Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson is COMPLETELY WRONG About God 

Neil Degrass Tyson in an ad before this video: “The struggle is knowing enough about a subject to think you’re right, but not knowing enough to know you’re wrong.” 🤣

You’ll never guess who was in the ad before this video

Here is an ironic quote. "A common mistake...is to know enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong." - Neil deGrasse Tyson

I honestly just watch these for the comments

Well you didn’t give any evidence that there’s no evidence that there’s no evidence...

We can sum the debate about God up like this: "If the Bible was never written, would there be any evidence that God exists?" If not, then God doesn't exist, if yes, then go find evidence that isn't based off of the Bible to prove it.

I dont discredit all of these arguments, but to hear you say Dr. Tyson must prove there is no evidence is simply not true as you can not prove there is no evidence aside from highlighting the fact that there is no evidence.

I used to be a atheist, I got more proof of his existence, besides what is around us. I am never turning back.

"He did not give any evidence that there's no evidence." LOL! I'm done.

I couldn't find the original video source so here it is ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-I0nXG02tpDw.html It is about 30 seconds longer than what you have

My brain died 3 minutes into this... Dude gtfo with this lol

You keep saying you have the evidence that God exists. I was waiting and waiting very curiously, only to see argumentative reasoning trying to explain what you perceive as coincidences and conveniences as evidence. Very disappointing. If anything, your video of almost 30 minutes just proved NDT's video of just over 2 minutes right. Thank you.

Cc: it’s a myth that there are no evidence for gods existence 1. False dichotomy. It’s not theism vs naturalism. It’s theism vs non theism. So everything that you say after that is built on no logical foundation at all.

"There is no evidence that there is no evidence of God". What a ridiculous statement!

You will continue to suffer if you have an emotional reaction to everything that is said to you. True power is sitting back and observing everything with logic. If words control you that means everyone else can control you. Breathe and allow things to pass.

I don't know why the world has determined that NDT is now an authority on everything. He's an incredibly amazing man but he also said Pluto isn't a planet. I'll never forgive him for that. 🙂

I made it over 6 minutes into this when I came to the ineluctable conclusion that Skippy here is spewing nonsense.

"no Christian has ever thought of God as a bearded man in the sky".... So, why did Michelangelo depicted God as a bearded man? There are thousands of depictions of God as a old man all over Christian's arts and builds.

What it is is that people don't want to think they are unloved or a mistake.. That's why you hear words like "inerrant" when some people are talking about the Bible. All the man said was that you "choose" to have faith because you can't prove it scientifically. When the fundie crowd starts talking in circles to prove their beliefs, it discredits them. All you have to say is "This is what we believe."

„A good God woud want us to know right and wrong“ - 13:07 In your Story God didn’t want men to know right and wrong. The Process of men gaining that information you call “the Fall”... „but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” Genesis‬ ‭2:17‬ ‭NIV‬‬ „When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.“ Genesis‬ ‭3:6‬ ‭NIV‬‬ „And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” ‭‭Genesis‬ ‭3:22‬ ‭NIV‬‬ Gaining Information gets equated to becoming like one of the Gods wich in turn is a bad thing 🙄

Evo: I have $5 in my pocket. Crea: I don't believe you. Evo: Here, look, I have a $5 bill. See I am now holding it in my hand. Crea: No, I still don't believe you. I have $10 in my pocket though. Evo: Prove it. Crea: No, you need to prove that I don't have it. Evo: Well, why don’t you just show me your $10 just like I showed you my $5? Crea: No, you just need to prove that I don’t have it in my pocket. Evo: Well for one, you don't have pockets. Crea: That's just your belief. And on and on it goes!!

