The Best Argument for God's Existence
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 вер 2020
- Music written and generously provided by Paul Jernberg. Find out more about his work as a composer here: pauljernberg.com
Spanish translations by Vélez Translations, www.veleztranslations.com
Every human society that we have records for, every civilization, has nurtured some moral code of behaviour. And in many cases, like the entire developed world of today, those societies have recognized the most critical elements of those moral codes with laws that inflict punitive measures on anyone who transgress those laws.
But what does that mean? What are we allowing when we talk about morality? Morality can be described as a judgement between what ought to occur and what actually occurs.
Now it’s important to notice that the natural sciences as a method of inquiry, in principle, cannot tell us anything about what ought to happen as compared to what does happen. The natural sciences are limited to consideration of the natural universe and are predicated on the assumption that the natural universe behaves according to fixed laws.
And by fixed laws, we mean what always happens. When we describe gravity, we’re talking about what always happens when two bodies of mass come within proximity of each other. There is no option to choose something outside of those laws. There are no alternative possibilities to those laws. A planet cannot choose to break faith with its orbit.
But remember morality tells us what should happen not necessarily what does happen and science only makes observations of what does happen and draws conclusions from that.
But if the natural universe is all there is, then there should be absolutely no grounds for talking about what should happen. All there is is what does happen and that you and I, as fixtures of the natural universe, must be bound to those same inevitable laws.
But in the case of you and I, we notice that there is more going on than fixed laws. We have an intellect and a will that govern the things that we do. We can choose between alternatives and because of this ability to choose and act with will, we recognize that we are responsible for the things we do.
We don’t hold other natural elements responsible for their actions in the same way. If a tsunami crashes ashore and kills hundreds of people, we don’t denounce the oceans for their transgression. We don’t protest along the shorelines demanding that the ocean recognize the value of human life. We don’t say, you should not have done that.
And the reason we don’t is because we recognize that it was behaving in an inevitable and deterministic way according to the fixed laws of the natural universe.
But when a person does something we don’t like, we don’t say, oh he was just acting according to those same fixed laws. No, we say he is responsible for those decisions because he is governed by more than the fixed laws of nature. There is some agency and ability that he draws from outside those laws that frees him from them to some degree.
But if the natural world can only be described by the fixed laws of cause and effect, and we either produce or inherit some quality that breaks free from that sequence, then we have to admit that we’ve found something that is pervasive in the human experience and which exceeds or transcends the natural universe.
In other words, there is something, that is morality, that is relentlessly available to our perception and in our experience that portrays something more to reality than what we can see, taste, and touch. There is something metaphysical or spiritual in our experience and it’s a big part of that experience.
So now that we understand that morality is something that exceeds the natural universe, what does this transcendent fact tell us about what lies outside and beyond physical nature?
It tells us that whatever lies beyond is intensely interested in our behaviour, about right and wrong, unselfishness, and justice. It seems to be instructing us in becoming moral by affirming us in good behaviour and making us uncomfortable and ashamed about our bad behaviour.
The only thing we can compare this to is a mind with will, purpose, and intention. We cannot talk about matter as if it were teaching or guiding us. And we cannot talk about it as if it were a natural law because as we’ve seen, natural laws don’t make allowances to disobey.
And the fact that we can disobey and are not forced to conform ourselves to these moral instructions tells us a little more, I believe. It makes love or the free gift of self, possible. What good are marriage vows if the one reciting them has no choice? What good is a promise if it can’t be broken?
Love acquires its significance because it does not have to be given. So, the fact that the power behind the moral law doesn’t force this law upon us, makes love possible. And it is this aggregate of variables that leads us to a very personal perception of that which lies beyond the natural universe.
I’m an atheist, and I am completely unpersuaded by your arguments, which I’ve known for years…but you seem like a great guy! Someone it would be fun to have coffee with and talk philosophy for hours! You’re the perfect representative for Christianity. Well done.
Atheism is intellectual dead end, and rather childish. Its a faith based religion that can not prove its truth claim of there being no god. Life has never been shown to come from non-life. Even richard dawkins admittted atheism was illogical and then was laughed at for trying to describe nothing.
I concur, the arguments are weak, Brian is a civil and nice guy, though his arguments are nothing new.
His desire to have his faith validated by science is kind of incoherent. If he is happy being a Christian and did not harm anyone, I would not mind him keeping his faith. It is up to him what he does with his life
Eternal life......*laughing*.....I sure feel tempted to be always young and in pristine health. I bet I would enjoy it but I do not spend my years agonizing over things I will not have and I am suspicious that he mentions such big promises like eternal life, yet does not really say anything convincing to back it up but keeps jumping to different points.
Yeah, If i wanted to keep sinning. I throw all logic out the window to keep my dopamine receptors fucked up.
I’m a Catholic and also felt like his argument was not the strongest. I do agree with his premise but he could have constructed his argument better. I believe in God because the universe follows an obvious intelligent design. There is order and natural laws that dictate reality. If everything was just one big happenstance there would be more observable absurdities that violated those laws. We know matter does not just create itself.
@@MountainsBreath this gives no proof of a specific god though. Especially not an omniscient, omnipotent, all loving god that influences our lives daily.
Love you , brother. You are so honest, genuine, and respectful. Thank you!
I agree, I think this debate should always be in good faith because there really is nobody who's right , it's about showing why we view things our way which really isn't right or wrong because it's someone's perspective, I find it fascinating to hear somebody present their arguments of why they do or don't believe or aren't sure don't know . This is the debate that ought to be good natured and respectful .Im rooting for you, all the best
I agree with the good faith arguments stuff, but this video really doesnt prove god exists..
@@Trosvvo while you are right, I don’t think this was the intention of the video. He’s aware that he can’t prove gods existence in the same way you and I are unable to prove that he does not exist. It seems like this video was more of an instructional tool for those who have faith so that they have some grounds for an argument in support of their beliefs.
@@WickedIndigopeople use to think Zeus was real bro god is the same way
@@bygonesbegone oh I’m an atheist, I was just making the point that he seems to want to give other people some better arguments for their theistic positions. There’s plenty of refutations to his arguments in this video and it’s definitely not the best argument for god existence but🤷♂️
I definitely do not agree when you say “there really is nobody who’s right.”
I don’t understand how you can confidently say this. Things are either true or not true and reality does not care about your opinion. There are rules in logic and reasoning and something is either logical or it isn’t.
Half of the video was spent explaining the already well discussed problem of subjective morality, the other half non sequitur-ing into the argument that objective morality "proves" a higher spiritual existence. This has nothing to do with any gods and frankly was a waste of time... You didn't prove anything about God OR the nature of morality, only that good things are good and therefore there's a source of what makes good and bad. Very non sequitur I think
The fact that you are even asking for proof of God already implies that there IS a God. If you are a mere product of evolution and chemicals then your brain was already pre-wired to ask that question, your thoughts your feelings the questions you ask are all just product of evolution and chemical reactions. That means things like truth proof or reason are illusions in your mind. So for you to ask another person for proof about anything means you are contradicting your worldview or that you don’t really believe you are only a product of evolution and chemicals.
@@Scott777 That might just be the dumbest thing I've ever read... we'll just ignore that you assumed I believe that "we're a product of evolution and chemicals" without even asking (TERRIBLE discourse etiquette) and get to the point. Asking for and expecting quantifiable evidence for a claim does not presuppose the existence of a God, simple as that. I could go on about the myriad other things you got horribly fractally wrong in your response but it all boils down to that. If you believe that any objective reality is contingent upon a God then you're out of your mind
@@angeloortiz2769 so you believe you are a product of evolution, chemicals and something else NOT material? Or are you saying you are a product of neither? Should I have said atoms or molecules quarks? It makes no difference. My original statement cannot be refuted regardless, you are asking for proof and truth and such things are only possible if they are rooted in an objective reality beyond the physical/material and not just from the electrical firings in our brains. Think carefully about what im saying to you.
@@angeloortiz2769 so you believe you are a product of evolution, chemicals and something else NOT material? Or are you saying you are a product of neither? Should I have said atoms or molecules quarks? It makes no difference. My original statement cannot be refuted regardless, you are asking for proof and truth and such things are only possible if they are rooted in an objective reality beyond the physical/material and not just from the electrical firings in our brains. Think carefully about what im saying to you.
@@Scott777 Your argument is rooted in a false dichotomy. Think carefully about what YOU'RE saying
For me the contingency or ontological arguments are the best and smoothest. Mostly because I've been helped by St. Thomas and St. Francis on the nature of God!
I think these are very good syllogisms, but I've never seen someone on the outside of belief in God respond very well to them. They always seem to act like I just did a magic trick or something and they have to try to figure out how it's fake. I think part of the problem is that, on the cosmological side, you're asking people to try to imagine the whole of reality and to accept premises about causes/contingency all leading to a source, and I think it's a little too big for most people that within that scale, they can imagine there's a gap that, even if they can't identify it, must somehow undermine it. The moral argument is something that descends to their level of experience because we can all understand situations in which we've insisted that things ought to be a certain way and they aren't. And it's within that struggle and that very personal experience that we glimpse the transcendent.
ua-cam.com/video/FQfujdlO4oY/v-deo.html he debunks this idea.
@@BrianHoldsworth _"I think these are very good syllogisms, but I've never seen someone on the outside of belief in God respond very well to them."_
- *As opposed to your argument which causes embarrassed laughter due to your lack of knowledge and facepalming?*
The moral argument is an assertion that ignores everything we know about how morality develops and pretends that secular advances in morality were due to religion. Its based on both ignorance and dishonesty, nothing more.
... this is ignoring that the morality written in religious works, like the bible, is abhorrent and that the most religious people tend to behave with the least morality.
@@BrianHoldsworth And yet, when one monkey is given cucumber pieces as a reward for a task, and they see another monkey get grapes for the same task, the first monkey will get upset and angry. Almost like primates have an innate understanding of fairness.
It's also an untenable argument to say morality is somehow tied to religion, because we do not have the same morality now that we did 1000 years ago. Nor do most religious people. The texts haven't changed, but morality has. So clearly the interpretation of those texts has changed.
But why would interpretations change from within the church? Is the holy text, the most perfect book ever written, so inscrutable and obtuse it has taken many centuries of theological scrutiny to realise what god *actually* wanted to say? And only after this new revelation was come upon, did society get told they've been doing things wrong the whole time and need to change to save their souls? Or maybe the more plausible explanation is that the theologians, being multi-faceted humans with lives not solely confined to a religious bubble, were exposed to new thoughts and ideas from outside the church and then began viewing the scriptures through these new lenses...
