Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Atheist Debates - No Evidence for God?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 чер 2019
- Part of the Atheist Debates Patreon project: / atheistdebates
In the past, I've used the statement "there is no evidence for god" and, after some thought...stopped using it. Today, I want to take a quick look at what we mean by "evidence for" a proposition and why it might actually be accurate to say there is no evidence for the proposition "god exists".
Are we going to ignore the fact that Matt hasn't age one bit in 14 years
He’s got himself into shape, after developing diabetes. He also aged terribly in terms of hair loss, and wisely started shaving his head so as not to be visibly losing more and more. His goatee hides his double chin. It also looks like he’s avoided excessive sun damage.
So, basically he’s made all the right moves to stay looking good and age well.
Kay Nova Praise God!
His beard is whiter. But he lost a lot of weight which counteracts that!
There are rows of clone bodies in his spare bedroom.
He made a pact with the devil lol im joking he looks great
When I was 10 years old I had 6 people accuse me of breaking property belonging to someone else.
All 6 where friends and the school took their testimony as true and my parents had to pay for replacement of the property.
I later got one of them to admit to me they broke the property but the school would not believe me.
In conclusion:
Mark Adams from Waltham Chase, Southampton, UK broke Tom Frances bicycle helmet in 1992/3 and I got punished and my parents had to pay to replace it.
Did you kill Mark Adams to teach him a lesson?
@@lit2701 Sorry I wasn't clear, not my friends they where a group who backed each others lies.
@@cnault3244 No but if it wasn't clear, I'm still bitter!
@@rarrmonkey for undisclosed amount i can get these people to apologize on youtube and pay back your money with interest. You will have to make it quick because scott morrison is about to try to take Australia over in a coupe against the people
Fuck Mark Adams.
This whole video is an elaborate ruse by Matt to preemptively deflect allegations of him killing Steve. We have to find this Steve immediately and warn him to stay away form Matt!
"Some un-named Steve"? I'm pretty sure he's named Steve.
Steve is an unnamed married bachelor.
🤣😂
The surname is unnamed
Matt Dillahunty Steve Unnamed. That’s probably a rare name. 😉
Why must you potentially do this to me?
Great song title.
@U♋Y You talk like a hybrid from BSG
Ha
Existence is directly related to a thing presenting in reality. Doesn’t matter how much people say it exists, believe exists, are willing to die believing it exists, circumstantial evidence, etc. If the thing itself doesn’t present in reality, it’s doesn’t fulfill the definition of “exists”. If I say a dragon exists, that doesn’t mean anything. If I’m willing to die saying it exists, it still doesn’t say anything about whether a thing presented in reality. It just says I believe, or someone believes, and they are sincere in that belief. But as cults demonstrate, sincerity does not equal truth by any means. It can warrant suspicion at best, and skepticism at worst.
That’s why I love Mat. He just admitted in the beginning of the video he was wrong about the words he used; and clarified what he meant.
Hello sir. I just want to say that I have an immense amount of respect for you. I also want to tell you that my oldest kid came out to me as Bi and as an atheist. I gave him a hug and told him he has nothing to be ashamed of.
I think I heard Matt say previously " There is no *good* evidence for a god or gods".
I think that sums reality up nicely.
Yeah, there is some evidence, but it is so weak compared to how incredulous the claim of god is.
@Biological Organism.
Of that bit of reality, not all of it.........
@Biological Organism.
"What is the evidence that there is no "good" evidence for the existence of God?"
I think you will find that's "shifting the burden of proof".
"Also, is "goodness", not ultimately subjective and relativistic, that is to say, of the mind and relative?"
What's that got to do with "evidence for god(s)"?
@@NetAndyCz Something is _incredible_ when it’s hard to believe. Someone is _incredulous_ when they find something incredible, i.e. they are sceptical. It’s the opposite of _credulous_ , which means one is too ready to believe, i.e. gullible.
@@Correctrix I am happy to admit that my English is not perfect, but for example Merriam Webster has defined incredulous as sort of synonym to incredible as the second definition, unless I am mistaken.
www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/incredulous
The "young man in the empty tomb" was a literary device used by Mark to inform his reader that Jesus had risen without having to provide post-resurrection apparitions - and requisite dialogue. He then has the women run off, terrified, telling no one - leaving the reader sole witness to the events. THE END
The quintessence of literary parsimony
Since the women told no one, who told the narrator of Mark?
Michael Sommers well sometimes people
Make up things called “stories”, little well crafted lies with lots of detail and lessons in em to teach people lessons.
@@tuckerhorn3366
@Michael Sommers
Not lies, fictions. Mark was just telling a story, he wasn't out to deceive.
It was Luke, who did actually claim to be telling the truth, who did the lying - especially in Acts.
Luke had an agenda: to provide the Church hierarchy of his own day with a founding history extending back to Mark's fictive Jesus from whom it could claim it derived its authority - in Apostolic Succession.
@@0nlyThis ok so why keep the gospels
I'm Steve and I find this offensive.
Don't make Matt smack You ;)
but at least you're alive
@@thetruthrover for now...
*_maniacally rubs hands while laughing_*
@@Skylancer727 lol
haha
When I hear "do you believe in God," it literally is an empty sentence: We assume they mean the Abrahamic God...as long as it's not Allah of course, if they are Christian. But, which "god"...from which version of which religion? ;-) Atheist for 2 years now.
Coming up 66 years Atheist next week!
@@Longtack55 Oh my goodness! Congratulations! A very long life of freedom! I'm just a baby Atheist. Haha! Stay strong! :-)
I just wanted to thank you. You might have saved my life. My sanity at the very least.
Just this last April I defended my doctoral dissertation in Applied Mathematics & Theoretical Physics, and from July of 2018, I've been working like a madman on it. I have chronic pain problems, I'm 60 y/o, and I was routinely putting in 18+ hours, mostly @ night, if not daily, then at the very least 3Xs a week. Not to go too far into tall weeds of it all, I was studying a theory that feels we all live in a Universe of 8 basis vector, and 248 dimensional spacetime, and how that geometry corresponds to known subatomic particles in the Standard Model, as well as having a predictive model to find as of yet unknown and hypothetical particles. (All this as opposed to our "normal" 3D+t spacetime. It's way too long to explain, and nobody is interested in it but me. Ask my wife.)
