Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability: A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
*_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind (i.e. Observer). This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ... Information doesn't create the cosmos. Information waves are the fabric of the cosmos. And, as demonstrated with the famous double slit experiment, a conscious observer converts those information waves of potentiality / probability into "particle", "matter", or "cosmos". The Prime Observer creates the Cosmos. *Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Consciousness / Intelligence Exists Before Matter. Mind Over Matter.* *_"An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively "ruling out" all but one possibility) can actually change the measured result. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector-possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person-its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect."_* (Wikipedia: Observer Effect) *An electronic detector is a tool created by and for a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer, the electronic detector, its parameter settings, and its measurements do not exist. The electronic detector becomes an extension of the conscious observer. In the same way, a telescope and microscope are merely extensions of the conscious observer. However, it is the the Conscious Observer that is fundamental.* Laws of the Universe exist Independent of anyone's personal beliefs in the existence of the Laws of the Universe. Just as man-made laws govern society globally, Universal Laws govern the entire Universe. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing any form of laws. As scientifically confirmed, non-material laws are the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist how do you figure? There is no empirical evidence for any "god" and that's why atheists don't believe in any of them. Why do you have a problem with that? Is it that you question it yourself? The fact that some people don't believe, does it make you feel insecure?
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist the word "atheist" should not really exist.. Do we have a word for NOT believing in fairies? Or goblins? You can't stand that some people don't just don't blindly believe. You know deep down that you're fooling yourself. "Faith" is belief without evidence. It's no pathway to the truth.
One of the most surprising things about many atheists is how insulting they are. The first interviewee essentially calls theists either lazy, stupid, or psychologically damaged. These are arguments? Sounds like the ad hominem fallacy to me.
An agnostic theist. That's pretty rare these days. As an atheist I really enjoyed this video. By the end the host basically says, and I'm paraphrasing "My belief is wishful thinking, and the burden of proof is not only on those who claim to believe, but on god himself". That is more than I could ever wish for religious people to admit. I don't need the whole world to be atheist, but it would be nice if everyone had this level of sanity.
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN Well, that the problem. You thinking that you have 'proof' for something that people have debated for thousands of years. I mean, you are smart enough to admit you are not an expert, why are you too dumb to admit that you have no proof?
One of the main reasons that many people believe in a God is that it gives them a sense of direction and purpose in life and it provides hope for a wonderful afterlife. However, what people do not realize is that their personal needs and hopes become their "personal truths". People believe something out of personal need and hope, not because it is true...
I can prove God exist dropping mortality rates when my theory is known. Would you accept saving infinite lives as evidence of a miracle? I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore God (a miracle) exist. If time and existence began from nothing then a miracle exists because logic and science do not support the creation from non existence, and nothingness would be the creator of something. It is telling with how much zeal humanity scrutinise to object obvious truths but on the other hand are so gullible of absurd lies like addiction is a brain disease. The unpublishable truth is addiction is the psychology of a liar.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 the opposite - I realize that what I personally hope, want or need is not helpful nor relevant in finding objective truth. I am interested in finding objective truth. It seems to me that people believe in all sorts of things mainly because it gives them a perception of purpose and fulfills personal needs, not because it is actually true. Is purpose for you more important than objective truth? BTW - one cannot “believe in atheism”. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a supernatural god. For example, you are yourself (most likely) atheistic too, towards the existence of the god Zeus. It doesn’t mean that you “believe in atheism”.
God needs to prove his existence to people. If there is a God that is all powerful and all knowing, this God should be capable of revealing himself to humans and proving that he is God.
Subconsciously we all feel there's something out there and we don't understand it and we fear it and we yearn to know...it has to be a creator an architect in this universe that follows patterns and not chaos .
1500 YEARS OLD BOOK KEEPS PEOPLE ON A ROLL FOR 2000 YEARS STILL STANDS FOR A REASON OF THE MOST HATE OF HUMAN KIND. HHM THIS TELL YA SOME THING WAS NOT JUST HERE FOR NOTHING.
Most "proofs" of God I have studied assume that God exists in the first place! On top of fallacious arguments lies the error of assigning human qualities and experiences to God.
We can start from the fact that the universe and Life exists. How and why are the questions. We have observable evidence for one universe with the inherent Physical Constants. That's fine-tuning.....unless there is observable evidence against it.
@lucasdasilva23 Physicists say the Physical Constants could, theoretically, be different, but the conditions for Life would not exist. This seems to be the only way a Life-affirming universe can be. As Dawkins says, "Physicists say the Fundamental Constants are fine-tuned for Life". One universe with Constants just right for Life? For me, all that points to a creator.
@@briansmith3791 we don't know if life wouldnt really exist if some of the constants were different. There is no way for us to make that claim because we happen to live in THIS universe. We have no other point of reference. We used to think life couldnt exist in certain environment and we have been proven wrong over and over. Maybe humans wouldnt exist, but who knows? Maybe some other creature made of silicon that may have never thought about the idea of a creator because they found out how the universe worked very early in their evolution stages.
@@Existidor.Serial137 The theoretical physicist, Paul Davies, says his “day job” is simulating universes on super computers. He can create other universes, but none have the conditions for Life.
@@Existidor.Serial137 The theoretical physicist Paul Davies says his "day job is simulating universes on super computers". None of them have the conditions for Life of any type.
In my first few years of being atheist I always said "I would like if god exists, but I don't believe it". Eventually, I realized that there is no proposed god that I would enjoy, and in fact, even more importantly, there is no GOOD god i could imagine that would create THIS particular planet that we live on. Therefore, I can no longer yearn for a creator to be real.
It looks like you're discussing Good vs. Evil re the God question. I'm thinking that your moral objection lacks logic in regards to Good vs. Evil and God. Perhaps you should look at speakers like Dr. Ravi Zacharias. The logic of God being good is actually quite strong.
Hey Amy.... I understand what you are saying. What do you mean by "there is no proposed god that I would enjoy?" Our planet often seems to be the creation of something random or even something not good. Are you referring mostly to suffering or natural disasters? Or people who do evil things?
Daniel gilliad, if u don't know that an all powerful good would have created a good world(which i dont see), then you lack the logic when it comes to understanding omnipotence and compassion.
I like this video series for addressing this big topic in a way that invites people from all perceptions to join in. The more I listen to people with any sort of supernatural belief, the more I am convinced there is no such thing. I was raised with Christianity and would encourage anyone who consider themselves religious to ask themselves some key questions: - What drove you to have the religion / belief that you have? The most likely answer is it is passed on by your family and social surroundings, or you have picked it up from a charismatic person that you trust and who made an impact at a vulnerable moment in your life. This does not make it true. - What would happen if you would leave the religion / belief that you have? In many cases, an honest answer is it would result in some sort of fear. Fear for being rejected by your family and social surroundings (even threatening and death...), fear to be punished and to go to hell, fear to handle life without religion, fear of emptiness, or other types of fear. - Do you want to hold on to an illusion that is supported by people who are taught to believe purely in feelings, not to question anything, and to reverse-reason any counterpoints only to stay with the same belief system? Or do you want to know how things really are, i.e. the truth about our world and universe? Can you live with the fact that not everything about our world and universe is yet known? Or are you so desperate to "know the full truth now" that you will believe in fallacies that suit you well, just so you have the illusion you know the truth? One of the biggest pitfalls communicated in most religions is the notion that "doubt = weakness" and that you should be "strong in your faith", in other words just believe whatever you have been told and do not question it. Don't accept that. Doubt is healthy and good. It stimulates your brain to think critically and to question what you think you know by checking against facts and new learnings. Life without religion is possible and better, with high moral standards, wonder and admiration for the universe we live in and respect for all people! We are all in this together, let's stop building religious tribes.
C vdB Hey there... I really agree with your statement "one of the biggest pitfalls communicated in most religions is the notion that 'doubt = weakness." I'm reading books on that very pitfall. That whole 2nd paragraph of yours sounds great. John
@@michaelbrickley2443 What is your definition of "objective morality"? We can consider morality as a set of rules and principles that define what we consider good and bad. I am positive there is vast commonality in what we as humans find morally good and bad, although there are differences too. We are all humans with the same type of basic needs, desires, fears and hopes. These form the basis for what we consider good or bad. To your second point - first of all, I think you might be talking primarily about American scientists, or at least scientists in geographical areas where Christianity is the major belief system. Scientists are also humans, just like everyone else. A religion like Christianity is passed on from generation to generation and it is often deeply rooted in the local culture and everything that people do, including major life events like birth, confirmation, weddings, funerals, etc. Scientists and other people, may feel that Christianity helps them to deal with their needs, desires, fears and hopes. That does not mean that the teachings represent objective truth, however.
@@cvdb2471, Objective morality is a set of standards that is relatively global. Stealing a handicapped person’s cane or wheelchair? No good! Adults having sex with children? Not good!
@@johnbrzykcy3076 obviously, because God (whatever, definitely not the bearded old fellow that the atheists use to envision) is beyond thought. Every budhist or hindu knows that
Dennis Alexander understands that the argument from ignorance and god of the gaps is fallacious, and specifically sought to make the point that it shouldn't be used in examples such as the origin of life, or in human consciousness. He then goes right ahead and makes the argument from ignorance and god of the gaps regarding "creation". Amazing!
For an atheist scientist to believe that there is absolutely no God makes me wonder on what basis was he able to arrive at that conclusion. Would the mere absence of evidence be a basis for such dogmatic faith in the non-existence of God?
So you must by your logic have faith in the existence of the thousands of gods out side your own religion. What evidence outside your holy book do you have that proves that a god from another religion doesnt exist.
I can prove God exist dropping mortality rates when my theory is known. Would you accept saving infinite lives as evidence of a miracle? I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore God (a miracle) exist. If time and existence began from nothing then a miracle exists because logic and science do not support the creation from non existence, and nothingness would be the creator of something. It is telling with how much zeal humanity scrutinise to object obvious truths but on the other hand are so gullible of absurd lies like addiction is a brain disease. The unpublishable truth is addiction is the psychology of a liar.
Exactly. If I've never seen a silverback gorilla, a giant squid, or other previously mythological creatures, that doesn't prove they don't exist. Because they were later discovered and all the "nuts" who asserted their existence were vindicated.
Walter perfectly describes in one sentence the basic problem with theist arguments: they presuppose from a desired conclusion. This is not how science works, due to issues with confirmation bias, a well documented phenomenon. You can always find something that supports your argument, if proof is what you seek to present. But that doesn't make it actually true. This would suggest, for example, that Newton's Apple had some reason, other than gravity, for falling. Countless alternative causes could be postulated, but we know to a reasonable level of certainty that it was gravity. Just gravity. I can certainly understand an innate desire in humans to believe in some higher power, having recently undergone some serious health problems myself: Well, the doctors can't fix me...I wish there was some power that could. But that was merely wishful thinking. I might get better, but this in no way proves the existince of some superior being; it certainly only proves the imperfection of our own knowledge.
Besides amazing content, I must absolutely admit adorable english he speaks. English is not my language but he sounds so clearly that I catch every single word. Maybe for those who are native english speakers it is not so obvious but the way he speaks is admirable 👍 Thank you!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL EXACTLY!! Die, see GOD and still wonder if its a figment of his imagination or some vision, etc....... Thats a Living Hell in my opinion
Peter's alleged humility on this question stings. The evidence for God is so overwhelming that Peter's supposed openness to His existence is just a facade. Scripture notes this condition as "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." The fact is the very words that Peter uses can't be objectively understood apart from God's existence; hence the very act of honestly questioning His reality is in fact questioning reality itself--which is the very definition of insanity.
" Truth " is that which is realized, not argued. There is no argument that can disprove God because the statement " there is no God " if that is an absolute statement then the question that follows should be " do you have absolute knowledge of everything? Do you know everything that comprises reality? Since we are just explorers of reality rather than the authors of it no argument we could present proves that there is no God. And no argument proves that there is a God because if you could prove God by argument than God is then something that can be proved by us but something unlimited being proved by something limited as we are would make God no longer unlimited. So from our constitutional position we can neither prove or disprove God. But none of this means that there is no God, it just means that God has to be realized on his terms not ours. Argument is just someones perception contrasting with someones else's perception.
That's a fair argument. I think what Mr. Kuhn is looking for though is a way to continue to exist and a god that cares about him is a pathway to that. I think there is substantial evidence to cast doubt on a god that cares specifically about humanity and the individuals that make it up.
The burden of proof is on the Theists because THEY are the ones making the claims. The burden of proof should not and is not on the person questioning or opposing your claim. To have that sort of logic set up just proves how irrational and deluded someone can be.
I'll make a prediction. If you spend the rest of your life attempting to prove the existence of something that can't be proved; with your last breath you will question the way you spent your precious and exquisitely rare life in a universe apparently bereft of consciousness.
Yes, being author of real confusion do spell the Word 1 Godless, where even those of faith differs Scripture.. Shows one that believers actually do worship being Egotistical GOD Devil, therefore last thing that oneself want is the glory of everlasting life, as that only for those fools think be nothing more than what meets the eyes who in the end shall believe do sees Eye.. 🕸️ Honestly one need not be religious, for religion is for those not perceive nor understand truth but do believe. But do know oneself total fool if not be open minded whatever the odds, not have side bet possibility do Exist LORD Almighty, kingdom come be in own lifetime. For then one will know real fear, all know see one Screams.. 👁️ Christ, world shall end on high Note..
@John Johnson “Precious, Excuisite” - It’s just an opinion. Your consciousness has probably existed in this universe for a number of decades, but what created the DNA molecule for your existence originated from inanimate matter reduced from hydrogen and helium in the center of stars billions of years ago. Your consciousness has existed for an instant in the lifetime of the universe and excluding the conjecture of multiple universes or the invisible man in the sky; is unlikely to ever exist again. I say “unlikely” because I don’t know - no one knows. I much preferred the honesty of your first response prior to editing. If you had read what I said carefully, you may have realized, “your last breath” is prior to death. If you’re not familiar with this term it is usually used to describe the timing for one’s last thoughts. And maybe you're a little presumptuous when you said, "When you die you lose all awareness". My instincts tell me you may be correct, but as I have never been "dead", I cannot confirm your certainty. And as for "As far as your concerned, you never existed"; if I never existed, I will probably have no concern about anything - I'll be dead. But where we may agree is the arrogant certainty of atheists and theists alike; they speak of certainties of which they cannot prove or disprove or in which they have had no primary experience. All they can do is parade and amplify their obvious intellectual dishonesty, gullibility, and irrational fear of the unknown that usually consumes their precious existence. Why is it so difficult for those on both sides of the fence just to admit their ignorance? And don’t be angry at the universe because your existence in this universe is finite. It is because life is finite it is precious and exquisite. Just marvel in the universe that created the conditions for your consciousness to come into existence in the first place.
@@animalfarm7467 you do have a point, people should spend more time worshipping God, and less on whether God exists, God gave me the absolute proof that he exists in about a day, but that came after much time asking God for greater wisdom ! And many hours of worship !
The concluding line is brilliant. I agree 100%. If god exists and wants us to believe, then it’s up to god to make that happen. This should be trivial for a being who created the universe.
And any of the millions of people who have experienced god directly will recognize instantly the astounding lack of knowledge you have regarding the topic of god. Meanwhile, science only tells you how things behave, not what they are. Science will never be able to tell you what anything is, which means it will never be able to answer questions of a qualitative nature, which is the essence of everything. This first guest sounds like an absolute fool
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Well, when you talk about the millions who have experienced god directly - I don't know what you mean by that. We know that anecdotal evidence is not a proof of the existence of god. In terms of science not being able to tell us what things "are", what do you mean by that? What's an example? By the way, I don't doubt that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge. But if we are talking about whether or not god really exists - is there really a celestial dictator who reads our thoughts - then I think that's very much within the purview of science, at least conceptually. But if you're referencing something that is inherently unknowable on an objective level, then I think that's really the end of the discussion, because it's impossible to discuss what kind of evidence would prove the theory.
@@kuribojim3916 Millions of people throughout human history have had an NDE and experienced god directly. Anecdotal evidence is the only evidence you have of anything existing at all, including yourself. All contact you have with what you believe to be an outside world occurs entirely in your mind. You'll illogically claim all kinds of things exist outside your mind, yet all you have to make that claim is anecdotal evidence , your own, or someone elses. Now if you want to argue that your direct experience is completely untrustworthy and not a source of evidence then you're right, there would be no arfument to have about god. God's nature is entirely qualitative. Science only deals with quantitative information. Science can tell you how an atom behaves, it cannot tell you what an atom IS. It cannot tell you what anything IS. You'll claim an atom is whatever the dictionary, encyclopedia, or other source says it is. That at best is a human defined definition, as is everything. So at best, you can tell me the english definition of a word. Words exist for us to communicate and share ideas between us. If you tell me something is a "chair", it merely means something I can sit on that will support my weight. Except every word of that definition has itself a definition. All we have are concepts. The nature of the celestial dictator is nothing like you perceive it to be.
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 I'll reply point by point, as that might be easier. "Millions of people throughout human history have had an NDE and experienced god directly." I don't doubt this. But these are all subjective/anecdotal experiences - they are not hard evidence for the existence of god. Don't forget that many people have also claimed to have been abducted by aliens. Same rule applies. "Anecdotal evidence is the only evidence you have of anything existing at all, including yourself. All contact you have with what you believe to be an outside world occurs entirely in your mind." No, anecdotal evidence is not the only evidence we have. That's where science comes in - we use tools and empirical methods to determine what is true and what is not true (or what is more or less likely to be true). The whole reason this process exists is because the human mind, on its own, is highly untrustworthy as an empirical tool. "You'll illogically claim all kinds of things exist outside your mind, yet all you have to make that claim is anecdotal evidence , your own, or someone elses." Not at all. The Moon, for example, doesn't exist simply because I perceive it to exist - there are objective/empirical measures to demonstrate its existence. Similarly, gravity is a real thing whether I believe in it or not. There are very easy ways to test this, of course. 🙂 "Now if you want to argue that your direct experience is completely untrustworthy and not a source of evidence then you're right, there would be no arfument to have about god. God's nature is entirely qualitative. Science only deals with quantitative information." So, we've established here the flaws with anecdotal evidence. But you then go on to make a claim as if it's an objective fact - that "God's nature is entirely qualitative". Well, my friend, you have all your work ahead of you if that's what you want to claim. When you say that science only deals with quantitative information, I'm not sure what kind of distinction you are drawing. "Science can tell you how an atom behaves, it cannot tell you what an atom IS. It cannot tell you what anything IS." Define "is" in this context. Science can absolutely tell you both what something is AND how it behaves. I get the feeling you are applying some mystical definition to "is" - but maybe you can clarify that for me. "So at best, you can tell me the english definition of a word. Words exist for us to communicate and share ideas between us. If you tell me something is a "chair", it merely means something I can sit on that will support my weight. Except every word of that definition has itself a definition. All we have are concepts." Right, but I'm not really sure what your point is here. We have concepts that are articulated through language, but this doesn't mean that these concepts aren't objectively, demonstrably real or true. Language is obviously a conceptual construct that we use to *describe* those realities, but that doesn't change their *realness*. Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not quite sure what you mean there. "The nature of the celestial dictator is nothing like you perceive it to be." You say that as if you understand its nature. But we're both primates attempting to use our brains, my friend. I think you are making claims about things you couldn't possibly understand, and certainly couldn't prove or demonstrate. But I don't say this to be insulting - I think many people do this about many things (not just god - but lots and lots of things, including very mundane stuff). The truth is, if there is a god, none of us have special access to that entity. We are all attempting to understand the Universe and our place in it. But if there is a god - if there is actually an entity that controls the Universe in some fashion - then this is absolutely not outside the purview of science. Now, perhaps the relevant question is to ask what you mean by "god"? Are you a deist? Or a theist? Do you believe that god talks to you privately? Hears your prayers? Meddles in the affairs of humans? Or do you believe that god is far more ephemeral, perhaps setting up the Universe to begin with, but ultimately not being concerned with the day-to-day affairs of intelligent primates? I'm curious to know what you think, and to understand your perspective. Thank you for taking the time to engage.
