To learn more Presbyterian theology, go here: kingdompresbyterians.com Join our discord: / discord Find a church to go to: www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edi... Donate: donorbox.org/presbyterians-fo...
A thing about Pascal's Wager is that whether it can be an argument for God, it can't be the reason to why you choose to believe in God. If your only reason to believe in God is because of the potential benefit you may gain from it and nothing else then it kind of defeats the purpose of believing in god in the first place, since what ties you to that belief isn't morality or logic but just the benefit you may gain from it. This means that if someone were to offer you something better than what god gives you, you would reject god, which means you didn't truly believe in him in the first place.
It's more fear mongering as well. Basically the same as "if you don't believe in god you'll burn in hell for eternity." More mind games that the biblical literalist use to trap people.
From my perspective the benefit is getting into Heaven. The benefit is being with God. There is nothing wrong with one of your reasons for believing in God is to get into heaven with Him. You also can't say there's something better than what God gives you, because the reward He gives you is eternal and there is nothing possibly better than it.
@@noahr1126 There's nothing bad with wanting to be with god, the bad thing is ONLY believing in him because of you wanting to get to heaven, not because you believe in the moral good of god, in christian values and ideals or because you came to the logical conclusion that he's real. What I mean by "something better" is a hypothetical. Of course that by the literal definition of heaven there can't be anything better, but I'm saying that if hypothetically something better was offered to people that believe in god only because of pascal's wager then they would stop believing in god; which means there's no believing there in the first place. One shouldn't believe in god solely becauee of the benefits it provides you, but also because you think it's logically and morally right to believe in him. One reaps the benefits of god because they believe in him; you can't truly believe in him solely because you want to reap the benefits of it. It's kind of like saying that you want to get married to someone solely because of the tax benefits it has to be married; sure that can be a reason for you to get married, but if that's your only reason for it then you probably don't truly love your wife.
I think Pascal's Wager isn't a terrible place to start. To expect someone unfamiliar with God to choose to believe in Him out of love and respect seems absurd. I think people unfamiliar with God should use the motivation of Pascal's Wager to seek out more information about God and begin to love and respect Him only once they've learned what His motivations and desires are. I became a Christian as a teenager with a very fundamental understanding of who God is and what He wants, but as I've grown older, I've worked on my relationship with Him and I'd like to think I've begun to understand Him better. My biggest problem (as is the case with many) is practicing what I preach and living the way I see God wants me to in the Bible. Also, if anyone's reading this, it's only too late to turn your life around once you're dead. Make sure you know exactly when you're gonna die, and if you can't do that, learn more about God and what He wants to share with you, because the offer's too good to miss
"Darwinian evolution can't explain the 4 constants of the universe" That's because Darwinian evolution is part of biology, not physics. It's also a bit of a misnomer to say darwinian evolution, as there is alot more to modern evolutionary biology than, just what Darwin contributed with
I mean that's correct, but you're missing the point. Evolution was brought up because the default example was biology, the comment that it didn't explain the constants wasn't a critisism of darwinian evolution, it was a segway into the stronger example. I don't agree with the Teleological argument by the way, or any of the arguments in this video, but this video really does a good job at just presenting them in an intelectually honest way without arguing they're correct, and I find nitpicking on a segway to be a little unfair, or at least you're missing the point.
Darwinian evolution can be applied to reality itself to counter the argument that the universe is intelligently designed bacouse of the fact that a signle value change in one of the 4 constents would make realty fall apart. Our reality survived and there for exists becouse others didnt.
This doesn’t really make sense because biology is just applied chemistry, which is applied physics. They’re not distinctly separate “branches” of science as you imply. Everything in science has to be consistent within the same paradigm, otherwise the entire paradigm needs to shift. That being said, physics has to be consistent with the laws of evolution (which it is). He was just saying that evolution can explain part of how the natural world operates, but not all of it. So you’re agreeing with him while phrasing it as a disagreement while also showing you know less about science.
6. Ontological: A pizza that is indestructible cannot be eaten, so it is not the greatest possible pizza since it cannot fulfill the fundamental purpose of pizza.
I think what you're hitting here is that the concept of a greatest possible being ("being" used in the philosophical sense) is not well defined. Better example. I am thinking of the greatest possible pickup truck. One of the attributes of this truck is that it should carry a lot of cargo. But it should also be easy to park. The first attribute means it needs to be big, but the second means it needs to be small. "Greatest possible" just doesn't make sense outside of trivial cases.
Just wanna point out the absolute banger "You see, it all started in the establishment of the first Russian state in 862" at 1:29 , a funny note to the Tucker/Putin interview
@@user-jy8np7zx3z I don't want to assume you actually think that his 30 minutes history lesson starting from the Kievan Rus was a valid reason to invade a non-aggressive independent country, so what did you mean by this comment?
@@failtolawl okay, I allow Biden to read some speech about democracy and freedom to explain aggression against Iraq for example Is he young enough for that?
@@user-jy8np7zx3z Who is talking about Biden? We are talking about Putin invading the Ukraine based on zero valid pretense and getting hundreds of thousands of young Russian and Ukrainians killed all for some allegedly unresolved incident back before the Mongol invasion.
As a mathematical physicists, I would like to make one comment about the mathematical view: the reason why math is so general is because it is essentialy the study of relations between concepts. The concepts (axioms) are entirely arbitrary to ones choice (such as the existence of i, it can only exist as an axiom), but, once you accept it, you may find how other results derive from it. As another clear example, once you accept Euclides axioms for geometry, it is a fact that Pythagoras theorem is True, no matter where you are in the universe or the time you are in. The real surprise, though, comes from the fact that, when applied to explaining the World, mathematical models give such a good description within a range that it is possible to measure, and that suxh description is somehow understandable to us (e.g newtonian mechanics). For those more interested, I recommend a paper called "the unreasonable effectiveness of math in rela world" (or something like that) by Wigner
I’m not smart enough to understand a word you just said but as a mathematical physicist (congrats on having an iq 3x as high as mine) would you agree that maths can prove God or be argued to show a God or not?
@@Jack-bi8mgin his comlent he states that math is subjective and requires certain assumptions. Therefore yes, god could be proven when the right axioms are chosen, even tho id have no idea how. But math's axioms are reasonable. The axioms required to prove a god might not be
@@Jack-bi8mg For such thing, you would have to give a very objective and non ambiguos definition of what God is (which is not only problematic, but I believe it can be a heresy according to some religious beliefs). Given such definition, you could in principle conceive a set of axioms to prove that the existence of this concept or theorem or whatever that you defined as God. Although I believe you would wish for such axiomatic system to not have contradiction, i.e, to be consistent, which is something that you unfortunately cannot prove if this is the case, this is due to Godel Incompleteness theorem, probably the most important result in mathematics proved in the last century. Yet, a very big problem still remains: you do not have any kind of clue whether or not such a system applies somehow to the World we live in, because we did not create the axioms of the reality that we live (you could argue that God did it, but that is an unfalsifiable statement, and therefore cannot be taken seriously in the search of really finding out about the truth) So, to sum it up, my answer is: depends on what you mean by God. If it is just an abstract well defined concept within an axiomatic set, then yes. But I also believe that you would wish to place that concept somehow in our living World, and, in which case, I would unfortunately have to say that this is just impossible inside any religious/transcendental concept of God that religions usually have, particularly the most influent religious in the West.
Also, if I may extend myself more than I already have, there were some historical events when famous mathematicians tried to define God in an axiomatic system. George Cantor, for instance, when dealing with set theory and was defyning the kinds of infinite (yes, there are more than just one infinite) related the greatest type of infinite (absolute infinity) to God.
Honestly Pascal’s Wager reminds me of a different side of the same coin (sort of). Marcus Aurelius essentially stated, “Live a good life. If there is a god and they are just, they will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are unjust gods, then you will not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then your memory will live on in those who you have lived virtue by.”
In the context of pascals wagger, if there was an unjust god then causing finite harm to create infinite pleasure would be the right call. If everyone did this, then everyone would be able to live in infinite pleasure with earth just being a bad dream. And a second issue is people cannot agree on what a Just God would be. Some people’s Just God is other people’s Unjust God after all.
But this is an argument for not believing in any particular religion and just doing what feels right to you, this is the literal opposite of what pascal's wager actually wants to achieve.
I love the fact that you use meme language and simple explanations to explain old, complex ideas. I often watch these when I just need a simple reminder when I get too lost in the complex theological train of thought. Thank you for all of your videos!
For a bit of context on the Euler argument, e^i*x is a rotation of x radians (a more mathematical unit for angle [instead of degrees]) in the complex plane around 0. I don’t fully understand the proofs of this, but you can research them if you would like to know more. Pi radians is the equivalent of 180 degrees, and a 180 degree turn around the complex plane is -1. (This is obvious if you just visualise a 180 degree turn). Therefore e^(i*pi) = -1 and if you add 1 to both sides you get e^(i*pi) +1 = 0 The argument that this is proof for god is because this is a very beautiful equation due to its simplicity and bringing together all the nice numbers. However, you can break every part of this equation down to the fundamentals of maths and understand why it works this way, so it’s not really an inexplicable mystery as to why this equation is so beautiful and neat.
@@maikv750Because something happened that caused the universe. The universe is known to not be eternal, ask any scientist and they will tell you the universe had a beginning. Thus its not eternal, but God is eternal, nothing caused him, he is unmovable etc. So nothing created God. Edit: “Time came the same moment the universe was created according to the theory of relativity.” Ok… eternal means to not have a beginning, since the universe had a beginning roughly 15 billion years ago, this means the universe has a beginning, whether that beginning also was the beginning of time doesn’t truly matter.
