “the best explanation.” The best explanation should be at least one for which there is sufficient credible evidence.
How can "god exists" be an explanation for "anything exists" if God would be in the set of "anything?" That's like asking why apples exist and being given the answer "here's an apple"
@user-gk9lg5sp4y this is a problem of apologetics philosophy - before we bother trying to discern WHY, we should first try to discern whether it even does
Amir's logic hurt my head...the best explanation for something you can't explain is something else you can't explain? okay..so then Amir must believe the best explanation for cotton candy is Unicorns that fart cotton candy?
To address why anything exists, I'm with Seth {Dunno}, I also have to ask, What real difference does it make if we do know, the existence is unaffected by the question why.
It should be obvious that believing that a unknownn cause caused the rest of things does not make any difference. That's exactly where the true purpose of religion comes out. It's not about the origin of the universe, but about the relevance of mankind. The purpose of religion is to imagine attributes of that unknown so we end being relevant in the grand scheme of things.
If we were able to scientifically model the creation of the universe and derive a working explanation from that, this can affect us just like science always affects us, because it would lead to more research and possible technological advancement. For example, if science showed that the universe was created by a conscious entity, that might allow us to communicate with that entity. Or, if science shows that the universe is running on a super computer, it might allow us to use that for our own calculations. Of course, just making up an answer isn't going up help anyone though and is just hindering to real science.
A very long investigation into the disappearance of Madeline McCann failed to find any cause to suspect her parents, so I'm not sure how Amir thinks that was a good example to bring up when it comes to speculating on things.
Sounds like Amir likes conspiracy-style thinking. How else do you come to make a speculative (& cruel) accusation when her disappearance is a mystery to everyone else?
And in this context the speculation analogy doesn't really work. We know the parents exist, we know parents sometimes cause harm to their kids. So speculating about something we know happens isn't the same as speculating about something we don't even know exists to speculate about what this entity did, then to speculate why this entity did anything.
We also need to remember that the belief in a god stems from flawed thinking well over 3000 years ago. The fact that these unchanging gods have changed and evolved so much over time is evidence of man creating a god instead of the other way around.
Assuming is never the best answer to the unknown. Accepting others’ explanations that are presuppositions and assertions is a personal choice, but not a truth or fact recognised universally.
This guy's premise is that a god with no attributes must be the best explanation but he's basically just saying that God is just nothing if he has no attributes.
the abrahamic god offers the best explanation for primitive, ignorant, fearful, tribal people. some of us would like to strive for something more than the absurd and the sordid.
3:13 No Amir, your god is the best way to halt questioning. If your god was so great then it would be obvious enough for me to accept its existence. As it is, yours is competing with thousands of named deities that I also do not find compelling. No doubt things would be different if I had been fed the god lie from the day I was born; since I wasn't, I am perfectly willing to just say that I don't know what brought this universe into being (if indeed it came into being). One thing I do know is that the extra level of regression required by a being who exists forever to create it is superfluous.
Latest research does seem to indicate there is something wrong with the idea of a 'beginning' to the universe. Possibly it's infinite in both space and time. Maybe it has 'phases' of some sort that look superficially like our Big Bang model. Who knows?
Nothing has never existed and can never existed. If there was nothing, there would be nothing. There's not nothing, so existence can be taken as a brute fact. God is a poor explanation for the qustion of existence.
To answer Seth's question that got skipped over, as to "why argue for an undefined God?", based on my experience with debating theists is because it's a trojan argument. They'll throw out a completely unfalsifiable and hypervague God-like concept, like "God is the thought of potential for the beginning of the creation of motion" and when you agree that yes their unfalsifiable position is indeed unfalsifiable, they'll sneak in a TON of characteristics on the back of their vapor-God. "So now that you've agreed that my hypervague God exists, I have proven that Yahweh did in fact speak to Abraham and send his son Jesus down to Earth to save us from sin." It's all about getting you to agree to the word "God" and then running like a shot from there all the while screaming "you agreed you agreed I'm right!"
@@nagranoth_ Agreed. Still, doesn't stop them from trying. Especially the ones that consider themselves "intellectual" apologists, worshiping Aquinas more than they worship Jesus.
Amir keeps offering NO REASON TO CARE. And this is because he thinks it's a way to argue for something without having to prove it, because he knows he can't. Yet again, a theist who is both dishonest, ignorant, and arrogant. It's not clever. It's cowardly.
If we don't know precisely how the universe was created, and we can't fathom how a God could create it, but we know the universe exists, and thus far everything that exists in it has a scientific explanation, it's reasonable to presume it's creation has a scientific explanation. God is just an unnecessary extra step.
In fairness to Amir, maybe God _was_ the best explanation, at some point. But now the best explanation is *TurboGod™!!!* Per the doctrine of TurboGod™, it possesses all of the qualities which can be attributed to God, _and also a set of qualities which are so awesome humanity hasn't and may never be able to comprehend!_ In addition to that, TurboGod™ is axiomatically the best explanation for everything, forever, period. Anyway, I'm glad I could clear that up. Praise TurboGod™!
God is the answer... ...to the question "Who supposedly created people without the knowledge of good and evil and then punished them for not knowing what they were doing was wrong?"
That one has always gotten me. According to the scripture, Adam and Eve were literally incapable of moral reasoning before they ate the apple, right? It'd be like conducting the marshmallow test with a one-year-old and throwing them down the stairs if they ate it.
12:32 This would have been a perfect time to say "we don't need to get into the attributes of that, we just need to accept it as the best explanation".
If you can not assign any attributes to something, then it *can not* be the best explanation for anything. Why is he even using the term "God?" A term that comes with at least a general range of attributes. Seems it's another attempt to smuggle in a bunch of assertions while trying to avoid defending them. If by "God" you mean "something we know literally nothing about," then you aren't saying anything of value by appealing to the term.
In order for anyone (especially atheists) to take you seriously when you posit a god is a valid explanation for the universe you first have to demonstrate WHY it is! I can say all day long that universe farting leprechauns are a valid explanation for the universe and it will have just as much weight as when he says it's a god
I agree that we can speculate about the things we don't know, but until the speculation can be demonstrated to be true, there is no reason to believe the speculation is true. That matters if you care whether or not what you believe is true.
