Here is an ironic quote. "A common mistake...is to know enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong." - Neil deGrasse Tyson
@@ramigilneas9274 Are you saying this as an atheist? Cuz it would be really dumb if that were the case. You genuinely think you're smarter than Cam and aren't even willing to debate him lol
@@ramigilneas9274 "Cope" is only a response you would give if you didn't have any argumentation that supported your position, otherwise you would elaborate on the specific arguments you object to. If you have any actual arguments then please elaborate on your sentiment.
@@ramigilneas9274 I didn't present arguments because I didn't need to. You said "Perfectly describes Cameron.😂", I asked why, and now you're mad because I didn't present any arguments for what YOU are claiming. Get it right.
just this sentence make the whole video moot. Shifting the burden. The end. No matter what you would say can't make any sense if you cant logically understand that.
He’s saying you can’t make a truth statement that “there is no evidence for God” without bringing some sort of argument or evidence that the statement is true. And also he wasn’t saying just because he didn’t give evidence for no God then there must be a God. You didn’t watch the whole video- do I need to give evidence of this statement?
@@chancedarley3065 If something doesn't exist, how do you show evidence it doesn't exist? If there is no evidence, you can not show evidence of the no evidence. Only a lack thereof.
bosco008 that’s my point! “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” The burden of proof is on Tyson. It’s clear he hasn’t searched for the evidence of God. Once you search for him whole heartedly, you will find Him and all the evidence that points to Him. Jeremiah 29:13 “you will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart” Jeremiah 33:3 “call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things you have not known” Mathew 7:7 “ ask, and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you” Just because people think “if only I could see God or see Jesus then I would believe” even the Pharisees who lived during Jesus’ time had him crucified and missed God!
Neil Degrass Tyson in an ad before this video: “The struggle is knowing enough about a subject to think you’re right, but not knowing enough to know you’re wrong.” 🤣
@Angus McMillan Ehhhh,.... tha Big Bang happened, we have demonstrated it, with even predictions that turned out to be true. The problem is not whether the BB happened or not, it's what 'caused' it. The problem here is that theists claim to know the answer, when it'll most likely remain unknown forever. *"but about whether creation happened by chance or by an intelligent designer"* That's a false dichotomy. Maybe the universe was brought about by a timeless cosmic chicken, no different to an earthly chicken, except that it can pop universe into existence, each with slightly different physical properties. Eventually it turned out to be our turn. Assuming so many things about whatever caused the universe to exist, is being dishonest. There is literally an infinitude of possible causes. Maybe it was a being with as much intellect as a protocell, maybe it is apathetic, maybe it ceased to exist when the universe appeared, maybe it wasn't omnipotent, maybe there are millions of these beings..... The possibilities are endless, and nobody will ever know for sure.
@Angus McMillan OK what Created the Universe? Maybe a God Did create the Universe. but how do you know that Your interpretation of God is correct one. Your ideas about God are no better than any other Humans
@Angus McMillan Actually every religious person has a different god, christians alone have something like 10 thousand derivations from catholicism and they dont accept each others religions.
@@leebennett4117 It comes down to a simple decision, God is or God ain't. Either choice, you will leap one way or the other in your life. Its got nothing to do with fully comprehending all the attributes of God, no one can fully know God. What you're really saying is , because you cannot wrap your mind around God , He can't exist. So its about control, you cannot tolerate a Power greater than your petty royal majesty of an ego.
@@leebennett4117 A person who has blind faith might not know much but there are those of us who have experienced God, our faith is experiential. Whilst none may fully know the mind of God, His attributes are fairly well established.
@@entrepreneurshipworld1 its very easy to simply say "its magic" everytime we observe something we cant understand, isnt it? Instead of actually trying to figure it out. Lightning was definately caused by gods, then we found out how it works. Tides were caused by gods, storms were caused by gods, and so on... But no, its easy to come up with explanations other than gods for everything we currently dont understand. Equally silly, sure, but also equally plausible. Or I guess that depends on what your version of god is.
Anders Norrvik The fact that you point at some primitive thinking and apply it to God in general is unfair and illogical. Knowledge is acquired through many mistakes and even though you may be right in principle it doesn’t mean you are right in particular. Say your granddad is called Abraham. I may see resemblance and say”this is your dad” it turns out your dad is Peter but this doesn’t change the fact that you come from Abraham further down the line . Think about it, 300 years and science is pointing to God more than ever. They talk about the human genome as 20 billion love letter. The deepest view of evolution talks about not merely survival of organisms but propagation of clusters of information - memes. The more we dig the more the Creator becomes apparent not the other way round.
@@entrepreneurshipworld1 no, science does not point to god more than ever. Religious people always take new scientific discoveries and try to make it fit with their gods, but there is no kind of science that points to gods.. Well, that depends on you versio. Some say that that cosmos is god, some say that the sun is god.. those are real. So before claiming a god is real, you need to specify what your god is.
We can sum the debate about God up like this: "If the Bible was never written, would there be any evidence that God exists?" If not, then God doesn't exist, if yes, then go find evidence that isn't based off of the Bible to prove it.
“1 Timothy 6:16 says that no one has seen or can see God.” Genesis 32:30 - And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Genesis 12:7 - "The LORD appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.' So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him." Exodus 33:11 - The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. Exodus 24:9 - Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank. “Dr Tyson’s assertion that there’s no evidence for God is just a little bit ironic since he didn’t give any evidence that there’s no evidence for God’s existence.” This is called proving a negative. You’re the one making the claim, which means the burden of proof is on you, not us. If you make a claim of, “There is a chair in this room,” and someone disagrees, it’s on you to provide the evidence that there is indeed a chair in the room, not on us to provide evidence for the non-existence of it. “There’s no rule in philosophy or in anything that says only theists are responsible for defending the things that they claim.” Yes there is, it’s called the burden of proof. Atheists aren’t “claiming” anything, whereas theists are, thus it’s on you to provide the evidence and not us. There is no concrete evidence for any kind of god, let alone the Christian one, and not believing is not a claim. If you make the claim that there are invisible underwear gnomes, the burden of proof would be on you alone for asserting that something does exist, not the other person who refuses to believe that without any evidence. “For example, the contingency argument…” Are you talking about ua-cam.com/video/FPCzEP0oD7I/v-deo.html Because that’s not evidence, that’s logic. That would be like asserting that all marine creatures can breathe underwater, and then the evidence for or against that would be looking at the actual marine creatures. Of course, this particular argument and others like it inherently can’t have evidence because the claim is that God exists outside the universe, which makes them unfalsifiable, which is a logical fallacy. And even if this argument and others like it are true, that is only “evidence” that there is some kind of something that could be described as god-like. Even supposing I accepted this argument, please explain how you make the leap from “There is a god” to “…and we know exactly what this god is, what it wants from us, what we have to do in order to get into heaven (a place that may or may not actually exist because we have no evidence), and that we will suffer in hell if we break any of its specific rules.” “Everything is dependent.” Evidence? How do you know that? Comparing a mug and other man-made dependent things to the fabric of existence is ridiculous. “All of reality exists independently.” …evidence? You keep making claims about the entire universe with no actual proof. You can point to whatever logical argument you want about how “We can’t possibly imagine any other explanation, so instead of just admitting we don’t know yet, it must be God,” but that’s not proof. Our universe could be some kind of experiment created by a hyper-advanced alien civilization (i.e. it is dependent). You can’t keep making definitive claims without any actual evidence just because you lack imagination. “The fact that our universe is life-permitting is remarkable.” And most of that universe isn’t life-permitting. The only part we know of that is would be Earth, and even Earth is mostly not (human) life-permitting. Almost ¾ of the planet is water, which humans can’t live on/in. Earth is also covered in ridiculously hot deserts, freezing tundras, volcanoes, and other things that can kill us at any second. It’s almost as if we are able to adapt to different areas because that’s how we evolved, rather than it being made specifically for us. “Life can’t exist in a universe where molecules don’t stick together” and other claims. Again, you have no evidence for this. It would look completely different, but how do you know with 100% certainty that it can’t exist? We have no other universes to compare ours to, so all you're saying here is “I personally can’t possibly imagine a different type of universe, therefore it is impossible that such a universe exists. " “To put these numbers in perspective, getting the strength of gravity right by chance…” Talking about chance requires repeated experiments. We only have the one universe that we can examine, so chance means nothing. It could be that before our universe came to exist (and thus, humans to observe things), there were billions and trillions of other universes that didn’t have life precisely because gravity wasn’t tuned right, and then finally our universe came to be. ua-cam.com/video/eJQ54wKlD2Q/v-deo.html (which is a response to one of your other videos, if you haven’t seen it already.) There’s just a couple more things I want to say before stopping, because I’m only halfway through your video and I don’t want to end up writing an entire paper as a response. 1. You say that morality is objective, but again, with no evidence. You quote Darwin for support, but that’s support for subjective morality. We believe certain things are moral precisely because we’re human - if we were a different type of species similar to bees, we would have a bee-like morality. And you bring up torturing infants as objectively wrong, but what about things that maybe aren’t as obvious? The death penalty for criminals, abortion in the case of rape, and other things where many people disagree? And that’s just our culture. Some other cultures have completely different moral views altogether. Are you suggesting that all of these other cultures are actually aware that what they’re doing is wrong, they just don’t care? Because that would unfalsifiable. And when it comes to infant torture, I certainly hope everyone agrees that’s wrong, but just because the entire species subjectively agrees on something doesn’t make it objective. 2. Even if morality was objective and came from a god, it doesn’t come from Yahweh. ua-cam.com/video/Pt66kbYmXXk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/Wc1Vt9S9v8Q/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/tz3EEqtcJME/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/z1zIwUiQ2Yk/v-deo.html ua-cam.com/video/2MFmC6BD1B4/v-deo.html I could go on. And before you start saying, “But the context!” ua-cam.com/video/PK7P7uZFf5o/v-deo.html
Thanks for your effort. I would not have the Patience to keep going through all of these poor arguments, which somehow lead exactly to the Christian god because there sure is some bible verse claiming that as well.
@@LarJgrip I can get on board that there's a "cause", but every "cause" we've investigated so far has had a natural explanation. I don't see any evidence to imply that the first "cause" was an intelligent being. And even if there was, why would that intelligent being not need a "cause" of its own? Where did it come from? Proposing God as a creator is only answering a mystery with a bigger mystery.
Kenneth Hilker So what then is the natural explanation for the universe going from chaotic to ordered? And secondly, no matter how you slice & dice it “something” has to exist without a cause in order to have anything. The problem is that the “something” would have to have a mind simply because of the existence of ordered information. Ordered information cannot appear randomly it needs a mind to create it.
He mentioned contingency theory. Read some Napoleon Hill. The only beings that have the ability to create are creatures with intelligence, such as humans. Every action we take and every creation or invention ever started as an idea from something or someone with intelligence. By this logic, our reality itself and the world we live in must have been created by some form of higher intelligence. I’m not religious personally, but I’m not against religion for this reason. You might think you’ve outsmarted every worshipper in the world, but mankind has debated these topics since the beginning of time and we still have no clear answer. All I will say is that nihilism and atheism are not beneficial in terms of societal improvement and civilizations cannot survive with these as their main beliefs.
@@bodhidixon2939 Your historical proposition is misinformed. Mankind is only still debating these topics because theists won't STFU about their magic sky fairies. We have a clear as day answer, and that is there is no evidence even to consider that anything outside of the material universe exists or could exist. Atheism and the scientific enlightenment are the foundations of every social improvement that has ever been produced or imagined by the human species. Even religious improvements occurred only when a non-God-centered approach was taken. In the atheist worldview, humans are simply one of many species on this planet, all the result of evolution, and therefore all equal by definition. Equality IS how civilizations survive.
"no Christian has ever thought of God as a bearded man in the sky".... So, why did Michelangelo depicted God as a bearded man? There are thousands of depictions of God as a old man all over Christian's arts and builds.
That was a tell of schizophrenia tendencies : fail to take an 'expression' for what it is: just an expression, The "bearded man" is just a well known expression for god. So why does this theist take it upon itself to waste time underligning that god is not an actual bearded man sitting in the sky? This felt so weird ans silly!
@Shameless Papist not sure you intended to reply to me - i'm the one who said it was a clear expression to point to a 'god' that anyone would understand and that going on about it is a distraction and a waste of time by the theist in the video (the bearded man in the sky expression)
@@nolankeil1990 hopefully you can be saved one day. Our time on earth is so small. Tony has an eternity now. You can too. Do you really believe that all of this is for no reason? Do you really believe that people like Hitler can just get away with what they do without justice?
Is this really all you can do to make money? Can't sell plasma? Can't beg? Can't be a dishwasher? Can't be a stay-at-home dad while your wife goes to work? Really? Isaiah 45:7 "I bring forth all that is good and all that is evil, I create al that is light and all that is dark. I Thy Lord God, do all these things." There is evidence for this kind of God that we call "Random Chance" and following "freewill." It also negates a lot of the New Testsament... like Satan. If you make it your business, you'll never get out because it is how you survive. You'll lie to yourself, your family, your friends, your parishoners, because you will have to if that is how you survive. When, in that video clip you showed, did Tyson say anything about Christians? You behave as a liar. 4:00 Regardless of the Old Testament--I do meet many Christians who almost completely disregard it for the New Testament--God has been featured in Christian art since at least 200ACE, many scholars think it went on earlier, with the most famous bearded Heavenly Father being on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel commissioned by the Pope. You behave as a liar. 4:23 You say you already handled this argument from "another atheist". Well... who's the firs atheist? Neil? Neil deGrasse Tyson is NOT an atheist; he accepts the possibility of a God. He is "Agnostic", open but without religion. You behave as a liar. 5:10 "I am being paid to advertise this book but please be sure to also make a donation. "The photo I showed you of me and my family on the street should make you think we might be street people, barely getting-by. "Ignore the quality studio space, it is 100% necessary for the delivery of God's message and the raising of my children, just listen to how clean the audio is. "You can't expect me to just preach to the wind in tattered rags like Real Christian, expecting that if I am in need it will be given. "This is the only work I am able to do to support my family... but I have definitely had sex and seem quite able-bodied. "I am lying to you so that you will pay to raise my children for me; I will not and cannot. "I really do not want to have to actually do work. "This is the only way I can survive. "My wife can't work! She's taking care of the kids. "I can't work! I'm doing this to make money to raise my kids! "Please believe me that other than this and making babies, I am useless to society." You behave as a liar.
Evo: I have $5 in my pocket. Crea: I don't believe you. Evo: Here, look, I have a $5 bill. See I am now holding it in my hand. Crea: No, I still don't believe you. I have $10 in my pocket though. Evo: Prove it. Crea: No, you need to prove that I don't have it. Evo: Well, why don’t you just show me your $10 just like I showed you my $5? Crea: No, you just need to prove that I don’t have it in my pocket. Evo: Well for one, you don't have pockets. Crea: That's just your belief. And on and on it goes!!
@@TonyEnglandUK That he is a fake is beyond question, but I don't believe he is a fake christian. all things being equal, this is about as christian as christians get.
@@JopingusBloggStudios Well, Scooter ... right at about 4:30 Skippy goes through the most ridiculous contortion of sophistry that would make the most limber yogi green with envy. To state that Neil failed to provide evidence that there is no evidence to disprove "god" is the single most insincere and dishonest attempt to dodge the requirement that whomever is making the positive assertion needs to provide the evidence. Neil says, though not as clearly as I would have personally liked, that if evidence for this entity's existence were found then he would acknowledge it. However, Skippy chose to obfuscate that distinction and gallop on to his talking point. It was at that moment that he demonstrated he wasn't going to be an honest participant in the debate.
I don't know why the world has determined that NDT is now an authority on everything. He's an incredibly amazing man but he also said Pluto isn't a planet. I'll never forgive him for that. 🙂
@Angus McMillan Even if you could prove that you were not created by chance, it still doesn't show that you were created by a God as you understand him. Black and white fallacy.
@@alfrancisvictorm.sapanta1628 indeed he does. I used to as wells, just never bought into it as much as he has. I think he dug his heels in when his brother left Christianity.
He was listening to matt Dillahunty explain the difference between evidence for a theory and evidence in support of a theory. It was a good debate, you should check it out.
@@hellavadeal it boils down to how well any particular evidence leads directly to a conclusion. Let's use a headache as an example. Fact: my head hurts. This is evidence that I have a headache, nothing more. This evidence supports several different reasons that I could have a headache. For example, I could have a sinus infection, the flu, a cold, a migraine, a stress induced headache, I had too much caffeine, or it could be a side effect from medication. The fact that my head hurts supports any one of these, but it alone is not conclusive of any of them. Now what theists tend to do, especially in these arguments for a creator, is that they take certain facts like the universe appears to be designed, or the universe has a cause, or consciousness is so complex it's almost unexplainable and they import the idea of a deity as a solution. But when you boil down the presuppositions in the argument, the complexity of the universe is only evidence that the universe is complex, just as my head hurting is only evidence for me having a headache. My headache may in fact be caused by the flu, just as the cause of the universe may in fact be god, however neither of those evidences directly come to a conclusion. The issue with theism is that generally, the arguments are intended to come to the conclusion of a being that exists essentially and necessarily outside of the realm of existence/spacetime continuum. This means that as far as we know, it is not possible to derive empirical evidence of the assertions and conclusions and so people must necessarily rely on ambiguous arguments extrapolating from things that we do not know the origins of to reach the conclusion. Watch the debate between IP and Matt Dillahunty on good reasons for god. Dillahunty covers all of this way better than I could
I dont discredit all of these arguments, but to hear you say Dr. Tyson must prove there is no evidence is simply not true as you can not prove there is no evidence aside from highlighting the fact that there is no evidence.
If you don't believe you can prove that there's no evidence then don't make the positive claim that there's no evidence then try to dodge the burden of proof.
Theist always Dodge the burden of proof. If you make an extraordinary claim isn't it common sense that the burden of proof lies upon such person. Especially when it comes to the Supernatural.God,Ghost,witches, Hauntings.. I would include Aliens but I think that has the highest level of probability.
@@Zuzuboy1218 The whole reason that we argue about the definition of Atheism is because ATHEISTS are the ones dodging the burden of proof. I don't think any serious Christian or theistic philosopher denies that we are making a positive claim and we do have a burden of proof. That is not something we deny but ironically it's the atheists that try to deny their own burden of proof. If atheism is making the claim God does not exist that is a positive claim with burden of proof attached to it. If you do not know if God exists or think it's impossible to prove God doesn't exist you should be an agnostic not an atheist. So yes, you used a comment section full of atheists dodging the burden of proof to try to claim theists dodge it which I've literally never seen in my entire life. Better luck next time!