The problem with pascal's wager is their is a possibility the actual "god" disagrees with everything you believe in and knows your god is false cause it's the real god.
That wouldn't make sense though. If God is real you would expect all the other "false gods" to die out or at least have a minority of worshippers in the world, and that's exactly how it is regarding God (the Abrahamic God). Even Hinduism, which is polytheistic, has the concept of "the supreme reality, Brahman", which is the closest thing to God in that religion.
@@greg77389 The idea this comment proposes is that the “real god” doesn’t have an input in peoples beliefs, he exists but humanity has come to different conclusions on how he exists. He just watches and let’s us decide, and if he doesn’t like our decisions then you’ll got to hell
You have explained all these arguments in ways I couldn't imagine to think, and yes I know that we do have to take it with a grain of salt because this is an overview.😅 you've gained +1 subscriber. Amen. ☦❤🙏
Redeemed Zoomer was actually first discovered by zooming in on a Mandelbrot set infinitely to the point where it becomes impossible to deny the existence of God, and one is forced to accept Him as Savior and is thereby redeemed through zooming.
Numbers change = God :/ W H A T I S N T G O D T H E N That kind of reminds me of this RU-vid short where a mom points at the make up and middle inside cross-section of an eggplant to her daughter and says that you “can’t deny the existence of God” and that’s kind of what this is like, fractals appear E V E R Y where, even in eggplants, in vegetables like that weird broccoli, in flowers, trees, in non plant organisms and ect. Edit: I tried to make and write this so that it’s like I don’t have a side or option in this argument in this religion related stuff that definitely goes on in the comment sections..
It's important to explain that Pascal's wager is not at all an argument. It can be a good thought experiment or a reason to dig deeper, but it's not at all an argument, especially since it's a false idcotomy.
Pascal doesn't so much neglect the other options as he has already considered them unreasonable by the time a person gets to the point of considering the wager.
@@acog_quarks8753 It's not meant as a final reason but as a bridge to true faith. "Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured."
@@acog_quarks8753 Pascal also doesn't make that wager in a box. The wager is made only after one comes to believe that its at least a 50/50 chance that God is real.
I personally find half of these outright unconvincing or disingenuous, however I think the mind, ontological, and cosmological arguments are compelling and look forward to reading more about them. Good video btw
For the ontological argument, there is no reason to assume that being “greater” is something universal. E.g. there is no reason to say why existing is objectively better than not existing, or that being eternal is better than having a start and an end. Therefore there is no reason to say that a greatest being must necessarily exist.
@@immoloiser6134 So that was my first thought, but I have seen some rephrase it that it's better than *just existing in the mind alone.* Though it still kinda comes back to presuming existing in multiple states is inherently "greater." It's interesting to think about
I don’t find the cosmological argument to be very compelling. The argument seems to imply that something must have always existed without cause. This could be God, but it could also be energy itself. We can trace our universe back to a time when only energy existed in a dense, singular point. We also know from observation that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so it is sensible to think that energy could be uncaused. The question of “what came first” is a hard one to answer, but why answer it with God, something we don’t know exists, instead of answering it with energy, something we do know exists. The creator of this video just asserts that the first uncaused thing must be all powerful and outside of the natural world, but this need not be true. God existing within the supernatural world doesn’t mean something outside of the supernatural world needs to have caused him, so why would something that exists in nature need a cause beyond nature. These are unfounded assertions meant to lead you away from naturalistic explanations.
Pascals wager debunk: What if you believe and choose the wrong god, that would surely be worse than just not believing. A vengeful deity would surely be more upset at those who chose to believe in another deity than at those who simply weren't convinced.
The question is how does this deity expect us to tell the real from the fake? It hasn’t given us the ability to do that, cause all religions have convincing reasons and justifications of their own. But you can never be 100% sure who’s telling the truth or who’s the most convincing, cause your intuition could be wrong or you could be subconsciously biased. So if there’s no objective way of knowing, it’s impossible for us to consciously choose the right one. And there hasn’t been a crystal clear sign from the real deity as to which one is the right one, since every religion preaches itself as legitimate
@@Vickyanimateslike is it hard to see that religions are designed to keep you in and make you scared of losing faith so you can contribute you money for the pope or some other equivalent
@@piotrek7633 you have a brain. You have reason. Nobody’s forcing you to contribute to the pope. Not saying brainwashing isn’t common in religious faiths for personal gain, but whether the pope or religious figures are greedy, sleazy douchebags that exploit people, that has nothing to do with the morals of the religion. You can still have morals and decency, qualities that many religions promote, without subscribing to any religion. It’s called being human.
Also, Pascals wager arbitrarily assumes that belief or faith in God is the only thing that a God cares about when determining your eternal destiny, when it could possibly be any number of other things too. So better not step on that ant or don't eat that pork. You better be more paranoid, unless you end up in hell by accident.
"I have experienced divine intervention" SOOOOOORCE? "I am standing before you now, basking in the audacity of your ignorance, instead of resting 6 ft below a tombstone in a child-shaped casket" yeah if my argumentation and speaking skills were even 1/32 as strong as my faith, I feel like there would be more Catholics running around, instead, The Lord keeps blessing me with the inherent martial prowess and poison resistance that comes from being Polish
Somehow, he doesn't understand such a simple concept himself. If God could exist because he does, why can't the universe? I can simply say that the universe doesn't have a cause and has always existed; what's the difference?
@@hopelesslyoptimistic8231 I think you can't make that claim because the universe obviously has a cause, has physics, and laws, that can't be explained reasonably. If there was an eternal, perfect, unmoved intelligent universe then you could make that claim i guess.
@@hopelesslyoptimistic8231 you are completely ignoring the statement he said at the end of the video. He isn't defending them or supporting those arguments, just giving you a summarized version of their argument.
@@ThomasDemonte-fb6jj My point is there could be an explanation for one thing that could exist without a cause. Perhaps the existence of such a thing is the cause of itself. There are plenty of other subjects that are beyond human thought processes, so the idea of something without a cause confuses us. There does not need to be a God for everything to exist, and all the “perfection” of your universe could be used and explained by trial and error. There could have been eons of failed universes, but we happen to live in a stable one
As an Atheist, the Consciousness argument definitely gets me thinking about the possibility of a world beyond the material. I doesn’t convince of any religion, but I gets me thinking.
consciousness remains some time in body after death... for some reason. so yea before either going to afterlife or disappearing you are alive in a dead body. this detachment of body and consciousness is pretty interesting and must be researched.
Funny because consciousness is the argument I dislike the most. There is no difference between us and animals. We just are more advanced. We function with our instincts and our desires. I am talking to you about an “abstract’ subject because I have a “data base” of knowledge in my brain, which connect to make ideas, and my desire is to share it with you. I don’t see how that’s so mystical or spiritual.
@@elali64 humans are animals, i rather saying non-human animals.. or simply aloteras. and the desire to share information is because knowledge sharing causes evolution.. so its instinctive aswell
@@jktech2117 Your brain is still active for a short while after death, there is still definitely a connection, just a near severed one on the brink of destruction
@@basic6735 just look for news, many people who have already passed the threshold of death and resuscitated on the hospital had some signs of consciousness during dead short period. whats the most interesting are the famous out of body experience where people could explain stuff that happened during this short period. could be just the remains of consciousness trying to interpret whats going on, but is hard to define since during death u cant see as much activity on the brain. i really do think people with high chance of death on surgeries should volunteer to a study about this, because if there is something more or at least understanding the foundations of the self and consciousness is important. until rn we dont know if the consciousness is destroyed or it just leak out of the body, or remain in the body and slowly breaks into pieces while the body rots and all the energy that make up the consciousness is dissipated to dirt turning us into billion pieces.
4:13 wait did he just ask Darwin, who wrote a book on the evolution of species and NOT on physics, and who died over A HUNDRED YEARS AGO to explain modern physics concepts.
People who think these arguments are any good is insane. A person with down syndrome with a broken vocal box could easily refute these. Bro in his atheist argument video said you can’t prove god with the natural world and then in this video he uses plenty of natural arguments for god existing like bro you can’t make this up 😂
yet modern science is based on Darwin's assumptions, didn't u go to school? they sell u that everything maths, physics, chemistry etc proves Darwin was right and theists are wrong.
@@LiterallyAWasteOfNothingness Demanding evidence for your claims is not a fallacy. Try again. An example of an appeal to ignorance fallacy would be to claim that since one can't prove that God doesn't exist, then one is justified in believing that it does.
@@WhiteScorpio2 That is true, demanding evidence is not a fallacy, mistake on my part, I'm still learning Relying solely on empirical evidence to either prove or disprove God's existence may lead to the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance, though. It's important to remember, the nature of God as asserted by my Catholic perspective, goes beyond definitive proof, which is why it's based on faith. So technically that video would be short I guess, but it wouldn't make any verifiable points proving nor disproving god's existence either. No hard feelings, just half-awake and honestly bored
@@LiterallyAWasteOfNothingness "it wouldn't make any verifiable points proving nor disproving god's existence either." Not necessarily true. It wouldn't disprove a general idea of an inelligent creator or an uncaused cause or something like that, or, for example, an idea of a God that is completely unrelated to our universe whatsoever. But it would point away from an idea of a God that is actively engaged with our observable universe. In any case, it should be a very informative video in relation to the question of whether one should believe that God exists, which is a different question than whether God actually exists.
