Good quote from Matt: "If the police, if the courts, if scientists, tried to operate on the evidential standards that theistic apologists are trying to use, I think the world would end." Matt does not mean end in a literal sense, of course, but that we would be living in a dark, dark place.
@Robert Kelly Praise the Doomslayer, who delivers us from doom. May the blood on his sword never dry, and may we never need him again - Paraphrased from Corrax Entry 7:17
@Robert Kelly Idk, the Doomslayer's fought hell across multiple ages and dimensions. I'd say my guy takes yours and all his friends in two rounds, tops. Wanna make a bet on it? I got maybe $20 to my name I could bet.
I still love it when someone asks what it would take for me to believe a god exists. I just use Dillahunty's razor: "What would it take? I don't know, but a God would" 🙂
It’s a clever response but it gives the (justifiable) impression that one is trying to avoid a straight answer. I go with scientific consensus. The evidence must be sufficient for scientists to do testing, research and write scientific papers. When god gets accepted as real by the vast majority of the scientific community.then I’ll accept it too. Useless to present the evidence to me. I have no tools to adequately investigate them, no expertise that might be needed and we know very well that human senses are very limited and fallible. The very question “what it would take to convince YOU” reeks of the con artist trying to find the weak spot of the victim.
The only useful thing Stuart said during this "debate" was that his evidence boils down to personal feelings. That's honest, and answers the question of the debate topic. Also, if he would've just come out and said it, we would all have saved a lot of time.
and i really do think that all this believing in a god thing can be boiled down to personal feelings. emotions. or some psychological reasons. theists like to say ''well you just do not want god to be there''. no, i say, it is you who want there to be god.
@@donatas85d yes you're correct. But in my case I really don't want any of the proposed gods to be real. I don't think they are but why would anyone want anything to do with a psychopath like the god described in the bible? Why do people even want to worship a monster like that? Isn't it pretty obvious that the majority must do just that because of fear? I fail to see where the love is 😊
@@donatas85dyea. I'm no expert in any way. But when I have read the bible, God seems to be anything but a loving god. Genocide, cheating, lying, instructions how you can beat your slave as long as he don't die in a couple of days, marrying your rape victim, take virgins as war trophies and the list goes on and on... The apologists always find a loophole for gods cruelty. God makes the devil himself look like a choir boy
So many times, I've been watching "The AXP" and wondered, "does this caller understand the meaning of the word evidence?". I think a lot of this mis-understanding comes from the fact that people hear (over, and over, and over again) preachers telling them, "x is evidence for god". I think this has led to a diminished understanding of the definition of evidence.
Or... OR.... algorithm sez "hmm. he watched a thing with words in the title. THIS thing, by guy in that thing...has many same words as other title. wonder if that would interest him too?" otoh, Matt IS a magician. soooo....
To be clear my comment is a joke. But it has nothing to do with the algorithm, because the coincidental part is the fact that Matt chose to upload the video when he did, not that it was presented to me.
@@geraldtoaster8541 Off the top: love your nick. HUGE fan of toast. so 1. thing happened...and got posted 2. guy who does those things, then talks about them and posts it...did that ...in, pretty much, the order these things occur along the why axis ... Your OP joke: cool. More joking: also cool. But I'm just snarking. Not cool. I was about to pre-edit-by-not-posting. Skip the comment. But... *The Why Axis* That's got legs. Simon Sinek... And, maybe, justifies posting the initial snark. Yours was very apt, tho. "Look! A sequence of events! Evidence of x. All Praise X!"
(cuz X probably planned it out that way. Cuz, like it sez right here, X is wise and powerful and awesome and does stuff like that. So THAT...proves X... X is just being SO X-like when THAT)
Matt - thank you so much for helping me find my way out of religion. I was indoctrinated for such a long time as a "born again christian" and realized my beliefs and faith just didn't feel right no more as there was no truth to them nor any proof or evidence. I was completely brainwashed. I see all the damage it has caused. I've listened to you for at least a good 1.5 years and I thank you. Keep up the good work. I look forward to many more years of your show, especially the modern day debates. PS - Have you ever heard of the "team jesus preachers" on RU-vid? They're down in Florida and I leave comments on their videos all the time telling them to debate you. All they do is go around and "preach" and assert claims without any proof. It's sickening. Stay safe Matt and thank you for all that you do.
What? What evidence are you looking for? Strong evidence?? Lol. A third of the Bible is prophecy. That’s empirical evidence of God. You are testing a single Source God over and over again using secular accounts in history. You test it happening right now! Research and look.
@Robert Kelly the god of Islam which is allah is satan muhammad was demon possessed, u need a savior ur good works wont mean nothing on judgement day were saved by grace not works u can never be good enough for a Holy perfect infinite God, your basically saying your good deeds are good enough for God u are in for a stock if u don't repent of your sins I tell u because I care, Jesus Christ is the savior of the world that is the truth that is the gospel.
@Robert Kelly God cannot sin God is perfect God would not deceive u/us yet he deceived every in saying I made it look like Jesus on the cross but Jesus really ascended into heaven. Ur god of Islam is satan who is the master deceiver.
@Robert Kelly sura 4:34 so u believe it's ok to hit/strike your wife? And ur great profit we a sick perverted horrible human being who was getting revaluations from satan, he married a 9 year old had many many sexual partners this is proven fact I'm sorry u need to repent become born again and accept Jesus Christ who is God as your savior I tell u because I care u still have time.