@@ktrishan3165 haha I understand where you're coming from for sure. I got a feeling if me and you met in person, we would agree on 80 to 90% of anything thing we would talk about (in regards to science vs religion). The remaining 10 to 20 percent is what I would love to talk about you know? Because I love to hear others opinion. Sorry I'm rambling. It's 3 a.m where I live right now and I've been watching science videos and DVDs since quarantine😂
@@stumgar the are no counter arguments. How? I mean how can you think there's an argument? I'm not even going to start. You clearly have bigger things to worry about. We dont even know what gravity is but yeah God is real..
Thank you for graciously showing that NDT, um, has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to religion. He legitimately seems to think that if you can't see God with a telescope, there is no evidence for God. Hopefully he sees this and is more modest and less wrong in the future.
Giving Tyson the benifit of the doubt that he doesn't know vice assuming he is just dishonest. Being a scientist does not make your opinions facts. Speak to your field not things outside it. Also let's all be honest enough to realise everyone can do real science.
I thought it ironic when he said that religions are called faiths because they are believed in the absence of evidences. He then follows that up with "otherwise they'd be called evidences." I couldn't help but think of Hebrews 11:1 which says what? ... "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Christianity actually sees faith as substantial and evidential because it is a way of seeing the world through God's eyes. I know Tyson is not a biblical scholar, but I did think it was ironic.
No one is “wrong about God”, it’s a personal human construct. No one can demonstrate God’s existence with empirical evidence. Therefore, it’s up to an individual to believe or not. Neil deGrasse Tyson was perfectly correct in every context on this subject matter.
When you think that god exists because you can't find another answer to one question, that's your option. You can create a god for every unsolved mystery. The problem is when someone says: "God has spoken to me, and he has told me...." Or: This is the word of god and you have to obey it, because if you do(n´t)... Religion, there are thousands in human history.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Every theist does this. The educated ones are careful to look for the 'gaps' in places that are still mysterious: 1: Details about the Big Bang 2. How life first formed on Earth. Science can't yet describe these thoroughly, so it must have been Yahweh, the war God of the Israelites.
@@justindavid9979 That's just blatantly untrue. Let's look at one argument: 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. The universe has a cause. The argument is stated in a deductive form. If the premises are true, the conclusion is logically necessary. Where has a "God of the gaps" argument been made?
@@Jimmy-iy9pl what is untrue? Nowhere do I suggest that the universe did not have a cause. I am convinced that it did! But having a cause doesn't mean a mono-deity God (Father-like figure who is perfect, has human-like qualities, and actively watches us) caused the universe, which is the assumption of Christians and Muslims.
So EVERYTHING exists dependently therefore something independent created it? So everything exists dependently besides god who gets the exception to the premise that you established. Special pleading fallacy
@Gabe Norman okay then I'm open to hear what they meant. I don't want any animosity just a discussion. From what I understand is that he laid out the premise that everything we experience exists dependently. He then goes to explain that we would need something to exist independently so it can create the dependent things. However this would contradict the premise that everything exists dependently and making a special plea to say that god doesn't exist dependently.
@Interceptor can you demonstrate there's anything other than the material world? When people say God exists outside of reality, that is the definition of something that is imaginary and nonexistent. Also they have established the most unfalsifiable proposition you can think of. I can literally say anything exists out of the material world (reality) and you would have no way of disproving it. It can be a tea kettle or the flying spaghetti monster Edit: I kind of missed the point of my own argument in my reply lol. I'm not trying to say god wouldn't be able to break the rules or be a special exception. Its just fallacious to conclude that he exists by establishing a premise that everything exists dependently and then precede to make a special plea for that premise. It's called the special pleading fallacy and it makes the argument logically invalid. It doesn't make the conclusion untrue. It just makes it illogical to come to that conclusion using that argument. If you want to put the argument into a syllogistic form we could discuss the argument you are making or defending
@Interceptor ooh nice. My bad I expected you to be a theist so I framed my response as if you were defending his argument for Gods existence. But yeah I accept the possibility that there could be something outside of reality I just didn't actually expect you to come back with something backed scientifically. Because if someone was using the Kalam Cosmological argument but also accepted the Big Bang Theory, that would be problematic for thier stance. But yeah I'll check out that source and I didn't mean to sound facetious when asking if you can demonstrate for anything existing outside of material reality.
@Interceptor so I'm watching the video now and I'll finish it later but I want to comment on the whole materialism thing. You can make an airtight philosophical argument that we can't actually know that anything exists and we don't really exist. But the reason I accept materialism and empiricism because it's a useful model to navigate and observe things. When someone provides evidence for something it doesn't give me absolute knowledge and certainty of it's existence, it just gives me a reason to believe it. Materialism doesn't have to be the end all be all, and I don't really know what you think about it, but it's the best model we have so I wouldn't say it's dead. If it wasn't credible then we wouldn't have Quantum physics or any science for that matter
You can't wrap your mind around God, therefor God can't exist. So says the Ego. You can claim disbelief but your ego knows the truth. It implicates you.
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” ― Albert Einstein. I don't understand a single thing you said. The fact thatt it takes you 29mins to make you point is kinda suspicious. I did understand Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson though!!!!!
Might as well get the stamp of approval and say I’m a Christian (saying this to other Christians I disagree with gives me leeway for some odd reason). Although you didn’t give much actual EVIDENCE for God’s existence, I still felt you did a good job at tackling other issues that I think a lot of Christians stress over. Nice vid.
@@juice2307 Metaphysical evidence is for the metaphysical, and material is for the material? What does that mean? Anyone can claim metaphysical evidence for the truth of other religious claims, no? Do you give those credence as metaphysical evidence?
You will continue to suffer if you have an emotional reaction to everything that is said to you. True power is sitting back and observing everything with logic. If words control you that means everyone else can control you. Breathe and allow things to pass.
You keep saying you have the evidence that God exists. I was waiting and waiting very curiously, only to see argumentative reasoning trying to explain what you perceive as coincidences and conveniences as evidence. Very disappointing. If anything, your video of almost 30 minutes just proved NDT's video of just over 2 minutes right. Thank you.
I was about to write the same thing. This guy, either doesn’t know the difference between an argument and evidence or is deliberately ignoring it to make his claim.
This is very common for Atheists to expect *scientific evidence* when *evidence* is being claimed, which is a fallacy of scientism in which you seem to be under the false impression that the only kind of evidence is scientific. Definition of evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Even just a testimony is a form of evidence, although a very weak form. For philosophical positions, such as Theism or Atheism, the ONLY kind of evidence that can be expected is logically valid & sound argumentation. This is because philosophy is about topics beyond the scope of scientific inquiry exclusively, so expecting *scientific evidence* would just be fallacious & irrational. Scientism is a self-refuting philosophy that every Atheist I've ever talked to has adhered to. Here's why it's self-refuting: The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified. So anyone arguing as if Scientism is true has declared belief in a philosophy that philosophies can't be true, which is just self-refuting and false by necessity. This isn't a knock against science. It just means there ARE ways to know truth beyond just science alone. What is beyond science is not beyond rationality. There are well over 100 logically valid & sound arguments for Theism recognized by mainstream academia. Atheism, on the other hand, has none whatsoever (other than a few fallacious attempts). Given argumentation is the only form of evidence that can settle debates between two opposing philosophical positions, and its 100+ to 0... it's beyond obvious which one is true. The only reason most Atheists are Atheists is because of fallacies of scientism that they aren't aware they're commiting. It may help you to realize what science and philosophy actually are... as it seems Atheists are always unaware of the boundaries between the two (which is scientism). Science deals with observable, independently verifiable, physical evidence to figure out physical reality. Philosophy deals with the most rational way to INTERPRET that science with logical argumentation. Keep in mind absolute truth exists in logic (and mathematics) so this means we can actually know some things within philosophy with even more certainty than in science, because absolute truth doesn't exist in science.
@@amaurypineda1834 Please read my above argument. It would help you because you're accusing him of not knowing the difference between evidence and argumentation when it's actually YOU who is conflating evidence with *scientific evidence* in your mind Argumentation is the ONLY form of evidence that can possibly exist for any philosophical position (like Theism or Atheism) since philosophies deal with topics beyond the scope of scientific inquiry... so obviously scientific evidence can't be expected.
YES HE CAN CLAIM THERE'S NO EVIDENCE. He doesn't have to prove a negative, you're the one who's making the assertion that God exists, and if you think/believe that there is evidence, present it
1. Beginning of the universe 2. Fine tuning of the universe 3. The origin of life in the universe 4. The appearance of design in biology 5. And wider universe 6. Minds 7. Free agency 8. Objective moral truths 9. Historical evidence about the resurrection of Jesus 10. Personal experiences of numerous rational people
Pretty sure that if the authors of the book mentioned, or anybody else for that matter, could prove the existence of god, a Nobel prize would have been rewarded
@@bandcontroversial you can't truly prove anything, other than having debates, making assumptions, use our subjective and limited common sense, knowledge and logic on those assumptions and clarifying them. Just like Socrates said “true wisdom is acknowledging you know nothing”
I've come up with a term, if not an original concept, "Lodgepole Logic." The lodgepole pine will not release its seeds until it goes through a forest fire. My "forest fire" included being stricken by polio at the age of ten months. I've written around 300 songs and poems. I don't like diseases, but God gives grace and allows us to care for each other and find cures.
This is just disappointing. I have to say, as an atheist, I’m always interested in some genuine, real proof of a god, any god. And I come across stuff like Cameron’s with a confident proclamation of real proof of a deity, only to be disappointed by being presented the same arguments in a different package.
Every person liking, disliking, commenting are evidence. The fact that we have the capacity to dominate, communicate and create (or destroy...) rather uniquely compared to other life on our planet is also evidence. Missing the importance of, or perceiving the evidence incorrectly is not a lack of evidence, it's an error of judgement. It would be foolish to demand that a basic compass measure a magnetic field of another planet. The tool is not designed to perceive outside of it's limitations. My point is that one cannot measure or perceive God without His presence, i.e it takes God's Spirit to recognize God's Spirit. People are limiting the scope by of which God can be perceived by using the wrong tools. Therefore people cannot find the evidence that they are demanding. I would like to see some evidence of a non-living material turning into a living organism. Even if we could somehow replicate such an event, would it not prove that it took intelligent life organizing the environment and variables for said life to come about? One could surmise that with no observable evidence of life coming to be of it's own accord, that theory can be scrapped. But for whatever reason the academia are vehemently stuck on pressing and prescribing such a theory as fact without evidence. I find it ironic and saddening that people are calling for evidence of God when they are the evidence of Him, and typically the same people cling to a theory that needs evidence yet has none yet still they believe.
@__________________________ How have we totally destroyed the planet if we are still thriving? I would say that part of the proof of our all knowing and loving God is that He has withheld the destruction of our planet through all of the atrocities committed by mankind, and when the time comes for it's destruction that it will be rightly carried out. Even through destruction He will show His love by making all things new. Our ability to destroy is not completely like God's. We have taken the traits He has given us and distorted their purpose to serve ourselves mostly at the cost of others. Our abilities are a reflection of His, not a clean mirror image, but rather a muddied tumultuous reflection of His traits through our self-serving, self-seeking propensity.
The problem is you're expecting proof (scientific verification that Theism is true). This is irrational. The only form of evidence that can possibly exist for philosophical positions (like Theism or Atheism) is argumentation, not scientific evidence. This is because philosophy deals with topics that are beyond the limitations of the scientific method... beyond the ability of science to verify. Science deals with observable, independently verifiable, physical EVIDENCE. Philosophy, on the other hand, only deals with the most rational way to INTERPRET that science. Argumentation is the only way to determine which of two opposing philosophical positions is true (not scientific evidence)... as all scientific evidence could be interpreted to fit for either side. So that's why logic within argumentation is used to figure out which side is true. And there are well over 100 logically valid & sound arguments for Theism, with none whatsoever for Atheism (other than a few fallacious attempts). So, 1. Argument is not only valid evidence for philosophical positions, but the ONLY evidence that could possibly exist for such. And... 2. Theism vs Atheism is very easy to figure out once you realize this, but most don't because they unwittingly adhere to Scientism. Here's why Scientism is self-refuting: The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified. So anyone arguing as if Scientism is true (like Atheists do constantly) has declared belief in a philosophy that philosophies can't be true. When Atheists say evidence, they're almost always thinking *scientific evidence* in their heads, but that's false. Definition of evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Obviously, argumentation is that.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." From that quote alone, I can't tell what you're advocating, theism or atheism. Does this mean the belief that the universe appeared without cause can be dismissed without evidence? That we all have strong moral beliefs (against torture, rape, genocide, etc.) because of a random accident can be dismissed without evidence? You can't magically avoid truth claims. Hitchen's Razor has two edges and no hilt. Be careful with it.
Adam Smith Atheism is the default position. We don’t have to prove anything. (Otherwise, you’d have to prove Zeus and Thor don’t exist either and if you can’t, then I guess that would mean they do exist by default. ) Theists are the ones asserting God exists and they have to prove it.
@@TsunamiNR Athiests have a burden of proof to present an outlook on the world that makes sense in all facets. As a Christian, I have a very good reasoning for the world looking and acting the way it does. An Athiest not accepting my viewpoint is unlikely to change my view unless they present and opposing world view that satisfies all of the areas i currently have satisfied
@@Sn3aKyK1LL3R "Athiests have a burden of proof to present an outlook on the world that makes sense in all facets." Again, I'm afraid that that's not how it works. As I said, Atheism is the default position. If you don't know, you shouldn't invent some explanation based on nothing. Mistery is not a good reason to believe in magic. "As a Christian, I have a very good reasoning for the world looking and acting the way it does." I can invent millions of reasonings to explain the world. Example: See the lightnings during the storm? Zeus did it. This is a kind of reasoning/explanation. Still, if I can't prove it, it's better to withhold belief. Maybe there is some material explanation for the phenomenon that I don't understand just yet. Me not being able to explain how lightnings work, doesn't make the Zeus-hypothesis valid. And if I don't believe that Zeus exists, do I therefore need to be able to explain how lightning would be able to exist without Zeus? No, I don't need to do that. When you don't know, the default position is "I don't know and I won't believe your explanation until you prove it". The default position is not "I don't know, so I guess your God / Magic hypothesis is a good one".
@@TsunamiNR i won't bother discussing the Zeus comment, because obviously the evidence for Christianity vs Zeus is a completely different ball game. But I will ask, if Athiesm is the default position, and God doesn't exist, then explain why almost every culture has a God/Gods of some form. Evidently, it isn't the default position..
To say it is extraordinarily unlikely that our universe would be life primiting is not true.. The most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon and nitrogen. The human body is made of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen very common throughout the universe. So in such a vast universe it is Very unlikely that these elements would not combine to make life even in its smallest form.
Hi there, I'm an atheist. You pointed out that it was more likely for the Universe to be created by a God/Creator, than for the universe to have naturally come into existence, i.e the analogy you made of getting 10 royal flushes in a row. Surely, that is not a case to make as evidence for a God as it still theoretically possible to get 10 straight royal flushes in a row? Surely you'd need a better test or evidence to suggest that there is a creator for the universe? This is where science differs from religion as science is able to say they 'don't know' as there is no evidence, and they go in search for evidence. Religion on the other hand, simply says "there is no evidence, therefore someone/something created it". Using your analogy, science is trying to find out how the universe got 10 straight flushes in a row, whereas religion says "you cheated". Anyway, assuming that God did indeed create this universe. Would you concede that God is not all-powerful and not all-good? Otherwise, how do you explain that there are millions of kids starving and dying of poverty? How do you explain that you were born in whichever country you were born in? How do you explain that children can suffer and die from cancer? Why are some of his plans better than others? Just interested to know what your answer is. No hate, just trying to have a healthy debate/discussion. Hope everyone is safe and healthy during this time. :)
I know this was from a year ago, and I’m hardly qualified to give as great an answer as such a warmly, kindly worded question deserves, but I think you deserve an answer, at least. On the 10 royal flushes question, I think you may be conflating evidence with proof. Evidence is NOT proof. There can be evidence that I am guilty of a crime, or evidence for an explanation of a natural phenomenon, but that is not the same as proof I am guilty, or proof of the cause of a natural phenomenon. From my point of view, one can never prove the existence of God, not disprove it either - for some of the same reasons one can not do the same for multi-verse or multi-world theory. There can be evidence of multiple universes, and evidence for God, or evidence for neither, without reaching the standard for proof. So, 10 royal flushes in a row is evidence something besides chance is at work. Is it proof? No, but it is a LOT of evidence. It most certainly is not proof that just change was at work, nor would it be proof that God doesn’t exist. In fact, it seems like pretty stunning evidence that it wasn’t just pure chance. The rest of your question has to be addressed by looking at some of the videos the OP has listed, it’s much more than my arthritic thumbs can handle. Hope this year is even better than your last! Jesus loves you!
@Angus McMillan LOL. Do you have any evidence that the God of the Bible exists? You need to understand that the Bible is the claim, not the evidence for the God of the Bible.
@Angus McMillan You believe the Bible just because it claims itself to be the holy truth. Do you not realize how ridiculous you are when you ask me for evidence to disprove something that was never proven to you and your mama by way of evidence?
@Angus McMillan It doesn't matter what God you believe in or what religion you have branded yourself with, they are all man-made. Religion has got you by the balls. LOL
@Angus McMillan LOL. But you forget that you were brainwashed by your mom to brand yourself with the same religion she was brainwashed with. The religious stuff was never proven to you and your mama by way of evidence.
@Angus McMillan An invisible immaterial being can have the power to unintentionally cause changes, but it does not have thinking capability and intelligence to intentionally create order. Earth probably got lucky in its formation & life precariously emerged from chemistry then evolved. Evolution made man & man made God.
The bottom has fallen out of Darwinism/ evolution. No one has ever observed the transition of one kind of creature to another kind of creature (ape to man, etc.). However, many people throughout history have interacted with God. Choose recorded history, not hypothetical atheistic conjecture; choose Christ!