@@kuribojim3916 I'll start with a critical sticking point. Science is an activity of mind. Hence by definition it is "anecdotal evidence", whether your own or others. Science doesn't 'prove' anything. It only acquires evidence to support an idea that arose in mind. It is impossible to know anything outside of / apart from the activity of mind. The moon exists whether YOU see it or not because the moon is, like everything, God's mental activity perceived through many 'apparently' independent conscious minds. 'You' are a mental concept. Thoughts are not 'you' nor do they 'belong' to you. You merely witness them via awareness which also isn't yours. This is a side track off the previous point and you can examine that separately later. You believe science can tell you what something IS. Give me an example, without using human mind created definitions. If I call you a "bizzledorp", I haven't told you anything about what you are. I can point you to other words that describe what I mean by bizzledorp, but those words are nothing but arbitrary definitions. All words point to definitions in a long regression of arbitrary words and definitions. I don't care what your word is in your chosen language. A word is a pointer to a concept. The concept is not the thing being conceived. An idea of a chair is not a chair. So when I point to a chair and ask you what it IS, all you're going to give me are concepts. If you're going to claim a chair I am pointing at is 'real', then you need to tell me what it is. Your concept of it is mental. I want to know what IT is, outside of and apart from your mere concept of it.
The correct Cosmological Argument is “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” At the 8:40 ish mark he begins talking about an “event” with excited atoms in order to show that “things” come into existence without a cause all the time. Just wondering how did the excited atoms come into being? The quantum vacuum is in fact “something”.
Yes. Stenger equivocates "nothing" and misunderstands the first premise. It is true that we cannot predict certain quantum activity. It does not follow at all that such activity is "uncaused" ie can occur unconditionally. That is obviously absurd. The premise could simply be clarified to say "Every state that begins to exist is contingent upon a prior state". The atom example would fall comfortably under this premise
@@ferdinandkraft857 As far as we can see in the observable everything needs a cause. So you can't use it to justify events in what we see but then say its unfalsifiable when it comes to proving the universe itself needed a cause to come into existence. That cherry picking doesn't work.
And if something always existed, the universe always existing is the LEAST reasonable assumption. Especially since we can trace it backwards through it's development to an origin point, and even atheists admit "something" may have existed even before that, even if they fail to see that it's God.
Where did "X" come from? I believe Wal Mart. Some say pixies. Some say God and if you don't accept my belief which I have determined to be true, with love and if legal, you are subject to infinite torture but know I love you unless you pick up sticks on sunday.
1) Everything that begins has a cause. 2) The Universe had a beginning. And here lies the biggest inconsistency. We must assume that the Universe had a beginning but we must also assume that God has always been around. What existed before God? If the Universe needed a creator why didn't God also need one? Because it would become "turtles all the way down". The way to avoid this paradox is to say that the turtle is almighty. God's attributes were assumed just to avoid an apparently unsolvable paradox, not because there was any kind of evidence to support it.
"the biggest inconsistency" ---- Your outline does not reflect the use of the term "God" as used in classical theology, nor does this series of videos. The term "God" refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens.
This guy can't find a reason to believe in god but is determined to believe, regardless. It sounds like he's making a very serious (even scientific) investigation. But he's not. He's just as delusional as his bishop.
I give him a break because he is on a difficult journey where he is questioning whatever indoctrination he has been the recipient of. It sounds good to many people, so I can see why people want it to be true. They have been trained to ignore the horrible and disgusting actions described in the New and Old Testaments. At least he appears to be on an honest quest which he admits has revealed no good argument in favor of the existence of any god.
He is looking in the wrong places. The phenomena of gods and religions is exposed by looking at the psychology and antropology and evolution of humans. Religions are a reflection of our emotional being. We didn't evolve to understand the world, but to survive it. We create religions and gods in our image, not the other way around. There is a reason they refer to this ficticious character as "father". Its all super obvious if only he would look into it. Looking at the science or filosophy is a fools errand. And no amount of evidence can deter a firm believer from their dearly held religion. They do not have a religion for logical reasons. But for psychological ones. A believer is more likely to doubt their religion if they lose a child, than any logic. Its a matter of feelings emotions and coping mechanisms. Not evidence or logic.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Lol.. how convenient.. while science moved on and evidence for evolution piled up. You cling to the utterances of a very few. Cherry picking to confirm your bias. You think you have some solid arguments. But you don't . But you do not dare to look up the counter arguments to those. You are just .. unsurprisingly.. blinded by your bias and belief in your religion. Only another believer reading that will cheer you on. Anyone science minded is not impressed.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist furthermore. Worship in itself is stupid. Worship of a god is stupid, as well as of the self. Worship is a dumb concept. Noone should worship anything or anyone.
The concept of proving that god exists is hopeless. When theists set the problem up, they make sure it can never be DISPROVEN. After all, if “god” is really the god of western religion, omnipotent, then that god can hide, and we will never be able to find it. So, what’s the point? It’s best to just ignore religion in the first place.
"Because I can't comprehend it means it doesn't exist" Maybe when you can create a Sun, planetary system with sacred geometry within & all around... someday you may understand.
Thank you Mr. Kuhn for your candid honesty and unbiased approach to this important subject. Separating the objective from the subjective should always be the first step we take in our search for truth; a step you have taken well.
Believing something without evidence is how Charlatans make a living. He has no reason to believe and yet believes...no that has nothing to do with being closer to truth. Does god exist ? I don’t know, so I will withhold belief. That to me is closer to being right which is closer to truth.
@@alpl6555 Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason. Religion is man made dogmatic beliefs and requires Faith to believe. I'm don't believe I'm confused my friend. Faith: The evidence (excuse) for things unseen.
@@danescott5149 Religion is a comercialization of faith. Religion needs a belief to be able to exist. It takes faith, or any other belief and sell it to people. Pure faith, without a religion, means living you life knowing from inside yourself, from your heart, that there is something bigger than yourself. Call it God, mother nature, Allah, Krishna, or whatever you want, it doesn't matter. That force exists and you exist because it made it possible. You don't need a religion to be faithful. You are indeed confused. You are confusing the wrapping with the product.
@@danescott5149 You are indeed confused. You are confusing the wrapping with the product.Religion is the comercialization of faith. It needs faith or any other belief to exist. You are right, religion is a man made dogmatic belief system, but it has nothing to do with PURE FAITH, again : DON'T MIX THE TWO. PURE FAITH means living your life knowing from the bottom of your heart that there is something bigger than yourself. Call it God, Allah, Krishna, mother nature, doesn't matter, these are just socio-cultural differences. It's the same force for all of us, the force that made life possible, including you. The force that we are all bound to, from the day we born and till the day we die. The force that we have no control over, otherwise we could remake the world by our own imagination, yet this is not possible, because this force wants us to die eventually. It is the unwritten laws of the Universe itself, and the only laws that there exist. Anything else is human made up bullshit for society to be able to thrive. And by the way, I'm not religious in the way you might think. I don't go to the church or care about any christian rituals. I'm just a normal human being. Wish I could tell you more, but this is not the right place. Once you understand "IT", you will be free from any dogma, from any limitation or restriction.
Well, I had experiences out of body, entering an extremely bright light, experiencing timelessness and infinity, then coming back, feeling the body of another person from the inside, the heartbeat, and the other person felt it as well. For others, this will be explained as an illusion. To me it was 1000x more real then our daily life experience. And I agree, it does not solve any deeper logical question about God. By my definition, God would not be God if God could be explained in such superficial way. But I live based on the experience that there are more dimensions to life. This generates the underlying knowledge to be humble and supportive to life, no matter the argument and no matter the doubt. Even if that sense would fail with death, the present becomes much richer and meaningful. Even a tree became a soul worth dignity and appreciation, well, even a stone. To me, science explains nothing about God. Science is just observing. Conclusions are always based on the consciousness of the observer. I have not seen that science was able to include consciousness into the equation -- and even a scientist would not exist without being conscious. No matter the argument of great scientists or philosophers, consciouness itself is and remains the fundamental miracle to each of us. We are all participants of a wonderland but do not see the wonder -- similar to our eyes that cannot see themselves watching out.
You are right, spiritual life does indeed exist. I've witnessed what happened to my wife. Beyond human comprehension. And I completely agree we are all participants of a wonderland yet very few see those wonders. We are like little ants to this higher power. The divinity is propably as complex as everything you see and hear with your god given senses in this realm.
Experiences started after many weeks of meditation -- but it was some time ago. I am almost 70 years old and do not take any drugs. Neverthless, I am not against people trying psychedelics in a well guided session to explore the boundaries of mind once in a while.
My point here is that all those great minds interviewed do not have any clue what they are talking about, whether atheists or believers. It does not matter whether they believe, or not. They conclude from their own logical thinking. But none of them has ever left the "protected" zone of their own mind.
Peter Atkins says that all arguments for God are fallacious because there is no God. Since when does a scientist assume the conclusion before even considering an argument?
I have to say.......I am absolutely LOVING this channel. It is my new obsession. Other than the very questions that it asks. And the deep dive into it. I’ve been searching my entire adult life ; for answers to questions that can yet never really be answered conclusively. It consumes me at times....that there is such an eternal uncertainty. The most profound questions; all the time...begging for truths. That nobody can answer. My father passed away last month......I am 50 years old; he was 74. I’m having a very difficult time with the questions......I always have had them; but now it’s just all so hyper focused. Where is he now? Did his consciousness survive? If so....where did he go? Why can’t he show me? Thank you so much for this channel. I needed this.
I am 81 and had an out of the body when I was 34, A nun was in my kitchen. I had 15 min of missing time but the point is you do have a spirit.. torso, head & 2 eyes. your in another realm. you float around..
Mabe God doesn't exists but what about the thousands and thousands of near death experiences that can't be explained by science, like a person who knows details of the room where the doctor were giving him cpr? I'm a doctor and I know people that were dead and came to life again and tell unexplainable things .
Hey Audj943... Thanks for sharing that personal stuff. I like this channel too but often it goes "beyond my head." Sorry to hear about your father. My dad passed away in 1993. My life has also been somewhat "hyper focused" the last 15 years as I struggled with cancer and side-effects. Take care of yourself and don't let any of the comments depress you.
At this time in the 21 century people who still have the idea of god existence with not even one reliable history proof, is because the live out of the religion or because they still have a great percentage of ignorance. they claim and belive on god when is six differents gods out of the main religions arround the world. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is not trying to find the truth he is trying to confuse people, god has lots of power but that god needs second and third persons to tell the world that he exists and fails to tell people from others religions that he is the real god, and they are wrong worshiping other non existing gods also all the myths and leyends on the bible has no logic base on this days, you can understand this only with a comun sense, they don't know where and when jesus was born, and why if the old testament belongs to jews. christian religion was organize by the roman emperors and translate to greek, why they take the old testament from jews only for political purposes. watch the cesar's messiah : The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Seven of today's most controversial Bible scholars reveal their shocking conclusions about the origins of Christianity. Based on the best-selling religious studies book by Joseph Atwill,
John Brzykcy Thank you John. I’m sorry to hear about your struggles as well. It does help to think about the possibilities of the human soul, consciousness, and afterlife.....even if just to ponder the idea. I agree; sometimes these kinds of channels can go beyond; I need straightforward conversation, and logic....not a lot of fluffy hoopla. I’m not a fan of believing in fantasy; I like the search for what could truly be. I like conversations that make sence. He seems to want to get that out of his interviews; which I appreciate. I like how he asks the questions that we ourselves would ask. This channel gives me something to think about; hope for, dream about. Hope you’re doing well; thank you for the kind response.
Peter Atkins is not conscious enough (not awake enough) to realize that he is sleepwalking through life. In fact, the more passionate and articulate he is in expressing his faith in atheism and hardcore materialism, the more he demonstrates - in direct proportion to the strength of his materialistic beliefs - the depth and degree of his somnambulism.
@@ferdinandkraft857 We are all asleep in varying degrees, it's just that some of us are aware of that fact. Whereas others, like the hardcore materialists featured in this video, are completely oblivious of the depth of their sleep. It's sort of a variation of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Have you ever noticed that people who claim to not believe in any sort of supernatural/Supreme Being are incensed by people who do believe and swarm to attack while true believers respond with prayer to their God and forgiveness in their hearts? Why would you suppose that is?
God does not give up on humans. A lot of corrections have been made to the algorithm. Our consciousness is still growing up. Although we are not ready yet to understand some deep mysteries, we are progressing, however, surely and safely, closer to the truth.
@@gingerale7729 You don't seem to understand what evidence and date means, and how they are evaluated and used to construct a scientific theory. Regardless, hard evidence and hard data will trump mythology and fantasy at every turn, even if at times misinterpreted.
I want to refer to something Lawrence Kuhn said about Thomas Aquinas and his first proof of God called the "argument from motion". He says there is no reason to assume that the beginner of all motions must be God. It could be anything. Aquinas' first proof states "we know there are motions as evidenced by our senses. All motions were once potential, being made active by active motions being themselves former potential motions. The process can't go back "ad infiniti", as there would no reason for the beginning of the motion system." So what is going to start the system, except something outside of the system? This would be a non-active source that somehow makes things active. The only thing that can do this is a CHOICE made by an INTELLECT, which we commonly know is an aspect of a PERSON. This person, as Aquinas said "we call GOD." If not God, Robert, what is it?
There is enough evidence for the existence of God. Atheists sometimes do the "moving the goal posts" trick on what constitutes "enough". That's often their main problem. Check out J. Warner Wallace and Ravi Zacharias as well as many others for really good arguments for Theism and Christianity in particular.
Daniel Gilleland If those arguments were convincing...wouldn’t there be no unbelievers? The guy in the video insists that we may Never prove it, agreed?
Plenty of Alan Watts vids on UA-cam . Basically rehashing the same old Watts drivel . Watch one and you've watched them all.! Try another charlatan instead ? Eckhart Tolle . Same shtick !
Love this. Have watched your channel occasionally for quite a while but didn't really understand where you were coming from until this video. I don't share your longing for a God, but at times I find myself wishing for reincarnation to be true. I very much share your anger at fallacious arguments for any of it, especially framed as "proof" of the existence of a being already precluded by the history of Earth (a simultaneously all-loving and all-powerful creator). I don't call myself an atheist because it entirely depends on the definition of God. I don't believe in the forementioned omnipotent benevolent God on the grounds that it is inconsistent with much of our experience of reality. I'm agnostic about the possibility of some kind of "God-like" background awareness being the basis for consciousness. (That would be Godlike in the sense of being pervasive and generally part of good intention, but not in the sense of designing the universe or accepting prayer requests from the entire universe and answering them.) I find the idea of the universe itself having some kind of consciousness very interesting, as long as it isn't turned into a supernatural fairy godmother. Or worse, a supernatural God-Father who makes humanity offers we can't refuse. But, when people talk about God in a more generally worshipful and metaphorical sense, to mean the awe and wonder and beauty in reality, a sense of community, and a quest for meaning, then I can translate it and agree with them in principle. So by many definitions of atheist, I'm an atheist, even of the "strong" variety. But I can't embrace the term for myself, because, although it allows for my agnosticism regarding less outlandish versions of God, it doesn't allow for my acceptance of God as a metaphor and as cultural language for referring to various concepts of importance.
So far this fact is certain: The God that Roberts wants to exist does not seem to exist; the God that the theists think to exist, exists only on the premise of their accepted faith and peculiar logic.
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN I guess I saw a myth debunking show some time ago trying to wrap a stained human body with a cloth like that did for 'Jesus' on the Turin Shroud, and the result being that the stains left on the cloth showed somewhat like a double-size stretched, unsymmetrical spread of a human body, nothing like the one shown with the Turin Shroud. This proof tells all.
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN That myth debunking episode shows that such an image can only be produced artificially and cannot be reproduced in real life experiment. To think it is a miracle is emotionally befitting for a believer. But we all know faith is one thing, truth is another thing.
@MasterChief - I don't think this video or anyone makes a value judgement of either believing or not believing in a God. The question is whether you want to find out the truth about how things really are, or if you would rather settle for an illusion that gives you a sense of purpose, hope and comfort in your life.
Have you watched the video? The professor at the beginning makes a pretty clear value judgement to me. Who said anything about an illusion, and can you prove the idea of God is merely just an illusion, or are you placing your own value judgment on others? There's nothing wrong with being inquisitive to find out more, but it seems you carry the assumption that all theists don't like to understand more about the way things are.
There is a problem with the argument that everything that science discovers adds to the glory of god. The problem is that the God hypothesis is not necessary to explain anything that science has discovered thus far. In science, you don’t add explanations that are redundant.