There’s probably an infinite number of beautiful mathematical concepts he could of brought up. None of them would be an adequate proof of the existence of a god.
@@ryanc970 It’s true, maths being beautiful doesn’t prove gods existence. Maths is beautiful because it consists of a web of interconnected logic. You can attribute it to being the creation of your god, but it is not proof that they exist. We lack knowledge outside of the universe to say definitively that a godless universe cannot have beautiful math.
@@astralite8769 they've all been debunked and most debunked five minutes after they were dreamed up. why do people who claim to have god by their side 24/7 feel the need to be reassured constantly that their talking snake cult isn't silly? i've been atheist all my life, never needed an apologist to reassure me people die and stay dead and that all gods are mythology.
As an Atheist, I appreciate this video because it shows me what christians have been trying to tell me but couldn’t. I am grateful for seeing this because it made me understand the world better and the people who don’t share the same ideals or logic as me.
@@matheuscabral9618I can't speak for the poster, but most of these arguments can be reduced to arguments from incredulity. "How can evolution create something as complicated as modern cells?" "How can math make an infinite pattern and go so far without being tied to reality?" "How can consciousness be created from non-conscious atoms?" All of the ones I quoted are essentially saying "I don't know the answer to this question, so God explains it." While it's not definitively incorrect, it's fallacious and I ultimately don't currently buy into reasoning of this nature. Also, if you ask an atheist any of these questions they'll likely just admit they don't know, which is a more honest and powerful answer than it's given credit for.
@@matheuscabral9618 Because religion is also a feeling, and if it isn’t genuine then I can’t say I believe in God. I never fully did believe in him no matter how hard others tried, I never felt connected. Then after realising that the bible goes against basic science that was the point I became an atheist. Even with the arguments about how you need something infinite to make our universe, that can be also said about the Big Bang which is the scientific answer. So it is hard to argue for God with me when he can be replaced with a scientifically accurate phenomenon. The math one doesn’t hold for me either because math also says that there are 25% chances we live in a simulation and so much less than 1% that God exists. (25% is less than 50.(1)% so I don’t believe in that either) For morals I don’t believe morals can be fully objective. There is always an element of subjectivity in it, even in the morals of “as long as nobody is or will be hurt then it is ok”. Because that is based on the fact that we don’t like to be hurt which can be a subjective thing because hurt isn’t universally hated, just mostly hate, some people like hurt, there are even kinks about that. Or people who are ok with some hurt because they don’t think that some hurt is a big fuzz (when applied to themselves as well, not just others). So this means even the most common and sensible moral basis is still subjective. And being religious outside of needing faith in something non-observable from a source that as far as I am concerned is also unreliable, it needs spirituality, and I am not spiritual at all. So I can’t believe in God because I don’t feel spiritually connected to anything, and whenever I see spiritual stuff (which religiousness ≠ spirituality), I always feel like it is a waste of time because it’s better to just be honest and reflect than make stuff up to help reflect. So this is why I don’t believe in God despite seeing this video. I can’t connect to it, I disagree with some of the premises used for the arguments in the video and when that isn’t the case there is always a more on point scientific explanation that goes against that. And because of the lack of spirituality within me I am not open to the idea of god no matter what. If I can’t connect with it, then I can’t say that I believe in it.
@@andreimircea2254 ok fair enough, I still think continuousness and theological are way beyond anything science could ever explain, and the chance of everything just happening by chance would be crazy, but I appreciate you took the time to write that
@@quadrewplex6782 Well said. Sometimes we just don’t know, and it’s okay and it doesn’t mean anything unless there is proof that it does. For instance, IDK why cells can form something so complex, but I know that trough evolution they do. The rest is above me.
@@dankrigby5621 Yeah, basically. It's the idea that if you vomit words so much that people cant keep track of what you're saying, and ideally just accept your argument because you push so many words and give 0 room for thinking. Its a favorite Apologist live debate strat, but it usually gets shut down by moderators because it's overtly fallacious.
In college my math tutor discussed euler's identity and pascal's wager as possible reasons God might exist. He was agnostic but had the intellectual humility to admit and teach us that.
Pascal's wager, even if it wasn't misused, isn't a reason god might exist. The whole point of Pascal's wager is to demonstrate that even if god doesn't exist you should believe he does.
As an atheist, I've always been "turned off" by religious conversations because all of my friends who are Christian go towards "Because he just does exist", but they never mention anything scientific, nor if they believe Adam and Eve were the first human, if Mary is a Virgin and if that's possible, etc. However, with the Telelogical argument, I feel I could have an amazing convo with someone irl. Thanks redeemed zoomer!
I just chum it up too he exists and be on my merry way. Because when any atheist wants an argument, they just get bent out of shape. The best interaction I have found is having none at all. Better than having pure vitriol spewed at you. Nope, had enough of that in my younger years.
I think the main problem with it is, in general out of all the analogies, the thing (watch, painting, building, etc.) that is too complex to have come out of nothing or by chance should therefore be made by a designer namely humans and since humans are complex they must have also been made by a designer namely God. But then, wouldn't that make God complex too? Who is God's creator? From there, you can think of many ways to reason out. - It just stops with God cause why not he's God? - God is not complex, hmmm he is simple? I'm too dumb for this everything is just a dead end not to mention if there was an actual good reason, why would it specifically be the Christian god out of all the many many gods?
@@cagedgandalf3472 exactly, a lot of the arguments in the video rely on some assumptions that contradict the normally theological perspective. If god is the creator of the first thing to be created he did not create himself and cannot create himself therefore is he not all powerful? If god is the embodiment of power itself that is barely a god to worship and more a philosophical concept without any real presence.
The constant “i” does have uses in real world mathematics, mostly in physics. Modern mathematicians dislike the fact that they are referred to as imaginary because of this. However, that isn’t to say there aren’t fields of mathematics that don’t apply to the real world. There certainly are, and they are typically referred to as “pure mathematics.” In my opinion, this probably stems more from math’s infinite nature rather than an intelligent designer. Rant over
The mathematical argument is literally using a deity to fill up gaps in understanding. "This seems too perfect to be caused by anything we currently know, therefore it's Gods work". Same with the cosmological one: "We don't know how time or causality works beyond our universe, therefore God just made everything".
Also the word deity is related to polytheism and means a created god God by definition is uncreated also it isn‘t filling a gap in our knowledge we know that everything has a begining and the begining must be god because then we devolve into to the pointless question of yes but what happened before that
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t I frankly believe that's why religion exists to begin with. We've went through so many religions and so many gods and mostly used them for things we can now explain by science. Thunder and lighting? Must be them gods getting angry! Solar eclipse? Oh no, we must have deeply offended the gods. Hahaha. When humans can't explain something, they'll make up an explanation to satisfy themselves. No matter if it is true or not.
In electrical engineering, using irrational numbers is essential, and also applied to the real world in terms of circuits and their behaviour (inductors, capacitors and phasors).
Im a steve main, always been since Tekken 5. Seeing your video has helped me a lot in understanding his stances and how to more effectively use his back 1. Great video 🤝🏾‼️
@@kioley1233 hurting your own species when theres no apparent reason is bad for the survival of the species. So due to evolution its mostly discouraged since well reproduction is the instincutal endgame for any organism and taking away that potential endgame for no reason is bad for the survival of your own species
I seriously don't understand the point you made at 4:05 when you said "there are things Darwinian evolution can't explain, like the 4 constants of the universe". Why on Earth would anyone expect evolutionary theory to explain this? Evolution is COMPLETELY irrelevant in that discussion; it's not even in the same scientific discipline. The physical constants are in the realm of cosmology/physics, not biology.
...Huh? Did bro really just go "This BIOLOGICAL theory can't explain physics!" Like, no shit. It's about how animals changed into different species through milennia. Not about how gravity works.
I think he is trying to explain that some things couldn't of happened by chance. some things are just too finetuned to be made up by just luck and time. and Darwinism is grounded in that there is no God.
I’m studying pure mathematics and it feels like you are missing the point that mathematics is just an abstract perspective on what we can learn given a set of rules. All math we come up with must be built upon axioms (rules) we have made from the start. The goal is to see how far we can go with them.
You are right, but the fact we have made it this far with the math we have discovered (or invented, take your pick) is really not something to take for granted. I don't believe in god but I can see why for some people, god acts as an explanation that ties everything together.
@@Quincy_Morriswhy not? I mean, axioms are just assumptions that we make that all of math can be derived from. They have been revised in the past. Also, there alternate rule sets that we can follow that generate totally different structures that also can be studied. To say that math was discovered implies that the axioms foundational to math are universal which is flat out wrong!