Also, does the fact that interpretations have changed mean that back when the church ruled slavery as moral, those faithful are now burning in hell because of a misinterpretation? Or is the modern interpretation wrong, and what morality is being taught is perverted and will lead to eternal damnation? Considering both cannot be true, slavery cannot be both moral and immoral, clearly there is a massive number of faithful who're burning in hell, because they were poorly guided.
Do you trust Your interpretation enough to take that gamble?
@@DrBased First describe what you mean by "objective morality". If you mean it the way most apologists do, then no, objective morality doesn't appear to exist.
If these are the best arguments, it's no wonder so many people can't believe.
@@AK-kd8iq That is an abominably terrible argument.
1. Labor shortages are abundant. Have you ever heard of "unemployment rates?"
2. What kinda of mental gymnastics is that? Science doesn't say "the world is random and so everything is random therefore everything that is stable should be unstable." You have constructed a strawman out of grass. I assume you're grasping at the theory of evolution, which if you are, you are critically lacking in understanding. Evolution is a fact. We observe it in our world today. It undeniably exists. The theory of evolution states that our current world comes from a series of evolutions. It's not "atheist scientists say that everything is random." It's "atheist scientists say that evolution, an observed truth, is the path life has taken over time."
@@PeakApex _" Labor shortages are abundant. Have you ever heard of "unemployment rates?""_
The point went over your head.
_"What kinda of mental gymnastics is that? Science doesn't say "the world is random and so everything is random therefore everything that is stable should be unstable." You have constructed a strawman out of grass."_
The point DEFINITELY went over your head.
Here's the question he's posing. Don't strawman the argument: *It is unreasonable to presume that a random evolutionary process would create the thinking faculties that far exceed the need to survive, thus any argumentation that relies on the intelligibility of the universe is severely undermined.*
Even atheists accept this premise.
So many people can't believe because they have been blinded. The reason I believe is because I can see the truth (and also I have had my own personal experiences with God).
@@TheSpacePlaceYTvery bold of you to assume you have the real "truth"
@@TheSpacePlaceYT Is it within my power to entirely counter that argument by saying I have experienced the lack of experiences with god. If you can take your own subjecitve truth, and present it universally objective, can I do the same and cancel it out. My point is that your arguement isn't a good one, because you can say that about really any otherworldly experiece. I have seen the truth that the greek pantheon exists, doesn't mean it does. If everyone experienced your truth thats a different story, but most people haven't.
The creation and maintenance of the universe needing a creator is my best argument.
Moral standards are part of the harmonious way of the universe. We can upset them but they always come back into their own balance.
Like throwing a pebble into a pond where the natural state is for a calm surface, the pond will eventually return to that state.
Yes, it's as though moral laws directly parallel the physical laws of the universe. But while matter of the universe is forced to obey the laws of physics, beings with freewill can choose whether or not to follow the moral law. However, if the moral law is not obeyed, it is the same result as if physical laws were not obeyed: existence would break down into chaos. Of course, God's laws also contain corrective measures (God's laws of justice) for any individual who disobeys the moral law, thus setting things back on course.
The creation of the universe and the laws of physics/multiple dimensions/conscious entities inside them are the evidence for me to believe
That might be a good reason but what gets me is that which gods holy book has the right set of morals? If there is an intelligent creator then that creator defines what morality is. Unless there are more than one intelligent creators and everyone’s path to heaven leads to salvation, we might fall victim to a false god.
Another thing than makes me doubt an INTELLIGENT creator(s) is from the mass extinctions of the world. I think if the creator was intelligent, mass extinctions wouldn’t be necessary
Morality does not physically exist, so claiming that it has to be balanced is nonsensical.
This is due to Truth. You can deny truth, but you are always wrong.
Hey Brian! Is the Alleluia that plays around 3:30 also written by Paul Jernberg? If so, which one of his pieces is it? It’s absolutely beautiful.
It's the introitus to the Confirmation Mass or Mass of the Holy Spirit. You may most easily find it on Soundcloud.
The song is called The love of god
Before any other more pertinent questions, I just have to ask you perhaps impertinently about those lovely guitars on your wall. LP junior on the left? Do you play?
The guitars have switches places in the course of the video, so obviously you've got some music going on
@@worldnotworld Yes, I play a little, but my time and enthusiasm have waned somewhat in recent years. I play one of them in an older video found here: ua-cam.com/video/jipW5YhuCrk/v-deo.html
Nice video. Really liked it 👌🏽
Your thoughts on predestination please?
What music piece is the Choral background?
There is nothing saying atheism doesn't promise hope, as an atheist, I have faith. Faith in myself. And to me, that is more credible than relying on something that is unknown and unpredictable. I have faith in my strength and my potential, after coming out of a 10 year abusive relationship. I can't trust anything but myself. Mental abuse against a child for ten years until the child snaps and has to leave is wrong, that is not a preference, as no therapist could argue that I needed my abuse, that I would have been worse off without being abused for 10 years. There is no right and wrong, but there is pain, and hurt. Nothing can justify my 10 years of pain.
brother, im sorry for your abuse, but if you just had faith in a living creator who wants to be in a relationship with you, you would be healed from your scars, i will pray for you no matter how much you oppose God
Arguments ain't evidence.
That said - I can precisely say the same about my atheism. It has given me great joy, hope purpose, and meaning. (and as I say that - you hear secular ambient music playing and my tone changes with sincere honesty) And If I had used this as my FAVORITE argument for my disbelieve in your god it would be a terrible argument, and I won't use it.
Look at it with honesty.
Firstly, that wasn't my argument. Secondly, what is your evidence that "arguments ain't evidence." If you hold such a strict standard of evidence for others, then why don't you hold yourself to it with every assertion that you make?
@@BrianHoldsworth Arguments for God aren't evidence for God.
If you claim an argument for something is evidence for something, then why don't you hold yourself to it with every argument made for something you disagree with?
I appreciate the points he is making -- well done! -- but there is a crazy leap at 11:03 when he begins to attribute things to a conscious, loving higher mind (i.e. God).
If you look at the ontological argument, then you can see that God exists simply because He is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient. Everything is caused including the universe, meaning that the universe was created by something omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent because the universe is EVERYTHING. This includes all-knowing, and something that is all-knowing, anything, would have to be a personal being, because they know all, including everything about you.
I agree that the Moral Argument is the best. Its Also the easiest to explain to people who are not well versed in Philosophy.
It has it's flaws. Not really in it's premises but in that if someone holds to determinism, they will always get out of it. So in order to get this to work fully we have to give a free will argument. there is a video, Braxton Hunter vs Matt Dillahunty I would recommend
Braxton Hunter is a baptist and Matt Dillahunty is an atheist and is one of the hosts in the program, The Atheist Experience
@@piotr1387 Oh I agree with you. I was just saying that's how they would "get out" of it. Plus they could always say, you were determined to think that.
Really an unfalseifiable stance. Which is weird since most atheists only rely on science for truth and science can only show something is most likely true if it is falsifiable
@@piotr1387 Ugmmm. No you can talk about moral good without mentioning the existence of God. Just simply ask a group of atheists on what they think is moral and you'll notice most of them never mention God in their answers. Unless a believer were too enter the conversation.
Plus God's nature could be argued as not good so no.
@@piotr1387 Ah. Ok hears something you might not have heard before. This quote from a guy I know sums it up best.
"Morality is simply increase of happiness, wellbeing, health, while what's immoral damages it. This must be taken into account long term not short term,"
Taking drugs not in moderation is immoral. For the short term you get pleasure. In long term you get pain. As one example. Plus I think what the guy meant happiness isn't anything related to just pleasure. Plus you can scientifically measure pain and pleasure. So their is some objective basis to it.
Lying is wrong, because it can ruin the happiness or well-being of others. Though that depends largely on the situation. Rape is wrong on all accounts, because it increases suffering in physical, mental, emotional states of a person. What's morally right is giving food to the poor or telling the truth, because it increase health, wellbeing, happiness of a person. Considering the straight forward practical nature of it I think it's a pretty good basis of objective morality.
@@piotr1387 "There are many problems with the definition of morality you quoted. Firstly it's still not objective, because it hinges on people's opinion." Not necessarily. We know when someone is in pain or in pleasure. We can scientifically measure pain or pleasure by looking at the pain or pleasure parts of the pain. Plus this is talking about real happiness not hedonistic pleasures. What food too eat in taste you provided as an example is hedonistic pleasure. Plus maximizing health is measurable. You can measure how healthy someone is.
Think of it like this. Morality is more of a objective demonstrable guide for a prosperous society. A prosperous society. Is a society that has all the needs reflected in the maslow's hierarchy of needs. The hierarchy is physiological needs, safety and security, love and belonging, self-esteem, self-actualization. That is morality. A society that provides needs of the people and eliminates anything that takes those needs away. You can have a opinion that morality isn't good, but morality is just a measure of a prosperous society.
Plus a objective foundation can give mixed results depending on how it used. What helps for one person is not helped for another person. Figuring out what a person needs is needed in order to provide the needs of the people. People need maslow's hierarchy of needs plus people need a functioning society. A functioning society is a cooperative society is in a state of happiness, good wellbeing and in good health. Therefore what's moral is reflected by that prosperous society. A society that constantly steals will stagnate since people's wellbeing well eventually stagnate from such choas.
Abortions is iffy considering scientists and philosophers alike don't know enough about the whole biology related to the process of a fetus to a baby or the understanding of what makes a person a person to give any moral advice on this issue with absolute certainty. Their is many arguments on both sides on the issue so I cannot say since I have went back and forth on for or against abortion. So I decided to wait patiently until someone finally gives a decent answer to the abortion question.
On the whole breakdown thing that can easily be answered depending on the philosophy and thought process of the person. If the mother is worried so much about the ethics of the fetus just don't abort if not do abort. That is IF we have a better understanding of what makes a person a person before we can give any moral advice on the issue. Morality is objective, but situational. It depends on the situation. You don't always tell the truth, because if you did what would happen when someone captured you? Are ya gonna tell your real name and where's your family if they asked? Of course not. Plus the goal is too maximize in the long term not short term. If I have too give a little pain to increase happiness long term than that's ok.
Plus morality could be both objective and subjective. It's subjective in the sense that their is a multitude of ways to achieve it, but it's objective in the foundation of it. If your saying the foundation doesn't work with enough proof than I would agree with you.