God (not a god) exists by necessity of Being. This is easy to prove, but requires more thinking and honesty than atheists are typically willing to muster. This is what Leibniz discusses on Contingency. Modal logic, etc.
@@EdithBromfeld "God (not a god) exists by necessity of Being." That's certainly an axiom. Now provide people with a reason to accept it. "This is easy to prove" Please prove it! You'll be the first!
@@EdithBromfeld No, the question is "why" does god exist... Theists always try to answer a different question from that asked, due to cognitive dissonance and complete dishonesty to both themselves and everyone else.
@@shassett79 The reasons are already in view by Contingency (Leibniz on Contingency and Physical beginnings in modern Cosmology). I don't care whether some obstinate atheist refuses to accept logic. I just know you cannot defeat it. The short answer to the necessity of God (non-contingent Being) is easy. The answer is that 1. Nothing cannot cause something into being. Nothing has no being or capacities. 2. Something exists now. Therefore, something exists in a necessary (non-contingent) state of Being - no cause or beginning to existence. Leibniz (on Contingency) takes this a step further proving that this necessary being must be intentional in order to produce a temporal/non-necessary effect. Any necessary (unintended) effect of a past eternal cause would itself exist past eternally.
@@EdithBromfeld "The reasons are already in view by Contingency" Yeah, we've all heard of contingency arguments, Edith. "I just know you cannot defeat it." Huh, that's funny, because it looks like your first premise is an unjustified assertion. Nothingness, as an abstraction, would be free from all constraints. If it existed, it would be unbound potentiality and could "do" anything. Consider yourself defeated.
12:03 - 12:05 I have so much to say about things "happening over time" that I would prefer to publish it as a book. Things don't happen "within" time. Things happen within spacetime, over the "time metric", which I define as the comparative initial entropic value having a lower value than the latter. Aside, entropy is the amount of heat that doesn't get transformed into work, not the amount of chaos in the system. If we conserve heat, we conserve time by lowering entropy. 😊
"God did it" is not a rational option, not even as a speculation, unless and until this "god" object is defined, even if it is somewhat nebulous. It needs to be demonstrated to exist, is capable of doing what is claimed, and is available to do what is claimed. Until then, it's nothing more than "and simians might aerially escape from my posterior." Take the difference between the "god" claim and dark matter. We don't know what "dark matter" is. The reason why we even have it as a concept is because we can observe something: If you look at the motion of stars in galaxies, the amount of gravity that would exist from the matter in the galaxy isn't enough to hold the galaxy together. Since our understanding of gravity is that it is connected to matter and we needed a name to describe what we're observing since we haven't figured out that telepathy thing, we called it "dark matter" because it is a gravity source that doesn't seem to interact with things like positions that would make it be more directly visible. Now, it may be an unfortunate name. We are willing to consider the possibility that we didn't understand gravity as well as we think we do. But in examining the phenomenon that we're observing, the evidence pointing to it being some kind of matter is fairly strong. But notice what we're doing here: We're going from things that we can demonstrate exist: Gravity exists. Matter exists. We know that they are connected. We can devise experiments that would help us determine the nature of whatever is causing this if it were a kind of matter. Where is the similar observational and experimental data for this "god" object? Those that proffer this object can't even agree on the most basic things about it let alone provide any example of anything that it has ever done or a mechanism by which it could have done anything. So no, "god did it" is not a rational hypothesis to consider.
God is not an object but ultimate Being (non-physical/transcendent). You are simply lying to claim God (a fully sufficient and rationally necessary explanation) is not a rational explanation. The empty atheist lie is your only response?
We should stop saying theists and atheists, it's theists and just normal people. Theist's seem to think is something wrong with just normal people. The finite human intellect is so low, we hardly know anything.
In answer to the title question; “No” this atheist cannot admit that god might be the best answer. In fact I can’t even admit that god might be a poor answer, let alone the best answer! Unless god is demonstrated to be even a possible answer, then why should I admit that god is any sort of answer, except arguably an impossible answer?
@@billybobwombat2231 yknow what?! The way money is a motivating factor for promoting faith in marble doctrine seems very godly to me. **Faith level intensifies** **Lv1 ^ Lv2: Logic Shield**
@noone3216 interested in a franchise of the Blue Marble cult? I'll keep the Marble here in the holy land of the Warumbungle Ranges . You open a temple on your turf, spin some bullshit to build your flock, get them to pray twice a day with their heads bowed toward the Warumbungles while you empty their pockets , a 70 30 split, you get the 70 , you'll look after your own temple upkeep etc and it's all tax free, sound OK?
The "matter can't come from nothing" argument is nonsense for so many reasons. First, that's not what cosmologists claim at all, but more importantly, we *know for a fact* that matter CAN spontaneously pop into existence (due to quantum shenanigans)
God can do whatever he wants. So yes, he can. Now that you received your answer. Answer to this? Why are you so obsessed about God? Why you keep talking about God? Why do you care? And why you never talk about the nothing atheism gives to your life? Go.
"I do not know if my god is real, I can't prove it. But you still need to listen to me, do what I tell you to do, live your life according to what I want and you need to give me money. My religion, true or not, says you have to do what I say."
This argument is the same as saying, before we understood the natural processes that result in lightning, that the best explanation for lighting was Zeus.
I reject the common focus on the "beginning of the universe" that happened 14 billion years ago. We have no idea if this is the one instantiation of the universe or 14 billion years is a drop in a bucket of the cosmos. Theists almost always assume there has been one universe and that it had a clear "beginning." Drives me crazy.
"God did it" is not an answer at all, there's no explanatory power there, it's a desperate attempt to appeal to a mystery to explain a mystery. Nothing gets solved that way.
He states that the best explanation is supernatural, something we have never verified. An eternal universe and inevitable life, as all of the building blocks of life are found in the universe, by definition, would have to be more probable than a supernatural explanation with no verification.