I am really enjoying these programs, and I sympathize with Mr. Kuhn's quandary, but I wonder whether the desire to believe which he describes isn't in itself evidence in support of the existence of God. Not proof--there is not nor can there be proof. If knowledge is only defined as that which can be proven, then ignorance is inevitable. We have known--it has been proven--for a while that not every proposition can be proven, and it's hard to imagine how a problem could be constructed to be less provable than God. Any argument for the existence of God seems inevitably to come down to some form of magic, which seems antithetical to logic. I am also frustrated by fallacious "proofs" of God. If God has any meaning at all, truth must be a central part of that meaning. But many (most? all?) claims to disprove God are equally fallacious. Atkins' assertion that all proofs of God must be false because God doesn't exist is about as elementary as a fallacy can be. There's a necessary leap of faith between agnosticism and atheism. My knowledge of possible arguments against God is probably not exhaustive, but I have never seen or heard one that isn't fallacious. I believe it's reasonable to conclude that any answer beyond "I don't know," is unreasonable. But I also believe it's reasonable to see this as an artifact of the limits of reason. A lifetime of disappointments and unanswered prayers makes a persuasive case, to me, that God does not exist. It isn't proof, but it's surely evidence. Still, if God says to me that he does exist or otherwise demonstrates his existence--even once--I feel compelled to consider that any problems I've had with God are more to do with my lack of understanding than any failure on God's part. Of course, I am also aware that command hallucinations are very compelling to those who experience them, but, ultimately, I am as confident in my sanity as I am in my identity. In the end, I want to believe, so I do. Which, l also believe, requires of me due respect for others believing what they want to believe.
Woah! I read this comment and thought..."this guy sounds just like me" XD Cadence and all. It's really funny, heading towards agnosticism and atheism actually brought me to a place of belief....on some days. Lol. I finally realized if there is no God, and nothing matters, then this is the only life which we have, so you might as well make it your own, and if you prefer to believe in God and it makes your journey better, then DO IT! If there is no God, no rhyme or reason for life, and when the lights go out it's over, nothing matters, then they why do I have to justify my beliefs and desires logically? Prove them to other non believers? What unseen wrong am I committing that I shouldn't be if it's just a construct in our minds. If you want to believe because it makes you life better for you...THEN BELIEVE. So Atheism brought me to faith...in a more subjective way...from an angle I never expected. I had always tried to prove the faith I wanted to have with logic and science, and in a way that I could defend against other critical and logical free thinkers. But once you see life from a nihilistic perspective and all that there is is what you make of this like... It granted me the ability and justification to believe if I wanted and to not feel like I should give two shitz about any ridicule I would receive from a militant atheist. In the end my desire and experience trumped everything, so whatever makes that experience better is good with me, including God. So I'm a hopeful agnostic Christian. Jesus was a badass and the idea of Him is cool, and I don't know any other lens through which I would see God since I think sin is a real thing...or I can see it's outworking in the world....but I dunno....???? But I'm with you on the prayer thing. Good luck with that. I wasted way too much time on that. Nowadays when I say something to God it's in passing and almost condescending cause I know He doesn't talk back. But maybe I should be grateful, when God starts speaking back to you then you're REALLY in trouble right? LOl...anyway..thanks for the post. Was facinating. Didn't mean to ramble, its so late it's early and I'm tired.
@@MrMemyselfandi415 Years ago, I had a conversation with a stroke patient who had pretty severe expressive aphasia. I don't recall his actual words, now, but if I had written them down, they would probably look incomprehensible. In the moment, though, I got a strong sense he was trying to say something profound. Thinking critically, a strong case could be made that I was hearing what I wanted to hear, that his thoughts "seemed" profound--to me--because they were actually my thoughts. To me, though, it was a glimpse of the power of intuition. Reason could hear with my ears, but on a less conscious level, my eyes could see his expression and posture, and my brain could process that along with my other senses and find meaning my ears alone would have missed. Was it real? It surely felt real. I firmly believe the human brain is capable of much more than can be put into words.
@@mikestewart505 That's a sad state of affairs. Especially when you've had the experience of seeing that person when they were young, virile, charismatic and strong only to find them relegated to such a demeaning circumstance. Bruce Willis was just diagnosed with Aphasia. My heart goes out to him. I always liked him. I always think about him climbing through that AC duct with his lighter in Die Hard talking to himself saying something like.."come on out she says.....it'll be a barrel of laughs" and then "Yippykiamother@#$%ker" Anyway....neither here nor there, but funny none the less. I'm an artist, and pretty empathic, so I have an uncanny ability to read the energy in written words. It's....a thing. So maybe you're right. The cool thing about that, and it's the way I think about God as well. Is that it's ok to reach for things we don't understand and make the best of them as long as we fully accept that they are simply leaps made from the best of our logic and reason. If it boils down to simply an experience that you can't prove...weight it out and then....live in the mystery. That's ok with me. I don't have to have all of the answers anymore. HAving said that, Your story reminded me of my ex wife....she spoke past me more of our entire marriage. XD Anyway. Regards.
Fallacies in Proving God Exists: #1 Having a meaningful conversation on the subject of "God" (easily the most ambiguous word in all of language) without beginning by specifically defining the term which is the subject of the discussion. That's like one of the first steps of the scientific method. Without that, since like every person has their own unique concept of the ambiguous term, it becomes a "Who's on first" situation where nobody understands what the other is intending to say, and doesn't know it.
It's not an ambiguous word. God, or the "Deity", is the first person who is without form because He is the Creator of all form. You couldn't be here without Him.
Well, on the first account, “the first cause”. I don’t think there is a fallacy at all on that. Because as much as I am, this professor also just hopes on a scientific proof that there is a first cause aside from God. That is just ridiculous. Whether they find that first cause, they are merely pushing back the question. Its merely his pride that gets in the way. Aren’t all of us... atheist alike, bases our beliefs on hope and faith? I’d rather believe in God than not.
It's about the nature of that cause. If we, let's say, talk about something that caused time and matter to exist, that cause itself would have to be timeless and immaterial. There's no good reason to propose a consciousness to be such a cause, because according to all we know, every example of a consciousness we can observe requires time and matter to exist. It seems like a more reasonable position to think that a first cause would've been something much simpler. And no, proclaiming "God is infinitely simple!" would not solve the problem.
David Schilling Hello. Mr. David. I like how you put it that way, but aren’t even scientists and philosophers are perplexed and confounded of what consciousness is? “Consciousness” is merely a replacement word of what we think there is... you can replace the word “God” with “consciousness” if you like but there’s no denial as you have said that whatever lies beyond must be timeless and immaterial which the God of the bible clearly represents. Not being too simpleton but isn’t God easier to say than consciousness. I hope that we will have a good discussion here and respect one another. You have a great one Mr. David
@@MrDPerez The god of the _bible_ - like all ancient deities - represents contemporary views, myths and superstitions. We're talking about a broader idea of God, as "the answer to the question of existence." You're free to define "God" as "that which caused time and matter to exist", even if it was something like a random quantum fluctuation. That might just be a little confusing, as most people connect a whole lot of other things to the word "God" which you don't get from this definition. Yes, we don't know everything about consciousness, yet. I said: according to everything we _do_ know, consciousness depends on time and matter. An anaesthetic can turn your consciousness off by intercepting material processes.
I hope for many things sure. My beliefs are not based on what I hope for, that would encourage bias. Faith on the other hand is utterly useless and is basically equivalent to gullibility. Unless you choose to redefine faith as trust based on experience. Like having faith that when I sit in a chair it will support me.
@@elvancor Good day Mr. David. I understand where you are coming from Are you a scientist by trade? Let me tell you now. As we get closer to what there is everything to know about consciousness, it will bring forth more unanswered questions that will then return full circle to God. On the other hand, may I invite you to listen to our bible expositions if you don't mind.
Aletak 13 that’s not a very strong argument. Your literally straw manning God by claiming something material or built of matter could not be moved by an all powerful God. If he wanted to make something unmovable then it would be until he changed his mind on the matter of course. Literally in this case. Lol but with that arguement you could look at it in too many ways so I find it weak.
This is the toughest question ever, we cannot search the creator after we die, it's too dangerous or terrible or disastrous that we cannot breathe once again, the fear haunts that I am buried under tons of mud, that is the reason God should exist, if God doesn't who is there to save us, Jesus is the only diety among all religions who focused only on eternal life and nailed his life on what we need, we need life that's all, whoever gives it, receives our worship and universal attention.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Why intentionality? Consciousness is more fundamental. How could one chunk of matter have consciousness? This does not prove the existence of a personal creator God that is petty and vindictive and knows how many hairs you have on your head and what you had for breakfast. Religious people like to twist these arguments to say that this somehow validates the Bible, it does not.
That is actually quite funny and I am a believer. Like the mad scientist that blows himself up. I could guess by your avatar that you are a militant atheist. However, you are professing your blind faith in matter and energy if you believe that hydrogen gas + time = everything on Earth.
@@SuperFactsonly Aha! I knew you were a pantheist! (just kidding) God is obviously not a man, however he does have an invisible attribute like your energy, and he is older than old like your energy, so apparently you are anti-persons and it is not clear what DOES do it for you. By the way, I have learned a lot from old men. [you said "inv isis ible" ISIS Freudian slip? :-)]
He indicates at the end of the video that he does not know what will convince him. “If god exists and if god wants me to believe in god, it’s up to god to figure out how”
The more i ask myself about the possibility of a deity, the more I realize I need to go back to understanding epistemology. This is especially the case when I hear of spiritual experiences.
Atkins is so arrogant😄Of course science doesn´t give any meaning to the “why” of existence but it does give us information as to the “how” of the material world we can observe.
The reason why we don't think as if we are in the world made up of visible atoms or who don't just live in a technical unconscious robot world is because we are here in the right place in the natural universe being on a higher level of divinity
The Bible tells us faith comes from God. So it is up to God to give it to us. I had faith, from my upbringing, indoctrination, and inculcation. That faith ended and is totally no more. If God exists, any faith must come from him. I don't expect it to come.
I agree with his atheist views 100% but I disagree with his statement that a scientist who rely on god for an inexplicable answer is not a good scientist. Hmm Newton?
I agree too, many good scientists are theistic. The real argument should be Local Cause and Effect vs Non Locality / Naturalism vs Super / Mono vs Dualism/ Physics vs Meta, the God argument is secondary and does nothing good except waste time and create a False Dilemma between Science and Faith when our victorian Enlightenment ancestors could find compromise.
I don't know on what grounds people say that the dilemma between science and faith is false. Not only many scientific discoveries undermine beliefs brought by faith, but as Carl Sagan said, science is also a way of thinking. This way of thinking takes rationality, skepcitism, empiricism and critical thinking, none of which are atribbutes of faith.
@@Filipe9171 Yes youre right, but for me, its a false dilemma only from the context of my anti-science american culture. Its doing more damage to (popular) science to use science as an atheist platform. The skizm and damage done to Society is measurable , when a science minded person will discover the conflicts in thier own time when they are prepared for it, instead of a science authority telling them. The enlightenment era theists were able to confront it and compromise thier theology and make it fit within Naturalism, only after so many years of investigating it, instead of confronting the conflict on thier first day. The result was Progress, Modernity, and Liberal Society being accepted by mainstream society
@@pcb8059 ... religion is always a dead end. it's a dogma! Look at Christianity... they were left with the promise that the "end is near" ... and here they sit, 2,000 years later and still preach that one day... we all will rise... nothing has changed. they read the same stories over and over again, try reading it from every angle there is... and still... the stories are not really fitting. let's face it... those who are still sticking to religion... are lost "souls". indoctrinated beyond repair. They believe because they were taught so...and no argument will change that, not even when they are destroying the habitat they are living in.
A spell is the belief that one's hopes and wishes are stronger than reality. Or perhaps spells are meant to comfort or reassure a second party. Whereby the second party may pick up the practice.
Aquinas 5-way, Aristotle' unactualized actualizer, kalam or whatever - it doesn't matter, they're all based on weak premises that theists treat as dogma.
@@ferdinandkraft857 Aquinas was a great number theory expert, he figured out ultimate secret of universe. He figured out universe is not the same if you add all stuff 1 by 1 or if you use multiplication. We have a proof for that, if you could add all things that exist, by the time you finished your calculation universe will became larger. But if you multiply things, this method is faster because it rely on logical patterns and universe stay the same size.
I was raised as a Christian and always believed God did exist but like many, I lived my life as if God did not exist. I did not have much of a relationship with him until about 2 yrs ago when I had "woke up" to "the Truth". I actually prefer saying that i had "woke up to discover most of this world is a lie". I prefer this because the powers that be have buried the real truth under so many lies, I dont think we will ever really know the real truth. The first lie that started me down the proverbial rabbit hole was when I realized that we do not live on a globe that spins at 1000 mph at the equator with a supposed vaccum of space that is able to break the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it is impossible to have a vaccum next to an atmosphere without a physical barrier. The reality is that the Earth is stationary, flat (for the most part aside from the valley's & mtns) and we live under a dome which is referred to as the firmament in the bible. The process to break the lifetime of brainwashing, endoctronation, and programming to actually apply critical thinking which lead to free my mind and accept the truth took apx 3 months. It was not easy and I understand many will never be able to break free as many have done in recent years. Just know this...The powers that be aka The Elite, The people in these secret societies who hold most of the wealth and basically control the world, they know the truth and they are lying to you. For two main reasons. 1. To enslave you not with chains for hands/feet. To enslave you in your mind as you are believing in a world that does not exist. 2. To hide the evidence of God. The God of the Bible.
"Closer to the Truth" Description Blurb: The new Atheism youtube show pretending to be philosophically objective but pretty much has a hard on for attacking religion itself. Note: this show does not address all 10,000 religions currently in existence, but mostly attacks Western produced religions using shallow caricatures of fundamental Metaphysical questions that remain open even today. Warning on Package: Please be aware that 'Science' and the pursuit of 'Scientific' knowledge is not the same as 'Atheism', which this show may deliberately or 'somewhat' unintentionally lead one to believe. Science is not Atheism. In addition, Science has not proved the philosophy of Materialism, despite what the show's advocate Robert Kuhn (so desperately) is trying to make you believe.
Yes, being author of real confusion do spell the Word 1 Godless, where even those of faith differs Scripture.. Shows one that believers actually do worship being Egotistical GOD Devil, therefore last thing that oneself want is the glory of everlasting life, as that only for those fools think be nothing more than what meets the eyes who in the end shall believe do sees Eye.. 🕸️ Honestly one need not be religious, for religion is for those not perceive nor understand truth but do believe. But do know oneself total fool if not be open minded whatever the odds, not have side bet possibility do Exist LORD Almighty, kingdom come be in own lifetime. For then one will know real fear, all know see one Screams.. 👁️ Christ, world shall end on high Note..
@rs5352 ... and what is more important everything he says makes perfect rational sense, as opposed to the irrational, fantastical theistic ramblings we hear from the other side of the fence.
These were great conversations and as with every video in this series I am grateful for the insights. Listening to these interviews from people whose default position is they do not believe in God, leaves their arguments against theists as broad generalisations and dismissive without actually dealing with the specific arguments. The high point of the absence of integrity in dealing with this was around 26:40 with the reference to media sponsored suggestions of miracles, and the respondent's comment that his default position is 'I don't believe it." This sounds like a very unscientific approach. He then goes on to accept that God does send some miracles but somehow the existence of fake miracles somehow tarnishes them all? Certainly the world is full of false prophets and fake miracles, so skepticism is justified, but why not look just at the miracles that have been scientifically verified? Such as the the eucharistic miracle at Buenos Aires; the Shroud of Turin, and the Tilma of Guadaloupe. The most promising comment came at the end when Lawrence says if God exists He will have to work out how to prove it to Lawrence. That is the key, with a humble and contrite heart ask God to reveal Himself to you. He absolutely will; and He will do it in His own way and in His own time and, I suspect, in a very unique way for you.
Thank you so much to the second professor, that does sound more realistic...the new universe coming from the tunnelling of a previous universe, that makes sense. The first professor wasn't really able to give theories as to how our universe came into being, but I like the 2nd professor's argument. The question is though, how did THAT previous universe come into being? and then it might go on in a never-ending cycle of universes but where did the original universe come from? It's depressing stuff and brings out curiosity. Yes I never believed Christianity and Islam and all those religions because they just are silly, I'm sorry to say. But I like the 2nd professor's points.
How can a perfect being, desire to be worshipped? Why the hell would a sentient person, be cool with kissing the arse of ANYONE ANYTime ANYWHERE? How strange
The worshiping is not for that perfect being but for yourself, the more you truly and deeply worship and praise god the more you benefit from it physically and mentally. And there is only ONE god not 3 in 1 nor 3 million. Neither is he created nor is it imaginable. He was always there before creation and will be there when everything perishes and comes to its end. worshiping god is not just prostrating to it but also striving to be a better person every day. giving in charity, loving one another and being thankful for what you have no mater how little. Even a smile is a way of worship to god. Since he is your creator and everything you have or achieved in life is eventually his, the least we can do is worship him and thank him. Every created thing which is made by man has a instruction manual. God also have given us one , this he did through prophets and messengers again and again since time immemorial . In almost al religions you read, its core message is that your god is one. its in hinduism, in judaism, in christianity in islam. Yet man corrupted almost all scriptures for personal gain.
@@TH3-ON3 I just don't get it. How do you find the act of worship, perfectly appealing and amazing beyond belief? Your biblical deity made up this rule, right? I'm just a typical arsehole.....and I can see the contradiction of a perfect being, desiring ANYTHING....especially praise and worship.
@@dlon8899 Am sorry but English is not my mother tongue so I dont really get you. What do you mean with your first sentence? As I said god doesn't need anything from us at all. But we do need him for he is our creator and he is our sustainer. The least we can do is worship him. Every law we got from god through his messengers and prophets are a guidance for us so that we as humans flourish and live in harmony with one another. if I prostrate in worship and praise god 10 times a day and say how great, powerful and magnificent he is, it does not make any difference to him. For his perfection and greatness goes beyond our tiny minds. By praising him it is we who will benefit from. If we praise him we follow him ( his guidance ) and if we follow his guidance we do good and abstain from bad. If we do good we will live happily in this life ( with each other ) and also gain paradise in the hereafter. We believe that this life is a test and death is inevitable. Our salvation depends on how obedient we have been to his laws and guidance in this temporal life.
I think many people have a need to believe that the events of their lives aren't arbitrary and that the percieved dualism of good and evil is real and weighted to the good.
At this time in the 21 century people who still have the idea of god existence with not even one reliable history proof, is because the live out of the religion or because they still have a great percentage of ignorance. they claim and belive on god when is six differents gods out of the main religions arround the world. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is not trying to find the truth he is trying to confuse people, god has lots of power but that god needs second and third persons to tell the world that he exists and fails to tell people from others religions that he is the real god, and they are wrong worshiping other non existing gods also all the myths and leyends on the bible has no logic base on this days, you can understand this only with a comun sense, they don't know where and when jesus was born, and why if the old testament belongs to jews. christian religion was organize by the roman emperors and translate to greek, why they take the old testament from jews only for political purposes. watch the cesar's messiah : The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Seven of today's most controversial Bible scholars reveal their shocking conclusions about the origins of Christianity. Based on the best-selling religious studies book by Joseph Atwill, caesarsmessiahdoc.com
The first guy ironically opens with the fallacy of circular reasoning. When I say that I said "yep, this whole video is gonna be bad" and knew it wasn't worth watching.