Mark H thanks for taking time to write. Respectfully, evolution has never been confirmed. Darwin himself said the only way it can be verified is if the generational connection/transition can be observed. It never has. Darwinists point to bacteria and finches. The bacteria and finches that have been observed have only produced more bacteria and finches. This is not Darwinian evolution. It is not even close to evidence that bacteria and finches are descendants of non-bacteria and non-finches. To the contrary, it proves that bacteria and finches produce after their own kind respectively just as the Bible says God created them to. For reliable reproductive science look to the Bible. Darwinists point to transitional fossils. The term “transitional fossil” is a misnomer. A fossil can only tell us what creature it was itself, not what it was on the way to becoming. Darwinists point to DNA. DNA is coded information. Whenever we see coded information we have to ask who created the code. We never assume the code spontaneously arose from random processes. The similarities we see are EXACTLY what we would expect to see from a programmer who uses similar algorithms to produce similar parts. This is clear evidence of intelligent design. Darwinists point to millions of years. But no scientist has observed millions of years. So we see everything we’ve been sold about evolution is baseless conjecture. Those who reject the Bible and accept Darwinism are rejecting recorded history and accepting patently unobservable, hypothetical, fabricated history. Don’t be a science denier, don’t be a history denier; accept Christ.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 _"Respectfully, evolution has never been confirmed. "_ It may seem that way if you don't want to do the research with an open mind. _"Darwin himself said the only way it can be verified is if the generational connection/transition can be observed. It never has."_ I don't think he did... but even if he did... it's irrelevant. _". The bacteria and finches that have been observed have only produced more bacteria and finches. This is not Darwinian evolution. "_ Actually it is. _"For reliable reproductive science look to the Bible."_ That's one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen. The bible has little to say about reproductive science... the bible tells stories of a family populating the world on their own...twice... _" A fossil can only tell us what creature it was itself, not what it was on the way to becoming."_ If you say that.. then you don't understand the relevance of the fossils and the traits they show. _"We never assume the code spontaneously arose from random processes"_ The is an equivocation fallacy. You're talking about different things but using the same word. The code used in programming is quite different to dna. The same word is used to describe them but that doesn't necessarily imply a creator. _" But no scientist has observed millions of years."_ Another ridiculous statement. We can determine many things about the past without having had lived through it. _"o we see everything we’ve been sold about evolution is baseless conjecture. T"_ Nope it's science backed by mountains of evidence. Religious people deny it just as they denied that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. You don't want to know about the evidence so you just claim it isn't there.
Mark H You say we should do research on evolution with an open mind? Whoa, an open mind is what we need to believe in things we cannot see. It seems you may be admitting evolution is not confirmed. We shouldn’t need an open mind if Darwinism is observable, testable, and repeatable. The fact remains, it isn’t. You said that what Darwin said about observing the transition is irrelevant, but you didn’t explain why. Simply stating that something is irrelevant doesn’t make is so. What Darwin said is VERY relevant because he is the father of Darwinism. When you name a whole ideology after someone it’s because they have said something relevant to the matter. Don’t cherry-pick; what Darwin said is significant. Refute his statement if it is false. If you don’t think we need to see the transition/generational connection then maybe you are not looking at evolution with an unbiased lense. That’s not how science is supposed to work. You say bacteria producing more bacteria is Darwinian evolution. Not so my friend. We’ll leave it there. Regarding reproductive science, the Bible is verified every time a bacteria produces more bacteria and at the same time Darwinism fails every time a bacteria doesn’t produce a non-bacteria. Stick with observable science my friend; stick with the Bible. Saying a person doesn’t understand the relevancy of fossils and traits they show doesn’t suddenly change the fact of what a fossil is. A fossil is just the remains of a plant or animal that once was alive. To assume that it gave rise to something that was not the same kind of creature it was is not logical unless we can find every one of its offspring and observe the transition. You said my statement regarding DNA and codes is an equivocation fallacy, but you failed to point out a code we know of that we are certain popped up spontaneously from random processes. You are correct tho, the code in programming is quite different from dna; DNA is exponentially more complex. This is even more evidence of highly intelligent design. Don’t be an intelligence denier; accept Christ. Regarding “millions of years.” You said we can determine many things about the past without having lived through it. I agree, but we can also come up with wrong assumptions about the past BECAUSE we did not live through it. Repeating the phrase, “mountains of evidence,” won’t make a mountain of evidence appear. Darwinism is patently unobservable, untestable, and unrepeatable. For as long as it’s allegedly been going on it shouldn’t be hard to observe. It should be fairly regular to see something that’s not quite an ape and not quite a man emerging from the jungle building huts. But we NEVER observe this happening. To a logical mind this is clear evidence that it probably never does. The only way Darwinism survives is through propaganda. Evolution is pseudoscience.
@@refuse2bdcvd324 _"Whoa, an open mind is what we need to believe in things we cannot see. It seems you may be admitting evolution is not confirmed. "_ That's an illogical statement that gives an indication of how poor your reasoning skills are. _"We shouldn’t need an open mind if Darwinism is observable, testable, and repeatable."_ It's been observed... the predictions can be tested...repeatable experiments are run based on evolutionary principles.... _"You said that what Darwin said about observing the transition is irrelevant, but you didn’t explain why. "_ 1. You've yet to show that he actually said that. 2. What matters is evidence.....not what Darwin said. Evidence confirms evolution. _"What Darwin said is VERY relevant because he is the father of Darwinism."_ That's not how science works. If Darwin said something wrong (for arguments sake) it doesn't change the evidence supporting evolution. This is again another indication of how poor your reasoning is....and your understanding of science. _"You say bacteria producing more bacteria is Darwinian evolution"_ The evolution of bacteria has been studied and only confirms evolution is correct. _"the Bible is verified every time a bacteria produces more bacteria and at the same time Darwinism fails every time a bacteria doesn’t produce a non-bacteria. "_ Oh god you don't understand basics. Reproduction is part of evolution.... bacteria has evolved.... when an animal reproduces it neither refutes evolution nor confirms the bible.. _"Stick with observable science my friend;"_ Something you don't do. Lets look at the evolution of bacteria. news.mit.edu/2019/determine-bacteria-evolution-age-0208 www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140630103140.htm www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191023075137.htm You have no idea about science. _"show doesn’t suddenly change the fact of what a fossil is"_ Oh god you're still not getting it. _"To assume that it gave rise to something that was not the same kind of creature"_ You're confused. No such assumption is made...however the fossil record does show changes over time.... that's the point.... you're talking about a single fossil. _"but you failed to point out a code we know of that we are certain popped up spontaneously from random processes. "_ You got called on your fallacy and you keep trying it lol.... You're using 'code' in different ways.. it's an abstract term we use for a configuration we see in nature... you''re trying to use it for that and simultaneously for something that programmers do.. _" This is even more evidence of highly intelligent design"_ You've presented no evidence for intelligent design....nature can be complex....that's a fact....complexity doesn't require a magical man in the sky...the argument is a non sequiter... _" agree, but we can also come up with wrong assumptions about the past BECAUSE we did not live through it."_ If we are looking at evidence and repeatedly validating that evidence with various techniques then we are not making assumptions..... Your argument fails. _"won’t make a mountain of evidence appear."_ I can continually provide links.... There are 3 in this post so far...I don't know what limit there is before the post is blocked. _"Darwinism is patently unobservable, untestable, and unrepeatable. "_ You're completely wrong and utterly ignorant. _"For as long as it’s allegedly been going on it shouldn’t be hard to observe."_ Wrong again. The time frames involved can make it challenging to observe...but we have observed it. All the evidence confirms it is correct. _"It should be fairly regular to see something that’s not quite an ape and not quite a man emerging from the jungle building huts. "_ Wrong. The changes are so minor that you would be unlikely to see it or notice it... You seem to know nothing about this topic at all. Imagine someone declaring that chemistry is false ...and then they go on to show that they don't know one thing about chemistry....that's how you look to others... _"The only way Darwinism survives is through propaganda"_ Hah no. It survives through evidence...research.... repeated testing....it's the backbone of biology and plays important roles in many sciences from paleontology to medicine. What you're trying to do (and failing) is propaganda.
I am curious why he didn't address the point of Dr. deGrasse's argument. If God is "all good and all-powerful, why are there hurricanes, disease, etc....?" The lack of a direct response only strengthens Dr. deGrasse's case. BTW, I am a believer and understand the concept faith. If your goal was to refute Dr. deGrasse's case, you may have pushed those on the fence about belief in God, non-believers, and possibly believers further away.
@Thomas Jefferson well first we would need to establish what you have seen and heard is supernatural at all. Your subjective mind does not equate to objective reality. :) good luck.
God gave his perfect creation the opportunity to *CHOOSE* their own destiny. Walk with him, or walk by themselves. Obviously choosing to walk by ourselves was a bad idea, because here we are...
Yes it is. If he said "I am unaware of any evidence" or "I don't know any evidence" then that's a different story. He's making a positive claim saying that there is no evidence for God and therefore needs to demonstrate this lack of evidence, particularly in the light of the fact that people do claim that there is evidence.
@@quizmaster247 "Evidence does not exist" is not a positive claim, it's a negative one and thus unfalsifiable. Both Neil's statement "There's no evidence" and Cameron's "There's no evidence there's no evidence" are invalid because they are unfalsifiable assertins.
@@STGFilmmakers I don't think Jesus ever asked for money. But he did get his disciples to steal an ass and/or a colt. Or maybe, he stole it himself, depending on which Gospel you read. (Matthew 21:2. Mark 11:2 Luke 19:30 John 12:14)
Dependent things is an assertion not evidence and really says "I don't know how this works so it must be Jesus". It also ignores where god comes from. "oh but goes doesn't need a creator" is another assertion not evidence.
@Gabe Norman Panikos is correct. It's a baseless assertion not supported by evidence and not demonstrated, as well as an argument from ignorance and special pleading.
Why is it that every time a Christian says they can prove a very personal, intimate claim - that God was a man who walked Earth and now cares deeply about your behavioral choices - they attempt to do so with incredibly impersonal, broad claims about the universe? What do the particulars of an event that may or may not have happened 13.8 billion years ago have to do with an Israeli Jewish man who disapproves when I masturbate?
Tyson also expressed the evidential problem of evil, I think he sort of switched between the two during his comment. When he started talking, he said "the more I look, the less convinced I am that there is something benevolent going on" meaning that his credulity was proportional to his observation. He did not cease to believe as soon as he saw his first example of natural misery, according to the phrasing of his first thought.
"He did not cease to believe as soon as he saw his first example of natural misery, according to the phrasing of his first thought." That might depend on the amount of initial belief. If he started with zero initial belief, then you can say he ceased to believe prior to any experience.
"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today-and even professional scientists-seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is-in my opinion-the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." - Albert Einstein
Gabe Norman translation I want to believe these claims, I’ll pretend it’s true using #faith (the most unreliable epistemology known bar none). For the record I’ve “watched” the 3 hour video although there’s not video content. It’s a 3 hour audio. It just stacks up more claims upon prior claims. Makes me wonder if you even listened to it? If so what part did you fine most compelling and why?
Jesse Selbert the verses you quoted are from he Old Testament. And your right in the Old Testament no one saw the face of God. No one has seen the father but in the New Testament. Jesus is God therefor the disciples saw the face of God
@@JesseSelbert Matter of fact all those verses you quote in the Old Testament are actually the pre incarnate Christ. crossexamined.org/who-is-the-angel-of-the-lord/ And the term God is general not specific.
When Tyson says that no one has seen God, he means that no one has seen God and can verify the sighting. As an astronomer using that same logic, he might have said, "No one has seen a Martian" when asked why he doubts that there is intelligent life on Mars.
His thoughts did nothing to convince me and Neil deGrasse Tyson made sense to me and I'm now able to accept what I knew was the truth since childhood and so I remain a nonbeliever.
What it is is that people don't want to think they are unloved or a mistake.. That's why you hear words like "inerrant" when some people are talking about the Bible. All the man said was that you "choose" to have faith because you can't prove it scientifically. When the fundie crowd starts talking in circles to prove their beliefs, it discredits them. All you have to say is "This is what we believe."
„A good God woud want us to know right and wrong“ - 13:07 In your Story God didn’t want men to know right and wrong. The Process of men gaining that information you call “the Fall”... „but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Genesis 2:17 NIV „When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.“ Genesis 3:6 NIV „And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Genesis 3:22 NIV Gaining Information gets equated to becoming like one of the Gods wich in turn is a bad thing 🙄
? If there is no God and I cannot use the creation as my proof, then what would we have to discover to 100% believe that there was never a beginning. To Deny creation and a creator means there was is no begining neither shall there be an end. If there is a beginning, what has to be shown naturally in the universe to prove a beginning.
You don't have to be an expert in religion to know Dr Tyson is right. If indeed there was an all benevolent god then the world would be totally different.
He should’ve known that God doesn’t owe no one anything to people especially sinners and that we live in a fallen world because of these sinners. What he’s really doing is causing trouble then blaming God for not being with him even though him not trying to be with him.
Dustin Ellerbe indoctrination would mostly equal illogical and wrong uneducated beliefs towards something. Peters comment was wrong, illogical and uneducated. The burden of proof relies on him.
“All things are dependent there for there must be a necessary thing that created everything.... oh also that thing is god and depends on nothing” Can you not see the problem in your reasoning?
While I'll admit he did not express it well, the point being made is that for material things which have a necessary cause to exist they must have a cause, the only way to avoid the absurdity of an infinite regress of causations is to extrapolate that their must be some kind of uncaused cause or unmoved mover. This of course won't necessarily get you to A God, little lone the Christian God immediately until you start making rational extrapolations about the nature of said unmoved mover, but no philosopher worth their salt has ever come away from that further excursive without extrapolating some form of God. To start with we can already extrapolate a handful of traits for this entity; 1. That it is Eternal, I.E. no beginning or end, or else we are forced to assume it has a cause. 2. That it is at least older than the universe which has a cause, and this must at least be able to exist outside of what we know of as the natural world, or all of time and space as we know it. 3. That it possesses some kind of agency, as without agency an eternal entity could not be the cause of anything. 4. That it is at least enormously powerful, as it at very least brought our universe into existence. Of course this is just the tip of this preverbal ice berg, I suggest you look into it, and it's pre-Christian origins. If only for the intellectual stimulation, besides is it not better to know your intellectual opponents arguments so as to be better able to dispute them? Of course I won't lie to you that I am on the other side of the fence, a believer, but I have done plenty of such leg work on both sides and feel only more intellectually enriched for both. Well I suppose Dawkins work on the topic made me feel as if I was loosing brain cells, but I found Sam Harris quite thought provoking.
Patrick Buckley the only honest position to hold is “I don’t know”. You don’t get to assert that there was an “it” and then attribute traits to it. Do you realize what you did there? You’ve said that an infinite regress is too ridiculous for you to accept... assertion.... assertion.... therefore god. Most scientific models show that time did not exist until the Big Bang. Creation is a temporal act, it requires a time that a thing didn’t exist, a decision to create it, then the act of creating it.
Patrick Buckley if this god is timeless and spaceless as you claim. Let me ask you this, if I said that I have an Apple that exists no place and never did, would you say that Apple exists or does not?
@@MrMattjohn87 I apologize for assuming that you'd automatically agree that an infinite regress was a logical absurdity, that was ignorant of me, so I will try to explain. The reason that an infinite regress of causation is not a reasonable model for existance, is beceause we understand that in order for something to cause something we know that thing requires potential, we know nothing in the physical universe possesses any kind of potential on it's own accord, all potential comes from somewhere. So it stands to reason that somewhere along the line of any series of events is a point from which all the potential expressed in the series originates. Even if I where to accept the proposition that their is an infinite regress of causes and causeations than that does not explain the infinite amount of potential flowing through this unending series of events. Ultimately leading us to the conclusion that their must be an origin either at the beginning of the chain, or somehow channeling potential into the chain. We MUST logically extrapolate that this entity possesses the traits necessary to fulfill this purpose, if we do not do so it is nothing more than another link in the chain, and cannot rationally explain anything. Time as we know it did begin at the advent of the physical universe we know this, but we also know that time is not some mysterious force that pushes things forward and leaves all else in the past. Time is a dimension, just like the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd that make up what we know as space. It is a location on an axis that we only perceive as a set of events happening in order, whene in reality all things are happening at once. As such it doesn't necessarily follow that an entity should have to exist within the confines of time in order to possess the potential for causality. As what we perceive as time is just another locartion on a map, and yet we can see how each place on that map effects others. We need only extrapolate the features necessary for this unmoved mover to exist with logic, I.E. the ability to cause things to happen, and all of the criteria required for this entity to reasonably possess this trait. Whene I say thet the Prime Mover is Timeless and Spaceless I do not mean it exists nowhere and at no time, but rather that it does not require time or space to exist It is Eternal and thus has no end or beginning, and infinite possessing no start or end point on any conceivable x, y, or z axis.
Patrick Buckley ok my apple does not require time or space to exist, it is eternal with no beginning and no end. Does my Apple exist? So to you eternal regress is ridiculous so you instead posit an eternal self sustaining thing with consciousness that created it all. You already understand space and time have dimensions that are not linear, why could the universe not simply loop back on itself or some other scientific explanation? Look you don’t know and neither do I, just because that is uncomfortable doesn’t mean we get to throw god in that gap. I don’t think you want to put god in the gaps of our knowledge because when we do find an answer you’ll have to find some other crack to shove your god into.
frank sanders I'm sorry that you reject the whole because of an argument that you deem to have been defeated. I too don't quite get the fine tuning argument but William Lane Craig has put together a pretty exhaustive list that has yet to be confronted successfully. The video as a whole seems pretty conclusive and convincing. I suggest that you rewatch it with and open heart and mind.
@@SuperHeliboy I don't recall exactly what he lead with before fine tuning...but I do remember it was nonsense. For him to trot out fine tuning at that point was too much for me. Especially since it implied he was going to trot out the "old standbys". As to WLC; he should have retired after Sean Carroll humiliated him.
I don't consider something coming from nothing as vague. Nor any of the other rationale that he presents. The fine tuning aspect is presented much clearer in other presentations and just because I don't think it is very strong don't mean that it is weak. Perhaps I don't understand it very well. Dr. Tyson's points were addressed throughly in this video and his position is immature and very weak.