Excellent and very valuable testimony, especially in these dark days we’re living in our beloved Church. Thank you Brian for sharing your amazing and realistic faith. Our Lord must be very proud of you for being light and salt to all of us. 😇May God keep blessing you and your family every single day. 🙏🙏🙏
I personally consider myself an atheist, but I wanted to thank you for showing respect and not falling into argument like lots of other UA-camr. So thank you
On a number line of positive and negative numbers God is zero, niether existing or existing, No argument can define a being that exists in all states at once defined by a false argument with the expectation of a sum of true or false when both states are true and false at the same time.
You can not truly measure Zero by itself or God.
Because even in a pure vaccume space is still being created from nothing so you truly can not measure down to Zero and reach nothing. at the same time you can never be rid of something because something will always be there.
You can not imagine non existence because darkness is something no matter how long you imagine it.
If you haven't heard the Hidden Gospal of John I highly recommend it.
@@Lok783 dude, a theistic argument propagated on the cosmic unintelligibility of a supposed supernatural entity is no good at all. You can’t seriously expect anyone to believe in your cause when your argument is that it’s impossible to understand the main entity of said cause. At that point you are just asking people to base their entire lives on unsubstantiated here say. This is not even getting into the fact that a supposedly good god would have absolutely no reason to make himself so incredibly inaccessible.
You might as well just have said
Source: “trust me bro”
Thanks for sharing this with us.
I see you have guitars on the wall. Are you related to Allan Holdsworth?
Hi Brian,
My 3 year old asked me what your confirmation name was. Could you share that with us?
I don't have one. My initiation preparation was very inconsistent and a lot of things were missed. For my patronage I took the Holy Family.
Hi I'm a new subscriber. Thank you this was a nice start to my day!
Great intro. I wold be interested in hearing how you and your life has changed for the better.
Our outcomes are determined by our ethical choices. Every day we make countless choices that produce alternative outcomes. Wrong decisions produce bad outcomes. We can either do that blind (_I did it my way_ - Sinatra) or we can rely on those who came before us and traced a bit of a map as they went. This dynamic is inherent in every philosophy or _way of life_. So just that, alone, is worth exploring. The person with the map is going to find their way in the wilderness better than the person who's just winging it. Furthermore, the older a philosophy or _way of life_ is, the more it's been tested for accuracy/effectiveness. If it's still around and people are still espousing it, that's another good sign. An untested philosophy is no better than not having a map. So these are the aspects of reason. Reason can tell us much about how to live and more heads are better than one. That gets us quite far. But if God exists, and he made us, and he's willing to let us in on some vital information about how to live, then that would, presumably help much more in making those every day decisions. Christianity makes this claim, and my experience confirms it. My life was going nowhere fast before I started relying on the ethical framework that Catholicism upholds. After I started living that way, my life started to take shape in ways I know it wouldn't have otherwise. Lastly, Christianity, makes a further claim that not only will God tell you how to live, he'll grant you a supernatural grace (his divine life) to help you become good. This is another thing that my experience has confirmed for me. The days I prioritize prayer are the days I flourish. When I neglect the sources of grace I usually rely on, the effects are undeniable.
Brian Holdsworth , Thank you for taking the time! Very interesting even if not exactly what I was looking for. I was hoping for some more specific things like you have gotten rid of your jealousy or you are taking better care of your body or come closer to your family.
I have seen a few bad people find Jesus and start behaving like average citizens while pretty much all well behaved people I know manages that perfectly fine on their own.
I really enjoyed your presentation of the moral argument. As you said this argument only gets us out of a materialist view to seeing that there is something non-material and beyond what we can ordinarily observe. And that this non-material entity is interested in us and our behavior. Whatever this entity is it is properly what we call God. But as you said as at this point in the argument there is little we can say about this entity. I don't that polytheism or multiple such beings have been ruled out this point although I would love to here if you disagree. There doesn't yet seem to be a reason to think their could not be multiple of these non-material entities or Gods. The angels and demons of Judaism and Christian revalation seem to fit this bill as non-material and interested in our moral behavior. Though I think the commanalities of morals across time and culture does point at minimum to common goal this non-material reality would lead us. I see a few options for further development of this argument. The first would be further logical and philosophical arguments on the nature of what a non-material beings interested in our moral behavior would nessesarally need to be and could not be. The second starting to judge different claims about dieties on historical and philosophical grounds. If we have established grounds for a non-material reality we shouldn't assume that miracles are impossible. We should then be able to evaluate the miraculous claims of different religions. We should also be able to look at different religons and evaluate their theology lines up with what we can say about this non-material reality.
I would love anyones thoughts.
I asked myself, If everything PHYSICAL Originated by Chance like most Scientist say, over Billions of years random Particle and atom forned matter mass dust elements gas Stars Galaxies ECT. Eventually forming Intelligent creatures, what would Enable these intelligent beings to make thousands of non random thought and decisions leading to purposefully Events . Shouldn't it take at least a billion years for each thoughtful decision to be made?
Looking forward to this one!
I have never needed proof that God exists because I've always KNOWN that God exists. I am lucky that I have never doubted His existence or needed to prove to myself that He exists. For me, just looking at the little toe of my newborn babies (this is back in the 1980s) and how perfect those tiny toes were was a demonstration of the glory of God's creation. It moved me! How can anyone look at that tiny perfection and not believe in God is beyond my comprehension!
@@isaacroufs5779 I have no need to argue God's existence. Only those who doubt do.
What would proving God mean? We believe God is a person. What would it mean for us to prove a person? For example, I see a photo of John, but it doesn't mean much to me because I don't know him. John from the photo is just a generic face to me, lost to me among thousand of everyday people I see on the street but don't meet them.
Only when I get to know John, that photo stops being irrelevant.
Even with people, proving means little to is, getting to know a person makes a difference. Much more so with God, with Christ.
@@stephenson19861 Nice
With respect, you won’t convince anyone with that argument because it’s arbitrarily and inconsistent.
If you are willing to believe massive life-altering doctrines that affect every action you take, and every thought you think, WITHOUT any evidence other than physical beauty, then you’d be far too easily convinced of anything.
@@ericsonofjohn9384 If you are addressing this message to me, I was NOT trying to convince ANYONE of ANYTHING!
Comments from an atheist:
First of all, you have found your beliefs rewarding and conforting. I get it. If you are convinced that someone is watching over you and all you have to do is follow the rules and everything will eventually be ok, then that will feel very comforting and might relieve a lot of stress and anxiety and will ultimately be beneficial regardless of whether or not it is true. I don't think it is a good idea to believe things based on how it makes you feel. I'm not saying you don't care if it is true but for me it is by far much more important that my beliefs are true or likely true. I think I'm being honest in my approach but the fact that whether or not something is true is almost exclusively what I use to judge whether I should believe something means I do not believe any gods exist. In fact I am convinced that no gods exist.
Morals: Yes, even animals have a sense of fairness. It is an important tool for a social species and is thus an important part of our evolution. Treat other members of your society unfairly and they will ceace to cooperate and you are at a detrimental disadvantage. It might not be all that complicated. Laws change. That does not mean we got them wrong. AND no two people agree 100% on all moral standards. So there either is no universal objective moral OR it is hidden.
Using the word "abuse" is poisoning the well. "Abuse" is a word to describe immoral treatment. The natural sciences can indeed tell us what ought happen regarding a desired outcome. I'm only half way through the video but I'll stop here and direct you to any presentation on secular morals. I think you are missing a point or two in understanding what morals are. Have an open mind and examine the flaws in your argmentation.
Why do you think we are here?
@@kolehollis5852
I'm tired of hit and run apologetics. Elaborate on the question or go away.
@@nmklosterlol well what I mean is what do you think the reason is to why we or anything at all exists?
@@kolehollis5852
Lol well I have no reason to think existence was intended. Why is there something rather than nothing? Don't know. As I wrote, I can understand that it can feel comforting to believe that you exist as an intent by something but I find it more important that what I believe is likely true.
@@kolehollis5852 If someone needs proof or very hard logic, "why do you think we exist" doesnt provide either of those unfortunately. Whats your take on why we exist as it relates to proving specifically the existence of the Christian God?
I just dont any compelling case for objective morals other than that it would make me feeld good.
If there is such a case, could you expand on it a bit?
The music in the background is a manipulation tactic called emotion over intellect. It’s meant to encode emotion within us to override our critical thinking skills.
The TAG , or Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence, is not only THE BEST argument for God’s existence, it is also the argument which the Bible itself instructs us to utilize in order to defend our certainty. And yes, it is certainty. “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise.” - Proverbs 26:4-5. Basically , we force the non-believer to account for logic, and the transcendental , immaterial realities of life and the universe. They are irrefutable, and once I fully understood it, all doubt immediately went out the window. The atheist / non-believer / doubter MUST account for logic. He cannot get around it, he cannot dodge it, he cannot skirt the issue, because he has knowledge, and he uses it ever second of ever day of his life. It MUST be accounted for, because if it were not, no knowledge can or would exist, ever, across the board, about anything. The moral / ethical question is encapsulated within this argument - b/c if morality were truly relative, “we” (the universe) would have to individuate - to infinity (if it were truly true). This individuation would never allow for any knowledge; no knowledge, much less morality. BUT, there is morality , and there is knowledge, thus, it must be accounted for and grounded in something - and this something is what we call God. The only other move the atheist / non-believer has left at this point is to plead solipsism, but it too is proven ad absurdism via the laws of logic as well. And thus, he has hit rock bottom, and his worldview is proven false.
For a very good (the best) debate on this method of argumentation, watch Jay Dyer vs. Matt Dillahunty, but please watch on Jay Dyer’s UA-cam channel, b/c Matt D has edited his version of the video to make him appear superior. He is not. Jay Dyer , although a little rough around the edges, understands and articulates the TAG better than anyone I’ve ever seen before. His debate with Dillahunty is an absolute slaughter. Matt D had no idea what he got himself into in that one. It’s great for entertainment value, but also for getting a true and clear understanding of the TAG.
@Orthodoxy or Death! !!! how about C.S. Lewis?
Good idea, the Bible says to believe the Bible so to see if the Bible is truth, you just need to read the Bible and believe the bible. For a minute I thought you might be a little bias.
You are not very good at this are you ?