An interesting aspect of the "god concept" is that could it be answered whether or not this "god" would also be a property of "energy not being created or destroyed", which would seem to conclude the "god" is not the start, but just another aspect of the "infinite regress", which was "energy" all along. And if the "god" is separate from this energy, then the question must be asked about the nature of this entity, and HOW it exists outside of these natural physical influence. How could such an entity exists, and what are its "natural physical influences" it can be derived from? Just saying "it always existed with its own special properties" becomes meaningless. It's just a way to have an unknowable mystery so no actual verifiable evidence can be provided.
For god to be even a *candidate* answer, some evidence that there *is* a god would first be necessary. Also, some evidence that the question *needs* an answer would be necessary. Thus far, my best answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing? is "Why not?"
13:01 Well how do we explain the existence of a sentient being who can create the universe? Oh wait, you will say it always existed - well I will circumvent that one and just say energy always existed and the rest is emergent. In the meantime, I don't know. I also don't really care enough to try and palm it off on an imaginary friend - if a reason is found then all to the good, otherwise I can live with the uncertainty.
It makes “no sense” to say, “energy always existed,” but it obvs makes perfect sense to say God always existed and always had the power (energy) to create the universe.. ..so apparently energy DID always exist..
Faith based positions are antithetical to honest speculation. Because if the conclusion is always the same, then any speculation to the contrary must necessarily be false.
They are so comfortable NOT believing in all those other gods but can't understand why Atheists don't believe in their god either, and have no reason at all to do so.
Not only not believing, but dismissing the possibility out of hand.
Curiosly those monotheistic believers say they can't understand unbelieve nothing dishonest or they are joking?
When a hinduist tells a christian they don't believe in their god the christian will just say "they believe, they just think its a different god". But when an atheist tells them they don't believe in their god the christian only hears "your god isn't real and i think you are wrong" so they break down and freak out. This applies to all theists, just used christian as an example.
Was this caller advocating for a specific God? I don't remember the caller doing that. Their argument had nothing to do with one specific God existing and other specific Gods Not existing.
@shaggytheshaman They all say that they're not advocating for a specific god until the mask slips and they admit they're smuggling in the Abrahamic god.
I refuse to apologise for the comments made by my fellow Englishman.
He was offered the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a Free, First Class, Globally respected, State School Education. He had the opportunity to attend school from the age of 4 to 18. University was an option for him to pursue. He had every opportunity to pursue a career in Cosmology, Astro-Physics and the sciences that would not only answer part of his question, but allow him to discover the answer... A Nobel Prize is a damn fine incentive.
Instead, he has chosen to ignore all that and call in to a North American radio show to ask them.
What a Cozy Dunt.
or a berk.
I like your choice at the end best.
@@PeteOtton Bloody lovely. It is easier, I suppose. It doesn't work, but I accept that it requires less effort. Nice one.
@@riseofdarkleela Sweet
No need to look into all those options. The obvious answer for everything is god. No need to put in all that effort,...
Never studied Science. Doesn't want to learn. Therefore, god is the only answer.
Perfect.
Biblical Hebrew has a smaller vocabulary than English. In biblical Hebrew, there is no word for universe. Instead, the Hebrew phrase that is translated “the heavens and the earth” is used to refer to the universe-the entirety of physical reality. The phrase is used thirteen times in the Old Testament, always referring to all matter, energy, space, and time in the universe. We now know that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding. Just as the Bible stated thousands of years ago. To deny the existence of a Creator is an error.
The theory of general relativity: the universe began at a “singularity” (Big Bang) where all matter, energy, space, and time came into existence at an infinitely small point and expanded outward from there. Space-time Theorems recognizes the union of space and time. General relativity has been proven to be true. The universe has mass, and the universe is expanding. Thus the universe had a singularity/Big Bang/beginning.
@@djsarg7451 You deserve a resounding 'Three Cheers' and round of applause for your kind comment. Heck a standing ovation should be called for. I am absolutely astounded to note that you have discovered these profound words in the bible. Goodness me I am shaking with excitement. Once you show the world the words just as they appear in the bible, lives are going to change.
I have read my bible many times through, ever since I was first instructed do so in infant school. That was many moons ago.
Your single statement; "Just as the bible stated thousands of years ago..." is an extremely potent claim. If this is true, I expect most people will be driven to accept that The Lord is slightly Scientifically Literate. There will be no denying that The Lord has at least some knowledge of Cosmology. Incredible.
I have been unable to find your stated quote, in my copy of the KJV.
I am often wrong, so would please be so kind as to point out chapter and verse where your citation; "...that event was 13.787 ±0.020 billion years. This has been checked, proven and measured with many tools and they all agree. It is not just space that came to be 13.787 billion years ago, but time also. The universe is finite and expanding" is written in the bible. Word for word as you claim. I am not doubting you, but I have encountered individuals before. And they had nothing, nothing as specific as you, that's fore sure. (One fellow waffled on about spreading tents, I think he was a sot).
All you have to do is demonstrate to me that this is "Just as the bible stated...". This should be no problem for you. Who knows, my bible may have missing pages, and all my other versions are somehow misprints.
I thank the Lord for sharing his extremely specific scientific and abridged knowledge with all his children. Oh Heavenly Father, Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair.
You will not only earn yourself a Nobel Prize, but every single person on the planet will be forced to reconsider the value of their religious beliefs, now that you have proven beyond doubt that Our Heavenly Father knows a little bit about Cosmology.
It matters not one jot that you are wasting your time with a wretched creature like me. Honestly I am humbled to note that you decided to tell me first.
You really need to get your discovery out there. Press, media, News channels, Science papers, journals.
Can you imagine the look on the faces of all those Hindus, Taoists, Sikhs, Shintoists Agnostics and Atheists when they see your cited finding printed in the bible?
Once you are rich and famous beyond the dreams of all the Gods, I will be able to say with Pride; "djsarg told me first" and I will weep with joy.
My best wishes to you.
Not to brag, but I failed middle school science, so I think I know what I'm talking about here
@@Wilhelm-100TheTechnoAdmiral That is brilliant. I fell off my chair laughing when I read that one. You win the internet for a day.
If god is the answer, what was the question?
Hmmm... I guess anything is, then. That is about as useful as the answer to everything being 'a little aubergine'.