Well as an atheist I would like to engage in this conversation. I WILL be respectful and WONT dismiss your aguements because I disagree. So I wont claim your agruements are silly ect.. I will begin with a rebuttal then pose my own questions. These are your points in regards to evidence of God's existence: 1) Everything has a source and nothing just pops into existence. Answer: To my knowledge atheist are saying the same thing. There are absolutely NO atheists saying existence just popped up out of nowhere. Actually that is what Christians claimed happened. Christians claim God spoke and bam, there it was. Where we differ is that atheist say we don't what that source is, BUT we are currently trying to find the answer. The fact that everything has a source is only proves that people should doubt God's existence, which leads to my first question. Question 1) How did God come into existence? If we are comfortable enough to say we don't or can't know where God came from, then we can be comfortble to say that we don't know where existence comes from, and we may never know, but we ARE trying to find out and the theist is not. The best you can say is currently NOBODY knows, even with all of our technology. That however DOES NOT mean that God is the only answer, nor the most likely. Your arguement only says if God exists then he hasn't always existed. 2) The universe is fine tuned for live. The likelihood of us being here is so low that the only logical conclusion is there was an intelligent being that created it. Answer: The universe itself is not ideal for life, and our own solar system only has ONE planet capable of intelligent life. In fact the fact that if even the smallest thing in the fundamental laws of the univerese were changed we would not be here only counts against intelligent design. We presumably would be far less intelligent then God, yet we design a building we make sure that it wouldn't just fall apart if one small thing went wrong. Your aguement infers that God is either not intelligent or god is not perfect. Less so then his own creation. So now my second question. Question 2) If God is perfect how is it even possible that we, who are imperfect, can so clearly see all the ways the universe could have fallen apart? God's work should be so perfect that we could not even imagine a flaw. Especially with a brain far less capable. 3) Mankind has an inbuilt understanding of good and evil. That innate moral compass should not be if we are but mere products of natural evolution. Answer 3: I can't think of one universal moral that EVERY human has or agrees with. Certainly it is not seen in history. You mentioned that torturing a child for example is viewed as morally evil universally. However Im sure you also agree that female circumcision happens to this day, as does males circumcision without anesthesia. That seems like an act of toture to me. Many civilizations throughout history also practiced infantcide and human sacrifice. Currently most people would say torturing a terrorist is perfectly acceptable if we can get information out of them. There many many people who likewise believe holding prisoners in solitary confinement is perfectly justified. All of it seems like torture to me. Many cultures even today allow for rape of women with no legal consequence for the perpetrator. However those cultures and people also believe they have or had a perfectly benevolent reson to do or allow such things. If we had an innate knowledge and understanding of good and evil we would be universally repulsed. So for my third question. Question 3: The book of Isiah Chapter 45:7 says "I form light and darkness. I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do these things". On what grounds can you say that God himself is benevolent when according to the bible God himself said he creates evil? It would seem that God is not all-loving if I were to take the bible literally. Your second arguement about faith is actually right. As an avid studier of language and how words evolve over time I can say that indeed the meaning of words are highly subjective. So I have no qualms with anyone saying I too rely on faith as an athiest or that I put "faith" in my atheism. So I'm not gonna knock anyone for using faith in their beliefs, but I do ask that the religious question their beliefs. And of atheists should do the same.
@@JazzyArtKL *FIVE undeniable facts* Abiogenesis is totally impossible ! Life is far to complicated to be formed by accident ! even if it did form "accidentally" what would it eat with no other bio-matter, how would it know it needed to eat, how would it have the ability to select, gather and eat ! How would the *FIRST LIFE EVER*, know how to reproduce its self ! it would be the first life form ever ! How would it have developed those properties ! Please don't wast my time with that franken-life altering existing life, and calling it new life ! Or that dead stuff experiment, forming lifeless amino acids ! *your theory can't even get to evolution ! *continued !*
I study philosophy and there actually is a rule: the one who claims, has the burden of proof. The entire scientific field is all about testing your hypothesis. Even worse, according to Newton’s flammable laser sword: an untestable hypothesis is no hypothesis at all. This is a widely agreed and most sensical rule. Otherwise you would have to proof every single stupid claim there is out there, which would be impossible. You have a claim (i.e. there are gods)? Fine, go and proof it and then come back once you think you’re done.
@@shakespearsplat I agree with you on claims requiring a burden of proof and all, I already knew that. Also I'm an atheist, so I'm not claiming there's a God if that's what you thought.
@@0shaade0 Athiests dont claim their is no god. The Atheist's position is that their is no proof of the existence of any god. The burden of proof is on the thiest.
In the last 300 year or so, we have seen advances in medicine, technology, engineering, behavioral and social sciences -even in the humanities- that save lives, make life easier, facilitate communications, calculate the age of the Earth, and so on. This makes me wonder, what advances have theology and religious philosophy made about God and what benefits have we received from that new knowledge?
A very, very good question - but by their very nature, for religions, new advances will often be automatically labelled heresies and divergences, from within them, I suspect, @cristobal garza . It's a major, built in, likely impairment.
Great video Cameron, here’s a suggestion for next time in your description box: Although it would be a little bit more effort for you, it would be nice to have a - tiny description for the link - and provide a video timecode so people can refer back into the video
1. We don't know where life originated from 1a. You assert that your God answers this without evidence 2. We don't know where objective morality came from 2a. You assert that your God answers this without evidence The actual answer to those questions is that we just don't know. There is no science vs. theism. There are people who are looking for answers, and those that claim they have the answer.
I watched the video it's gibberish, the evidence of dependence also means design which is an ontological argument which is clearly proves nothing, and the fine-tuning is not a proof for theism.
@Angus McMillan He never claimed that it's pear-shaped lol. He made a rather humorous/silly comparison between the two since the earth is slightly wider at the equator than elsewhere.
I would like to give some constructive criticism on this video. I think you raise some good points and I enjoy listening to your perspective. As an agnostic atheist though, I do have to disagree with the fundamental arguments in the video. I think that theist, agnostics, and atheist all need to criticize each others ideas politely to encourage a better understanding on each others side. Maybe one day science will give us a definitive answer on if god is real or not but as an agnostic I do not think this has been done yet. To get closer to a point where we all agree on an answer, I would like to give me feedback on this video so politely here is everything that I think is wrong about this video: 1). 4:05- Although Neil DeGrasse Tyson makes a statement which technically is false according to biblical scripture, your claim that "Christians have never thought about god as like a bearded man floating around in the clouds" is not entirely true. I cannot speak for you or other Christians, but I would like to raise 2 points regarding this claim. My first point is that humans have the tendency to imagine God as a Devine version of ourselves. God is described as Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent by the three Abrahamic religions. Scripture describes God as something so unhuman that it is unfathomable. Humans express a curiosity to understand everything around them and one of the hardest things to understand is what the nature of God is if God exist. The easiest way for us to imagine God and relate to it is to make God a sort of all good version of ourselves that has human emotions and human like qualities. It makes since why we do this it is part of human nature to try to simplify things we cannot understand. Reza Aslan has a Bachelors in religious studies, a Masters (from Harvard) in Theology and a PHD in sociology and he has spent the majority of his career studying religion so to say he is educated on religion is an understatement. Perhaps he fits your idea of someone qualified to speak on religion better than scientist. He actually did a video on the human tendency to make God into a divine version of ourselves that I encourage everyone to look into. He explained how he believes that Christianity is so successful because it makes God easiest to relate to by making Jesus Christ, a literal human, a Divine character who is either the son of or is part of God. He also goes into detail about a study conducted where people were asked to describe God. The study showed that the more people describe God the more it sounds like God is a super powerful human. Reza himself is actually a Theist who believes in God, but he is so educated on religion that his definition of God and thoughts on the afterlife are so different from other peoples because he has eliminated his tendency to divinize a human some may say he is an Atheist. My point in discussing this was to show that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not entirely wrong about how people think of God, given many people call God he even though God is not a gendered animal, and one of the people most qualified to speak about religion agrees that almost everyone across all religions think of God similar to Dr. Tysons description. The second point I will make on how Christians think of God is much shorter. You may have a rebuttal and say that I misunderstood the context but nonetheless, the bible actually contradicts itself on if anyone has seen God saying in In Genesis 32:30, Jacob said, “…I have seen God face to face". This also goes to prove my first point that we have the tendency to humanize God because it does not seems logical that something Omnipresent without human like emotion would have a face. So Criticizing Dr. Tyson by playing semantics on what one quote from the bible says about the nature of God may be a bit unfitting because he was more referring to how most people think of God and there is actually scripture to back what he is saying.
@@larrylar7687 whether or not you’re agnostic is based on knowledge. Whether or not your theist is based on faith. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn’t have the knowledge to know for sure if there is a god or not, but is almost certain there isn’t
Waiting for science to prove God because you do not have enough faith to believe in God, you will have a long wait. The faith required to believe that there is no intelligent design is much greater. Science has not proven the big bang or evolution either, yet you are sure it's not God.
and this is in response to your second argument: You do realize that we are the only inhabited planet in a very large area, this doesn't mean "god' is fine tuning everything for us to exist, it just means that there are bound to be perfect conditions somewhere and that's where we are
exactly. There are trillions upon trillions of planets out there in the Universe. And only one planet we know of has life. So, how is the universe fine tuned for life? The OP does not know what he is speaking of.
4:45 "There is no rule in philosophy, or anything, that says only theists are responsible for defending the things that they claim." Yes there is (though it's not specific to theist's) It is usually referred to as the null hypothesis. The one who makes the positive claim bears the burden of proof. "God exists" is a positive claim so you are the one who has to prove it. "God does not exist" is a negative claim. Also nothing can be proven by philosophy alone.
"There is evidence for God's existence" is a positive claim in the _exact_ same way that "There is no evidence for God's existence" is a positive claim. The agents making such statements both incur a burden of proof. And yes, things can be proven using philosophy alone. I can prove that there are no married bachelors among other metaphysical truths. I don't need science to tell me that.
@@ethanm.2411 "There's no evidence for God" is Tyson's shorthand for "I have not come across evidence, though I am highly well-read, have done much observation and considered the arguments of others." This requires a measure of charitable interpretation on your part, the kind that should be obvious to everyone in the room. If I looked for my keys for an hour and said that there's no sign of them, you would be silly to require proof. If you claim that there ARE signs for the whereabouts of the keys, the burden of proof is on you.
try explaining your NDE... or a mystical experience... if wise you will have little to say. What i don't get is why it is necessary to explain... or to tell others how to be/think/worship/pray etc... Why not just abide in the mystery/wonder? That might motivate one to turn to a god beyond understanding... The overarching GOD beyond the religions.. Isn't the beauty of the mystery (of the great unknown/unknowable ENOUGH?
@@justindavid9979 not gonna understand god from all the books about god. God is not a concept but the whole of all realities/levels of which we are all a part. Don't even try to think about it!
@@ethanm.2411 Sorry about the very late reply. I guess god didn't want Google to notify me. Yes, "There is no evidence for god" is a positive claim. So it's good thing I didn't say that, I said "there is no god" is a negative claim and you know what you can do with metaphysics..
"Fine tuning" Again....we don't know how many universes there are. We don't know what percentage have life. We don't know what percentage have some other phenomena that we don't experience. The universe isn't fine tuned for life. It's fine tuned for death. And life is fine tuned for its surroundings. If you have a book with 100 quadrillion quadrillion pages and you happen to open it at page 239, what were your chances of opening it at page 239? 1/100000000000000000000 ? What are the chances of opening it at *any* page? 1/1
@Lizica Dumitru The problem is that you are saying that any possible answer to an unknown questions is an answer that should be believed as true. So taking that approach to its limit, if there is a murder in New York, and you are in New York at the time of the murder, then you should be arrested and charged with murder.
The problem of evil isn’t the definitive statement of all philosophers. It’s a problem that is meant to be thought through philosophically and theologically, and engaged with.
The argument from evil is just an appeal to incredulity fallacy. It takes the basic structure: *I can't imagine/understand why evil exists if God exists, therefore it must not be true* It's a textbook appeal to incredulity fallacy that could be right out of a Logic 101 textbook, so it's kind of shocking people even talk about it. Logical fallacies are just invalid arguments. They're inadmissible on their face in intellectual forum.
Of course people are going to listen to scientists, they have been trained to critically assess the evidence, design experiments to test their ideas and look for the flaws in those ideas. They are therefore very good at weeding out the truth from the myths and general woo-woo.
Scientist are trained to weed out facts ONLY on things they can test scientifically, right? You literally cannot disprove the existence or non-existence of God scientifically. Most know this, but they get asked these questions by people who don't seem to get this point because their answers make headlines. Dr. Tyson basically admitted that he formed he OPINION on his (untestable) observations and drew hiss conclusions, not from empirical tests he ran but merely from his personal assessments. Professor John Lennox calls this scientism not science where scientist are believed because of who they are even when commenting on matters in which they are not versed. All Dr. Tyson has to say is I don't know I have not and quite frankly cannot test anything to say either way, which means he is in fact speaking what he ultimately BELIEVES not what he has scientifically tested!
Here is an ironic quote.
"A common mistake...is to know enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong."
- Neil deGrasse Tyson
It cuts both ways
dunning kreuger I think
@@ramigilneas9274 Are you saying this as an atheist? Cuz it would be really dumb if that were the case. You genuinely think you're smarter than Cam and aren't even willing to debate him lol
@@ramigilneas9274 "Cope" is only a response you would give if you didn't have any argumentation that supported your position, otherwise you would elaborate on the specific arguments you object to. If you have any actual arguments then please elaborate on your sentiment.
@@ramigilneas9274 I didn't present arguments because I didn't need to. You said "Perfectly describes Cameron.😂", I asked why, and now you're mad because I didn't present any arguments for what YOU are claiming. Get it right.
"He did not give any evidence that there's no evidence."
LOL! I'm done.
Agreed! 🤣🤣🤣
just this sentence make the whole video moot. Shifting the burden.
The end. No matter what you would say can't make any sense if you cant logically understand that.
He’s saying you can’t make a truth statement that “there is no evidence for God” without bringing some sort of argument or evidence that the statement is true. And also he wasn’t saying just because he didn’t give evidence for no God then there must be a God. You didn’t watch the whole video- do I need to give evidence of this statement?
@@chancedarley3065 If something doesn't exist, how do you show evidence it doesn't exist?
If there is no evidence, you can not show evidence of the no evidence. Only a lack thereof.
bosco008 that’s my point! “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” The burden of proof is on Tyson. It’s clear he hasn’t searched for the evidence of God. Once you search for him whole heartedly, you will find Him and all the evidence that points to Him.
Jeremiah 29:13 “you will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart”
Jeremiah 33:3 “call to me and I will answer you, and will tell you great and hidden things you have not known”
Mathew 7:7 “ ask, and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you”
Just because people think “if only I could see God or see Jesus then I would believe” even the Pharisees who lived during Jesus’ time had him crucified and missed God!
Neil Degrass Tyson in an ad before this video: “The struggle is knowing enough about a subject to think you’re right, but not knowing enough to know you’re wrong.” 🤣
*The "struggle," Mr. Tyson, is considering yourself to know more than YHWH.*
Hahaha ironic
I saw that also 😂😂
The irony 😂😂😂
@@Christine.Colbert he never said that.
I honestly just watch these for the comments
Same lol
Lol
Lmao same my man thinks he going heaven nah fam you going the Astral Plane when you die, Christians base they whole belief on a book, Be (LIE) f.
@@m.o.z7465 ok bud
Are you satisfied?
You’ll never guess who was in the ad before this video
😂 Neil DeGresse Tyson?
Yea, for me too!!
He said we are wrong... I don't believe him
Oh yeah, the ads with ma boi Neil
WIX?
“You’re wrong about God” ... says every person of differing religion, since the beginning of religion
@Angus McMillan Ehhhh,.... tha Big Bang happened, we have demonstrated it, with even predictions that turned out to be true. The problem is not whether the BB happened or not, it's what 'caused' it. The problem here is that theists claim to know the answer, when it'll most likely remain unknown forever.
*"but about whether creation happened by chance or by an intelligent designer"* That's a false dichotomy. Maybe the universe was brought about by a timeless cosmic chicken, no different to an earthly chicken, except that it can pop universe into existence, each with slightly different physical properties. Eventually it turned out to be our turn.
Assuming so many things about whatever caused the universe to exist, is being dishonest. There is literally an infinitude of possible causes. Maybe it was a being with as much intellect as a protocell, maybe it is apathetic, maybe it ceased to exist when the universe appeared, maybe it wasn't omnipotent, maybe there are millions of these beings..... The possibilities are endless, and nobody will ever know for sure.
@Angus McMillan OK what Created the Universe? Maybe a God Did create the Universe. but how do you know that Your interpretation of God is correct one. Your ideas about God are no better than any other Humans
@Angus McMillan Actually every religious person has a different god, christians alone have something like 10 thousand derivations from catholicism and they dont accept each others religions.
@@leebennett4117 It comes down to a simple decision, God is or God ain't.
Either choice, you will leap one way or the other in your life.
Its got nothing to do with fully comprehending all the attributes of God, no one can fully know God.
What you're really saying is , because you cannot wrap your mind around God , He can't exist.
So its about control, you cannot tolerate a Power greater than your petty royal majesty of an ego.
@@leebennett4117 A person who has blind faith might not know much but there are those of us who have experienced God, our faith is experiential.
Whilst none may fully know the mind of God, His attributes are fairly well established.
So basically ignorance=evidence?
"I cant think of a better answer, so it must be god"
Sorry, but that is not in any way evidence.
Got anything better?
Anders Norrvik
Rather it’s is: the best explanation humanity can think of is God. Could what explains billion real phenomena best be unreal?
What explains creation,there must be a creator.
@@entrepreneurshipworld1 its very easy to simply say "its magic" everytime we observe something we cant understand, isnt it?
Instead of actually trying to figure it out.
Lightning was definately caused by gods, then we found out how it works.
Tides were caused by gods, storms were caused by gods, and so on...
But no, its easy to come up with explanations other than gods for everything we currently dont understand. Equally silly, sure, but also equally plausible.
Or I guess that depends on what your version of god is.
Anders Norrvik
The fact that you point at some primitive thinking and apply it to God in general is unfair and illogical.
Knowledge is acquired through many mistakes and even though you may be right in principle it doesn’t mean you are right in particular.
Say your granddad is called Abraham. I may see resemblance and say”this is your dad” it turns out your dad is Peter but this doesn’t change the fact that you come from Abraham further down the line .
Think about it, 300 years and science is pointing to God more than ever. They talk about the human genome as 20 billion love letter.
The deepest view of evolution talks about not merely survival of organisms but propagation of clusters of information - memes.
The more we dig the more the Creator becomes apparent not the other way round.
@@entrepreneurshipworld1 no, science does not point to god more than ever. Religious people always take new scientific discoveries and try to make it fit with their gods, but there is no kind of science that points to gods..
Well, that depends on you versio. Some say that that cosmos is god, some say that the sun is god.. those are real.
So before claiming a god is real, you need to specify what your god is.
We can sum the debate about God up like this:
"If the Bible was never written, would there be any evidence that God exists?"
If not, then God doesn't exist, if yes, then go find evidence that isn't based off of the Bible to prove it.
“1 Timothy 6:16 says that no one has seen or can see God.”
Genesis 32:30 - And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Genesis 12:7 - "The LORD appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.' So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him."
Exodus 33:11 - The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent.
Exodus 24:9 - Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.
“Dr Tyson’s assertion that there’s no evidence for God is just a little bit ironic since he didn’t give any evidence that there’s no evidence for God’s existence.”
This is called proving a negative. You’re the one making the claim, which means the burden of proof is on you, not us. If you make a claim of, “There is a chair in this room,” and someone disagrees, it’s on you to provide the evidence that there is indeed a chair in the room, not on us to provide evidence for the non-existence of it.
“There’s no rule in philosophy or in anything that says only theists are responsible for defending the things that they claim.”