“1 Timothy 6:16 says that no one has seen or can see God.” Genesis 32:30 - And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved. Genesis 12:7 - "The LORD appeared to Abram and said, 'To your offspring I will give this land.' So he built an altar there to the LORD, who had appeared to him." Exodus 33:11 - The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. Exodus 24:9 - Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of lapis lazuli, as bright blue as the sky. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank. “Dr Tyson’s assertion that there’s no evidence for God is just a little bit ironic since he didn’t give any evidence that there’s no evidence for God’s existence.” This is called proving a negative. You’re the one making the claim, which means the burden of proof is on you, not us. If you make a claim of, “There is a chair in this room,” and someone disagrees, it’s on you to provide the evidence that there is indeed a chair in the room, not on us to provide evidence for the non-existence of it. “There’s no rule in philosophy or in anything that says only theists are responsible for defending the things that they claim.” Yes there is, it’s called the burden of proof. Atheists aren’t “claiming” anything, whereas theists are, thus it’s on you to provide the evidence and not us. There is no concrete evidence for any kind of god, let alone the Christian one, and not believing is not a claim. If you make the claim that there are invisible underwear gnomes, the burden of proof would be on you alone for asserting that something does exist, not the other person who refuses to believe that without any evidence. “For example, the contingency argument…” Are you talking about ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FPCzEP0oD7I.html Because that’s not evidence, that’s logic. That would be like asserting that all marine creatures can breathe underwater, and then the evidence for or against that would be looking at the actual marine creatures. Of course, this particular argument and others like it inherently can’t have evidence because the claim is that God exists outside the universe, which makes them unfalsifiable, which is a logical fallacy. And even if this argument and others like it are true, that is only “evidence” that there is some kind of something that could be described as god-like. Even supposing I accepted this argument, please explain how you make the leap from “There is a god” to “…and we know exactly what this god is, what it wants from us, what we have to do in order to get into heaven (a place that may or may not actually exist because we have no evidence), and that we will suffer in hell if we break any of its specific rules.” “Everything is dependent.” Evidence? How do you know that? Comparing a mug and other man-made dependent things to the fabric of existence is ridiculous. “All of reality exists independently.” …evidence? You keep making claims about the entire universe with no actual proof. You can point to whatever logical argument you want about how “We can’t possibly imagine any other explanation, so instead of just admitting we don’t know yet, it must be God,” but that’s not proof. Our universe could be some kind of experiment created by a hyper-advanced alien civilization (i.e. it is dependent). You can’t keep making definitive claims without any actual evidence just because you lack imagination. “The fact that our universe is life-permitting is remarkable.” And most of that universe isn’t life-permitting. The only part we know of that is would be Earth, and even Earth is mostly not (human) life-permitting. Almost ¾ of the planet is water, which humans can’t live on/in. Earth is also covered in ridiculously hot deserts, freezing tundras, volcanoes, and other things that can kill us at any second. It’s almost as if we are able to adapt to different areas because that’s how we evolved, rather than it being made specifically for us. “Life can’t exist in a universe where molecules don’t stick together” and other claims. Again, you have no evidence for this. It would look completely different, but how do you know with 100% certainty that it can’t exist? We have no other universes to compare ours to, so all you're saying here is “I personally can’t possibly imagine a different type of universe, therefore it is impossible that such a universe exists. " “To put these numbers in perspective, getting the strength of gravity right by chance…” Talking about chance requires repeated experiments. We only have the one universe that we can examine, so chance means nothing. It could be that before our universe came to exist (and thus, humans to observe things), there were billions and trillions of other universes that didn’t have life precisely because gravity wasn’t tuned right, and then finally our universe came to be. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eJQ54wKlD2Q.html (which is a response to one of your other videos, if you haven’t seen it already.) There’s just a couple more things I want to say before stopping, because I’m only halfway through your video and I don’t want to end up writing an entire paper as a response. 1. You say that morality is objective, but again, with no evidence. You quote Darwin for support, but that’s support for subjective morality. We believe certain things are moral precisely because we’re human - if we were a different type of species similar to bees, we would have a bee-like morality. And you bring up torturing infants as objectively wrong, but what about things that maybe aren’t as obvious? The death penalty for criminals, abortion in the case of rape, and other things where many people disagree? And that’s just our culture. Some other cultures have completely different moral views altogether. Are you suggesting that all of these other cultures are actually aware that what they’re doing is wrong, they just don’t care? Because that would unfalsifiable. And when it comes to infant torture, I certainly hope everyone agrees that’s wrong, but just because the entire species subjectively agrees on something doesn’t make it objective. 2. Even if morality was objective and came from a god, it doesn’t come from Yahweh. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Pt66kbYmXXk.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Wc1Vt9S9v8Q.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-tz3EEqtcJME.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-z1zIwUiQ2Yk.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2MFmC6BD1B4.html I could go on. And before you start saying, “But the context!” ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-PK7P7uZFf5o.html

Prove that claim scientifically and peer review it.