God is an explanation that doesn't explain anything, can't be the source of further understanding, and, even worse, blocks people from trying to find a real explanation.
But I think I didn't really had to tell you that.
Prime Example of "I don't know BUT, I NEED an answer, even if it is a bad, unsupported answer." RockOn, Seth & Paul.
Your problem is what we DO know cannot be explained sufficiently without God.
@EdithBromfeld that's fallacious.
@@EdithBromfeld
If you are convinced you have good arguments for the god you believe in, please call in to the show and present your evidence.
@@EdithBromfeld Explanations are only useful when they can be understood and lead to further knowledge. Saying "god did it" isn't a useful explanation for anything.
Why are people so uncomfortable saying, "I don't know."?
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills but, once again:
How can "god" be the best answer to something if it doesn't actually explain anything, and nobody can define it or justify its existence?
The goal is to get you to accept what seems like a "harmless" premise so they can smuggle in their beliefs since it's "just one more" point
@@fulcanostwyr6852 Oh, I know.
If it allows me to coerce to behave the way I want you to, good enough?
@@inyobill As far as I can tell that's been the most practical and effective application for religion throughout history! That said, basing something as beneficial as social cohesion on an unfalsifiable narrative that can be co-opted in a variety of ways has drawbacks too...
@@shassett79I’d go so far as to say that religion was only really beneficial as a driver of social cohesion before we started figuring out how the world works.
“God has a plan” was a useful narrative at a time when we didn’t understand the fundamental forces of the universe, to stave off existential dread. Now we have a semblance of that understanding, and “God’s plan” is just in the way.
I mean…. When you have not yet figured out that gravity is a property of mass, “little invisible angels that hold you down on the earth” is fine as an explanation. It becomes a problem when the “gravity” people are being murdered by the “angels” people for “heresy.”
when in doubt, default to ur favorite religion that is dominant in ur geographical location.
Everyone I talk to on a daily basis believes in the exact same god as me. Checkmate, atheists.
Amir seems to be saying, "I have no proof of god and know it, but I like the idea of god."
Yeah, okay.
More like "Just accept that it was an undefined God concept so I can smuggle in all my beliefs in my God later!"
I like the idea of calorie free cheesecake. I think my idea is better.
@@trishayamada807I think your concept of a calorie free cheesecake is more elaborate than this guy’s “god” lol
@@trishayamada807 a 2d image would have practically 0 calories :)
@@trishayamada807you can make a religion out of that
Caller - I think a God makes the most sense.
Seth - Can you define what you mean by a God, even just a few properties something would have to have to be considered a god?
Caller - I don't think thats important for this conversation.
Amir, please, my brother in science, listen to yourself. If you don't mean anything specific when you say god, than your not saying anything at all. Or at best your saying "I think, whatever the reason for existence is, that we should use the word god to describe it." which, okay, but then say that. A word with out a defined meaning is no word at all, its just a series of sounds/letters.
Consider if I said "I think the reason there's something instead of nothing is ajkldjklejkewu8diojewa'cxoix and you ask me what that means, and I say, lets not get bogged down in the weeds with definitions, lets just all agree ajkldjklejkewu8diojewa'cxoix is the best explanation even if we can't say for sure its the explanation.
An eloquence to your message that theists can't grasp. Callers like Amir are stunningly dense. They say, the universe is complicated & only a god can be the reason why, yet when pressed for explanation of that conclusion, out come the smoke & mirrors, decoys, distractions, & changing of the subject.
They like to press us for proof their god doesn't exist, yet never provide evidence to prove their god does. Special pleading for the absent divine nothingness. Just once I'd like to see some god appear on an atheist show. JUST ONCE !
Come out, come out wherever you are.
Furgle Burgle 😂
everytime "Nothing can come into existence on it own!... So anyways a dude clearly came into existence on its own and made everything"
I post fairly regularly on a Muslim apologist site, and this is the response to virtually every post.
In fairness, they'd probably argue that their god has always existed-- but don't expect them to explain how that works or why the universe can't also have always existed.
Their god is transcendent and doesn’t need to follow the rules.
@@richardbradley1532 Dang, what a way to spend an afternoon.
If I click on an apologist video, the comments are usually too depressing to even want to bother with.
Let's say that proposition is true. Still, i don't know how 'God' is the best explanation, because 'God' is not just a meaningless word for something we don't know, but it carries a heavy baggage. Let's say something, timeless or not, spaceless or not, is the origin of everything else. With that little knowledge, is there a reason to call that something God?
God is not an explanation for anything
@Imperial-Socialist - Came here to say something very similar. "...God Might Be the Best Answer?" For what question, please?
@@wickedcabinboywell the caller made the question pretty clear: “why does anything at all exist?”
now, i don’t really see how god answers that question. “why does a god exist?” could be a question asked in response. “how did this character perform this feat?” is another that never seems to be answered or considered.
"How did the universe start?" "God made it." "How did god make it?" "Magic."
vs
"How did the universe start?" "Magic."
This is exactly occam's razor. Don't add unnecessary entities.
God is an explanation for everthing fearful, bigoted and wilfully ignorant people experience.
@@TaeyxBlack These are easily answered if you are sincere and willing to think. The question involves contingent existence (Read Leibniz on Contingency for the proof). I can nutshell it for you, but it requires careful thinking.
Per your question why does a god (a contingent being) exist is misguided, as all contingent beings owe existence to something causally prime and non-contingent (timeless/eternal/no-beginning/necessary). That would be God, not a god. I think you really mean why God would God exist rather than nothing. The answer is that God is that rationally NECESSARY Prime being, having no beginning, thus no necessity for a causal priority. All non-necessary being (contingent being) such as you, me, the universe, and other beings must have an explanation for their existence in a prior cause.
Why? Because something exists and Nothingness cannot cause something into being. Nothing has no existence or capacities or will.
How God creates by mind/will is a bit esoteric. I don't know how I create my thoughts or pictures in my mind. I just know it happens.