Yes there is, it’s called the burden of proof. Atheists aren’t “claiming” anything, whereas theists are, thus it’s on you to provide the evidence and not us. There is no concrete evidence for any kind of god, let alone the Christian one, and not believing is not a claim. If you make the claim that there are invisible underwear gnomes, the burden of proof would be on you alone for asserting that something does exist, not the other person who refuses to believe that without any evidence.
“For example, the contingency argument…”
Are you talking about ua-cam.com/video/FPCzEP0oD7I/v-deo.html Because that’s not evidence, that’s logic. That would be like asserting that all marine creatures can breathe underwater, and then the evidence for or against that would be looking at the actual marine creatures. Of course, this particular argument and others like it inherently can’t have evidence because the claim is that God exists outside the universe, which makes them unfalsifiable, which is a logical fallacy. And even if this argument and others like it are true, that is only “evidence” that there is some kind of something that could be described as god-like. Even supposing I accepted this argument, please explain how you make the leap from “There is a god” to “…and we know exactly what this god is, what it wants from us, what we have to do in order to get into heaven (a place that may or may not actually exist because we have no evidence), and that we will suffer in hell if we break any of its specific rules.”
“Everything is dependent.”
Evidence? How do you know that? Comparing a mug and other man-made dependent things to the fabric of existence is ridiculous.
“All of reality exists independently.”
…evidence? You keep making claims about the entire universe with no actual proof. You can point to whatever logical argument you want about how “We can’t possibly imagine any other explanation, so instead of just admitting we don’t know yet, it must be God,” but that’s not proof. Our universe could be some kind of experiment created by a hyper-advanced alien civilization (i.e. it is dependent). You can’t keep making definitive claims without any actual evidence just because you lack imagination.
“The fact that our universe is life-permitting is remarkable.”
And most of that universe isn’t life-permitting. The only part we know of that is would be Earth, and even Earth is mostly not (human) life-permitting. Almost ¾ of the planet is water, which humans can’t live on/in. Earth is also covered in ridiculously hot deserts, freezing tundras, volcanoes, and other things that can kill us at any second. It’s almost as if we are able to adapt to different areas because that’s how we evolved, rather than it being made specifically for us.
“Life can’t exist in a universe where molecules don’t stick together” and other claims.
Again, you have no evidence for this. It would look completely different, but how do you know with 100% certainty that it can’t exist? We have no other universes to compare ours to, so all you're saying here is “I personally can’t possibly imagine a different type of universe, therefore it is impossible that such a universe exists.
"
“To put these numbers in perspective, getting the strength of gravity right by chance…”
Talking about chance requires repeated experiments. We only have the one universe that we can examine, so chance means nothing. It could be that before our universe came to exist (and thus, humans to observe things), there were billions and trillions of other universes that didn’t have life precisely because gravity wasn’t tuned right, and then finally our universe came to be. ua-cam.com/video/eJQ54wKlD2Q/v-deo.html (which is a response to one of your other videos, if you haven’t seen it already.)
There’s just a couple more things I want to say before stopping, because I’m only halfway through your video and I don’t want to end up writing an entire paper as a response.
1. You say that morality is objective, but again, with no evidence. You quote Darwin for support, but that’s support for subjective morality. We believe certain things are moral precisely because we’re human - if we were a different type of species similar to bees, we would have a bee-like morality. And you bring up torturing infants as objectively wrong, but what about things that maybe aren’t as obvious? The death penalty for criminals, abortion in the case of rape, and other things where many people disagree? And that’s just our culture. Some other cultures have completely different moral views altogether. Are you suggesting that all of these other cultures are actually aware that what they’re doing is wrong, they just don’t care? Because that would unfalsifiable. And when it comes to infant torture, I certainly hope everyone agrees that’s wrong, but just because the entire species subjectively agrees on something doesn’t make it objective.
2. Even if morality was objective and came from a god, it doesn’t come from Yahweh.
ua-cam.com/video/Pt66kbYmXXk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/Wc1Vt9S9v8Q/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/tz3EEqtcJME/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/z1zIwUiQ2Yk/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/2MFmC6BD1B4/v-deo.html
I could go on. And before you start saying, “But the context!”
ua-cam.com/video/PK7P7uZFf5o/v-deo.html
Thanks for your effort. I would not have the Patience to keep going through all of these poor arguments, which somehow lead exactly to the Christian god because there sure is some bible verse claiming that as well.
Excellent
adeadaxe Except for one glaring scientific truth…. Nothing goes from random (chaos) to order naturally or without an outside cause.
@@LarJgrip I can get on board that there's a "cause", but every "cause" we've investigated so far has had a natural explanation. I don't see any evidence to imply that the first "cause" was an intelligent being. And even if there was, why would that intelligent being not need a "cause" of its own? Where did it come from? Proposing God as a creator is only answering a mystery with a bigger mystery.
Kenneth Hilker So what then is the natural explanation for the universe going from chaotic to ordered? And secondly, no matter how you slice & dice it “something” has to exist without a cause in order to have anything. The problem is that the “something” would have to have a mind simply because of the existence of ordered information. Ordered information cannot appear randomly it needs a mind to create it.
Well you didn’t give any evidence that there’s no evidence that there’s no evidence...
Ik.
He mentioned contingency theory. Read some Napoleon Hill. The only beings that have the ability to create are creatures with intelligence, such as humans. Every action we take and every creation or invention ever started as an idea from something or someone with intelligence. By this logic, our reality itself and the world we live in must have been created by some form of higher intelligence. I’m not religious personally, but I’m not against religion for this reason. You might think you’ve outsmarted every worshipper in the world, but mankind has debated these topics since the beginning of time and we still have no clear answer. All I will say is that nihilism and atheism are not beneficial in terms of societal improvement and civilizations cannot survive with these as their main beliefs.
@@bodhidixon2939 Das deep
Thank you. That is exactly how stupid the original statement was. Your comment is evidence of no evidence of intelligence in the original statement.
@@bodhidixon2939 Your historical proposition is misinformed. Mankind is only still debating these topics because theists won't STFU about their magic sky fairies. We have a clear as day answer, and that is there is no evidence even to consider that anything outside of the material universe exists or could exist. Atheism and the scientific enlightenment are the foundations of every social improvement that has ever been produced or imagined by the human species. Even religious improvements occurred only when a non-God-centered approach was taken. In the atheist worldview, humans are simply one of many species on this planet, all the result of evolution, and therefore all equal by definition. Equality IS how civilizations survive.
"no Christian has ever thought of God as a bearded man in the sky".... So, why did Michelangelo depicted God as a bearded man? There are thousands of depictions of God as a old man all over Christian's arts and builds.
Well he clearly exaggerated. Of course there are people who have thought of God that way...they’re just wrong.
That was a tell of schizophrenia tendencies : fail to take an 'expression' for what it is: just an expression, The "bearded man" is just a well known expression for god. So why does this theist take it upon itself to waste time underligning that god is not an actual bearded man sitting in the sky? This felt so weird ans silly!
@Shameless Papist not sure you intended to reply to me - i'm the one who said it was a clear expression to point to a 'god' that anyone would understand and that going on about it is a distraction and a waste of time by the theist in the video (the bearded man in the sky expression)
@Shameless Papist you replied to the wrong guy
Omg thank you for this lmao, but the correct response will be "Michelangelo wasn't a true Christian"
I used to be a atheist, I got more proof of his existence, besides what is around us. I am never turning back.
God Bless you
thats sad bro hopefully you snap back to reality again one day
@@nolankeil1990 hopefully you can be saved one day. Our time on earth is so small. Tony has an eternity now. You can too.
Do you really believe that all of this is for no reason? Do you really believe that people like Hitler can just get away with what they do without justice?
Praise the lord!
@@davidwebster584 What does it take to be Saved?
"There is no evidence that there is no evidence of God". What a ridiculous statement!
Is this really all you can do to make money?
Can't sell plasma? Can't beg? Can't be a dishwasher?
Can't be a stay-at-home dad while your wife goes to work?
Really?
Isaiah 45:7
"I bring forth all that is good and all that is evil, I create al that is light and all that is dark. I Thy Lord God, do all these things."
There is evidence for this kind of God that we call "Random Chance" and following "freewill."
It also negates a lot of the New Testsament... like Satan.
If you make it your business, you'll never get out because it is how you survive.
You'll lie to yourself, your family, your friends, your parishoners, because you will have to if that is how you survive.
When, in that video clip you showed, did Tyson say anything about Christians?
You behave as a liar.
4:00 Regardless of the Old Testament--I do meet many Christians who almost completely disregard it for the New Testament--God has been featured in Christian art since at least 200ACE, many scholars think it went on earlier, with the most famous bearded Heavenly Father being on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel commissioned by the Pope.
You behave as a liar.
4:23 You say you already handled this argument from "another atheist".
Well... who's the firs atheist? Neil?
Neil deGrasse Tyson is NOT an atheist; he accepts the possibility of a God. He is "Agnostic", open but without religion.
You behave as a liar.
5:10 "I am being paid to advertise this book but please be sure to also make a donation.
"The photo I showed you of me and my family on the street should make you think we might be street people, barely getting-by.
"Ignore the quality studio space, it is 100% necessary for the delivery of God's message and the raising of my children, just listen to how clean the audio is.
"You can't expect me to just preach to the wind in tattered rags like Real Christian, expecting that if I am in need it will be given.
"This is the only work I am able to do to support my family... but I have definitely had sex and seem quite able-bodied.
"I am lying to you so that you will pay to raise my children for me; I will not and cannot.
"I really do not want to have to actually do work.
"This is the only way I can survive.
"My wife can't work! She's taking care of the kids.
"I can't work! I'm doing this to make money to raise my kids!
"Please believe me that other than this and making babies, I am useless to society."
You behave as a liar.
Theists lie
@@derekmizer6293 Everybody lies.
@@ZeroOskul theists lie all the time. Their beliefs is a lie
@@derekmizer6293 Your belief is a lie about their belief being a lie.
People believe things and they mean it that they believe it.
Evo: I have $5 in my pocket.
Crea: I don't believe you.
Evo: Here, look, I have a $5 bill. See I am now holding it in my hand.
Crea: No, I still don't believe you. I have $10 in my pocket though.
Evo: Prove it.
Crea: No, you need to prove that I don't have it.
Evo: Well, why don’t you just show me your $10 just like I showed you my $5?
Crea: No, you just need to prove that I don’t have it in my pocket.
Evo: Well for one, you don't have pockets.
Crea: That's just your belief.
And on and on it goes!!
My only critique is that you didn't make the Crea arguments stupid enough.
Accurate AF😂😂😂😂😂
Man this is the problem with religious people sadly
Its not a belief, its a hypothesis
@@aldrinmilespartosa1578 A hypothesis that is easily testable and demonstrably false.
I made it over 6 minutes into this when I came to the ineluctable conclusion that Skippy here is spewing nonsense.
Skippy 😭😭😭😂😂😂
Look at the links in his description. This fake Christian is selling his religion beautifully and spending his winnings on technology and hair gel.
@@TonyEnglandUK That he is a fake is beyond question, but I don't believe he is a fake christian. all things being equal, this is about as christian as christians get.
It took 6 minutes for you to make a rhetorical comment to claim he's wrong without saying why or giving any base.
@@JopingusBloggStudios Well, Scooter ... right at about 4:30 Skippy goes through the most ridiculous contortion of sophistry that would make the most limber yogi green with envy. To state that Neil failed to provide evidence that there is no evidence to disprove "god" is the single most insincere and dishonest attempt to dodge the requirement that whomever is making the positive assertion needs to provide the evidence. Neil says, though not as clearly as I would have personally liked, that if evidence for this entity's existence were found then he would acknowledge it. However, Skippy chose to obfuscate that distinction and gallop on to his talking point. It was at that moment that he demonstrated he wasn't going to be an honest participant in the debate.
I don't know why the world has determined that NDT is now an authority on everything. He's an incredibly amazing man but he also said Pluto isn't a planet. I'll never forgive him for that. 🙂
I can correct the statement “there is no evidence for god” very simply: “there is no demonstrable evidence for god.”
Gabe Norman would love to see some demonstrable evidence, if you have any
@@patpawlowski7635 Procreation is not an acceptance demonstration for creation, in your opinion?
AccountWasHacked procreation tells us nothing about god
Angus McMillan not sure how you know that, I’ve not aware of any evidence for a creator
@Angus McMillan Even if you could prove that you were not created by chance, it still doesn't show that you were created by a God as you understand him. Black and white fallacy.
You asked what we think, so I will say your videos have now become my new comedy.
This guy is a dolt
@@alfrancisvictorm.sapanta1628 thank you 😊, I think so too
@@gsnaponfire he uses a fairy tale for his life. And he Genuinely believes what he says.
@@alfrancisvictorm.sapanta1628 indeed he does. I used to as wells, just never bought into it as much as he has. I think he dug his heels in when his brother left Christianity.
@@alfrancisvictorm.sapanta1628 he says he’s not salty about it, but whenever he talks to his brother publicly the salt just pours out
Tyson: "This is why religions are called faith...You believe something in the absence of evidence"
Me: Where's Michael (IP) when you need him?
Ikr
Haha fr
He was listening to matt Dillahunty explain the difference between evidence for a theory and evidence in support of a theory. It was a good debate, you should check it out.
@@He.knows.nothing , how is it not the same thing?
@@hellavadeal it boils down to how well any particular evidence leads directly to a conclusion. Let's use a headache as an example.
Fact: my head hurts. This is evidence that I have a headache, nothing more. This evidence supports several different reasons that I could have a headache. For example, I could have a sinus infection, the flu, a cold, a migraine, a stress induced headache, I had too much caffeine, or it could be a side effect from medication. The fact that my head hurts supports any one of these, but it alone is not conclusive of any of them.
Now what theists tend to do, especially in these arguments for a creator, is that they take certain facts like the universe appears to be designed, or the universe has a cause, or consciousness is so complex it's almost unexplainable and they import the idea of a deity as a solution. But when you boil down the presuppositions in the argument, the complexity of the universe is only evidence that the universe is complex, just as my head hurting is only evidence for me having a headache.
My headache may in fact be caused by the flu, just as the cause of the universe may in fact be god, however neither of those evidences directly come to a conclusion.
The issue with theism is that generally, the arguments are intended to come to the conclusion of a being that exists essentially and necessarily outside of the realm of existence/spacetime continuum. This means that as far as we know, it is not possible to derive empirical evidence of the assertions and conclusions and so people must necessarily rely on ambiguous arguments extrapolating from things that we do not know the origins of to reach the conclusion.
Watch the debate between IP and Matt Dillahunty on good reasons for god. Dillahunty covers all of this way better than I could
I dont discredit all of these arguments, but to hear you say Dr. Tyson must prove there is no evidence is simply not true as you can not prove there is no evidence aside from highlighting the fact that there is no evidence.
How do you prove their is no evidence Anyway? If there's no evidence that is essentially "proof"
If you don't believe you can prove that there's no evidence then don't make the positive claim that there's no evidence then try to dodge the burden of proof.
Theist always Dodge the burden of proof. If you make an extraordinary claim isn't it common sense that the burden of proof lies upon such person. Especially when it comes to the Supernatural.God,Ghost,witches, Hauntings.. I would include Aliens but I think that has the highest level of probability.
@@Zuzuboy1218 The whole reason that we argue about the definition of Atheism is because ATHEISTS are the ones dodging the burden of proof. I don't think any serious Christian or theistic philosopher denies that we are making a positive claim and we do have a burden of proof. That is not something we deny but ironically it's the atheists that try to deny their own burden of proof. If atheism is making the claim God does not exist that is a positive claim with burden of proof attached to it. If you do not know if God exists or think it's impossible to prove God doesn't exist you should be an agnostic not an atheist.
So yes, you used a comment section full of atheists dodging the burden of proof to try to claim theists dodge it which I've literally never seen in my entire life. Better luck next time!
No evidence of god
UA-cam's recommendation🤦♂️🤦♂️
here I'm a hardcore fan of Neil DeGrasse Tyson and an Atheist😂😂
Surprisingly, it seems youtube wants you to at least see a little bit of the counter arguments.
I'm an atheist also lol. But I will always listen to the opposite party. Why only read half the book right?
@@adarkershadeofblack8 makes sense..... sometimes 😅
@@ktrishan3165 haha I understand where you're coming from for sure. I got a feeling if me and you met in person, we would agree on 80 to 90% of anything thing we would talk about (in regards to science vs religion). The remaining 10 to 20 percent is what I would love to talk about you know? Because I love to hear others opinion. Sorry I'm rambling. It's 3 a.m where I live right now and I've been watching science videos and DVDs since quarantine😂
@@stumgar the are no counter arguments. How? I mean how can you think there's an argument? I'm not even going to start. You clearly have bigger things to worry about. We dont even know what gravity is but yeah God is real..
Thank you for graciously showing that NDT, um, has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to religion. He legitimately seems to think that if you can't see God with a telescope, there is no evidence for God. Hopefully he sees this and is more modest and less wrong in the future.
David Jacobson We’ll see!
Giving Tyson the benifit of the doubt that he doesn't know vice assuming he is just dishonest. Being a scientist does not make your opinions facts. Speak to your field not things outside it. Also let's all be honest enough to realise everyone can do real science.
@@frankmoore7024 You just said "stick to your field" and "anyone can do science" in the same reply.
EVIDENCE!
I thought it ironic when he said that religions are called faiths because they are believed in the absence of evidences. He then follows that up with "otherwise they'd be called evidences." I couldn't help but think of Hebrews 11:1 which says what? ... "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Christianity actually sees faith as substantial and evidential because it is a way of seeing the world through God's eyes. I know Tyson is not a biblical scholar, but I did think it was ironic.
No one is “wrong about God”, it’s a personal human construct. No one can demonstrate God’s existence with empirical evidence. Therefore, it’s up to an individual to believe or not. Neil deGrasse Tyson was perfectly correct in every context on this subject matter.
Until he reveals himself to you
You demontrated the law of non contradiction from empirical evidence?
When you think that god exists because you can't find another answer to one question, that's your option. You can create a god for every unsolved mystery. The problem is when someone says: "God has spoken to me, and he has told me...." Or: This is the word of god and you have to obey it, because if you do(n´t)... Religion, there are thousands in human history.
What educated theist does that though? Unsolved mystery isn't a presume in, say, the contingency argument.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Every theist does this. The educated ones are careful to look for the 'gaps' in places that are still mysterious: 1: Details about the Big Bang 2. How life first formed on Earth.
Science can't yet describe these thoroughly, so it must have been Yahweh, the war God of the Israelites.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl if the apostle Paul heard your arguments and terms today, he would be confused.
@@justindavid9979
That's just blatantly untrue. Let's look at one argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.
The argument is stated in a deductive form. If the premises are true, the conclusion is logically necessary. Where has a "God of the gaps" argument been made?
