Michael Shermer - Atheism's Best Arguments?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
- Free access Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/2UufzC7
Atheism fields two kinds of arguments denying the existence of God: arguments that refute so-called 'proofs' of God's existence and arguments that affirmatively support the truth claims of atheism. This first seeks weaknesses or fallacies in pro-God arguments; the second seeks to show why atheism alone makes sense. Different atheists offer different arguments.
Watch more interviews with Michael Shermer: bit.ly/2neYOhE
Watch more interviews on atheism: bit.ly/2mHxDvN
I bet Shermer never thought he'd be having an atheistic debate with Einstein.
So funny I forgot to laugh
😆
This was one of the best debates I’ve seen so far
The above was NOT a debate.
You don't even know what a debate is then because that was an interview. Absolutely nothing was "debated".
Haha what debate
@@deeremeyer1749 awwww he is sad awwwww.
Me2
The camera needs to chill lol
This is great. Two intelligent people having an intelligent conversation.
Yes because they are intelligently cordially communicating with one another as friends and speaking about the topics from an intelligent and brotherly perspective.
@Macy sondheim Got any proof for those claims?
"Yet if there is God the first man would have to know."
Says who? You? Got proof?
Since you can't prove that claim, your whole "argument" fails.
"No one actually lives in this existence."
At least some of us live in a world where critical thinking skills exist.
Instead of wasting your time lying about what other people think, try proving your imaginary gods exist.😏
@D W You lack critical thinking skills. You keep making claims you never prove.
@D W "Logic and common sense proves themselves."
Your claims don't.
"I haven't even started yet and you're lost on the basics."
You've started lying about me. That shows you never learned any logic.
"I can't teach common sense."
Of course not. You can't teach something you don't know.
Surely "atheism's" best argument is simply that theism's best arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. Atheism isn't a matter of saying we know the answers they don't. The way we further any endeavour to discover the universe or improve our reasoning is by pointing out the flaws and trying to correct them. Atheism is a matter of trying to convince theists that they don't know the answers either, and that they are likely just deceiving themselves and others. If it gives you comfort, then go for it, but don't force it on others. Doubt and skepticism are some of our best tools for finding truth (or steering closer to it)
@@keithboynton @Geshtu Except you atheists are NOT skeptics, not consistently. If we were to apply your standards of proof/burdens of proof consistently, we would be nihilists. For example, you cannot explain why all the apparent evidence that antibiotics work somehow proves antibiotics work while at the same time arguing that all of the evidence that life could not have arisen by chance doesn't prove that life didn't arise by chance. The chance that any one protein would form by chance is around 1 in 10 to the 180. The chance that all observed benefits of antibiotics are mere chance is MUCH higher. If I must accept explanations that have so little chance of being correct in order to embrace your random life hypothesis, then you must accept my claim that antibiotics only appear to work. That is, you have to be SKEPTICAL that antibiotics work, using only your own standards of proof. See the problem? Either you special plead or you become a nihilist. Nihilism isn't skepticism; it's just nihilism. You aren't claiming I can't know God exists; you're claiming that I can't know ANYTHING exists.
Indeed, humans invented God.
You mean God invented humans. Evolution is fake.
as Gods themselves...btw
That’s just a claim there is zero evidence to support it.
Indeed they invited the false god's. Not the one and only true GOD of the Bible.
Many men made many gods in their image
Best summary I’ve heard yet. Shermer is great at analyzing things. Bravo!
As "intelligent" as Shermer is, you can't miss the fact that he's expressing a genetic fallacy. Nothing could be further from the truth with this "best" argument.
@@Kman. what fallacy?
@@scambammer5940 What he opened with...as stated, a GENETIC fallacy.
@@Kman. so you can't explain it then. Squawking "fallacy" like a parrot isn't impressive. BTW I didn't see any fallacy, genetic or otherwise, in Shermer's comments. I wasn't impressed with his argument, but it wasn't fallacious.
@@scambammer5940 You asked (and I repeat), "WHAT fallacy"...my reply answered you directly. Now, do you want me/NEED me to explain what one is? (I don't think so, so no need to reply)
Should you need to listen again, it's in his OPENING statement...from 40-45 seconds. I'm outta here.
If you believe in God it is because you want to; if you don't believe in God it's because you don't need too!
I don't believe in god because there isn't one. What I want is irrelevant.
I had automatically created subtitles on, and at 0:23 is says "ergo there is no guy" 😂
The best atheist argument is the complete lack of any competent arguments for theism.
That's because you are closed minded. How do atheists unite on morality?
@@Nat88123 Let me guess, you have two categories of books on your shelf. Bibles and Christian apologetics.
"Gaps? I'll fill them with god"
Gaps fill? Fill them with rescuing devices for billion year old earth and evolution. Lol
@Cole Wortham cant lie I'm Christian's jesus calls us to be skeptics bro not to suspend our mind because evil and good are intertwined. All these arguments had nothing evil proves where in a fallen creation. Wait why is there laws at all if there is no god why is there laws of logic. Why study science things just happen why do seasons happen and if we are millions of years old why is the moon recession shouldn't it be futher?? Internal excess heat being out put from planets why haven't they ran out sorry my guy makes no sense. Btw no god no morality so nothing is really evil nothing is good it's just preferences if you chose to work for the well being of a chemical accident go ahead kill it go ahead Its chemical accident killing another. Plus if I kill someone not my fault it just the chemical reactions in my head telling me so. After you throw out absolute morality. Also, no god laws of logic who to say they are not changing based on your area scripture say god can't contradict the truth but overtime with evolution you can?? Laws of logic make no sense with no good because anything is possible it's a chance universe. Lastly, no god no uniformity of nature because, in a universe with no good who to say the laws of gravity dont stop working seasons dont continue to happen none of these things are possible. See who to say your thoughts are telling you the truth about reality would you trust the thoughts of a monkey. Religions across the world prove that god has ingrained a whole in everyone's heart for him they believe different things of there choice and will be judged based on their knowledge not unjustly but reject the truth there is a consequence. Also, more evidence evolution makes no sense there are no fossils of kind to kind and no mutation like the one in evolution of natural selection adding information to the DNA sorry no evidence at all that is evidence like god said he made everything according to their kind. More evidence for a young earth is comets in solar system that are still in it they only last 100,000 years hmmm millions of years old?? Idk alot of faith in the mind of a monkey. Ohh let's get to the bible and historical reliability of christ do you believe in history and if you do, do you have a double standard for the bible because the gospel one of the most historically reliable book of antiquity. Proof that christianity isnt indoctrinated is how the center of christianity moves across the world over the years so alot of intellectual people come to christ after seeing Jesus's historical life teaching, death, and resurrection. Make sure your not being a hyper skeptic plz also the bible many times predicts the future and has not been wrong once 230 prophecies hmmm predict things like the circle/sphere figure of the earth, the expansion of the universe isiah 40;22 and how energy cant be created or destroyed talked about again no god this don't happen john 1:3 there being so many stars/solar systems that it is uncountable genesis 22:17 and the earth being hanged up on nothing job 26:7 bro this book made bc. Hmmm.. now you study for yourself and let go of your presuppositions that are contradictory for the fact that you cant live out the fact thatI don't think you can that life is meaningless and accident and you do whatever your mind tells you now there's is more to it then
God bless you
Roman's 1:18
I pray that you can turn to god let him into you heart because proverbs 1:7
No god doesn't allow knowledge to be a thing.
Yea I copied and pasted it because I dont feel like doing it anymore
In the stone age people didn't know how rain and fire works, so they thought those need a god in order to happen
However, studying and critiqueing religions (or religious people) tells you absolutely nothing about a "God" (creator) who MAY exist when ALL religions simply may have it wrong. Asserting that there is NO God is an act of faith. Debunking religion however is low hanging fruit and easily accomplished. A lot of atheists are actually anti-theists and I wish they would proudly identify as such instead of muddying the philosophical water.
The most reasonable attitude of God ,,,, U can find it in islam
Sometimes, if you're in a predominantly atheist comment section and say "Im Christian, but I respect everyone else's views", you'll be met with a lot of hate. If when you ask them why they're so hateful they'll either say, "your religion pushes hatred, so it'll receive hate" and/or "slavery, genocide, etc has been done in the name of Christianity for centuries." A lot of them *are* anti-theist and can't honestly justify their hatred towards friendly, ordinary Christians. They attack you strictly for being religious and don't care to debate with you on theology itself.
@@jusmaku To be clear, I too consider myself to be an anti-theist. To be even clearer, I believe that religion was an important innovation and was crucial to the social and moral development of our ancestors but is now at best redundant and at worst actively harmful. I agree however that if someone is so "edgy" that they can't be respectful to religious people, in spite of their views, then they should take a long hard look at themselves.
CaptainFrantic thanks for clarifying. When I say 'anti-theist', I'm referring to the people who hate religious *people* seemingly for simply existing. Maybe I used that specific term incorrectly, I don't know what else you would call that type of person. A bigot maybe?
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Atheists are not “pissed off at religion for lying to them.” No one would fucking care as an atheist that their expectations of religion aren’t met because we hate religion. That doesn’t even make sense. You don’t have any idea how deep this runs for some of us or how important it is.
Shermer should stick to debunking 911 truthers
Atheism's best argument is asking theists "Can you show any evidence for any gods?".
That's a question, not an argument.
The rebuttal of your question is another question: What is the origin of "evidence"?
@@tgenov "That's a question, not an argument."
Actually it's both, and it's the ONLY argument atheists need.
""What is the origin of "evidence"?
"
Asking stupid questions is never a good rebuttal.
@@FourDeuce01 You keep telling me about this "burden of proof" thing...
Can you prove that my question was stupid but yours wasn't?
@@tgenov Can you learn some basic logic before you try to talk with adults again?
@@FourDeuce01 Can you learn some higher order logic before you result to ad hominem attacks?
I honestly do not understand how anyone could possibly know what the fuck is going on in the absurd lives we live. There is absolutely NO CHANCE anyone has the slightest idea of what’s going on. Humans are inherently chaotic and territorial, they are drawn to strong leadership which is why large institutions exist to regulate the self. Why can’t we live and enjoy our experience and make the most out of it. We are all just products of our environment and should therefore coexist peacefully but religion holds us back by literally brainwashing ideas into people’s minds, these ideas are accepted because people feel a sense of security in being controlled and giving another human the power to make tough decisions. We only have around 80 fucking years left and I don’t give a goddamn fuck if the way these letters are organized offends you. But really it doesn’t matter, nobody knows what’s happening so chill
I will always be skeptical of the reduction of discussion to vulgar materialism. Giving an explanation for how an idea might have come about does not tell us whether it's true or not. Psychologising the discussion might have the pretense of intellectualism, but it's real function is to explain away the concepts put forth rather than refute them.
Why do you think materialism is vulgar?
Actually giving a plausible explanation for how a concept originates does indeed indicate the potential objective truth of the concept. If the plausible explanation is rooted in a natural selection survival paradigm then it’s objective truth about describing a fundamental nature of reality in the universe places it on very shaky intellectual ground.
In their attempt to reach the truth, the New Atheists have swapped their own version of scientific dogma for religious dogma.
Although it isn’t an organized religion like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, atheism is a religious worldview. With assurance rooted in faith (rather than in proven fact), the theist says “I believe in god(s)/God,” while the atheist with equal confidence says “I don’t believe in god(s)/God.”
Atheism is a religious worldview
@@nellieltuodelschwanck736
Hogwash.
The atheists say, “Prove your claim. Until you can do that beyond a reasonable doubt you have accomplished nothing.”
Atheism by definition is not a “religious worldview.”
You say " Giving an explanation for how an idea might have come about does not tell us whether it's true or not" which is 100% true. Just because humans invented religion to cope with the reality of the world doesn't mean that religion is true.
That's their best? Very unconvinced...
@Lance Rothman Kalam Cosmological argument is one i reckon you cant debunk mr intellectual
@@hilonate69420 of course that is true. Over half the population is religious. I doubt we will ever know everything especially when religion still exists
@@hilonate69420 Just to get it straight, the cosmological argument states that whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore it has a cause. The thing about this argument is that it is not actually about any god at all. Even if the argument was true it wouldnt support the existence of god. If true, it would only establish that the universe has a cause but would say nothing at all about the nature of that cause.
@@hilonate69420 not an atheist but that argument would require God himself to have a cause. If you say he doesn't have one, you are really just debunking your own argument.