I hate the whole "atheists am closed minded because they deny the spiritual". I used to be a theist, then a deist, and now an atheist. All of those changes corresponded with my learning about the nature of reality. The more I learned the less capable I was of accepting things that do not comport with reality. It was my open very mindedness that led me to where I am today. Not accepting someone else's sophomoric take on reality does not make me closed minded, it makes me a critical thinker.
What you said.
Yes, the reason we're "closed minded" about those things is that we actually have good sound reasons to disbelieve in them.
All the energy in the universe has always existed, just in a different form. Best explanation.
While it is uncertain we will ever figure out what was before the big bang we should continue to explore that possibility and not default to some 'god' did it.
It is actually possible that the energy content of the entire universe is zero.
@@scarfhs1 that is way above my pay grade.
Yes, matter and energy has possibly always existed in some natural form. Perhaps the universe is in an eternal natural loop. As the last universe expanded and reached maximum entropy it then collapsed into a singularity and when the singularity reached maximum density it expanded again into our universe, and the cycle continues...
That is infinitely more LIKELY than an omnipotent entity from another dimension magically poofing everything into existence from nothing.
We exist in a natural universe, not a magical one.
@@FanofMillan but where did thst come from?
Hilarious how theists never argue the god they actually believe in but only some vague, nebulous concept that doesn't even mean anything. Worse than that, they refuse to even define what they're talking about and can't give any attributes.
Amir, you're not saying anything. You're uttering gibberish.
You need a better excuse. Most theists believe in God, not a god. The evidence and arguments are for God, irrespective of secondary sectarian/religious difference.
@@EdithBromfeld
At 3:00 Amir says, "I don't necessarily feel it's important to discuss these attributes of God".
Why are you saying the other side should be talking about things tha Amir himself said not to include? That seems like trying to force a change of subject while claiming you are sticking with the original subject.
@@EdithBromfeld "Most theists believe in God, not a god."
Thing is, your "God" _is_ "a god." I get that theists like to pretend that their god is capital-G "God" and is, therefore, beyond question, but your god is Yahweh, plus a bunch of ad hoc stuff tacked on by theologians over the last few millennia.
I always say there are just as many gods as people who believe in them.
It's funny that the god they made up in their head is THE god that everyone should follow.
@@EdithBromfeldWhich specific god?
The question, here, being: "Can atheists admit God might be the best answer?"
As an atheist, I would interpret that question to mean "can an atheist assert a falsehood?" To which (as an atheist) I would answer "yes", with the possibility that my answer of "yes" is me asserting a falsehood.
What fictional skywizzardaddy do billions of people believe they are Best Friends Forever with?? ..
I think I could actually admit “God” might be the best answer.. 😜
“God is the best explanation!”
“How?”
“Don’t ask me to explain my explanation! I already told you: it’s EXPLAINED!”
I speculate that the best explanation is Lisa the rainbow giraffe, leaf be upon her. 😂
Amir cannot fathom any way the universe could be eternal, but apparently has no issue imaging there was/is some eternal, super powerful sky daddy (who also has no origin explanation) that is responsible for creating the universe. He believes the more complex idea is the more likely idea... 🤔🤦♂️
Not only you speculate, but you affirm it is the best explanation.
Saying god is "the best answer" is giving up the search. "Well, we can't find an answer, so, we might as well say god did it"...
Exactly so. 'God did it' tells us exactly nothing about the process.
I almost never listen to the posts in detail, but I give the comments solid attention. Your comment is a good example of why I do.
"There's no compelling evidence, but it's still the best answer." Is fucking wild and such a frustrating thought-stop.
If God were real, there would be at least a little bit of compelling evidence, yet this guy is willing to believe it full stop with ZERO good evidence. Such a weak level of thinking.
Also in most cases the better answer is “we don’t know yet.”
Theists haven’t seemed to figure out that every time they insert the sky wizard into the situation where the correct answer is “we don’t know”, the whole premise of their diety looks more stupid and pathetic once we figure it out.
@@NoodleKeeper How "No evidence" doesn't imply "No reason to believe" is beyond me.
Amir is a pos. Saying that people thought Madeleine McCann’s parents had something to do with her disappearance, and rightfully so, is disgusting. There is no evidence whatsoever to justify making that accusation. It shows he has no empathy for the parents.
Yes, I understand the point he was trying to make, but there were plenty of examples he could have used, either hypothetical or real, that didn't involve making a potentially very hurtful suggestion like that.
I was going to say that.
I think the best explanation we have is a herd of gnomes. But I don't want to explain what these gnomes do. They're just the best explanation we have.
I thought the noun of assemblage is a “gardening “ of gnomes 😂
I'm pretty sure "god" can be the best answer to a variety of questions:
- What's an emotionally satisfying thing to appeal to if you're frustrated by our inability to explain everything?
- What can you use to minimize/ignore the existential dread caused by the prospect of your inevitable death?
- What do you wish could impose inescapable justice in a seemingly amoral and indifferent universe?
Much easier to start with the answer, then the questions write themselves. /s
“Best explanation” isn’t supposed to be subjective. Whenever someone presents this argument, they seem to mean something like “I like it best” or “It’s easiest.” That a reason might be easiest to give because one doesn’t have to resort to any evidence at all doesn’t make it “the best explanation.” The best explanation should be at least one for which there is sufficient credible evidence.
It should also be something that demonstrably exists.
What else is better explanation for question "why anything exist"? Anything. God is not an explanation.
And it can never be any other god, only theirs. 😂
How can "god exists" be an explanation for "anything exists" if God would be in the set of "anything?"
That's like asking why apples exist and being given the answer "here's an apple"
Why does god exist?
@user-gk9lg5sp4y this is a problem of apologetics philosophy - before we bother trying to discern WHY, we should first try to discern whether it even does
@AbsurdlyGeeky agreed and my opinion is that it doesn't.
Amir's logic hurt my head...the best explanation for something you can't explain is something else you can't explain? okay..so then Amir must believe the best explanation for cotton candy is Unicorns that fart cotton candy?
"We don't need to question..."
And, that sums it all up.
We don’t know therefore god.
Such a teeny tiny god at this point
@@PeteOttonyep, I just don't know how it keeps getting in the tiniest of gaps. Maybe god is like sand when you've been on the beach. 😂😂😂
@@danielkeizer4174 More like flour that is so fine it can leak out of the bag a bit.