The fact that nature in some way created entities within itself that are aware of themselves, and their surroundings....able to observe and measure this nature.... but not able to understand how this phenomenon exists at all, gives the God hypothesis tremendous ground.
Not really. It's just another "god of the gaps" argument. "We don't know how, therefore, god." A plausible reason you even consider the idea of god, is because you've heard someone else make the claim that a god (or gods) exist - or you were exposed to religion in some form. Imagine for a moment, an isolated group of humans that are raised with just the scientific knowledge we currently have about the universe - they are completely unaware of any theological ideas, texts, etc. They would still be confronted with the same unanswered questions we have - but they would not have the pre-existing notion of "supernatural" as even a possibility to consider. Would they rely on the scientific method to continue searching for answers? Would they invent their own ideas of "god"? These very tough questions may indeed never have a conclusive answer - and that really bothers people (including myself). But that isn't evidence for the existence of a god or gods. But... could they exist? Sure, I guess so. But how can I be convinced of an idea with no good evidence? I for one, am not fooled by emotional or personal experience - but many people are - primarily because most people have been exposed to religious ideas and frankly, it's easier for them to offload these questions onto god, rather than wrestle with them mentally.
@@ryandinan well that's mighty arrogant of you to come to that conclusion. However, anthropology studies like at Oxford have shown that children believe in a higher power regardless of outside influence. Other studies have shown that its our genes to believe in God. So your rambling not only rings hollow, your arrogance falls short!
@@ryandinan God of the gaps accusations usually always stem from the presuppositions the atheist already has towards what God is. This is usually a result of anti religion hate. But if blind chance is really the explanation for all this, I ask you, what properties does this imaginary concept consist of?
@@gregariousguru I did not intend to come across as arrogant; that's one of the many reasons online discussions fall flat - people seem to apply whatever "tone" they feel. Anyways, your point about the idea that children possess an inate belief in a higher power is something I've followed with interest. There are as many studies that show the opposite; that these "beliefs" are, in fact caused by exposure to religious ideas. However, humans in general tend to have a preference for believing religious ideas, simply because they seem to satisfy the majority of minds. Now that we find ourselves in an era of practically unlimited access to the world's best scientific knowledge, record numbers of people are identifying as "nonreligious" and are leaving the church they were raised in. It's now easier than ever for the masses to learn answers to questions that once were firmly in the theological domain. I don't claim to have answers to the biggest and deepest questions (i.e., "Why is there something rather than nothing?") - but I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know." People that claim there is a god or a higher power need to provide some compelling evidence to convince my mind - and so far, I have not heard or seen any. For now, I feel that science may eventually provide those answers, as difficult as they may be to understand. Claiming that, "this God did it." isn't really answering anything. Where's the evidence for this God? How do we know it's properties? How does this explain things, rather than shift the question? (What caused God's existence?) If you're going to claim that this God is eternal, then you can just as easily say that the cosmos is eternal. But notice that science doesn't say that - it aims to find evidence of that, not just make an assertion.
The resurrection of Christ is the Key why cowards apostles willingly to Die after what they saw. This event is supported by historians not a believer but a researcher of history. I hope you get my point Sir.
IF an ancient report of alleged cowards allegedly being ready to die after allegedly seeing something they believed to be a resurrection is enough to prove the existence of an absurd entitity like Jehovah, then we'd have to take next to every mythology on Earth as fact as well.
@@castelbergtom2252 I believe I already have. Since there isn't even a solid consensus that a historical Jesus existed, the _facts_ about Jesus are zero.
Atkins is closed minded. I was an agnostic until I saw a debate with Atkins vs a Christian apologist by the name of Dr. Craig. Dr. Craig for the most part dominated the debate and provided better arguments for his case for theism. I now fall more to the theistic side of the argument. After exploring these arguments for over 10 years, I cannot live by relativism and meaninglessness.
@Kakashi Hatake Would God be the only necessary existence and everything else contingent? If so, it's begging the question. If math, definitions, etc. are also necessary beings, then the equating necessary existence to God is useless.
Thanks this has some valid points, of course fallacies can be found in the God hypothesis, everyone knows that, but please can we have a video explaining the fallacies of an atheistic world view. No matter how convincing something is it's always good to challenge the premise of our oppositions to provide balance.
. "It's angry and makes me sad", "it does not provide me order and meaning", "This is all too nice and beautiful not to have an creator"...These are but a few fallacies of the atheistic world view..
@@kristofftaylovoski60 This is, of course, an emotive and superficial objection I will give you that, but I must point out that such an objection is possible from both sides of the argument that has always been the case.
@@ferdinandkraft857 1: If objective moral values exist, then atheism does not provide an adequate framework in which to ground such values. 2: Atheism does not account for the staggering mathematical improbability of the existence of sentient life forms 3: Atheism has a tendency to provide overly simplistic and surface value explanations
I was trying to see if what you said is a contradiction. But I can't find such. The only thing I perceive is that some people might actually think they know everything. So the phrase "this we all know" would not apply to such a person. Is my perception correct?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 This we all know is referring to none of us being all knowing Which is something all of us do know. As for perceive or perception. Life is how we perceive thy own self. No other human could perceive the same way as another human being does. Because if that was the case We'd be no more than a herd of animals. Rather instead we are spiritual beings Born with perception and will free will. How You live Your life is how You think How You think is the life in which You live Peace be with You and Yours
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Wild animals run from the dangers they see But once they have escaped they stop worrying and embrace life. We however are tormented by what is past and by what may come Most of which didn't and won't occur. Life is full of misfortunes Most of which never even happened. Care about what others think of You and You'll always be their prisoner. Peace be with You and Yours
@@tobiahtoviyahgoodnessof349 Hey there.... I like your views and they make sense. Sometimes I watch UA-cam videos about elephants who are saved from being chained up. They seem to "embrace life" and "stop worrying" as you said. I like your statement "care about what others think of you and you'll always be their prisoner." Sometimes I get trapped within that perception, like the elephant in chains. PEACE from Florida
I do believe in God. But when it comes to the arguments people use for his existence, they are terrible. I have heard many. Some sound good on the surface. But it doesn't take anything more than some very basic critcal thinking to understand that the arguments are not good.
Religious beliefs come down to faith, but faith is no logical pathway to the truth. Example: YOU believe in Yahweh , THEY believe in Mohammed... You both can't be right, so by definition, faith is no logical pathway to the truth. I don't mean any disrespect , that's just how I see it ☺️
With all due respect (and a large dose of agreement with the gist of your argument), but Yahweh is a god, Mohammed is a man, a prophet. The proper comparison is Yahweh to Allah.
@D L Luke Hey D L... I wonder about that same thing: "If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would be pushing Muhammad and the Quran." I'm scared that if I keep knocking on the door, the door will simply disappear ( or fall off the hinges! )
@@johnbrzykcy3076 The same as above. If you really insist, throw in God the Father and the Holy Spirit, for good measure. It changes nothing in terms of my concept above. Incidentally, the concept of incarnation is not unique to Christianity, by the way.
The host never shows this level of cynicism towards string theory, which has ZERO experiments/observations to prove it's valid. But it's "aesthetically beautiful" so it must be true. Why the double standard? Ironically, Godel who is considered the greatest logician of all time believed in a personal God. But I know, he was crazy. All the "great" scientists who don't believe in God are "stable geniuses."
Emery Coppola Jr. Think of real models; the first mention of atoms, was 2400 years ago, Democritus; do you know for how long there was “ZERO experiments/observations to prove it’s valid” ? 2400 years. You have to remember, the Scientific Revolution has only had (there was an intro of 200 years) 300 years of notable existence. {Homo sapiens started fabricating gods about 10,000 years ago during the Neolithic/agricultural revolution. And although god or gods does not exist, it was an actual practical legitimate purpose to invent god. It actually started off as a Homo sapiens reasonable hypothesis/theory, and without ever establishing proof, it was just became (a comforting) accepted reality. Although a categorical unequivocal hoax.} And theologians nor scientist have ever proved the existence of ANY god. 😂😂😂. If there was a “double standard”, the buffoonery lunacy quackery of religion has ALWAYS been on the receiving end for the unworthy benefit of the doubt.
String theory with no evidence is not the same thing as theology with no evidence. The former has a proven *foundation* it is based on, the foundation that we knows works: math and experimentally confirmed laws of physics. The latter has nothing to stand on. Once you prove your methodology works, it is perfectly reasonable to make conjectures with no evidence, as long as you're staying within the framework of your methodology. Theology has not accomplished that. Note that when the entire world jumped on developing vaccines and cures for COVID, they didn't treat snake oil and prayers on the same level ground as chemical compounds that they think might produce remedies even though they had no evidence for that to be the case. Not all "theories with no evidence" are created equal.
PavelSTL As I start my day, it brings a smile to my face😁😄😃 to read a perspicuous perspicacious reply in the comment section. No insecure defensive emotional outrage, just a factual progression of developments. 🙂
@@readynowforever3676 Thank you for your argument. I think you misinterpreted my motives. I'm not arguing that theology should not be held to a high standard of rigor - nor am I suggesting that science is fraudulent (no climate change). Nor that prayers can stop a pandemic. What I'm observing is that scientists or people who discount religious faith often (not always) have no qualms about applying some form of faith (for lack of a better word) to cosmology or science. Again, the "aesthetically beautiful argument," while advocated by many including Einstein, obviously does not validate a theory. People will accept at face value that there must be ten dimensions per string theory because the mathematics is advanced and elegant and does conform with certain proofs/theorems. But as there has not yet been any experiment or observation to validate it, accepting its possible validity requires a leap of faith. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that no mathematical system can ever be proved true. To quote from Wikipedia: "Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system capable of modelling basic arithmetic. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible." So invariably, we have to make a leap of faith; string theory and quantum mechanics may be one of many possible theories that mimic reality (whatever that is) very closely. Yes, many of these theories work remarkably well at reproducing observation. But Newtonian mechanics was accepted as the final paradigm for the physical world until Einstein changed that quite dramatically. In fact, it was Einstein's skepticism and Godel's that allowed both to turn physics and mathematics on their respective heads.
@@soulburn8987 These men are not spewing the same weak arguments at all. I don't think you see the depth in these arguments. You cannot have it both ways: it's either all things have a cause, and that does include God, or there are exceptions, and if so, then I can claim that the Universe as a whole does not need to have cause. You're committing a fallacy of composition if you think the entire Universe must have a cause simply because you observe elements in it to have one. In other words, just because every baseball player on the team has a wife, doesn't mean the baseball team must have a wife. The property of "causality" is not exempt from this fallacy. It's not true that all things we observe have a cause anyway. I think Quantum Mechanics puts that argument to rest. Finally, who cares what Yahweh says until there's strong evidence to support that what he says has anything do with explaining reality. THAT needs to be established first.
It's a matter of looking at the possibilities. 1. Deities don't exist. The universe is self-organising, though perhaps some entities will evolve/develop in the far future that we today would perceive as godlike 2. Deities are subjectively real, but not otherwise. Notions of agency within nature have been inherited from thousands of generations of human ancestors, who all until recently believed that powerful natural entities had agency. Thus deities are subjectively real as a potential in our brain configuration, inherited from a long line of superstitious ancestors, but not an ontic reality. 3. There are synergies in reality, as described in the Tao, Buddhism or other schemas. These, as per #2, might be be interpreted as a deity or deities. 4. The Sun has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. We are increasingly finding organisation in the Sun's structure. It might produce a different kind of consciousness to anything we imagined. 5. The Earth has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. After all, we are only a small part of Earth, so it's logically greater, and we are a system within the Earth's system. Again, maybe there's complex organisation in our planet that we don't understand. 6. The entire universe is conscious to some extent, and this is interpreted as a deity or deities. 7. The spirits of the dead still exist in another dimension/realm that could be interpreted as a deity or deities. There have been many hard-to-explain anecdotal incidents, but nothing conclusive. Many indigenous people believed this. 8. Multiple deities actually exist, and they might be interpreted in different ways. Hindus and many indigenous groups have their own particular polytheistic schemas. Even the Romans and Greeks, thought I don't think they took them entirely seriously. 9. There is one supreme deity that created the universe and let it go unattended. 10. There is one supreme interventionist deity that created everything. 11. The multiverse exists and this is interpreted as a deist creator. That's all I have ... so far :)
Please proof your own existence, or disprove your existence, that really very easy am i right. Now on the same manner you proof your own existence proof god's existence
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
*_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind (i.e. Observer). This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) ...
Information doesn't create the cosmos. Information waves are the fabric of the cosmos. And, as demonstrated with the famous double slit experiment, a conscious observer converts those information waves of potentiality / probability into "particle", "matter", or "cosmos". The Prime Observer creates the Cosmos.
*Matter cannot exist without physical laws and constants first existing. Physical laws and constants cannot exist without mind / consciousness / intelligence first existing. Mind / consciousness / intelligence is Prime. Consciousness / Intelligence Exists Before Matter. Mind Over Matter.*
*_"An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively "ruling out" all but one possibility) can actually change the measured result. Despite the "observer" in this experiment being an electronic detector-possibly due to the assumption that the word "observer" implies a person-its results have led to the popular belief that a conscious mind can directly affect reality.[3] The need for the "observer" to be conscious is not supported by scientific research, and has been pointed out as a misconception rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ψ and the quantum measurement process, apparently being the generation of information at its most basic level that produces the effect."_* (Wikipedia: Observer Effect)
*An electronic detector is a tool created by and for a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer, the electronic detector, its parameter settings, and its measurements do not exist. The electronic detector becomes an extension of the conscious observer. In the same way, a telescope and microscope are merely extensions of the conscious observer. However, it is the the Conscious Observer that is fundamental.*
Laws of the Universe exist Independent of anyone's personal beliefs in the existence of the Laws of the Universe. Just as man-made laws govern society globally, Universal Laws govern the entire Universe. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing any form of laws. As scientifically confirmed, non-material laws are the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.
I like how much sense of dignity and respect Robert L. Kuhn is treating this subject and his opponents with
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist how do you figure? There is no empirical evidence for any "god" and that's why atheists don't believe in any of them.
Why do you have a problem with that?
Is it that you question it yourself?
The fact that some people don't believe, does it make you feel insecure?
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist the word "atheist" should not really exist..
Do we have a word for NOT believing in fairies? Or goblins?
You can't stand that some people don't just don't blindly believe. You know deep down that you're fooling yourself.
"Faith" is belief without evidence.
It's no pathway to the truth.
@@TheGreatAlan75 Speak for yourself. I am a professional non-stamp collector.
Hey Kirill ( did I spell that right?) I agree with you but I wish those who make the comments would show the same respect.
Please don’t believe these atheists, these are NOT the arguments we use. This is a gross mischaracterization of what we believe.
One of the most surprising things about many atheists is how insulting they are. The first interviewee essentially calls theists either lazy, stupid, or psychologically damaged. These are arguments? Sounds like the ad hominem fallacy to me.
An agnostic theist. That's pretty rare these days.
As an atheist I really enjoyed this video. By the end the host basically says, and I'm paraphrasing "My belief is wishful thinking, and the burden of proof is not only on those who claim to believe, but on god himself".
That is more than I could ever wish for religious people to admit. I don't need the whole world to be atheist, but it would be nice if everyone had this level of sanity.
im not an expert on this subject but i wll give you a proof for God
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN Well, that the problem. You thinking that you have 'proof' for something that people have debated for thousands of years. I mean, you are smart enough to admit you are not an expert, why are you too dumb to admit that you have no proof?
@@Bamsefar87 I WILL GIVE YOU ONE LETS SEE HOW SMART YOU ARE
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN You keep saying that, and yet all you are giving me is depression.
@@Bamsefar87 you say you are smart do you want to prove it?
One of the main reasons that many people believe in a God is that it gives them a sense of direction and purpose in life and it provides hope for a wonderful afterlife. However, what people do not realize is that their personal needs and hopes become their "personal truths". People believe something out of personal need and hope, not because it is true...
I can prove God exist dropping mortality rates when my theory is known. Would you accept saving infinite lives as evidence of a miracle? I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore God (a miracle) exist. If time and existence began from nothing then a miracle exists because logic and science do not support the creation from non existence, and nothingness would be the creator of something. It is telling with how much zeal humanity scrutinise to object obvious truths but on the other hand are so gullible of absurd lies like addiction is a brain disease. The unpublishable truth is addiction is the psychology of a liar.
So you believe in atheism because it gives your life meaning and direction and hope?
That must mean you're an atheist because it does not need to be true.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 the opposite - I realize that what I personally hope, want or need is not helpful nor relevant in finding objective truth. I am interested in finding objective truth. It seems to me that people believe in all sorts of things mainly because it gives them a perception of purpose and fulfills personal needs, not because it is actually true.
Is purpose for you more important than objective truth?
BTW - one cannot “believe in atheism”. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a supernatural god. For example, you are yourself (most likely) atheistic too, towards the existence of the god Zeus. It doesn’t mean that you “believe in atheism”.
@@cvdb2471 Is it objectively true that there is no God? Define objective truth. Define objective reality.
God needs to prove his existence to people. If there is a God that is all powerful and all knowing, this God should be capable of revealing himself to humans and proving that he is God.
Maybe you’re already living in he’s existence already but aren’t aware of it
@@shinertaz Then why did he make me unaware of it though? That sounds counterintuitive.
Horrible argument
Subconsciously we all feel there's something out there and we don't understand it and we fear it and we yearn to know...it has to be a creator an architect in this universe that follows patterns and not chaos .
opposite seems more likely
Those things we want to believe are the things we should be the most skeptical of.
1500 YEARS OLD BOOK KEEPS PEOPLE ON A ROLL FOR 2000 YEARS STILL STANDS FOR A REASON OF THE MOST HATE OF HUMAN KIND. HHM THIS TELL YA SOME THING WAS NOT JUST HERE FOR NOTHING.
I want to believe God doesn’t exist.
Most "proofs" of God I have studied assume that God exists in the first place! On top of fallacious arguments lies the error of assigning human qualities and experiences to God.
We can start from the fact that the universe and Life exists. How and why are the questions. We have observable evidence for one universe with the inherent Physical Constants. That's fine-tuning.....unless there is observable evidence against it.
@lucasdasilva23 Physicists say the Physical Constants could, theoretically, be different, but the conditions for Life would not exist. This seems to be the only way a Life-affirming universe can be. As Dawkins says, "Physicists say the Fundamental Constants are fine-tuned for Life". One universe with Constants just right for Life? For me, all that points to a creator.