Well I'm here to tell you, just trying to imagine 4 basis vectors of spacetime, just one more spacial vector, is a real brain burner, and it takes a lot of work, time, and mental gymnastics to wrap your noodle around it. Somewhat like learning to play an musical instrument from zero, or learning to drive with one eye shut. Just think of twice as many directional vectors from that. It would routinely melt my grey matter down, and it would run out of my ears into a little puddle on the floor. At least that's the effect it had on me.
Honestly, there were nights where around 0430 I just couldn't ingest one more bite of information. On those dark and weary nights, you, and the rest of guys and gals down @ the AXP were there to entertain me with content that was intellectually stimulating, as well as being something that was just far enough away from particle physics that it gave my poor overheated noggin a break. I suppose you could call it a mentally cleansing respite much akin to an ice cold shot of really good vodka after a toast point of expensive caviar from Putin's private reserve. (I'm still eloquent, if not brief, so I couldn't have suffered too much brain damage.) Perhaps I'll call in some time to the show. It sounds tough to get through, but I do find myself with a lot of time on my hands that I'm still getting used to.
Once again, many thanks to you and Tracie, and everybody behind the scenes for helping me remain grounded enough to stay sane over the last 11 months. (And I'm only kidding a little, that's the really sad part.)
Later 'taters.
xxxooo
dc
its very important to use the right words in any given discussion,another great video by Matt,
Matt killed Steve--I wonder what made you think of those choices for naming hypothetical people...
Will you be doing any debates soon? I would love to see you go up against. William Lane Craig.
Sean Carroll already destroyed his kalaaaaam argument...
I'd like to share a notion of mine on _'complexity.'_ One I haven't heard anyone make yet. (which of course doesn't mean no-one ever did, nor that it's of any importance either way), and maybe hear your thoughts on it? It's the idea that us, finding something complex or not, primarily says something about our level of comprehension; our capability to grasp what we're presented with, and says very little about the _actual_ complexity of that something, we regard as complex.
I mean; there might well be an alien race, the parents of a 2 year old say to each other: _"O look how endearing; Baby Jack just realized the workings of quantum entanglement, how sweet is that,'_ right? Or, to leave it closer to home, Rain-man type of genius, like those who're able to play a _complex_ piece of music, after just hearing it once, the _complexity_ of the music mainly says something about _us,_ those who're unable to do the same, but very little about the _actual_ complexity (or not) of that piece of music, if you get what I'm trying to say?(English isn't my home lingo, and seems a bit off, today)
Thanks.
Your English is good, and I completely agree with your assessment. This is something I've been thinking for years.
@@jakfan09 Thanks, Jak. Glad to hear both (that my English was comprehensible enough, and you, having that same notion on complexity too)
The empty tomb is part of the claim, which means attempting to use this as evidence is necessarily circular, and therefore fallacious.
It was the Steve from the non sequitur show wasn't it? lol
I think it was RR.
Two Steve's just happen to be the people who have called him out on a couple of his biggest philosophical blunders. I wonder if Cosmic Skeptic's middle name is Steve...
There is no evidence of the existence of a God.
Here is the Aristotelian argument for God:
Change is the actualization of potential. No change can occur unless there is something already actual causing that change to happen (the principle of causality). The sheer existence of things or substances that change in the here and now is the actualization of potential since the things or substances that change have potential to exist in many other ways or the potential to not exist at all at any moment. So, they require an actualizer of their potential for existence. But, if that actualizer also has potential for existence, then it will also require an actualizer of its potential for existence. So, we have a causal regress that is hierarchical in nature. This means that it must terminate in a first member, if anything is to exist at all. And it is clear that things do exist. Thus, the causal series of actualizers of the existence of things must terminate in an unactualized actualizer or a purely actual actualizer that actualizes the existence of other things without having its own existence actualized because it is devoid of all potentiality.
Thus, the reality of change and the existence of things and substances that change presuppose the existence of a purely actual actualizer that has no potential for existence, which entails that it will have all the traditional divine attributes of the God of classical theism.
Just wanted to know your thoughts on this argument?
@@anonymousperson1904 www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%203%20Religion/Cosmological.htm
So, would it be correct to say that there may be evidence that could be considered consistent with a proposition regarding the existence of god, but that the evidence does not demonstrate the truth of the proposition?
This is sort of like arguing with someone who said they "drank a bottle of wine", in that you don't believe that they heated the glass said bottle is made out of to its melting point, then ingested it while it was molten, instead of concluding that what they meant was that they drank the wine that was contained within that bottle...
When is your book coming out?
That helped me a lot Matt. Thank you so much for your work. I appreciate it.
The proposed scenario is, who is the perp?
What you are describing in statistical methods is Bayesian. This is misused by Theists (not misunderstood). The likelihood of Matt being the killer starts at 0. The probably given Steven is dead increases Matt's likelihood (not probability) of being the killer. However, there is immediately a full set of likelihoods that have different values: 1) Matt is the killer and correctly identified. 2) Matt is the killer but is not correctly identified. 3) Matt is not the killer and is incorrectly identified. 4) Matt is not the killer and is correctly not identified. Further, each outcome has different likelihoods. A person's testimony against Matt may increase Matt's likelihood of being identified when he is not the killer (due to known poor witness accuracy) more than increasing the likelihood of him being identified as the killer when he is the killer. The two confounding points are: you must look at all the likelihoods before drawing sufficient confidence (sufficiency) - which is arbitrary - and you must realise that almost all likelihoods are arbitrarily set - or at least not static.
I was talking with my friend the other day and he said he saw his sister walking down the Street, and I had no problem believing him. Now if he had of told me he saw an extraterrestrial walking down the street then I would tell him you'll have to give me some extraordinary evidence to believe that story.
I was going to goof around with the idea that it's Steve McRae he's low key referring to, but someone pointed out that it could also be Stephen Woodford. Two Steve's who have called Matt out on a couple philosophical oversights.
You know Matt I want to sincerely tell you, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for being true to who you are. Sending love brother ❤️
There was a blind woman at the grocery store today with her husband. At one point I heard her tell him to get a bag of frozen chicken nuggets. I assume she heard him reach into the freezer, pull out an item, and place it in the cart. She probably felt the item land in the cart. Does she have sufficient evidence that he got chicken nuggets as she requested? The evidence is unclear.