To address why anything exists, I'm with Seth {Dunno}, I also have to ask, What real difference does it make if we do know, the existence is unaffected by the question why.
It should be obvious that believing that a unknownn cause caused the rest of things does not make any difference. That's exactly where the true purpose of religion comes out. It's not about the origin of the universe, but about the relevance of mankind. The purpose of religion is to imagine attributes of that unknown so we end being relevant in the grand scheme of things.
If we were able to scientifically model the creation of the universe and derive a working explanation from that, this can affect us just like science always affects us, because it would lead to more research and possible technological advancement. For example, if science showed that the universe was created by a conscious entity, that might allow us to communicate with that entity. Or, if science shows that the universe is running on a super computer, it might allow us to use that for our own calculations.
Of course, just making up an answer isn't going up help anyone though and is just hindering to real science.
Until you demonstrate a god exists, it fails to be a viable candidate for anything other than a book of fairytales.
I totally agree.
A very long investigation into the disappearance of Madeline McCann failed to find any cause to suspect her parents, so I'm not sure how Amir thinks that was a good example to bring up when it comes to speculating on things.
If I was Madeline's parents I'd sue Amir for slander.
@@nicksykes4575
yeah - it was a weird thing to bring up. Seemed deliberately trollish, or unbelievably uninformed.
Sounds like Amir likes conspiracy-style thinking. How else do you come to make a speculative (& cruel) accusation when her disappearance is a mystery to everyone else?
@@Devious_Dave
I wouldn't be surprised.
And in this context the speculation analogy doesn't really work. We know the parents exist, we know parents sometimes cause harm to their kids. So speculating about something we know happens isn't the same as speculating about something we don't even know exists to speculate about what this entity did, then to speculate why this entity did anything.
I’m an atheist who gets rigid sometimes. And I feel no religious guilt about it.
Take my thumbs up and know I'm not happy about it.
I hope it never lasts over four hours…😮
@@riseofdarkleela I have an exorcist on speed dial just in case.
@trapjaw6818 and what exactly are your thumbs up?
Did you mean turgid?
I'll agree Amir's suggestion is vaguer than any natural explanation. 🙂
If "God" is invisible and unknowable how can it be an answer to anything?
Or detectable by anyone
We also need to remember that the belief in a god stems from flawed thinking well over 3000 years ago. The fact that these unchanging gods have changed and evolved so much over time is evidence of man creating a god instead of the other way around.
It is a joy seeing the hosts being articulate and logical while Amir flounders. You help my thinking.
Amir’s thinking his “god hypothesis” is a hypothesis explains everything anyone needs to know about his dishonest ignorant position.
That and it's not actually a hypothesis, since it doesn't make any testable predictions or explain anything.
Assuming is never the best answer to the unknown. Accepting others’ explanations that are presuppositions and assertions is a personal choice, but not a truth or fact recognised universally.
Amir is not a frequent caller but he sure calls a lot.
LOL
Perfect example of word smithing your question to encourage elicitation of a desired answer. I have nothing to "admit".
This guy's premise is that a god with no attributes must be the best explanation but he's basically just saying that God is just nothing if he has no attributes.
the abrahamic god offers the best explanation for primitive, ignorant, fearful, tribal people. some of us would like to strive for something more than the absurd and the sordid.
How about NO GOD. The universe just is. That is just as plausible an explanation for things than anything else.
God the best explanation? It doesn't even come into the category of an explanation. In other words, it's not even the worst explanation.
God of the Gaps all the way down.
Some people's gaps are bigger than other people's gaps.
3:13 No Amir, your god is the best way to halt questioning. If your god was so great then it would be obvious enough for me to accept its existence. As it is, yours is competing with thousands of named deities that I also do not find compelling. No doubt things would be different if I had been fed the god lie from the day I was born; since I wasn't, I am perfectly willing to just say that I don't know what brought this universe into being (if indeed it came into being). One thing I do know is that the extra level of regression required by a being who exists forever to create it is superfluous.
Maybe existence is normal & "nothing" is the outlier. 🤫
Latest research does seem to indicate there is something wrong with the idea of a 'beginning' to the universe. Possibly it's infinite in both space and time. Maybe it has 'phases' of some sort that look superficially like our Big Bang model. Who knows?
Nothing has never existed and can never existed. If there was nothing, there would be nothing. There's not nothing, so existence can be taken as a brute fact.
God is a poor explanation for the qustion of existence.
How can something that has never been empirically demonstrated to even exist be the best explanation? It makes no sense.
A god isn’t even a candidate explanation.
To answer Seth's question that got skipped over, as to "why argue for an undefined God?", based on my experience with debating theists is because it's a trojan argument. They'll throw out a completely unfalsifiable and hypervague God-like concept, like "God is the thought of potential for the beginning of the creation of motion" and when you agree that yes their unfalsifiable position is indeed unfalsifiable, they'll sneak in a TON of characteristics on the back of their vapor-God. "So now that you've agreed that my hypervague God exists, I have proven that Yahweh did in fact speak to Abraham and send his son Jesus down to Earth to save us from sin." It's all about getting you to agree to the word "God" and then running like a shot from there all the while screaming "you agreed you agreed I'm right!"
thing is.... that never works
@@nagranoth_ Agreed. Still, doesn't stop them from trying. Especially the ones that consider themselves "intellectual" apologists, worshiping Aquinas more than they worship Jesus.
Same old shit, different day.
I can speculate too: I think Smurfs are the best explanation, because they are blue.
Green adjust your tv
Noooo it is the cerise Smurfs that are the creators
@@gowdsake7103 Not even 24 hours later, and now we already have 3 factions. :)
@@gowdsake7103 I just go by what grumpy smurf said in the commercial
Amir keeps offering NO REASON TO CARE. And this is because he thinks it's a way to argue for something without having to prove it, because he knows he can't. Yet again, a theist who is both dishonest, ignorant, and arrogant. It's not clever. It's cowardly.
God is never the best explanation. Fairy tales are never explanations for anything in the physical, real world.