@@briansmith3791 we don't know if life wouldnt really exist if some of the constants were different. There is no way for us to make that claim because we happen to live in THIS universe. We have no other point of reference. We used to think life couldnt exist in certain environment and we have been proven wrong over and over. Maybe humans wouldnt exist, but who knows? Maybe some other creature made of silicon that may have never thought about the idea of a creator because they found out how the universe worked very early in their evolution stages.
@@Existidor.Serial137 The theoretical physicist, Paul Davies, says his “day job” is simulating universes on super computers. He can create other universes, but none have the conditions for Life.
@@Existidor.Serial137 The theoretical physicist Paul Davies says his "day job is simulating universes on super computers". None of them have the conditions for Life of any type.
In my first few years of being atheist I always said "I would like if god exists, but I don't believe it". Eventually, I realized that there is no proposed god that I would enjoy, and in fact, even more importantly, there is no GOOD god i could imagine that would create THIS particular planet that we live on. Therefore, I can no longer yearn for a creator to be real.
It looks like you're discussing Good vs. Evil re the God question. I'm thinking that your moral objection lacks logic in regards to Good vs. Evil and God. Perhaps you should look at speakers like Dr. Ravi Zacharias. The logic of God being good is actually quite strong.
Hey Amy.... I understand what you are saying. What do you mean by "there is no proposed god that I would enjoy?" Our planet often seems to be the creation of something random or even something not good. Are you referring mostly to suffering or natural disasters? Or people who do evil things?
I just mean there hasn't been a god suggested that I could respect, and nothing good could have created this awful existence.
Im referring to all three of those types of suffering and more. Suffering is endless here.
Daniel gilliad, if u don't know that an all powerful good would have created a good world(which i dont see), then you lack the logic when it comes to understanding omnipotence and compassion.
I never understood why a loving God would put the burden on us to find him.
It never was 😅
I like this video series for addressing this big topic in a way that invites people from all perceptions to join in. The more I listen to people with any sort of supernatural belief, the more I am convinced there is no such thing. I was raised with Christianity and would encourage anyone who consider themselves religious to ask themselves some key questions:
- What drove you to have the religion / belief that you have? The most likely answer is it is passed on by your family and social surroundings, or you have picked it up from a charismatic person that you trust and who made an impact at a vulnerable moment in your life. This does not make it true.
- What would happen if you would leave the religion / belief that you have? In many cases, an honest answer is it would result in some sort of fear. Fear for being rejected by your family and social surroundings (even threatening and death...), fear to be punished and to go to hell, fear to handle life without religion, fear of emptiness, or other types of fear.
- Do you want to hold on to an illusion that is supported by people who are taught to believe purely in feelings, not to question anything, and to reverse-reason any counterpoints only to stay with the same belief system? Or do you want to know how things really are, i.e. the truth about our world and universe? Can you live with the fact that not everything about our world and universe is yet known? Or are you so desperate to "know the full truth now" that you will believe in fallacies that suit you well, just so you have the illusion you know the truth?
One of the biggest pitfalls communicated in most religions is the notion that "doubt = weakness" and that you should be "strong in your faith", in other words just believe whatever you have been told and do not question it. Don't accept that. Doubt is healthy and good. It stimulates your brain to think critically and to question what you think you know by checking against facts and new learnings.
Life without religion is possible and better, with high moral standards, wonder and admiration for the universe we live in and respect for all people! We are all in this together, let's stop building religious tribes.
C vdB Hey there... I really agree with your statement "one of the biggest pitfalls communicated in most religions is the notion that 'doubt = weakness." I'm reading books on that very pitfall. That whole 2nd paragraph of yours sounds great. John
Where did objective morality come from? Why do so many scientists follow Jesus Christ?
@@michaelbrickley2443 What is your definition of "objective morality"? We can consider morality as a set of rules and principles that define what we consider good and bad. I am positive there is vast commonality in what we as humans find morally good and bad, although there are differences too. We are all humans with the same type of basic needs, desires, fears and hopes. These form the basis for what we consider good or bad.
To your second point - first of all, I think you might be talking primarily about American scientists, or at least scientists in geographical areas where Christianity is the major belief system. Scientists are also humans, just like everyone else. A religion like Christianity is passed on from generation to generation and it is often deeply rooted in the local culture and everything that people do, including major life events like birth, confirmation, weddings, funerals, etc. Scientists and other people, may feel that Christianity helps them to deal with their needs, desires, fears and hopes. That does not mean that the teachings represent objective truth, however.
@@cvdb2471, Objective morality is a set of standards that is relatively global. Stealing a handicapped person’s cane or wheelchair? No good! Adults having sex with children? Not good!
@@michaelbrickley2443 Yes, I think most people will largely agree to that, regardless of culture or beliefs.
People are terrified of dying. That's it in a nutshell.
Speaking of fallacy's. Here is a genetic fallacy.
He nailed it when he said that in order to find god you have to stop thinking
Hey CMDR... I like that statement but I think it could be perceived as having different meanings.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 obviously, because God (whatever, definitely not the bearded old fellow that the atheists use to envision) is beyond thought. Every budhist or hindu knows that
That would certainly explain a lot about the behavior of religious people
@@LarsPallesen but Hitler was an atheist, mind you
@@johnbrzykcy3076 ua-cam.com/video/ZQool6gutYA/v-deo.html
Dennis Alexander understands that the argument from ignorance and god of the gaps is fallacious, and specifically sought to make the point that it shouldn't be used in examples such as the origin of life, or in human consciousness. He then goes right ahead and makes the argument from ignorance and god of the gaps regarding "creation".
Amazing!
Every episode is beautifully crafted with skills of curator in Kuhn. Brilliant
His ending statement pretty much sums up my thoughts and feelings about god too.
For an atheist scientist to believe that there is absolutely no God makes me wonder on what basis was he able to arrive at that conclusion. Would the mere absence of evidence be a basis for such dogmatic faith in the non-existence of God?
So you must by your logic have faith in the existence of the thousands of gods out side your own religion. What evidence outside your holy book do you have that proves that a god from another religion doesnt exist.
I can prove God exist dropping mortality rates when my theory is known. Would you accept saving infinite lives as evidence of a miracle? I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed and the creator was created or always existed, therefore God (a miracle) exist. If time and existence began from nothing then a miracle exists because logic and science do not support the creation from non existence, and nothingness would be the creator of something. It is telling with how much zeal humanity scrutinise to object obvious truths but on the other hand are so gullible of absurd lies like addiction is a brain disease. The unpublishable truth is addiction is the psychology of a liar.
@@hidad5601 YOU'RE PLAYING WITH WORDS ALL humans believe in God but give him (THOUSANDS) of (NAMES)
@@hidad5601 None of them perform miracles, fulfill prophecy, or have the least chance of conforming to either science or reason.
Exactly. If I've never seen a silverback gorilla, a giant squid, or other previously mythological creatures, that doesn't prove they don't exist. Because they were later discovered and all the "nuts" who asserted their existence were vindicated.
Walter perfectly describes in one sentence the basic problem with theist arguments: they presuppose from a desired conclusion. This is not how science works, due to issues with confirmation bias, a well documented phenomenon.
You can always find something that supports your argument, if proof is what you seek to present.
But that doesn't make it actually true.
This would suggest, for example, that Newton's Apple had some reason, other than gravity, for falling. Countless alternative causes could be postulated, but we know to a reasonable level of certainty that it was gravity. Just gravity.
I can certainly understand an innate desire in humans to believe in some higher power, having recently undergone some serious health problems myself: Well, the doctors can't fix me...I wish there was some power that could. But that was merely wishful thinking. I might get better, but this in no way proves the existince of some superior being; it certainly only proves the imperfection of our own knowledge.
Besides amazing content, I must absolutely admit adorable english he speaks. English is not my language but he sounds so clearly that I catch every single word. Maybe for those who are native english speakers it is not so obvious but the way he speaks is admirable 👍 Thank you!
5A
Yes, he Robert Kuhn speaks verw clearly. This is called diction,
This is called diction. One must enunciate (look it up!) using the lips, teeth and tongue!! Good luck with your English🤓
I am a native speaker and it is indeed, obvious! The entire presentation is PERFECTION!
it seems to me that when someone starts do believe in a god, it happens because of some kind of emotional or psychological reasons.
You will understand one day…
@@ishikawa1338I hope I can be as special and chosen as you some day…
@@ishikawa1338 You will not understand one day...
Rationalism fails to prove that God exists. Atheism fails to prove God doesn't exist.
If God did start it all, it still doesn't undermind him by asking how he did it
Did it the same way you close your fist and beat your heart and live your life
@@slumpkiid3570 I can't control such things. Does God have a condition of his existence in which he cannot control?
@@thomabow8949 you can't close your fist?
I love your series of videos Robert and you’re great, but you must be the most indecisive person I’v seen.
agree, in most cases he swings his side...😂
Hahaha I think open minded would better fit.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL EXACTLY!! Die, see GOD and still wonder if its a figment of his imagination or some vision, etc....... Thats a Living Hell in my opinion
Ever learning but never arriving at the truth....
@@tonyscalise4462 Open minded relativism? Where's the final truth?
The best treatment of this subject I've seen. "Closer to the Truth"!
''Deciding on the conclusion first and constructing the arguments later''
Interpretation precedes logic.
The irony is real
@@gingerale7729 Yes. i've heard Dawkins, Dennett, Krauss and other atheists say they don't WANT there to be a God. Not exactly open minds.
Which God???🤔
Peter's alleged humility on this question stings. The evidence for God is so overwhelming that Peter's supposed openness to His existence is just a facade. Scripture notes this condition as "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." The fact is the very words that Peter uses can't be objectively understood apart from God's existence; hence the very act of honestly questioning His reality is in fact questioning reality itself--which is the very definition of insanity.
" Truth " is that which is realized, not argued. There is no argument that can disprove God because the statement " there is no God " if that is an absolute statement then the question that follows should be " do you have absolute knowledge of everything? Do you know everything that comprises reality? Since we are just explorers of reality rather than the authors of it no argument we could present proves that there is no God. And no argument proves that there is a God because if you could prove God by argument than God is then something that can be proved by us but something unlimited being proved by something limited as we are would make God no longer unlimited. So from our constitutional position we can neither prove or disprove God. But none of this means that there is no God, it just means that God has to be realized on his terms not ours. Argument is just someones perception contrasting with someones else's perception.
Truth is what really exist, nobody ordered faith.
That's a fair argument. I think what Mr. Kuhn is looking for though is a way to continue to exist and a god that cares about him is a pathway to that. I think there is substantial evidence to cast doubt on a god that cares specifically about humanity and the individuals that make it up.
Agree completely,
Dario Impini what would be the evidence against that? Just curious as to what could imply that and actually be strong evidence for it.
The burden of proof is on the Theists because THEY are the ones making the claims. The burden of proof should not and is not on the person questioning or opposing your claim. To have that sort of logic set up just proves how irrational and deluded someone can be.
I'll make a prediction. If you spend the rest of your life attempting to prove the existence of something that can't be proved; with your last breath you will question the way you spent your precious and exquisitely rare life in a universe apparently bereft of consciousness.
and what's the point besides
Yes, being author of real confusion do spell the Word 1 Godless, where even those of faith differs Scripture..
Shows one that believers actually do worship being Egotistical GOD Devil, therefore last thing that oneself want is the glory of everlasting life, as that only for those fools think be nothing more than what meets the eyes who in the end shall believe do sees Eye..
🕸️
Honestly one need not be religious, for religion is for those not perceive nor understand truth but do believe. But do know oneself total fool if not be open minded whatever the odds, not have side bet possibility do Exist LORD Almighty, kingdom come be in own lifetime. For then one will know real fear, all know see one Screams..
👁️
Christ, world shall end on high Note..
@John Johnson
“Precious, Excuisite” - It’s just an opinion. Your consciousness has probably existed in this universe for a number of decades, but what created the DNA molecule for your existence originated from inanimate matter reduced from hydrogen and helium in the center of stars billions of years ago. Your consciousness has existed for an instant in the lifetime of the universe and excluding the conjecture of multiple universes or the invisible man in the sky; is unlikely to ever exist again. I say “unlikely” because I don’t know - no one knows.
I much preferred the honesty of your first response prior to editing. If you had read what I said carefully, you may have realized, “your last breath” is prior to death. If you’re not familiar with this term it is usually used to describe the timing for one’s last thoughts. And maybe you're a little presumptuous when you said, "When you die you lose all awareness". My instincts tell me you may be correct, but as I have never been "dead", I cannot confirm your certainty. And as for "As far as your concerned, you never existed"; if I never existed, I will probably have no concern about anything - I'll be dead.
But where we may agree is the arrogant certainty of atheists and theists alike; they speak of certainties of which they cannot prove or disprove or in which they have had no primary experience. All they can do is parade and amplify their obvious intellectual dishonesty, gullibility, and irrational fear of the unknown that usually consumes their precious existence. Why is it so difficult for those on both sides of the fence just to admit their ignorance?
And don’t be angry at the universe because your existence in this universe is finite. It is because life is finite it is precious and exquisite. Just marvel in the universe that created the conditions for your consciousness to come into existence in the first place.
Beautifully stated-
@@animalfarm7467 you do have a point, people should spend more time worshipping God, and less on whether God exists, God gave me the absolute proof that he exists in about a day, but that came after much time asking God for greater wisdom ! And many hours of worship !
Bernardo Kalstup blows this first guy out of the water
The concluding line is brilliant. I agree 100%. If god exists and wants us to believe, then it’s up to god to make that happen. This should be trivial for a being who created the universe.
And any of the millions of people who have experienced god directly will recognize instantly the astounding lack of knowledge you have regarding the topic of god.
Meanwhile, science only tells you how things behave, not what they are. Science will never be able to tell you what anything is, which means it will never be able to answer questions of a qualitative nature, which is the essence of everything.
This first guest sounds like an absolute fool
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 Well, when you talk about the millions who have experienced god directly - I don't know what you mean by that. We know that anecdotal evidence is not a proof of the existence of god.
In terms of science not being able to tell us what things "are", what do you mean by that? What's an example?
By the way, I don't doubt that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge. But if we are talking about whether or not god really exists - is there really a celestial dictator who reads our thoughts - then I think that's very much within the purview of science, at least conceptually.
But if you're referencing something that is inherently unknowable on an objective level, then I think that's really the end of the discussion, because it's impossible to discuss what kind of evidence would prove the theory.
@@kuribojim3916
Millions of people throughout human history have had an NDE and experienced god directly.
Anecdotal evidence is the only evidence you have of anything existing at all, including yourself. All contact you have with what you believe to be an outside world occurs entirely in your mind.
You'll illogically claim all kinds of things exist outside your mind, yet all you have to make that claim is anecdotal evidence , your own, or someone elses.
Now if you want to argue that your direct experience is completely untrustworthy and not a source of evidence then you're right, there would be no arfument to have about god. God's nature is entirely qualitative. Science only deals with quantitative information.
Science can tell you how an atom behaves, it cannot tell you what an atom IS. It cannot tell you what anything IS.
You'll claim an atom is whatever the dictionary, encyclopedia, or other source says it is. That at best is a human defined definition, as is everything.
So at best, you can tell me the english definition of a word. Words exist for us to communicate and share ideas between us. If you tell me something is a "chair", it merely means something I can sit on that will support my weight.
Except every word of that definition has itself a definition. All we have are concepts.
The nature of the celestial dictator is nothing like you perceive it to be.
@@yourlogicalnightmare1014 I'll reply point by point, as that might be easier.
"Millions of people throughout human history have had an NDE and experienced god directly."
I don't doubt this. But these are all subjective/anecdotal experiences - they are not hard evidence for the existence of god.
Don't forget that many people have also claimed to have been abducted by aliens. Same rule applies.
"Anecdotal evidence is the only evidence you have of anything existing at all, including yourself. All contact you have with what you believe to be an outside world occurs entirely in your mind."
No, anecdotal evidence is not the only evidence we have. That's where science comes in - we use tools and empirical methods to determine what is true and what is not true (or what is more or less likely to be true). The whole reason this process exists is because the human mind, on its own, is highly untrustworthy as an empirical tool.
"You'll illogically claim all kinds of things exist outside your mind, yet all you have to make that claim is anecdotal evidence , your own, or someone elses."
Not at all. The Moon, for example, doesn't exist simply because I perceive it to exist - there are objective/empirical measures to demonstrate its existence.
Similarly, gravity is a real thing whether I believe in it or not. There are very easy ways to test this, of course. 🙂
"Now if you want to argue that your direct experience is completely untrustworthy and not a source of evidence then you're right, there would be no arfument to have about god. God's nature is entirely qualitative. Science only deals with quantitative information."
So, we've established here the flaws with anecdotal evidence. But you then go on to make a claim as if it's an objective fact - that "God's nature is entirely qualitative". Well, my friend, you have all your work ahead of you if that's what you want to claim.
When you say that science only deals with quantitative information, I'm not sure what kind of distinction you are drawing.
"Science can tell you how an atom behaves, it cannot tell you what an atom IS. It cannot tell you what anything IS."
Define "is" in this context. Science can absolutely tell you both what something is AND how it behaves. I get the feeling you are applying some mystical definition to "is" - but maybe you can clarify that for me.
"So at best, you can tell me the english definition of a word. Words exist for us to communicate and share ideas between us. If you tell me something is a "chair", it merely means something I can sit on that will support my weight.
Except every word of that definition has itself a definition. All we have are concepts."
Right, but I'm not really sure what your point is here. We have concepts that are articulated through language, but this doesn't mean that these concepts aren't objectively, demonstrably real or true. Language is obviously a conceptual construct that we use to *describe* those realities, but that doesn't change their *realness*.
Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not quite sure what you mean there.
"The nature of the celestial dictator is nothing like you perceive it to be."
You say that as if you understand its nature. But we're both primates attempting to use our brains, my friend. I think you are making claims about things you couldn't possibly understand, and certainly couldn't prove or demonstrate. But I don't say this to be insulting - I think many people do this about many things (not just god - but lots and lots of things, including very mundane stuff).
The truth is, if there is a god, none of us have special access to that entity. We are all attempting to understand the Universe and our place in it.
But if there is a god - if there is actually an entity that controls the Universe in some fashion - then this is absolutely not outside the purview of science.
Now, perhaps the relevant question is to ask what you mean by "god"? Are you a deist? Or a theist? Do you believe that god talks to you privately? Hears your prayers? Meddles in the affairs of humans? Or do you believe that god is far more ephemeral, perhaps setting up the Universe to begin with, but ultimately not being concerned with the day-to-day affairs of intelligent primates?
I'm curious to know what you think, and to understand your perspective. Thank you for taking the time to engage.
@@kuribojim3916
I'll start with a critical sticking point.
Science is an activity of mind. Hence by definition it is "anecdotal evidence", whether your own or others.