1. Cosmos only explains Big Bang, not the existence of god. 2. Morals are made by humans and have been changing by the pass of the history, we used to sacrifice childrens to god but that's now considered bad and heretical, so it is not a value to consider if god exists or not. 3. Theology was made by humans, the bible is a human construction, why bible should be more important than any other relgious text? Who say your god is real? What if we're all wong? Because at the end god is a human creation to explain the history and how the world works. (Just read sumerian tales written about the kings and you will find great simmilities with the bible, like the origin of Mosses and more) 4. How do you know there is a god and not a godess? How do you know is not different deities having different works? You can't, because there is nothing that proves the existence of god but there is millions of tests that prove the evolution, big bang, and multiple other things. 5. The personal experience argument as the previous point it breaks by themselves, i can say Goku is the real god and Toriyama just made it to gave him a representation we all can see, and he died after see the degeneration of humanity. And no, this won't work, if i say i saw goku and he took me flying over the sky and you have to believe me because is my personal experience... Bad. 6. The pascal wager only contemplates one kind of god, what if there is a god who doesn't need of praying? And just want us to improve our world and society? What if you go to hell because that god doesn't like how instead of do his work (end with poverty, fight inequalities) there are their "servitors" who istead of help the world they just try to convert people into their fake religion? While the real god is against that... What about this? 7. No, all of this makes sense with or without god, there is no need of a god to make science work, this is why science exists and humans abandoned Theology to explain the world. Otherwise we would still thinking it rains because god says so, or because is sad, or because we sacrified our childrens, and we know why it rains, because the condensation of the air, bla bla bla... 8. Sir, our minds are creation of the nature, all what we think is because or origins. Why do you think fats and sugar are so good for our brain? Why you think people likes it so much? Because fats were incredible good for us when we started to explore and expand, because it helped us to move for longer, why do you think we are two-foot creatures? Because energetically talking is more efficient, and why we love sugar? Because is HARD to find in Nature... ALL we are, ALL we think, ALL we believe, is explained looking at our past, why humans don't marry with their family? Because genetically talking that would lead to worse childrens, by consequence daughters were exchanged between the primitival people to increase the numbers of humans with more diverse genes, making they better at running, carrying, etc. All animals cooperate to survive, monkeys make chains to transport fruit, birds warn each other about predators, etc. And humans feed each other to survive for longer, but animals do it too, all our brain is what it is because of dozens of thousands of years of evolution since the firsts humans to today. Why people wants to fly? Because humans never have been able to look whats behind the clouds. Why people fear darkness? Because at night predators can hunt us, etc... 9. Sir, maths works because maths explains how the existence works, at difference of your god you can ask for rain and will not produce rain, because there is an alternative explaination with REALLY explains why it rains, the same happens with math, this is just sad how you try use math at your favor when is more at the contrary, it all works not because god, but because maths is an excellent system to explain our world, but is not new, it always existed, the thing is we're expanding those knowledge thanks to discard the believe to god. 10. There is not a single evidence of the existence of god, is not about arguments, is about PROVE it is exists, for now it has been proved through math and science it doesn't exist, and if it does, is not so powerfull or is not so good. Or is a weak god who only supervises what the people do or is a maniac who love to see pain and suffering, also, we don't know if there is a god or multiple ones, if they're good and bad or just bad or just good, or if they're male, female, or both... At the end of the day the believers can't prove god exists, that's why they're BELIEVERS, because they see the world, they see god doesn't exist on it, but they still choose to BELIEVE "Just in case". This video is excellent to show up why religious people can't prove the existence of god and instead of that they just choose to create weak "arguments" that can't take a logical observation. I studied theology for more than a decade, i was about to be a priest, all i seen in the clergy was all the opposite is on the bible. I never found god or anything like that, a part of me stills being a bit religious, but we must accept god doesn't exist until is proven, because who says our Christian god is the real god? Who? What if they're other gods? What if we're been wrong and the real gods are the roman ones? There is no way to know, and if you dedicate your life to a wrong god maybe you go to hell anyways, so this is more like: Exists a one or multiple gods? Yes - No You believe on it? Yes - No If a god exists: You believe in the wrong one and you go to hell because of it - Nothing happens because once the deities have been revealed you're not late to pray to they If a god doesn't exist: You just wasted your life and did nothing to improve this world, only skinking it more into the abyss, condemning the whole civilization to pain, death and suffering in exchange of things - You improved the society by seeking alternatives to "god will provide" and probably you fighted poverty and inequality, improving this world. We all can make these manipulative charts, this chart i made is not even realistic, is just to show we all can do the same. The only realistic thing of my chart that yours doesn't have is the consideration of multiple deities and the consideration of make they angry if you believe in the wrong one. So is all especulation, the only thing proved is we can explain everything in our minds, world and universe without the need of a god, and by consequence it doesn't exists until somebody can prove it.
wtf what is this crazy number of dislikes for??? This was a great video that he put so much work into! Even if you disagree or don't believe in God, he is just explaining the arguments that apologists use and have used for centuries and made it much more simpler to understand. It's just an informative video, he's not necessarily saying you have to believe it. why the dislikes??
The problem is that listing 12 different argument for god (where most can be refuted by atheists) will only encourage people to believe in it until they see the refutations, which this video doesn’t do. This video is (maybe accidentally, idk what his intentions are) crediting religion using seemingly good but actually bad arguments
I doubt that most can be refute by atheist, if so they wouldn’t be still being used. I’ve watched many debates on atheism and just refusing to interact with an argument because of any silly reason isn’t actually refuting an argument.
I do quite like the cosmological, theological/teleological, ontological, consciousness, and mathematical explanations. Some are complex, some are simple. Great video btw.
Refreshing to see arguments for god portrayed in a calm, humorous and yet still logical way Im atheist, and have my rebutals, but i can tell youre a good hearted person who is doing a good job at relaying very important arguments and discussions, keep it up!
Rebuttals please! My theological curiosity will not be sated if I don't get them. Really tho. I am curious about how to argue against these, which can inturn improve the arguments by finding a way that works
@@troydunnage6749 one rebuttal i would have is, for example, the teleological argument. It is fundementally based on human bias, not a universal truth. The claim that most things in the universe display a purpose is generally incorrect. Only about 0.0001% of observable things appear to show "purpose." And is it much coincidence that most things that show purpose are those around and similar to us? As humans, we generally like classifying and deciding how things should work, so when we see things like ecosystems and organisms functioning, it is only natual to assume they must have been intended to be this way, but they only "work" in the way we humans have decided is working. (That is, the assumption that things maintaining their status quo is generally good.) Most of these things that do allegedly "function" simply do so because they're stable, able to perpetuate themselves further, which is what the law/theory of evolution would dictate would happen with or without a god.
@troydunnage6749 Ill try my best, but im not sure if OP agrees with that I'd say. Evidential: This is a case by case one, you can just look at different sources and whatnot to refute this argument as required. Moral: Morality is a complicated subject, why it exists is explained by our modern understanding of evolution and how "moral" humans would be selected for since our species is a social one. Morality has to be assumed as an objective truth for this argument to work, when it isnt, in most religions you can easily point out how their own morals are ever changing, if this isnt enough then we could easily explain morals away through rational thought. Morality is also case by case too, "is it ok to kill babies? No? What if that baby caused WWII? Still no?", etc. Cosmological: This one is also based off of an assertion with no proof of its validity. Why cant all things be caused by other things? Why does there have to be a first cause? What does a first cause mean if time didnt exist? If a first cause does have to exist, and it can and did exist, why would it be a god? It could just be a particle with 0 consciousness, it can be a single noodle with no will, it could be anything. Why god specifically? Why pick god over say a turtle? Pascal's wager: Its absolutely wrong, this is rhe easiest to disprove so instead of recounting everything from memory and doing a botched job of disproving it I'd HIGHLY recommend a channel called TheraminTrees and their famous video on Pascals Wager. Theological: Also very easy to debunk. Lets start with fine tuning, if things were different we wouldnt exist, so things must be the way they are for us to make the observation that they are the way they are, and this also assumes that the constants CAN change, it also assumes that these constants are the only way to "construct" a universe, it also assumes that theres a chance factor if god didnt exist. All baseless claims, without any tangible proof. As for cells acting like machines, evolution can explain it, this requires basic understanding of biology. Ontological: These are human definitions of "greater than", why is existing greater than not existing? Why is bigger better than smaller? Etc etc. Also, theres so many different paradoxes that follow the assumption of a All knowing all powerful and all good god. Simple one being: God is all knowing, he knows what you will do, you have no free will, and then you go to hell in some religions, but you had no choice, god could change that due to his infinite power, but he doesnt, so god cant be all good? Or he cant be all knowing? Or he doesnt have the power thus cant be all Powerful? Badly explained but hopefully you get the gist. Experience: I dont think i have to explain this, countless times has it been proven that personal experience is not reliable, society would collapse if we went off of persinal unsubstantiated experience. Transcendental: This one is so nonsensical, you assume a worldview where god exists, but where's the basis in that view? Everything still crumbles from the ground up? This is the god of the gaps but fancier. Consciousness: An emergent property is a property of a group/thing that cannot be found in any individual part of the said group/thing. This argument is founded on ignorance. A single ant is worthless, yet get enough together and you have a colony. A Motherboard itself is worthless, combine it with different parts of a computer and suddenly you can play fortnite. This one needs basic thought and reasoning to disprove. Mathematics: This one is built upon misunderstandings and presumptions. Imaginary numbers are real, they're jsut badly named. Finding complexity in maths to prove god is stupid, why does the mandelbrot set require god to exist? It assumes that god created so it can say that it cant exist without a god. This is a circular argument? Euler's discovery is incredible indeed, he was brilliant, but it does not mean god exists, just because he discovered an equation does not mean a god exists. Why does math require god to exist? No idea why this presumption was made. Maybe someone can shed more light on this, its my first time seeing this argument. And thats all.