Pascal’s Wager for theists. I should start a food delivery service. I would hire priests, ministers, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, clergy plus many, religions to pray over the food. This makes saying grace unnecessary, saving you valuable time. But it also means that if you believe in the wrong god the food has been blessed by the right god. The name of the company could be “Pre-prayed Food”. Details to work out: Would the Jewish clergy bless non-kosher? Would the Hindu clergy bless beef? Plus any other issues. No problem. Gold-level service... blessed by all clergy. (higher rates apply) Silver-level... A small number withhold blessing. (still a good deal). Bronze-level a large number withhold blessing. (minimum protection for you, but better than the alternative). Different charges for different levels
Oh man this has me rolling on the floor! Once you started naming the different prayer levels I fucking laughed out loud. I need this argument on a shirt or a poster at least.
@@phileas007 Interesting. I would have to have marketing look at it. How large is this market? Most people would not order pre-cursed food for themselves. So we are talking about a gift basket for someone else,... A mother in law perhaps? Care would have to be taken. We would not want to mix pre-prayed food with pre-cursed food.Publicity and lawsuits would not be so good so strict quality control would have to be in place. Maybe a different factory at a different location. Set up a separate company (wholly owned / holy owned) After all faith in our product is everything.
As a psychology geek, I found it deeply troubling that he was a practicing unlicensed psychotherapist. Nice guy he may be, but there's potential for massive harm when you don't know what you're doing. Or worse, if you know what you're doing and try to spread your invisible skydaddy beliefs during therapy sessions.
This can be very harmful. When people with real mental health problems are told there's a "spiritual" cause for their problems they can end up neglecting the help they actually need. Christian counsellors have been known to tell patients to quit medication.
Watch out for faulty semantics :) I have something and I call it evidence so it is a fact! You mean, evidence is one or more facts that point to the same conclusion. That last bit is also important.
So, Matt prepares for explaining 'strong evidence' only to find out he should have prepared for 'evidence'. Once more, Matt was overestimated the theist's capabilities.
Chance is better explained through probabilities. There are several businesses that are based on probabilities and their affects. Casinos & book makers are just 2 of these, Insurance companies are another. I had a friend who is a regular gambler & I explained to him that it is only gambling to the punter, the house or bookies are running a business. They know that on probabilities x amount of people will win at a particular game (bet) & adjust the odds accordingly. What a better way to advertise gambling than to actively promote the winners & keep the punters betting for another win. The house know from probabilities that someone will win, they know their costs & how much the minimum profit they will make from the stakes. They do not know who will win, that is basically random chance (a predicted probability) or luck. If you have a good understanding of probabilities you can lower the odds in your favour to be that winner in some games . In some of the card games probabilities & risks are high for the house with some famous outcomes. Maybe this is why the casinos now sell the rights to television & take themselves out of the game & out of the risk. I used to work for a car Insurance company & their whole advance budget for the up coming year for costs and premiums are all based on probabilities & statistics. They know the accident rate from several years of statistics & know that on average there will be an approximate incident rate of 1 to 10 or 10 accidents per 100 policies. From statistics they know the probability of a particular accident rate for category like the sex & age of a driver, type of vehicle & even if your car is modified. They also build a fraud component into each premium as they there will be some fraud they do not or cannot pick up as hard as they try. Even this they know from probabilities. The universe is just 1 big probability. The fine tuning is better looked from the prospective of if they were different the universe would not have evolved the way it did. It is like the earth, some people say that it is perfect for our life form & if the atmosphere was slightly different we could not survive & that show that god must have made this. But it is the other way around. The reason we were able to be here is because we evolved in this atmosphere & evolved to utilise the elements. If they were slightly different so would we be slightly different or another organism would take advantage of the different ecosystem.
When it comes to evidence about god, I'm surprised that believers haven't worked out their argument better. I mean, for them it's the most important belief in their entire lives- for eternity. For me as a non-believer, whether or not a god exists is about fiftieth on my list of important things I think about. To me that seems to raise the expectations that the believer will have a good argument.
It's so important to them but a lot of Christians haven't read the Bible, so they end up only knowing what they are taught in Sunday school or what they hear in sermons, the "good/sanitzed" parts of the Bible.
Matt, could I write some intro music for you that you could use if you cared to on your personal channel and or on The Atheist Experience? If so, let me know where to send the audio files! Keep up the good work🤘
I suppose a major factor to consider when Christians present evidence, is that their position makes it probable that they have bias that they don't even see as bias. I don't know how often we get "look at the trees" presented these days, but that's one that shows an amazing lack of awareness of that bias. I'm a tad surprised that the debate on Pascal's wager is planned. It doesn't sound like a sound argument to debate, but good luck making some useful talking points about it.
We all have bias. That's the very reason we debate. The issue is we also hold our views with tenacity and don't easily give them up. And the Christian feels he has much more to lose and much more to fest than the atheist.
I see it as a slightly different problem, they have placed themselves mentally into the position that their belief is supposed to be the default one.. and any deviation from it must be justified and explained. I get this all the time, being asked to justify my lack in belief, and am constantly given a blank look when I explain to them, well.. nobody has really laid out a reason for me to believe in a god. There exists a mental block in alot of people when it comes to viewing anything that exists outside of their own personal mindset.
@@daithiocinnsealach1982 Of course we all have bias. My point was that a lack of awareness of our own bias can lead to very shoddy thinking. And results in some very awkward conversations.
@@cnault3244 They can say their pastor told them that God exists. They can say it's what their bible teaches. They present evidence. It just isn't what we would consider strong, or convincing evidence. I don't like to overstate such claims because giving Christians ammunition to accuse atheists of being unreasonable is something I try to avoid.
Saw the debate and loved it. Stuart seems like an honest conversation partner. Wondering what Shannon would think about some of the psychotherapy opinions that he expressed. I have no qualifications in the topic so I'd love to hear a qualified individual's opinion.
