You are right. I think it is absolutely stupid to keep questioning whether god can be or can not be, but rather we should be focused on dismantling archaic religions that still have a stranglehold on people today, always making them question each poop they dare take, and looking at themselves as filth from their birth. Atheists always try attacking it from a scientific view, instead of looking at the bible and finding that there aren't a single sentence in it that isn't contradicted within the same chapter, or the same book. They would find that it is pretty easy to dismantle each and every religion because they are just myths, constructed by people that could barely read and write at the time, unethical and with a poor sense of morality. The only thing that still holds these religions together is blind faith, and a fear regarding the unknown, weaponized against the believer.

Nope. This is just more nonsense theism based on social pleading, scientific ignorance, and lack of logical understanding.

God(Jehova) came from Elyon, his father, and if I understand pre Judaism scriptures correctly, Ashera, his mother. Jehova was given Israel to rule over as an inheritance, like his 69 siblings got other lands. Now, this is obvious bullshit, but it was the basis for all current Abrahamic religions.

This is kinda a dumb video. It didn’t answer anything, only made biblical claims with no proof. Skeptics aren’t interested in what the Bible says if you can’t prove it, and can’t even make the book agree with the book.

I often wanna laugh that theists seem to feel good about talking timelessness and spacelessness without realising it's the same as saying 'God exists nowhere for 0 second'. There should be no such thing as eternity because eternity means infinite seconds which is impossible for the universe is finite in time.

Good content, keep up the good work!👏

This is hilarious

So who's that god?

3:37 Aren't you doing the same with the Universe, ,tho?

My magic skydaddy is real because it says so right there in my magic book. Yep, makes perfect sense

This was your all? Your best? You basicky keep saying that the bible is your truth. And that storybook keeps contradicting itself... And I realy enjoy reading all the comments 🙂

Just wanted to point out that the cause and effect relationship requires time. Causes have to occur before their effects. If you ever take the time to have someone explain to you what that Big Bang graphic you keep flashing actually means then you would realize that space-time came into existence as a result of the expansion. So even if you want to pretend there is some sort of make believe cause, the cause could not actually do anything without time.

You're getting it wrong. The claim is "Cause and effect says that everything that exists was caused to exist by something that came before it and the first cause is God." The objection is "if everything that exists was caused to exist by something before it then the first cause cannot be God because, by your own logic, if God exists he would require something to cause him to exist." The Kalam Cosmological argument was created specifically to address this by re-wording the first premise to "Everything that BEGINS to exist was caused to exist by something that came before it. God never began to exist because God is eternal/outside time & space/etc. therefore the first cause it God and he needs nothing to explain his existence. And because the universe began to exist it must have been caused by something that came before it. And that cause is God." But there's another problem when invoking this: The universe didn't begin to exist.

Ok leaving aside who created what how about the question - why?

1:50 And, the singularity could have been eternal? And quoting old books ain't evidence.

So basically the question "Who created God" cannot be answered because the question itself is invalid. Seems like a pretty good trick to win some internet arguments. "Your question is stupid" - the key 😂. The idea behind the question "Who created the god" is to question your claim that the universe needs a creator. Atheism doesn't says god doesn't exist it just questions the existence of god. Its either the way to find the non existent of the god or to find the actual god if it exists.

It's called pointing out your special pleading fallacy, genius

So basically “nuh uh, look i have my fingers in my ears, lalalalala i cant hear you, God is real, lalala”?

By this video you only showed us that you don't understand the topic in sufficient amount to talk about it publicly.

Even if this counter-argument wasn't just loads of special pleading, this wouldn't prove the bible.

I could give a magic koi the same qualities of being timeless and write them in a book, yet APPARENTLY THATS NOT THE SAME.

I think you're missing the entire point. It's theists that make the claim that the universe can't have always existed but then immediately follow that with "but gods always existed." We're pointing out the special pleading fallacy there. Also why do theists depict atheists as soyjacks and other stuff like that? It's so very childish.

Love to hear theists respond to imaginary objections

Bro just slandered the flying spaghetti monster 🤣 Have you ever read a fckng book mate? Just wait until your damnation, I'll see how hard you're laughing when they're making you into rigatoni for eternity🤣🤣 oh man. Seriously, string theory litr proves the universe is made up STRINGS. You know what else looks like strings? 🍝👀

What utter rubbish, you haven't proved anything, unsubstantiated faith based speculation that is hugely improbable, the answers to these questions are, "no one knows". believing obviously men made fictions are credible evidence of a super being is pathetic.