I would like to give some constructive criticism on this video. I think you raise some good points and I enjoy listening to your perspective. As an agnostic atheist though, I do have to disagree with the fundamental arguments in the video. I think that theist, agnostics, and atheist all need to criticize each others ideas politely to encourage a better understanding on each others side. Maybe one day science will give us a definitive answer on if god is real or not but as an agnostic I do not think this has been done yet. To get closer to a point where we all agree on an answer, I would like to give me feedback on this video so politely here is everything that I think is wrong about this video: 1). 4:05- Although Neil DeGrasse Tyson makes a statement which technically is false according to biblical scripture, your claim that "Christians have never thought about god as like a bearded man floating around in the clouds" is not entirely true. I cannot speak for you or other Christians, but I would like to raise 2 points regarding this claim. My first point is that humans have the tendency to imagine God as a Devine version of ourselves. God is described as Omnibenevolent and Omnipotent by the three Abrahamic religions. Scripture describes God as something so unhuman that it is unfathomable. Humans express a curiosity to understand everything around them and one of the hardest things to understand is what the nature of God is if God exist. The easiest way for us to imagine God and relate to it is to make God a sort of all good version of ourselves that has human emotions and human like qualities. It makes since why we do this it is part of human nature to try to simplify things we cannot understand. Reza Aslan has a Bachelors in religious studies, a Masters (from Harvard) in Theology and a PHD in sociology and he has spent the majority of his career studying religion so to say he is educated on religion is an understatement. Perhaps he fits your idea of someone qualified to speak on religion better than scientist. He actually did a video on the human tendency to make God into a divine version of ourselves that I encourage everyone to look into. He explained how he believes that Christianity is so successful because it makes God easiest to relate to by making Jesus Christ, a literal human, a Divine character who is either the son of or is part of God. He also goes into detail about a study conducted where people were asked to describe God. The study showed that the more people describe God the more it sounds like God is a super powerful human. Reza himself is actually a Theist who believes in God, but he is so educated on religion that his definition of God and thoughts on the afterlife are so different from other peoples because he has eliminated his tendency to divinize a human some may say he is an Atheist. My point in discussing this was to show that Neil DeGrasse Tyson is not entirely wrong about how people think of God, given many people call God he even though God is not a gendered animal, and one of the people most qualified to speak about religion agrees that almost everyone across all religions think of God similar to Dr. Tysons description. The second point I will make on how Christians think of God is much shorter. You may have a rebuttal and say that I misunderstood the context but nonetheless, the bible actually contradicts itself on if anyone has seen God saying in In Genesis 32:30, Jacob said, “…I have seen God face to face". This also goes to prove my first point that we have the tendency to humanize God because it does not seems logical that something Omnipresent without human like emotion would have a face. So Criticizing Dr. Tyson by playing semantics on what one quote from the bible says about the nature of God may be a bit unfitting because he was more referring to how most people think of God and there is actually scripture to back what he is saying.

So basically ignorance=evidence? "I cant think of a better answer, so it must be god" Sorry, but that is not in any way evidence. Got anything better?

Defense: "There's no evidence that jake murdered Tim!" Prosecution: "yeah, well there's no evidence that there's no evidence that jake murdered Tim! Take that, atheist!"

Tyson also expressed the evidential problem of evil, I think he sort of switched between the two during his comment. When he started talking, he said "the more I look, the less convinced I am that there is something benevolent going on" meaning that his credulity was proportional to his observation. He did not cease to believe as soon as he saw his first example of natural misery, according to the phrasing of his first thought.

Hi there, I'm an atheist. You pointed out that it was more likely for the Universe to be created by a God/Creator, than for the universe to have naturally come into existence, i.e the analogy you made of getting 10 royal flushes in a row. Surely, that is not a case to make as evidence for a God as it still theoretically possible to get 10 straight royal flushes in a row? Surely you'd need a better test or evidence to suggest that there is a creator for the universe? This is where science differs from religion as science is able to say they 'don't know' as there is no evidence, and they go in search for evidence. Religion on the other hand, simply says "there is no evidence, therefore someone/something created it". Using your analogy, science is trying to find out how the universe got 10 straight flushes in a row, whereas religion says "you cheated". Anyway, assuming that God did indeed create this universe. Would you concede that God is not all-powerful and not all-good? Otherwise, how do you explain that there are millions of kids starving and dying of poverty? How do you explain that you were born in whichever country you were born in? How do you explain that children can suffer and die from cancer? Why are some of his plans better than others? Just interested to know what your answer is. No hate, just trying to have a healthy debate/discussion. Hope everyone is safe and healthy during this time. :)

“You’re wrong about God” ... says every person of differing religion, since the beginning of religion

You should ask matt dillahunty to point out the so many many flaws in this vid ;)

Mr. Tyson didn't list himself as being one of the disasters on Earth.

when people starts to become curious at things. They question and seek evidence for everything.