@@Jimmy-iy9pl what is untrue? Nowhere do I suggest that the universe did not have a cause. I am convinced that it did! But having a cause doesn't mean a mono-deity God (Father-like figure who is perfect, has human-like qualities, and actively watches us) caused the universe, which is the assumption of Christians and Muslims.
Mr. Tyson didn't list himself as being one of the disasters on Earth.
So EVERYTHING exists dependently therefore something independent created it? So everything exists dependently besides god who gets the exception to the premise that you established. Special pleading fallacy
@Gabe Norman okay then I'm open to hear what they meant. I don't want any animosity just a discussion. From what I understand is that he laid out the premise that everything we experience exists dependently. He then goes to explain that we would need something to exist independently so it can create the dependent things. However this would contradict the premise that everything exists dependently and making a special plea to say that god doesn't exist dependently.
@Interceptor can you demonstrate there's anything other than the material world? When people say God exists outside of reality, that is the definition of something that is imaginary and nonexistent. Also they have established the most unfalsifiable proposition you can think of. I can literally say anything exists out of the material world (reality) and you would have no way of disproving it. It can be a tea kettle or the flying spaghetti monster
Edit: I kind of missed the point of my own argument in my reply lol. I'm not trying to say god wouldn't be able to break the rules or be a special exception. Its just fallacious to conclude that he exists by establishing a premise that everything exists dependently and then precede to make a special plea for that premise. It's called the special pleading fallacy and it makes the argument logically invalid. It doesn't make the conclusion untrue. It just makes it illogical to come to that conclusion using that argument. If you want to put the argument into a syllogistic form we could discuss the argument you are making or defending
@Interceptor ooh nice. My bad I expected you to be a theist so I framed my response as if you were defending his argument for Gods existence. But yeah I accept the possibility that there could be something outside of reality I just didn't actually expect you to come back with something backed scientifically. Because if someone was using the Kalam Cosmological argument but also accepted the Big Bang Theory, that would be problematic for thier stance. But yeah I'll check out that source and I didn't mean to sound facetious when asking if you can demonstrate for anything existing outside of material reality.
@Interceptor so I'm watching the video now and I'll finish it later but I want to comment on the whole materialism thing. You can make an airtight philosophical argument that we can't actually know that anything exists and we don't really exist. But the reason I accept materialism and empiricism because it's a useful model to navigate and observe things. When someone provides evidence for something it doesn't give me absolute knowledge and certainty of it's existence, it just gives me a reason to believe it. Materialism doesn't have to be the end all be all, and I don't really know what you think about it, but it's the best model we have so I wouldn't say it's dead. If it wasn't credible then we wouldn't have Quantum physics or any science for that matter
You can't wrap your mind around God, therefor God can't exist.
So says the Ego.
You can claim disbelief but your ego knows the truth. It implicates you.
Why do religious people always ask for money if they get all they need in life from a God?
This video is really good! Everyone should buy God, Freedom and Evil.
I like his argument, not sure why he ignores non-evidence from abiogenesis or evolution.
I dont know if I can afford all 3 of those things 🤔
Inserting Aaron Ra saying "bring it!" was genius.
You mean A-aron
Yeah i died when i heard "bring it"
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” ― Albert Einstein.
I don't understand a single thing you said. The fact thatt it takes you 29mins to make you point is kinda suspicious.
I did understand Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson though!!!!!
If it is impossible for God to create a world with no evil then why will he supposedly do exactly that in heaven?
man, astrophysicists these day...
Take a look at Hugh Ross.
Lol
Might as well get the stamp of approval and say I’m a Christian (saying this to other Christians I disagree with gives me leeway for some odd reason). Although you didn’t give much actual EVIDENCE for God’s existence, I still felt you did a good job at tackling other issues that I think a lot of Christians stress over. Nice vid.
He gave metaphysical evidence. Material evidence only exists for the material. For that you will have to look at Eucharistic miracles.
@@juice2307 Metaphysical evidence is for the metaphysical, and material is for the material? What does that mean? Anyone can claim metaphysical evidence for the truth of other religious claims, no? Do you give those credence as metaphysical evidence?
You will continue to suffer if you have an emotional reaction to everything that is said to you. True power is sitting back and observing everything with logic. If words control you that means everyone else can control you. Breathe and allow things to pass.
You keep saying you have the evidence that God exists. I was waiting and waiting very curiously, only to see argumentative reasoning trying to explain what you perceive as coincidences and conveniences as evidence. Very disappointing. If anything, your video of almost 30 minutes just proved NDT's video of just over 2 minutes right. Thank you.
I was about to write the same thing. This guy, either doesn’t know the difference between an argument and evidence or is deliberately ignoring it to make his claim.
People reach like crazy to pretend there's a chance of life after death.
I wasted my time.
This is very common for Atheists to expect *scientific evidence* when *evidence* is being claimed, which is a fallacy of scientism in which you seem to be under the false impression that the only kind of evidence is scientific.
Definition of evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Even just a testimony is a form of evidence, although a very weak form.
For philosophical positions, such as Theism or Atheism, the ONLY kind of evidence that can be expected is logically valid & sound argumentation.
This is because philosophy is about topics beyond the scope of scientific inquiry exclusively, so expecting *scientific evidence* would just be fallacious & irrational.
Scientism is a self-refuting philosophy that every Atheist I've ever talked to has adhered to. Here's why it's self-refuting:
The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified.
So anyone arguing as if Scientism is true has declared belief in a philosophy that philosophies can't be true, which is just self-refuting and false by necessity.
This isn't a knock against science. It just means there ARE ways to know truth beyond just science alone.
What is beyond science is not beyond rationality. There are well over 100 logically valid & sound arguments for Theism recognized by mainstream academia.
Atheism, on the other hand, has none whatsoever (other than a few fallacious attempts).
Given argumentation is the only form of evidence that can settle debates between two opposing philosophical positions, and its 100+ to 0... it's beyond obvious which one is true.
The only reason most Atheists are Atheists is because of fallacies of scientism that they aren't aware they're commiting.
It may help you to realize what science and philosophy actually are... as it seems Atheists are always unaware of the boundaries between the two (which is scientism).
Science deals with observable, independently verifiable, physical evidence to figure out physical reality.
Philosophy deals with the most rational way to INTERPRET that science with logical argumentation.
Keep in mind absolute truth exists in logic (and mathematics) so this means we can actually know some things within philosophy with even more certainty than in science, because absolute truth doesn't exist in science.
@@amaurypineda1834 Please read my above argument. It would help you because you're accusing him of not knowing the difference between evidence and argumentation when it's actually YOU who is conflating evidence with *scientific evidence* in your mind
Argumentation is the ONLY form of evidence that can possibly exist for any philosophical position (like Theism or Atheism) since philosophies deal with topics beyond the scope of scientific inquiry... so obviously scientific evidence can't be expected.
YES HE CAN CLAIM THERE'S NO EVIDENCE. He doesn't have to prove a negative, you're the one who's making the assertion that God exists, and if you think/believe that there is evidence, present it
Nah, he has to prove that evolution is true and he cannot, because there is no evidence for it.
1. Beginning of the universe
2. Fine tuning of the universe
3. The origin of life in the universe
4. The appearance of design in biology
5. And wider universe
6. Minds
7. Free agency
8. Objective moral truths
9. Historical evidence about the resurrection of Jesus
10. Personal experiences of numerous rational people
Neil is being very honest with responses.
And his problems with girls...
@@hectorhernandez215 what?
Pretty sure that if the authors of the book mentioned, or anybody else for that matter, could prove the existence of god, a Nobel prize would have been rewarded
Since 65% of Nobel Prize winners were Theists if someone were to prove that God didn't exist then they would win the Nobel Prize also.
@@rayvillers2688 you cannot prove a negative when talking about god.
@@bandcontroversial can you prove the existence of a God?
@@chgofirefighter of course not, I'm an atheist
@@bandcontroversial you can't truly prove anything, other than having debates, making assumptions, use our subjective and limited common sense, knowledge and logic on those assumptions and clarifying them. Just like Socrates said “true wisdom is acknowledging you know nothing”
I've come up with a term, if not an original concept, "Lodgepole Logic." The lodgepole pine will not release its seeds until it goes through a forest fire. My "forest fire" included being stricken by polio at the age of ten months. I've written around 300 songs and poems. I don't like diseases, but God gives grace and allows us to care for each other and find cures.
Great Vid ! Definitely strengthened my position as an Atheist 👍
😂
Then you are willingly ignorant.
No evidence. Just theories that you then draw a conclusion from which I could draw a different conclusion.
@@myidentityisamystery5142 Or at least, really only willing to see the hand in front of your face and not the God waiting patiently behind it.
@@franknberry6397 Liar.
This is just disappointing. I have to say, as an atheist, I’m always interested in some genuine, real proof of a god, any god. And I come across stuff like Cameron’s with a confident proclamation of real proof of a deity, only to be disappointed by being presented the same arguments in a different package.
I’m always open to good evidence too and as always, it comes down to having blind faith and no facts. Sad
I agree. However, what kind of an evidence for a non-material being would satisfy you?
Every person liking, disliking, commenting are evidence. The fact that we have the capacity to dominate, communicate and create (or destroy...) rather uniquely compared to other life on our planet is also evidence. Missing the importance of, or perceiving the evidence incorrectly is not a lack of evidence, it's an error of judgement.
It would be foolish to demand that a basic compass measure a magnetic field of another planet. The tool is not designed to perceive outside of it's limitations. My point is that one cannot measure or perceive God without His presence, i.e it takes God's Spirit to recognize God's Spirit. People are limiting the scope by of which God can be perceived by using the wrong tools. Therefore people cannot find the evidence that they are demanding.
I would like to see some evidence of a non-living material turning into a living organism. Even if we could somehow replicate such an event, would it not prove that it took intelligent life organizing the environment and variables for said life to come about? One could surmise that with no observable evidence of life coming to be of it's own accord, that theory can be scrapped. But for whatever reason the academia are vehemently stuck on pressing and prescribing such a theory as fact without evidence. I find it ironic and saddening that people are calling for evidence of God when they are the evidence of Him, and typically the same people cling to a theory that needs evidence yet has none yet still they believe.
@__________________________ How have we totally destroyed the planet if we are still thriving?
I would say that part of the proof of our all knowing and loving God is that He has withheld the destruction of our planet through all of the atrocities committed by mankind, and when the time comes for it's destruction that it will be rightly carried out. Even through destruction He will show His love by making all things new.
Our ability to destroy is not completely like God's. We have taken the traits He has given us and distorted their purpose to serve ourselves mostly at the cost of others. Our abilities are a reflection of His, not a clean mirror image, but rather a muddied tumultuous reflection of His traits through our self-serving, self-seeking propensity.
The problem is you're expecting proof (scientific verification that Theism is true). This is irrational. The only form of evidence that can possibly exist for philosophical positions (like Theism or Atheism) is argumentation, not scientific evidence.
This is because philosophy deals with topics that are beyond the limitations of the scientific method... beyond the ability of science to verify.
Science deals with observable, independently verifiable, physical EVIDENCE.
Philosophy, on the other hand, only deals with the most rational way to INTERPRET that science.
Argumentation is the only way to determine which of two opposing philosophical positions is true (not scientific evidence)... as all scientific evidence could be interpreted to fit for either side.
So that's why logic within argumentation is used to figure out which side is true. And there are well over 100 logically valid & sound arguments for Theism, with none whatsoever for Atheism (other than a few fallacious attempts).
So, 1. Argument is not only valid evidence for philosophical positions, but the ONLY evidence that could possibly exist for such. And...
2. Theism vs Atheism is very easy to figure out once you realize this, but most don't because they unwittingly adhere to Scientism. Here's why Scientism is self-refuting:
The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified.
So anyone arguing as if Scientism is true (like Atheists do constantly) has declared belief in a philosophy that philosophies can't be true.
When Atheists say evidence, they're almost always thinking *scientific evidence* in their heads, but that's false.
Definition of evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Obviously, argumentation is that.
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Hitchen's Razor. The burden of proof is on you, buddy, not NDT.
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." From that quote alone, I can't tell what you're advocating, theism or atheism. Does this mean the belief that the universe appeared without cause can be dismissed without evidence? That we all have strong moral beliefs (against torture, rape, genocide, etc.) because of a random accident can be dismissed without evidence? You can't magically avoid truth claims. Hitchen's Razor has two edges and no hilt. Be careful with it.
Adam Smith
Atheism is the default position. We don’t have to prove anything.
(Otherwise, you’d have to prove Zeus and Thor don’t exist either and if you can’t, then I guess that would mean they do exist by default. )
Theists are the ones asserting God exists and they have to prove it.
@@TsunamiNR Athiests have a burden of proof to present an outlook on the world that makes sense in all facets. As a Christian, I have a very good reasoning for the world looking and acting the way it does. An Athiest not accepting my viewpoint is unlikely to change my view unless they present and opposing world view that satisfies all of the areas i currently have satisfied
@@Sn3aKyK1LL3R
"Athiests have a burden of proof to present an outlook on the world that makes sense in all facets."
Again, I'm afraid that that's not how it works. As I said, Atheism is the default position. If you don't know, you shouldn't invent some explanation based on nothing.
Mistery is not a good reason to believe in magic.
"As a Christian, I have a very good reasoning for the world looking and acting the way it does."
I can invent millions of reasonings to explain the world. Example: See the lightnings during the storm? Zeus did it. This is a kind of reasoning/explanation. Still, if I can't prove it, it's better to withhold belief. Maybe there is some material explanation for the phenomenon that I don't understand just yet. Me not being able to explain how lightnings work, doesn't make the Zeus-hypothesis valid.
And if I don't believe that Zeus exists, do I therefore need to be able to explain how lightning would be able to exist without Zeus? No, I don't need to do that. When you don't know, the default position is "I don't know and I won't believe your explanation until you prove it". The default position is not "I don't know, so I guess your God / Magic hypothesis is a good one".
@@TsunamiNR i won't bother discussing the Zeus comment, because obviously the evidence for Christianity vs Zeus is a completely different ball game. But I will ask, if Athiesm is the default position, and God doesn't exist, then explain why almost every culture has a God/Gods of some form. Evidently, it isn't the default position..
To say it is extraordinarily unlikely that our universe would be life primiting is not true.. The most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon and nitrogen. The human body is made of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen very common throughout the universe. So in such a vast universe it is Very unlikely that these elements would not combine to make life even in its smallest form.
Hi there, I'm an atheist. You pointed out that it was more likely for the Universe to be created by a God/Creator, than for the universe to have naturally come into existence, i.e the analogy you made of getting 10 royal flushes in a row. Surely, that is not a case to make as evidence for a God as it still theoretically possible to get 10 straight royal flushes in a row? Surely you'd need a better test or evidence to suggest that there is a creator for the universe? This is where science differs from religion as science is able to say they 'don't know' as there is no evidence, and they go in search for evidence. Religion on the other hand, simply says "there is no evidence, therefore someone/something created it". Using your analogy, science is trying to find out how the universe got 10 straight flushes in a row, whereas religion says "you cheated".
Anyway, assuming that God did indeed create this universe. Would you concede that God is not all-powerful and not all-good? Otherwise, how do you explain that there are millions of kids starving and dying of poverty? How do you explain that you were born in whichever country you were born in? How do you explain that children can suffer and die from cancer? Why are some of his plans better than others?
Just interested to know what your answer is. No hate, just trying to have a healthy debate/discussion. Hope everyone is safe and healthy during this time. :)
I know this was from a year ago, and I’m hardly qualified to give as great an answer as such a warmly, kindly worded question deserves, but I think you deserve an answer, at least.
On the 10 royal flushes question, I think you may be conflating evidence with proof. Evidence is NOT proof. There can be evidence that I am guilty of a crime, or evidence for an explanation of a natural phenomenon, but that is not the same as proof I am guilty, or proof of the cause of a natural phenomenon.
From my point of view, one can never prove the existence of God, not disprove it either - for some of the same reasons one can not do the same for multi-verse or multi-world theory. There can be evidence of multiple universes, and evidence for God, or evidence for neither, without reaching the standard for proof.
So, 10 royal flushes in a row is evidence something besides chance is at work. Is it proof? No, but it is a LOT of evidence. It most certainly is not proof that just change was at work, nor would it be proof that God doesn’t exist.
In fact, it seems like pretty stunning evidence that it wasn’t just pure chance.
The rest of your question has to be addressed by looking at some of the videos the OP has listed, it’s much more than my arthritic thumbs can handle.
Hope this year is even better than your last!
Jesus loves you!
Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is 100% RIGHT About God of the Bible.
@Angus McMillan
LOL. Do you have any evidence that the God of the Bible exists? You need to understand that the Bible is the claim, not the evidence for the God of the Bible.
@Angus McMillan You believe the Bible just because it claims itself to be the holy truth. Do you not realize how ridiculous you are when you ask me for evidence to disprove something that was never proven to you and your mama by way of evidence?
@Angus McMillan
It doesn't matter what God you believe in or what religion you have branded yourself with, they are all man-made. Religion has got you by the balls. LOL
@Angus McMillan LOL. But you forget that you were brainwashed by your mom to brand yourself with the same religion she was brainwashed with. The religious stuff was never proven to you and your mama by way of evidence.
@Angus McMillan An invisible immaterial being can have the power to unintentionally cause changes, but it does not have thinking capability and intelligence to intentionally create order.
Earth probably got lucky in its formation & life precariously emerged from chemistry then evolved. Evolution made man & man made God.
The bottom has fallen out of Darwinism/ evolution. No one has ever observed the transition of one kind of creature to another kind of creature (ape to man, etc.). However, many people throughout history have interacted with God. Choose recorded history, not hypothetical atheistic conjecture; choose Christ!
Evolution has been confirmed to be correct over and over....by various different mountains of evidence...
Mark H thanks for taking time to write. Respectfully, evolution has never been confirmed. Darwin himself said the only way it can be verified is if the generational connection/transition can be observed. It never has.
Darwinists point to bacteria and finches. The bacteria and finches that have been observed have only produced more bacteria and finches. This is not Darwinian evolution. It is not even close to evidence that bacteria and finches are descendants of non-bacteria and non-finches. To the contrary, it proves that bacteria and finches produce after their own kind respectively just as the Bible says God created them to. For reliable reproductive science look to the Bible.
Darwinists point to transitional fossils. The term “transitional fossil” is a misnomer. A fossil can only tell us what creature it was itself, not what it was on the way to becoming.
Darwinists point to DNA. DNA is coded information. Whenever we see coded information we have to ask who created the code. We never assume the code spontaneously arose from random processes. The similarities we see are EXACTLY what we would expect to see from a programmer who uses similar algorithms to produce similar parts. This is clear evidence of intelligent design.