No I do not have to account for logic or maths or physics or anything else
Unless you can demonstrate that they were a 1 time revelation and never existed before that point
So unless you say that there was no god before about 4 BCE and it suddenly poofed into existence just then, then you are talking bollocks
I think "God" is a manifestation of humans need to feel control to alleviate anxiety. It's a secret best friend, it's a hope for the future, it's someone having your back, it's something that gives you power in a group setting, it's something that explains away your inadequacies. It's a very effective tool psychologically. I say this as an atheist that respects the power of the mind. Regardless of how we equate that, We can't argue that it is indeed a very powerful form of self soothing. Some will need that more than others. That may even be dictated by circumstances. There's nothing to say that those who believe won't be crushed by an impossible reality and need that self soothing in the future or visa versa. I respect all views regardless
I think this is a very simplistic point of view, one that we all thought of when we were 15. Truth is there's actually good arguments for theism, the metaphysical impossibility of the infinite made the atheist arguments dig deeper into quantum physics and the fact that time can not exist at a quantum level is now presented as a way the universe could have had a beginning without an outside influence. Ofc this is assuming that minimum state of energy didn't require a cause which we don't know. Truth is both sides require a lot of faith, imo the atheist assumptions require a lot more of it though. May be ironic to some people since they have been led to believe faith is only a thing for believers.
@@jpg6113 Dear JPEG,
I think you should stick to what you are good at, which is delivering pictures in a reliable format! Ha! I got you internet chum! Ha ha! Other than that good sir I say, good day!
@@timm2824 good way of not engaging
@@jpg6113 I think the opening sentence of your comment is indicative enough of your intent and context for this conversation. So I have treated it as it is designed to be. With non chalant contempt and loose humour to accentuate the fact that you have taken a logical intelligent comment and equated it to simplistic and that of a 15 year old. Whether this is a self ego inflation strategy you are feeling the need to use as it's a bad day for you, or if you genuinely feel 15 year Olds have this insight then I challenge you to produce one as I've never come across them.
@@timm2824 Clearly we grew up in radically different environments. The reason why i said that is because a lot of my friends and i at that age said very similar stuff, we grew up in a very Catholic part of the world but our parents weren't religious. I can't fathom being in that age group and not "rebel" against authority and start arguing against Religion, this would be one of the first things everyone says when arguing against it.
Intellect, will and choice are attributes of individual minds. These attributes reside within the individual sentient human being. These attributes help us survive and engage with the world around us (the world around us includes other minds that are separate from us).
What's the name of the background music?
The following UA-cam video will answer your question and then some. The song you're asking about is the second song in the video: ua-cam.com/video/FQfy1G_PirM/v-deo.html
Amazing video Brian!
Beautifully said
I like this take :)
but there is a universal way to tell what is "right" and what is "wrong;" it's not just preference. It's all about preserving autonomy. All laws conform to either Deontology or Utilitarianism, which are different ways of preserving either majority or personal autonomy. or a mix of the two.
Really excellent Brian. If I had more maturity I'd be more like you. One existentially critical point however that has a profound bearing on the arguments for the existence of God. And I think the one you just presented was beautiful , powerful and very well expressed.
The point of disagreement is this however, and not with this argument you just presented. It has to do with the certainty of metaphysical first principles. I was always bugged by this until I read philosopher Dennis Bonnette who is, I would suggest simply brilliant.
He points out that the principles of form and matter for instance or existence and essence which are fundamental to the classic cosmological proofs of the existence of God are CERTAIN in nature.
Something we all know naturally or innately from about the age of four as he states.
Those who deny our ability to grasp reality spend 20,000 words all supposedly related to reality... to deny our connection. Absurdity.
So I think this is the key to the power and force of the cosmological arguments from change or motion etc. Logic and experience is grounded in being. In what is. The principle of identity really just states that what is, is.
This is the basis of the certainty of "demonstrations" which are simply solid arguments that cannot be defeated. Catholicism affirms that the human mind can know of the existence of God with certainty.
I was fortunate enough to have studied the classic arguments at a serious university level and found them solid against wouldbe critics who usually ended up denying causality itself , or like Bertrand Russell, the universe itself. Comic relief.
I'll but a link to Prof Bonnette's excellent reasons why we can indeed carefully have or acquire great confidence in our ability to reason from experience.
I love your work, sir.
strangenotions.com/the-transcendental-certitude-of-metaphysical-first-principles/
Ultimately the best argument for God's existence (i.e. the truth) is subjective. It is the one that brings the person to the foot of the Holy Cross of Jesus in repentance.
For me it was living in sin and achieving everything I ever wanted and stil having that nagging question: are you satisfied? To which I could only ever answer no. It did me no good to gain the whole world but forfeit my soul.
I was restless until I found my rest in Christ
@Scott Seufert You missed the point of my post. Let's see if I can explain it for a remedial reader
Let's assume you love your mother. Is your reason(s) for loving your mother subjective (i.e. yours alone)? Does that make it anecdotal? Yes...but it isn't a fallacy because love is relational, it is personal. It is the same with God because God is love.
I'll say it another way: if you think you only need an argument for proof of God's existence (such as those in the Summa or any other), you are still very far from God. The demons believe and tremble, but they don't love God.
Same
Hallelujah
@@illumoportetcresceremeaute887, writes _"It is the same with God because God is love."_
Nothing can _be love,_ love isn't a thing. Love is a description we give to an emotion we experience.
@@fred_derf Your definition of love is irrelevant. It is not the Christian definition of love. When we say love, we mean: willing the good of the other over the self. This is pure will, not one iota of emotion. God is love because God is pure good will. God always wills the good of His creatures even to the point of humiliation and death on the cross.
You never disappoint! Thank you so much for this.
If there is actual negative consequence that befalls me, based on what someone does, says or attributes to me, do I not then have enough justification to conclude that the actions, speech and projections from this "someone" is not good for me?
Or do I have to wait for my father or mother, friend or foe, preacher or saint, white man or black man, God or devil, to give me permission before I can recognize that what the "someone" did to me is objectively to my detriment?
Hope you can help answer my question. above.
I remain unconvinced but I like your energy. You're very respectful.
@@AK-kd8iq such big shoulds and should nots are massive assumptions to make with no frame of reference. Science also doesn't just operate on randomness either, not sure what you're even getting at with that.
I am not a Christian but I do believe in God, and I appreciate the energy that you bring to your videos. it's one of honesty and open-heartedness. Thank you for creating this content :)
Rubizel Murgatroyd The world reflects the God you believe in ,assuming you believe He is the Creator. Every living creature is part of a trinity, mother, father and offspring. None of us live independently, we are in a trinity of love (hopefully love, not lust). His creation tells us that God is an eternal Trinity of Love and Life. Jesus reveals to us the Father,Son and Holy Spirit. Ofcourse this is beyond our understanding but then do we really think that we can comprehend God with our limited human intelligence. The human family is as close an understanding we can get of the Blessed Trinity . Blessings
@@larryluch8178 I believe that God is everything and we're basically God experiencing itself thorough many different eyes and forms. It's complicated lol. I have a long history of taking issue with lots of stuff in the bible, but watching Brian's videos has made me want to reexamine it (it's been 10 years so I might have a different perspective than I did in my early 20's.) To believe in a certain portrayal of God or to accept something as my holy book though, I'd have to believe that it is absolutely a portrayal of Good, and I haven't gotten to that point yet. This time around I have more support to help me understand the Bible though so we'll see.
Rubizel Murgatroyd Yes there are some wonderful Bible commentators on UA-cam etc Speaking as a convinced Catholic l obviously believe the Catholic Church has the proper teachings on all things Biblical but l wish you every blessing on your journey of discovery and hopefully it brings you to a prayer life and receiving Jesus truly present in the Blessed Eucharist. Your first few sentences made me laugh, too obscure for me 😄😇💒
@@larryluch8178 Thank you! Lol I guess everyone's beliefs look puzzling from the outside looking in, but I'm glad that you got a laugh at least. =)
@@rubizelmurgatroyd7893 Pantheism, ah.
God has blessed you with an amazing gift. I have been listening to your videos and God is absolutely using you to help me grow.
Yes, Zeus has been good to him.
@@JoachimLarsen101 Zeus is just a Myth, Odin is the real god
Throwing a little Pascal’s Wager in; that’s good. Perhaps the simplest argument ever and underrated sometimes as trite, but it can reorient the mind and the will(heart) so grace can do its work.
Well it's simple, _but wrong._ For every idea "believe in god X to receive infinite reward" there's an opposite idea "believe in god X to receive infinite punishment". So when you actually do the math (calculating the odds of the "wager"), _it doesn't work._ There's no reason to bet on _any_ possibility, because any given possibility is just as likely to result in punishment as reward.
If that's not enough, just consider the fact that it works for literally any other idea:
* the Undetectable Anti-Deity Donut prevented all gods and will send you to Donut-hell if you believe in a god
* well _not believing in a god_ costs you nothing
* but being wrong about your bet costs you _infinite punishment_
* therefore you should intentionally avoid believing in any gods, just to be sure
What's that choir doing in the background?
This argument is as solid as Swiss cheese.
Something cannot come from nothing. Same with conscience.
Where did God came from then?
@@Frederico27101989 Well God is the ultimate necessary being, meaning that everything comes from Him. And Since He's the necessary being for existence, He can't come from anything else because that would make the being that He came from the necessary being. God is what we call the principle necessary being, also making Him the only necessary being. Since He is necessary for existence, nothing else could be necessary because it depends on the necessary being for existence.
@@isaacduplantis1114 but you just said something cannot come from nothing... why are you contradicting yourself?
@@isaacduplantis1114 Have you witnessed this god so well that you can personally give it attributes? Lets give the Universe these attributes and no god is needed.
@@Frederico27101989 (I forgot who I got this from) if you don’t think that something can’t come from nothing, then nothing would exist, there had to be something there, and then you’d have to ask where did that something come from
All arguments for god fall flat without first defining god. Who's god are you talking about? What makes your god different from other gods? Where is your god?
All gods are human constructs, often with human attributes, meant to explain the unexplainable. Religious apologists realize that the three words, *_"I don't know"_* is a valid answer for the question of whether their god exists or not but ignore it because they are invested in their belief in a supernatural world of mythical beings without being able to provide any proof of them.
Am I correct that Vatican I states that God can be known by reason with certainty?
Actually when I became a Christian there were many strongholds in my life that disappeared immediately. I stopped drinking, smoking, etc. without even a struggle. This alone would constitute compelling evidence for Christianity.
Yes, the most compelling evidence for any one individual is to have direct and personal experience with God and/or the spiritual. Of course, this usually doesn't satisfy the skeptics who have not experienced such things themselves.
@@EndTimesHarvest Amen. I agree.
@@EndTimesHarvest And the fact that believers from more than 1 religion are talking about that kind of experience make me very skeptical about it being a "Real" divine experience
@@chanseyinthehood8415 while we are rapidly moving towards two sides God's - satans at this point in time God is working inspite of doctrinal differences and is bringing all believers of honest heart towards one Accord... So Him working with people who have a different understanding is to be expected. I know he has definitely delivered myself and many I know from a darkness none of us could escape from... And I praise Him for the freedom from slavery...