@@MasterMooper not true, both you and Joaquin Garriga missed the final point of the argument. If the universe has a cause then it stands to reason that the cause cannot be the universe as the universe cannot cause itself. It must be outside the universe. What is the universe? It's space, time, matter and energy. So the cause has to be immaterial, infinatly powerful and operate outside of space and time, this fits perfectly with the conception of a God one who isnt limited by the very laws he made like time which he would operate outside of. Hence God is the uncaused cause, he has no beginning middle or end, these are limiting conceptions resulting from laws of time and physics that do not apply to a being outside of these laws. I can provide further clarification if required.
Ok, I have a lot of questions.
With Judaism, Christianity, & Islam, they generally would agree that
(1) there is an aspect to existence that is spiritual.
(heaven, hell, GOD, satan, angels, demons, ghosts, etc...)
(2) that beings of the "spirit world" can know that we, in the physical world exist by their ability to, at their will, manifest into & out of our physical world; but we, here in this physical life, cannot know that the "spirit world" & its beings exist because we lack the ability to manifest into & out of the "spirit world" at our will.
-Now (2) is interesting!
WHY would an all-powerful GOD, who desires us to know THEM, stay in a "spirit world" & give THEIR SELVES & the spiritual entities that THEY created the ability to manifest in the physical world & know that we exist; but cut us off from that ability so that we can know that THEY (GOD) exist??.....I stress again, that GOD wants us to know THEM.
So why would GOD set it up to work that way?
Why would GOD force us to have Faith in THEM, if THEY want us to know them??
Why would GOD allow spiritual beings to manifest in this physical world, so that they can know us; but deny us the ability to manifest in the "Spirit World", where THEY (GOD) are, so that the ONLY way we have a shot at knowing THEM, is via Faith??
....Why?
Why would an all-powerful GOD who wants us to know THEM, set it up to work THAT way??
It literally makes no sense to me!
Ok so I think there is some confusion on your part when you keep referring to God as “them”. Christians and Jews are monotheists, meaning we believe there is only one God, so your question should rightly ascribe to God as “Him” not “them”. If your point was God wants us to know “them” meaning God + other spiritual entities He created like angels, then there is still a misunderstanding. God created us to know, love and enjoy Him for all of eternity and he did the same for the angels. As a result of free will both man and angels have fallen and some accept and some reject Him.
Now the biggest point I would like to stress here is the following. God does not want us to know Him in the same sense that I know Abraham Lincoln, that is to say mere knowledge of His existence has never been His aim. The Bible makes it clear that God desires us to trust and love Him as He has loved us. He makes that clear in dying on the cross for our sins so that we can be with Him forever. So it’s not a question of merely knowing He exist but rather loving Him and wanting to be in relationship with Him on account of what He has done for us. Your wife or girlfriend would not find you simply knowing her or believing she exists as sufficient grounds for a meaningful relationship. Now the following you must ask yourself. Do you reject God because you truly lack intellectual confirmation for it or is it because you don’t want Him to exists for selfish reasons? The good news is there is a remedy for either. God bless you!
@@bilbobaggins9893 You are referring to God.
I am referring to GOD.
"God" refers to God, The Everlasting Father.
"GOD" refers to The Holy Trinity.
GOD is a team of 3 (for lack of better terms, "Gods")
There are 3 Gods. THEY form a team that we call GOD (aka The Holy Trinity). GOD desires for The Human Race to know THEM.
@@adamrspears1981 with all due respect, what you are saying is simply wrong. Orthodox Christianity dating back to its conception has never referred to the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) as three different Gods. They refer to God as one God (hence the name MONO-theism) consisting of 3 persons, not 3 Gods. That is the essential trinitarian doctrine (1 God consisting of 3 persons) Christianity. You are making up terms and definitions. There isn’t God and GOD, there is simply God, and only one.
Beyond that, I’m confused by your comment. You originally asked a question that I tried answering and then your latest response seemed to be affirming my answer. If so, that is great, if not, did I misunderstand either of your comments? Do you still take issue with what your previous comment states or did my explanation of how God wants us to know Him make any sense?
@@bilbobaggins9893 I refuse to argue about the simple concept that if you have 3 components, you have 3 things.
A FIRST GRADER has no problem understanding that 3 is not 1. But somehow this has been & still is a debate among Christians??
& yet Christians believe that their discernment & understanding is sound enough to return with Christ and judge the world 🤦
Have a good night, Sir!
@@adamrspears1981 Fair enough. Surely you are entitled to your opinion, however I hope you will reconsider some of these things. Although it has been debated on a very small scale throughout history, the trinitarian concept as God being one essence consisting of 3 persons has long been the predominant view of Christianity since its conception. This is not very controversial. It’s entirely reasonable to me that an infinite God would at times involve concepts or ideas that are tough to grasp. The important point from all of this is that he wants us to know him in a loving relational sense not a mere intellectual grasping. Take care and God bless!
The best argument, I can tell, won’t even be made in this video.
And that is, what are the 7 deadly sins?
Pride, Greed, Envy, Sloth, Gluttony, Lust, and *Wrath*
If the 7 Deadly sins are an indicator of you going to Hell, wouldn’t God go to Hell for partaking in Wrath, thus breaking his very law? So why should we listen to him? It almost sounds like God, who is believed to be all knowing, all powerful, and perfect, ignores part of the very law he created. It’s almost as if, the entire concept was made up.
Does the society make a religion or is it really from Creator (God)
Watch it here
ua-cam.com/video/hsIbwA9UF4s/v-deo.html
Good argument. I can see the contradiction your going for here, but to be atheistic it needs to disprove god, not just the one described in the Bible. After all there can still be a god even without the Bible’s existence. I mean this reply in the most respectful way possible.
You can commit *any* sins and still go to heaven. As long as you believe in God and truly repent for your sins, you can go to heaven. What's most important to God is that you believe in him.
Party4Keeps exactly
@@thevulture5750 God is perfect. He loves giving children cancer. I'm sure they deserve it.
If God made something to communicate with his most divoted followers I a mere human shouldn't be able to control it right ?
@Mojas Deshpande But if god wishes to communicate with anyone, why would it not be those who doubt his existence? His followers already believe in him, is it not those who doubt who need his communication the most? Unless you believe that a deity is less powerful than human frailty. When his Adversary seems more than willing to communicate with all who seek him, perhaps your god should be a little more available.
@Kitalia the kitsune Very true. If their were a god, would not his manifestation be the same and consistent across every faithfull persons experience? Indeed!!
@Kitalia the kitsune lol very true
why not
@Kitalia the kitsune he doesn't owe nothing and has left a abundant of evidence @Cole Wortham cant lie I'm Christian's jesus calls us to be skeptics bro not to suspend our mind because evil and good are intertwined. All these arguments had nothing evil proves where in a fallen creation. Wait why is there laws at all if there is no god why is there laws of logic. Why study science things just happen why do seasons happen and if we are millions of years old why is the moon recession shouldn't it be futher?? Internal excess heat being out put from planets why haven't they ran out sorry my guy makes no sense. Btw no god no morality so nothing is really evil nothing is good it's just preferences if you chose to work for the well being of a chemical accident go ahead kill it go ahead Its chemical accident killing another. Plus if I kill someone not my fault it just the chemical reactions in my head telling me so. After you throw out absolute morality. Also, no god laws of logic who to say they are not changing based on your area scripture say god can't contradict the truth but overtime with evolution you can?? Laws of logic make no sense with no good because anything is possible it's a chance universe. Lastly, no god no uniformity of nature because, in a universe with no good who to say the laws of gravity dont stop working seasons dont continue to happen none of these things are possible. See who to say your thoughts are telling you the truth about reality would you trust the thoughts of a monkey. Religions across the world prove that god has ingrained a whole in everyone's heart for him they believe different things of there choice and will be judged based on their knowledge not unjustly but reject the truth there is a consequence. Also, more evidence evolution makes no sense there are no fossils of kind to kind and no mutation like the one in evolution of natural selection adding information to the DNA sorry no evidence at all that is evidence like god said he made everything according to their kind. More evidence for a young earth is comets in solar system that are still in it they only last 100,000 years hmmm millions of years old?? Idk alot of faith in the mind of a monkey. Ohh let's get to the bible and historical reliability of christ do you believe in history and if you do, do you have a double standard for the bible because the gospel one of the most historically reliable book of antiquity. Proof that christianity isnt indoctrinated is how the center of christianity moves across the world over the years so alot of intellectual people come to christ after seeing Jesus's historical life teaching, death, and resurrection. Make sure your not being a hyper skeptic plz also the bible many times predicts the future and has not been wrong once 230 prophecies hmmm predict things like the circle/sphere figure of the earth, the expansion of the universe isiah 40;22 and how energy cant be created or destroyed talked about again no god this don't happen john 1:3 there being so many stars/solar systems that it is uncountable genesis 22:17 and the earth being hanged up on nothing job 26:7 bro this book made bc. Hmmm.. now you study for yourself and let go of your presuppositions that are contradictory for the fact that you cant live out the fact thatI don't think you can that life is meaningless and accident and you do whatever your mind tells you now there's is more to it then
God bless you
Roman's 1:18
I pray that you can turn to god let him into you heart because proverbs 1:7
No god doesn't allow knowledge to be a thing.
Where you're born tells you what god you believe in? This may have some truth on a large scale, but there are too many exceptions to take this argument seriously. There are a number of countries that have a mix of multiple religious beliefs, for instance. And many people may claim to adhere to a religion but don't necessarily believe in it.
What created a god?
How can a being be all-powerful, yet we can't observe it actually existing? How do we know of such a being if it is invisible?
@let's talk LOL, Show us an interaction, please. One that has been proven without a doubt, with evidence.
@@kelduck8851 Sure! But first, give me the evidence for how the big bang created this earth and all the 'life' that dwells upon it, without any 'purpose' and without the power of thought.
@@jimhappnin1425 Sure. But first show us an interaction.
@@kelduck8851 Why?? You're just going to tell me that you don't 'believe' it. You simply just don't seem to be able to 'believe that this earth, and all the 'life' that dwells upon it, was created by an 'intelligent' God who created us for a specific 'purpose'.
So why don't you show me the 'proven' without 'doubt' evidence that shows this earth and all the 'life' that dwells upon it was created by the 'mindless' forces of nature, without any 'purpose' and without the power of 'thought'??
You do have evidence that has been proven without a doubt. Right??? I mean... if you don't, why would you ask me for evidence "proven without doubt"???
@@jimhappnin1425 So not one bit of evidence, just some tap dancing.
What a surprise.
None of these arguments work. The fact that where you were born/raised influences which god you end up believing in has no bearing whatsoever on which (if any, or if multiple) of these gods are real. We've always understood, after all, that being born/raised in certain societies will give you certain advantages or disadvantages concerning outright scientific truths. Access to education will always make up the difference, so this isn't a very good argument at all.
Similarly, evolutionary theory won't work to explain away the sort of generalized "god" experience because it can easily be said that what we evolved was the ability to *perceive* the supernatural. And so what if you can simulate these religious experiences voluntarily? You can simulate bona fide *natural* experiences the same way too. This does nothing to suggest that, when these parts of their brains *aren't* being stimulated, that it's still a natural cause of the experience.
The right word is PROOF. Show the proof of god and everything will be sort out. Easy.
@@nakulangrish4949 Well that'd be shifting the *burden* of proof, in the context of my original comment. Besides which, I think all you need is good reason to believe something. And I'm not a theist myself but I can respect that theists who have had the sorts of experiences they report are reasonable in believing based on experience.
@@Vic2point0 But you have to prove for showing that whatever are you saying is right in a sense. You cant deny scientific proofs of evolution and everything on the basis of your personal experiences. Anyone can have different supernatural experiences in their lives because brain is making those hallucinations to you.
Even I am not am not against thiests. But if you are asking for proofs and science is giving proofs everytime. Thiests should also try to give proofs and if what they are saying is right I dont think it would be a problem for them to give proofs.right?
@@nakulangrish4949 Proofs of what? I was asking for an argument or evidence for very specific claims (or a defense of the arguments I was critiquing). And I agree that if theists make the truth claim to others that there is a god, they should be able to provide evidence or an argument to support their claims, but it goes both ways.
On the side of that, belief based on experience has always been perfectly rational, though it won't do anything to convince those who've not shared your experience.
Problem of evil is also not a problem in a world of many, non- omnipotent gods!
That's why Epicuris ended it by asking "why worship it?"
"Many different gods is a proof that we created God". What a load of nonsense. Not even an attempt to think about different languages and cultures being a cause of one thinking that there are different gods.
- I added citation marks due to the many misunderstandings.
I hope one day you read your comment again and just think about how stupid what you are saying is.