Darwinists point to millions of years. But no scientist has observed millions of years.
So we see everything we’ve been sold about evolution is baseless conjecture. Those who reject the Bible and accept Darwinism are rejecting recorded history and accepting patently unobservable, hypothetical, fabricated history. Don’t be a science denier, don’t be a history denier; accept Christ.
@@refuse2bdcvd324
_"Respectfully, evolution has never been confirmed. "_
It may seem that way if you don't want to do the research with an open mind.
_"Darwin himself said the only way it can be verified is if the generational connection/transition can be observed. It never has."_
I don't think he did... but even if he did... it's irrelevant.
_". The bacteria and finches that have been observed have only produced more bacteria and finches. This is not Darwinian evolution. "_
Actually it is.
_"For reliable reproductive science look to the Bible."_
That's one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen. The bible has little to say about reproductive science... the bible tells stories of a family populating the world on their own...twice...
_" A fossil can only tell us what creature it was itself, not what it was on the way to becoming."_
If you say that.. then you don't understand the relevance of the fossils and the traits they show.
_"We never assume the code spontaneously arose from random processes"_
The is an equivocation fallacy. You're talking about different things but using the same word. The code used in programming is quite different to dna. The same word is used to describe them but that doesn't necessarily imply a creator.
_" But no scientist has observed millions of years."_
Another ridiculous statement. We can determine many things about the past without having had lived through it.
_"o we see everything we’ve been sold about evolution is baseless conjecture. T"_
Nope it's science backed by mountains of evidence. Religious people deny it just as they denied that the sun was at the centre of the solar system. You don't want to know about the evidence so you just claim it isn't there.
Mark H You say we should do research on evolution with an open mind? Whoa, an open mind is what we need to believe in things we cannot see. It seems you may be admitting evolution is not confirmed. We shouldn’t need an open mind if Darwinism is observable, testable, and repeatable. The fact remains, it isn’t.
You said that what Darwin said about observing the transition is irrelevant, but you didn’t explain why. Simply stating that something is irrelevant doesn’t make is so. What Darwin said is VERY relevant because he is the father of Darwinism. When you name a whole ideology after someone it’s because they have said something relevant to the matter. Don’t cherry-pick; what Darwin said is significant. Refute his statement if it is false. If you don’t think we need to see the transition/generational connection then maybe you are not looking at evolution with an unbiased lense. That’s not how science is supposed to work.
You say bacteria producing more bacteria is Darwinian evolution. Not so my friend. We’ll leave it there.
Regarding reproductive science, the Bible is verified every time a bacteria produces more bacteria and at the same time Darwinism fails every time a bacteria doesn’t produce a non-bacteria. Stick with observable science my friend; stick with the Bible.
Saying a person doesn’t understand the relevancy of fossils and traits they show doesn’t suddenly change the fact of what a fossil is. A fossil is just the remains of a plant or animal that once was alive. To assume that it gave rise to something that was not the same kind of creature it was is not logical unless we can find every one of its offspring and observe the transition.
You said my statement regarding DNA and codes is an equivocation fallacy, but you failed to point out a code we know of that we are certain popped up spontaneously from random processes. You are correct tho, the code in programming is quite different from dna; DNA is exponentially more complex. This is even more evidence of highly intelligent design. Don’t be an intelligence denier; accept Christ.
Regarding “millions of years.” You said we can determine many things about the past without having lived through it. I agree, but we can also come up with wrong assumptions about the past BECAUSE we did not live through it.
Repeating the phrase, “mountains of evidence,” won’t make a mountain of evidence appear. Darwinism is patently unobservable, untestable, and unrepeatable. For as long as it’s allegedly been going on it shouldn’t be hard to observe. It should be fairly regular to see something that’s not quite an ape and not quite a man emerging from the jungle building huts. But we NEVER observe this happening. To a logical mind this is clear evidence that it probably never does. The only way Darwinism survives is through propaganda. Evolution is pseudoscience.
@@refuse2bdcvd324
_"Whoa, an open mind is what we need to believe in things we cannot see. It seems you may be admitting evolution is not confirmed. "_
That's an illogical statement that gives an indication of how poor your reasoning skills are.
_"We shouldn’t need an open mind if Darwinism is observable, testable, and repeatable."_
It's been observed... the predictions can be tested...repeatable experiments are run based on evolutionary principles....
_"You said that what Darwin said about observing the transition is irrelevant, but you didn’t explain why. "_
1. You've yet to show that he actually said that.
2. What matters is evidence.....not what Darwin said.
Evidence confirms evolution.
_"What Darwin said is VERY relevant because he is the father of Darwinism."_
That's not how science works. If Darwin said something wrong (for arguments sake) it doesn't change the evidence supporting evolution.
This is again another indication of how poor your reasoning is....and your understanding of science.
_"You say bacteria producing more bacteria is Darwinian evolution"_
The evolution of bacteria has been studied and only confirms evolution is correct.
_"the Bible is verified every time a bacteria produces more bacteria and at the same time Darwinism fails every time a bacteria doesn’t produce a non-bacteria. "_
Oh god you don't understand basics. Reproduction is part of evolution.... bacteria has evolved.... when an animal reproduces it neither refutes evolution nor confirms the bible..
_"Stick with observable science my friend;"_
Something you don't do.
Lets look at the evolution of bacteria.
news.mit.edu/2019/determine-bacteria-evolution-age-0208
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140630103140.htm
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191023075137.htm
You have no idea about science.
_"show doesn’t suddenly change the fact of what a fossil is"_
Oh god you're still not getting it.
_"To assume that it gave rise to something that was not the same kind of creature"_
You're confused. No such assumption is made...however the fossil record does show changes over time.... that's the point.... you're talking about a single fossil.
_"but you failed to point out a code we know of that we are certain popped up spontaneously from random processes. "_
You got called on your fallacy and you keep trying it lol.... You're using 'code' in different ways.. it's an abstract term we use for a configuration we see in nature... you''re trying to use it for that and simultaneously for something that programmers do..
_" This is even more evidence of highly intelligent design"_
You've presented no evidence for intelligent design....nature can be complex....that's a fact....complexity doesn't require a magical man in the sky...the argument is a non sequiter...
_" agree, but we can also come up with wrong assumptions about the past BECAUSE we did not live through it."_
If we are looking at evidence and repeatedly validating that evidence with various techniques then we are not making assumptions.....
Your argument fails.
_"won’t make a mountain of evidence appear."_
I can continually provide links.... There are 3 in this post so far...I don't know what limit there is before the post is blocked.
_"Darwinism is patently unobservable, untestable, and unrepeatable. "_
You're completely wrong and utterly ignorant.
_"For as long as it’s allegedly been going on it shouldn’t be hard to observe."_
Wrong again. The time frames involved can make it challenging to observe...but we have observed it. All the evidence confirms it is correct.
_"It should be fairly regular to see something that’s not quite an ape and not quite a man emerging from the jungle building huts. "_
Wrong. The changes are so minor that you would be unlikely to see it or notice it...
You seem to know nothing about this topic at all.
Imagine someone declaring that chemistry is false ...and then they go on to show that they don't know one thing about chemistry....that's how you look to others...
_"The only way Darwinism survives is through propaganda"_
Hah no. It survives through evidence...research.... repeated testing....it's the backbone of biology and plays important roles in many sciences from paleontology to medicine.
What you're trying to do (and failing) is propaganda.
"He didn't give any evidence that there is no evidence for god's existence"
Did I hear that correctly?
Yeah. Apologists do this kind of thing often. They think they are like Steven Seagal.
The only thing that is evident is that he doesn’t understand the word “evidence”
yep
True
Faith = trust and confidence
Without evidence
Wocxdid with evidence and experience
@@MartinHansenGamer Haven't seen much just yet. Still waiting.
Wocxdid Gods timing is perfect be patient :)
@@MartinHansenGamer Yeah, heh, that's why so many people died in **other** religions, right? I don't believe in your god or did you forget?
99,999999999999999999999999999999999.... % of the Universe is instantly deadly for any human being ....
and that is evidence for atheism? Why is not a picket fence to prevent us stupid kids from running out in the road? everything is relative
I am curious why he didn't address the point of Dr. deGrasse's argument. If God is "all good and all-powerful, why are there hurricanes, disease, etc....?" The lack of a direct response only strengthens Dr. deGrasse's case. BTW, I am a believer and understand the concept faith. If your goal was to refute Dr. deGrasse's case, you may have pushed those on the fence about belief in God, non-believers, and possibly believers further away.
Science - Studying of facts
Religion - Claiming all knowledge however has not been proven to a point where the argument for God is plausible.
@Thomas Jefferson and you’ve been lied to. I wonder which one is more wise?
@Thomas Jefferson well first we would need to establish what you have seen and heard is supernatural at all. Your subjective mind does not equate to objective reality. :) good luck.
My question how can a perfect being create something that is imperfect?
He didn't. All was good until his creation destroyed itself.
@@Alexander-go8no is the ability and desire to destroy not an imperfection
God gave his perfect creation the opportunity to *CHOOSE* their own destiny.
Walk with him, or walk by themselves.
Obviously choosing to walk by ourselves was a bad idea, because here we are...
@The Comedian True!
@Comedian Those with cancer have more than just a few life threatening traumatic problems. Nothing to be taken lightly.
4:33: "he didn't give any evidence that there's no evidence" ... that's not how any of this works.
Yea, this kid is recycling old arguments that have been debunked 1000 times...
As confusing as it sounds, its valid
@@sencrew5293 No. It isn't.
Yes it is. If he said "I am unaware of any evidence" or "I don't know any evidence" then that's a different story.
He's making a positive claim saying that there is no evidence for God and therefore needs to demonstrate this lack of evidence, particularly in the light of the fact that people do claim that there is evidence.
@@quizmaster247 "Evidence does not exist" is not a positive claim, it's a negative one and thus unfalsifiable. Both Neil's statement "There's no evidence" and Cameron's "There's no evidence there's no evidence" are invalid because they are unfalsifiable assertins.
The opposite of faith is not reason, the opposite of faith is disbelief.
In the beginning he asks for money.
Which is very odd for a Christian.
"Provide neither gold, nor silver nor brass in your purses"
Religion is all about milking common folk for cash lol.
@@STGFilmmakers
Fleecing the sheep
@@tedgrant2 lmao
@@STGFilmmakers
I don't think Jesus ever asked for money.
But he did get his disciples to steal an ass and/or a colt.
Or maybe, he stole it himself, depending on which Gospel you read.
(Matthew 21:2. Mark 11:2 Luke 19:30 John 12:14)
@@STGFilmmakers
Compare Zechariah 9:9 to Matthew 21:5 and John 12:15
Is it evidence for prophecy or copying ?
Rejoice, tell or fear not ?
Dependent things is an assertion not evidence and really says "I don't know how this works so it must be Jesus". It also ignores where god comes from. "oh but goes doesn't need a creator" is another assertion not evidence.
@Gabe Norman, nope. It is.
@Gabe Norman Panikos is correct. It's a baseless assertion not supported by evidence and not demonstrated, as well as an argument from ignorance and special pleading.
You’re married to a black queen???? Much loved brother❤️
Bruh 😂
❤️❤️
❤
Why do people call women “queens”?
A follower of Christ should not call women - queens. Women are children of God, daughters of God but not queens.
Why is it that every time a Christian says they can prove a very personal, intimate claim - that God was a man who walked Earth and now cares deeply about your behavioral choices - they attempt to do so with incredibly impersonal, broad claims about the universe? What do the particulars of an event that may or may not have happened 13.8 billion years ago have to do with an Israeli Jewish man who disapproves when I masturbate?
Tyson also expressed the evidential problem of evil, I think he sort of switched between the two during his comment. When he started talking, he said "the more I look, the less convinced I am that there is something benevolent going on" meaning that his credulity was proportional to his observation. He did not cease to believe as soon as he saw his first example of natural misery, according to the phrasing of his first thought.
lmao what? slow down there buddy speak in english. That was what I call word salad with no dressing.
Made sense to me.
@@tacohitman4003
"He did not cease to believe as soon as he saw his first example of natural misery, according to the phrasing of his first thought." That might depend on the amount of initial belief. If he started with zero initial belief, then you can say he ceased to believe prior to any experience.
when people starts to become curious at things. They question and seek evidence for everything.
and religion fears being questioned
And atheism fears to come to a conclusion
@@robertknobloch1894 Intellectual honesty my friend
"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today-and even professional scientists-seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is-in my opinion-the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." - Albert Einstein
I love the fact that people who don't have a PhD tell people who do that they are wrong in the field that they have spend tens of years in.
Of course he wrong:
No one can ever be _right_ about an imaginary being, since its up to the individual's vision.
CC You can’t say “I made a three hour video of all the evidence” when the video contains nothing but claims and little or no evidence.
Gabe Norman translation I want to believe these claims, I’ll pretend it’s true using #faith (the most unreliable epistemology known bar none).
For the record I’ve “watched” the 3 hour video although there’s not video content. It’s a 3 hour audio. It just stacks up more claims upon prior claims. Makes me wonder if you even listened to it? If so what part did you fine most compelling and why?
Claire Eliza tell me this:
1. How old is the universe?
2. How old is the earth?
3. What best explains the origins of our species?
"no one has seen god"
Genesis 32:30
Exodus 3:6
Exodus 33:11
Jesse Selbert they saw God when they saw the face of Jesus :)
@@MartinHansenGamer That's not what those verses say, do you have a verse that says exactly what you're saying, or is this just your personal opinion?
Jesse Selbert the verses you quoted are from he Old Testament. And your right in the Old Testament no one saw the face of God. No one has seen the father but in the New Testament. Jesus is God therefor the disciples saw the face of God
@@JesseSelbert Matter of fact all those verses you quote in the Old Testament are actually the pre incarnate Christ.
crossexamined.org/who-is-the-angel-of-the-lord/
And the term God is general not specific.
When Tyson says that no one has seen God, he means that no one has seen God and can verify the sighting. As an astronomer using that same logic, he might have said, "No one has seen a Martian" when asked why he doubts that there is intelligent life on Mars.
His thoughts did nothing to convince me and Neil deGrasse Tyson made sense to me and I'm now able to accept what I knew was the truth since childhood and so I remain a nonbeliever.
What it is is that people don't want to think they are unloved or a mistake.. That's why you hear words like "inerrant" when some people are talking about the Bible. All the man said was that you "choose" to have faith because you can't prove it scientifically. When the fundie crowd starts talking in circles to prove their beliefs, it discredits them. All you have to say is "This is what we believe."
Can logic be scientifically proven? Can that cutting and beating a child to death for fun is wrong? Be proven scientifically,
„A good God woud want us to know right and wrong“ - 13:07
In your Story God didn’t want men to know right and wrong. The Process of men gaining that information you call “the Fall”...
„but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Genesis 2:17 NIV
„When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.“ Genesis 3:6 NIV
„And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” Genesis 3:22 NIV
Gaining Information gets equated to becoming like one of the Gods wich in turn is a bad thing 🙄
You should ask matt dillahunty to point out the so many many flaws in this vid ;)
? If there is no God and I cannot use the creation as my proof, then what would we have to discover to 100% believe that there was never a beginning. To Deny creation and a creator means there was is no begining neither shall there be an end. If there is a beginning, what has to be shown naturally in the universe to prove a beginning.
You don't have to be an expert in religion to know Dr Tyson is right. If indeed there was an all benevolent god then the world would be totally different.
He should’ve known that God doesn’t owe no one anything to people especially sinners and that we live in a fallen world because of these sinners. What he’s really doing is causing trouble then blaming God for not being with him even though him not trying to be with him.
@@tan1591 and the indoctrination shows...
Dustin Ellerbe indoctrination would mostly equal illogical and wrong uneducated beliefs towards something. Peters comment was wrong, illogical and uneducated.
The burden of proof relies on him.
@@tan1591 read your post and apply that logic. I was talking about your indoctrination.
Check this out..
ua-cam.com/video/vZ8ff29TPHQ/v-deo.html
“All things are dependent there for there must be a necessary thing that created everything.... oh also that thing is god and depends on nothing”
Can you not see the problem in your reasoning?
While I'll admit he did not express it well, the point being made is that for material things which have a necessary cause to exist they must have a cause, the only way to avoid the absurdity of an infinite regress of causations is to extrapolate that their must be some kind of uncaused cause or unmoved mover. This of course won't necessarily get you to A God, little lone the Christian God immediately until you start making rational extrapolations about the nature of said unmoved mover, but no philosopher worth their salt has ever come away from that further excursive without extrapolating some form of God. To start with we can already extrapolate a handful of traits for this entity;
1. That it is Eternal, I.E. no beginning or end, or else we are forced to assume it has a cause.
2. That it is at least older than the universe which has a cause, and this must at least be able to exist outside of what we know of as the natural world, or all of time and space as we know it.
3. That it possesses some kind of agency, as without agency an eternal entity could not be the cause of anything.
4. That it is at least enormously powerful, as it at very least brought our universe into existence.
Of course this is just the tip of this preverbal ice berg, I suggest you look into it, and it's pre-Christian origins. If only for the intellectual stimulation, besides is it not better to know your intellectual opponents arguments so as to be better able to dispute them? Of course I won't lie to you that I am on the other side of the fence, a believer, but I have done plenty of such leg work on both sides and feel only more intellectually enriched for both. Well I suppose Dawkins work on the topic made me feel as if I was loosing brain cells, but I found Sam Harris quite thought provoking.
Patrick Buckley the only honest position to hold is “I don’t know”. You don’t get to assert that there was an “it” and then attribute traits to it.
Do you realize what you did there? You’ve said that an infinite regress is too ridiculous for you to accept... assertion.... assertion.... therefore god.
Most scientific models show that time did not exist until the Big Bang. Creation is a temporal act, it requires a time that a thing didn’t exist, a decision to create it, then the act of creating it.
Patrick Buckley if this god is timeless and spaceless as you claim. Let me ask you this, if I said that I have an Apple that exists no place and never did, would you say that Apple exists or does not?
@@MrMattjohn87 I apologize for assuming that you'd automatically agree that an infinite regress was a logical absurdity, that was ignorant of me, so I will try to explain. The reason that an infinite regress of causation is not a reasonable model for existance, is beceause we understand that in order for something to cause something we know that thing requires potential, we know nothing in the physical universe possesses any kind of potential on it's own accord, all potential comes from somewhere. So it stands to reason that somewhere along the line of any series of events is a point from which all the potential expressed in the series originates. Even if I where to accept the proposition that their is an infinite regress of causes and causeations than that does not explain the infinite amount of potential flowing through this unending series of events. Ultimately leading us to the conclusion that their must be an origin either at the beginning of the chain, or somehow channeling potential into the chain.