The main thing is that the for something to begin we need time. If you have no time then u dont have before or after nor do u have beginin or end. As far as I understand the mordern science believes that the begining of universe was where time and space both came into existence and before the big bang there was no time. Ofc this disproves that whatever was before the universe needed a beginin since there was no time. One of the explanation of how universe came into existence is a creator, a scentient entity that was timeless and that created universe, in other words god. This is but a hypothesis with no real evidence. My view is simply that we do not know and maybe one day we will find out. And I think it is unreasonable to use god to explain something we do not yet understand since every time we did that in the past we were wrong. In the old times ppl believed that sruff like lightning and crop yield were just the doing of god(s) but eventually we found out that it's actually based on the electrons moving in the clouds and the plants having their requirements met. And to think that this time, it actually is a god, and not something we just don't understand is foolish.

God clearly has a creator. Well, creators to be precise, the god of the bible is based on other mythological gods that predates him. Yes, humans created god, who would have known? 😂

The point of the question "who created God" is to point out special pleading. Why does the big bang need a creator but not God?

Please to actual research. On the section of the video about Atheist Scientists and the Big bang, the scientists you referenced are not atheist. Authur Eddington was a commited christian and Robert Jastrow was an agnostic. Also, you claim that the Bible is the only true book because it presents god as omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, yet the Qur'an presents Allah with the same qualities?

I agree :) I'm an atheist but I think the idea that God could exist without a cause is logically sound. However, I don't think an uncaused causer has to be a sentient, all knowing being. It could be just a natural force or randomness on a higher level. Additionally, it could just be that the universe itself doesn't have a cause. The kalam states that 'all that begins to exist has a cause', but really the only thing that has 'begun the exist' is the universe. So all the kalam is saying is 'the universe had a cause'. So, the kalam is just a single unjustifiable statement that doesn't even necessarily implicate the existence of a God. But yeah, objecting to the idea of an uncaused causer is a lil bit silly, there kind of has to be something. Infinite regression is imo extremely improbable (still not completely impossible, however). Most atheists (including myself) don't believe there 'is no God' but rather we just lack a belief in God. If God does exist, then I do agree that him being uncaused is reasonable (especially since he is a timeless being, and causation is a product of time).

"Why isn't the question 'who created God' valid?" "Well, that implies that everything has a creator."

For some reason youtube really wants me to watch these dumb anti atheist videos, yet im pleasantly surprised that in just about every single one of them are getting ratioed in the comments. Ive yet to hear any refutation of atheists arguments that doesnt rely on fallacy or general dishonesty/ignorance.

As an atheist/agnostic, I actually agree that this is a poor argument for an atheist to make. The problem is asking the question “who created god” is pointless because the answer is derived from the concept that there is a god in the first place. Therefore the atheist will never get an answer they deem satisfactory. Trying to insist that god has a creator is not a thing in the bible, which means the atheist is in some capacity attempting to create a straw man by asking a theist to consider it. However, turning that around and using it as some kind of critical logic failure for the atheist is not really proving anything besides the fact that they don’t understand the perspective of a theist. Often theists will argue that we don’t have the answers to those really big questions as a way to refer to some kind of overarching fallacy. It’s true that we don’t have all the answers, but just because we don’t have them now doesn’t mean we won’t have them in 100 years. Just because God is described in a way that makes theism fit, doesn’t make it more true, because its validity is reliant on faith, while science at least has the ability to be proven with evidence and reproducibility. Beyond that, atheism by itself is not a religion. It has no creeds or traditions or rituals, so trying to insist that it’s somehow not enough to have an answer for everything is also pointless. Granted that may not be your point, this is just my personal experience with theists, but I felt it was necessary to throw in my 2 cents.

The Big Bang more precisely represents the limit of our knowledge of what the universe was like in the past, not necessarily its beginning. My book says a thing proves nothing. If you don t have actual evidence that your god is the god of the universe than your belief is unsubstantiated. As for who created god question - this is brought up to show that it makes more sense that intelligence arose from non-intelligence than to assume a perfect intelligence beyond space and time that created less intelligent and perfect beings for what? Seriosly, for what? Why would such intelligence exist?

The question is purely rhetorical, atheists already know the theists answer. The purpose of the question is to point out the special pleading committed by the theist.