K3NZ1E
No. Honestly, this comment is pretty good.
@@k3nz1e73 it's not stupid for a student of languages and cultures.
Odin is pleased you believe in many different gods.
@@kelduck8851 so is batman
I'm Christian but this video got me thinking
You can only be a Christian or do thinking, they are not compatible.
God loves for people to think. These yahoos make lots of assumptions and impose their own values on that of an advanced being. Be critical, but be fair.
i said the same thing a couple of years ago... now im an atheist lol
@@gejlena No one is an atheist unless they want to be.
@@DarkEagle-vx9hd yeah ? no one is religious unless they want to be. i dont get ur point
Assuming that WE created God just because people teach how to relate to God differently in different geographical locations is exceptionally silly.
It would be like lacking belief in physical reality because science is taught slightly differently from one classroom to the next.
"If everyone doesn't agree on EVERY aspect of God / physical reality then that means I don't believe it exists at all!"
As a Logic teacher, I sometimes love watching Atheist arguments. They're very creative in terms of coming up with the most illogical approach imaginable in order to deny the obvious with very impressive mental gymnastics and tap dancing around the simplest, most straightforward questions with endless fallacious reasoning.
@Carlos Alberto Cristobal Excellent rebuttal. This is the quality of argumentation typically expected of Atheists these days, so it's no surprise.
@Carlos Alberto Cristobal Ah, I see what your issue is: Scientism.
You think logically valid, sound arguments for philosophical positions are not a valid form of evidence for them.
This is patently false. The ONLY form of evidence that can be expected for any philosophical position is logically valid, sound argumentation. This is because philosophy deals with topics beyond the scope of scientific inquiry.
But you dismiss philosophical arguments for Theism because you unwittingly adhere to the self-refuting philosophy of Scientism. Here's why Scientism is self-refuting: (this is important)
The claim *Truth can only be known if it's scientifically verified* cannot be scientifically verified.
That's it. So anyone arguing as if Scientism is true (like you are), 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 science is not the only path to truth. It's not the only way of proving things.
For example, would you agree the claim *All English sentences are shorter than three words* is definitely false?
Of course it's definitely false. The sentence ITSELF is in English and eight words long, immediately refuting itself. It's false by necessity.
Notice how no scientific verification was needed to prove that?? Just logic/rationality?
*What is beyond science is not beyond rationality*
That's what philosophy is. It used the same logic/rationality except in a more complex manner to determine if philosophies are true. And absolute truth exists within logic (and mathematics) so this can be determined with absolutely certainty.
Philosophy deals with finding truth beyond what science can deal with. And there are over 100 logically valid & sound arguments for Theism recognized by mainstream academia.
Capturing Christianity has a good video covering all of them, providing the syllogisms for each argument along with brief explanations. If you type *100 arguments for Theism* it'll come up.
@Carlos Alberto Cristobal Regarding the Kalam, of course William Lane Craig isn't just imagining things like you claim. He's providing logically valid & sound argumentation for WHY a cause of the universe that meets many of the characteristics of God MUST exist. I'll explain how he does so, briefly:
A)Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
B)The universe began to exist. C)Therefore the universe has a cause.
It can be logically deduced that cause must have the following traits:
Spaceless - Because space came into being and did not exist until this cause brought it into existence, the cause cannot be spatial. It must be spaceless or non-spatial. You cannot be inside of something if you are that something’s cause. You cannot be inside of something if that something did not exist until you brought it into existence
Timeless - Since time did not exist until the universe began to exist, the cause cannot be inside of time. It must be timeless.
Immaterial - The cause’s non-spatiality entails immateriality. How so? Because material objects cannot exist unless space exists. Material objects have mass and ergo occupy spatial dimensions. If there is no space, matter cannot exist. This means that because the cause is non-spatial, it is therefore non-material.
Unimaginably Powerful (if not omnipotent) - Anything able to create all matter, energy, space, and time out of absolutely nothing must be extremely powerful, if not omnipotent.
Supernatural - “Nature” and “The universe” are synonyms. Nature did not begin to exist until The Big Bang. Therefore, a natural cause (a cause coming, by definition, from nature) cannot be responsible for the origin of nature. To say otherwise would be to spout incoherence. You’d basically be saying “Nature caused nature to come into being.”
Uncaused - Given that the cause of the universe is timeless, the cause cannot itself have a beginning. To have a beginning to one’s existence entails a before and after relationship. There’s a time before one existed and a time after one came into existence. But a before and after of anything is impossible without time. Since the cause existed sans time, the cause, therefore, cannot have a beginning. It’s beginningless.
Personal - This is an entailment of the cause’s immateriality. There are two types of things recognized by philosophers that are immaterial: abstract objects (such as numbers, sets, or other mathematical entities) or unembodied minds. Philosophers realize that abstract objects if they exist, they exist as non-physical entities. However, abstract objects cannot produce any effects. That’s part of what it means to be abstract. The number 3 isn’t going to be producing any effects anytime soon. Given that abstract objects are causally impotent, it, therefore, follows that an unembodied mind is the cause of the universe’ beginning
All these traits that are logically deduced for the necessary cause of the universe's beginning match precisely with descriptions of God.
Aren't you doing ill assumption that everyone believes into same god? How would you justify that as a logic teacher.
Whenever I want to feel smarter than others, I listen to atheists!
How can everything come out of nothing? That is the most stupid argument of all. Quantum fluctuations and the laws of quantum mechanics are not nothing. They did not make themselves. Multiple universes also had to have a first cause.
Where did god come from?
Why 'god?' Is that the only possibility on the table?
@@cnault3244 Answer me before I answer you. How did everything come out of nothing?
@@madamvaudelune3298 How did everything come out of nothing then?
@@rolo5424 Who said it came out of nothing? I never claimed that.
Also, you said "how did everything come out of nothing?". If you believe a god exists, you are either claiming god came out of nothing ( since you said how did everything come out of nothing) or you are claiming god is nothing ( since you said how did everything come from nothing).
But if you want to play your silly game, OK, tell me how your god made the universe.
Google,
"Are there good reasons to believe in God? I will simply note that both sides have strong arguments"
@1:55: One...small problem. About stimulating the brain to cause hallucinatory manifestations of "a non-corporeal presence" or some version of OOBE as proof as to their fundamentally obvious non-existence:
If I stimulate another part of the brain to induce the smell of oranges or burnt toast, or the color red, does that mean these things don't exist objectively outside myself in the "real" world? Furthermore the thin, rather vague qualia of these artificially created experiences don't seem to match-up to the reportedly "richly experienced" spontaneously occurring versions of this phenomena. Mike makes good points about belief in what version of God you happen to believe in on account of geographical birth, but I wonder if he also isn't missing something. Suspicion of "God" as an obviously bad idea may be justified, but rejection of the deeper aspects of this phenomena as mere brain farts is not.
There is one word you have forgotten to add in, it is 'corroboration.' If you could, somehow, convey to me your own OOBE, or other experience that is one thing, I can produce an orange or burnt toast to the satisfaction of any observer, How 'richly experienced' a phenomena might be is a matter for debate, I have heard some pretty awesome hyperbole from hippies in my time. Deeper aspects is pretty vague, care to explain?
The smell of oranges, toast and red are all things that we perceive in our daily lives. But an omnipotent figure that we have never touched, smelled, or seen? How can we be sure that it is a God that the person is sensing, if there is no experience to be the basis for comparison? Somebody who grew up Hindu may feel the presence of Vishnu, while a Christian may sense Jesus. They feel something odd- similar to the feeling of being watched after seeing a horror movie- and their brain fills in the blanks with what they believe to be most probable.
@@sirenaisle That happened to me a while back. SInce I happen to identify as an active worshipper of "His Holy Noodliness", I simply assumed it was The FSM that had revealed itself to me and I was rather ecstatic.
Now of course, I know better.
orange sense is real therefore hallucinations are real... duh youre a genius
@@symbiorg1201 oxymorons are good counter arguments.. duh youre not an idiot
Disproving religion does not disprove God.
Ro Lo a very important point I wish more people would take in to account. We can disprove individual religions quite easily but to say for sure there isn’t a divine energy of some sort is ignorance because we truly do not know yet
No, we do know there is no god. We know how the universe was formed. Whether or not you want to believe in science (reality) is your bag. But we know god is not real.
Katy the way you speak you presume god is subordinate to logic as in logic applies to god. God for all you know could transcend logic and perform literal impossibilities and logic would be subordinate unto him
@@user-we1fk4ul5o OK then, how did the Big Bang start? How did life start?
Katy no, we can safely say that any kind of denominational god is made up. Clearly religion is man made. But we can not definitively say that the universe was created by a god. Personally I use “god” to define the universal energy in its entirety. But this is the one place believers have a foothold. We know how to universe came in to play down to a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, but we don’t know what came before it. Claiming to know either way how we got here is ignorance because we truly don’t know the whole timeline yet
THE MEANING OF LIFE
1) We are all trapped by our biology. And by that, I mean there is no permanently escaping death. It is the final experience we will all one day ultimately share, and that day is coming for each of us.
2) We are all stunted by our psychology. And by that, I mean we are all driven and influenced by our individual anxieties, fears, stress, obsessive behaviors, compulsions. We are all neurotic to varying degrees, and no one is completely free of this neurosis.
3) So, because we are trapped by our biology and stunted by our psychology, we must wrap ourselves - and by that, I mean no real choice is required - WE MUST IMMERSE OURSELVES in mythology, which I define as the familiar, formulaic stories of our time. These stories tend to permeate novels, comics, religion, philosophy, sports, songs, poetry, cinema, television, media - in essence, these stories permeate culture.
So why did we evolve this way? To simply squelch - to repress - the incessant, perpetual rumble of our impending mortality.
Therefore, the meaning of life is to deny death.
To learn more, read my novel “The Insignificant Miracle In Between" available on Amazon in ebook and paperback formats - www.amazon.com/Insignificant-Miracle-Between-Wallace-Smith-ebook/dp/B09B497M7R/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1663360226&sr=8-1. And please be sure to leave a review. Thanks.
I think god should get on live tv and declare his existence to all the people in the world and then visit everybody personally and make them SEE and FEEL that he is real. Everybody will believe in God.
(Basically make believing in him/her super easy so that nobody goes to hell. That's what he wishes right?) PROBLEM SOLVED.
I think if god is almighty and superpower who can create infinite universe can do this very easily.
Then god cant see who didnt believed him before that.
If we saw God we would die because he is Perfect and holy and we are not. We can't see air or love but we feel the result of it being there and the impact of those things being there. God is the same way, we cannot see him physically but when in relationship with him we most definitely can feel him. This life is a test of faith, God gives us all free will because he doesn't want forced love he wants it to be from the heart and our faith in him along with following his word proves our love for him. why do you think so many people proclaim God and his love bc they feel it and experience it. God goes against what makes sense naturally to the human mind to humble us. Please read 1 Corinthians 1: 20-31. God loves you unconditionally and is waiting for you
@@kaylinclarke5091 You sound like a lunatic
@@mism847 @Cole Wortham cant lie I'm Christian's jesus calls us to be skeptics bro not to suspend our mind because evil and good are intertwined. All these arguments had nothing evil proves where in a fallen creation. Wait why is there laws at all if there is no god why is there laws of logic. Why study science things just happen why do seasons happen and if we are millions of years old why is the moon recession shouldn't it be futher?? Internal excess heat being out put from planets why haven't they ran out sorry my guy makes no sense. Btw no god no morality so nothing is really evil nothing is good it's just preferences if you chose to work for the well being of a chemical accident go ahead kill it go ahead Its chemical accident killing another. Plus if I kill someone not my fault it just the chemical reactions in my head telling me so. After you throw out absolute morality. Also, no god laws of logic who to say they are not changing based on your area scripture say god can't contradict the truth but overtime with evolution you can?? Laws of logic make no sense with no good because anything is possible it's a chance universe. Lastly, no god no uniformity of nature because, in a universe with no good who to say the laws of gravity dont stop working seasons dont continue to happen none of these things are possible. See who to say your thoughts are telling you the truth about reality would you trust the thoughts of a monkey. Religions across the world prove that god has ingrained a whole in everyone's heart for him they believe different things of there choice and will be judged based on their knowledge not unjustly but reject the truth there is a consequence. Also, more evidence evolution makes no sense there are no fossils of kind to kind and no mutation like the one in evolution of natural selection adding information to the DNA sorry no evidence at all that is evidence like god said he made everything according to their kind. More evidence for a young earth is comets in solar system that are still in it they only last 100,000 years hmmm millions of years old?? Idk alot of faith in the mind of a monkey. Ohh let's get to the bible and historical reliability of christ do you believe in history and if you do, do you have a double standard for the bible because the gospel one of the most historically reliable book of antiquity. Proof that christianity isnt indoctrinated is how the center of christianity moves across the world over the years so alot of intellectual people come to christ after seeing Jesus's historical life teaching, death, and resurrection. Make sure your not being a hyper skeptic plz also the bible many times predicts the future and has not been wrong once 230 prophecies hmmm predict things like the circle/sphere figure of the earth, the expansion of the universe isiah 40;22 and how energy cant be created or destroyed talked about again no god this don't happen john 1:3 there being so many stars/solar systems that it is uncountable genesis 22:17 and the earth being hanged up on nothing job 26:7 bro this book made bc. Hmmm.. now you study for yourself and let go of your presuppositions that are contradictory for the fact that you cant live out the fact thatI don't think you can that life is meaningless and accident and you do whatever your mind tells you now there's is more to it then
God bless you
Roman's 1:18
I pray that you can turn to god let him into you heart because proverbs 1:7
No god doesn't allow knowledge to be a thing.