If we don't know precisely how the universe was created, and we can't fathom how a God could create it, but we know the universe exists, and thus far everything that exists in it has a scientific explanation, it's reasonable to presume it's creation has a scientific explanation. God is just an unnecessary extra step.
Until you prove any god(s) exists, you can't offer it as an option, let alone the best option.
He just wanted to make a claim without actually having to back it up
So Amir's amorphous "God" is inserted as an explanation for stuff we don't yet know, and might never know ? An "explanation" which explains nothing.
@tonydarcy1606 - In short, a god of the gaps.
Well, if you know nothing, it's the perfect explanation for everything you know.
He can’t conceive that the universe “happened” naturally, but thinks that it makes sense that a god somehow created it all. How?
"We have found no convincing evidence for a suspect in this murder case, so we believe the killer is a ghost."
The alien watchmaker is a new one.
In fairness to Amir, maybe God _was_ the best explanation, at some point. But now the best explanation is *TurboGod™!!!*
Per the doctrine of TurboGod™, it possesses all of the qualities which can be attributed to God, _and also a set of qualities which are so awesome humanity hasn't and may never be able to comprehend!_ In addition to that, TurboGod™ is axiomatically the best explanation for everything, forever, period.
Anyway, I'm glad I could clear that up. Praise TurboGod™!
🙆🏻♂️🙇♂️🙏 It's *TURBO TIME!!!*
But where did TurboGod(tm) come from? I think the best explanation for it must be MechaGod(c).
Omni-omniGod
God is the answer...
...to the question "Who supposedly created people without the knowledge of good and evil and then punished them for not knowing what they were doing was wrong?"
That one has always gotten me. According to the scripture, Adam and Eve were literally incapable of moral reasoning before they ate the apple, right? It'd be like conducting the marshmallow test with a one-year-old and throwing them down the stairs if they ate it.
@@shassett79tbf i think a one year old would choke on a marshmallow
I didn’t read the full comment, so I’ve come hear to argue with you. /j
12:32 This would have been a perfect time to say "we don't need to get into the attributes of that, we just need to accept it as the best explanation".
It's one answer out of a bazillion alternative answers that have just as much objective evidence supporting them as "God did it."
Lisa..
If you can not assign any attributes to something, then it *can not* be the best explanation for anything.
Why is he even using the term "God?" A term that comes with at least a general range of attributes. Seems it's another attempt to smuggle in a bunch of assertions while trying to avoid defending them.
If by "God" you mean "something we know literally nothing about," then you aren't saying anything of value by appealing to the term.
How can something inexplicable be the best explanation for anything!!
In order for anyone (especially atheists) to take you seriously when you posit a god is a valid explanation for the universe you first have to demonstrate WHY it is! I can say all day long that universe farting leprechauns are a valid explanation for the universe and it will have just as much weight as when he says it's a god
The necessity of identifying attributes is inherent in the argument that a deity is the "best possibility" for anything!
I can't even work out what the question would be.
'You know, the ultimate question, life, the universe and everything.'
'Yes but what exactly IS it?'
Douglas Adams.
Abscent of detectable, observable, and measurable evidence, "I don't know" is the only answer.
I agree that we can speculate about the things we don't know, but until the speculation can be demonstrated to be true, there is no reason to believe the speculation is true. That matters if you care whether or not what you believe is true.
"The problem with speculation is it makes a speck out of you and some guy named Lation."
-Hugh Laurie, House
The problem with "god might be the best answer" is that it leads to another question - Why does god exist?
God (not a god) exists by necessity of Being. This is easy to prove, but requires more thinking and honesty than atheists are typically willing to muster.
This is what Leibniz discusses on Contingency. Modal logic, etc.
@@EdithBromfeld "God (not a god) exists by necessity of Being."
That's certainly an axiom. Now provide people with a reason to accept it.
"This is easy to prove"
Please prove it! You'll be the first!
@@EdithBromfeld No, the question is "why" does god exist... Theists always try to answer a different question from that asked, due to cognitive dissonance and complete dishonesty to both themselves and everyone else.
@@shassett79 The reasons are already in view by Contingency (Leibniz on Contingency and Physical beginnings in modern Cosmology). I don't care whether some obstinate atheist refuses to accept logic. I just know you cannot defeat it.
The short answer to the necessity of God (non-contingent Being) is easy.
The answer is that
1. Nothing cannot cause something into being. Nothing has no being or capacities.
2. Something exists now.
Therefore, something exists in a necessary (non-contingent) state of Being - no cause or beginning to existence.
Leibniz (on Contingency) takes this a step further proving that this necessary being must be intentional in order to produce a temporal/non-necessary effect. Any necessary (unintended) effect of a past eternal cause would itself exist past eternally.
@@EdithBromfeld "The reasons are already in view by Contingency"
Yeah, we've all heard of contingency arguments, Edith.
"I just know you cannot defeat it."
Huh, that's funny, because it looks like your first premise is an unjustified assertion. Nothingness, as an abstraction, would be free from all constraints. If it existed, it would be unbound potentiality and could "do" anything. Consider yourself defeated.
12:03 - 12:05 I have so much to say about things "happening over time" that I would prefer to publish it as a book. Things don't happen "within" time. Things happen within spacetime, over the "time metric", which I define as the comparative initial entropic value having a lower value than the latter. Aside, entropy is the amount of heat that doesn't get transformed into work, not the amount of chaos in the system. If we conserve heat, we conserve time by lowering entropy. 😊
"God did it" is not a rational option, not even as a speculation, unless and until this "god" object is defined, even if it is somewhat nebulous. It needs to be demonstrated to exist, is capable of doing what is claimed, and is available to do what is claimed. Until then, it's nothing more than "and simians might aerially escape from my posterior."
Take the difference between the "god" claim and dark matter.
We don't know what "dark matter" is. The reason why we even have it as a concept is because we can observe something: If you look at the motion of stars in galaxies, the amount of gravity that would exist from the matter in the galaxy isn't enough to hold the galaxy together.