@@EndTimesHarvest absolutely, I have experienced His saving Grace without a doubt...
It may be interesting for you to know that my life has also significantly gained in levels of happiness, purpose and drive since adopting a new way of thinking, which is non-belief in a deity. What this potentially points to (I believe) is that the main focus for human growth is purpose...not how someone came to it.
Glad to know you're watching. Can I invite you to watch this one as it relates to your comment? ua-cam.com/video/bhE5MEMt1yQ/v-deo.html
More holes in this reasoning than a fisherman's net.
Hey, may I use a clip from your show in one of my UA-cam videos on Laity teaching the faith?
Go ahead.
@@BrianHoldsworth Thank you!!! :-)
Pascal's Wager? Seriously? You're going with Pascal's Wager? Even Pascal wrote about the massive flaws in that argument…
The problem: One can argue that even in materialistic view of human being (no soul), men decided, from "egoistic", materialistic view, to AGREE between them to do good to each other, so that the individual will not get harm.
For example, lionesses hunt in a group, together. The lioness does not have a soul, and still, with less intelligent mind - they AGREED to work together and not, lets say, eat each other.
The moral code is like that - a sophisticated agreement between humans that invented by humans to better their lives. Better the live of the group, and better the live of the individual.
"to AGREE between them to do good to each other, so that the individual will not get harm."
This presupposes what is good. The ability to judge what is good and what is not comes before the supposed agreement. Just because you can see lions doing something that you think is good, doesn't mean they are moral. It just means you are moral for being able to approve or disapprove of their actions. You have no evidence that they evaluated the potential actions to be good or not and then chose to do the good one because it is good.
@@BrianHoldsworth
1. I do not presuppose what is good. I wrote in the sentence you quoted me how I define "good": "so that the individual will not get harm".
Sure, "how to not get harm" have many interpretations, and we (you and me and the rest of the world) could be descendants of the groups of people that CHOSE the best method of not harming each other.
Groups of people, or animals, that chose less effective ways to work in a group - are all DEAD now.
2. About the lions example: They are not moral creatures. I wrote it explicitly: "(no soul)". Look again at what I wrote.
The lions are example of clearly not a "moral agents" that are working together in a group and an observer can do mistake and relates morals to their actions.
The lion groups that chose less effective ways to "not harm the group" or "work in a group" - are dead today.
P.S. I'm not an English speaker - so sorry for butchering the language.
@@gest07 You aren't getting to the root of what morality is. You're just telling me what your fundamental moral precept is - not doing harm. That's not morality, that's just a rule contained within morality. Morality is the ability to judge right from wrong. It is the judgement, not the particular acts. It's the ability to look at potentials and pick the right one as an actual. You're just giving an example of a potential converted to actual. That's not getting to the root of what morality is.
Furthermore, it's a bad moral precept because it requires you to know what is harmful without truly defining it. Does that mean never causing pain? Because some pain is actually very good for us. Exercise is painful, but good. Medical procedures are painful, but good. Making sacrifices for others is painful, but good. Removing abusive people from your life can be painful, but good. It's also a mere negative - as in what NOT to do. But true morality tells us what we should do (positive). Anything that doesn't rise to that requirement cannot be offered as a summary of all morality.
@@BrianHoldsworth
1. Atheist or Agnostic can claim that there is no "morality" as in "the ability to judge right from wrong". Instead, we can TRY to choose the action that we ASSESS (and sometimes we assess wrong) will do the least harm to us and others in our "group".
Again, the "ability to judge from right from wrong" do not exist. It's an illusion that stem from the ability of our mind to do complex and sophisticated calculations and to assess facts of reality pretty good.
We then pat ourselves on the back and say: We "possess" the power of KNOWING right from wrong. NO. Why? Because we make mistakes on moral judgment. Not always, but many times. Why? Because it's just an assessment. Not a divine power from above.
2. About what you said: "it requires you to know what is harmful without truly defining it."
True, I didn't define what is "harmful". Why? because there is NO set rule, "carved in stone". So how we decide what is harmful? The same way less intelligent creatures are trying to survive and stay away from harming their body. We can see with our own eyes that unmoral animals work in a group, and protect each other, to some extent. So why we could not achieve that?
3. About the pain. I didn't claim it's all about pain. But, because you asked about pain, I myself think that pain could have been the base, the start of "trying to not harm yourself". I can theorize that more sophisticated decisions that involve others for example, can be the product of try and error, where the error is not causing harm to the "group" immediately. The groups or cultures that chose wrong by mistake - are no longer exist.
We (all humans that live today) are descendants of the cultures that chose more right than wrong.
@@BrianHoldsworth If morality is the ability to judge right from wrong, then which morality is the correct view on right and wrong? What is "true morality"?
Nobody has been able to definitively, objectively show anything to be the case on this.
3:12 Even if you accept a super force or celestial being ..still a long way to prove that power will fulfill your desire for longevity ...
Greetings from Mexico, It's always a pleasure watching your videos
Mexico is AWESOME. 🇲🇽
@@culturecoroner Thank you! I'm glad that someone is able to see not only the bad things
Hey! I really liked your video. But it made me wonder, animals have been proved that they have morality, studies have been made on chimpanzees, dogs and rats. So, if that is true, it means animals also have a soul. How can this be in your argument? I believe in god but how can I explain it! Wow
Compelling video. Thank you.
technically he is giving arguments for believing in his particular god based on perceived emotional benefits, not arguments for existence of gods. however he leaves out the required corollary belief in the pantheon of other supernatural beings that are also required, including those that fight with each other.
What would be the best reply to the claim that morality is a byproduct of social evolution? I think my own reply would be that history shows otherwise, but I'm curious what the philosophical reply would say.
You can say that morality is a convention, but all conventions are an attempt to capture something real and true. It still leaves itself open to questions about why have a convention at all, unless it was to try to best perform against the objective standard that exists. If there was no objective morality, there would be no need for conventions.
Grew up in the faith, had an incredibly pious mother, and know the Gospel... However, when challenged to dive into the Bible, it actually brought me out of my faith. So much didn't make sense in the book, and the metaphorical sweater started unraveling. I jumped onto this video because I'm desperate for a good argument for God... Unfortunately, all these were basic, flawed, and could be easily argued against.
The argument that our laws are based around morals only shows that humans are moral creatures that seek order, not that there was a divine creator. In fact, I morally disagree with the God of the Bible quire a bit, so... That argument proves nothing to me.
The argument of what does happen and what should happen again bases itself off of the fact that Humans cannot morally judge themselves. When in fact, time and time again, we can. We as beings, understand there is an intrinsic right and an intrinsic wrong. Does an action harm another? Wrong. Does an action help another? Right. We understand that as children... God did not need to tell us that.
Just grabbing onto two of his explanations... Not trying to even start a fight. In fact, I'd love for someone to swoop in with a logical and intelligent answer. Feeling "lost" barely touches on whats going through my head, and so I pose these questions in hope for salvation and a good answer.
Hmmm... okay, so I don't think you can prove god from a scientific perspective because what the goal of science kind of is/became is to give an explanation of the phenomena of the universe and the world without god. So I feel like attempting to prove god from that perspective will always be fruitless. One way I feel we can prove God is through logic which is the basis of what science is based off. Everything created has a creator this is something we can all generally agree on hopefully. If you found a robot in the middle of a desert planet you would be able to logically say that due to the fact a robot is here people likely use to live here because the robot can't make itself. Science today has told us with some confidence that the universe had a beginning and they even have an approximate age for it. Which is 14 or something billion years old. judging from the fact the universe was created and things don't create themselves we can conclude something made the universe. We would also be able to conclude the thing that made the universe is an intelligent being due to the sheer complexity and order the created things show. We would also be able to deduce that the intelligent designer has the ability or power to make what it wants what's happen judging form the fact it created everything as we know it. The reason why there can't be a creator of the creator is simple it would cause a infinite regression paradox and that would entail that it could never get to the creation of the universe. Basically, if you were in an infinite line to check out a book you would never check out the book, hopefully, I said that in a way that makes sense. Also, I'm not a Christian, but I have looked into the bible and I found many contradictions so I definitely don't think Christianity is the right religion. And continuing to use logic I feel you can eliminate most religions without even reading their scriptures. Like Buddhism(or whatever the one where they worship idols is called) doesn't make sense because how could something that a human-made be the creator of humans it's illogical. Christians believe that Jesus died for their sins but if he was god and god was all-powerful why would God need to die for their sins. Also, How can Jesus a human be a god. I don't know what their definition of god is but if it can die it probably isn't god.
ohh yea I forgot to mention I'm a Muslim just in case you were wondering. Saying this I assume you have many or some questions about Islam and I think if you watch these part of these two videos hopefully your questions will get answered. 1. ua-cam.com/video/XuyxicbhwQg/v-deo.html 2. ua-cam.com/video/ZfYlpjlHxGY/v-deo.html
@@myguy4691 There are a lot of Phenomena that defy logic. Especially in the realm of sub atomic and galactic. Logic is just a human brain function, somehow flawed and sometimes easy to manipulate, as it is demonstrable within every cult and religion. Relying purely on logic for deduction without proper data leads to catastrophy.
Same goes to senses and intuition, which are easy to be mislead. Especially vision and feelings are highly inaccurate and not always correspond with reality. Neuroscience shows that even our memories of color, places and names might be highly inaccurate and changes everytime we remember them.
If there is a god, and is interacting through messiahs with the rest of the world, it is extremly and inefficent, flawed and childish way to do it. Especially if you always chose the empty desert to spread your word.
If there is a god and it is out of our realm, thus not interact with us, it is pointless to speculate since there is no way to prove either way.
Therefore, for all who claim the first option, I refuse.
All claim the second option, move on, there is nothing to be had here.
If you really have to try really hard with brain gymnastics, word salads, fallacies, set-ups and misrepresentations to prove your god is the right one, you definetly prove with that act that there is none.
I’m going to respond to your points as best as I can.
In response to you falling out of your faith diving into the Bible, here’s what I have to say. In the Bible God revealed Himself to the people or Israel that doesn’t happen in the ways that the Bible describes. However, even with people back then seeing those miracles happen. Some still didn’t have faith. Adam, Abraham, and St. Thomas doubted God at first. Peter betrayed Jesus 3x due to a lack of belief. Judas betrayed Christ but wasn’t forgiven because Judas couldn’t bring himself to repent for what he did. All that aside, this begs the question: where is your faith in the first place? It takes two to tengo. The Bible is Gods word to all of us. He is revealing the at to us so it is our job to believe. We have free will and we can choose not to believe it, but The Bible and Christianity is not truth then why would it be revealed to us for our salvation?