Science doesn't 'prove' anything. It only acquires evidence to support an idea that arose in mind.
It is impossible to know anything outside of / apart from the activity of mind.
The moon exists whether YOU see it or not because the moon is, like everything, God's mental activity perceived through many 'apparently' independent conscious minds.
'You' are a mental concept. Thoughts are not 'you' nor do they 'belong' to you. You merely witness them via awareness which also isn't yours. This is a side track off the previous point and you can examine that separately later.
You believe science can tell you what something IS. Give me an example, without using human mind created definitions. If I call you a "bizzledorp", I haven't told you anything about what you are. I can point you to other words that describe what I mean by bizzledorp, but those words are nothing but arbitrary definitions. All words point to definitions in a long regression of arbitrary words and definitions. I don't care what your word is in your chosen language. A word is a pointer to a concept. The concept is not the thing being conceived. An idea of a chair is not a chair. So when I point to a chair and ask you what it IS, all you're going to give me are concepts.
If you're going to claim a chair I am pointing at is 'real', then you need to tell me what it is. Your concept of it is mental. I want to know what IT is, outside of and apart from your mere concept of it.
The correct Cosmological Argument is “everything that begins to exist has a cause.” At the 8:40 ish mark he begins talking about an “event” with excited atoms in order to show that “things” come into existence without a cause all the time. Just wondering how did the excited atoms come into being? The quantum vacuum is in fact “something”.
Yes. Stenger equivocates "nothing" and misunderstands the first premise. It is true that we cannot predict certain quantum activity. It does not follow at all that such activity is "uncaused" ie can occur unconditionally. That is obviously absurd.
The premise could simply be clarified to say "Every state that begins to exist is contingent upon a prior state". The atom example would fall comfortably under this premise
How the atoms came into being is irrelevant to the non-causal / random phenomena of subatomic particles.
@@calebjackson99 the concept of "cause" is too vague, and the premisse that things need a cause is unfalsifiable.
Ferdinand Kraft Please provide an example of something that has come into existence without a cause.
@@ferdinandkraft857 As far as we can see in the observable everything needs a cause. So you can't use it to justify events in what we see but then say its unfalsifiable when it comes to proving the universe itself needed a cause to come into existence. That cherry picking doesn't work.
And if something always existed, the universe always existing is the LEAST reasonable assumption. Especially since we can trace it backwards through it's development to an origin point, and even atheists admit "something" may have existed even before that, even if they fail to see that it's God.
Where did "X" come from? I believe Wal Mart. Some say pixies. Some say God and if you don't accept my belief which I have determined to be true, with love and if legal, you are subject to infinite torture but know I love you unless you pick up sticks on sunday.
What a superb closing statement
1) Everything that begins has a cause.
2) The Universe had a beginning.
And here lies the biggest inconsistency. We must assume that the Universe had a beginning but we must also assume that God has always been around. What existed before God? If the Universe needed a creator why didn't God also need one? Because it would become "turtles all the way down". The way to avoid this paradox is to say that the turtle is almighty. God's attributes were assumed just to avoid an apparently unsolvable paradox, not because there was any kind of evidence to support it.
"the biggest inconsistency" ----
Your outline does not reflect the use of the term "God" as used in classical theology, nor does this series of videos. The term "God" refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens.
This guy can't find a reason to believe in god but is determined to believe, regardless. It sounds like he's making a very serious (even scientific) investigation. But he's not. He's just as delusional as his bishop.
I give him a break because he is on a difficult journey where he is questioning whatever indoctrination he has been the recipient of. It sounds good to many people, so I can see why people want it to be true. They have been trained to ignore the horrible and disgusting actions described in the New and Old Testaments. At least he appears to be on an honest quest which he admits has revealed no good argument in favor of the existence of any god.
He is looking in the wrong places. The phenomena of gods and religions is exposed by looking at the psychology and antropology and evolution of humans. Religions are a reflection of our emotional being. We didn't evolve to understand the world, but to survive it. We create religions and gods in our image, not the other way around. There is a reason they refer to this ficticious character as "father". Its all super obvious if only he would look into it. Looking at the science or filosophy is a fools errand. And no amount of evidence can deter a firm believer from their dearly held religion. They do not have a religion for logical reasons. But for psychological ones. A believer is more likely to doubt their religion if they lose a child, than any logic. Its a matter of feelings emotions and coping mechanisms. Not evidence or logic.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist hahahahahahaha.. you poor thing.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Lol.. how convenient.. while science moved on and evidence for evolution piled up. You cling to the utterances of a very few. Cherry picking to confirm your bias. You think you have some solid arguments. But you don't . But you do not dare to look up the counter arguments to those. You are just .. unsurprisingly.. blinded by your bias and belief in your religion. Only another believer reading that will cheer you on. Anyone science minded is not impressed.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist furthermore. Worship in itself is stupid. Worship of a god is stupid, as well as of the self. Worship is a dumb concept. Noone should worship anything or anyone.
Of course, there are fallacies in arguments for things that don't exist.
The concept of proving that god exists is hopeless. When theists set the problem up, they make sure it can never be DISPROVEN. After all, if “god” is really the god of western religion, omnipotent, then that god can hide, and we will never be able to find it. So, what’s the point?
It’s best to just ignore religion in the first place.
What doesn't exist?
"Because I can't comprehend it means it doesn't exist"
Maybe when you can create a Sun, planetary system with sacred geometry within & all around... someday you may understand.
@@S3RAVA3LM Who are you quoting ? That isn't the argument against god. The argument is simply that there is no credible evidence.
@@S3RAVA3LM I like your observation.
Thank you Mr. Kuhn for your candid honesty and unbiased approach to this important subject. Separating the objective from the subjective should always be the first step we take in our search for truth; a step you have taken well.
Believing something without evidence is how Charlatans make a living. He has no reason to believe and yet believes...no that has nothing to do with being closer to truth. Does god exist ? I don’t know, so I will withhold belief. That to me is closer to being right which is closer to truth.
Like what you said there, balanced and fair, can't go too wrong lime that
Same mistake as most people. Faith and religion are two different things, my friend. Don't mix them up.
@@alpl6555 Faith is the excuse people give when they don't have a good reason. Religion is man made dogmatic beliefs and requires Faith to believe. I'm don't believe I'm confused my friend.
Faith: The evidence (excuse) for things unseen.
@@danescott5149 Religion is a comercialization of faith. Religion needs a belief to be able to exist. It takes faith, or any other belief and sell it to people. Pure faith, without a religion, means living you life knowing from inside yourself, from your heart, that there is something bigger than yourself. Call it God, mother nature, Allah, Krishna, or whatever you want, it doesn't matter. That force exists and you exist because it made it possible. You don't need a religion to be faithful. You are indeed confused. You are confusing the wrapping with the product.
@@danescott5149 You are indeed confused. You are confusing the wrapping with the product.Religion is the comercialization of faith. It needs faith or any other belief to exist. You are right, religion is a man made dogmatic belief system, but it has nothing to do with PURE FAITH, again : DON'T MIX THE TWO. PURE FAITH means living your life knowing from the bottom of your heart that there is something bigger than yourself. Call it God, Allah, Krishna, mother nature, doesn't matter, these are just socio-cultural differences. It's the same force for all of us, the force that made life possible, including you. The force that we are all bound to, from the day we born and till the day we die. The force that we have no control over, otherwise we could remake the world by our own imagination, yet this is not possible, because this force wants us to die eventually. It is the unwritten laws of the Universe itself, and the only laws that there exist. Anything else is human made up bullshit for society to be able to thrive. And by the way, I'm not religious in the way you might think. I don't go to the church or care about any christian rituals. I'm just a normal human being. Wish I could tell you more, but this is not the right place. Once you understand "IT", you will be free from any dogma, from any limitation or restriction.
Well, I had experiences out of body, entering an extremely bright light, experiencing timelessness and infinity, then coming back, feeling the body of another person from the inside, the heartbeat, and the other person felt it as well. For others, this will be explained as an illusion. To me it was 1000x more real then our daily life experience. And I agree, it does not solve any deeper logical question about God. By my definition, God would not be God if God could be explained in such superficial way.
But I live based on the experience that there are more dimensions to life. This generates the underlying knowledge to be humble and supportive to life, no matter the argument and no matter the doubt. Even if that sense would fail with death, the present becomes much richer and meaningful. Even a tree became a soul worth dignity and appreciation, well, even a stone.
To me, science explains nothing about God. Science is just observing. Conclusions are always based on the consciousness of the observer. I have not seen that science was able to include consciousness into the equation -- and even a scientist would not exist without being conscious. No matter the argument of great scientists or philosophers, consciouness itself is and remains the fundamental miracle to each of us. We are all participants of a wonderland but do not see the wonder -- similar to our eyes that cannot see themselves watching out.
You are right, spiritual life does indeed exist. I've witnessed what happened to my wife. Beyond human comprehension. And I completely agree we are all participants of a wonderland yet very few see those wonders. We are like little ants to this higher power. The divinity is propably as complex as everything you see and hear with your god given senses in this realm.
Roland Huettmann what u smokin bruh ???
Experiences started after many weeks of meditation -- but it was some time ago. I am almost 70 years old and do not take any drugs.
Neverthless, I am not against people trying psychedelics in a well guided session to explore the boundaries of mind once in a while.
My point here is that all those great minds interviewed do not have any clue what they are talking about, whether atheists or believers. It does not matter whether they believe, or not.
They conclude from their own logical thinking. But none of them has ever left the "protected" zone of their own mind.
Roland Huettmann Kuhn should do an episode interviewing theists and atheists who have had these transcendent experiences... If he hasn’t already
Peter Atkins says that all arguments for God are fallacious because there is no God. Since when does a scientist assume the conclusion before even considering an argument?
I have to say.......I am absolutely LOVING this channel. It is my new obsession. Other than the very questions that it asks. And the deep dive into it.
I’ve been searching my entire adult life ; for answers to questions that can yet never really be answered conclusively. It consumes me at times....that there is such an eternal uncertainty. The most profound questions; all the time...begging for truths. That nobody can answer.
My father passed away last month......I am 50 years old; he was 74. I’m having a very difficult time with the questions......I always have had them; but now it’s just all so hyper focused. Where is he now? Did his consciousness survive? If so....where did he go? Why can’t he show me?
Thank you so much for this channel. I needed this.
I am 81 and had an out of the body when I was 34, A nun was in my kitchen. I had 15 min of missing time but the point is you do have a spirit.. torso, head & 2 eyes. your in another realm. you float around..
Mabe God doesn't exists but what about the thousands and thousands of near death experiences that can't be explained by science, like a person who knows details of the room where the doctor were giving him cpr? I'm a doctor and I know people that were dead and came to life again and tell unexplainable things .
Hey Audj943... Thanks for sharing that personal stuff. I like this channel too but often it goes "beyond my head." Sorry to hear about your father. My dad passed away in 1993. My life has also been somewhat "hyper focused" the last 15 years as I struggled with cancer and side-effects. Take care of yourself and don't let any of the comments depress you.
At this time in the 21 century people who still have the idea of god existence with not even one reliable history proof, is because the live out of the religion or because they still have a great percentage of ignorance. they claim and belive on god when is six differents gods out of the main religions arround the world. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is not trying to find the truth he is trying to confuse people, god has lots of power but that god needs second and third persons to tell the world that he exists and fails to tell people from others religions that he is the real god, and they are wrong worshiping other non existing gods also all the myths and leyends on the bible has no logic base on this days, you can understand this only with a comun sense, they don't know where and when jesus was born, and why if the old testament belongs to jews. christian religion was organize by the roman emperors and translate to greek, why they take the old testament from jews only for political purposes. watch the cesar's messiah : The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Seven of today's most controversial Bible scholars reveal their shocking conclusions about the origins of Christianity. Based on the best-selling religious studies book by Joseph Atwill,
John Brzykcy
Thank you John. I’m sorry to hear about your struggles as well. It does help to think about the possibilities of the human soul, consciousness, and afterlife.....even if just to ponder the idea. I agree; sometimes these kinds of channels can go beyond; I need straightforward conversation, and logic....not a lot of fluffy hoopla. I’m not a fan of believing in fantasy; I like the search for what could truly be. I like conversations that make sence. He seems to want to get that out of his interviews; which I appreciate. I like how he asks the questions that we ourselves would ask. This channel gives me something to think about; hope for, dream about. Hope you’re doing well; thank you for the kind response.
Peter Atkins is not conscious enough (not awake enough) to realize that he is sleepwalking through life. In fact, the more passionate and articulate he is in expressing his faith in atheism and hardcore materialism, the more he demonstrates - in direct proportion to the strength of his materialistic beliefs - the depth and degree of his somnambulism.
What if you are the one who is actually asleep?
Grow up.
@@ferdinandkraft857
We are all asleep in varying degrees, it's just that some of us are aware of that fact. Whereas others, like the hardcore materialists featured in this video, are completely oblivious of the depth of their sleep.
It's sort of a variation of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
@@sahelanthropusbrensis
Wake up.
@@TheUltimateSeeds it could be the other way around, you wouldn't know.
Have you ever noticed that people who claim to not believe in any sort of supernatural/Supreme Being are incensed by people who do believe and swarm to attack while true believers respond with prayer to their God and forgiveness in their hearts? Why would you suppose that is?
God does not give up on humans. A lot of corrections have been made to the algorithm. Our consciousness is still growing up. Although we are not ready yet to understand some deep mysteries, we are progressing, however, surely and safely, closer to the truth.
Seems to me that the first fallacy is thinking you can prove something to exist simply with an argument.
Agreed
@@gingerale7729 Except of course that those "arguments" are actually based on data and evidence.
@@gingerale7729 You don't seem to understand what evidence and date means, and how they are evaluated and used to construct a scientific theory. Regardless, hard evidence and hard data will trump mythology and fantasy at every turn, even if at times misinterpreted.
I want to refer to something Lawrence Kuhn said about Thomas Aquinas and his first proof of God called the "argument from motion". He says there is no reason to assume that the beginner of all motions must be God. It could be anything. Aquinas' first proof states "we know there are motions as evidenced by our senses. All motions were once potential, being made active by active motions being themselves former potential motions. The process can't go back "ad infiniti", as there would no reason for the beginning of the motion system."
So what is going to start the system, except something outside of the system? This would be a non-active source that somehow makes things active. The only thing that can do this is a CHOICE made by an INTELLECT, which we commonly know is an aspect of a PERSON.
This person, as Aquinas said "we call GOD."
If not God, Robert, what is it?
How many theists agree with his last sentences where he says we may never prove god?
Scientifically? I dont think we ever will.
Vincent Parrella
He kind of insinuated that we many never prove it with anything.
It’s not our job to prove that God exists. It’s our job to show the love of God, to everyone. Because we believe he exists. To have Faith.
There is enough evidence for the existence of God. Atheists sometimes do the "moving the goal posts" trick on what constitutes "enough". That's often their main problem.
Check out J. Warner Wallace and Ravi Zacharias as well as many others for really good arguments for Theism and Christianity in particular.
Daniel Gilleland
If those arguments were convincing...wouldn’t there be no unbelievers? The guy in the video insists that we may Never prove it, agreed?
Too bad Alan Watts wasn't still around to have a conversation
He would have used a lot of words to say very little. As he always did.
@@eddielopez2373 Allan watts does use a lot of words ? Still a very good speaker and writer.😁🙏
Plenty of Alan Watts vids on UA-cam . Basically rehashing the
same old Watts drivel . Watch one and you've watched them all.!
Try another charlatan instead ?
Eckhart Tolle . Same shtick !
Love this. Have watched your channel occasionally for quite a while but didn't really understand where you were coming from until this video. I don't share your longing for a God, but at times I find myself wishing for reincarnation to be true. I very much share your anger at fallacious arguments for any of it, especially framed as "proof" of the existence of a being already precluded by the history of Earth (a simultaneously all-loving and all-powerful creator).
I don't call myself an atheist because it entirely depends on the definition of God. I don't believe in the forementioned omnipotent benevolent God on the grounds that it is inconsistent with much of our experience of reality. I'm agnostic about the possibility of some kind of "God-like" background awareness being the basis for consciousness. (That would be Godlike in the sense of being pervasive and generally part of good intention, but not in the sense of designing the universe or accepting prayer requests from the entire universe and answering them.) I find the idea of the universe itself having some kind of consciousness very interesting, as long as it isn't turned into a supernatural fairy godmother. Or worse, a supernatural God-Father who makes humanity offers we can't refuse.
But, when people talk about God in a more generally worshipful and metaphorical sense, to mean the awe and wonder and beauty in reality, a sense of community, and a quest for meaning, then I can translate it and agree with them in principle. So by many definitions of atheist, I'm an atheist, even of the "strong" variety. But I can't embrace the term for myself, because, although it allows for my agnosticism regarding less outlandish versions of God, it doesn't allow for my acceptance of God as a metaphor and as cultural language for referring to various concepts of importance.
universe cannot be created or sustained without a creator
True !
So far this fact is certain: The God that Roberts wants to exist does not seem to exist; the God that the theists think to exist, exists only on the premise of their accepted faith and peculiar logic.
i think the best argument for God is the one that atheist cannot debunk
IT IS MY ARGUMENT FOR GOD
THE SHROUD OF TURIN
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN I guess I saw a myth debunking show some time ago trying to wrap a stained human body with a cloth like that did for 'Jesus' on the Turin Shroud, and the result being that the stains left on the cloth showed somewhat like a double-size stretched, unsymmetrical spread of a human body, nothing like the one shown with the Turin Shroud. This proof tells all.
@@tanned06 can you wrap a dead body and make the same result?
@@tanned06 so how did ythje image got into the cloth?
@@UMAKEMESMILESWACKIN That myth debunking episode shows that such an image can only be produced artificially and cannot be reproduced in real life experiment. To think it is a miracle is emotionally befitting for a believer. But we all know faith is one thing, truth is another thing.
Good discussion. Only downside is that i had 16 ads during the 26 minutes. Thats INSANE. Will be watching strictly on browser to avoid so many ads.
UA-cam vanced rocks ( sorry UA-cam 🥱)
Right, so believing God exists is ignorant but believing he doesn't is enlightened? Oh the irony!
I don’t think there’s any enlightenment that comes with not believing in something that has been imposed on civilization for thousands of years.
@@bobbysanchez6308 But can you unequivocally prove that God doesn't exist?
@MasterChief - I don't think this video or anyone makes a value judgement of either believing or not believing in a God. The question is whether you want to find out the truth about how things really are, or if you would rather settle for an illusion that gives you a sense of purpose, hope and comfort in your life.
Have you watched the video? The professor at the beginning makes a pretty clear value judgement to me. Who said anything about an illusion, and can you prove the idea of God is merely just an illusion, or are you placing your own value judgment on others? There's nothing wrong with being inquisitive to find out more, but it seems you carry the assumption that all theists don't like to understand more about the way things are.