Since she cannot see, the only way to really know is to hear, smell, touch and taste the nuggets. There is still the question of whether the nuggets she later verifies were indeed bought during today's trip. So sufficient evidence can be more difficult than it seems.
When people claim to have evidence for a god, my response is, "Great! So bring the god in so I can meet him DIRECTLY, since he exists." Only a universal, direct experience of the god which is had by all parties, whether they ask for it or not, could possibly prove it exists. If the philosophical case is so strong, bring in the god. Otherwise, there is a flaw in the argument.
That's not how it works though, at least to the Abrahamic God or whatever. You have to believe first and only then you can have your answer. Because that makes sense... Just ask any theist if they would ever buy a car without seeing it first to make sure it's real. Suddenly having something tangible to back up a claim becomes real important when you frame the issue around anything other than God. God gets a pass because, ya know, "God" says you have to believe first. Lol
Please please tell me you did not kill Steve Woodford, Matt!
I'm lost. Maybe do logic charts like A implies B or if A then B. I had logic but I've forgotten it.
OMG you killed Steve!? I liked that guy. WHY DID YOU DO THAT!!!???
matt is always killing people..
God exist and I have evidence
@@lisapriola7927 Let's hear it
@@miguelthealpaca8971 If God didn't exist then free will wouldn't exist, but since free will does exist so does God
@@miguelthealpaca8971 ua-cam.com/video/i-7eUCQRbn4/v-deo.html Why atheism defeats itself
The fact that Steve is alive does not contradict the claim that you killed him. You might have killed him three days before he was observed living.
Or Steve could have been resurrected. Lots of people have died and resurrected.
@@sailingsolar Pretty sure that was the joke....
@@DavidWMiller In a way but,,, Do you doubt the facts in the Bible stories are made up or a joke???? A number of people have came back from the dead in the Bible, not just Jesus. I don't think the Bible is joking about such things and states them as "facts", David. Cheers
@@sailingsolar Talking snake. Just...think about that. Talking. Snake. Hell, maybe the bible IS joking and its authors have been invisibly snickering for 2 millenia.
@@hareofsteel The people who saw saw to it the snake was in the bible did not see it as preposterous as we do today. The claim of a talking snake today is beyond preposterous but was completely believable a few thousands of years ago. Especially when accounting for the level of ignorance and superstition humans dealt with back then, 2 to +4,000 years ago when the book were wrote.
What do you think evidence for God would look like? How could you know? What characteristics are you looking for?
So who killed Steve?
Could it be... SATAN? ;)
David Wood.
Not be nit-picking here:
What if someone, instead of the anecdotal evidence-endge, go after the fact that “there is no evidence” is in itself a claim, with a burden of proof?
I understand that what you mean is “I have not been presented by evidence”, but many don’t.
Would you consider to not say there is no evidence because of it or is better to clarify when necessary?
I'm just wondering whether or not it makes us unreasonable to require such an evidence. I mean, even in a murder trial, I don't think the prosecution can provide the evidence that links the suspect to the murder. All they can do is present a motive, his location during the murder, his possession of the murder weapon, maybe a witness who may or may not be credible, and a few other things that may suggest he is the killer. None of those, however, would qualify as the ultimate evidence that he is the murderer. Are we still going to say "Oh, none of those definitively prove he is the murderer. therefore, not guilty"? I'm just wondering if that's parallel to what the theists are doing.
Brilliamtly explained . Thanks Matt. Every theist should see this video
I have no problem with people believing in a god. Just don't tell me he's a loving god who died for my sins, and that you can rely on him for support. There are too many living things on Earth that are suffering for it to be a loving, caring god, at least going by human standards.
The problem isn't what people don't know, it's what they know that just ain't so.
Well done Matt good thinking bud. I am a theist and this will hopefully save some time in debates and conversation and help everyone get closer to the truth. There is evidence for God but it's not convincing to you is a mature way of putting it.
Saying "theres no evidence for god" is like a use of rhetoric. To say it is to provoke someone who doesnt believe that. If you mean something like "theres not enough evidence for god" then just say that
@Jim Merrilees Well yes it does imply that because I dont knot know of all the evidences presented, Im not educated in that. If every piece of "evidence" that has been presented for god is not justified as being evidence then you can say "there is no evidence for god."
So not knowing if all of the evidence shown is not evidence I would say "there's not enough evidence for god" because I simply do not know all of the evidence presented. It adopts a burden of proof I myself cant justify.
That's literally the point of the video.
Excellent effort. Thank you so much!
I kind of went in circles over the appropriate answer to a question like Matt’s question here of whether it’s more appropriate to say there is or isn’t evidence for God. For me, the question was, “Can a gay person revert to no longer being gay?”
Should I to say “no” (my first impulse) and be a simply and clearly intended ally to gay people who are trying to be coerced by others to change who they are, when they don’t want or need to change for the sake of others?
Or do I say “yes” because I think it’s the more accurate answer? Because it accounts for more possibilities. Even if the possibility of someone changing from gay to straight is remote, If I say my answer is yes, It seems necessary to go through all the details of why and how people can change their sexual preferences, and why the fact that the change is possible should have little role in discussions with gay people. It also becomes seemingly necessary to mention that forcing a person to like something or someone they don’t currently like is about as reasonable and effective as trying to convince someone that a comic is funny with peer pressure rather than just showing a person the comic’s material and letting the viewer decide if the material is or isn’t to their liking.
Even if I do the best I can to say my answer is yes, and describe why my answer is yes in the most diplomatic way, I can make a mistake, or be taken out of context, or be labeled intolerant. Some people seemingly love to find faults with no interest in addressing or arriving at solutions for the problems they recognize.
Because of these people, it can be argued that saying “no” is more productive. Even if yes is more accurate and honest.
Some people value existential comfort over truth. Non believers search for good evidence, while believers look for evidence to validate their beliefs.
so I guess this can mostly be summarized as necessary evidence vs. sufficient evidence?