Tyson: "This is why religions are called faith...You believe something in the absence of evidence" Me: Where's Michael (IP) when you need him?

I can correct the statement “there is no evidence for god” very simply: “there is no demonstrable evidence for god.”

"No one has seen or can see a pink unicorn" 1 Me 6:18 Show me evidence that pink unicorns do not exist...

I am curious why he didn't address the point of Dr. deGrasse's argument. If God is "all good and all-powerful, why are there hurricanes, disease, etc....?" The lack of a direct response only strengthens Dr. deGrasse's case. BTW, I am a believer and understand the concept faith. If your goal was to refute Dr. deGrasse's case, you may have pushed those on the fence about belief in God, non-believers, and possibly believers further away.

Suggestion... After watching a 30 minute video I have a hard time remembering which link is what link. Could you give a mini explanation of what the links are in the description next time?

Might as well get the stamp of approval and say I’m a Christian (saying this to other Christians I disagree with gives me leeway for some odd reason). Although you didn’t give much actual EVIDENCE for God’s existence, I still felt you did a good job at tackling other issues that I think a lot of Christians stress over. Nice vid.

4:36 How can you give evidence that there is no evidence😂. This guy is a scam

I've come up with a term, if not an original concept, "Lodgepole Logic." The lodgepole pine will not release its seeds until it goes through a forest fire. My "forest fire" included being stricken by polio at the age of ten months. I've written around 300 songs and poems. I don't like diseases, but God gives grace and allows us to care for each other and find cures.

My question how can a perfect being create something that is imperfect?

Where’d you get the clip of Craig with your mug? That mug is so awesome. Matt Fradd has one and now William Lane Craig! I have to get one!

When you think that god exists because you can't find another answer to one question, that's your option. You can create a god for every unsolved mystery. The problem is when someone says: "God has spoken to me, and he has told me...." Or: This is the word of god and you have to obey it, because if you do(n´t)... Religion, there are thousands in human history.

You can find a reason for anything if you want to believe it enough, even if you talk in circles

You asked what we think, so I will say your videos have now become my new comedy.

"I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today-and even professional scientists-seem to me like someone who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is-in my opinion-the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth." - Albert Einstein

"Evidence that there is no evidence. "

If we are not free to think and we have the natural ability to think how we think and what is wrong or right, then what molecule, atom, or natural selection gives us that ability to show what is good or evil?

Great video Cameron, here’s a suggestion for next time in your description box: Although it would be a little bit more effort for you, it would be nice to have a - tiny description for the link - and provide a video timecode so people can refer back into the video

Thank you for graciously showing that NDT, um, has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to religion. He legitimately seems to think that if you can't see God with a telescope, there is no evidence for God. Hopefully he sees this and is more modest and less wrong in the future.

That clip of the William Lane Craig debate... Bro, Craig said that the atheist's proposal was not logically consistent, and 30 seconds later said "you are describing God." Am I the only one who saw that the only "backfire" was on Craig?

My incredibly long explanation begins on the bottom starting with "I would like to" my final comment starts with # 3) 5:05-18:24 I encourage you to try to read the whole thing

Inserting Aaron Ra saying "bring it!" was genius.

Dude you seem like a real good guy. There are a significant number of fallacies in your arguments though. It just sounds like a presuppositional apologist script. I'm really interested in having a productive and friendly conversation with you

I seriously cannot find the verse, but in Exodus, it says that the definition of faith is believing when there is no evidence. So yes, the bible does say that faith is believing in the absence of evidence. It'd be great if I could find that verse, but I can't seem to.

This cannot possibly be an earnest video, can it? It's a joke, right? Like one of those Onion articles? Unseen evidence and fine-tuning arguments?!! Still?! Dude had me till I saw the merch. Kudos, bro. 6:48 "There can't be an outside explanation of everything that exists. That's actually impossible." Put THAT on one of your coffee mugs and I'll send you the $18 bucks. Perhaps on the reverse side you can print Matthew 6, verses 5-7. In the King James, preferably. I would seriously buy a dozen of those.