In response to your second point. You state that humans are able to know what is right and wrong without God. Yes with our intellect, us humans can only come so far to know what is right and wrong. How could we know premarital sex is wrong without God/Bible? How could we know that abusing alcohol is wrong? How could we know having pride when committing sin is deadly without God? We simply can’t. Yeah there may be signs that certain actions are wrong based on the natural consequences that occur afterwards, but God is there in the Bible to confirm what is objectively right and wrong.
I hope this helps. And I’m happy that you want salvation and want to be with God and you are looking for more reasons to believe. God doesn’t ask us to be perfect he asks you to try. And this indicated your effort for believing in God. Hope you’re well.
The Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and literally thousands of other religions embrace these same "compelling facts" he presented...yet they're ALL different. All I know is that when I need courage, or motivation, or relief from grief, it's still there for me despite my lack of faith. Plus, I've made effort to spend more quality time with loved ones(and donate a kidney to one)in part due to my inability to believe in an eternal family reunion, thus improving my earthly experience. I focus on what I've gained, not lost, when my critical thinking matured to a level that isn't conducive with gullibility and confirmation bias required for adherence to religious doctrines.
In regards to whether there is anything more than the physical world, if all that exists is green, then blue should be inconceivable.
Though we can conceive of colors that we cannot perceive or experience. You also have to define what you are referring to, and whether or not it is fundamental. If you are referring to the color spectrum, then all colors can exist since it is just a wavelength spectrum of light, and if it was an impossible spectrum as if that existed, it would still be conceivable. There isn't anything inconceivable, albeit it might not be fully understandable because it would just be an idea, but it would still be a conceivable idea if not conceivable by us. If you are referring to the perception, green is also the mixture of blue and yellow in most color theory, and so green implies blue (although you could say red instead of green, but color itself would be meaningless/not a useful concept unless there were at least two to differentiate from. So if all that existed were colored green, green wouldn't exist because color, as well as most everything, is defined by difference as much as similarity.) Also see- www.quora.com/Can-we-think-and-make-a-new-color-that-has-not-existed
@@TriDexterousTiger You don`t get the argument it seems. I said "IF" all that exists is green. So imagine ontologically all that exists is green, which is what materialists argue in regards to the material world. If that is true, then nothing outside of the material world should be conceivable. If all that exists is green, then no other colour should be conceivable. It`s possible to misrepresent this argument or misunderstand it, but it holds true. If all there is is green, and nothing else, then all that can be conceived of is green.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 If what you are saying is that assume only green exists and green is also the only color conceivable, yes I agree, green would be the only color that could be in any form. But in regards to reality and considering God, there isn’t anything that is unable to be conceived and is completely detached from us, while we might not be able to completely experience it, which was my point.
@@TriDexterousTiger To suggest that anything is conceivable outside of the physical world if the physical world is all that exists (as in the analogy) is a non sequitur. You have to follow the logical inference. God should be inconceivable if all that exists is the material world. It follows. Think about it.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 I agree. I wasn’t intentionally suggesting that the physical was all that is and if it seemed that, my mistake. I was just clarifying that concepts/things need opposites or differences, things similar but separate, to be of any importance so green couldn’t be the *only* color. Also I was saying that even if blue didn’t exist it would still be thinkable, which from the oc it appeared to me you weren’t when you actually were. My mistake. I thought you were arguing the opposite of what you apparently were.
The greatest scientific and philosophical question is this: why is there something rather than nothing? To me, it only makes sense that there are two default states of existence: absolute nothingness and the infinite. Our universe is somewhere between nothingness and the infinite; our universe is finite in nature. It only makes sense that our finite universe came from something that was infinite in nature (what we call "God"). How could our finite reality come from nothing?
So where did your specially pled god come from ? oh fuck me NOTHING
It is ONLY theists that make that fallacious claim
And talking about love... You discuss love between a man and a woman. Love is a diverse and broad definition covering a wide range of human interaction, what about love for friends, your parents, love for your children, your pets, love between two men, two woman.
You should have a conversation with Pinecreek on youtube. My take from this video, You could get the same thing from meditation as you do from religion.
Meditation is a big part of catholicism
@@cazwalt9013 Apparently so is molesting little boys... I'd stick with the meditation without the indoctrination. :)
"Consider that every human civilizations that we have record for..."
The key phrase here is "that we have record for". This points to survivorship bias. What if "morality" that you're referring to is simply a social contract necessary for the society and civilization to exist for a reasonable period of time to create said records? May be a society that doesn't value the right to life or property is too violent and dies out? Would a feral human have the same "moral" compass one from a civilized society?
It's not even necessarily a matter of "dying out" vs "surviving". It could also simply be about whether they kept written records or not. If they didn't keep records, there's a much higher chance of us knowing nothing about them.
Simply put no they wouldn't because of what you just said.
Allow me to elaborate what I mean, as I realize what i said sounded weird. All i was saying is that it makes since that a civilization would survive, if they created a means to order.
Not to mention the cultures that did keep records, just oral ones, and when missionaries arrived, they (for some reason or another) caused those records to go missing forever...
Loads of African history has been lost like this, either not preserved because it wasn't deemed important, or willfully destroyed in a cultural genocide. Much like a certain nation is doing to its minority muslim population...
@@ianedwards4227 I think you cannot have a civilization without order. That is heavily implied in the word "civilization" itself.
A civilization of anarchy is a contradiction. If the society you live in has wildly differing rules and customs every day, it becomes far too stressful to live in and the "civilization" never goes anywhere. It's nothing more than a momentary gathering of people.
Can anyone offer advice on a way to truly hand yourself over to Jesus? And/or how to know if ur doing it “right”?
I would suggest daily prayer and reading of the scriptures. In doing so the Holy Spirit will guide you.
Praying for you.🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
Did you say 'Faith Community Leader'??? :o
I enjoyed the video and the broad perspectives realized, but I have some problems with this argument. Law doesn’t need to recognize an objective moral code. It’s in place to allow society to function, and in most cases it is in accordance with how people want to be treated. There are disputes over laws too, like abortion, and there are changes in laws, so it isn’t based on an unchanging ideology. And more trivial offences that are less obviously wrong are not usually punished by the law, like being rude to others. Even if the idea of a objective moral code is appealing, you must prove it’s existence before using it as a case to prove its cause is God.
Of course you’re free to reject what is commonly the second premise of the moral argument for Gods existence, and then just boldly admit and own what necessarily follows from that.
Nothing stated necessitates that fixed moral laws actually exist. We can build a social contract around shared preferences and our own sense of empathy and the common good.
Exactly. That's what we humans are *already* doing. I'm not sure how Brian takes the *giant* epistemic leap from "we have moral intuitions" to "God put them there." God is most certainly *not* the best explanation. We have not ruled out all the other explanations. I would suggest to Brian H to interview a cultural anthropologist and a neuroscientist on the topic of why humans have evolved to have taboos, moral intuitions and, essentially, cultures.
BTS I was thinking of the Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith, basically stating we’re social animals and we pick up our morality from society and our sense of ourselves. I understand the desire to have these things fixed as immutable laws, but it’s just not true. Under the right circumstances, we can even have societies that permit murder and other terrible things. The only reason things get better is because we posses empathy in a high enough degree or are advocating for ourselves, not because of a moral law. Things can also get better ‘accidentally’ and then we just come up with some post hoc explanation too. Also, I always find it interesting that Christians are trying to ground things in objective laws when Jesus, asked on the very same question, tells people to treat others the way you want to be treated. Sounds like he was comfortable basing morality in people’s individual preferences. You don’t need a big brain to figure this one out.
Sure, you can make all kinds of arguments about social contracts, natural selection, social development, etc. The problem with these arguments is that they eliminate right and wrong as a real catagory. Murder is no longer wrong, for instance, it's merely unpreferable, disadvantageous, undesirable, or disavowed for the time being.
Jonathan Stensberg Why is that a problem exactly? I honestly think the bigger problem isn’t getting people to recognize ‘murder’ as ‘objectively’ wrong, but to get people to recognize the highly disadvantageous and troubling ways people are already being killed every day that we can’t seem to agree on including: drone strikes, domestic violence, crimes of passion, abortion and forced sterilization, economic sanctions and disinformation around infections disease that leads to unnecessary death. It just seems like every time someone talks about this, they’re talking about some hypothetical crime of passion or hate that they aren’t going to commit anyway. We are currently nearing a period of some very serious political violence in the US. That violence is held back by our social contract and mutual bonds, not by some abstract idea of what is ‘objectively wrong’. Nothing about acts people call ‘objectively wrong’ keeps people from committing them when given the right rhetorical cover and social / material circumstances.
@@jonathanstensberg Lol no, murder is still wrong because of the social contracts and social development. How do you make the mental leap from "you say you should treat people how you want to be treated" to " but that means murder isnt wrong"? Sure you can make all kinds of arguements about spiritual accountability from God etc. The problem is your reasoning eliminates right and wrong as a real category. Murder is no longer wrong, for instance, its merely not what God wants or how you end up in hell, for the time being. Goodness is no longer right, its merely what God wants or how to go to heaven. You're acting for you own benefit by being good because of Gods punishments and not acting wrong out of fear of them, not because you actually think they are right or wrong. You should try the mental exercise of applying your own arguements to your own beliefs and see if they still stand up.
These are usually the "most convincing" points that someone who is open to it may decide to be. You did the cs lewis proud
I've got a video about the moral argument on my page. I argue that the "ought" comes from biological hardwiring for things like oxytocin and our nature as a collaborative, interdependent species. Behavior that runs contrary to these things is what we consider "bad." That's not quite "mere preference" but it's not "objective" either. What it does is it gives us an objective fact that we are hardwired to seek certain outcomes for behavior to be good or bad *in relation to.*
This video does not prove anything related to God's existence. It only depicts what is necessary for humanity to thrive as a species. My moral compass developed from my understanding that my life will suffer greatly if I do not respect and care for the beings around me...including all the species in this vast eco system that is earth. Not just egocentric humans.
I asked myself, If everything PHYSICAL Originated by Chance like most Scientist say, over Billions of years random Particle and atom forned matter mass dust elements gas Stars Galaxies ECT. Eventually forming Intelligent creatures, what would Enable these intelligent beings to make thousands of non random thought and decisions leading to purposefully Events Every day . Shouldn't it take at least a billion years for each thoughtful decision to be made?
Right. Video is not very smart: but neither is religion so.
@@evalsoftserver Why do you call it "chance"? Are chemistry, energy, and physics not organizing principles? Or is this simply inflammatory language meant to undermine confidence in a scientific explanations?