Bobby Sanchez imposed? What planet are you living in?
Ask the wrong questions, reach the wrong conclusions.
There is no definitive conclusion to that which is currently unfalsifiable.
If something is here now, something had to always be here; for something can’t come from nothing.
"Nothing" doesn't exist, if it did... that would be something.
Denis Alexander belives in God out of Job security and also sounds confused!
There is a problem with the argument that everything that science discovers adds to the glory of god. The problem is that the God hypothesis is not necessary to explain anything that science has discovered thus far. In science, you don’t add explanations that are redundant.
I am really enjoying these programs, and I sympathize with Mr. Kuhn's quandary, but I wonder whether the desire to believe which he describes isn't in itself evidence in support of the existence of God. Not proof--there is not nor can there be proof. If knowledge is only defined as that which can be proven, then ignorance is inevitable. We have known--it has been proven--for a while that not every proposition can be proven, and it's hard to imagine how a problem could be constructed to be less provable than God. Any argument for the existence of God seems inevitably to come down to some form of magic, which seems antithetical to logic.
I am also frustrated by fallacious "proofs" of God. If God has any meaning at all, truth must be a central part of that meaning. But many (most? all?) claims to disprove God are equally fallacious. Atkins' assertion that all proofs of God must be false because God doesn't exist is about as elementary as a fallacy can be. There's a necessary leap of faith between agnosticism and atheism. My knowledge of possible arguments against God is probably not exhaustive, but I have never seen or heard one that isn't fallacious. I believe it's reasonable to conclude that any answer beyond "I don't know," is unreasonable. But I also believe it's reasonable to see this as an artifact of the limits of reason.
A lifetime of disappointments and unanswered prayers makes a persuasive case, to me, that God does not exist. It isn't proof, but it's surely evidence. Still, if God says to me that he does exist or otherwise demonstrates his existence--even once--I feel compelled to consider that any problems I've had with God are more to do with my lack of understanding than any failure on God's part. Of course, I am also aware that command hallucinations are very compelling to those who experience them, but, ultimately, I am as confident in my sanity as I am in my identity. In the end, I want to believe, so I do.
Which, l also believe, requires of me due respect for others believing what they want to believe.
Woah! I read this comment and thought..."this guy sounds just like me" XD Cadence and all. It's really funny, heading towards agnosticism and atheism actually brought me to a place of belief....on some days. Lol. I finally realized if there is no God, and nothing matters, then this is the only life which we have, so you might as well make it your own, and if you prefer to believe in God and it makes your journey better, then DO IT! If there is no God, no rhyme or reason for life, and when the lights go out it's over, nothing matters, then they why do I have to justify my beliefs and desires logically? Prove them to other non believers? What unseen wrong am I committing that I shouldn't be if it's just a construct in our minds. If you want to believe because it makes you life better for you...THEN BELIEVE. So Atheism brought me to faith...in a more subjective way...from an angle I never expected. I had always tried to prove the faith I wanted to have with logic and science, and in a way that I could defend against other critical and logical free thinkers. But once you see life from a nihilistic perspective and all that there is is what you make of this like... It granted me the ability and justification to believe if I wanted and to not feel like I should give two shitz about any ridicule I would receive from a militant atheist. In the end my desire and experience trumped everything, so whatever makes that experience better is good with me, including God. So I'm a hopeful agnostic Christian. Jesus was a badass and the idea of Him is cool, and I don't know any other lens through which I would see God since I think sin is a real thing...or I can see it's outworking in the world....but I dunno....???? But I'm with you on the prayer thing. Good luck with that. I wasted way too much time on that. Nowadays when I say something to God it's in passing and almost condescending cause I know He doesn't talk back. But maybe I should be grateful, when God starts speaking back to you then you're REALLY in trouble right? LOl...anyway..thanks for the post. Was facinating. Didn't mean to ramble, its so late it's early and I'm tired.
@@MrMemyselfandi415 Years ago, I had a conversation with a stroke patient who had pretty severe expressive aphasia. I don't recall his actual words, now, but if I had written them down, they would probably look incomprehensible. In the moment, though, I got a strong sense he was trying to say something profound. Thinking critically, a strong case could be made that I was hearing what I wanted to hear, that his thoughts "seemed" profound--to me--because they were actually my thoughts.
To me, though, it was a glimpse of the power of intuition. Reason could hear with my ears, but on a less conscious level, my eyes could see his expression and posture, and my brain could process that along with my other senses and find meaning my ears alone would have missed. Was it real? It surely felt real. I firmly believe the human brain is capable of much more than can be put into words.
@@mikestewart505 That's a sad state of affairs. Especially when you've had the experience of seeing that person when they were young, virile, charismatic and strong only to find them relegated to such a demeaning circumstance. Bruce Willis was just diagnosed with Aphasia. My heart goes out to him. I always liked him. I always think about him climbing through that AC duct with his lighter in Die Hard talking to himself saying something like.."come on out she says.....it'll be a barrel of laughs" and then "Yippykiamother@#$%ker" Anyway....neither here nor there, but funny none the less. I'm an artist, and pretty empathic, so I have an uncanny ability to read the energy in written words. It's....a thing. So maybe you're right. The cool thing about that, and it's the way I think about God as well. Is that it's ok to reach for things we don't understand and make the best of them as long as we fully accept that they are simply leaps made from the best of our logic and reason. If it boils down to simply an experience that you can't prove...weight it out and then....live in the mystery. That's ok with me. I don't have to have all of the answers anymore. HAving said that, Your story reminded me of my ex wife....she spoke past me more of our entire marriage. XD Anyway. Regards.
Fallacies in Proving God Exists: #1 Having a meaningful conversation on the subject of "God" (easily the most ambiguous word in all of language) without beginning by specifically defining the term which is the subject of the discussion. That's like one of the first steps of the scientific method. Without that, since like every person has their own unique concept of the ambiguous term, it becomes a "Who's on first" situation where nobody understands what the other is intending to say, and doesn't know it.
It's not an ambiguous word. God, or the "Deity", is the first person who is without form because He is the Creator of all form. You couldn't be here without Him.
@@wprandall2452 I couldn't be here without my parents, either. Why do you say God has no form? We are His form, right?
Well, on the first account, “the first cause”. I don’t think there is a fallacy at all on that.
Because as much as I am, this professor also just hopes on a scientific proof that there is a first cause aside from God. That is just ridiculous.
Whether they find that first cause, they are merely pushing back the question.
Its merely his pride that gets in the way.
Aren’t all of us... atheist alike, bases our beliefs on hope and faith?
I’d rather believe in God than not.
It's about the nature of that cause.
If we, let's say, talk about something that caused time and matter to exist, that cause itself would have to be timeless and immaterial. There's no good reason to propose a consciousness to be such a cause, because according to all we know, every example of a consciousness we can observe requires time and matter to exist. It seems like a more reasonable position to think that a first cause would've been something much simpler.
And no, proclaiming "God is infinitely simple!" would not solve the problem.
David Schilling
Hello. Mr. David.
I like how you put it that way, but aren’t even scientists and philosophers are perplexed and confounded of what consciousness is?
“Consciousness” is merely a replacement word of what we think there is... you can replace the word “God” with “consciousness” if you like but there’s no denial as you have said that whatever lies beyond must be timeless and immaterial which the God of the bible clearly represents.
Not being too simpleton but isn’t God easier to say than consciousness.
I hope that we will have a good discussion here and respect one another.
You have a great one Mr. David
@@MrDPerez The god of the _bible_ - like all ancient deities - represents contemporary views, myths and superstitions. We're talking about a broader idea of God, as "the answer to the question of existence."
You're free to define "God" as "that which caused time and matter to exist", even if it was something like a random quantum fluctuation. That might just be a little confusing, as most people connect a whole lot of other things to the word "God" which you don't get from this definition.
Yes, we don't know everything about consciousness, yet. I said: according to everything we _do_ know, consciousness depends on time and matter. An anaesthetic can turn your consciousness off by intercepting material processes.
I hope for many things sure. My beliefs are not based on what I hope for, that would encourage bias. Faith on the other hand is utterly useless and is basically equivalent to gullibility. Unless you choose to redefine faith as trust based on experience. Like having faith that when I sit in a chair it will support me.
@@elvancor Good day Mr. David. I understand where you are coming from Are you a scientist by trade?
Let me tell you now. As we get closer to what there is everything to know about consciousness, it will bring forth more unanswered questions that will then return full circle to God.
On the other hand, may I invite you to listen to our bible expositions if you don't mind.
Yeah, some mathematical formula will obviously solve our riddle of existence..
Aletak 13 prove that he doesn’t then.
What else could solve our riddle of existence?
Aletak 13 that’s not a very strong argument.
Your literally straw manning God by claiming something material or built of matter could not be moved by an all powerful God. If he wanted to make something unmovable then it would be until he changed his mind on the matter of course.
Literally in this case. Lol but with that arguement you could look at it in too many ways so I find it weak.
I believe the riddle is solved with introspection - looking outside won't help - God as I understand it, requires a personal relationship.
@@ferdinandkraft857 Be mindful of godel's incompleteness theorem
This is the toughest question ever, we cannot search the creator after we die, it's too dangerous or terrible or disastrous that we cannot breathe once again, the fear haunts that I am buried under tons of mud, that is the reason God should exist, if God doesn't who is there to save us, Jesus is the only diety among all religions who focused only on eternal life and nailed his life on what we need, we need life that's all, whoever gives it, receives our worship and universal attention.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Why intentionality? Consciousness is more fundamental. How could one chunk of matter have consciousness? This does not prove the existence of a personal creator God that is petty and vindictive and knows how many hairs you have on your head and what you had for breakfast. Religious people like to twist these arguments to say that this somehow validates the Bible, it does not.
@@TheWorldTeacher 02. A Long Mess of Blabbering BS
That's the problem
God was accidentally blown up when he lit the big bang. RIP.
That is actually quite funny and I am a believer. Like the mad scientist that blows himself up. I could guess by your avatar that you are a militant atheist. However, you are professing your blind faith in matter and energy if you believe that hydrogen gas + time = everything on Earth.
@@jamese9283 This thing we call energy is what fascinates me. An invisisible man in the sky who is billions of years old doesn't do it for me.
@@SuperFactsonly Aha! I knew you were a pantheist! (just kidding) God is obviously not a man, however he does have an invisible attribute like your energy, and he is older than old like your energy, so apparently you are anti-persons and it is not clear what DOES do it for you. By the way, I have learned a lot from old men.
[you said "inv isis ible" ISIS Freudian slip? :-)]
exactly - God played with a chemistry set, blew up the chemistry set and cleared off without cleaning up the mess.
What I would ask Peter is What kind of evidence would he need to believe in a creator first cause?
He indicates at the end of the video that he does not know what will convince him. “If god exists and if god wants me to believe in god, it’s up to god to figure out how”
What Covid Monster said
God knows yet doesn’t do it. What else do you need?
I think something miraculous is in order, but not to a paltry number of people in a small region of the world. Show everyone alive at once.
The more i ask myself about the possibility of a deity, the more I realize I need to go back to understanding epistemology. This is especially the case when I hear of spiritual experiences.
Atkins is so arrogant😄Of course science doesn´t give any meaning to the “why” of existence but it does give us information as to the “how” of the material world we can observe.
There are no gods. There is us.
The reason why we don't think as if we are in the world made up of visible atoms or who don't just live in a technical unconscious robot world is because we are here in the right place in the natural universe being on a higher level of divinity
How do you tell a brainwashed person that he or she is brainwashed? You can't.
They have to want to seek the truth for themselves. And it's so sad.
It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere- Voltaire
God doesn’t exist till the theists brings up the evidence for god existence .
The gift of life from nothing less than a grain of sand, is evidence enough.
The Bible tells us faith comes from God. So it is up to God to give it to us.
I had faith, from my upbringing, indoctrination, and inculcation. That faith ended and is totally no more. If God exists, any faith must come from him. I don't expect it to come.
You can't prove it, you don't need to... Have a relationship with Divine IAM and experience it for yourself 💖
I have a relationship with Superman. Does that mean he is real?
Phoenix What separates you from an imbecile knowing he is communicating with Napoleon?
Pray tell oh wise one which god should I have a relationship with?
You have a religious experience in any religion, rock concerts and laboratories when all the proper conditions are there
I agree with his atheist views 100% but I disagree with his statement that a scientist who rely on god for an inexplicable answer is not a good scientist. Hmm Newton?
He was probably saying in todays terms. I suspect that if Sir Isaac Newton lived in our days he would almost certainly be an unbeliever.
I agree too, many good scientists are theistic. The real argument should be Local Cause and Effect vs Non Locality / Naturalism vs Super / Mono vs Dualism/ Physics vs Meta, the God argument is secondary and does nothing good except waste time and create a False Dilemma between Science and Faith when our victorian Enlightenment ancestors could find compromise.
I don't know on what grounds people say that the dilemma between science and faith is false. Not only many scientific discoveries undermine beliefs brought by faith, but as Carl Sagan said, science is also a way of thinking. This way of thinking takes rationality, skepcitism, empiricism and critical thinking, none of which are atribbutes of faith.
@@Filipe9171 Yes youre right, but for me, its a false dilemma only from the context of my anti-science american culture. Its doing more damage to (popular) science to use science as an atheist platform. The skizm and damage done to Society is measurable , when a science minded person will discover the conflicts in thier own time when they are prepared for it, instead of a science authority telling them. The enlightenment era theists were able to confront it and compromise thier theology and make it fit within Naturalism, only after so many years of investigating it, instead of confronting the conflict on thier first day. The result was Progress, Modernity, and Liberal Society being accepted by mainstream society
@@pcb8059 ... religion is always a dead end. it's a dogma! Look at Christianity... they were left with the promise that the "end is near" ... and here they sit, 2,000 years later and still preach that one day... we all will rise... nothing has changed. they read the same stories over and over again, try reading it from every angle there is... and still... the stories are not really fitting. let's face it... those who are still sticking to religion... are lost "souls". indoctrinated beyond repair. They believe because they were taught so...and no argument will change that, not even when they are destroying the habitat they are living in.
A spell is the belief that one's hopes and wishes are stronger than reality. Or perhaps spells are meant to comfort or reassure a second party. Whereby the second party may pick up the practice.
When you you think that the modernized version of Aquinas 5 ways is the Kalam and then cant even state it correctly and then say you are an expert🤦♂️
Aquinas 5-way, Aristotle' unactualized actualizer, kalam or whatever - it doesn't matter, they're all based on weak premises that theists treat as dogma.
@@ferdinandkraft857 Aquinas was a great number theory expert, he figured out ultimate secret of universe. He figured out universe is not the same if you add all stuff 1 by 1 or if you use multiplication.
We have a proof for that, if you could add all things that exist, by the time you finished your calculation universe will became larger. But if you multiply things, this method is faster because it rely on logical patterns and universe stay the same size.
@@ferdinandkraft857 That's debatable but the fact is he didn't even state the premises correctly which makes his critique a straw man.
Created it and died the next day, yeah I thought of that one too lmaooo 😂
I was raised as a Christian and always believed God did exist but like many, I lived my life as if God did not exist. I did not have much of a relationship with him until about 2 yrs ago when I had "woke up" to "the Truth". I actually prefer saying that i had "woke up to discover most of this world is a lie". I prefer this because the powers that be have buried the real truth under so many lies, I dont think we will ever really know the real truth. The first lie that started me down the proverbial rabbit hole was when I realized that we do not live on a globe that spins at 1000 mph at the equator with a supposed vaccum of space that is able to break the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it is impossible to have a vaccum next to an atmosphere without a physical barrier. The reality is that the Earth is stationary, flat (for the most part aside from the valley's & mtns) and we live under a dome which is referred to as the firmament in the bible. The process to break the lifetime of brainwashing, endoctronation, and programming to actually apply critical thinking which lead to free my mind and accept the truth took apx 3 months. It was not easy and I understand many will never be able to break free as many have done in recent years. Just know this...The powers that be aka The Elite, The people in these secret societies who hold most of the wealth and basically control the world, they know the truth and they are lying to you. For two main reasons. 1. To enslave you not with chains for hands/feet. To enslave you in your mind as you are believing in a world that does not exist.
2. To hide the evidence of God. The God of the Bible.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha 😅😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂FFS😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂WTF😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
You are nuts
"Closer to the Truth"
Description Blurb: The new Atheism youtube show pretending to be philosophically objective but pretty much has a hard on for
attacking religion itself. Note: this show does not address all 10,000 religions currently in existence, but mostly attacks Western produced
religions using shallow caricatures of fundamental Metaphysical questions that remain open even today.
Warning on Package: Please be aware that 'Science' and the pursuit of 'Scientific' knowledge is not the same as 'Atheism', which this show may
deliberately or 'somewhat' unintentionally lead one to believe. Science is not Atheism. In addition, Science has not proved the philosophy of Materialism,
despite what the show's advocate Robert Kuhn (so desperately) is trying to make you believe.
@Martyr4JesusTheChrist Cognitively reasoned, no less... :D
If atheism is not based on scientific model hierarchy of knowledge, how does science relate to question of gods and supernatural forces than?
Yes, being author of real confusion do spell the Word 1 Godless, where even those of faith differs Scripture..
Shows one that believers actually do worship being Egotistical GOD Devil, therefore last thing that oneself want is the glory of everlasting life, as that only for those fools think be nothing more than what meets the eyes who in the end shall believe do sees Eye..
🕸️
Honestly one need not be religious, for religion is for those not perceive nor understand truth but do believe. But do know oneself total fool if not be open minded whatever the odds, not have side bet possibility do Exist LORD Almighty, kingdom come be in own lifetime. For then one will know real fear, all know see one Screams..
👁️
Christ, world shall end on high Note..
Peter Atkins has a British accent so we can trust him.
Also he’s surrounded by books. Case closed.
🤓🧐😏
He is not asking for anyone to trust him.
@rs5352
... and what is more important everything he says makes perfect rational sense, as opposed to the irrational, fantastical theistic ramblings we hear from the other side of the fence.
@Dylan Martens Unless the "religious sewer rat" can find the only escape from this religious confinement.
Hey.. I'm surrounded by books too. But the book case is always open ( for more books !)