We MUST logically extrapolate that this entity possesses the traits necessary to fulfill this purpose, if we do not do so it is nothing more than another link in the chain, and cannot rationally explain anything.
Time as we know it did begin at the advent of the physical universe we know this, but we also know that time is not some mysterious force that pushes things forward and leaves all else in the past. Time is a dimension, just like the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd that make up what we know as space. It is a location on an axis that we only perceive as a set of events happening in order, whene in reality all things are happening at once. As such it doesn't necessarily follow that an entity should have to exist within the confines of time in order to possess the potential for causality. As what we perceive as time is just another locartion on a map, and yet we can see how each place on that map effects others.
We need only extrapolate the features necessary for this unmoved mover to exist with logic, I.E. the ability to cause things to happen, and all of the criteria required for this entity to reasonably possess this trait. Whene I say thet the Prime Mover is Timeless and Spaceless I do not mean it exists nowhere and at no time, but rather that it does not require time or space to exist It is Eternal and thus has no end or beginning, and infinite possessing no start or end point on any conceivable x, y, or z axis.
Patrick Buckley ok my apple does not require time or space to exist, it is eternal with no beginning and no end. Does my Apple exist?
So to you eternal regress is ridiculous so you instead posit an eternal self sustaining thing with consciousness that created it all. You already understand space and time have dimensions that are not linear, why could the universe not simply loop back on itself or some other scientific explanation?
Look you don’t know and neither do I, just because that is uncomfortable doesn’t mean we get to throw god in that gap. I don’t think you want to put god in the gaps of our knowledge because when we do find an answer you’ll have to find some other crack to shove your god into.
I tried. I really did. But once he trotted out "fine tuning".....could not continue. Religious apologists are just hard to listen to.
frank sanders I'm sorry that you reject the whole because of an argument that you deem to have been defeated. I too don't quite get the fine tuning argument but William Lane Craig has put together a pretty exhaustive list that has yet to be confronted successfully. The video as a whole seems pretty conclusive and convincing. I suggest that you rewatch it with and open heart and mind.
@@SuperHeliboy I don't recall exactly what he lead with before fine tuning...but I do remember it was nonsense. For him to trot out fine tuning at that point was too much for me. Especially since it implied he was going to trot out the "old standbys".
As to WLC; he should have retired after Sean Carroll humiliated him.
Craig Hardee Show me evidence. Something can’t come from nothing is not evidence for Christianity. Evidence, not vague arguments.
I don't consider something coming from nothing as vague. Nor any of the other rationale that he presents. The fine tuning aspect is presented much clearer in other presentations and just because I don't think it is very strong don't mean that it is weak. Perhaps I don't understand it very well. Dr. Tyson's points were addressed throughly in this video and his position is immature and very weak.
@@SuperHeliboy How is universe fine tunned for life? The moment you get out of the thin biosphere you will die.
Well as an atheist I would like to engage in this conversation. I WILL be respectful and WONT dismiss your aguements because I disagree. So I wont claim your agruements are silly ect.. I will begin with a rebuttal then pose my own questions.
These are your points in regards to evidence of God's existence:
1) Everything has a source and nothing just pops into existence.
Answer: To my knowledge atheist are saying the same thing. There are absolutely NO atheists saying existence just popped up out of nowhere. Actually that is what Christians claimed happened. Christians claim God spoke and bam, there it was. Where we differ is that atheist say we don't what that source is, BUT we are currently trying to find the answer. The fact that everything has a source is only proves that people should doubt God's existence, which leads to my first question.
Question 1) How did God come into existence?
If we are comfortable enough to say we don't or can't know where God came from, then we can be comfortble to say that we don't know where existence comes from, and we may never know, but we ARE trying to find out and the theist is not. The best you can say is currently NOBODY knows, even with all of our technology. That however DOES NOT mean that God is the only answer, nor the most likely. Your arguement only says if God exists then he hasn't always existed.
2) The universe is fine tuned for live. The likelihood of us being here is so low that the only logical conclusion is there was an intelligent being that created it.
Answer: The universe itself is not ideal for life, and our own solar system only has ONE planet capable of intelligent life. In fact the fact that if even the smallest thing in the fundamental laws of the univerese were changed we would not be here only counts against intelligent design. We presumably would be far less intelligent then God, yet we design a building we make sure that it wouldn't just fall apart if one small thing went wrong. Your aguement infers that God is either not intelligent or god is not perfect. Less so then his own creation. So now my second question.
Question 2) If God is perfect how is it even possible that we, who are imperfect, can so clearly see all the ways the universe could have fallen apart? God's work should be so perfect that we could not even imagine a flaw. Especially with a brain far less capable.
3) Mankind has an inbuilt understanding of good and evil. That innate moral compass should not be if we are but mere products of natural evolution.
Answer 3: I can't think of one universal moral that EVERY human has or agrees with. Certainly it is not seen in history. You mentioned that torturing a child for example is viewed as morally evil universally. However Im sure you also agree that female circumcision happens to this day, as does males circumcision without anesthesia. That seems like an act of toture to me. Many civilizations throughout history also practiced infantcide and human sacrifice. Currently most people would say torturing a terrorist is perfectly acceptable if we can get information out of them. There many many people who likewise believe holding prisoners in solitary confinement is perfectly justified. All of it seems like torture to me. Many cultures even today allow for rape of women with no legal consequence for the perpetrator. However those cultures and people also believe they have or had a perfectly benevolent reson to do or allow such things. If we had an innate knowledge and understanding of good and evil we would be universally repulsed. So for my third question.
Question 3: The book of Isiah Chapter 45:7 says "I form light and darkness. I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do these things". On what grounds can you say that God himself is benevolent when according to the bible God himself said he creates evil? It would seem that God is not all-loving if I were to take the bible literally.
Your second arguement about faith is actually right. As an avid studier of language and how words evolve over time I can say that indeed the meaning of words are highly subjective. So I have no qualms with anyone saying I too rely on faith as an athiest or that I put "faith" in my atheism. So I'm not gonna knock anyone for using faith in their beliefs, but I do ask that the religious question their beliefs. And of atheists should do the same.
I just have one question for you
Can i be your friend?
My brain died 3 minutes into this... Dude gtfo with this lol
So you’re not smart?
Another watchmaker argument and the argument from incredulity.
Exactly. Always the same fallacies.
@@JazzyArtKL Your god, evolution, is the real fraud !
@@studygodsword5937 Lol, evolution is not a god, but scientifically proven reality, mate.
A reality most Asians have to bow to, hm hm.
@@JazzyArtKL *FIVE undeniable facts* Abiogenesis is totally impossible ! Life is far to complicated to be formed by accident ! even if it did form "accidentally" what would it eat with no other bio-matter, how would it know it needed to eat, how would it have the ability to select, gather and eat ! How would the *FIRST LIFE EVER*, know how to reproduce its self ! it would be the first life form ever ! How would it have developed those properties ! Please don't wast my time with that franken-life altering existing life, and calling it new life ! Or that dead stuff experiment, forming lifeless amino acids !
*your theory can't even get to evolution ! *continued !*
Great video Cameron! Very thorough. Appreciate the references to the scholarly literature.
As a Muslim I respect your religion
Allah will send Christians to Heaven?
The problem of evil is a very bad argument. Responding to it means going after low-hanging fruit. :)
Apostate Prophet truth I. Your words brother. And thank you for all you do.
Your come around Prophet 😂😉
Apostate Prophet Low hanging fruit is fine. No need to climb to the top of the tree to find out if it is an apple tree.
Yes it is a very bad argument for theists. I 100% agree 😊
4:33 That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
I study philosophy and there actually is a rule: the one who claims, has the burden of proof. The entire scientific field is all about testing your hypothesis. Even worse, according to Newton’s flammable laser sword: an untestable hypothesis is no hypothesis at all.
This is a widely agreed and most sensical rule. Otherwise you would have to proof every single stupid claim there is out there, which would be impossible. You have a claim (i.e. there are gods)? Fine, go and proof it and then come back once you think you’re done.
@@shakespearsplat I agree with you on claims requiring a burden of proof and all, I already knew that. Also I'm an atheist, so I'm not claiming there's a God if that's what you thought.
@@nickronca1562 Oh no I didn't! My reply was actually to back up what you said.
"No one has seen or can see a pink unicorn" 1 Me 6:18
Show me evidence that pink unicorns do not exist...
Bingo.
sorry but it does not work that way.
@@maccxoph Sorry but it DOES work that way.
@@maccxoph thats the point dude. He said atheist have to proof god don´t exists, when it´s the other way around.
@@0shaade0 Athiests dont claim their is no god. The Atheist's position is that their is no proof of the existence of any god. The burden of proof is on the thiest.
In the last 300 year or so, we have seen advances in medicine, technology, engineering, behavioral and social sciences -even in the humanities- that save lives, make life easier, facilitate communications, calculate the age of the Earth, and so on. This makes me wonder, what advances have theology and religious philosophy made about God and what benefits have we received from that new knowledge?
A very, very good question - but by their very nature, for religions, new advances will often be automatically labelled heresies and divergences, from within them, I suspect, @cristobal garza .
It's a major, built in, likely impairment.
Boomer humor. LOL. Good video, I like the longer form. I liked the argument from moral knowledge, that was a new one for me.
Great video Cameron, here’s a suggestion for next time in your description box:
Although it would be a little bit more effort for you, it would be nice to have a
- tiny description for the link
- and provide a video timecode so people can refer back into the video
Vinh Le Great idea!
@jonny crist did you really need to be an ass with that response?
#BereansGang
1. We don't know where life originated from
1a. You assert that your God answers this without evidence
2. We don't know where objective morality came from
2a. You assert that your God answers this without evidence
The actual answer to those questions is that we just don't know. There is no science vs. theism. There are people who are looking for answers, and those that claim they have the answer.
4:36 How can you give evidence that there is no evidence😂. This guy is a scam
Bro watch the rest of the video. If atheism is right you dont have to take things out of context and unfairly to prove your point.
Watch the entire video, goodness. Why is that difficult?
ever heard of watching the entire video first?
Watch the dang video
I watched the video it's gibberish, the evidence of dependence also means design which is an ontological argument which is clearly proves nothing, and the fine-tuning is not a proof for theism.
So? All the mr Tyson claims still stand. Next video please with real evidence.
@Angus McMillan dont stop thinking please. Dont be blindfolded and follow a 2000 year old fantasy book without a single thought.
@Angus McMillan i will, better then a 2000year old fantasy.
@Angus McMillan the creator made a mess of it.
@Angus McMillan He never claimed that it's pear-shaped lol. He made a rather humorous/silly comparison between the two since the earth is slightly wider at the equator than elsewhere.
Do you watch a lot of matthews videos or not
I would like to give some constructive criticism on this video. I think you raise some good points and I enjoy listening to your perspective.
As an agnostic atheist though, I do have to disagree with the fundamental arguments in the video. I think that theist, agnostics, and atheist all need to criticize each others ideas politely to encourage a better understanding on each others side. Maybe one day science will give us a definitive answer on if god is real or not but as an agnostic I do not think this has been done yet. To get closer to a point where we all agree on an answer, I would like to give me feedback on this video so politely here is everything that I think is wrong about this video:
1). 4:05- Although Neil DeGrasse Tyson makes a statement which technically is false according to biblical scripture, your claim that "Christians have never thought about god as like a bearded man floating around in the clouds" is not entirely true. I cannot speak for you or other Christians, but I would like to raise 2 points regarding this claim. My first point is that humans have the tendency to imagine God as a Devine version of ourselves. God is described as Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent by the three Abrahamic religions. Scripture describes God as something so unhuman that it is unfathomable. Humans express a curiosity to understand everything around them and one of the hardest things to understand is what the nature of God is if God exist. The easiest way for us to imagine God and relate to it is to make God a sort of all good version of ourselves that has human emotions and human like qualities. It makes since why we do this it is part of human nature to try to simplify things we cannot understand. Reza Aslan has a Bachelors in religious studies, a Masters (from Harvard) in Theology and a PHD in sociology and he has spent the majority of his career studying religion so to say he is educated on religion is an understatement. Perhaps he fits your idea of someone qualified to speak on religion better than scientist. He actually did a video on the human tendency to make God into a divine version of ourselves that I encourage everyone to look into. He explained how he believes that Christianity is so successful because it makes God easiest to relate to by making Jesus Christ, a literal human, a Divine character who is either the son of or is part of God. He also goes into detail about a study conducted where people were asked to describe God. The study showed that the more people describe God the more it sounds like God is a super powerful human. Reza himself is actually a Theist who believes in God, but he is so educated on religion that his definition of God and thoughts on the afterlife are so different from other peoples because he has eliminated his tendency to divinize a human some may say he is an Atheist. My point in discussing this was to show that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not entirely wrong about how people think of God, given many people call God he even though God is not a gendered animal, and one of the people most qualified to speak about religion agrees that almost everyone across all religions think of God similar to Dr. Tysons description.
The second point I will make on how Christians think of God is much shorter. You may have a rebuttal and say that I misunderstood the context but nonetheless, the bible actually contradicts itself on if anyone has seen God saying in In Genesis 32:30, Jacob said, “…I have seen God face to face". This also goes to prove my first point that we have the tendency to humanize God because it does not seems logical that something Omnipresent without human like emotion would have a face. So Criticizing Dr. Tyson by playing semantics on what one quote from the bible says about the nature of God may be a bit unfitting because he was more referring to how most people think of God and there is actually scripture to back what he is saying.
How can you be an Agnostic Atheist?
@@larrylar7687 whether or not you’re agnostic is based on knowledge. Whether or not your theist is based on faith. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn’t have the knowledge to know for sure if there is a god or not, but is almost certain there isn’t
Waiting for science to prove God because you do not have enough faith to believe in God, you will have a long wait. The faith required to believe that there is no intelligent design is much greater. Science has not proven the big bang or evolution either, yet you are sure it's not God.
Isn’t waiting for science to prove some thing a lot like faith? As time goes on The evidence for God‘s existence keeps being uncovered
Agnostic Atheist, so I guess he doesn't know if he doesn't believe.
and this is in response to your second argument:
You do realize that we are the only inhabited planet in a very large area, this doesn't mean "god' is fine tuning everything for us to exist, it just means that there are bound to be perfect conditions somewhere and that's where we are
exactly. There are trillions upon trillions of planets out there in the Universe. And only one planet we know of has life. So, how is the universe fine tuned for life? The OP does not know what he is speaking of.
His good evidence is stories and stories and stories it is only acceptable for the believers
4:45 "There is no rule in philosophy, or anything, that says only theists are responsible for defending the things that they claim."
Yes there is (though it's not specific to theist's) It is usually referred to as the null hypothesis. The one who makes the positive claim bears the burden of proof.
"God exists" is a positive claim so you are the one who has to prove it. "God does not exist" is a negative claim.
Also nothing can be proven by philosophy alone.
"There is evidence for God's existence" is a positive claim in the _exact_ same way that "There is no evidence for God's existence" is a positive claim. The agents making such statements both incur a burden of proof.
And yes, things can be proven using philosophy alone. I can prove that there are no married bachelors among other metaphysical truths. I don't need science to tell me that.
@@ethanm.2411 "There's no evidence for God" is Tyson's shorthand for "I have not come across evidence, though I am highly well-read, have done much observation and considered the arguments of others." This requires a measure of charitable interpretation on your part, the kind that should be obvious to everyone in the room.
If I looked for my keys for an hour and said that there's no sign of them, you would be silly to require proof. If you claim that there ARE signs for the whereabouts of the keys, the burden of proof is on you.
try explaining your NDE... or a mystical experience... if wise you will have little to say. What i don't get is why it is necessary to explain... or to tell others how to be/think/worship/pray etc... Why not just abide in the mystery/wonder? That might motivate one to turn to a god beyond understanding... The overarching GOD beyond the religions.. Isn't the beauty of the mystery (of the great unknown/unknowable ENOUGH?
@@justindavid9979 not gonna understand god from all the books about god. God is not a concept but the whole of all realities/levels of which we are all a part. Don't even try to think about it!
@@ethanm.2411 Sorry about the very late reply. I guess god didn't want Google to notify me. Yes, "There is no evidence for god" is a positive claim. So it's good thing I didn't say that, I said "there is no god" is a negative claim and you know what you can do with metaphysics..
"Fine tuning"
Again....we don't know how many universes there are. We don't know what percentage have life. We don't know what percentage have some other phenomena that we don't experience.
The universe isn't fine tuned for life. It's fine tuned for death. And life is fine tuned for its surroundings.
If you have a book with 100 quadrillion quadrillion pages and you happen to open it at page 239, what were your chances of opening it at page 239? 1/100000000000000000000 ? What are the chances of opening it at *any* page? 1/1
Until we do figure out how many universes there are the argument for fine tuning of the existence of the universe stands.
@@lizicadumitru9683 no, the honest answer is "I don't know"
@Lizica Dumitru The problem is that you are saying that any possible answer to an unknown questions is an answer that should be believed as true. So taking that approach to its limit, if there is a murder in New York, and you are in New York at the time of the murder, then you should be arrested and charged with murder.
@@mikewalters3048 Not that it must be true but it must be allowed to stand, meaning along side any other hypothesis.
@@JohnCamacho Too broad
Holding back humanity with belief in things that have no evidence.
The problem of evil isn’t the definitive statement of all philosophers. It’s a problem that is meant to be thought through philosophically and theologically, and engaged with.
The argument from evil is just an appeal to incredulity fallacy.
It takes the basic structure: *I can't imagine/understand why evil exists if God exists, therefore it must not be true*
It's a textbook appeal to incredulity fallacy that could be right out of a Logic 101 textbook, so it's kind of shocking people even talk about it.
Logical fallacies are just invalid arguments. They're inadmissible on their face in intellectual forum.
"20 years" I caught that. Nice touch
Of course people are going to listen to scientists, they have been trained to critically assess the evidence, design experiments to test their ideas and look for the flaws in those ideas. They are therefore very good at weeding out the truth from the myths and general woo-woo.
No matter what scientist say, there are only 2 genders!
Not 56....
Scientist are trained to weed out facts ONLY on things they can test scientifically, right? You literally cannot disprove the existence or non-existence of God scientifically. Most know this, but they get asked these questions by people who don't seem to get this point because their answers make headlines. Dr. Tyson basically admitted that he formed he OPINION on his (untestable) observations and drew hiss conclusions, not from empirical tests he ran but merely from his personal assessments. Professor John Lennox calls this scientism not science where scientist are believed because of who they are even when commenting on matters in which they are not versed. All Dr. Tyson has to say is I don't know I have not and quite frankly cannot test anything to say either way, which means he is in fact speaking what he ultimately BELIEVES not what he has scientifically tested!
life is fine tuned to the universe not the universe is fine tuned for life.