@@evalsoftserver, writes _" If everything PHYSICAL Originated by Chance like most Scientist say"_
That's not what most scientists say, that's not even what most cosmologists say. Instead of listening to apologists spout strawman arguments about what scientists say, why not talk to actual scientists?
I am happy you reached that conclusion. But your logic doesn’t necessarily follow. Another person could reach the exact opposite conclusion, that their life is better served hurting others for one’s own benefit and because the lack of any moral ontic referent they would not be wrong. Because at the end of the day, within your paradigm, nothing ever really matters. As the atheist Richerd Dawkins correctly stated, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” Therefore, though you may get some subjective satisfaction from your personal choice, according to your world view, you are only feeling the sensation of chemicals being released in your brain that again is ultimately meaningless. It doesn’t take a genius to realize this position is untenable and does not align to how we live. The majority of sane individuals live life in a way that reflects and points towards an objective moral standard. We talk of love, Justice, and forgiveness. We denounce genocide and other wrongs not in pragmatic terms but as real objective evil. The only way to cast such denunciations is to stand on the firm ground of objective morals. And the only way to have objective morals grounds is to have an objective moral law giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove in the first place. Difficult and inconsistent position in my view. I encourage you to take your morals seriously and reflect on the world you wish to see. A world with real moral choices and consequences and not mere preferences or tastes. One where we can meaningfully denounce evils and strive towards real Good. I recommend C.S.Lewis’s writing as they helped me greatly and encourage you to reconsider your stance. A loving moral God wishes to reconnect with you. He gave his life for you and me and experienced suffering just like on when he was tortured and crucified. Your comment shows your good heart. Unite it to the universal heart of God. I pray for you brother.
I like this argument, Brian. I've heard it before, but your presentation was among the best I've heard recently. "Best" is too subjective a term, but this is certainly a very good one.
I'd say the answer as to why we do not blame natural phenomenon, is because we know we have no control over it. It does not mean people do not experience anger or resentment towards the situation. In fact, people often redirect that emotional distress and point fingers during the aftermath. People are biologically designed to want to survive, and we, intellectually know it is better for ourselves individually, if we operate within a whole. This means we co-operate by preventing harm towards ourselves, and also unto others. You do not harm people, because people might harm you. And we all want to feel safe. It is a unique result of mixing animalistic rudimental behavior, with self consciousness and collective oversight. We often condemn people who display aggression, because it makes us feel unsafe within that society. We do not want it to happen to ourselves or the people we care about. It is not some intrinsic urge to know what is right, in fact, this is proven by the fact that our capability for empathy seldom extends beyond our small circle of people we bond with. We are biological computers that compute that harming someone is not beneficial when thoughtlessly provoked. But we are all capable of violence under the right conditions. Also, socialization is a huge part of developing a sense of what we perceive as morals and values., which is nurtured by empathic individuals . The result of people that are taught by non empathically nurtured individuals, can be found in your local prison.
You earned yourself a subscription
Just a casual mic drop from Mere Christianity ;)
Yea, dropped the mic, and walked out the door in defeat. The mortality argument is one of the easier items to debunk... If God is so omnipotent, Omni benevolent, omnipresenent, then why was slavery so endorsed and women used as fleshlights for almost 2,000 years? Don't you think these "morales" from an all seeing, all powerful creator, wouldn't have to wait for governments of man to determine their equality?
Look at modern day Muslims... They worship the same God of Abraham as you Christians, teach from the same old testament, yet they differ severely in these "perfect objective morales" you claim God the father imbued into us.
*Drops mic*
@@tobehonest3104 I'm glad you mentioned slavery. Brian actually recently made a video about that very subject: ua-cam.com/video/6ubvXLk6EMQ/v-deo.html
@@tobehonest3104 What would you do if somebody came in, handcuffed you and forced you to do good?
The most logically superior proof of God’s existence is “The beginning and the end”. We have to admit that something came before is; all people. We are a result of something greater than us, despite what it is. Our concept of God has become too much. All things are set by whatever came first. If only the universe is the greatest of all things than that would be God because all things, including us are set by that. But if something existed before the universe, then that is greater. We ask the question “What created God?” But we would then have to ask what created that, and then that, and so on. But we’d then have to admit that something always was. Whatever that is, is God. All that we are came from something greater. Whatever came first will be after all things and is greater then all things and therefore is God.
Time and space is just our human experience, so I’m not sure it has to be related to ‘beginning and end’. Everything that goes beyond our comprehension will be called ‘God’ anyway, that’s true. It’s indeed a pretty logical way of thinking: we aren’t all knowing and never will be, therefor, to us, God will always be the explanation for things beyond our capabilities of understanding or experiencing. Just like a worm can’t see or hear, we probably miss an infinity amount of possible senses. We just have 5. To the worm vision and sound are Godlike sensations if he was able to detect a little bit of them.
No. In the believers mind god is not merely "something". Everyone thinks there's "something". Atheist believe there's "something". Believers believe there is SOMEONE.
What's the definition of "good" in the context of universal objective morality?
Good is that which promotes life, the primary life being God and people.
@@wprandall2452 Which God are you referring to?
I thought I answered this; the first god - who makes all the other gods not God. @@sierrabianca
@@wprandall2452 You didn't answer it actually..and still haven't, all you've done is hint that you have a subjective opinion as to what God constitutes the "first" or "true" god, which is the first major hint that your "objective" argument for morality is dead on arrival.
But let's just cut to the chase and assume you're talking about the Christian God.
An "all good" being who must, by the definition you provided, act at all times and in every way to promote life.
And yet the Bible itself is sufficient to undermine this most basic prerequisite for meeting the threshold of "good" outlined in your own definition. A being that commits and incites genocides and violence and is responsible for all instances of natural evil by design *cannot* be a being who is at all times acting to "promote life".
I look forward to your convoluted theodicy explaining how God's incitements to war and his own personal wiping out of all but a boatload of life on the planet is consistent with "promoting" life at all times.
God is the first being, who sprang forth in the infinite moment of the beginning from the eternal concepts of abstract existence, the underlying reason for the cosmos. This is the
God of the Bible, who has always existed. There is no other before Him.
Its actually pretty simple. Things that are good promote happiness, healthiness and well being and come at no negative consequence to another. Things that are bad do not promote happiness, healthiness or well being or come at a negative consequence to others. It is linked to our will to survive as a species. We do things to promote survival rather than harm it. There is no god required.
Exactly
Love your stuff. Been studying and writing on this in school for years. Hey man, I’ve got a question. You remember that video you did on architecture being worship? That was awesome. I was wondering, what literature did you read on that stuff. I can’t find anything. Thanks brother
I'm not sure which video you're describing specifically, but Ratzinger's Spirit of the Liturgy is a good one as well as Roger Scruton's work on beauty. Pretty much any portrayal of classical thought on beauty is worth diving into.
Well said Brian. I also have followed a similar path to your own so much as myself coming to Christianity has fulfilled my own life and given me a set of moral rules which is based on love . That should not be belittled because it is a framework of what we mostly seek .
Love?!!??????
The demented monster God as portrayed in the Bible, killed every single living creature on earth except for a handful of people because he had a hissy fit!
This is not a loving being, this is a bloodthirsty maniacal animal.... Utterly undeserving of even one word of praise
@3:16 oh cool, we're politely poisoning the well with Pascal's Wager before we even make a single point, that's cute. 😊
@4:20 if we (and all our senses) exist within the natural world, how can we demonstrate that something we observe is non-natural? Rather than not understood?
@6:35 the moral appeal is cute too! It's, unfortunately, only an appeal to emotional preference. It's not a solid premise just because most people agree. Most people agreed there were no white bears or black swans until we found them. BUT! Let's say we agree with the premise!
The evidence that a moral code exists is evidence that a moral code exists. How does the existence of that code point to a God?
I've also always thought that humans asserting what OUGHT to have happened seems a little bit like saying God fucked up? Or he doesn't have the power to stop that guy from beating his wife? Or he would if he had the power, but his hands are tied, what a shame.
I think it's evidence that you and I would both agree that domestic violence OUGHT NOT HAPPEN that we are both more moral than a god which is aware of that sort of wickedness in the world and either chooses to do nothing or is powerless to.
@8:50 we're presupposing free will here, and then using it much the same way as morality, even if we could prove free will exists, which I don't think we can, we can't just assert that therefore God must have done it, we still have to demonstrate that.
@9:45 okay, even if we agree about that wild assertion, how do we know that it's true? How do we demonstrate that?
Awesome!
Great job, Brian!
Lovely explanation, but hard to get my head around it. I hope you'll make a video about how can we know God is a good God not a cruel, uncaring God?
If you think about God simply as being the highest being on the pyramid of beings (kinda like feudal system) than we could talk about things like that. But God is being itself, God is ground of all being, reason why there is something rather than nothing.
He is not good in the same sense as we are. When we say - he is a good man, we usually mean that that person HAS a quality of being good. But God does not have a quality of being good, he IS goodness itself, and whatever we have as good has it's source in God.
However, we must take into account that our peespectives are limited and that we tend to confuse certain things. For example - we confuse comfortable and what brings good emotions as being good. But drugs can make someone feel good and they are still bad. Likewise, we sometimes say - this is the best thing that has happened to me in my life and only later we discover it was bad. Or vice versa, sometimes we think that something terrible has happened to us, and later it proves to be good. And that is only when we take into account our own situation, and our very limited time here. But, if we are so bad at judging that, how can we even possibly be sure that what happens now is bad or good into grand scheme of things multiplied by billions of people and millions of years?
I'd add that cruelty and lack of caring are,like all sin, just lacks, that is, defects in good. Thus evil is a dependent parasite on good and cannot stand alone, while good is self sufficient.
@@rasmusmller625 True, I think it's the line of st. Augustine, evil defined as lack of good, it doesn't have it's essence. In that respect, only the good can be absolute, and the evil relative.
I think it's also one of the main reasons christianity is hated on (mayve even religion in general), it provides a guide towards what is absolute good, and that makes many things relative. It's a blow to our tendency to proclaim that what we do, think or feel is a measure of truth.
The call of Christ is to be shaped by him, with him and in him while instead lf trying to make reality and others bend to our own personal truth.
I'm on the religious fence and your argument has opened me up to so much more, so that I may develop and grow. Thank you.
If you are on the fence. Google biblical archeological discoveries over the last 30 years. And take a like at near death testimonials. With UA-cam, there are now so many. Last but not least, look up discoveries of Ron Wyatt. Yes, some people say he was not an archeologist and found nothing. But judge for yourself. Noah's Ark for one sits in Turkey. The gov there has known it for years. Even has massive anchor stones that have been written on by pilgrims for centuries.