@@mism847 I do also
One could argue that the human definition of good and evil places no obligation on God.
In order to argue such a thing, you first need to prove a god exists.
It does if someone claims a loving caring god.
And we're not placing any obligation on someone's imaginary friend, but on their beliefs about it.
Another proof of idiocy. We are made in HIS image. Human frailties would mean he is one sick cat.
@@avihan9027 so god was made out of something simple then - who made him?
I just think of it like this. You can say and believe anything, without proof, but the burden of proof is on the belief in God therefore prove it and no one has.
Atheism only has one argument, but it is a doozy.
The atheist argument is that no theist claims for any particular god or gods hold up to scrutiny.
"Atheism fields two kinds of arguments denying the existence of God: arguments that refute so-called 'proofs' of God's existence and arguments that affirmatively support the truth claims of atheism."
Atheists have no need to argue. All we have to do is ask the theist to present evidence for their god. So far, the theists have failed to present evidence for their god... probably because they do not seem to be able to define their god clearly.
Any worldview, including naturalistic athiesm, has major implications on how you view life. Most athiests do not live consistently within the framework which they believe.
For example, as an athiest, the origin of the universe is an accidental product of time and chance. As such, no inherent meaning or purpose exists. The existence of the universe is just a pointless, mindless, meaningless, random product of the big bang. There is no basis to say a human is more valuable than a worm or a rock. Any attempt to apply morality and find purpose and value is an illusion not based in reality. It is inconsistent within the atheistic framework. At best morality is just a social construct but you have no objective morality to appeal to to argue against the morals of another person or another culture. You may say enforcing some set of morality is in the best interests of a society but why should that matter anyway? A consistent athiest would have to say life has no purpose and their is no basis to say anything is right or wrong. You certainly couldn't say such thinking was wrong. There is no inherent value in anything. Nihilism is consistent within an atheistic world view.
Richard Dawkins even acknowledges that within athiesm there is no good or evil, right or wrong, everything just Is, everything just 'dances to its DNA'
and yet he still tries appeal to morality to argue that certain actions are immoral. Inconsistent.
Atheists have to justify their position as much as anyone else.
As well as the above, how does an athiest explain the beginning of the universe? Scientists now understand that the universe (space, time and matter) had a beginning. It is not eternal as had been believed. How do you account for this? Surely the cause must be beyond nature and beyond time (ie supernatural and timeless) as nature cannot cause itself to come into existence! It needs an eternal uncaused first cause which is spaceless and powerful and personal, much more than just a force. How does an athiest explain the incredible fine tuning of the universe? How does rationality exist in a universe that came about from supposed mindless processes that had no rationale but just blind forces?
Frankly as has been said, 'I do not have enough faith to be an athiest.'
@@mahones981 You forgot to present any evidence for a god.
Also,you failed to explain how not having belief a god exist is a worldview.
Do you also consider having a non-belief that pixies exist a worldview?
@@cnault3244 a world view is simply that...how you view the world, how we understand the world. What makes better sense of reality, theism or athiesm? That is really the question to be answered.
If you believe that the universe came into existence by meaningless, purposeless, accidental processes involving time, matter and chance, what would the implications be? Would it not be logical to then view life as meaningless and without purpose? Could you say that such a view was wrong or is it just being consistent with your belief regarding the origin of the universe ? Given that no morality is inherent in the coming into existence of the universe, would it be wrong to believe that morality is therefore not real or at best a man made invention that you have no right to enforce on someone else?
As far as evidence goes, let's start at the beginning.
As I mentioned before, we now understand that the universe had a beginning. Therefore nature did not always exist. How do you account for the fact that it now exists? How do you account for the fact that there is something rather than nothing? It seems we have 2 options.
1.it popped into existence out of nothing.
2.Given that nature came into existence , someone or something beyond nature (ie something supernatural) must be the cause. Given that time had a beginning, the cause must therefore also be timeless. Therefore the cause must be a powerful, timeless and uncaused first cause.
One thing is for sure. Either option would have to be considered a miracle.
But given that everything that has a beginning must have a cause, I find it hard to see how 'nothing' can be capable of being a legitimate explanation. Where is the evidence for this? Has something ever been observed to come into existence from nothing?
This is just one piece of evidence which I believe favours option 2 over option1. Now it doesn't prove God's existence but I think it is compelling to at least see it as a legitimate option, and indeed logically a more compelling option than option1.
And it is certainly illogical to say that something that comes into existence at a point in time can bring itself into existence, therefore the cause of the natural realm must be from outside the natural realm as nature cannot bring itself into existence.
As an athiest, it is not acceptable to say you do not have to defend your position. You still need to argue why your understanding makes better sense of reality.
Even if someone was convinced there were pixies, I would still need to show how being an 'apixiest' better explains reality. We would then need to examine the evidence and see where that takes us.
@@mahones981 "a world view is simply that...how you view the world, how we understand the world. "
Do you call non-belief in leprechauns a worldview?
Do you call non-belief that vanilla ice cream is the best flavor a worldview?
"What makes better sense of reality, theism or athiesm? That is really the question to be answered."
Well,let's see....
From what has been presented, a theist believes and claims a god that they won't clearly define & that cannot be seen or heard and that they present no evidence for exists & created everything.
An atheist asks the theist to prove their claims. ( spoiler alert:so far, the theists have not proven their claims)
Maybe you can break the cycle.
Define god clearly.
@@cnault3244 thinking that vanilla is best is nothing more than a preference.
Some beliefs impact worldview more than others, even not believing in something.
If I said I did not believe in Covid-19 it could have big impacts on how I followed regulations and went about my daily life. If someone did not believe in Covid-19 saying 'where is your evidence, it's all conspiracy and fake news, tell me EXACTLY what Covid-19 is like' then you could end up in a cycle you will never break. Especially if the Covid-19 non- believer felt justified in saying his non-belief is the default position that did not need defending.
So I ask you, why is position 1 from my previous post your default position? Can you defend the logic of that position please?
The fact that there is something rather than nothing is just one piece of compelling evidence suggesting the cause must be powerful, eternal, beyond nature (ie supernatural) and personal.
I’m not a theist, but even I have trouble with some of these arguments.
The argument that poking around the brain produces pseudo-spiritual perceptions is very weak. Poking around the brain also produces pseudo-visual and auditory experiences, but we cannot thereby conclude that there is nothing to see or hear in the world.
The argument from the diversity of religions is also very weak. We can also point to a huge diversity of languages in the world. But we cannot not thereby conclude that those languages demonstrate the absence of a consistent underlying reality.
The problem of evil is hardly worth mentioning as it merely forces us to reconsider the notion of omnipotence, omniscience, and omni-benevolence.
Etc.
The right word is PROOF. Show the proof of god and everything will be sort out. Easy.
Can' be done. God works in mysterious ways remember 😉
There isn't a reliable way of proving God exist, because to stablish it we need confirmation bias, and that's a no no.
Also this is a scientific argument for God, not a philosophical argument you're making.
Because according to mathematics... God's existence is there, but empirically there isn't.
You can't disprove the existence of something without even being able prove the opposite as a reliable opposition.
*How do you know God doesn't exist?* This God, who exists outside our universe... have you ever gone out of the universe to see he isn't there? No? Probably because God, by definition can't be comprehended. by us. We humans can't even think about omnipotence as a whole because we don't know what are all posible things. If you think otherwise then you have unfortunately not passed philosophy class.
The easiest way would be for _god_ to prove itself.
Perhaps it should manifest itself in *St Peter's Square.*
Or perhaps it should manifest itself in my back garden and (gently) scare the pigeons away.
@@isamuasdfuffhvvhidakajkcdv2266 u r wrong my frnd. What we dont know u cant say its there. What we cant understand u cant say its there. I m not saying anything philosiphecal. I m just saying proof. Prove it. Thats it.
@@nakulangrish4949 So basically, out of our mind out of existence?
That goes against even scientific reasoning even though both have a severe problem of inductive reasoning... Just because we haven't seen or felt God, doesn't mean he does not exist.
In philosophical discussions, you can't really put a "proof" of things when it wouldn't be a discussion.
For example: Can you prove God doesn't exist? If you start with the "I haven't seen him" argument, then does that mean that until you see it it doesn't exist? Well that's abductive reasosing right there innit?
We can't be so utterly simplistic and say "prove it" whenever you can't even certainly "disprove it".
Even then, how can a human being possibly even feel the presence of a supposed being that exists outside of our laws of space-time and is literally, by definition, omnipotent. Meaning that the God could perfectly be above comprehension which would mean we would actually never sense, see, smell or touch supposed God.
It's like proving if inductive reasoning on practice is deductive...
When you ask fo proof, you are limiting the idea of God to a probabilistic being, and God is limitless in all of it's properties, therefore asking for proof for the existence of God is childish at best.
Can science prove that God doesn't exist? No it doesn't. Probably because science is limited to the world we live in. Period.
I’m a christian but these are very good arguments! (Except for the problem of evil imo) compared to the crazy stupid ones I’ve seen before at least lol
god in the bible admits to creating evil in Isaiah 45 7
@@keithboynton So he couldn’t be a god, if he’s not perfect.
@@keithboynton but god supposedly doesn't make any mistakes?
@@Molderon gee, you think? see, I don't know about you, but if I was omniscient and omnipotent, I simply wouldn't make mistakes. even if God somehow does something he regrets, he would be able to go back and fix it easy. the very idea of mistakes is completely contrary to the concept of God, at least the concept of your god. it's like talking about faults in perfection. they can't logically exist. but the way reality is makes it so that you cannot reconcile with the fact that any sort of creator would do this on purpose. in order for yaweh to even function in concordance with the universe, you have to discount or remove one of his three key traits: his omnipotence, omniscience, or his omnibenevolence. therein lies a fundamental contradiction between your god and the real world we live in which, far past making his existence dubious, makes it logically impossible
He’s 100% correct humans created religions. External works for salvation. Christianity is not a religion we believe Jesus Christ is alive - in short. God is a just and fair. If he controlled us then he’s not just. The word Christian is not in the Bible at all. It doesn’t exist.
If somebody is SINCERely looking to see if God exists... all they have to do is ask Him.
Say this: God, if You are real, and if You love me.. then please show me Yourself... so that I never doubt Your existence again. Because if You are real, I need to know.
Indeed!
um i got nothing just me talking to myself lol
And if I do that and I don't get a response, does that mean it's reasonable to conclude he doesn't exist?
@@dragan176 - If you asked sincerely, Wait For It... He will respond.
- It doesn't hurt to ask God "if He's real - to show you His essence". Tell Him that "you want to know Him from your heart as well... not just from your head".
- God is a Father. Most Fathers love to chat / talk to their kids.... It'll happen.
@@FeedScrn And if I ask sincerely and he doesn't respond? Can I then conclude that he isn't there?
Faith in scriptures does not lead us to truth claims about the world.
How do you know that?
@@jessebryant9233 When has it?
@@HardKore5250
So you can't back up your claim? That's what I thought...
@@jessebryant9233 There is no evidence it has lol.
@@HardKore5250
So you can't back up your claims with any kind of evidence or argument whatsoever then? That's what I thought... [face-palm]
The idea of god exists for three reasons
-scare people into acting “good”
-fear of death without an afterlife
-someone to blame
What about unity? The first monotheistic religion was created to unify a nation. How do you atheism as a uniting moral force if it has no postulates?
Prove it.
God is the Totality of every thing, being, and process. Because all of that exists, God exists. It's that simple.
Genetic fallacies everywhere...