“All things are dependent there for there must be a necessary thing that created everything.... oh also that thing is god and depends on nothing” Can you not see the problem in your reasoning?

I laugh every time Aron Ra goes "BRING IT!"

Another watchmaker argument and the argument from incredulity.

Wondering if you might consider starting a Discord channel?

Anyone who make a positive claim about something is responsible for the evidence to support the claim-scientist and religious advocate alike. Philosophy-what we know and what we can prove scientifically are two separate things. Philosophy exists and puts forth many theories and methods for knowing things. The level of acceptable evidence is what matters for each individual. Tyson is not convinced by the evidence presented.

4:45 "There is no rule in philosophy, or anything, that says only theists are responsible for defending the things that they claim." Yes there is (though it's not specific to theist's) It is usually referred to as the null hypothesis. The one who makes the positive claim bears the burden of proof. "God exists" is a positive claim so you are the one who has to prove it. "God does not exist" is a negative claim. Also nothing can be proven by philosophy alone.

Why is it that we can go with past testaments of scientist who have come up w in the great theories (not enough evidence to make it turei) yet deny witness to legitimate historical documents from out past?

Interestingly enough CS Lewis in his atheist years though similarly, that it’s too much suffering in the world for God to exist, yet this same argument allowed his realization of absolute nature of morality and therefore God existence.

Philosophical arguments such as contingency and dependency are conceptual 'best guesses' as to what would be sufficient to explain existence. They're not 'descriptions' of what's actually going on, merely hypotheses, nor are they anywhere close to being evidence for the Christian God in particular. For a Universe that's "fine tuned" for life, it's suspiciously devoid of, and inhospitable to the stuff nearly everywhere we look. For a perfect being to manifest an imperfect creation is incongruous. A desire or will to manifest anything to begin with betrays an insufficiency of self that a perfect being simply couldn't possess without negating its perfection.

man, astrophysicists these day...

Hi cameron, your perfect being theism simplicity sounds like a really analogous way of understanding the divine simplicity of God. In your recent talk with matt fradd you were saying that you weren't convinced with divine simplicity by aquinas?

I feel this video just highlights the profound lack of understanding that some people have about probability and statistics and on some level it's easier to say "God did it" or "its devine intervention" because it's simpler for them to grasp than to not know the actual answer now. Some of the great mysterys of the universe won't be solved in our lifetime just as they weren't for others before us but should the default answer always be "God" just because we haven't figured it out yet. I don't think so.

99,999999999999999999999999999999999.... % of the Universe is instantly deadly for any human being ....

4:33 That which is presented without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Don’t forget to restart your iphone after watching this.

Why don't people say things like: _"I may not have recognized the evidence when it was presented to me"?_ Or _"Maybe if I studied at a particular subject further, I would better understand the evidence?"_ Or _"That is not my particular preference of evidence. I have a difference preference of evidence"?_ Why do people seem to say "there is no evidence" instead of one of these alternative statements? One possibility could be that these alternative statements places potential blame on that individual skeptic, while stating "there is no evidence" takes the blame and focus off of oneself and puts it on the rest of the world. This way, a person can maintain disbelief while removing any and all accountability from himself. An honest *(rhetorical)* question should be, is it possible that I, the skeptic, have not understood the evidence, or were not fully educated in a particular area to better recognize the evidence, etc? Is that possible? If so, then I, the skeptic, ought not say "there is no evidence".

I’m really looking forward to the video on the standard of evidence 😌.

The Construction Problem argument is really bad, or at the very least, needs more fleshing out. You provided no references for this part and I couldn’t find a more complete explanation of the argument with a quick google search. But I’m happy to look at it if one is provided. The main claim that “an independent existence can’t be made from dependent things” sounds intuitive at first, but actually needs a logical argument to support (not just analogies as you give). I think a syllogistic argument along with concrete definitions of dependent/independent in this context would be necessary. Two counterexamples to show that the logical structure you provided is not sufficient: 1. A single-cell organism is made up of only non living things, but is itself alive. So here we see how the whole can not only have a property that the pieces don’t have, but in fact have the logical negation of that property. 2. A one dimensional continuous function is a set of tuples. However, none of these tuples are themselves continuous. And in fact, I can make infinitely many functions as subsets that are also not continuous. So further definition/argument is required

I love that the first Bible verse he uses is contradicting other Bible verses, such as “the Lord appearing to Abraham.” And several other instances where the Bible says certain people have seen god.