Matt, when you define "evidence" as "facts that support a position", don't forget to define what "support" means. Because that is the hard part that most people struggle with. "Supports" does not mean "is consistent with". It means "is exclusively consistent with", or even better "is predicted by".
That debate today (The slavery debate Matt mentions at the end of the vid) was terrible for Cliffe. Staurt seems to be more level-headed than his father, but watching them debate Aron before I knew that debate wasn't going anywhere really. Matt, you made a ton of good points and they (Cliffe especially) dodged a ton of questions and I was really disappointed by their case. TL;DR Good job in the debate Matt
Um. I disagree about admissible being a good test of evidence. Admissibility doesn’t just speak to reliability, it also speaks to a proper use of a court’s limited time, as well as Constitutional issues. Perhaps it might be more accurate that one should use a bar to the consideration of evidence similar to that used by a court. A court is an artificial bubble, where evidence is presented in a particular way under specific rules that point to specific, predetermined conclusions. A court doesn’t follow the evidence where it leads.
In science, we define evidence as fact that supports (or does not support) a predictive model built from a set of specific definitions. Now, you will never get a theist to specifically define their deity in a qualitative enough way that it forms a predictive model, and you can't get a beLIEver to test the model (they would have to start at a null hypothesis). This (in science) is what we call "a dishonest methodology".
I would drill down even further on evidence and say that it's "observations (that are hopefully repeatable) that are consistent with a given hypothesis being true." I hesitate to use the word "fact" in application to the concept of evidence because so much evidence relies on logical contingency, or a certain level of presupposition. Is that "strong evidence"? I don't know. I'm going to have to think about this more.
Well, would be a pretty americanized version of it. Knecht is a german word meaning servant, which is kinda fitting if you ask me =P translate.google.com/?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&text=knecht&op=translate There if you wanna know how that would be spoken.
I just thought of a question for you. I have been a huge fan for about 15 years! I listen to the Athiest Experience every Sunday, so maybe you could answer this on the show! It would be an honor! What's your opinion on the fact that Evangelicals supported Trump vs Biden actually being a devout Catholic? Does Trump even go to church? Biden goes to church as a Catholic. How will the Evangelicals deal with this? And why would Evangelicals follow a guy like Trump anyway?
Kind of late to answer, but he is able to do that on his Wednesday show over at "The hangup" on "the Line" channel. the atheist experience is a non-profit org, it is best to stay away from politics on that show. but "the hangup" is free from that limit.
Matt often says he doesn't know what would convince him of the existence of God, but that if there is a god, it should know what it would take. Since this hasn't happened, God either doesn't want Matt to know or doesn't care if he does or not. Either way, it's all on God. This is a good thing to tell proselytizing loved ones who are trying to convince you of their god as it takes the responsibility for your conversion off them and puts it on their god. I contend, however, that there is no way to definitively convince me (or anyone) that an all-powerful/knowing/loving/eternal/perfect entity exists because I would have to be all of these things, myself, in order to verify the claim. How could I, a mere mortal, tell if someone was all-(insert characteristic)? I would have to be all of those things, myself to verify it, right? What if it's just a technologically advanced alien with a thousand year life span? A person uneducated in the tenets of logic might be fooled into believing, but those who have such education would be much better able to deny such attempts.
I know it's terrible but I don't watch the debates anymore, I've never seen an original thought out of a theist, It's always something I've heard over and over.... So i just go listen to Matt's review... because My mind numbs at the thought of one more fine tuning argument.
I do think it is important to note that most if not all of the election lawsuits were dismissed on procedural grounds. Nothing made it to court to be ruled on the merits. I'm not saying what happened one way or another just pointing it out.
Sure, but a number of judges went out of their way to note in their opinions that even if the cases made it past procedure, they would have been laughed out of court anyway because the "evidence" was just that bad.
@@TheZooCrew I won’t agree or disagree with the voracity of any evidence but these cases should have gone to trial regardless of standing. As it stands now you have half the country thinking the election was stolen, Regardless of anything else.
@@Seafaringslinky It's way less than half the country, and all of them would think the election was stolen regardless. That's how cults work. They don't think of the cases that were indeed dismissed on the paucity of evidence any differently than the cases that were dismissed on procedure. "Regardless of standing" what a joke. Might as well serve on Trump's legal team with that reasoning.
@@TheZooCrew half the country is more of turn of phrase and isn’t meant to be taken literally. I think you are wrong though, there are a lot of cultish trump supports sure but I think we need to make sure the line is drawn that not all of them are like that. And yes, the cases should have gone to trial. Maybe not all of them I will concede that point, but some of them should have. Dismissing cases which have the country so polarized without getting to any evidentiary hearings does a huge disservice to everybody. You have trump supporters who think there’s an even bigger conspiracy now. If the evidence was so weak and it went to some trials then it would be on the record and maybe we could be over all this. But alas no that isn’t the world we live in. I ain’t trying to argue I’m just trying to explain how I think these people are thinking/feeling.
@@Seafaringslinky Some of them DID go to trial and WERE dismissed because the evidence was a joke. Did that change anyone's mind? Sure doesn't seem that way. The whole conspiracy was based on a lie anyway...and if repeated hand-counts by a number of states and the crazy phone call from Trump to Brad Raffensperger didn't end the wailing, then I doubt anything will. Obama releasing his birth certificate didn't silence the birther movement, so why would marching past established legal processes (I don't think you understand how the law works at all) to hear sham cases make a difference?
America might be split between Red and Blue, but you all seem pretty united behind the red, white and blue. Patriotic, fist-on-heart, flag-worship isn't a good look.