I think this is the right approach to all these believes. Instead of attacking “historical “ evidence ,, we stand on reason ,,
so does St. Thomas Aquinas, as he demonstrates by reason that God exists - you may enjoy this Thomist's summary (though incomplete) : ua-cam.com/video/LW7t0fsO8Gk/v-deo.html
@@angelicdoctor8016 Then St. Thomas Aquinas had flawed reasoning somewhere. Virtually all theists do. Anyone who doesn't say, "we really just don't objectively know, and pretending like we objectively know is pointless" is simply talking suppositional nonsense.
@@loganleatherman7647 Hi Logan. I hear you, and I think you should demand good evidence for God, and sound logic, if it exists, to defend the reality of any deity of any religion. So, I am curious what you would say about this: Can there be an infinite regress of dependent causes and motions that brought about your current existence and motion? No. Can the First Cause/Unmoved Mover be the universe or something in the universe? No, since those things are in motion, and nothing moves itself. How would you escape the reality that there is a singular Being, who is not composed of moving matter/energy, responsible for all other beings' existence?
@@angelicdoctor8016 All I hear are more suppositions. You're applying what you think you know about the objective reality to the actual objective reality beyond the point that we know anything about the objective reality. We don't know what happened before the big bang. We have just as much actual evidence for the theory that the life of the universe is cyclical and operates via big bangs followed by expansion, then contraction followed by big crunches that condense and provide the activation energy for the next big bang. Wash, rinse, repeat; no god necessary. So again, your inescapable "reality" is nothing more than a supposition. Philosophy won't get you to the answers because philosophy is constrained by what we think we know, which as we know by looking back at history has been embarrassingly minute in the past and is probably only marginally more expansive now.
@@loganleatherman7647 So would you agree, Logan, that we can know reality through empirical data (science) and by pure reason (math)? It you say no to pure reason, then you say goodbye to any certainty regarding mathematics. If you say no to empirical data, you may be reduced to Descartes' cogito ergo sum.
I LOVE your teaching of logic.... (My 10 yr oldalso loves u)
Trolltician You got owned! Most theists are ignorant and close minded. Stuck in a ever lasting cycle.
I usually qualify it by stating there is no credible evidence for a god. I realize that most theists believe they have evidence but when they try to state that evidence, it is easily shown to not be credible.
Theist "evidence" is usually one of three things: The Bible, a logical proof with premises not grounded in reality, or a personal feeling. None of these constitute actual evidence but good luck explaining that to them. Some of the more astute ones land on the "well you just have to have faith" BS, which is true because that's all they have, but it still doesn't count for shit.
@@loganleatherman7647 Well you are right that you cannot tell theists that their evidence isn't good, because they have to come to that conclusion on their own. I know I had to learn that for myself. Talking only is good for planting that seed of doubt.
Just go with verifiable. Saying credible leaves open the idea that ones personal testimony is credible. Who would think themselves not credible? Verifiable does not have this issue.
@@DeedlyDood That's actually an excellent point. Everybody thinks themselves and their experiences as valid, no matter what it is. To a meth head those police scanner noises coming from their air vents are as real as anything, same as with theists who think God literally speaks to them.
Personally I've moved in the opposite direction - I think there's toxicity in allowing 'evidence' to be so profoundly equivocated. It's virtually identical to the range of equivocation for 'theory'... though I would argue that the equivocation for 'evidence' is actually worse.
Because the use of 'theory' in a scientific context is a profoundly atypical usage - it departs tremendously from colloquial use. However the meaningful use of 'evidence' that I would ascribe is one that is well in line with the colloquial use. Not only this, but it's easy to correct one's use to eliminate the confusion. When they present their 'evidence for X' where X is not what they're providing evidence of - just restate back to them what they are providing evidence of, and optionally ask for how they're connecting it.
It's quite easy to understand the distinction being made. I know Matt doesn't differentiate these things in the same way I do, he seems to tolerate some degree of rationalism within some 'philosophical' context - but it applies all the same... and if I had time and will to do so, I'd argue that there is no reasonable justification for entertaining this form of reasoning - that it only serves to retard thought and stultify discourse.
What it comes down to is an argument on whether certain things count as evidence for a God or not. And that's where the arguments come in. Is the appearance of complexity evidence? Is the fact that life formed evidence? For it to be strong evidence, it would have to point clearly in one direction. Complex designs in nature are not strong evidence for God unless they points clearly to a God rather than to a variety of imaginable possibilities. The trouble is, we simply don't know enough to make that determination, although it may feel intuitively "right".
@S. gloobal "I define “Coded Information” as a system of symbols used by an encoding and decoding mechanism".
What encoding and decoding mechanism?
"transmits a message representing an idea or plan. "
What message and what is it being sent from and too?
"DNA in your body represents a complete plan for your body"
Please explain how DNA represents a complete plan for your body?
@S. gloobal DNA is a chemical. When it comes into contact with other chemicals it produces protein. It's not a code. When two atoms of hydrogen are in close proximity to an atom of oxygen and conditions are right they make water. Water is not a code, it's a chemical. DNA is chemical too.
S. gloobal So a quote from a book about information theory is supposed to prove something? What exactly?
Information is 'coded' into tree rings which can tell us a lot about the growth of a tree. This does not mean the tree was designed or created. It requires a mind to decipher the information but not to create it. Asserting a mind is required to produce information is not supported by the facts.
The symbols used in DNA are just a method of referring to the chemical basses of DNA. These do control how a life form develops but you have not shown anything to indicate a designer or creator produced DNA or RNA or any other chemical molecule. Chemicals react naturally and there is nothing to say that DNA and RNA could not form naturally and everything indicates is that they did.
S. gloobal I have no issue with Information Theory principles. it still doesn't mean DNA was designed by an intelligence. You haven't shown that it was. Just because an intelligence (us) can create things with coded information doesn't mean all coded information (ie DNA) was produced by an intelligence. Ie Tree rings is coded information not produced by an intelligence.
thank you matt
intellectual scrutiny & critical thinking is my new mental maintenance
This particular discussion is only the beginning, as one now has to carefully explain why what they think of as evidence-like confident feelings and existence itself-doesn't count as evidence. If you can get a theist to listen (and some will).
Has anybody seen Steve lately?
Personally, I'm at a point where I just start from "define god".
Without an agreed upon working definition of the term, it's useless to try to determine whether the thing in question can be confirmed to exist or not. I'm not just an atheist because I don't have evidence for the existence of gods, but because I don't apply the label "god" to anything I've confirmed to exist.