If God wanted to be known, he could simply provide good evidence that would make his existence self-evident and remove all doubt. Because he has not done so, we can deduct 1) There is a God who doesn't want to be self-evident or 2) there is God who is unable to make himself self-evident or 3) there is a God who doesn't want to make himself self-evident YET or 4) there is no God. Which of these four seems most probable?

Bro you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. 'There's no rule in philosophy or... anything' there is a rule in the scientific method and the onus of proof is on the claimer. I couldn't even watch the rest of your contortions of philosophy because of how intrinsically flawed your understanding of science is. Sorry mate

Loved the 'show the evidence for no evidence' haha! Like, come on...NDT is not saying there is no evidence per se, he's obviously saying that none have been found or presented. And just have to say that the fine-tuning arguments is hilarious as well, trying to debunk the universes existence with probability haha

Great outline of the different points of philosophy addressing the questions about God! Thanks for all of the links to more extensive discussions on the key points!!

What if we're a reaction to previous big bangs? That would be a natural cause not necessarily caused by god. If the multi(inifinite?) verse exists we will never be able to prove the origin, therefore, it's best to keep an open mind.

CC You can’t say “I made a three hour video of all the evidence” when the video contains nothing but claims and little or no evidence.

RU-vid's recommendation🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ here I'm a hardcore fan of Neil DeGrasse Tyson and an Atheist😂😂

? If there is no God and I cannot use the creation as my proof, then what would we have to discover to 100% believe that there was never a beginning. To Deny creation and a creator means there was is no begining neither shall there be an end. If there is a beginning, what has to be shown naturally in the universe to prove a beginning.

I really enjoyed this video, thanks for the many points you make in support of theism. Sometimes, with the level of enthusiasm atheists take when dismissing religion, it can feel that to believe in God is untenable. However, that would seem like a hasty conclusion, without much clarity of thought. Intimidation is a tactic that thrives on confused thinking, and perhaps it serves its purpose in intolerant belief systems that ultimately aim to effect changes of behaviour only. Encouraging a philosophical approach is great, and really invites us to agree or disagree by our own free thinking.

So EVERYTHING exists dependently therefore something independent created it? So everything exists dependently besides god who gets the exception to the premise that you established. Special pleading fallacy

5:40 No, Cameron. One can be familiar with all that noise, and find it amounts to 0 evidence. Be charitable. He probably knows the claims.

The only thing that is evident is that he doesn’t understand the word “evidence”

Why is it that every time a Christian says they can prove a very personal, intimate claim - that God was a man who walked Earth and now cares deeply about your behavioral choices - they attempt to do so with incredibly impersonal, broad claims about the universe? What do the particulars of an event that may or may not have happened 13.8 billion years ago have to do with an Israeli Jewish man who disapproves when I masturbate?

This video is really good! Everyone should buy God, Freedom and Evil.

Congratulations you made a plausible case for Deism

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” ― Albert Einstein. I don't understand a single thing you said. The fact thatt it takes you 29mins to make you point is kinda suspicious. I did understand Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson though!!!!!

Was about to support you on patreon,but I decided to send you thoughts and prayers instead. Thought and prayers.

#BereansGang

U have arguments no evidence .....please we all can talk but there is no substance here ... . 🤦🏿‍♂️

Hello, i would like to know if you can setup to have a debate with Joe Rogan. God Bless!

In the last 300 year or so, we have seen advances in medicine, technology, engineering, behavioral and social sciences -even in the humanities- that save lives, make life easier, facilitate communications, calculate the age of the Earth, and so on. This makes me wonder, what advances have theology and religious philosophy made about God and what benefits have we received from that new knowledge?

How fined tuned was the Garden of Eden - Super fined tuned I'm guessing!

The best scientists are often the worst philosophers

To say it is extraordinarily unlikely that our universe would be life primiting is not true.. The most abundant elements in the universe are hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon, neon and nitrogen. The human body is made of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen very common throughout the universe. So in such a vast universe it is Very unlikely that these elements would not combine to make life even in its smallest form.

if you can't have dependent things with out something they are dependent on, then what is god dependent on? After all we are the ones that believe in him. I would say motivation to create use makes him dependent on us in a way. The problem is that you stop the argument at god & say we are dependent on something & there for it is god & why can't god be dependent on something? How is god so different from us? What is it that makes our creation dependent on god? If we know our creation is dependent on something, how do we know that is god?