@@troydunnage6749 I actually posted my rebuttals in the main comments, but I'll post them here so you can examen them as you please. Firstly, this argument is weak as a "supernatural event" isn't at all well documented, nor is at all a good idea to rely on random miracles happening in profession of a faith. Yes strange things may happen, but in relation of a faith is cherry picking a coincidence at best. Now, I just want to be logical with this to be unbiased. However, I do want to note that there has been no evidence by the Romans of Jesus' resurrection, and with an event of that magnitude, it seems suspicious at best again. Again, people dying for their faith isn't a crazy weird thing only with Christianity. Just look at cults. Second, very weak argument; not sure why he put it in. It's a baseless claim. Objective morality is not real. However, human nature is. We see murder as bad in most of us because we were evolved to need each other to prosper as a society. If we were hard wired with pure subjective morality then we wouldn't be where we are today. I recommend looking into Game Theory if you're interested. Third, this is an interesting one. Everything has a cause as per the axiom of causality. However, we're tracing it back to the big bang times. Where all our current understanding of time and causality breaks down. To say that the only solution of a universe is due to God because everything has a cause is disingenuous as most our instruments break down around this time, so we cannot accurately pertain an answer as to what may happen. Further note, a "first cause" does indeed break an axiom of causality, so a God being a "first cause" would break science as we know it. Where as with science, we may see an extension of this axiom instead. The comments about actualizing a potential is just an extension of causality; not sure why he brought it up to be honest. Fourth, I really hope I don't have to explain why this is wrong. I am anyway, but never use this an argument. A major issue is that this relies on fear and punishment rather than an actual faith. Is faith real if you're being held at gun point? ie, would you truly love your parents if you know that result of not loving them would be getting slapped eternally. An extension of pascal's wager is also to believe in the worst god because the worst god will have the most damning punishment, hence it reduces suffrage. Another issue is that it can be applied to literally anything. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Nazi's. Just a terrible argument indeed. Fifth, there are many routes with this one. Firstly, this is built on a baseless claim of "purpose". To believe this argument would to be believe the universe has purpose, and from a completely logical standpoint, it has none. Now with items such as our cell, it does have a purpose. The purpose is to keep us alive to breed, hence why we have evolved complex systems for thousands of years. I'm not sure on his argument that the ecosystem works as a machine. It can be explained. Again, not by Darwin but by Game Theory. Research it if you're interested. It explains the most curious facet of nature to date, collaboration. The point with the forces seems logical, however, it is not. If you were to look at the universe as it has been made for 14 billions years with such forces then applied different ones, of course it will collapse. However, if you were to alter those constants then let the universe run its course, it'd look plenty different. My point is, you can't suddenly change a varible and say it's evidence. Another point to this that we don't know why these constants are. So to try and explain this is bad practice. Six, this isn't an argument? It's just making a definition and saying it must be true because this is a definition. The pizza analogy doesn't work because the perfect pizza wouldn't be an infinitely large slice, unless your subjective opinion is to have one be that way, but most probably it's the one that tastes the best. Seven, never base logic on just "experience that you think you saw". I cannot technically disprove this with argument because Seven isn't even an argument. It's a claim that people think they see God. Eight, this one actually is my personal favorite as it did make me think for a moment. These logical pillars are true to the universe. Logic, continuity, truth, and with which we can build other bricks out of. However, we can prove pillars from other pillars. We can observe logic and continuity and build truth. We can observe truth and logic and form continuity that are consistent. (This does delve into the realm of meta physics a tad). However, God doesn't fit with these pillars. There is nothing about logic that has to observe God existing. Even if these pillars could not be observed true, they can still be held as axiomatic. Logic should be consistent, and then we build bricks from there. If you're wondering, well what would be the case if we found that logic wasn't consistent, then we'd most likely have to rebuild foundations for further science, however keep current ones as "good enough" answers to old. An example of this is Classical Newtonian Mechanics getting replaced with Einstein's theories, but we still use Newtonian mechanics for simple, old problems. Nine, perhaps the worse argument here. His point was, well an atom isn't consciousness. Nor is two atoms. Nor is three. Thus consciousness has to be God's work. Large issue with this. It's what's know as fallacy of composition. How the parts must equal the whole. The atom itself wouldn't be consciousness, but the interact thereof. Think of a car. Well an atom isn't a car. Nor is two. Nor is three. Hence a car must be God's work. Well no, we know it's interaction of complex systems that form into this beautiful work of man. Lastly, the math one is also weak. Humans created math to explain nature. A beautiful formula such as Euler's Identity doesn't prove the work of God. However, it does prove that logical axioms in math hold up because it is a natural sequence and the Euler's Identity can be proven. Math is much like a work of art. It fits together, and when stepped back from, it completes itself. However, we know that work of art is made by man explaining facets of life. This does not mean the art is God. The point with infinity also can be disproven with the same logical as before, and even more so as if I were to make an infinite series that doesn't mean I'm God. The technical last point is a joke so I won't comment on it. It took me a while to write
well he is just creating a piece in the chain and defining it as the end piece. its really similar to the ontological argument in a sense that a definition of something cannot force it into existence. If i define a unicorn as a horse with a horn that exists doesn't mean it exists
@@PvlmVIsHere right. And same with the mathematical argument. It completely shatters once you realize that math is nothing more than humans' way of interpreting quantity. It doesn't inherently exist
@@iamShinyGeodude Maybe 3000 years ago you could've said that math was simply the way we interpret quantity, but it has been way more than that ever since the medieval period. Sequences, patterns, graphs, statistics, theories, formulas and proofs get incredibly abstract, and simplifying the field into being "our way of interpreting quality" is doing the field a disservice and neglecting its beautiful complexity.
@@Matdrox yes, it has beautiful complexity. Yes, we've nailed it down to a point where it gets abstract. That doesn't prove anything. Ultimately, it's all the derivative of Ook telling Grook "me have rock. Me have other rock. One rock.. TWO ROCK???"
@@PvlmVIsHere He is saying that since there can't be an infinite regression of causes, there must be an uncaused cause. The argument isn't meant to prove that a particular God exists, nor that God is all good, omnipotent, or omniscient, just that an uncaused cause exists. It is in conjunction with the other arguments that we conclude that the uncaused cause has those attributes.
and equally unconvincing evidence for each! you can actually make Pascal's Wager into an ok argument provided the hypothetical isn't... well, ludicrous. e.g. a climate change Pascal's mugging is far more valid.
And you're Lutheran just because that's the religion you were taught to believe as a child? (I don't know you, but that's certainly the overwhelming pattern of religious belief, worldwide. If you'd been born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a devout Muslim now, don't you think?) So, if you care about the truth, maybe you should watch videos from people who disagree with you. I'd recommend Paulogia, a former Christian. But I hope you at least _talk_ to us atheists, occasionally. I regularly watch videos from Christians, Muslims, religious Jews, etc. I have yet to hear any good evidence that a god is real, but I still like to talk to intelligent people who disagree with me about religion.
@@paldennorbu8808 _"Find an apologist, they know best, excepting clergymen"_ The only people who run away _faster_ from a conversation with an atheist than apologists are clergymen. That's been _my_ experience, at least. If you know of a religious apologist _or_ a clergyman who is willing to have a conversation, a back-and-forth discussion, with an atheist, please send them my way. But in my experience, as soon as I ask them for one piece of good evidence - just *one* - religious apologists (Christian and Muslim alike) run for the hills. And it doesn't usually take a pastor even _that_ long to run away. (I've had a good conversation with a Christian philosophy professor, but even that was extraordinarily rare. And he didn't even _attempt_ to defend Christianity. But he had some wild arguments for a generic god I'd never heard before - not at all persuasive, but interesting. So I enjoyed our discussion, and he said that he did, too. I still hear from him, occasionally.)
Reversed pascal wager: the god that exists loves skeptic minds, and will throw into hell every single person falling for earthly false religions because he designed them as a test. And this god hell is 10 times worse than the christian one. There, best wage is now not to believe.
I just wanna say it is crazy that I have argued almost all of these to people without even hearing them, just using other knowledge to come up with it. Its like the joke of inventing something you didn't know was invented. It makes my faith stronger to know so many people naturally come to these conclusions.
I suggest you stop using these arguments (except maybe the math argument) because they are all really bad. Atheists, agnostics and other theists alike have been saying why these arguments are bad for a long time now and yet apologists keep using them.
Yeah I did cosmological from looking at space so much and how all these things allign for us to exists over and over, evidential from history where people who killed Jesus would testify his resurection as well as Rome literally documenting his existence, teleogical ties into cosmological to where how if one law with a constant formula was changed we would theoretically all die, another thing about Transcendential is that 99% of science was made by ancient religious philosophers as well as throughout time every civilization separetly until now has come to the conclusion of some sort of higher power(s) being involved in everything, Pascal's Wager I just thought of one day while arguing with a guy on why you would even want to not have faith compared to having so much to look for, personal was a near death experience where I saw through the eyes of a bodyless view looking upon golden gates yet they were closed (maybe forshadowing it wasn't my time), conciousness ties to the "fermies paradox" and how we humans are the only one able to cotemplate our own existence and why we are able to do so yet cannot truly look at this, moral is so many examples such as why people are willing to sacrifice basic survival and continuing their species for an idea and why the Bible's moral's are so perfect, etc... but I won't pretend like I know the others like Eulers or Mandlebrot lol. And mathematics was something I heard and I was never a fan of the ontological idea. Sorry for the essay but it is true people literally just by themselves come up with this. It comes to a point where you can never know if you are correct, but there are so SO many hints you are in the right direction. I hope we can convince others. God bless. @@BowlOSoup6661
@@BowlOSoup6661 Yeah I did cosmological from looking at space so much and how all these things allign for us to exists over and over, evidential from history where people who killed Jesus would testify his resurection as well as Rome literally documenting his existence, teleogical ties into cosmological to where how if one law with a constant formula was changed we would theoretically all die, another thing about Transcendential is that 99% of science was made by ancient religious philosophers as well as throughout time every civilization separetly until now has come to the conclusion of some sort of higher power(s) being involved in everything, Pascal's Wager I just thought of one day while arguing with a guy on why you would even want to not have faith compared to having so much to look for, personal was a near death experience where I saw through the eyes of a bodyless view looking upon golden gates yet they were closed (maybe forshadowing it wasn't my time), conciousness ties to the "fermies paradox" and how we humans are the only one able to cotemplate our own existence and why we are able to do so yet cannot truly look at this, moral is so many examples such as why people are willing to sacrifice basic survival and continuing their species for an idea and why the Bible's moral's are so perfect, etc... but I won't pretend like I know the others like Eulers or Mandlebrot lol. And mathematics was something I heard and I was never a fan of the ontological idea. Sorry for the essay but it is true people literally just by themselves come up with this. It comes to a point where you can never know if you are correct, but there are so SO many hints you are in the right direction. I hope we can convince others. God bless.