If someone were to define god as "nature, regardless of what there is to be known or believed about it", my disagreement wouldn't be over the lack of evidence for the existence of nature but over the supposed usefulness of calling it a god. Someone could define god as another word for what Freud called the super-ego and say it's not even the same one in every head, and I definitely haven't done enough research to argue over whether that's a valid psychological concept. Someone could define god as "that which is justifiably worshiped" and at most I can give a philosophical observation on the incompatibility of wanting and deserving worship, but that ultimately only covers my own personal lack of justification for worship.
So if I start it off by simply asking "what are the minimum requirements for something to qualify as a god to you?", that (theoretically, anyway) gets the semantics out of the way and lets me either temporarily accept that definition for the sake of the conversation or explain why I reject it.
I'm curious to find out if someone who supports the use of anecdotal evidence for their god also accepts the use of anecdotal evidence put forward by other people for their respective gods.
Show us that anecdotal evidence.
@@TshaajThomas I think he's saying that if anecdotal evidence can be used to justify god X, it should also be used to justify god Y. But, conveniently, people only cling to the god they were brought up believing in even though the standards of evidence in both cases would be identical.
@@hareofsteel There is no anecdotal evidence for y while there tons for x. He just make an excuse so he can deny everything due to his ignorance state of mind.
@@TshaajThomas We haven't even assigned gods to the variables yet. But I'll assume you mean the god you believe in is Y. Fair? Okay. Has it occurred to you that maybe you see evidence for god Y because you were probably brought up believing in god Y? Other people are just as convinced as you are about god X, citing THEIR anecdotal evidence. So, as an outsider, whose anecdotal evidence should I believe?
I'll put it this way. My dad's religious. A Catholic.
-If we had been born in ancient Egypt, he would worship Ra.
-If we had been born in 10th century Norway, he would worship Odin.
-If we had been born in India at...any time, he would worship his choice of the pantheon.
It's just the zeitgeist. Cheers. GO BLUES!
@@TshaajThomas Any hindu, buddhist, shintoist, muslim, pagan, etc. who says their prayers have been answered. I'd suggest a google or youtube search.
Lol I like how you say the atheist debates patreon project presents
That's because, his patreon, viewers get to watch this a week, before, matt uploads it to YT.
Over complicated, IMO. There is most definitely no evidence of God. Believers claiming something is evidence does not make it evidence. To claim the result of a coin toss is evidence is non sensical and they should be told so. Re defining evidence with one's own definition does not constitute evidence. Thinking they have evidence is not evidence of having evidence! Most believers believe because they want to and will justify it to themselves irrespective of logic. Show me empirical evidence and I'll believe.
I literally got told once but some dumbass UA-cam philosopher that a sound philosophical argument counted as tangible evidence. I had him look up what tangible meant; never heard back from him. So see, it is possible they can learn.
Excellent Video Sir. RIP STEVE....
It comes down to a misunderstanding of what constitutes evidence. Evidence must be clearly visible and comprehensible to a layperson (i.e. you don't understand because you're not a bible scholar is a cop out). It must also be permanently existing (that is to say, it doesn't decay or can at least be preserved) or reproducible in a consistent manner. All valid evidence is empirical in some sense, meaning it must be physically existent in some capacity, and it must be available for examination (i.e. no spectral evidence).
"I saw Matt kill Steve" You have to prove that you saw it and/or that you have no motivation to lie right?
I’m happy to be an Athiest if you just define God. A definition that includes Taoist and Gnostic definitions. Is God “all that exists”? There are quite intersesting discussions in old Christianity about this. I remain a Deist. But my mind is open.
Let me try to understand your position. You are a deist, so you believe that some kind of god exists. You say you would be happy to stop believing that a god exists (i.e. be an atheist), if only the atheist would define god. This seems incredibly backwards. If you believe that something exists, shouldn't you have some idea of what you're talking about? And how would an atheist defining God help at all toward making you not believe? If they even have a definition in mind, they would probably define some completely different version of God than yours, and then their reasons for disbelief are completely irrelevant to your beliefs. Atheists aren't people who have come up with their own definition of god and decided that it doesn't exist, they're people who have not been persuaded to believe in any of the gods they've heard about. I'm really wondering what you hope to gain from asking someone who does not believe in any gods to describe a god.
At least that's a honest position, but nobody but you can define the God that you believe in.
I have seen zero evidence to believe that anything that exists today required a God to be here. The God of the gaps is shrinking everyday.
Good luck with your search.
Why do we count time by god ? some thing rather large must of happened . So why do have A.D and B.C ?
We don’t “count time by god”. The creator of that particular calendar was a Roman monk and worked his system out around christian holy days. He made some errors, though.
There are other calendars used, Islamic, Hebrew, Chinese, and others.
Most references are changing to BCE and CE rather than BC and AD these days.
But yeah, traditional stuff sticks around, even if it’s stupid.
if only I could articulate myself even half as well as you sir... if only
3:30 Matt: “Steve”
Matt:”Some unNAMED steve”
I’m nitpicking I know you meant unknown.
I believe in Steve!
*_Jacksepticeye 2014_*
Is it humanly possible to have a book written by dozens of authors over hundreds of generations with multiple references to one chapter to another, with a meaningful beginning, middle and end, and if so do you have any other example than the Bible ? if not, what can you conclude other than no evidence for God exist for me as an atheist because I consider evidence for God something other than any evidence for God such as the Bible ?
@The NIFB Jesus I was talking about Genesis, Jesus and Apocalypse. Not the content of the Bible. So no evidence is evidence for you, I have my answer, thank you.
@The NIFB Jesus I was an atheist for the first 36 years of my life. Then Jesus converted me. I hope and pray he will do the same to you. I could have written what you just wrote, 5 years ago. Faith is a gift from God. "There is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God." Romans 3:11-12. Thank you to confirm the Bible. Even the apostles didn't understand the Scriptures when Jesus was resurrected. "And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement" Luke 24:41 "Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures." Luke 24:45. That's how God operates, believe it or not.
Is it humanly possible to have a collection of books that sometimes refer to other books in the collection, and were organized by a committee to conclude with a book that describes an apocalyptic ending of all we know? Why, yes. Absolutely. Why wouldn't it be? Do you know anything about the process by which the canonicity of Bible books was determined?