@@Ploskkky Nothing creating everything can never make sense
These were great conversations and as with every video in this series I am grateful for the insights. Listening to these interviews from people whose default position is they do not believe in God, leaves their arguments against theists as broad generalisations and dismissive without actually dealing with the specific arguments. The high point of the absence of integrity in dealing with this was around 26:40 with the reference to media sponsored suggestions of miracles, and the respondent's comment that his default position is 'I don't believe it." This sounds like a very unscientific approach. He then goes on to accept that God does send some miracles but somehow the existence of fake miracles somehow tarnishes them all? Certainly the world is full of false prophets and fake miracles, so skepticism is justified, but why not look just at the miracles that have been scientifically verified? Such as the the eucharistic miracle at Buenos Aires; the Shroud of Turin, and the Tilma of Guadaloupe.
The most promising comment came at the end when Lawrence says if God exists He will have to work out how to prove it to Lawrence. That is the key, with a humble and contrite heart ask God to reveal Himself to you. He absolutely will; and He will do it in His own way and in His own time and, I suspect, in a very unique way for you.
Thank you so much to the second professor, that does sound more realistic...the new universe coming from the tunnelling of a previous universe, that makes sense. The first professor wasn't really able to give theories as to how our universe came into being, but I like the 2nd professor's argument. The question is though, how did THAT previous universe come into being? and then it might go on in a never-ending cycle of universes but where did the original universe come from? It's depressing stuff and brings out curiosity. Yes I never believed Christianity and Islam and all those religions because they just are silly, I'm sorry to say. But I like the 2nd professor's points.
How can a perfect being, desire to be worshipped? Why the hell would a sentient person, be cool with kissing the arse of ANYONE ANYTime ANYWHERE?
How strange
The worshiping is not for that perfect being but for yourself, the more you truly and deeply worship and praise god the more you benefit from it physically and mentally. And there is only ONE god not 3 in 1 nor 3 million. Neither is he created nor is it imaginable. He was always there before creation and will be there when everything perishes and comes to its end. worshiping god is not just prostrating to it but also striving to be a better person every day. giving in charity, loving one another and being thankful for what you have no mater how little. Even a smile is a way of worship to god. Since he is your creator and everything you have or achieved in life is eventually his, the least we can do is worship him and thank him. Every created thing which is made by man has a instruction manual. God also have given us one , this he did through prophets and messengers again and again since time immemorial . In almost al religions you read, its core message is that your god is one. its in hinduism, in judaism, in christianity in islam. Yet man corrupted almost all scriptures for personal gain.
@@TH3-ON3 I just don't get it. How do you find the act of worship, perfectly appealing and amazing beyond belief? Your biblical deity made up this rule, right? I'm just a typical arsehole.....and I can see the contradiction of a perfect being, desiring ANYTHING....especially praise and worship.
@@dlon8899 Am sorry but English is not my mother tongue so I dont really get you. What do you mean with your first sentence? As I said god doesn't need anything from us at all. But we do need him for he is our creator and he is our sustainer. The least we can do is worship him.
Every law we got from god through his messengers and prophets are a guidance for us so that we as humans flourish and live in harmony with one another.
if I prostrate in worship and praise god 10 times a day and say how great, powerful and magnificent he is, it does not make any difference to him. For his perfection and greatness goes beyond our tiny minds. By praising him it is we who will benefit from. If we praise him we follow him ( his guidance ) and if we follow his guidance we do good and abstain from bad. If we do good we will live happily in this life ( with each other ) and also gain paradise in the hereafter. We believe that this life is a test and death is inevitable. Our salvation depends on how obedient we have been to his laws and guidance in this temporal life.
I think many people have a need to believe that the events of their lives aren't arbitrary and that the percieved dualism of good and evil is real and weighted to the good.
I think you are right. The "need to believe" gives people a sense of purpose however, unfortunately this does not make any such belief true.
God is what you see when you look in the mirror and try to be honest with yourself
This show is sanity saving
Would u love God if u knew He existed? There's ppl that u know exist yet u do not love them... Let that sink in.
I love the open and honest admission at the end. Thank you CTT.
At this time in the 21 century people who still have the idea of god existence with not even one reliable history proof, is because the live out of the religion or because they still have a great percentage of ignorance. they claim and belive on god when is six differents gods out of the main religions arround the world. Robert Lawrence Kuhn is not trying to find the truth he is trying to confuse people, god has lots of power but that god needs second and third persons to tell the world that he exists and fails to tell people from others religions that he is the real god, and they are wrong worshiping other non existing gods also all the myths and leyends on the bible has no logic base on this days, you can understand this only with a comun sense, they don't know where and when jesus was born, and why if the old testament belongs to jews. christian religion was organize by the roman emperors and translate to greek, why they take the old testament from jews only for political purposes. watch the cesar's messiah : The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus. Seven of today's most controversial Bible scholars reveal their shocking conclusions about the origins of Christianity. Based on the best-selling religious studies book by Joseph Atwill, caesarsmessiahdoc.com
The first guy ironically opens with the fallacy of circular reasoning. When I say that I said "yep, this whole video is gonna be bad" and knew it wasn't worth watching.
The fact that nature in some way created entities within itself that are aware of themselves, and their surroundings....able to observe and measure this nature.... but not able to understand how this phenomenon exists at all, gives the God hypothesis tremendous ground.
Not really. It's just another "god of the gaps" argument. "We don't know how, therefore, god." A plausible reason you even consider the idea of god, is because you've heard someone else make the claim that a god (or gods) exist - or you were exposed to religion in some form. Imagine for a moment, an isolated group of humans that are raised with just the scientific knowledge we currently have about the universe - they are completely unaware of any theological ideas, texts, etc. They would still be confronted with the same unanswered questions we have - but they would not have the pre-existing notion of "supernatural" as even a possibility to consider. Would they rely on the scientific method to continue searching for answers? Would they invent their own ideas of "god"? These very tough questions may indeed never have a conclusive answer - and that really bothers people (including myself). But that isn't evidence for the existence of a god or gods. But... could they exist? Sure, I guess so. But how can I be convinced of an idea with no good evidence? I for one, am not fooled by emotional or personal experience - but many people are - primarily because most people have been exposed to religious ideas and frankly, it's easier for them to offload these questions onto god, rather than wrestle with them mentally.
@@ryandinan well that's mighty arrogant of you to come to that conclusion. However, anthropology studies like at Oxford have shown that children believe in a higher power regardless of outside influence. Other studies have shown that its our genes to believe in God. So your rambling not only rings hollow, your arrogance falls short!
@@ryandinan it seems to me you are one that confuses proof with evidence, along with an arrogant approach.
@@ryandinan God of the gaps accusations usually always stem from the presuppositions the atheist already has towards what God is. This is usually a result of anti religion hate. But if blind chance is really the explanation for all this, I ask you, what properties does this imaginary concept consist of?
@@gregariousguru I did not intend to come across as arrogant; that's one of the many reasons online discussions fall flat - people seem to apply whatever "tone" they feel. Anyways, your point about the idea that children possess an inate belief in a higher power is something I've followed with interest. There are as many studies that show the opposite; that these "beliefs" are, in fact caused by exposure to religious ideas. However, humans in general tend to have a preference for believing religious ideas, simply because they seem to satisfy the majority of minds. Now that we find ourselves in an era of practically unlimited access to the world's best scientific knowledge, record numbers of people are identifying as "nonreligious" and are leaving the church they were raised in. It's now easier than ever for the masses to learn answers to questions that once were firmly in the theological domain.
I don't claim to have answers to the biggest and deepest questions (i.e., "Why is there something rather than nothing?") - but I'm comfortable with saying "I don't know." People that claim there is a god or a higher power need to provide some compelling evidence to convince my mind - and so far, I have not heard or seen any. For now, I feel that science may eventually provide those answers, as difficult as they may be to understand. Claiming that, "this God did it." isn't really answering anything. Where's the evidence for this God? How do we know it's properties? How does this explain things, rather than shift the question? (What caused God's existence?) If you're going to claim that this God is eternal, then you can just as easily say that the cosmos is eternal. But notice that science doesn't say that - it aims to find evidence of that, not just make an assertion.
The resurrection of Christ is the Key why cowards apostles willingly to Die after what they saw. This event is supported by historians not a believer but a researcher of history. I hope you get my point Sir.
IF an ancient report of alleged cowards allegedly being ready to die after allegedly seeing something they believed to be a resurrection is enough to prove the existence of an absurd entitity like Jehovah, then we'd have to take next to every mythology on Earth as fact as well.
@@elvancor You better go and study all facts around Jesus and the apostles and you‘ll find after thorough studies that Vizard Alpha is exactly right.
@@castelbergtom2252 I believe I already have. Since there isn't even a solid consensus that a historical Jesus existed, the _facts_ about Jesus are zero.
5:45 If u believe in God see a psychiatrist???... TF's wrong with this guy??
@Kakashi Hatake Sounds like you're falling into the god of the gaps ☺
@Kakashi Hatake And since we can't explain it...god did it. It's literally the definition of it 😂
Kakashi Hatake Even if we or science would never know the answer it does not automatically make your assertion that "God did it" true.
Atkins is closed minded. I was an agnostic until I saw a debate with Atkins vs a Christian apologist by the name of Dr. Craig. Dr. Craig for the most part dominated the debate and provided better arguments for his case for theism. I now fall more to the theistic side of the argument. After exploring these arguments for over 10 years, I cannot live by relativism and meaninglessness.
@Kakashi Hatake Would God be the only necessary existence and everything else contingent? If so, it's begging the question. If math, definitions, etc. are also necessary beings, then the equating necessary existence to God is useless.
we are digging thru a mountain of concepts, thank you for always going deeper.
Thanks this has some valid points, of course fallacies can be found in the God hypothesis, everyone knows that, but please can we have a video explaining the fallacies of an atheistic world view. No matter how convincing something is it's always good to challenge the premise of our oppositions to provide balance.
Can you name one such fallacy?
@@ferdinandkraft857 of course he can't name one. There aren't any!
. "It's angry and makes me sad", "it does not provide me order and meaning", "This is all too nice and beautiful not to have an creator"...These are but a few fallacies of the atheistic world view..
@@kristofftaylovoski60 This is, of course, an emotive and superficial objection I will give you that, but I must point out that such an objection is possible from both sides of the argument that has always been the case.
@@ferdinandkraft857 1: If objective moral values exist, then atheism does not provide an adequate framework in which to ground such values.
2: Atheism does not account for the staggering mathematical improbability of the existence of sentient life forms
3: Atheism has a tendency to provide overly simplistic and surface value explanations
No human being is all knowing
Not even the philosophers and thinker's
This we all know.
I was trying to see if what you said is a contradiction. But I can't find such. The only thing I perceive is that some people might actually think they know everything. So the phrase "this we all know" would not apply to such a person. Is my perception correct?
@@johnbrzykcy3076
This we all know
is referring to none of us being all knowing
Which is something all of us do know.
As for perceive or perception.
Life is how we perceive thy own self.
No other human could perceive the same
way as another human being does.
Because if that was the case
We'd be no more than a herd of animals.
Rather instead we are spiritual beings
Born with perception and will free will.
How You live Your life is how You think
How You think is the life in which You live
Peace be with You and Yours
@@tobiahtoviyahgoodnessof349 Thanks for sharing. Your comments make me think. PEACE
@@johnbrzykcy3076
Wild animals run from the dangers they see
But once they have escaped
they stop worrying and embrace life.
We however are tormented
by what is past and by what may come
Most of which didn't and won't occur.
Life is full of misfortunes
Most of which never even happened.
Care about what others think of You
and You'll always be their prisoner.
Peace be with You and Yours
@@tobiahtoviyahgoodnessof349 Hey there.... I like your views and they make sense. Sometimes I watch UA-cam videos about elephants who are saved from being chained up. They seem to "embrace life" and "stop worrying" as you said. I like your statement "care about what others think of you and you'll always be their prisoner." Sometimes I get trapped within that perception, like the elephant in chains. PEACE from Florida
I do believe in God. But when it comes to the arguments people use for his existence, they are terrible. I have heard many. Some sound good on the surface. But it doesn't take anything more than some very basic critcal thinking to understand that the arguments are not good.
Religious beliefs come down to faith, but faith is no logical pathway to the truth.
Example: YOU believe in Yahweh , THEY believe in Mohammed...
You both can't be right, so by definition, faith is no logical pathway to the truth.
I don't mean any disrespect , that's just how I see it ☺️
With all due respect (and a large dose of agreement with the gist of your argument), but Yahweh is a god, Mohammed is a man, a prophet. The proper comparison is Yahweh to Allah.
@D L Luke Hey D L... I wonder about that same thing: "If you had been born in Saudi Arabia, you would be pushing Muhammad and the Quran." I'm scared that if I keep knocking on the door, the door will simply disappear ( or fall off the hinges! )
@@dlevi67 But what is the proper comparison for Jesus the Christ?
@@johnbrzykcy3076 The same as above. If you really insist, throw in God the Father and the Holy Spirit, for good measure. It changes nothing in terms of my concept above. Incidentally, the concept of incarnation is not unique to Christianity, by the way.
@@dlevi67 Thanks for the reply. Can you explain more about your statement "the concept of incarnation is not unique to Christianity?"
The host never shows this level of cynicism towards string theory, which has ZERO experiments/observations to prove it's valid. But it's "aesthetically beautiful" so it must be true. Why the double standard? Ironically, Godel who is considered the greatest logician of all time believed in a personal God. But I know, he was crazy. All the "great" scientists who don't believe in God are "stable geniuses."
Emery Coppola Jr. Think of real models; the first mention of atoms, was 2400 years ago, Democritus; do you know for how long there was “ZERO experiments/observations to prove it’s valid” ? 2400 years. You have to remember, the Scientific Revolution has only had (there was an intro of 200 years) 300 years of notable existence.
{Homo sapiens started fabricating gods about 10,000 years ago during the Neolithic/agricultural revolution. And although god or gods does not exist, it was an actual practical legitimate purpose to invent god.
It actually started off as a Homo sapiens reasonable hypothesis/theory, and without ever establishing proof, it was just became (a comforting) accepted reality. Although a categorical unequivocal hoax.}
And theologians nor scientist have ever proved the existence of ANY god. 😂😂😂.
If there was a “double standard”, the buffoonery lunacy quackery of religion has ALWAYS been on the receiving end for the unworthy benefit of the doubt.
String theory with no evidence is not the same thing as theology with no evidence. The former has a proven *foundation* it is based on, the foundation that we knows works: math and experimentally confirmed laws of physics. The latter has nothing to stand on. Once you prove your methodology works, it is perfectly reasonable to make conjectures with no evidence, as long as you're staying within the framework of your methodology. Theology has not accomplished that. Note that when the entire world jumped on developing vaccines and cures for COVID, they didn't treat snake oil and prayers on the same level ground as chemical compounds that they think might produce remedies even though they had no evidence for that to be the case. Not all "theories with no evidence" are created equal.
PavelSTL As I start my day, it brings a smile to my face😁😄😃 to read a perspicuous perspicacious reply in the comment section. No insecure defensive emotional outrage, just a factual progression of developments. 🙂
@@readynowforever3676 Thank you for your argument. I think you misinterpreted my motives. I'm not arguing that theology should not be held to a high standard of rigor - nor am I suggesting that science is fraudulent (no climate change). Nor that prayers can stop a pandemic. What I'm observing is that scientists or people who discount religious faith often (not always) have no qualms about applying some form of faith (for lack of a better word) to cosmology or science. Again, the "aesthetically beautiful argument," while advocated by many including Einstein, obviously does not validate a theory. People will accept at face value that there must be ten dimensions per string theory because the mathematics is advanced and elegant and does conform with certain proofs/theorems. But as there has not yet been any experiment or observation to validate it, accepting its possible validity requires a leap of faith. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proved that no mathematical system can ever be proved true. To quote from Wikipedia: "Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that demonstrate the inherent limitations of every formal axiomatic system capable of modelling basic arithmetic. These results, published by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The theorems are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible." So invariably, we have to make a leap of faith; string theory and quantum mechanics may be one of many possible theories that mimic reality (whatever that is) very closely. Yes, many of these theories work remarkably well at reproducing observation. But Newtonian mechanics was accepted as the final paradigm for the physical world until Einstein changed that quite dramatically. In fact, it was Einstein's skepticism and Godel's that allowed both to turn physics and mathematics on their respective heads.
@@soulburn8987 These men are not spewing the same weak arguments at all. I don't think you see the depth in these arguments. You cannot have it both ways: it's either all things have a cause, and that does include God, or there are exceptions, and if so, then I can claim that the Universe as a whole does not need to have cause. You're committing a fallacy of composition if you think the entire Universe must have a cause simply because you observe elements in it to have one. In other words, just because every baseball player on the team has a wife, doesn't mean the baseball team must have a wife. The property of "causality" is not exempt from this fallacy. It's not true that all things we observe have a cause anyway. I think Quantum Mechanics puts that argument to rest. Finally, who cares what Yahweh says until there's strong evidence to support that what he says has anything do with explaining reality. THAT needs to be established first.
It's a matter of looking at the possibilities.
1. Deities don't exist. The universe is self-organising, though perhaps some entities will evolve/develop in the far future that we today would perceive as godlike
2. Deities are subjectively real, but not otherwise. Notions of agency within nature have been inherited from thousands of generations of human ancestors, who all until recently believed that powerful natural entities had agency. Thus deities are subjectively real as a potential in our brain configuration, inherited from a long line of superstitious ancestors, but not an ontic reality.
3. There are synergies in reality, as described in the Tao, Buddhism or other schemas. These, as per #2, might be be interpreted as a deity or deities.
4. The Sun has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. We are increasingly finding organisation in the Sun's structure. It might produce a different kind of consciousness to anything we imagined.
5. The Earth has a kind of consciousness that could be interpreted as a deity. After all, we are only a small part of Earth, so it's logically greater, and we are a system within the Earth's system. Again, maybe there's complex organisation in our planet that we don't understand.
6. The entire universe is conscious to some extent, and this is interpreted as a deity or deities.
7. The spirits of the dead still exist in another dimension/realm that could be interpreted as a deity or deities. There have been many hard-to-explain anecdotal incidents, but nothing conclusive. Many indigenous people believed this.
8. Multiple deities actually exist, and they might be interpreted in different ways. Hindus and many indigenous groups have their own particular polytheistic schemas. Even the Romans and Greeks, thought I don't think they took them entirely seriously.
9. There is one supreme deity that created the universe and let it go unattended.
10. There is one supreme interventionist deity that created everything.
11. The multiverse exists and this is interpreted as a deist creator.
That's all I have ... so far :)
Can't prove or disprove it!!! Simple!!!
@Peter Rabbit I wonder if any negative or positive or even zero exists outside time and space?
Please proof your own existence, or disprove your existence, that really very easy am i right.
Now on the same manner you proof your own existence proof god's existence
@Peter Rabbit naturally you can't because you can proof your own existence because you exist.
If god exist then his temperature can be taken.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 good evidence for it, but not for everyone.
@Peter Rabbit sometimes I'd like to.