The description Matt gave of body of evidence, and then applied to conspiracy theorists was amazing. It is what creationists always accuse 'evolutionists',(their word) , of doing. Saying that it is just lines on paper. It immediately shows they've no understanding of the facts of the theory. Iol.👍🥰💞✌😷🎃
I like Stuart. While I don't think he has a good reason to believe what he believes, he's a nice, easy-going guy who actually seems to (most of the time) listen to what the person he's talking to is saying. His father on the other hand.. 😣
4:28 "Everybody accepts it now" Technically every point in a coordinate system is an equally valid point for the origin of another coordinate system. In consequence any static or continuously moving point in any coordinate system is also an equally valid point for the origin of another coordinate system. Therefore both oppinions are correct: The earth is orbiting the sun and the sun is orbiting the earth - both with imperfect circles. Also every other (continuously moving) point in the universe is orbited by both, the sun and the earth. If any point should be preferred, in my opinion it were the barycentrum of the solar system.
@Oners82 With 'imperfect circles' i meant 'roughly elliptic with spiraling edge'. Although an exact elliptic shape is possible under specific circumstances, our sun and earth actually don't match that circumstances for neither object. I don't think it's that nitpicky, because as long as you don't have an argument why one view (=essentially an origin point of a coordinate system) should be preferred over another, stating that the earth rotates around the sun is as correct (or wrong) as to state it's the other way around. Also i did define a reference frame with said 'continuously moving point', because that point is located "in any coordinate system". No matter which coordinate system you choose, it provides one point of orgin and three linearly independent directions, spanning a three-dimensional space.
@Oners82 " but if you define th earth as being at the centre then the maths to describe it becomes incredibly complex and ugly. It is far simpler and elegant the other way around." I give you, that the error between the modeled location and the real location is smaller, if you use the modern heliocentric model, because the barycenter of the solar system is much nearer to the sun - a good portion of all time even within the surface of the sun. The simpler model is the geocentric model of Claudius Ptolemy with its perfect circular orbits, which made more accurate predictions than the heliocentric model of Nikolaus Kopernikus (and also the heliocentric model of Aristarchus of Samos, which was the reason to abandon the heliocentric model around 141 A.D.). Using ellipses for orbits made the heliocentric model of Johannes Kepler more precise, but also slightly less simple; you could also do the same with the geocentric model as well without getting incredibly complex or ugly, because cycloids are equally complex and ugly as ellipses. (Beside that the helicoentric model description can't be more (or less) complex, because at each point in time both descriptions are a linear transformation away from each other - you only have to replace one coordinate system by another.) === "And your so-called definition is little more than a word salad." Which of the following (or other) points doesn't make sense to you, so you consider that as 'word salad'? 1) You have a three dimensional space S. 2) You have a point A in S. 3) You can choose any coordinate system C within that space. 4) No matter which coordinate system you chose, you call its point of origin the point O. 5) The point A has a unique location L within C. 6) You can move point A (over time) to another location M within C. 7) You could change (your perspective) to a coordinate system C_2 with the point of origin A at all time. 8) Within C_2, the point O moves over time from one location to another.
@Oners82 "I was talking about comparing the simplicity of models that match empirical data," I only seem to be silly and disingenuous, if you ignore your argument (to prefer the helicoentric model over the geocentric model because of simplictity), if you ignore which model replaced which other model and if you also have overread (or ignored) the possible improvement for the older model i gave: In fact, historically, simplicity was not the reason to prefer the newest heliocentric model over the existing geocentric model - it was the higher accuracy of the newer and more complex model. You can reach the same accuracy by using cycloids instead of perfect circles for that geocentric model, which would also be equally complex. Such an improved geocentric model is neither more complex nor less accurate than the heliocentric model we are using today (the same is true vice versa) - so simplicty is definitely no argument to prefer either of those over the other. === "Your definition now makes sense but that isn't what you said before." After rereading i am pretty sure, that i said exactly the same (in more and other words in the later post): Please quote passages of the previous post, that you think i changed or missed in the later post. === "For example if you are defining A to be a point in S then A is already defined to be a unique location in space, so to go on to say that A has a unique location L in that coordinate system is entirely redundant." No, that isn't redundant for multiple reasons; the most obvious: How would we know what L is? A Point and a location (in a coordinate system aka a 'coordinate') can be different things (which should be obvious, given that A is a point with at least two different coordinates - one for each coordinate system). Beside that, i made an intentionally nitpicky (and hopefully complete) list of steps to offer you an easy tool to point out, which step(s) you want to declare to be 'word salad'... .
@Oners82 "My argument about simplicity obviously did NOT apply to empirically falsified models" I'm not sure what your thought process is, but i suspect you either ignore the improved geocentric model i gave, or you can't grasp why i mentioned that model and therefore you seem to believe, that a geocentric model with cycloids instead of perfect circles counts as a falsified model. It isn't, as it produces exactly the same results as the model of Kepler, because it simply computes the same from another viewpoint: The elliptic path of the earth around a nearly central sun (on an own elliptic orbit around the barycenter) viewed from the sun, is a cycloid path of the sun for every observer viewing the same motion from earth.
"can't abide chance"... what about the chance that he chose the wrong god? Just the Mosaic gods alone are exceptionally jealous, vengeful, and petty, if you were to choose the wrong one of them its almost certain you would be punished harshly for all eternity (from their scriptures). That doesn't even include the many thousands of other gods that have been created over the years. The better option to avoid chance would be to not worship any of them, then if you are wrong you could look whatever god in the eye and say you didn't want to risk the "chance" that you would be wrong and piss them off. Then again, what kind of pernicious god would punish "their creation" for seeking the truth and questioning everything to come to that truth even if it lead them away from them? Any GOOD, BENEVOLENT, being would celebrate their "children" seeking knowledge and understanding. The only things that would demand worship, that would insist you don't question anything, are EVIL dictators that get something from your subservience (something an "all powerful" thing would get nothing from).