@@amtlpaul over thousands of years and by dozens of authors ? Well, name just one other than the Bible, if you're right you should be able to.
"Last night I saw Russell's China tea pot fly over my bedroom and poured tea in a cup which I left on my table. When I woke up in the morning I saw the tea and drank half of it but I couldn't finish other half". That's the evidence that tea was in my cup but not the evidence that Russell's tea pot flew over my bedroom and poured tea because I can't demonstrate Russell's tea pot. So when someone says "God appears to them and speak them" it maybe that they were hallucinating or someone appeared and spoke to them but not the evidence of God existence.
Why did I think of Steven Anderson when you stated the proposition? Hmmm, me thinks me has a problemo with false prophets (which would, by the lack of evidence, be all of them.) 🙈 🙉 🙊
Steve McRae ?
How about starting with a description of God's appearance; hair , eye color, skin color, height, weight, age, distinguishing characteristics... First hand witnesses of various alleged events, would be deposed by competent professionals..... We must first established if the witnesses are even talking about the same person/being/god.
Matt your videos and knowledge has helped me tremendously. I have 3 kids and their grandparents are all theists and honestly it’s so annoying lol I can only hope my kids grow up to have an open and logical mind.
Steve Shives?
I went through this the other day. I said explicitly “when I say no evidence, I mean there is insufficient or plain bad evidence.” A blank piece of paper can be entered as evidence in a courtroom but it isn’t evident of whatever it is being called evidence for. The response? “There is evidence all around you but you have been indoctrinated into not believing in god.” 🙄
This is an excellent video. Thank you.
However, for all the reasons you describe it might still be better to say there is only weak evidence for God, rather than no evidence. Material that takes an idea out of the realm of the impossible necessarily makes it possible, and that is evidence for the idea. It is, however, the weakest of positive evidence. Your homicide analogy is a good one. If you are accused of killing someone and the only evidence is that it is possible that you killed them, then the accusation must fail. However, it fails for lack of evidence rather than the absence of it.
Now your presentation was beautifully nuanced to the point where the above is hair splitting to the nth degree. However, there is a tendency for others to use the soundbite summary, which might make the admittedly minor difference important.
Did Matt kill rationality rules?
Or Steve McRae.
Soooo...... Are we granting God exists but we just can't prove he pulled the trigger on the universe creation? You know able to, only one around, owns the power to etc but no evidence for the claim that he did?
This is why I have such respect for Matt's intellect and position. The opposite of Jordan Peterson in almost all respects. And as much as I truly admire some of the well-known figures in atheism, such as Dawkins and Harris, in my estimation Matt is in a league of his own, above even them, simply for his ability to go toe-to-toe in a debate as they can, but to just call a damned spade a spade at the same time. Don't stop!
Honestly makes sense to me. I did church for years and never felt anything. What’s actually happening in those places? Are people really having those experiences - adult people, every week? Sometimes every day. All the praying and rituals and restrictions. Its maddening, especially for a kid. Living in DREAD that Jesus is going to punish you for watching cartoons on the sabbath. Or not knowing a bible chapter. God wasn’t even remotely fun or something I could understand. I got away from it as soon as I could, just to be free. What’s really going on with this god thing and why won’t he speak?
Poor Steve. He died too young. He will be missed.
Don't we have to arrive at the existence of the supernatural prior to even discussing the particulars of what kind of magic people exist? We live, by all appearances, in a purely naturalistic world.
Yes, you are correct. Before you can even entertain the notion that God/gods are real, you have to suspend everything we can demonstrate/observe/reference about the only reality we know. Living in a naturalistic world though doesn't appeal to human arrogance because to admit that we live in a purely naturalistic world is to recognize that there's no all-powerful whatever who just so happens to care about you personally and who is reserving you a seat beside him in some glorious afterlife. Because no theist ever believes they're the one going to hell. Hell is always for someone else. And if that isn't the pinnacle of arrogance, I just don't know what is.
Go to speakers corner and debate Subhoor Ahmed
I like the video generally, but I'd like to make a philosophical point. The claim at around 6:18 is controversial, and it seems to me to follow from a notion of evidence which is understood to be "objective", that is, either some fact F is evidence for a proposition P, or it is not.
I think this is false. I understand evidence in a Bayesian sense: F is evidence for P iff the truth of F increases the perceived likelihood of P relative to a prior probability. Two things to note:
1. Whether F is evidence for P is ultimately subjective
2. There are two sources of subjectivity here: the prior probability, as well as the the determination of whether P(P|F) > P(P), which depends on a background of beliefs and assumptions.
This does not entail that contrary beliefs about the evidentiary status of F for P are equally valid, since there might be good arguments in favor of a particular (range of) prior probability over another, and one background of relevant beliefs and assumptions might be more accurate than another. Thus, if two people disagree over the evidentiary status of F for P, the debate should be over the prior probability and the differences in other beliefs/assumptions which result in the disagreement.
Matt, on the other hand, seems to appeal to a narrower understanding of evidence in order to dismiss certain facts, which I think is false and does little to reconcile the root source(s) of disagreement.
In the context of the historicity of the resurrection (the debate over which I suspect prompted this video), I think my approach here can really help to clarify the underlying sources of disagreement (left as an exercise for the reader).
Thanks matt
I see more evidence for Santa Claus than for god. At least Santa Claus brought me presents and never threaten me with torture! Santa Claus is a jolly fellow. :-)
I usually say - there is no verifiable evidence for god.
that's incorrect, David, unless you want to maintain that syllogistic logic after sense experience is not verifiable evidence - that denial will be an epistemological black hole for you
@@angelicdoctor8016 I am confused as to what you say I am denying. Maybe we are using different definitions of verifiable.
@Jim Merrilees I'm saying that the Thomistic logic that underpins the a posteriori argument from motion is without flaw
@@davidh5020 Hey David. Could you do me the favour of dismantling this line of thought?
There cannot be an infinite regress of dependent causes and motions that brought about your current existence and motion. The First Cause/Unmoved Mover cannot be the universe or something in the universe, since those things are in motion, and nothing moves itself. That being the case, how would you escape the reality that there is a singular Being, who is not composed of moving matter/energy, responsible for all other beings' existence?