None of these convinced me to start believing in God again. Some are just blatantly ‘we as humans don’t know how this works so it must be God’ but that is really stupid, they did that with lightning in the past and that was disputed. So only with time some of these will be disputed.
You can't simply disprove God, it's already impossible. Humans can still never go past the Universe and likely never will be able to leave our own galaxy, and thus will never be able to see what lies beyond and can never truly know - in all certainty, that God is fake or real. That is it, Glory be to God :]
I like this video a lot! And thus as an atheist who still chooses to be an atheist after watching this i’d like to talk about the points you make. 1. Evidential: The story is over 2000 years old, it’s pretty hard to keep a story straight let alone prove if anything in the story is real in the first place. 2. Moral: This is an interesting one! I believe that Morals aren’t a thing that exists, but rather born from empathy in the mind, psychopaths who lack empathy have no morals, thus morals come from empathy and caring for your fellow humans, then you can draw up more complex morals through society. 3. Cosmological: The short answer is we do not know! There are a few theories about before the big bang, and the start of the universe, one which I find fascinating is that if the big crunch happens, then it basically becomes an auroboros, starting again in the same way it began. 4. Pascal’s wager: I’ve heard this one a little, but like someone else said, you would need to genuinely believe, not just pretend because of the consequences. Plus, this isn’t an argument for the existence of a god, but why you should regardless of if god does or does not exist. 5. Teleological: I have never heard of this one! The comparison between something we understand quite well such as darwinism and quantum mechanics which are still being heavily debated as to why these constants are the way they are is a bit illogical imo, you are comparing something we understand to something we do not and saying that must mean god. 6. Ontological: This just makes no sense, you can make up any character, like the gods in lord of the rings and they would exist. 7. Experience: Explained away with statistics, the chance of it happening may be low but low does not equate impossible, especially if you have preconceived beliefs and may be subconsciously looking for god’s influence. 8. Transcendental: You assume that science cannot meta analyze science, which it does, the study of logic is it’s own scientific field. 8. Consciousness: The same thing can be said for neural networks, in a more primitive (right now) way, we can stick a ton of neurons together and make it “see”, but alone they do nothing. Sum is greater than it’s part 10. Mathematics: Honestly i am amazed you managed to make this work, infinite equations will always make one that has significance to you. Fractals are found everywhere in nature, and the mandelbrot set is a mathematical representation of a fractal with a specific base.
As a Christian: 1. As seen in the video, they are referring to more modern miracles, and proving or disproving them is... good luck with that. 2. Agree 3. Yeah you can't know that. Could also have just randomly happened, like particles just generate outta thin nothing, look up hawking radiation to see where I got that from. Or it could also be god. 4. Indeed. Although it can get you going, give you reasons to look into god. 5. The point is, the universe is so complex and fine-tuned to allow for such complex things that we are either increeeeedibly lucky or this world was designed by someone, and there is no argument against that, only theories why we got so lucky. 6. Yeah I didn't get this one either. 7. I am very good at statistics, top of my class, the literal people that invented modern statistics were Christians. I have experienced things that can not be explained with statistics or biases, only by incredible luck or much rather a guiding god. You can not argue away this one. This is one of the main reasons for why I believe. Although it is no good for convincing anyone else, and therefore kinda irrelevant for this argument. 8. We had this in religion class. There are things that science can explain, but also things that it cannot, and as long as we don't, god is a very good guide as to what happened over there. Although not necessarily a proof either. 9.Neural networks haven't achieved consciousness (yet), and if they do, we are doomed anyways. The argument is that we don't understand what consciousness is, as it is completely different from its parts. But not understanding something is no proof for something, you can of course believe it is the holy spirit, but that has some rather nasty implications for abortion and eating meat so I don't wanna go down that path really. 10. Mathematics are a miracle, these may be plain to you but if you get into it it all makes some divine sense, and it is understandable to believe only a god could have made a construct of this beauty, with new links you keep finding. Although that is not a hard solid argument. You don't need to reply to all of these, just if you have something new to say. But in the end there is no "gotcha, liberal!" to prove god, nor to disprove, you have to find your own reasons.and dive deep into it, and that is much more meaningful than these essays, so you can of course look at them, but ultimately go your own journey and find for yourself what belief means to you, through whatever means that may be, whether these are the commonly used ones or other, it is yours to discover and a path you cannot force one onto.
The biggest issue about the moral argument is that morals *are* subjective. While it would be difficult to find someone who thinks something like cannibalism is good in more modern cultures, you don't have to go that far back into history to find an account, like mummia. The Iliad contains Odysseus beating an ugly person up because he spoke out because Odysseus was the hero and it was morally good at the time.
i think the moral argument can just be debunked by evolution. Why don't most animals reproduce with family. Because inbreeding produces inferior offspring. Why don't most animals cannibalise. because the survival of the species is beneficial to reproduction. Everything mainly focuses on reproduction. You could call reproduction a god heh. Of course theres always going to be outliers.
This brings me into the "What is reality?" where it feels like my mind imploads, like I think of what is reality, and sometimes I can get a feeling in my head that feels weird...
In a sense, nothing other than counting numbers truly is "real". (You can't have -3 apples any more than you can have 3i apples.) But in another sense, ALL numbers, even complex numbers, are useful in explaining real-world phenomena.
You can't really do any physics, outside of Newton's laws, without imaginary numbers. But it does seem to be the case that all natural constants and properties have real values. (Not just positive values - electric charge for example comes in both positive and negative varieties). Imaginary numbers are necessary "under the hood," but whenever you make an observation, you can only ever measure a real number.
The imaginary number i is used in conceptual practices and for defining and visualizing various models. It never once appears in any physical measurements or values. It is, in fact, an imaginary number, because its value does not exist anywhere other than solely as a concept. All numbers are concepts, but all real numbers have an actual physical value they are associated with that can be observed and measured according to said concepts. Like another person mentioned, you can have 2 apples, and know for a fact that there is more than 1 apple and less than 3. You can't have 2i apples, because imaginary apples don't exist anywhere outside the mind.
@@camerapasteurize7215 Yes, but you also can't have -2 apples, so are negative numbers imaginary? You can't have pi apples, so is pi imaginary? (Though you CAN have apple pie, which is absolutely not imaginary and is delicious.) So negative numbers don't exist outside the mind either. Nor do lots of other types of number. In fact, the only numbers that have true concrete meaning in the real world are, as mentioned, counting numbers (that is to say, integers greater than zero). Everything else is a construct of logic.
That's not a great response. All his arguments are in fact him attempting to prove his position. He's just unaware that all his arguments are bad arguments. But it wasn't for lack of trying to present arguments that prove his position, it's just that he's not aware of the mistake each argument makes. (Though if he reads comments then he'll have read my explanation of why each is wrong, in a comment I wrote a couple days ago)
@@fwwryh7862 Sorry did you ignore my point? * the author was _trying_ to prove his position. * the author probably _believes_ he's done that. * his arguments are bad, so he _hasn't_ proven it, which is why the distinction I've described matters. Ironically by ignoring the distinction I made you've illustrated exactly the need for the clarity I'm recommending * I made a fairly clear point * you completely missed it because it was me disagreeing with you * that's the point! The point is those people are going to ignore you if you aren't extremely clear about why they're wrong. They think they've already done what you've asked, and so if you don't explain to them why their arguments have failed to prove their position they're going to just bounce away from the conversation and ignore you (exactly like you ignored me).
Proof cannot exist by the rules of the Christian God. It is known that you need faith to go to heaven, but if there is concrete, indisputable proof, faith would not be needed to beleve in the existence of God. Evidence and argument is the farthest we can get to proof. TLDR: Proof of God would create a paradox in which the rules of Christianity say that proof cannot exist. If that all made sense.
@@Ihatedropshippers..__.__.._..6 Well you agree that if Gary tells you leprechauns have _identical_ "rules" to them (Gary says we must only believe in leprechauns by faith, and that's why we don't have evidence of them), we still shouldn't believe in leprechauns, right? The most unprovable an idea is defined, the _less likely_ we should be to believe that idea. So anyone telling you a god exists with the rules you've described is really just trying to sucker you into believing a bad idea.