Hi Matt, I'm not a Steve fan at all, but I do wonder if you will publicly apologize for supporting Kyle Curtis and congratulating him on a win in the court case when it has now been clearly shown that he forged documents and his ex boyfriend is not just a drunk ex like you said he was. It will be the right thing to do for you, you know you supporting Kyle is documented right? that will not age well for you.
Seems interesting to me that you cited a fallacious argument style as justification to why you can't believe people believe in election fraud "x number of errors" but then explain before latter why a similar style for god is wrong, in short how many pervious errors does it take to make future claims untrue? and what bearing does someone making bad argument for a position have on the truth of the position?
Rather than having debates on God's existence, or evidence for God's existence why not debate the evidence showing that the material world is not all there is? I think Matt would benefit from speaking with Dr. Sam Parnia or Dr. Bruce Greyson and might I also recommend to anyone interested in the subject, to read The Science Of Near-Death Experiences by John C. Hagan. I challenge skeptics to really have a look at the compelling evidence for why the materialist worldview is sorely lacking.
You have to feel sorry for theists, they have two things going for them - jack and shit, but are compelled by their beliefs to act if it were otherwise and therefore embarass themselves in public again and again and again.
You could drive from Iowa to the Grand Canyon. Or you could drive from Iowa to California. "Beyond" the GC. But you'd still notice it as you drove by. You might even stop for lunch. Take a picture. Of all the dirt that aint there. So unless he's just flying to L.A. ...
Belief in the existence of God is a metaphysical matter as well as belief in the angels and it is not possible to see God because he is characterized by absolute perfection without deficiency or disruption, and to prove his existence is evident in his creatures and in the greatness of his kingdom You do not see god , but you see his effect in his creatures( living beings ), an example of that electric current. You cannot be certain that you see it in wires, but you see its effect in lighting the lamp
i'll believe you matt if you can equal the writings of either aquinas, teresa of avila or john of the cross. craig doesn't even think that u deserve his attention considering the level of your intellect
William Lane Craig's just salty because his favorite argument for God is nothing more than an equivocation fallacy dressed up so that most lay people can't spot it.
And you lost me at the Trump lawsuits. Here is the difference. Most of the courts refused to allow any evidential proceedings at all as they dismissed them out right. I watch this channel for one reason and by bringing up politics you've lost me as a sub.
Court of law standard strong evidence for Gods existence would be fine for me if I could get it (yeah, IF being the operative word 😀) but what I would really expect from a God who exists is for this being to show themselves to me and everyone one of us face to face. Not to say that they would have to, it's not a demand on my part like "hey God, show yourself to me I command thee" but the question that needs to be asked is why on Earth would a being who would have the power to show themselves to all 7 billion of us at once NOT want to show themselves to us face to face? All these excuses that some theists come up with such as "he doesn't want to show himself to us because he doesn't want to interfere with our free will" and "seeing God face to face might kill us" clearly make no sense because a being of his alleged infinite ability ought to be easily able to find a way to show himself to us face to face without causing us any kind of harm so these excuses just don't figure. I have a lot more respect for those theists who just say to me "look, John, I don't know why God doesn't just show himself", now that's at least being honest.
@@Bardineer That's a very good question, to be honest. We can't know for sure, any more than we can be sure they exist at all at the moment but If for argument's sake, this being exists and ISN'T all-knowing, all-present etc, then that's a whole other problem and would give us even less reason to trust in them.
I dont disagree with any of what you said, but if you want to make a point of more strongly defining evidence as facts supporting a position, and lessen their wiggle room, wont it just shift to them claiming spurious things as 'facts' instead of evidence? Then you will have to define what facts are, and they will argue about that and claim things as facts that are not etc. And when you go to say 'so and so they presented is NOT a fact' like they are saying- they will say it is- and say its supported by all this 'evidence' - and it will just go in a circle. So I just kinda think It wont solve much. If they claim something is a fact and you ask for their evidence and they present 'facts' that are not really facts to support it, you will just be arguing over the truth or not of the evidence supporting said facts- which is more or less the same situation as before.. Did that make any sense lol? I cant word it well.
I get it. Even as a fundie Christian 12 years ago I saw this issue with debates between Christians. It's just two guys defending their stories because without those stories their very existence is thrown into serious doubt. These guys are not interested in facts and truth for its own sake as they would have you believe. They are interested in making their lives feel important and stable. Atheism presents a direct threat to the stories that give their pitiful lives any sense of worth. So how could we ever expect anything close to a real debate? This is why I don't spend too much time getting caught up in this sort of stuff anymore.
Dear Matt, i've been following you for a very long time. Today i need to tell you something which you might know or not but if you don't, it might sound insane to you because of the control and power in the hands of those who must not, such issue have been kept quiet and hidden for a very long time. Here's the deal: almost most of the ancient megalithic sites and monuments are found and resided in by (slightly) intelligent humans not built. Secondly and most importantly, there's a very logical reason for why humans look 99% like chimps anatomically and genetically but slightly intelligent which Darwin didn't know by the time. Darwin was somehow right but not totally, the speaking and thinking ability are not something which can be achieved by that so called evolution therefore, i need to tell you the strange part. There has definitely been an intentional external intelligent force behind that change which took maybe millenniums to populate earth by that intentional mutation. Now, you're probably asking who did it right? Well, i'll tell you who. The first civilization who was passing through our solar system and found this rich habitable planet vacant of intelligent life and deprived from resource extraction which is the most significant need for intelligent lives survival in the entire universe so they did something heinous who i call it a crime. Yes they committed a crime by that jump, by that mutation and DNA fusion on chimps. You might want to search on chromosome number 2 or even wider than that. In a nutshell, darwinism is there to deviate and misguide humanity from the true origin. Thank you...