Amazing
The moral argument may be compelling to the laymen. As a former pastor, now atheist, it was a last domino to fall as my “soul” lashed out for reasons to still believe. However, as I allowed myself to research the moral argument from naturalistic standards, this panic quickly faded. The Bible is subjective within itself, and subjective within the world. There has never been anything but subjective “moral standards.” A cursory reading of the text of the Bible shows the subjectivity of murder, slavery and lying. In short, the Bible gives a code of what a group of people, at various contradictory points, thought was “in group” behavior. Naturalism predicts this, and all laws are nothing but this.
Your “screaming at the waves” analogy betrays your own point. Some of us did/do scream at them, and say “respect us!” It’s called prayer, and it evidentially does not work, because like you said, there is no personhood behind those natural deterministic acts.
Better explained than I could have.
It really isn't much of an argument at all. certainly nowhere near the best one lol.
My grandmother believed in god her entire life. She endured so much hardship as many do but even so walking with god made her strong and happy until her last breath. She used to say that god was her therapist. Who knows maybe this was all within her and had nothing to do with an external force but believing in this force is what got her through life. That being said, you cannot deny that there maybe some otherworldly force at play.
@@theredloro2138 yes I can. There is no evidence. Your anecdote is not evidence.
@@DrBased Try reading the Bible with more attention than you did my post. A cursory reading of Genesis 37 for example shows that it is an inconsistent mess, even the church admits this. The Bible is a fallible book of moral horrors. I certainly hope you’re not attempting to advocate for the clear biblical teaching of the moral rightness of slave ownership, complete with the beating of slaves nearly to death.
@@DrBased with the text itself. It’s a widely known gibberish text.
I definitely agree! The moral law argument is very compelling, especially when you consider how many philosophical traditions it can reach and challenge. The first five chapters of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity go in depth into this argument, so I would highly recommend that book to anyone who wants to ponder this argument more.
It's the best!
Feels good to believe doesn’t equal true
Who said it feels good to believe? I just find the argument to be intellectually compelling. If that’s not a good enough reason to believe something, I don’t know what is.
@@kulturkriget the argument still has to prove what mechanisms god used to make morals objective, why some people are immoral, and we subjective morality exists
I actually don't find it compelling at all. In my view, our biological evolution as a social primate species, is a superior explanation for morality.
I'll save you some time: this is Pascal's wager...
1. No atheist is saying they only believe in the fixed laws of a physical universe as "all there is".
2. Natural ethics, sense of right v. wrong, may originate in a natural order. Indeed, the concept "objective moral standard" may be as natural as any 'should'.
3. That the universe goes by fixed laws does not mean we can't reasonably talk about what 'should' happen....
4. The universe could be utterly nondeterministic and there be no God; on the other, morality and faith in the unseen do not transcend nature, for they palpably exist, and do not lie in some beyond....
5. A divine mind of will and intention need not in fact exist; nothing would change.
6. A rather thoughtful, charmingly naive presentation.
As an atheist i really enjoyed this. It put religion into a new perspective for me, because most arguments that people have had against me you already need to have a specific illogical belief for their argument to make sense. And the way I see it and have had it described to me has been very limited in terms of posibilities and simply believes something for the sake of not knowing what else to think of it. But this video really made it more propable and logical in my mind by not drawing to conclusions that god looks like a human or is one specific entity. It does however still not explain the begining of everything and other paradoxal questions.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
I used to be an atheist for similar reasons. I earned my undergraduate degree in psychology while believing most of this but I ran into a problem. Much of what the sciences holds to be true has never been observed including the existence of atoms themselves. Atoms are simply too minuscule to see even with a microscope. In the early 1900s Einstein had to convince the majority of the population through a scientific equation.
The big bang theory was originally rejected by most scientists as a desperate attempt by Fr. Georges lemetre to put God into the natural sciences but he was able to convince almost everyone by way of the laws of physics and mathematics. The expansion between planets via the Hubble telescope among other observations wasn't recorded and measured until much later. In fact a few years ago it was thought that the sound waves from the big bang were finally observed but it turned out to not be true. This would have been a smoking gun of evidence but so far, no such evidence has been discovered.
In the behavioral sciences there are a ton of things that lack good physical data.
When it comes to phenomenon you they owe it to yourself to study phenomenology.
@@famvids9627 I am a psychologist as well (MS, Experimental Psychology, Villanova). I also happen to have a theological degree (MDiv, Ecumenics, Princeton Theological Seminary).
I would like to caution you, one scientist to another, that science, and indeed all knowledge is based on observation. And everything real, and in the capable employ of the scientific methodologies, is observable - including atoms, gravity, even quarks. Not only are all scientific specimens observable, they are measurably so. Remember, all scientific approach begins with an initial observation from which a scientist forms a stated testable null hypothesis, contrasts populations under variable conditions, performs an ANOVA based on measurable results, and renders a publically accessible conclusion.
@@famvids9627 I am quite familiar with phenomenology and Heidegger's ideas.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I would agree that everything is based upon observations but not necessarily by us. We cannot possibly be experts in everything and we must have faith in the perspective and observations of others.
Another place where it is not observed is horizontal gene transfer and other forms of evolution that are not observed in real-time but rather in the fragments that are discovered billions of years later.
If I wasn't so busy at the moment I would go further down the rabbit hole but this will have to suffice for now.
Kid: mom can we have jesus?
Mom: no we have Jesus at home
Jesus at home:
With the first thing you said just cause if it is true than good doesn't mean that it is true
Bravo!
It's all chemical reactions in our brains attracting us to a favorable experience. Morals are constructed by our fears of discomfort and our attraction to self significance and pleasure, both physically and emotionally. I still haven't heard an argument for faith that can't be broken down to just that.
There's a little more when it comes to morals it's something that we got from evolution but I don't have time to explain it so I'm gonna dip but read something about it or watch a video anyway have a good day
korosu what do I read? What video do I watch? Is your argument just “trust me bro”?
@@Sehon13Ultd There isn't a argument I'm just saying do more research
"But, with you and I..." Incorrect.
"But, with you and me.."
Correct.
Wrong.
@@Ancipital_ "I" is for subject, but when the clause begins with "with" it is not subject, but a complement to the main subject and action.
@@Ancipital_ look it up
It depends on the sentence. As a rule of thumb if you are going to the store for example. You’d say “I am going to the store.” So you’d say the same if someone was going with you. “John and I are going to the store.” Same applies if you use me.
The first and second argument both fail.
The first argument assumes because we recognize that there is a sort of objective feeling to morality, that must mean there is. Even if there was an objective morality, following that authority would still be subjective.
The second argument also assumes free will which has been falsified. If anyone is curious as to why just reply to me.
I am curious as to your second. Not opposed to it however. Just curious of the best place of where to find where this was determined. Thanks
@@Unclenate1000 CosmicSkeptic has a video that sums it up pretty well: ua-cam.com/video/Dqj32jxOC0Y/v-deo.html
Exactly. Saying ''without god morality becomes subjective'' doesn't do anything to prove or even argue for the existance of god. If the argument was ''why do we need religion to have a functional society'' he might have a somewhat have a compelling argument.
Also for morals to makes sense or mean anything it would mean we have value or that we matter. If we matter and have value where does this value come from? Do I still matter even if every single person in the world hated me?
@Anon Ymous yeah and it means it’s meaningless. By what standard can you say something is morally right or wrong? If it’s just your own personal relative standard then it means nothing ultimately. Because today you can think murder is wrong and tomorrow you could think it’s right. But you would not be wrong then and right now or right then and wrong now. It’s all relative. The problem is you can not live that out.
@Anon Ymous please read Nietzsche. He pours scorn on you false atheists. As soon as you believe people matter and have value you join the Christian group. So do you think torture of a child is only subjectively wrong? Not objectively wrong?
@Anon Ymous I think you are missing what I’m saying too. It’s cool you believe in morals but if they are only subjective then don’t be so arrogant to think your morality is better than someone else’s. You can think rape is wrong but someone else could think it’s right but if morality is only subjective then don’t push your morals on them and try to stop them. Remember it’s all relative and just a taste. But you can’t live that out. If I steal your money you will say “you shouldn’t” or “you ought not” and when you use the words should or ought you are expecting them to know the same standard of right and wrong as you do (objective) morality. So if you say no God you can not be intellectually honest by complaining about anything morally. Your morals are not better than someone who has the complete opposite view you do. This is the meaningless and despair and bankruptcy of atheism. Please read Nietzsche and put your atheism to the test. So far you sound like a Christian who only gives lip service to “atheism” and I believe you can do better than that.
The 2 problems I've run across in response to Pascal's Wager (the idea that perhaps it's better to just live your life as if God exists, because what have you got to lose?) seem to be :
1. The assumption that a person could "fool" God by pretending to believe something in which they don't actually believe. A person can't be compelled to believe in unicorns anymore than they can be compelled to believe in God... so at the end of their life, if God is real... wouldn't He know that they were faking it? Wouldn't that person have lived a life contrary to their true beliefs? Would such a person be rewarded for simply paying lip service?
2. Giving "license" to other unsupported, possibly dangerous, ideas. In other words... If a person puts their faith in something for which there is poor (no) real evidence, and lives their life by acting upon those beliefs... can that person really criticize someone else for doing the same? And what if the other person's beliefs are proving to be down right harmful of detrimental to others? Can one person using the same "faith" criticize another for doing the same... and still have a leg to stand on?
And in regard to the question of morality, and the idea that science/nature can give us an "is"... but never an "ought" - Sam Harris does a pretty good job of dispelling this myth in his book 'The Moral Landscape". I'm sure there are some youtube videos in which he lays it out much better than I can, but in short... it's a thought project. We have to try an imagine a barren landscape, which represents the worst most miserable suffering for all people. Everyone living there is tortured every minute of every day. Once we begin to make some scientific assessments as to what's causing the suffering, we can begin to make vertical moves "away" from that plane of existence. The moral answers would be found in addressing what helps us to make those moves away from such horrible living conditions for all people.
Sam Harris never addressed that issue properly. In reality, there is nothing in science telling us that suffering is bad or good. It doesn't tell what is bad and good are or even what we should do. There is nothing in science telling us that it is good to help others and bad to kill someone. There is virtually no grounding for morality in materialism.
@@aidan-ator7844 correct me if im wrong, but does that really disprove the abscence of a god? I mean you are only proving that there is no materialistic cause or ground for morality, not that a higher being exists to have given us our respect for human life.