Since you wanted to give everyone a brief overview of these arguments so they can look into them on their own, allow me to provide brief rebuttals so everyone can look into those too. 1. Teleological - "Seems to have" is not an argument, and in order to claim that the constants have been fine-tuned, you need to know two things: how many values the constant could have had, and the odds of those values occurring. For example, we know that the odds of rolling a six-sided die and getting a four are 1:6. We know this because we know how many sides there are (6), and we know the values of those sides (1,2,3,4,5,6). To say that the gravitational constant was fine tuned, you need to know how many sides that dice had, and the values on each side. Did it have a 1 in 1000000000 chance of being what it is? Or 1 in 1000? What about 1 in 50? Could it be that the gravitational constant could only ever have one value, which means it was 100% certain that it would we what it is? I don't know. No one knows. And BECAUSE no one knows, there is no justification for claiming that anything has been fine-tuned. Also, evolution explains the diversity of life on Earth. Given that the gravitational constant is not a form of life, OF COURSE evolution doesn't explain it. Evolution has nothing to do with it. That's not a problem any more than my printer not making me waffles is a problem. The purpose of a printer is to print. The purpose of the theory of evolution is to explain the diversity of life. 2. Pascal's Wager - Maybe a god exists that rewards atheists with cupcakes and sends a Christian boys named Thomas to hell, which is a completely dry waterpark. Maybe a god exists that sends EVERYONE to heaven because he's not a maniac. Maybe the ancient Norse gods are real, and modern day theists are in for a rude awakening when they die. There are an infinite number of possible Gods, possible Heavens, possible Hells, and possible reasons for going to any of them. Believers are not mathematically safer than anyone else. Pascal's Wager also assumes that God doesn't dinstinguish between true believers and "Just covering my ass" believers. 3. Cosmological - Everything has a cause except this thing that doesn't have a cause. It's self-contradictory on its face. The moment you allow for ONE thing that can exist without a beginning, you've opened the door for any number of things existing without a beginning. And I can provide two options that require fewer assumptions than God: the universe, and existence. It also assumes that causality predates time as it exists today. Since causality is a function of time as it exists today, and time as it exists today is the result of the Big Bang, it's absurd to assume that causality applies *before* the Big Bang, or if there even *was* a "before" at all. The Cosmological argument is an attempt to dumb down an enormously complex question. The tools we have for explaining why the universe is the way it is work wonderfully until you hit the Big Bang, at which point they become useless, like a compass at the North Pole. That doesn't mean the answer is "God did it." It means "We don't know yet, but we're working on it." 4. Morality - "If we want to say that something is objectively bad, we need a God to justify that, therefor God exists"? This isn't even an argument. It doesn't demonstrate that objective morality (and therefor God) actually exists - it only says that IF objective morality exists, it must come from a God. Until that "IF" can be proven true, this is a big pile of nothing. 5. Ontological - Do me a favor. Go look up the logical syllogism form of this argument, replace every instance of "God" with "He-man," then tell me how the argument *doesn't* prove the existence of He-man. The Ontological argument is an attempt to define God into existence, and unfortunately for God, that's not how existence works. 6. Transcendental Argument - "Science needs axioms" says the theist while wearing their fancy "God Exists" axiom hat. We both rely on baseline assumptions. The difference is we can test our assumptions. Theists can't. 7. Consciousness - Has only ever been observed in living things with functioning brains. We know that altering a brain can alter consciousness; we know that damaging a brain can damage consciousness; and we know that destroying a brain destroys consciousness. If one wants to posit the existence of some hidden explanatory mechanic, they need to pony up the evidence. 8. Mathematics - The reason math still works is because **math is manmade**. It is a tool that we created to help explain the world around us. There's nothing surprising here.
I really can’t take this comment seriously, it just OOZES “take that!” Energy. The amount of spite in these ‘brief’ rebuttals is palpable. Take a quick note, you’re not fighting a war on theism. You’re discussing philosophical arguments on the internet, and most of these debates can’t reach an answer. If you really cared to discuss these topics earnestly, I’m sure you wouldn’t format these topics to be as mean-spirited as possible towards a specific group of people. If I believed in any sort of god, you sure as hell wouldn’t convince me of anything
@@kitchen_sponge First off, I'm a big fan of the scare quotes around "brief." It's a good way to let the viewers of this 10+ minute video that an extra 90 seconds of reading is just plain unreasonable. The only thing I'm waging a war on is bad arguments. People believing in God doesn't bother me, but people trying to dress that belief up in big boy clothes and insist that they should get to sit at the adult table this Thanksgiving do. The only group of people I'm attacking here are those putting high heels on their arguments and insisting that they're tall.
I agree, and i have a bit more to see about the responses saying "We don't know". "We don't know" is a perfectly valid response. But an even better one (imo) is "We don't know YET". 2500 years ago, we had no way to explain how waves existed and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later, so they had to explain it with god. Now, physics has an answer with fluid equations and physics. 500 years ago, we had no idea how life appeared, and how there were so many different forms of life and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later, so they had to explain it with god. Now, with evolution, science has an answer too. 100 years ago, we had no way to explain how life appeared from earth and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later, so they had to explain it with god. Now, we still don't have a perfect answer, but we start to understand how. (Do you start to see the pattern ?) 100 years ago, we also had no way to explain how the universe formed and couldn't imagine that we will have an answer later. So they had to explain it with god. Now, the big-bang kinda explains it (but not fully). Right now, we have no way of explaining how conciousness exists and we can't imagine that we will have an answer later, so "we have to explain it with god". But how can we be so sure that for this, we won't have an answer in 50, 100 or even 500 years ? Why would we do the same mistakes thinking that now, for conciousness, we will never have an answer and continue to explain it with god ?
Half of the arguments reduce to: I can't explain/understand this phenomenon: Let's infer something which theoretically doesn't directly contradict the things we know, but practically we have no evidence for.
@@adrian_ad god literally has to speak to a lot of people in the bible to properly convince them to do it's biding, as an omniscient being, he knows that speaking with one of his subjects or revealing himself will lead them towards a specific path, which is not free will
@@User-lo6sx No anime is biased on old american rubber hose cartoons that were brought over after the war, but was adapted into Japanese culture and arts to get the final form you see today.
Anime destroyed japanese culture and turned a nation of tradition into a nation of people locked in their apartments getting off to the most horrific things. SAVE JAPAN.
The biggest problem for all of these is that none of them are based on observable, real evidence, just logical fallacies. A completely objective person who bases their “belief” on all currently available evidence would have to say “I don’t know and nobody will know for a while, maybe never”.
Of course we don't know, but we can look at the evidence available to steer us in the best possible direction, like we have done through all of human history, for everything.
@@PSNanonimousplayer To ask for proof from empirical evidence is a contradiction in terms. Regardless, the accuracy of prediction models based on empirical evidence is proof of it's success. It would be a an incredible coincidence if we'd figured out things like electricity or the movement of celestial bodies by nothing else but sheer luck using a flawed system to understand the world. No, even if you're yearning for something absolute. Empirical evidence is the best we have. Throwing darts at a board of religions (and its many denominations) is rather unlikely to give the right answer. Even from a believers perspective you'd have to ask. How do so many others get it wrong? Any god we find is unlikely to be yours.
logical fallacies are objective not all evidence is is physical for example show me gravity not the effects of it but gravity itself? you can't? i guess that means gravity doesn't exist.
I think one of the best arguments for God's existence is the fine-tuning of the universe Edit: Wow, this is the most likes I have ever gotten, thanks guys
@@denkillen suppose 50 universes with different random laws of physics and one of them happens to be able to support life this would seem like fine-tuning to the creatures but be a product of random outcome
@@roode2123 1) the multiverse hypothesis is literal science fiction with no evidence whatsoever 2) if you still want to argue the multiverse hypothesis, this does not actually refute the fine tuning argument since it just pushing the question back as the "universe generator" that is producing these infinite universes must be even more fine tuned to do what it does
@@JesusOrDestruction Yes, his channel really gained a lot of popularity with the "History of the entire church, i guess...", which is ased off of Bill Wurtz' video.
Pascal's Wager: If you forward this email to 10 people you will have good luck. If you don't then you will have bad luck. Gullible idiots who send the emails: Well what do i have to lose..?
@@ZeptoBit_ it's not about him making these arguments but rather the fact he can't say science doesn't disprove God and then turn already and imply that the argument "science proves god" is a valid argument.
@@AVRGWIBWTHACN Because the arguments he is describing do not take that into account. He says in other videos that science can neither prove nor disprove God.
Just wanted to mention that imaginary numbers are very real in the physics of electricity and magnetism. Look up the explanation of apparent power which has a “real” component called true power and an “imaginary” component called reactive power. Reactive power is very real and measurable, and so-called imaginary numbers are the way we describe its existence.
@@freshbakedclips4659 I mean real numbers, digits and equations also don't "exist". They're something that people made up to make it easier to describe and analyze things from the real world. It's just that we're so used to them, that they seem like something that the world can't exist without.
@@Quincy_MorrisBut you also can't show me π apples, or √2 apples, because the number of cells in an apple is not divisible by √2 or π (as they're irrational). By that logic, irrational numbers also don't exist, not just imaginary ones. You can't show me -1 apples either. You can't divide an apple among one and a half people, because "one and a half people" isn't a thing. You can't define the existence of these concepts, they're just a made up abstraction in our minds that let us better describe the world around us. Examples where imaginary numbers (or any abstract concept) doesn't make sense aren't useful and don't prove anything.