Okay, publish a paper and collect your nobel prize? If you truly had a valuable idea to offer you wouldn't be shouting it into the void of a youtube comment section. Also, use some linebreaks, please. Nobody wants to read your inane pet theory in wall-of-text form.
Stargate is not a documentary. Before you can make any claim about any advanced species passing through a relative backwater in the Western Spiral Arm of this galaxy, there are two things you need to prove from your opening premises. "almost most of the ancient megalithic sites and monuments are found and resided in by (slightly) intelligent humans not built" Prove it. " the speaking and thinking ability are not something which can be achieved by that so called evolution" Prove it.
If there is a God.. there is His law. If there is a law, there is sin, sin is the trangression of the law. If there is sin, there is punishment. If you didn't follow a fellow man's command, the compensation is with the level. If you didn't follow an authority command i.e goverment i.e caught breaking its law, the compensation is at a higher level. If you didn't follow God's command, the compensation is eternal punishment. Isaiah says, isaiah 53:5 ..the *chastisement* _that brought us peace_ *was upon him.* James says you break one law you break all. Goverment has to keep with track with a transgressor, God is all-seeing. Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. The first hint of the Saviour of the world, promised, Anointed, Sent by God to Adam and his children, through the line of Judah, through the line of David. The Messiah will be the Saviour of the world. the time generally used is 2020 a.d. Look up a.d, Anno Domini. When people used to determine time they used a higher authority/figure/soveigner in the land. Best example bible kings and chinese dynasties. In the 20th year of king adrian, 7th year of emperor han on the 6th month. When a king/authority/figure die, a new era/kingdom begins.. This is 2021 years in the era of the King, the King still lives.. and will return.. Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel. Christianity is based of the preaching of His ressurection. There will be no christianity if He doesn't ressurect. Disprove the ressurection disprove christianity. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Yes. Jesus died for you sins. The trangression of God's law. You can love your neigbhours which there is no law for that but you will die in your sins where you trangressed God's law. Jesus commanded love your enemies and your neighbours because he paid for your sins. Now our job is try don't to sin and love our neighbours. If you sin willingly just to protect your friend, jesus is a just Judge. Adam sinned willingly to die for his friend. John 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Galatians 5:14-23 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. 16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. 18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, 23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. John 15:17 These things I command you, that ye love one another. Romans 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 1 John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Romans 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 1 John 3:11 For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another.
@@ngtony2969 I know what the dictionary definitions ( there are several) for god are. The question is how does the person claiming a god exist define their alleged god? Educate yourself.
@@cnault3244 These questions usually revolve around the god of classical theism or something similar. Arguments about evidence for deistic god(s) are of course a different matter. And if you define god as something else entirely, like slice of pizza or a really nice looking cake, there isnt much to talk about.
If there is no god it's still really wild to think where exactly the universe came from and what life really is. We literally have no idea. A tiny speck in an infinite universe. You are, in a sense, a localized self-aware expression of seemingly infinite stuff. That's all I can really say. Self-organizing stuff. You should really try and listen to UG Krishnamurti. He's like a Hindu guru that became an atheist and uses that language to express his thoughts. Took me about 2 years to penetrate his thinking but his thoughts on consciousness seem to answer questions we have about what it is and how we can explain it in naturalistic terms.
@David Kinsella Before coming to the conclusion that there is no God, I will request every non-believer to consider the following: God has been described by theists as spaceless and timeless and science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. In Einstein’s special theory of relativity (SR) it has been shown that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness. If a certain volume of space (say, a room) is filled up with light only, then due to these properties of light the volume of that space will be zero, and time will also stop there. If the entire universe is filled up with light only, then the volume of the entire universe will also be zero. As zero volume means no space, so in this way, a spaceless and timeless state would obtain. So, it can in no way be denied that science has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. On the basis of the above, it can be said that spacelessness and timelessness are not the attributes of an imaginary being or an imaginary thing; rather, they are the attributes of a real being or a real thing. This is because science will never give an explanation for anyone or anything that is purely imaginary and non-existent because in that case, science will lose all its reliability. So, here we can say that there are three possibilities altogether: 1) Science is fully reliable and so, there is a spaceless and timeless being; 2) Science is fully reliable and so, there is a spaceless and timeless thing; 3) Science is not reliable at all, at least in this particular case. If we cannot accept possibilities 1) and 2) as true, then we will have to accept that science is not reliable in one particular case. SR has provided an explanation for someone or something that does not exist at all. The above shows that on the basis of SR alone we cannot come to the conclusion that there is someone or something spaceless and timeless in nature. Something more is required. However, the story does not end there. In the 21st century, physicists have come to the conclusion that spacetime is not fundamental and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal. 'Non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. This word is an adjective form of no-spacetime. That means physicists are now saying that there is a region in nature where there is no spacetime and from where our known spacetime has emerged. Below are some relevant quotes on emergent spacetime: 1) While different approaches to quantum gravity are often based on rather different physical principles, many of them share an important suggestion: that in some way spacetime as we find it in our existing theories is not a fundamental ingredient of the world, but instead, like rainbows, plants or people, `emerges’ from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics. What replaces spacetime and what aspects of spacetime remain in the ontology of fundamental physics differs, as one would expect, from approach to approach. But the idea that the universe and its material content might not, at bottom, be `in’ space and time, that these seemingly fundamental ingredients are just appearances of something more fundamental, would, if borne out, shatter our conception of the universe as profoundly as any scientific revolution before. -The emergence of spacetime in quantum theories of gravity by Nick Huggett and Christian Wuthrich 2) Space (or spacetime) does not exist fundamentally: it emerges somehow from a more fundamental non-spatio-temporal structure. This intriguing claim appears in various approaches to quantum mechanics and quantum gravity. - Composing the World Out of Nowhere 3) In quantum gravity, research programs such as loop quantum gravity state that the relativist spacetime is not fundamentally real and emerges somehow from a non-spatio-temporal ontology. - Ibid 4) If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line-and, indeed, without a truly classical world-we lose this framework. We must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. That insight, in turn, may help us reconcile quantum physics with that other great pillar of physics, Einstein’s general theory of relativity, which describes the force of gravity in terms of the geometry of spacetime. General relativity assumes that objects have well-defined positions and never reside in more