Since our understanding of gravity is that it is connected to matter and we needed a name to describe what we're observing since we haven't figured out that telepathy thing, we called it "dark matter" because it is a gravity source that doesn't seem to interact with things like positions that would make it be more directly visible.
Now, it may be an unfortunate name. We are willing to consider the possibility that we didn't understand gravity as well as we think we do. But in examining the phenomenon that we're observing, the evidence pointing to it being some kind of matter is fairly strong.
But notice what we're doing here: We're going from things that we can demonstrate exist: Gravity exists. Matter exists. We know that they are connected. We can devise experiments that would help us determine the nature of whatever is causing this if it were a kind of matter.
Where is the similar observational and experimental data for this "god" object? Those that proffer this object can't even agree on the most basic things about it let alone provide any example of anything that it has ever done or a mechanism by which it could have done anything.
So no, "god did it" is not a rational hypothesis to consider.
God is not an object but ultimate Being (non-physical/transcendent). You are simply lying to claim God (a fully sufficient and rationally necessary explanation) is not a rational explanation.
The empty atheist lie is your only response?
@@EdithBromfeld "a fully sufficient and rationally necessary explanation"
What a joke. Prove it, Edith.
“God of the gaps. Any god. Any gaps.” There, Amir, I fixed it for you.
We should stop saying theists and atheists, it's theists and just normal people. Theist's seem to think is something wrong with just normal people. The finite human intellect is so low, we hardly know anything.
Sounds like that guy called Mark. Calls in with all sorts of different accents.They made a compilation of him.
I'm not even willing to call it *an* answer.
In answer to the title question; “No” this atheist cannot admit that god might be the best answer. In fact I can’t even admit that god might be a poor answer, let alone the best answer! Unless god is demonstrated to be even a possible answer, then why should I admit that god is any sort of answer, except arguably an impossible answer?
A Paul "No no no no no no"??? I love it
No need to speculate, I had a magic marble in grade four that told me it made the universe, easy peazy
Yknow what?! Imma take it on faith that that's the best explanation for it! Thanks billybob!
@noone3216 no probs, I'll send the collection plate your way 👍🙂
@@billybobwombat2231 yknow what?! The way money is a motivating factor for promoting faith in marble doctrine seems very godly to me. **Faith level intensifies**
**Lv1 ^ Lv2: Logic Shield**
@noone3216 interested in a franchise of the Blue Marble cult? I'll keep the Marble here in the holy land of the Warumbungle Ranges . You open a temple on your turf, spin some bullshit to build your flock, get them to pray twice a day with their heads bowed toward the Warumbungles while you empty their pockets , a 70 30 split, you get the 70 , you'll look after your own temple upkeep etc and it's all tax free, sound OK?
I prefer this explanation over god as marbles are known to exist.
"GodDunDidIt" isn't an explanation for anything. It's no better than saying "It's magic".
Not only is it no better, it's the same
The "matter can't come from nothing" argument is nonsense for so many reasons. First, that's not what cosmologists claim at all, but more importantly, we *know for a fact* that matter CAN spontaneously pop into existence (due to quantum shenanigans)
God can do whatever he wants. So yes, he can. Now that you received your answer. Answer to this? Why are you so obsessed about God? Why you keep talking about God? Why do you care? And why you never talk about the nothing atheism gives to your life? Go.
@@D.MarcelloRadiceIf every theist suddenly stopped talking about their god(s), I would, too.
"I do not know if my god is real, I can't prove it. But you still need to listen to me, do what I tell you to do, live your life according to what I want and you need to give me money. My religion, true or not, says you have to do what I say."
Oh, good luck with that intellectual honest answer from theists. Damanding myth is truth is a big red flag.
God is not an answer. God is a lazy, ignorant persons way to avoid looking for the truth.
This argument is the same as saying, before we understood the natural processes that result in lightning, that the best explanation for lighting was Zeus.
I reject the common focus on the "beginning of the universe" that happened 14 billion years ago. We have no idea if this is the one instantiation of the universe or 14 billion years is a drop in a bucket of the cosmos. Theists almost always assume there has been one universe and that it had a clear "beginning." Drives me crazy.
Don't trust your next thought
"God did it" is not an answer at all, there's no explanatory power there, it's a desperate attempt to appeal to a mystery to explain a mystery. Nothing gets solved that way.
A multiverse is a more likely explanation than a god is. We have good evidence for one universe. That's more than the gods we have good evidence for.
He states that the best explanation is supernatural, something we have never verified. An eternal universe and inevitable life, as all of the building blocks of life are found in the universe, by definition, would have to be more probable than a supernatural explanation with no verification.
Can't believe this guy is still calling.
An interesting aspect of the "god concept" is that could it be answered whether or not this "god" would also be a property of "energy not being created or destroyed", which would seem to conclude the "god" is not the start, but just another aspect of the "infinite regress", which was "energy" all along. And if the "god" is separate from this energy, then the question must be asked about the nature of this entity, and HOW it exists outside of these natural physical influence. How could such an entity exists, and what are its "natural physical influences" it can be derived from? Just saying "it always existed with its own special properties" becomes meaningless. It's just a way to have an unknowable mystery so no actual verifiable evidence can be provided.
Amir, isn't all there. The poor sod.
For god to be even a *candidate* answer, some evidence that there *is* a god would first be necessary.
Also, some evidence that the question *needs* an answer would be necessary. Thus far, my best answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing? is "Why not?"
13:01 Well how do we explain the existence of a sentient being who can create the universe? Oh wait, you will say it always existed - well I will circumvent that one and just say energy always existed and the rest is emergent.
In the meantime, I don't know. I also don't really care enough to try and palm it off on an imaginary friend - if a reason is found then all to the good, otherwise I can live with the uncertainty.
It makes “no sense” to say, “energy always existed,” but it obvs makes perfect sense to say God always existed and always had the power (energy) to create the universe..
..so apparently energy DID always exist..
Concept of time is a matter of perception.
Amir, your argument folds quicker than a cheap tent
In order for God to be the best answer God has to exist. This guy says he's not trying to prove God exist. He says we need no explanation.
Faith based positions are antithetical to honest speculation. Because if the conclusion is always the same, then any speculation to the contrary must necessarily be false.