Yeah , this is what i responded to an atheist above .... They dont seem to get it ....
It is genetic fallacy only when he intends that to be the sole support for atheism. Whereas he has like 50 other supporting arguments against theism (in the personal type intervening supernatural entity)
Speaking of which; Interesting how many Yiddish blokes reject our Creator. Over half in Zionist Israel.
@@63302426
We are spirits created by intelligence because only intelligence creates. Atheist faith that intelligence is created by matter and that matter is created by chance is quite easy to dismantle.
1. What do you believe to be a known creation of matter?
2. What do you believe to be a known creation of chance?
@@onefodderunit 1) "Atheism" does "have" is not "based on" nor does it "use" *faith* . On any scale, at any time. If you think it does... you misunderstand "What" Atheism *is* .
2) In reply to your first question: As far as we are *currently* aware of, Matter and energy are merely in a constant state of flux. Neither being created nor destroyed.
3) In reply to your 2nd question: I would need you to define what *you* mean by a "creation of chance". Like are *you* talking about if I mix some chemicals together that "create" a different chemical after interacting with each other, if it's an imperfect mix, there will be some leftover original chemicals and it's by "chance" which "parts" of the "entire original chemicals" gets used in the "creation event"? Are you talking about something like that? I don't want to assume go off on a misunderstanding, so I'll await your reply....
There's no God. There's universal consciousness .
curiosity 2019 And it comes from God.
@@glennralph7007 Where does God comes from then?
curiosity 2019 That’s one of the big mysteries. Who creates God? Nobody knows the answer to that.
@@glennralph7007 Humans created God in their mind.
curiosity 2019 Lmao!!! That’s what you’d like to believe, but that’s not reality bud.
Food for Thought 👍👍
But, questions can never end...
a) If You find the most/last fundamental particle... the very next question will be..."From where this last fundamental particle came?"
b) If You find God... the very next question will be..."From where God came?"
c) If You say this last fundamental particle/God existed always.... the next questions will be...
(i) "Who/Which rule decided that the God is to be good/powerful/one etc. (Why not many Gods/less powerful God/evil God)"
(ii) "Which rule decided that the last fundamental particle will have these properties only, which it will possess...why not some different properties?"
(iii) "How can an immaterial God make something material? What is the process behind this conversion?"
(iv) "What is the energy source of this immaterial thing by which it can sustain itself and perform actions also?
etc.
etc.
Therefore in spirituality/Yoga they say that we should focus on achieving Supreme Happiness (Happiness/Bliss that never goes away).
Even if we find everything in the universe, ultimately we will achieve satisfaction/happiness.
So, they say don't give much importance to knowledge (because questions can never end)...but give importance to the path which leads you to a state of default/supreme happiness, which once achieved never ever goes away..
God is nothing but this state. Once we achieve this state, they say, we are no different from God...then, we become God.
If you have yet to become God... then does God not yet exist? And if you think you're God, then in the words of the Hulk: "Puny god."
Isaac Newton stated "On atheism:
"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system. I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."
Well, given the vastness of the universe, it had to eventually happen somewhere. And it happened here, and life rose up to experience it. If it happened somewhere else, we’d experience it there, and probably be saying the same thing
AND YET, did you notice that Newton NEVER used the bible or god to help in ANY of his discoveries? He also believed in alchemy, which is another load of crock.
There was never any sort of incident where Newton realized that god told Noah how differentials work, or how god showed how the Sun was the center of the solar system and the planets did NOT move in perfect circles.
If you want to quote a scientist as believing in god, then FOR ONCE, show us ANY example of them using god as a source for ANY discovery they'd made. Problem is, there's never been a scientist in the history of EVER having made such a discovery.
Let's examine the common canard about the Earth being the right distance. What is the right distance? Did you know that the Earth could be a couple of million miles closer or a couple of million miles farther away, and it would still be JUST right?
Yeah, we KNOW that because the Earth is about 2 million miles FARTHER away from the sun in the Summer in North America. Yeah, we are farther away from the sun by millions of miles and humans don't notice any difference. And in the winter in North America, we are CLOSER to the sun by a couple million miles.
That's a dreadful argument.
PhrontDoor
Wow, I hope you read a book one day.
@@yuluvii And yet you were unable to point so even any singular issue with which you'd been able to find fault in anything I'd written.
That's because my assertions were wholly impeccable.
But thanks for coming to this battle of wits, completely unarmed.
PhrontDoor
Please give proof God made the world.
John 3:16 tells you how much God loves you, what the desire of His heart is for you and what His great promise is to you. Those who hear His word and follow His way humbly and sincerely find their forgiveness, salvation, redemption and everlasting life comes only from Him. Have a great day.
@Kitalia the kitsuneNo it doesn't. You have to find that out for yourself. The real question you might concern yourself with is, 'Do you want to know Him?" To know He's real you have to know Him. That comes by hearing/heeding and following His word - not just a passing hearing but an understanding hearing. John 3 16 is the starting path. Those who seek to know Him will find Him. Have a wonderful day.
@Kitalia the kitsune Parrotting and regurgitating old, worn out quips doesn't make them true either. BTW...define "old", & what is meant by "outdated"? You have no argument against God.
@Kitalia the kitsune You made a non empirical, philosophical statement...one which you cannot validate. Truth runs deeper than any philosophical "construct", and yes...I knew the definition of "construct" already, *SMH*
@Kitalia the kitsune Think about it _FOR A LIL BIT_ as you say... Did you rely upon science to craft your response? When did people become "EDUCATED" as you suggest, and what did they draw upon to get those " EVOLVED SCIENCE SKILLS?
You don't even know what you are saying. I guess you fumbled around and just wanted to come up with some sort of a response without having put much thought behind it.
Or let's be honest, you've listened to some Pied Piper in your past and you are simply trying to parrot what you have heard.
@Kitalia the kitsune "God is the concept invented by humans in a naive attempt to explain that which is inexplicable or beyond human comprehension." Is that a 'claim'? Can you prove it? (Just kidding). You are free to believe what you want, of course. But billions of intelligent people around the world have concluded, with their own personal evidence, that God is not only real, but can be known personally. That comes through comprehending John 3 16 - Jesus (God in flesh) came to earth to die for yours and my sins so that we would not perish but have everlasting life. It seems a lot to understand and take to your heart, but if you ask Him to help you come to know Him, He will draw you to Him by the power of His Holy Spirit. He loves you more than you can imagine. Hope you will come to know that love. Have a great day.
Proving God is a atheist argument from the beginning, what's the evidence believing in God,God is not propositional acceptance of a set of descriptive facts,believing in God is commitment,the religion doctrine is not a scientific theory its not something you believe like a description of a set of facts it's a mode of being a mode of prevention a mode of action.
This must be sick, dark and twisted to say...
But I'd rather be a child with cancer and die young then go to heaven...
Than live through continuous, random pains and suffering in this torturous life.
Think about it.
Think about it, you want us to think of an imaginary better world where dead kids go so we can feel less sad about their deaths?.
This is hard to do for people who already know, because of logical and scientific implications, that there's no valid reason and lots against it of a "better place" where to teletransport once our cells stopped working.
If you like you can just realize dead kids won't suffer the pains of life, it is evident and no need to add imaginary outcomes.
Not saying this is what I do, just talking about your proposal.
Don’t have children.
2:40 it's really good argument)
Trying to explain the existence of God to an atheist is like trying to explain partial derivative to a kindergarten - they lack the capacity to comprehend.
It's easy to make things up. How about you try the proving part.
New atheists ugh
Yes, i dislike the term as well. There is nothing new about the position of not being convinced that a theistic notion of a god exists.
The Fuzzician lol my favorite thing about atheists is that at bottom their assertions rest on a hypermaterialistic conception of reality and they think thats all conventional science would indicate but they dont know that there is a massive literature on nonphysical/psychical phenomena that already exists and is just completely ignored by the disgustingly arrogant scientific establishment. Fools who think being a “skeptic” is to defend the assertion of materialism at all costs which they apparently dont need to apply their equal “skepticism” towards
It is true that there is much unscientific esoteric literature out there, but quantity doesn't mean you have to take it serious. My experience is that especially this esoteric clientele is particularly arrogant. They pretend to know "the truth", everything that doesn't fit into their worldview is part of a great conspiracy, all scientists are lying and hiding the truth, and the majority are sheeps following them blindly. That is the pure definition of arrogance.
Better than old atheists
Michael Irwin We need evidence of supernatural
I don't think you can call what Shermer does "debating"...
I dont think what theists say is logical or honest.
@@petyrkowalski9887
Which theists? Let's go with the Christian theist. Can you give me a few examples and we'll discuss those?
Correct. He's taking a chainsaw to the underbrush that is theology as a whole.
@@JFrazer4303
How so?
What if there is a God. But God doesn't believe WE exist??...
As a person with schitzophrenia I can tell you for sure there is no God taking care of me. MUCH LOVE TOO ALL MMMWA MY PRETTYS
Do the other persons living inside you share a similar sentiment?
Having watched this video I can only say that I am so much pleased I have never been an a theist in my life.
Wonderful, why did you leave Islam, I left it too, but just curiosity
If there was a god, why did polytheism exist so long before monotheism? Why did God allow humans to believe everything had it's own god instead of there being one over all things?
There has literally been no evidence god exists..
Prove it.
THE ACCELERATING EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE DARK ENERGY, DARK MATTER EXPLAINED
A commenter wrote "In fact, your bible does NOT explain WHY THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE IS STILL MOVING OUTWARDS!" Actually, the Bible does more than that. Now, before I begin to explain, I want this thought in your head. "How could sheep herders in the land of Israel, know something about the Universe, that was learned in the late 1990s by a group of scientists, with Alexei Vladimir "Alex" Filippenko, being one of the scientists?
When I was in college in the 1980s, I took a physics class from a professor that worked on the Manhattan Project. At that time everyone knew that the universe was expanding, but what they did not know is
1) is the universe expanding but slowing down and headed for a big crunch?
2) expanding and proceeding at a steady pace
3) or the Universe is expanding, and at an accelerated rate. This is the one they did NOT WANT, or believe to be possible.
Why did they believe that number three was not possible--Acceleration. If the Big Bang Happened 13.6 billion years ago, the "explosion" is over, and there should be NO continued force on the universe. This is a purely MATERIALISTIC view of the universe. Yet, all accelerating bodies--even in the vacuum of space need a FORCE to continue the acceleration process. Low and behold, what have they found, an accelerating universe. MYSTERY, what is causing the acceleration? In fact, the universe seems to be violating Einstein's rule that no matter can travel faster than the speed of light. As any matter reaches closer and closer to the speed of light its Mass increases to infinity. YET as Alexei Vladimir "Alex" Filippenko, will tell you today, the distant galaxies are moving away from us FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT. Just a few decades ago this was impossible. Today, they now have created an exception--the galaxies are not technically moving--the space between the galaxies is being stretched. Today scientists have a MADE UP term for this FORCE, they call it DARK ENERGY. But in 2020 they have no idea what it is, nor where it comes form. Period.
Now the best part for me, Psalms 104:2 The Lord wraps himself in light as with a garment; he strethes out the heavens like a tent. NIV
"He stretches" (present tense, and implying that he is currently applying a force) "out the heavens" "like a tent". Einstein himself talked about space as a fabric, and our God, the creator of the Universe, with one simple phrase, explained what the Universe is doing in 2020 that was only discovered in all of human history in the late 1990s. And the only way sheep herders in the land of Israel 3600 years ago could know this is by divine revelation. PROOF THAT GOD EXISTS, LOVES HIS CHILDREN, and COMMUNICATES WITH THEM. By the way, I just showed what DARK ENERGY is.
Now what is Dark Matter, does the Bible have anything to say about that? Why yes. First What is Dark Matter. It is a Force acting in the universe that the scientists of today can see its affects, but they have no idea in 2020 what it is. What this force is doing is quite interesting. Just as our Earth revolves around the Sun, our solar system is part of a vast Galaxy, called the Milky Way Galaxy, and our Galaxy is spinning around a Black Hole at its center. Scientists were surprised to find that there is NOT enough “normal matter” like planets and stars to account for the fact that our Galaxy seems to be spinning to fast. In other words, based on the spin of our Galaxy, the planets further away from the center of the Black hole should be spinning off into space, just like a kid sitting on the outer rim of a merry-go-round. So what outside FORCE, is HOLDING the Galaxy together, and keeping the planets form shooting off into space. Scientists again, call this FORCE Dark Matter.