than one place at the same time-in direct contradiction with quantum physics. Many physicists, such as Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge, think that relativity theory must give way to a deeper theory in which space and time do not exist. Classical spacetime emerges out of quantum entanglements through the process of decoherence. - Vlatko Vedral, Living in a quantum world, Scientific American, June 2011 In the first quote above, it is stated that spacetime emerges from some deeper, non-spatiotemporal physics. In the second quote, it is stated that spacetime emerges from a more fundamental non-spatio-temporal structure. In the third quote, it is stated that spacetime emerges from a non-spatio-temporal ontology. And in the fourth quote, it is stated that we must explain space and time as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics. I have already explained that ‘non-spatiotemporal’ is the new scientific term for the old term ‘spaceless and timeless’. In this connection, it should also be stated that there cannot be any non-spatiotemporal physics if there is nothing non-spatiotemporal in nature, as there cannot be any black hole physics if there is no black hole in the universe. Similarly, it can be said that there cannot be any spaceless and timeless physics if there is nothing spaceless and timeless in nature. Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll has already authored and published a book ‘Something deeply hidden: Quantum worlds and the emergence of spacetime’. So, what physicists are now saying is that spacetime is emergent and that it has emerged from something spaceless and timeless in nature. If this spaceless and timeless source from which spacetime has emerged is found to be conscious, then only it can be said that there is a God. If an entity is emergent, then in general that will imply these three things: 1) The emergent entity cannot have any existence prior to its emergence; 2) The emergent entity (A) cannot emerge from just anything or nothing; it can emerge from some particular entity or entities only (B); and 3) B must pre-exist before the emergence of A. The above three will also be true for emergent spacetime as well.
Your argument is laughable Matt . You can not reject the cause (god ) by pointing some flaws at effects (Bible) , we don't know who wrote the Bibles and it's obvious that there are some errors in it . We are also not capable of seeing god but we can connect the dots that lead to a creator .
@@mattcupp8506 He has a mindset that no matter what you say it will not prove the exist of god , he know that we are created with limitations in many aspects including seeing god , like other animals , we're made the way to be incapable of seeing him physically .
@@pccomputer1550 I agree that there is most likely nothing that you or anyone else could say that would convince Matt (or myself) of the existence of god, and I do not see why that is an issue. If god does exist, then he knows that I was made to be incredibly skeptic of that which I see no good evidence of. If he really wanted me to believe, he could present the information that I would need to accept his existence. Instead I get the same arguments that failed to convince me in the past, and will therefore not convince me now. I disagree. Saul got a direct experience of God, so clearly it is possible to have experiences with him. Simply knowing that he exists would not mean that I would be forced to follow him (otherwise how did satan who clearly knows of god's existence rebel) and lose my supposed free will.
@@mattcupp8506 well it's absolutely one's choice to willingly not accept any reasoning that leads to creator , nothing wrong about it , nevertheless the fact that the atheists hide their will behind science is deceptive
@@pccomputer1550 I strongly disagree with the idea that we are not accepting the reasoning. Being convinced of something or believing in something is not a conscious choice. It is not hiding to say that the evidence presented is insufficient for us to reach the conclusion that you have reached.
If you're walking down the street and you see a rolex on the sidewalk Do you believe it just came to be ? Is a possible the someone created that rolex watch? When you're outside and your looked around at the buildings G you suppose someone designed those and built them? Obviously, I'm being facetious and These are completely rhetorical questions. Of course if you find a watch on the street somebody made it! Of course if you look at beautiful statues or cathedrals or any type of building someone created and made it. When you look around at the trees and the birds and the files fear at how it worked so smoothly do you think that has a creator Or a maker like the watch and the buildings? Air from we take an animal or species out over by sphere if it's a very very important piece of the biosphere then the entire world will be affected because of a chain reaction that will be set off. Look at the birth of a baby and tell me fad just happens to be really really long long years of nothing but evolution and not even taking into account it could be evolution but guided evolution by a superior source. You're not going to win an argument with an atheist ever and You should be happy about that because guess what? VA may walk off the stage thinking they've won some sort of debate by displaying no creator source or God exist. Did they prove to you know God exist ? So when you receive a debate that you've watched or you've been involved in 1st off I would say you're wasting your time. Can someone ever show me a winner of a debate based strictly on is there some sort of creative source and fours that some call God while on the flip side Vey need to prove this type of being exist and has existed. Change anyone within any religion prove to them there is a God? You can't go to the scriptures improve it unfortunately because that simply wouldn't make sense to an atheist. If you go to the scriptures to declare there is a God and try to prove this to an atheist they're not going to really pay a lot of attention at all to any of this since Amy thing that is scripture is said to be of M from God. Doesn't even need to be scripture it can be other on fictional parts of new age type religions but still there is some sort of God or source to them. If you believe in God you are ready no inside you something that nay theists will never know unless they have a special rare experience. At the end of the day the person that believes in God comes out ahead not just because of Pascal's wager updated but most importantly because people that believe in God have a feeling that cannot be explained to someone who is an atheist or agnostic. That's what mates been leavers of God and non believers of God so different whereas foot believer in God knows V have the edge at the end of the day. If an atheist or agnostic could feel this spiritual euphoria just for 5 seconds it might be enough for them to change their mind. CS Lewis was an atheist and then he had an experience such as I mention above Then of course he went on to write fantasy tight books but even more importantly he went on to write several religious or theological type books even though he was not a theologian admittedly. CS Lewis in mere Christianity said something similar to the following.... Don't come at me with any of This patronizing nonsense claiming that Jesus was just a good man and a good and wise teacher and that's all! CS Lewis goes on to write something as the follow........ No no no!!! .... Did you can a sept Jesus as being what he said he was which would be the messiah and the anointed one or you can look at him as an absolute mad man who is frazie and deranged beyond belief saying the things that he said if they weren't true. You make the decision was he what he claimed to be or was he a crazy mad man or something even worse? But don't come at me with this nonsense they he was just a good teacher because if you is just a good wise teacher he wouldn't have said the things he said and dawn the things hes said to of done unless he was exactly who he proclaimed To be which was messiah and son of the most high creator or he was an absolute crazy deranged madman for saying these things and believing them but there is no in between to Choose from here. Either he was who he said he was or he was an absolute frazie deranged madman and there are no other options available because by the fiends he said and they were written he left no options available except one of the to which would be the trese insane madman or the living Son of God and savior of the world
Ah.. the watchmakers 'argument' .. so flawed.. much better defended by others than your too long unstructered text. And still.. it has been explained so many times why it is flawed.. by Matt as well. You just didn't listen.