Most of your arguments are based on assumptions. Not everything has to have a cause. The universe has no obligation to make sense to you.

It's theorised that our universe is only a small part of a multiverse which has existed forever, therefore has no beginning.

Nope..😊

30 seconds in, I can see the problem. Atheism don't ask "Who created god" to refute god existence, but to expose the special pleading. Because you argument has an implicit part you don't say out loud. When you say "Everything that begin to exists has a cause", you really want to say "Everything that begin to exist other than god has a cause", but if you say it like that the special pleading is too obvious to miss. The kalam has other problems too. For example, the main issue, that even if all premises are true (and there's no way to know that) the conclusion it brings is "a cause", not god. Than you make the jump and say that the cause is god, but you really aren't demonstrating that: you're just asserting that. That's the main objection I have, and it should be enough. But now some more specific objection. 1:00 yes, that's the problem higlighted by the implications of "EVERYTHING that exists has a cause", and if your god EXISTS than it has to have a cause, bringing to an infinite regressions of gods creating gods. This isn't a flaw of atheists objection, it's a flaw of the argument. Good attempt of "let's try to use logic here", but it failed your understanding. 1:30 the fact we exists now doesn't in any way imply that something eternal exists. It just doesn't follow. 1:49 No, the big bang theory doesn't say the universe "came to be", it says it expanded from an initial state of extreme density and temperature. You are the one asserting it was created because it serves your argument, but it really isn't that way. The big bang theory makes no claim on the origin of that initial state. It was met with push back not because all the CHRISTIAN scientists being skeptical were atheist denying god, but because they were skeptical since there were no evidence and just the idea. Than the evidence came, and guess what? Everyone agreed at that point. Because that's how science works, they didn't made a schism like religions do. 2:35 It fits perfectly? Sure, if you squint and turn your head... no, not even. Well,it fits perfectly if you agree with the conclusion to start with and analyze superficially the text. Let's see: "Before the mountains were brought ... [...]" Here's someone saying he's god from before the earth: no mention of being eternal, immaterial, or out of space. "For thus says ... [...]" No mention of being eternal immaterial and non spacial, just that he INHABIT eternity. If the universe is eternal we all are inhabiting eternity, or in other words one don't have to be eternal himself to INHABIT eternity. "To the king ... [...]" Immortal doesn't mean eternal, immortal can be born in mythology. Invisible doesn't mean out of space, just that you can't see it. No mention again of the characteristics you attach with no basis to your god. "I am the alpha ... [...]" Again, no mention of being eternal, immaterial or out of space and time. Again. "And he is ... [...]" Again, no mention of being eternal, since being before things doesn't imply that, and no mention of being immaterial and out of space and time. And who says that you need THOSE characteristics to bring forth an universe? How do you know that. And now let me ask: if your god is out of space and time, in other words nowhere and never, HOW can I distinguish him from something that doesn't exists, since he shares the main characteristics? 3:28 We don't INSIST that god needs a creator, we EXPOSE your special pleading when you say "I define my god not needing a beginning, argument doesn't apply therefore nuh-uh". That's the goal, you're only the last of a long line of excusogists purposely failing to get that. We don't get a catheogory fallacy, because your definition is arbitrary and undemonstrated. Let's say I define christianity as "The delusion of god existing", therefore christianity is a delusion, would you say "fair enough" to not incour a cathegory fallacy? I think no. Cathegory fallacies aren't dependent on your arbitrary definition, and you can't define something into existence like you're trying to do with god. 3:48 That video? I can bet what you want you totally missed the point of that too. On purpose I should add, because I don't think you are an idiot: you just like to pretend to use logic. 3:59 No you aren't making ONLY a god of the gaps, you are just uninformed on what big bang theory says, and bring forth wrong conclusions mixed with bad logic. In other words, you're strawmanning big bang to serve your prefered conclusions. You have failed with a constant error every 30 seconds, sometime more. You have misrepresented, and strawmanned, and based reasoning on ignorance. And it's atheists to get the F? Look at the plank in your eye brother.

"Universe can't be eternal" - Brings up a quote that suggests there was an eternal single particle from which universe expanded.

"the universe couldn't have created itself, God created it" "well then who created god?" "nobody, God has existed forever" "so why can the same not be true for the universe?" That is the correct use of the argument, it's applying the same logic against their argument to show how it's a flawed argument.