They propose that there is so much of this stuff, that 95 percent of the Galaxy is Dark Matter, and only 5 percent is the stuff we can see. They also agree in 2020, that you can’t see it, can’t taste it, can’t smell it, and can’t even measure it, but they HAVE
FAITH ITS there because of its affects on the other stuff in the Universe-a purely Materialistic View of the Heavens-NO GOD ALLOWED.
So now that I have explained what “Dark Matter” is/isn’t, let me show you what the Bible says. Col chap 1 vs 16-17 AMP For [d]by Him all things were created in heaven and on earth, [things] visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities; all things were created and exist through Him [that is, by His activity] and for Him. 17 And He Himself existed and is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. [His is the
controlling, cohesive force of the universe.]
[Jesus] He Himself existed and is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. [His is the controlling, cohesive force of the universe.] Jesus is the Dark Matter, How did Jews in the Land of Israel, 2000 years ago know this? Devine revelation to the Apostle Paul. It just keeps getting better and better, Praise Jesus.
This explains nothing and is just religious blabber. No jew from 3600 years ago knew anything about dark matter. You religious people see something that hasn't been answered yet and go "ITS GOD OMFG HES HERE ITS HIM GUYS COME LOOK!!!!"
@@Lamster66 What is it with you Atheists--CAN YOU READ? I already explained that: "Today, they now have created an exception--the galaxies are not technically moving--the space between the galaxies is being stretched."
YOUR COMMENT ADDS NOTHING TO THIS AT ALL.
What you fail to realize is that up and until 1993--there was NO NEED FOR THE EXCEPTION, but NOW simply because the evidence went against what was expected--they must CHANGE THE RULES AND CARVE OUT AN EXCEPTION--WITH NO REAL SCIENTIFIC reasoning to back their assertion--EXCEPT THAT NOW THE UNIVERSE IS ACCELERATING--AND SOMETHING IS CAUSING THE ACCELERATION--WHICH THEY CALL DARK ENERGY--a totally made up BS TERM to try and explain away [by a purely naturalistic explanation] that SOMETHING IS stretching out the universe period. This is the Physics we KNOW, and the only reasonable explanation is a CAUSE doing so. AND THE GOD OF THE BIBLE EXPLAINED IT IN ONE SENTENCE. AWESOME FOR ME PRAISE JESUS.
@@Lamster66 I explained everything, it is your simple, ignorant scriptural understanding that is lacking period. Its not a strawman--when all I did was quote other scriptures--but proof of your lack of understanding. Have a Blessed Day
@@avihan9027 Thank you for the response--and I am grateful to the Jewish people for my Jesus. As for the truth--Jesus is the Truth, he is the way, and he is the life (John 14:6)--even for the Jewish people of today. No other person in all of history fulfills the Old Testament Scriptures like Jesus does (Isaiah 53 is Jesus all the way)--and IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF HIS MIRACLES only that we believe in him. The Jewish believer and apostle Peter put it this way "WE HAVE A MORE SURE WORD OF PROPHECY," (1Pet. 1:19) THAT GIVES US GUIDANCE TO BELIEVE. Think of it, a man who ate, walked, talked, watched Jesus perform his miracles, and lived with Jesus, says that fulfillment of prophecy is more and better proof than being with the savior for 3 1/2 years, and all of it is written in the Old Testament. In fact, Jesus said (John 5:39) "these same scriptures (the old testament) testify of me--yet you refuse to come to me to have life." Jesus claims to be the "I AM" of the Old Testament in John 8:58. "They will look upon me the one whom they have pierced" (Zech 12:10) and we know that Jesus was Pierced. "They cast lots for his clothes" Psalms 22:18. Just to name a few. The gospel of Matthew is written around this theme of fulfillment of Old Testament Scripture. The Gospel of John, shows Jesus's divine nature better than any other gospel. You would do well to read these gospels. In Daniel 9:26--along with all of Isaiah 53 and specifically 53:8--talks about the Death of Jesus. No one else but the Galilean, in all of human History fulfills these prophecies period, and they cannot just simply be swept under the proverbial rug and forgotten--they are in the Old Testament--and someone must fulfill them all.
QUESTION: What is a "Jewish" believer doing on an Atheist post--trying to convince a Christian that Jesus is not the Christ?
What is interesting, is I have actually read the TORAH many, many times. My son and I are almost done with the book of Deuteronomy--MY SON'S FIRST TIME through the 5 books of Moses. HAVE A BLESSED DAY.
@@Lamster66 No I quoted Scripture, and that is all. You just don't like or understand what the Bible says. Period. And if its a book of fiction--why do you care? You offer no proof that it is a book of fiction. All you do is quote a verse--assume you are correct--yet even by the Bible's own standards you are wrong. Not a very good argument.
As atheist I don't belive in the claim that there is a god.
If god exist is up to thoose who claim he exist to prove.
@James Henry Smith what?
@James Henry Smith prove they makes deals with the devil.
@James Henry Smith no, I want you to prove your claim.
@James Henry Smith no, you makes a claim and I say prove it.
I've always respected Shermer immensely. But he's philosophically rather bankrupt, if this interview is anything to go by
ya this was pretty weak
Yeah, it is sometimes painful to watch.
this channel gets pathetic views, which is a shame.
This is the best argument against the existence of God: If God exists, why is it necessary to believe, to have faith in his existence? If God existed, his existence would be so obvious that nobody would be capable of doubting he exists. Everybody would be 100% sure that God exists, there would be only one god in the world and only one religion. Yet, what do you we have? A big mess of gods, believers, religions and disbelievers.
Read the book “Wasting Time on God”, by Paulo Bittencourt.
genetic fallacy and so on; hey Evil again?
antidrasi apologetica cristã god of the gaps and so on; hey theodicy again?
@@addy01001 origin of physical reality must be a methaphysical issue with a answer too;
prove that the argument is false please;
hey, someone refuted theodicy?
@@antidrasiapologeticacrista5940 problem of evil as presented by epicurus has never been refuted. You always have to trade Omnipotence or omnibenovelence or omniscience in any theodicy you choose.
Please give me an argument for the origin of the universe. Let's see whether it stands the scrutiny
@@addy01001 epicurus just put power and goodness and this was refuted ;
kalam cosmological argument:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
The universe has a cause
@@antidrasiapologeticacrista5940 all knowing, all powerful and all good God is incompatible with evil. In any case, there is a trade off.
And for KCA are you implying ex nihilo or ex materia? For ex nihilo, I see no justification for the premise 1. And by universe are defining the whole thing or just our local universe? If you're defining the whole thing, premise 2 is not supported.
My issue with atheism is simple.
Issac Newton: the universe must have a cause.
Science: this is testable and reliable.
Atheism: the universe made itself
Paradoxes: we’re just gonna ignore that one ok?
😂😂😂
We don't know if the universe began to exist, that is the scientific standpoint as of right now.
*If* the universe began to exist we wouldn't know how as we haven't ever seen an example of something beginning to exist.
@@flaminghell9572
No it isn't. Your faith makes no sense in light of empirical science, basic math, or simple logic. Your second statement is a non-sequitur...
Atheists believe with enough time anything can become anything ... my 💩 will become nothing and explain explode and become whatever it wants
@@flaminghell9572 You may want to check in with one of the _Go-To_ guys like Lawrence Krauss, because *HE* said in his book "Why Is there S/thing Rather Than N/thing", “…as I told him [Dr. Craig], I bet that the universe did have a beginning. That doesn’t bother me. In fact, I think that it’s more likely than not..."
@@Kman. Our current Universe did have a beginning...how it was before could barely be said to be out universe unless the hypothesis about the big bounce is correct.
But energy and stuff like that mightve not had a beginning.
The universalist defence don't hold very well for monotheist theology. The claim that all religions are pointing to the same truth in the end is proposterous, it undermines the huge variety of religions experiences and ideas and the huge non-theistic religion traditions of daoism, Buddhism and Jainism for instance, that produced much more plausible and self-consistent alternatives. It even ignores most of Greek discussions on the nature of God and the divine and their conceptions. It also seems to ignore the fact that certain religions views were selected from socio-cultural and imperialistic forces. If you would want to construct a real universal basis from human spirituality in a sort of a minimum common denominator, it would be much closer to some form of animism than to an idea of an all-powerful, all-loving personal creator.
I'm pretty aware of the Baha'i Faith. But the idea of a single all powerful, personal, all loving creator is far from universal, monotheism is the exception. It only appears like it's universal after abrahamic religions dominated most of the world and nit-picked the rest untill it fitted. As I said if we would want to realisticly reconstruct a "universal primitive religion" for mankind an animist faith would seem more likely, one with a variety of ever changing spirits and gods maybe made of a single spiritual substance or some elements, but that substance wouldn't be a person, and would be molded by a delicate dance between chaos and order at it's center. It would also say that everything is sacred and full of spirits inhabiting it, of somewhat similar rank, even if interconnected and made the same flowing substance, the substance in itself was rarely given a personality or a plan. It wouldn't be a crafted created world, intelligently planed and designed out of nothing and with a final purpose and destination, specially not one that involved humans as it's main concern, an ever changing, recycling, natural and spontaneous one where humans, animals, trees, mountains, rivers and the whole nature coexists and cocreates itself, and far from being the center of universal attention, humans were actually the youngest inhabitant having much to learn from the other older and wiser spirits.
This is the most proeminent view. Do I think being proeminent tells us anything about the nature of reality? Not really, I think it at best might hint at something about our shared evolutive psychology wich should reflect some aspects of the natural environment on earth, enough for us to relate well with it and guarantee our survival. I think the hole talk of nature of reality and ultimate meanings is somewhat misleading, as I do believe in knowledge as relational and provisional.
the only way atheist can say there is no God is if they themselves know everything there is to know about everything there is to know. we know that is not the case. God does exist because where ever there is a building there is a builder. if you look at creation there is a creator. simple. God says when you search for me with all your heart you'll find me.
Where there's a building, there's obviously its builder. but you cannot just assume and be specific on about who built it like how Christianity is on about God (the character it had created).
This is because there are so many religions with different Gods, so have it that religion is just a belief (because everyone has theirs), and ultimately not any part of reality.
@@ashway.07 my point is simple: where there is a building there is a builder. look at creation there is a creator. God exist is my point. creator hence creation.
@@elijad1376 okay
@@elijad1376 Who created the creator?
@@kelduck8851 the Almighty wasn't created. He is the Alpha and Omega. He reveals Himself to you because we are fallen creation blinded by pride.
children let go of santa easier than adults with their gods
That's a declaration of certainty that God doesn't exist.
So what is your proof.
Let's expose the poor logic that atheists use.
@@think-islam-channel yall are hillarious u have no proof lol atheist win
@@think-islam-channel i can list more reasons why gods dont exist than u can that they do
@@n.b.l.5709 What's your best?
This is a very important part start standing for life and against the lie.
"It's a strong proof that we created God's ourselves",
Actually, its proof a lot of people are wondering at an alarmingly high rate. Now we just have to figure out exactly how/why it happened.
I hope this guy really knows his brain, because so far his arguments seem weak from someone who battles really smart atheists for a living.
can you rephrase that response part please? I'm having trouble seeing what it means. I feel like I somewhat understand the message, but it's too unclear to actually be confident, and I don't want to misinterpret you
@@Passw0rdYT I think your smart as an empath, so just read it again, and ask me better more specific questions I can answer
@@fenton993 saying the word "empath" in the context you just did just instantly made me lose all respect for you. either way, if you can't rephrase your opinion and you can only say it in one (very convoluted) way, I'd say you probably don't even understand your own argument. however, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you can rephrase it and you do understand it, but you're too lazy to cooperate. why, I don't know, but if you really want me to use my uncertain interpretation of your word salad, don't try to claim that I'm straw-manning you later down the line because I'm trying my best here, and you're refusing to be of any help
@@Passw0rdYT You are an idiot, but I really don't care
This seems more about religion/atheism than the existence of God. I think the question shouldn't be based on a definition of who and what God is, but are you able to feel the presence of God.
The problem of defining who or what God is. If you describe something, you describe what it looks like, or what it does, and that would indicate a boundary.
Some people say they have felt the presence of God through drugs, music, meditation, and many other ways, and I believe that. None of these people can tell you who or what God is, they can only tell you about how it felt. So God is not a 'thing' to be seen or measured, but can be felt, and only those who have had the feeling will know the truth in that.
Some people claim to have been abducted by aliens. I don't think humans are very reliable narrators of their own stories.
We have no burden of proof therefore we need no arguments in order to reject the assertions humans make for the existence of supernatural deities.
That's not to say there have not been arguments against the existence of supernatural deities that have been made by atheists, It's just not a burden we actually have to meet.