Everything you said has been debunked and torn apart before over and over and over.....if you had some real evidence you would not have to write this extremely long mind numbing rhetoric..and using the bible to prove the bible....
People it all comes down to this which believers in a creator have a heads up on atheist and agnostics. If you believe in a creator you have probably felt what some call the spirit Or some religions have different names saying it's an energy from the creator but at the end of the day people that believe in God all experienced this at least once. Can't say that about atheist and agnostics. Fare not going to feel any sort of spirit if they're rejecting the fact fat there probably is a God or should I take the word fact out because that's not PC? Atheists and agnostics who are very Stern and sticklers to the belief that various absolutely nothing superior because they can't prove it aren't going to fill any sort of feeling such as spirit or energy fat billions of human beings do have and that's really sad that they never get a chance but guess who you should give credit to for that? It's very decision to never ever do something as 4 is go out into the wilderness camp out and don't eat anything for 7 days are even more while walking around the beautiful foilage. You just might be surprised what would take place but you're not even going to try that because is silly since any feeling you might obtain while doing this type of thing would be to nothing more than your mind plain church so and you because you needed food.... Lol If you believe in a God you know what it means to fill energy or a spirit within you and atheists will go so far as to say it is psychosomatic which in a nutshell means if you believe something is rail then it's going to manifest. I wish it was that easy atheist and agnostics because there's a lot of things that I desire and hope for but they don't become manifest and neither do yours the majority of The Times. So you want to ask felt that spirit or energy or Chi realize you're experiencing something that no atheist has experienced and vat gives you the upper hand when it comes to is there a God or not ? You've already won the debate in your heart because you ever feeling vet you didn't have before you became a believer. They don't have that because they will not even take a chance of doing something as ridiculous or extreme as going out with your tent and fasting for 7 to 10 days but drinking water and why you're doing this how about reading something that is supposed to come from the spirit of God ? The problem here people is an atheist worn even try anything like that because subconsciously they do not want everything they believe in to become wrong
What do you mean with "atheism is true"? Atheism makes no claims, it simply describes the opinions some people have regarding the existence of deities: that they are not convinced that deities exist. Even if nobody would be an atheist atheism wouldn't be false, there'd be just nobody around to who that term would fit.
Depends. There are some specific deities that we can be quite sure that they don't exist. For example the Christian god is simply described with so many contradictions and nonsense that it's just too absurd. But if you refer to just "any" deity? Then no, of course there is no evidence that some sort of deity does not exist, same as there is no evidence that there are a billion deities of some sort, or that a deity existed until 5 minutes ago and vanished and now there is none. Whether the existence of deities would be a problem would depend on the specific deity. If it just sits around somewhere never interacting with anything and never doing anything, then it wouldn't be a problem.
Ah OK, so it is mainly about and against the biblical God. Then I am just happy that he has ultimate power, that he uses for example to protect his word, which is translated (at least in parts) in more than 3300 languages, distributed all over the world unlike any other book, accessible to almost everybody and impossible to destroy, even though this was tried often. No other message is spread so widely. Is it a vivid message from a living God?
@@thom4smueller Why does it matter in how many languages the bible was translated? If I write a book, and all it says is "the Moon is a big apple", and I have it translated into more than 3300 languages, does that make what I wrote in my book true? And what do you mean with "impossible to destroy"? That you can't take a bible and burn it? I'm quite confident that you can. Or do you mean that we can't make people forget about the bible? I think that's just a matter of time. And it doesn't really prove anything either. I mean, you can't make people forget about Hitlers "Mein Kampf" either. That doesn't mean that it is a message from God.
God say (Or were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Rather, they are not certain .Or have they the depositories [containing the provision] of your Lord? Or are they the controllers [of them]?). When Moses asked his Lord why you do not sleep, God said to him, Moses, take a cup of water and hold it in your hand and never leave it. Moses did as he said, and when he fell asleep, the cup fell from his hand and broke. God said to him, O Moses, by my glory and my majesty, if I had neglected my servants for a moment, the heavens would fall to the earth (God holds the heavens and the earth, lest they cease. And if they should cease, no one could hold them [in place] after Him. Indeed, He is Forbearing and Forgiving )41:35