You just said that 'there has to be a creator of all these creators and not just an infinite cycle' without actually clarifying why it cannot be an infinite cycle. Two, everything you said has no evidence. For instance, the universe had an expansion according to the big bang, not a creation. Even if the universe had a creation event, how do you know that it was created by some 'one' and not some 'thing'? How can this person have conscience and intelligence? Heck, if God doesn't require a creator, why should the universe require one?

"Something has to be eternal" Yes, but why is it a God? Why isn't the universe itself eternal? To be clear: Nobody says everything began at the big bang. When those scientists said "the universe isn't eternal" they meant THIS universe with space matter and time in it. The only thing that we have proven to begin at the big bang is the EXPANSION of this universe. We don't know what caused it and we have never claimed we do. What we believe now is that it was a disturbance in quantum fields caused by eternal quantum fluctuations. Those quantum fields are the thing that is "eternal." But it could also be an eternal cycle of imploding and expanding universes. Or many other explainations. The thing is, the possibilities are infinite, so why do you claim the only explaination is a God, when there are countless other "eternal" causes? Science doesn't make assumptions, we just accept we can't know everything and do it with the prove we have. That the expansion of the universe started with the big bang around 13 billion years ago is proven multiple times.

Infinity is a concept many people struggle to wrap their heads around, yet they are perfectly fine with the infinitely complex event that caused the universe. I find it interesting how some people are quick to insert God into everything science hasn't explained yet, based solely on their beliefs. I don't blame them for not understanding things beyond logic and established laws, but we're dealing with a field where those laws are more like fiction, and where logically impossible things can become possible. It's not a flaw, but a reminder of the unpredictable nature of reality. I would appreciate it if you could provide research that confirms, as a fact, that the universe had a beginning without involving cycles of expansion and contraction.

As an atheist, I agree this is a weak retort, especially since there's no need to get that far in the god question. Who created god? Men did. Discussion over. Good luck on your channel's growth. Use the word "Christian" in your channel name and you'll automatically get thousands of subscribers (a helpful hint)

you misunderstand the word "eternal" if the universe came into being the same time that time itself came into being, then the universe is eternal. and this is actually what scientists think the big bang was, the beginning of spacetime, so yes, the universe is eternal. and since we now know the universe is eternal the objection of "who created your god?" destroys the kalam, and you can use occam's razor

You still haven’t actually addressed the issues. You are claiming god is non causal and just is independent of everything else. But how? Existence for instance is necessarily temporal. It requires time for it to exist, and it must exist in a place. Something that exists for no time in nowhere is necessarily nonexistent. Likewise you are claiming god is immortal, invisible, and eternal: but that doesn’t track with other portions of the same text. Genesis 3 has Adam and Eve witnessing god welding a flaming sword, driving them from Eden. And the earth was formless and with water according to Genesis 1. It doesn’t say god made earth, just sculpted it. But where did god exist? Was the entire universe just god before he made the universe? Was god in a dimension of himself? Why did god need a penis (for reproduction) if god is eternal? How can an eternal, non-causal being interact with causal forces at all? How can a non-causal entity have any effect? Doesn’t action require the causal relationship of time? After all an eternal thing can’t change states right? It can only be in the single state, because it’s eternal.

It’s not a category error for starters. Atheists don’t accept the claims made in the Bible because they are largely unfounded assertions and don’t actually speak to reality. The Bible can and only can attest to what the Bible says. That’s just how all books work.

The reason why we ask you who created god is to force you to open the can of worms. Once you give us the line ("He never began to exist !"), we can just respond with "neither did the universe", and dismiss your baseless, worthless assertion. We know your god is supposed to be uncreated, we're just trying to get you to realize that if you can use that excuse, so can we. But we don't claim that magic is real, which makes our claims more reasonable than yours. By the way, the big bang isn't evidence that infinite regression is not possible. The only thing the big bang proves is that the universe was once very small, and then it expanded. No one knows how things were before that, nor do we know if there was even a "before". Time could be cyclical. The universe could be made of eternal things, like quantum fields. The multiverse could be eternal. Maybe an eternal uncreated unicorn created your god. Maybe we live in a simulation. Maybe Yahweh is an alien and he created us, but not the universe. There is, literally, an infinite amount of options. And guess what ? Many of them are more likely than yours, because they don't resort to magic to explain things. As long as you can't demonstrate that some form of supernatural exists, the probability of any "explanation" that involves the supernatural being true is 0.

I am so happy for you that nonsense, wishful, irrational thinking and delusion makes perfect sense to you.