@@kiroshakir7935 Cosmo is also interesting 😋 And clearly, I don't find tag (or any) arguments convincing, but some are definitely more interesting than others. I made a separate post where I (subjectively) rank how compelling these arguments are...
if multiple eyewitnesses to supernatural events of different faiths became martyrs for their faiths, does the one with more martyrs have a greater argument for legitimacy or how does it work?
pascal's wager is dumb, why would you choose to follow that one god if it means the certainty of going to hell in every other religion if you are wrong? just take the chance and dont believe in any gods and you will end up in purgatory in most
Pascal’s Wager is a common argument for religion: it goes something like this. If God is real, believing in him would grant you an eternal reward, and not doing so would give you an infinite punishment. If God is not real, believing in him would grant you no reward nor any punishment, and not doing so would give you no reward nor any punishment. As we can see, Believing in God does not have any infinite drawbacks if He doesn’t exist, and an infinite reward if He does. Not believing in God does not have any infinite drawbacks if He doesn’t exist, but an infinite punishment if He does. Therefore, believing in God is the most rational choice. Now this is perhaps the most criticised argument for God’s existed, and many consider it idiotic. I’ll try to defend it. First alleged problem: What if you have the wrong God? There are thousands of gods, and if you believe in the wrong one, you might still go to hell. Refutation: there are just two major religions that teach that the punishment for disbelief is eternal torment, Christianity and Islam. The only thing that would be necessary to refute this claim then is an argument as to why Christianity is a more rational choice than Islam: I’ll give two very brief arguments: DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to make an argument for Christianity being the absolute truth, but simply for it being more likely that Islam. Argument one: Jesus’ disciples claimed that they saw Jesus resurrected, and we have evidence that they suffered a lot and gained nothing worldly from these claims. These people were either deceivers, deceived, or telling the truth. Why would they lie about a thing which gained them nothing and cost them everything? Mass hallucinations at that size are incredibly unlikely and that would be a miracle in and of itself. If they told the truth, and they did see Jesus’ resurrection, Christianity must be true. Argument two: Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies in His lifetime. All these prophecies refer to the messiah. If He fulfilled these prophecies, He is likely the messiah. Here is a list of just 44 Arguments against Islam: DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to make an argument for Islam to be absolutely false, but simply for it being less likely than Christianity. Islam holds that the Quran is the complete, eternal and literal word of God. Since God is perfect, the Quran would have to also be perfect and full of errors. Yet here we have a list of more than thirty errors in the book. Islam also claims that Jesus claimed to just be a prophet and that He never called Himself the Son of God. And yet we have no source about Jesus that doesn’t call Him the Son of God before the second century. This is enough evidence to prove that the Quran is wrong about who Jesus claimed to be. Second alleged problem (with Pascal’s Wager): One cannot choose to believe in something. Belief is not a choice. Refutation: While belief is not a choice, actions are. One can go to church, pray, read the Bible, read writings by theologians and apologists, study the arguments for God’s existence, and the list goes on. Through these things, if God exists, you would eventually be led to Him. And even if that doesn’t work, the risk of eternal punishment and the reward of eternal life is worth a try.
@@jamalalfred6302how do we know that this actually happened? ancient historians are famously unreliable and the stories surrounding jesus could have been distorted and exaggerated countless times in the last 2000 years
It’s not even the correct equation. The correct one is e^(i*theta)=cos(theta)+i*sin(theta) At theta=pi (halfway around a circle) you get e^(i*pi)=-1 I went into more detail (along with arguing for tau as the correct choice of circle constant) in my own comment.
@@Shettykettyofbettys That response is postmodernist relativism, in a nutshell. "If it exists beyond human experience, well then it just doesnt actually exist, because I dictate reality."
I like this video, made me happy because I know arguments for Gods existence but couldn't quite categorise them, so I could study it and understand it more deeply ❤
6:59 I've thought about this and it turns out colors are just wavelengths of light hitting our eyes, so for example, if we put a lot of people in a room with a wavelength "red", they would all say red (unless they're colorblind). But they might PERCEIVE it as someone else would perceive green
There is an argument that was really compelling during my conversion and that I would like to add to this. French Mathematician and Philosopher Blaise Pascal said "There is a God-shaped vacuum in the heart of each man which cannot be satisfied by any created thing but only by God the Creator..." The structure for religion is within all of us. If we don't fill that with God, we'll fill it with something else, but the structure is the same. It involves some kind of salvation, hell, and saints, as figures that illustrate different aspects of greatness. Many make their careers, hobbies, relationships, or worse, vices, into their quasi-religion, with precisely those characteristics. But those can never lead to proper fulfillment. As for me, I spent a long time trying to find a replacement for religion before I decided to look into the real thing. And then, as Chesterton said, after going around the world, I found that home was right there beside me, all along (having been baptized early and schooled in Catholic schools). Edit: For some reason, RU-vid isn't registering my replies to the people below, so here's how I'd expand on the topic There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure. And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place. But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you eventually find God!
1) how do you know other avenues can't lead to fulfillment, you got evidence? 2) how do you figure out which religion is true. They could all fill the void, but they can't all be correct.
The argument for a god-shaped hole in us has overwhelming evidence in its favor out there. Every civilization, from mesopotamia to ancient Greeks, from Romans to modern states have had religion as part of its social structure. And once religion was in decline, Nietzsche claimed that we had killed God... But more importantly, he then asked: and what shall we put in Its place? You only need to replace something if there's an inherent need for it in the first place. Thence a god-shaped hole. But hey, if you're not convinced, that's fine. Many great philosophers and every great civilization before you have been, and that's more than enough for me.
@@PvlmVIsHere There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure. And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place. But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you find God eventually!
@PvlmVIsHere There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure. And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place. But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you find God eventually!
Imaginary numbers do actually correspond to stuff in the real world, basically there's this thing called the laplace transform which is used to model the response of systems in a time-independent manner, and imaginary numbers represent oscillatory responses, and if you didn't have them you couldn't describe a simple pendulum with laplace. Also there's an imaginary number in the Shrödinger equation which is literally fundamental to the universe.
Well, yes and no. You will never find a property of a real particle with an imaginary number. Laplace transforms are applied math. Certainly the technique is useful, but that's not the same as physically real. No physical thing exists in the Laplace domain. Usually the example people use is the Navier-Stokes equation, which at least describes real fluids, but which is also a mathematically convenient approximation rather than a description of the underlying reality.
@@fluffysheap Well it's only not a "property of a real particle" if you consider every instance of time as separate to every other one. Sure it also requires infinite time but that's just a formality, and a realisable continuously decaying oscillation of a particle is still modelled with a complex number in the s-space. No physical thing exists in the Laplace domain, but only in the sense that no physical thing has velocity either. You can measure the position of something at two points in time, but you then need to mathematically derive velocity. Derivatives don't really exist but you can still see that things are moving faster than other things, just like how you can see that a thing is oscillating.
@@fluffysheap I would use the normal example of electrical circuits (also kinda linked to laplace) since inductors and capacitors do have a complex modellation to them, to compensate some "blndpower" (really cant do this stuff in english lmao). The same you apply to complex numbers could also be applied to other mathematical models tho. Nothing we ever calculate, be it real or complex numbers, is completely grounded in real life. Its all just observatiuosn, and then building formulas that give you a clear approximation how the model works. Even the maxwell equations were changed a few years ago, bc a missing factor was just found to be calculated. (current dissipation). We use math to calculate what we observe. That isnt a proof, nor a disproof for a divinie deity. If our modesl wouldnt work, we would have come up with other working models until now.
Although I'm a Christian, I agree. There's way better physics curiosities to use to prove God is real, or at least make God seem less outlandish than what he said. The top minds in physics when asked why is there an abundance of matter: "It's probably not God but we're not sure."(paraphrasing(and quoting upisnotjump)) Then you get into how casualty can work backwards and then... ugh, headaches. Humans can't even fully understand how a bike works but some fedora wearing r/atheist tub of lard is confident that God isn't real.
@@Blundabus1337 Atheists are only as confident that God isn't real as you are that Bigfoot isn't. It's impossible to verify his existence, somebody somewhere will probably testify to have seen or experienced him, but there's no reproducible reliable evidence pointing to his existence, so nothing close to enough to conclude. Hence it's a matter of faith. The fact that science is confusing is not evidence for God's existence. Of course it's confusing if you're just plopped into existence and need to try and figure out wtf is going on and why we're here and how the entire universe works. It's no small feat. But that doesn't mean it requires God. "Casualty (sic) can work backwards"? Do go on. Or... don't. Because now it seems like you're yapping. Better to only speak on what you have some good knowledge on, rather than what gives you headaches.
I'm watching it right now eating breakfast. Truly effortless. I cringed hard at how confident Redeemed Zoomer sounds, or tries to sound trying to prove the bible doesn't support slavery 🥴
i think the math one is the easiest to debunk. in my opinion the best one is the personal experience one as no one can really tell you you didnt experience something, and religion is all about finding your own purpose in life.
@@energeticgorilla Agreed, but at the same time, someone who's personal experience contradicts the Christian view of God (maybe someone who feels a loving god can't exist because of their own unanswered prayers or requests for a sign) could use their experience as just as strong of an argument against religion. So, like Zoomer said, personal experience is really useless to everyone except your own self. Maybe even to your own self because one of those people's experiences has to be wrong.
Thank yo for uploading these type of videos. They really help keep me learn more about my faith and inspire me to keep myself in the word as well. God bless you!