@@angelicdoctor8016 Your claim that there cannot be an infinite regress needs to be proven. The idea of a first cause also needs to be proven. The idea of something not composed of moving matter or energy needs to be proven. Your line of thought is all merely unproven assumptions and assertions to questions I would likely answer "I don't know".
his direct participation is at least marginal enough to be in question in it's-very existance and must be explained in it's significance too.
Question. If people were going around healing people by re growing limbs( as Matt said)on amputee victims. And those people said that God gave them the power. Then is it approriate for a reasonable person to believe in a Gods existence.
It would be appropriate to examine the situation further, not necessarily jump to belief.
Daniel Davis Examine what exactly? Its already been determined they can grow limbs back. However all the top scientist are confused as to how they do it. At this stage is it appropiate for a reasonable person to believe in a God because they said God gave them this power.
@@JohnSmith-bd7sg
Which God?
How did God pass in this power to them?
How do they know it is a God and not just an advanced alien technology?
Why did God give them the power to make the money and not give it to the other healers of the same faith?
Why now vs throughout history?
I would think that there are plenty of things to examine before jumping straight to a God no matter what they have been told.
Daniel Davis Ok. Suppose you see your amputee friend being healed and his limbs growing back. But the healer quickly gets in a taxi and goes. What personal expense are you willing to take to have those questions about “which god etc” answered. Would you chase down the taxi? . Would you travel state just to meet the healer. Or as the taxi drives off would you shrug your shoulders and walk away?
@John Smith I can’t tell if you’re a troll or someone who has genuinely been duped by con artists. This is most often done my pulling someone’s shoe off a tad bit, showing the inconsistent lengths, and then pushing the shoe back on to make it seem like something has happened. Otherwise please insert some evidence for your claim that people have been able to regrow limbs. Also, which scientists are supposedly confused by a common con artists trick ?
There is evidence for people believing in gods. Done and done.
Correct. There is, however, not a single scrap of evidence for any god(s). People believing in something doesn't mean shit. My uncle, who was already fuckin' crazy, had an even crazier friend who said the government abducted him and put coins in his head so they could monitor his thoughts. Think we'll be taking his ideas anytime soon on matters of objectivity?
The main issue I have with all those questions about the existence of god(s) is that I do not have a proper definition for the term God. What is the minimal set of necessary and sufficient properties that something must have in order to be a god? Depending of the context or the person that can range from a very powerful entity (omnipotent, omnipresent, out of time and space, ... ) to entities with superhuman but limited powers (e.g. Apollo, Thor, ...). The problem is that the former definiton leads to some paradoxes (e.g. can an omnipotent god create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?) while the later is suspicious close to what an advanced civilization could achieve (e.g. Goa'ulds and Asgards in the Star Gate TV show).
So far, intelligence is the property that I consider to be necessary for a god but that is obviously not a sufficient property.
When I ask I am careful to say "existence of a god." I have yet to see or hear any verifiable evidence for the existence of any god. It's their god belief. I expect them to defend it, whatever god that is. I have had theists counter with a discursive demand that I define god. By pointing out "a god" it is unarguable I am asking for verifiable evidence for the god they claim.
@@JoeHarkinsHimself Doing a post factum analysis of the God claim works but that does not seem right to me. Is there anything else that you could debate the existence without being able to give a proper definition? I am not even asking to describe what a god is. It would be enough to have a consistent way to recognize one. For example, let's consider the Lock Ness Monster. Nobody knows if it exist or what it is but it is not difficult to give a set of properties that could be used to test any potential candidate:
(1) it is a large aquatic or semi-aquatic animal. Let's say 50kg or more.
(2) it is currently living or was very recently living in the Lock Ness.
(3) it was not designed or brought there by human in the recent past (this is to avoid intentional trickery).
(4) it is of a species that is either not known by science, supposed to be extinct or that is not supposed to live there.
Anything that matches those 4 properties could reasonably be called the Lock Ness Monster.
@@cynodont7391 I may not have made my point as clear as it could have been. If someone is saying, "god exists" their definition of that god is irrelevant to the point of my challenge that they provide verifiable evidence of its existence. They may define god any way they wish. I am asking them for verifiable evidence of their god.
For some I've encountered, it's the Christian trilogy or simply Jesus. Others say the Islamic Allah. I have South Asian friends whom I've seen worshiping Ganesh, the Hindu elephant god. For many it is something they call "Universal Consciousness." If someone one wants to claim their god is the Loch Ness Monster, please do so. If their god is an extra dry Martini on the rocks with anchovy-stuffed olives (Oh, MY god) you can demonstrate that in a cold tumbler. If any of that, or anything else, is your god, please offer verifiable evidence for it as a god.
@@JoeHarkinsHimself What you are basically saying is that you care about the evidence for the claimed entity. Can we demonstrate that "an extra dry Martini on the rocks with anchovy-stuffed olives" or "Ganesh" are real things? The term God is not even needed for that which is good since, according to me, that word has no usable meaning. So I was almost going to agree with you entirely until I read your last sentence where you are finally asking for evidences that the considered entity (assuming that there is now enough evidence of its existence) is a god.
I would argue that we are now back to square one. How can you ask someone to provide evidence that something is a god if you do not have a clear definition of what constitute a god?
An alternative question could be "is that entity worth being worshiped?" or "Does that entity merit being called a god?" but those are very different questions that only address the opinion of the person making the claim and not the actual nature of the considered entity.
@@cynodont7391 asks: "Can we demonstrate that "an extra dry Martini on the rocks with anchovy-stuffed olives" or "Ganesh" are real things?"
I don't know about you, but I can demonstrate such a martini. (I need to add an important element to the description, "Vodka." Please allow the correction. Gin Martini's are for drunks.) I have the ingredients for my version right here - or I can go to the bar at the corner and order that bartender's version. I even know that the local liquor store sells a pre-mixed bottled "martini" (olives sold separately).
I would have no trouble producing a photo or graphic of what a religious Hindu would call Ganesh. But as for the existence of a god by that name and reputed character, I have no verifiable evidence for the existence of Ganesh.
As for telling me I what I am "basically saying" - diversion much? I am not "basically saying" anything other than what I already said. Argue that if you wish, not your interpretation, please.
If the word god has "no useable meaning" for you, what is the point of discussing something you say has no meaning for you? Since the word has no meaning for you, you obviously are not claiming the existence of a god. That is a "have a nice day" moment in this dialog.