I don't believe your assertions about supernatural deities. No need for me to argue this fact
Why would children get cancer? Why would anyone get cancer? I mean we aren't everlasting. An all knowing God would have reasons for it. If God sweeped in and stopped everything then what would be the purpose of us being here from God's perspective?
A child gets cancer, its fated to happen, written before his birth, a test, a mercy to be sent to a heavenly place early, a test for his parents now struck with grief. God wants nothing from you, but a scale is set, and deeds weighed, simple and clear, do harm or good you will reap what u sow. God is above questioning of his acts why he does this or that but he has chosen mercy as one of his main names. you believing in God or not does not add or take away from him anything, but u do bring harm on your self.
As far as different religion across the globe is concerned he knows very little about specific religions especially about the major religions. Everyone can claim to know the truth but you must examine the claim to see if the claim is substantiated by solid arguments.
The mistake atheists make is to think that their view is the standard of there being no God. Both the theist and the atheist make claims and both have to present evidence for their claims. The only one that has nothing to prove is the agnostic person who claims ignorance about the matter
Incorrect. Atheists do not make a claim… They are simply unconvinced of the claim Theists make that there is a God… Their Burden of proof has not been met.
I am an atheist and I make no such claim that god does not exist, therefore no burden of proof. I simply do not believe that god exists. I am both an atheist and an agnostic
@@littleredpony6868 Your view of how we came about?
@@siyarjoya9655 i believe that it was through evolution. what is your view on how we came about?
@@littleredpony6868in reality you are no atheist. What is the objection you have against belief in a creator?
feels like there's nothing going on in this conversation. If there's no God, then what does that really even mean? Does that also imply that we do not exist? nothing exists at all?
Evolution, Universe creation and multi verse does not eliminate a god. They can all be a catalyst by a god or gods.
I'm fairly certain that it doesn't make any difference whether there is God. It doesn't change anything. Is the universe For something? Probably not.
The how of science can’t explain why
I did go Code Blue twice on July 17, 2015. I can ASSURE you that there is indeed LIFE AFTER LIFE!!...and that Jesus is alive and well😊
It's called you had a dream
@@TheRealCatof no, I was there, you weren't. I'm very familiar with the difference my friend. It was more real than life
@@martybreeden6116 You can't be somewhere that doesn't exist. You're just another desperate, delusional cultist.
Don’t know if anyone will see this but to make a conclusion to the wars of atheism and religion, we can’t give proof of either statement, we can’t prove god exist and we can’t prove god doesn’t exist witout being 1% false, we just never know how the world started, we probably never will, I’m agnostic btw probably atheist but I respect what others believe in because we all have different mindsets 💞
I can respect other's delusional beliefs as long as those beliefs don't influence the laws of my country or the safety of non-believers; something religious zealots have never been able to adhere to.
What does mean god word???
He ignores the law of contradiction. All the world religions contradict one another so they all can't be true. Christianity is unique among them all. It's the only one that claims you are not saved by good works only through the forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ.
Shermer is not too bright, in my opinion.
Firstly, he says some atheists destroy all the arguments for God, ergo: there is no God.
That does not follow at all.
For example, say I made a bunch of arguments for why all the stars in the universe are even in number and then Shermer shows all my arguments to be invalid, that does not mean: ergo, the stars are uneven in number.
Bad arguments for some proposition P is no evidence that ~P is more likely true.
Shermer then basically states this God-sense in our brain came about by evolution and should not be taken seriously.
This is a massive problem for atheism.
There are two options here:
1. We evolved belief-forming-mechanisms aimed at forming beliefs that make us more likely to survive, but beliefs that make us more likely to survive don’t correlate strongly with true beliefs.
*OR*
2. We evolved belief-forming-mechanisms aimed at forming beliefs that make us more likely to survive, and beliefs that make us more likely to survive correlate strongly with true beliefs.
If #1 is true, then there are two problems for atheism:
A. Atheists are less likely to survive and spreading atheism is therefore dangerous.
B. If our beliefs are not aimed at truth but only survival, then we can’t trust any of our beliefs on atheism: including the belief of atheism.
However, if #2 is true, then we evolved a part of our brain to form belief in God because the belief is true.
This conversation was rehearsed
Of course nobody knows but what I’ve never really understood through my life and I have read the bible so not being entirely ignorant here is that if there was an all loving powerful and merciful God who wants to be with us and make us happy then why doesn’t he just make his existence and glory plain obvious to all mankind rather than the subjective claims by the few who claim they’ve been touched by a Holy Spirit . Surely if God wants everybody to come to him why the hiding away and then the judgement at the end of the world where unbelievers get thrown into an eternal hell ? In fact if you follow biblical theology then Christ provided the ultimate sacrifice for sin so why can’t god now reveal himself to mankind like he did to Adam and Eve ? but instead for most people there is no divine revelation or direct evidence of his existence and all we have are some ancient books written by ancient tribes thousands of years ago and it’s been thousands of years and god/Christ hasn’t returned yet to judge the world? Surely if god did reveal himself and showed his love and glory then am sure the vast majority of mankind would see and believe which would make the world a much better place - people would then have full knowledge to make a decision to follow him or reject him (even though I wouldn’t understand why anybody would want to reject him after this) . Then there’s all the other religious books written at different places and times (Hinduism predates the bible infact ) - are they all wrong ? Of course you can always argue for or against a belief but without any direct evidence they’re just arguments . Is it not more probable that there was a person called Jesus at the time pretending to be a messiah (and according to Jewish history there were many false messiahs in those days ) who later got crucified by the Romans then later his followers and priests later created a story claiming that he was resurrected and went back to heaven but died for our sins and then later that story was added to more that such as the idea of hell etc and then different religious/mythical/historical books about the Jews were all put together and formed the bible and possibly added to,edited, reduced and altered . Seems to me that’s more likely the case - love your neighbour, submit to the authorities and worship god and you’ll go to heaven else you’ll suffer eternal agony in hell - it motivates society to live together and obey the authorities and gives people hope of eternal life - what better system can you have than that - the churches and kings certainly profited from it in the past even though these beliefs caused a lot of wars and misery and deaths.
Just a thought .
If we don't need God in eternity, why do we need a designer in everyday life?! Every intelligent human creation is a small universe that proves the designer. A universe is a larger creation with intelligence in it, why does it not prove a Designer?
"In the laws of nature such a high order of intelligence is manifested that the rationality of human thought and ordering is a pale reflection in comparison!" /Albert Einstein: Mein Weltbild.
- Published by C. Seeling, Zurich-Stuttgart-Vienna 1953. 21.1/
So why didn't evolution gave Michael Shermer the feeling to believe in God? Did evolution chooses which people to give the feeling to??
I don't think evolution causes a belief in god, if it did, humans wouldn't be the only animals with theism.
@@keithboynton So evolution picks sides??
@@keithboynton Michael said that if he was born in India, maybe he'd believe in the Hindu gods, which means that his atheism is a faith position, but he claims that he's speaking the truth that there's no God.
The claim is objectively unprovable. God knows that, that’s why the word laid out is faith. It’s not cause it’s some cult to make you follow blindly, it’s cause on the subject it isn’t possible to objectively prove or disprove to follow it any other way. He doesn’t want you to just sit on a fence waiting with false hope for some proof that’ll never come. Laid out there are two sides and he says neither can be objectively proven, so have faith in the one he lays out in great detail or don’t.
Evil is complete negation of god...If there is evil there is no god. Evil and god are like square and circle, square circle does not exist because it is a contradiction Evil- god is a contradiction . It does not exist!
The argument against God: Of all the different Gods/Religions created by man around the world that created God, thus there isn't a God. Man didn't create God; Man created an arbitrary explanation of something which he doesn't understand yet knows exists around him. i.e. The aurora borealis: year 0. A night in the northern sky. Humanity had no idea what this spectacle was, yet they we're witnessing it. Alone or others. In some cultures that too was seen as a God. Why is my brain not the same as the Indian brain...
God mean Good and Postive energy.
Devil mean Evil and Negative energy.
Atheist reject all thing good.
Nope. Sorry.
Try again.
Atheists reject all religions witch is where all evil comes from!
@@geoffmower8729 nope wrong again. god created evil it says so in the bible - try reading it
Still haven’t heard an atheist make a valid objection to the existence of God.
The Biblical scripture answers his objection concerning why persons from geographical locations across the world worship other gods…in fact it’s a key part of the entire story.
It breaks my heart knowing their are so many souls out there who do not know the love that God has for them and that he wants all to be saved.
Repent of your sin and idolatry.
When we take our last breath in this life all we will be concerned with are those who we did wrong to and all those who we love.
God will not force you to love him nor to be with him. Love cannot be forced. It is your choice. He wanted you to have the choice.
An argument that is very specifically against biblical scriptures would be that we can trace how it was invented.
A little over three thousand years ago the Hebrews were pantheistic, and Yahweh was but one of numerous gods (including ones that are now considered devils, such as Mammon).
Yahweh's solo career began a while after the Egyptian god, Aten, tried going it alone (though less successfully, the pantheon was restored after the death of Akhenaten). The Hebrews had been in contact with Egypt and would have known about this development. Indeed Moses could easily have been an Egyptian priest who introduced this revolutionary idea into the Hebrew belief system.
There was the problem of evil from a single, omnipotent and loving god... until the Hebrews encountered the Zoroastrians, from whom they adopted the idea of an adversary. Thus Satan was written into the script.
Then, after being conquered by the Romans and failing at every insurrection they had to deal with the possibility that they weren't the chosen people, or at least they weren't destined to themselves be conquerors. About that time came the story of Yeshua (Jesus) who changed the teachings from one of primacy and conquest to one of acceptance and endurance.
Also there's the fact that many aspects of the story (including the great flood, the crucifixion and resurrection, etc) happened to match other, older stories that were in circulation before they found their way into the scriptures.
We can see through the lens of history how the story was conceived, rewritten and edited and revised just like any other work of fiction.
Please feel free to fact check the claims I have made. I think it's something we all should do with any argument, especially if we consider the subject to be important.
@@RictusHolloweye - Life super busy…will respond in time…very cute post though.
Seriously? These are the best?
You wrote: You can’t just claim it stops at him [GOD] because that contradicts your argument of everything has a cause. Do you understand this? [SO God also must have a cause] THE INFINITE REGRESS.
MY RESPONSE: 2 REPLIES
1) LOGIC ONLY If my cause (God) is a sufficient cause to bring the world into being, I do NOT have to have an explanation, for my explanation. e.g. If I find a painting hanging from a tree in the forest, I do not have to have an explanation for the Painter, before I know there was a painter. Whether my God was caused or not is immaterial--as long as he is sufficient to cause the Universe. Atheists always use this argument called the infinite regress. Well who caused God, who caused that God etc etc etc. However, both the Atheist, and the Theist have the same problem in that regard. If the universe began, their must have been a beginner--whether by natural means or not. And I saw Richard Dawkins, use the infinite regress argument, then later (and rightly so) admit HE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM in a debate he had with a person of faith.
2) LOGIC ONLY In order for there to be anything at all--in the past--for there to be a past--there must be an Uncaused cause, the Prime Mover, or the First Cause. Otherwise their would be nothing. And that Uncaused cause we call God. The God of the Bible claims to be FROM EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING. Now logic alone tells you that since the Universe Began--what caused the universe must be outside space, time, matter and energy to bring it all into being at the Big Bang.
Now up to this point--all I have done is logically prove that a being outside space, time, matter, and energy MUST exist, and YES I have not proven who Jesus is. All I have done is give Positive evidence form Logic alone, that there must be something, beyond us period. With your animosity against the God of the Bible, any further discussion seems dubious.
YOUR NEXT CLAIM
The beauty of science is that even though we were not present when Charles Darwin performed his experiments and observations, we can take his notes and perform our own and if we observed the same outcome as he did then it is true.
MY RESPONSE:
Fact is, the little pond story, is becoming that. Just a JUST SO ridiculous story. As the complexity of the the molecular machines, and unbelievable intricate processes that occur in the cell are discovered, the old evolutionary paradigm is fading faster, and faster into the darkness. Carl Sagan called the amoeba "a small city" complete with factories, scaffolding, molecular machines, and most of all, the most exquisite computer processing, information, retrieval, and error correction in the known universe. The density of the information packed into the DNA cell is mind boggling.
ua-cam.com/video/6T7d-BlcPR0/v-deo.html
Poor Darwin, all he could imagine was--that life at the bottom was made, in a little warm pond, where just the right mix of SIMPLE chemicals come together, to create a simple protoplasm, and POOF YOU HAVE LIFE. In fact, this has, and continues to be the dreadful little story foisted on an ever gullible audience, that will not give it up because you have invested all your hopes and dreams on it, NOT BECAUSE ITS TRUE. The Warm Little Pond story is not only false, but is grossly inadequate to explain where all that DNA, and the very complex protein structures in the cell came from.
For Example, "There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopædia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopædia Britannicas." Richard Dawkins - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 116. Where did all that wonderful complexity come from? Yet you say that it comes from an unguided, undirected, and mindless process.
I say, that is the most preposterous story that intelligent people willfully, and ignorantly choose to believe, why because they just can't and won't face the obvious. When you have invested your whole life in a lie, it is hard to take the blinders off. Chemical Evolution--is impossible, and all biological systems REQUIRE not just the building blocks of life (MOLECULES), but they require information, for replication. And our repeated experience teaches us that specified complex information only arises from a mind. Someone programmed information in all life. How do I know, because every biological system has it. Period. So you need both the chemicals, and you need the information and very complex and ordered information for cell replication.
ua-cam.com/video/byFKKPflttQ/v-deo.html
RICHARD DAWKINS: Every living cell, even a single bacterial cell, can be thought of as a gigantic chemical factory. DNA patterns, or genes, exert their effects by influencing the course of events in the chemical factory, and they do this via their influence on the three-dimensional shape of protein molecules. The word gigantic may seem surprising for a cell, especially when you remember that 10 million bacterial cells could sit on the surface of a pin’s head. But you will also remember that each of these cells is capable of holding the whole text of the New Testament and, moreover, it is gigantic when measured by the number of sophisticated machines that it contains. Each machine is a large protein molecule, put together under the influence of a particular stretch of DNA. To get an idea of the size of these protein machines, each one is made of about 6,000 atoms, which is very large by molecular standards. There are about a million of these large pieces of apparatus in a cell, and there are more than 2,000 different kinds of them, each kind specialized to do a particular operation in the chemical factory - the cell. It is the characteristic chemical products of such enzymes that give a cell its individual shape and behaviour. Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (p. 171 172). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
I've noticed a couple of errors in the logic of your two responses 1) We have no reason to believe that there is a cause to the universe or that any potential cause is intelligent. And I'm not sure your painting analogy is appropriate. We have never seen a painting exist without a painter, so it's reasonable to assume there is one. We have no reason to believe that there was something necessary to create the universe. 2) I disagree with your premise that in order for there to be something, something must have created it. I have no reason to have the expectation of the universe. You seem to be succumbing to a few logical fallacies, there are some great resources online to help you learn more about them!
@@paytonjellison1573 Thanks for the comment.
YOU WROTE: 1) We have no reason to believe that there is a cause to the universe
RESPONSE: 4 SECULAR (non religious) SCIENCE VIDEO CLIPS ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE, AND SCIENCE HISTORY SYNOPSIS. Sorry but the Science is on my side whether you want to admit it or not--and SECULAR SCIENCE HATES THE IDEA, BUT ADMITS THAT THIS IS THE EVIDENCE WE HAVE.
ua-cam.com/video/z-7ZAb2q0Qg/v-deo.html Brian Cox
ua-cam.com/video/tYuGrLk1UM8/v-deo.html Allen Guth
ua-cam.com/video/oFSMozCz2gw/v-deo.html Robert Jastrow Head of the Goddard Space Institute
ua-cam.com/video/CsRLN5H857s/v-deo.html Richard Dawkins
ATHEIST FAITH STATEMENT ABOUT THE BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE IS "I don't know".
That is where YOUR FAITH COMES IN, as an Atheist. Today in 2020, the overwhelming scientific evidence we have is that the Universe Began 13.6 Billion years ago, in the Big Bang. Sure we do not know what came before 10 to the minus 37 seconds after the Big Bang when the universe was smaller than a proton--but that does not negate the fact that the evidence shows it began. In fact, before the Big Bang theory, the accepted cosmological model of our universe was the "Steady State Theory." The Universe is eternal. Fact is, the scientific community would boast, “you Christians say God is eternal, well we say the Universe and Matter are eternal, and the Bible is wrong from the first sentence. But starting in:
1) 1905 with Einstein's Equations of Relativity and their implication that the universe is expanding.
2) 1919 astronomer Arthur Eddington, observationally confirmed the Theory of Relativity in 1919
3) 1924, Russian mathematician and physicist Alexander Friedmann, realized that the universe, according to the Theory of Relativity, could be in expansion, contraction or oscillating between both.
4) 1929 Edwin Hubble--noticed the red shift of galaxies through his telescope--which again suggested an expanding universe.
5) 1927 and 1931 Georges Lemaître--a Belgium Priest physicist and cosmologist combined the two and suggested a beginning to the universe. Lemaitre, made his prediction in 1927, but was ignored until 1931 when his paper was published in English. (Now take three guesses why a Catholic Scientist was ignored, and the first two don’t count). He is now considered the Father of the Big Bang theory.
6) 1948 Ralph A. Alpher, and George Antonovich Gamow-postulated that if there was a big bang, there would be an "after glow" called the Microwave Background Radiation
7) 1948 Sir Fred Hoyle an English Astronomer, along with Thomas gold, and Hermann Bondi began to argue for the universe as being in a "steady state" and formulated their Steady State Theory
8) 1949 Sir Fred Hoyle, coined the term "Big Bang" on BBC radio's Third Programme broadcast on 28 March 1949, as a term of derision.
9) 1965 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally found the Microwave Background Radiation.
10) 1978 Robert Jastrow (an agnostic) astronomer wrote the book called God and the astronomers, explaining the science, and his colleagues all around disgust at the Big Bang Theory. According to their apparent bias, they were rooting for certain science outcomes, not following it.
11) 1993 The Steady State Theory hung in there still, until 1993 with the COBE satellite findings, and actually mapping the Microwave Background Radiation. I was a young man at the time, and watched as TED COPPEL (a secular news person) on a program called Niteline, put GENESIS 1:1 one the TV at the announcement. In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. Turns out the Bible was right from the first sentence.
12) 2003 The WMAP satellite confirmed it again to a greater degree
13) 2003 The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem, or the BGV theorem, is a theorem in physical cosmology which deduces that any universe that has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past spacetime boundary.
14) 2018 the PLANK CMB probe confirmed it again to a greater degree.
This is all science (not an argument from ignorance) and even from the beginning of this journey, Albert Einstein fudged his equations and gave them a cosmological constant that would allow for a Static Universe--WHY because an expanding universe implies a beginning--and it sounds to much like Bible. At each step of the way the Scientific establishment has been kicking and screaming into the Big Bang Theory. Dr. Fred Hoyle, the champion of the Steady State Theory, is the one who coined the phrase Big Bang in 1949, as a term of derision. And technically it took form 1905 to 1993 for the Big Bang Theory to be considered settled science, and it was, again reconfirmed in 2018 to a greater degree.
Now, This is the evidence we have, yet even you do NOT want to entertain the thought that the Universe had a beginning. In fact, you insist we do not know. At this point, it takes more FAITH ON YOUR PART TO BELIEVE THAT. The entire weight of evidence is that at a point in the past 13.6 Billion years ago, all space, time, and matter came into being. Now the laws of logic dictate, that if we have a beginning, we must have a beginner. Otherwise you are left with the unscientific belief that NOTHING PRODUCED EVERYTHING. Based on the physics we know, this is impossible. This is the science we have, and it is on my side. THANK GOD .
@@treyfred3247 It would seem you're sources are pointing to the fact that the Universe has a beginning (which I agree with) but having a beginning is different from having a cause or knowing what that cause is. Logic DOES NOT state that everything must have a cause. But even if everything did have a cause you're just using "God of the Gaps" to say your God was the cause. Maybe it was something else. Maybe it was another universe that bubbled off and created ours. Maybe the universe goes through cycles of expansion and contraction. I have no reason to believe that a God is necessary to create the universe. Lastly, saying "I don't know" isn't faith. Faith is believing something without evidence. Saying "I don't know" is nothing more than admitting my own ignorance. It takes no faith to not know something, but it takes an incredible amount of faith to believe something without knowing.
@@paytonjellison1573 Obtuse as you wish to be. Watch the videos. Robert Jastrow the Agnostic--"if there was a beginning...there was a creator"
Richard Dawkins--NOTHING CREATED EVERYTING--A scientific impossibility. He dumbs down God and supes up nothing, but notice HE IS ARGUING THAT NOTHING CREATED EVERYTHING.
Allen Guth the universe had a beginning
Albert Einstein--sounds to much like Bible
Ted Coppel--in the beginning God Created--just like the Bible said.
Atheists believe in at least two miracles--but without the help of a miracle worker--another scientific impossibility.
1) the beginning of the universe, came into being from nothing and by nothing Noble Laureate Arno Penzias, by Definition an Atheist insists that there is NO uncaused cause, first cause or prime mover--a logical impossibility or there would be nothing at all. . ua-cam.com/video/Blms48a5UDE/v-deo.html In order for the UNIVERSE to be caused--that cause must be outside space, time, matter, and energy for it to come into being--EVEN A MULTIVERSE REQUIRES AN ULTIMATE BEGINNING. ua-cam.com/video/tYuGrLk1UM8/v-deo.html but no proof that a multiverse exists, it is NOT SETTLED SCIENCE. ua-cam.com/video/Q4xOVmjUxLM/v-deo.html
2) After all matter, energy, time and space came into being out of nothing, then Life came from that same rock (miracle number two) and again a scientific impossibility
ua-cam.com/video/byFKKPflttQ/v-deo.html
Yet its the standard drivel story given to the masses without proof. QUOTE: Every living cell, even a single bacterial cell, can be thought of as a gigantic chemical factory. DNA patterns, or genes, exert their effects by influencing the course of events in the chemical factory, and they do this via their influence on the three-dimensional shape of protein molecules. The word gigantic may seem surprising for a cell, especially when you remember that 10 million bacterial cells could sit on the surface of a pin’s head. But you will also remember that each of these cells is capable of holding the whole text of the New Testament and, moreover, it is gigantic when measured by the number of sophisticated machines that it contains. Each machine is a large protein molecule, put together under the influence of a particular stretch of DNA. Dawkins, Richard. The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design (pp. 171-172). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
The bacteria featured in the video--is so sophisticated, that it rivals a space shuttle, a 747, and a cray computer combined, and it is packaged in a microscopic form. DNA is the most advanced information storage, retrieval, and error correction system in the known universe (Bill Gates) Yet YOU believe this came about my mere chance--NO NATURAL SELECTION FOR FIRST LIFE. Again a scientific impossibility. THEN A mindless, unguided, undirected process (Natural Selection) built every other biological system on the planet--a fairy tale of immense proportions that YOU BELIEVE. The same mindless process cannot paint a cave painting that a four year old could paint (and every one agrees proves intelligent design) but it can build systems so advanced that even with brains we cannot match today.
In fact Carl Sagan calls DNA a language billions of years old--WITH NO TIME TO DEVELOP ON THIS PLANET. ua-cam.com/video/6T7d-BlcPR0/v-deo.html
ALL OF THIS IS EVIDENCE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN THAT YOU WILL SIMPLY SAY "WE DO NOT KNOW." it takes more FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST THESE DAYS, Praise Jesus. Have a blessed day.
@@paytonjellison1573 It is the opposite of the God of the Gaps, when all the scientific evidence we have (the settled science) not the POSSIBLE theories that you listed, BUT THE PROBABLE THEORIES like the big bang that I am basing my decision on. IF something begins to exist, it must have a cause, AND ALL THE SCIENTISTS I LISTED, WHO ARE ON YOUR SIDE, AGREE WITH ME, AND ARE NOT ENGAGING IN A GOD OF THE GAPS. Too bad for you. Since the Universe began to exist, it must have a cause---and it has nothing to do with FAITH ON MY PART. How do I know this is true, the science and physics we know about in the universe. The universe began, life began, I began, you began, everything you can think of began, and HAD A CAUSE. Science is the search for causes--yet the Atheist insists this does not apply to the universe. The only real question is to ask what is more PROBABLE--NOT POSSIBLE--everything came from NOTHING--the actual definition of an Atheist--or GOD. I will take God any day of the week--it is more reasonable--or NOTHING WOULD EXIST.
Its easy to spend your life WHILE ALIVE debating God...but when you're alone in that deathbed, staring eternity in the face, you will be lost sadly. Turn to Jesus while you can!
You won't be staring anything in the face, you won't exist after you die. Desperatly following a violent cult won't change that fact.