You ask, "How can you ask someone to provide evidence that something is a god if you do not have a clear definition of what constitute a god?" I am not claiming there is a god, so how can I have a definition of a god? My question is only posed to those who claim the existence of a god - and it's their definition that is being examined.
If I claim Santa Claus exists (which I do) and you ask me for verifiable evidence of his existence, which of us gets to define Santa Claus?
As for for your statement, "An alternative question could be "is that entity worth being worshiped?" or "Does that entity merit being called a god?" I will not strawman with you. If you want to ask those questions, who is stopping you? You may want to ask those questions of someone who claims the existence of a god. I hope you are not confused that I am.
Now let's see if you have a honest binary answer to a binary question. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
Steve from Rationality Rules? ACA put a bounty on him!
Kidding. Love Matt ( And Stephen)
8:43 - Exactly how children are so easily...and utterly...indoctrinated with their parents' beliefs. In our most formative years, when the only people we know are our parents and _their_ social/family circle, frequent inundation (and apparent corroboration) by basically everyone we know...and trust...leads us to unquestioningly accept the claims they present.
My favorite example of facts that are consistent with...but not inherently indicative of...a proposition is, "My cousin French kissed the Queen of England while bungee jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge." I can objectively demonstrate the factual nature of every individual part of claim, but that by no means validates the claim itself.
It's interesting to think about extreme circumstances. If someone claimed they could regenerate limbs and cure disease with the power of god and consistently do so, it would still not be strong enough evidence.
I think however we might reach an interesting place if any person (independent of biology) could reliably attain the same power only in the circumstance where they believe in god. Kinda like Dungeons & Dragons "divine" magic, where the believer gains their power through belief. It is still not absolute proof that the power comes from god, but functionally one might need to believe in god to attain the power. It would be even more interesting if such a power was tested and found that there was no other way to attain the power other than belief in god.
In that respect, even if Jesus were proved to be true and could perform miracles and self-resurrect, that would still not be strong evidence for god. It would only be strong evidence for a man with seemingly supernatural powers that claims they came from a god. He would need to be able to transfer that power to others exclusively by belief in the same god, and even then that would not be absolute proof... only compelling in support of the functional practicality of said belief.
Matt are you gonna do a follow up video on the whole veganism issue? A lot of people are confused.
Lack of B12 will do that to you.
Daniel Justin You aren’t actually trying to tell me that plants consciously experience stress are you?
@Daniel Justin I haven't met a single vegetarian that wasn't resentful about people and relationships in general, and I've met many due to my line of work. The only exception I can recall was one that made their choice for health, rather than ethical reasons.
Daniel Justin How do you know that plants are conscious?
@Daniel Justin That's crazy, but not surprising. It seems to tie in with the environmental movement and their common held opinion that not having kids is a good thing. It really seems like more of self-hate thing than anything because no one talks about birth rates and environmental impact being problematic when it comes to cultures outside of the west. I resent that these ideas are bleeding into laws and public institutions. We will soon see proposals for taxes on animal products, I'm sure.
Matt......... I....... Love
......
You
anecdotal n testimonial can mean: enough for me to be convinced. easily "disproven" by not being-so aka not seing the evidence of the situation. evidence can't be debated. its like sayn ill drop into the floo next step, with this being not true for all thats to be called evident.
It is a shame that those revealing the falsities, inconsistencies, and physical impossibilities, must become an expert in the mythologies of religion in order to refute what is on its face unsupportable.
There is no empty tomb evidence. The 'evidence' is a report of a report of a report of a report […] of an empty tomb.
The fact that there is a story about something is evidence of the existence of a story. It is not evidence that the events of the tale happened. It is certainly not evidence for later interpretations of the tale.
I'm here because I need intelligent relief. I've just read an opinion piece in an on-line news site (Stuff NZ) from a Christian lobbyist and he refers to the "Theory of Evolution" in a piece about Israel Folau (a nasty hate-filled xtian sportsman) when he could have just called it "Evolution." These opinion pieces don't allow any response but I did want to ask him about the "Theory of Gravity," "Germ Theory" and the "Theory of Procreation."
Also a lot of times that evidence given is also sufficient for all of the other gods the claimer likely agrees cannot also be true at the same time as their god.
The Bible seems to confirm the existence of other gods as in "Thou shall have no other gods before me". Who would those others be, either real or imagined, just like the author, I think.
@@DBYNOE Those other gods would be Baal, Asherah, El, etc. The gods that existed along side Yahweh before they were systematically edited out of the Torah over time. Since Christianity started as polytheism before it was even known as Christianity and evolved into a monotheism.
Okay, there is no convincing evidence for any "God", people might think they have evidence, but it doesn't convince me one bit.
Im 43 years old and have been around religion and religious people most of it and was a believer for a long time and Ive never seen anything in any way shape or form that could be called proof of gods existence.
@And Siq
1. provide evidence there is an afterlife, as far as I'm concerned, there is none. Also provide evidence the Jesus was sent by any "God" to warn us.
2. The universe isn't created, it formed itself after the sudden expansion of the singularity we think there was.
3. Yes, your "God" is exactly that what you wrote, all made up by humans.
4. Nope, our morals do not come from any "God", or all laws in every country would be the same, thew aren't. For some cultures it's perfectly okay to stone people to death for being gay or something, or not believing their religion. Do you still think our morals come from your "God"?
5. And that is the fallacy of special pleading.
@And Siq We know right from wrong due to many reasons, none of them comes from any "God", but from experience, empathy, what benefits the group and what not, et cetera. What you cal your "soul" isn't what you think, but processes in your brain. So are the near death experiences, explained by the release of certain chemicals in your brain, chemical natural present. Those chemicals make you hallucinate, at least according to the scientists whom have studied this.
@And Siq Quantum physics shows us thing popping into and out of existence all the time, it is been explained by the big bang theory, which is the best we have, and no "God" needed for a singularity to expand, thus forming our universe. Why do you keep insisting there must be some godlike force behind it, why can't you accept it just has happened?
@And Siq Well yea, those feelings are indeed chemicals in our brain, as said morals are not universal, other cultures do have other morals, if they were set in our heart, like you claim, they would all be the same in every culture/country you go, they aren't.