A correction: In an attempt to make this laid back tongue-in-cheek approach a little easier to digest, I simplified some of the arguments, but on the cosmological argument I wen't a step too far. The first premise is not "Everything that exists has a cause" but rather that everything with a certain attribute (motion / contingency, e.g.) has a cause (or was put in motion, e.g.). Aquinas’ first way, for instance, argues that everything in motion is put in motion by another, and that since God is not in motion, we have an unmoved mover. Informally this translates to "Everything that exists has a cause except for God" since everything other than God has a mover, but the argument should not be presented as such. To give a few more examples, Aquinas’ second way puts the emphasis on “having a cause”, and his third way puts the emphasis on “being contingent”. These too can be translated as “Everything that exists has a cause / is contingent except for God", but shouldn't be when represented as a syllogism. Consequently, these arguments do not special plead. They don't issue a special exception to God, but rather assert that God lacks an attribute / status that everything other than God possesses, such as being in motion, having a cause, being contingent, etc. Sorry for the oversimplification. In hindsight I'd have approached this segment differently.
Thanks for admitting this, I know many atheists who always die on a hill for the sake of concretely asserting they are right about everything - specifically on this issue.
Simply if we said that God was in motion, that means he has a cause and was put in motion by another being (following the arguement), just by imposing the same process on every being who comes just after the previous being and since i would argue that the infinity sequence of causes is logically impossible i can conclude that this series of causes has a beginning, which implies the existence of an unmoved mover. We define God as an unmoved mover (along with some traits i can prove like being omniscient, omnipotent and conscious) I hope i can get your reply.
@@HoneybunMegapack Actually no, the "universe" as a thing doesn't exist outside, there is no such thing as "universe" itself, its a word we use on everything visible that exists, in case you meant the big bang thats also a no since the Big bang was in motion.
@@HoneybunMegapack oh the "motion" thing has a wider concept, since it was changing from status to status (getting bigger for example) that means its in motion, also i wonder what do you mean by " a valid object"
@@HoneybunMegapack Does the universe (as a thing) exists independently just like the big bang? And no its external status doesn't change, just think about it The big bang changed in its essence by getting bigger, what would change IN god as himself if he created anything?
As a software developer, I second this. The complexity of our role is in how simply we can write a piece of high functioning and robust code that maintains testability.
My personal response to the Kalaam is simply that we have never, ever seen anything begin to exist. We only have seen things change into different states of existence, because matter cannot be created or destroyed. There is no point when a chair "starts to exist," just a point where we call a particular arrangement of wood a chair.
That's not an argument, it's semantic wankery. When the wood reaches the particular arrangement we call a chair, that is when the chair "starts to exist". So if you've made a chair or been to a chair factory, then you've seen a chair begin to exist.
@@jayjeckel The point is "a chair" is just a concept in our minds. In reality it is just a certain arrangement of matter. And the arrangement of matter changes all the time. A chair starts existing only in our mind, because the notion is only in our minds. That's the whole point of this argument.
You did not defeat Christianity's best and unbeatable argument! Ray Comfort's argument "You just say you are an Atheist because you want to watch (Shrek) porn!"
I actually counter the ontological argument by using their argument against their God's existence. The greatest possible being must also be the most impressive being. It is more impressive to complete a task when one is handicapped; and the more handicapped one is, the more impressed. So, the most impressive being must also have the greatest handicap. The greatest handicap is non-existence. So, the greatest possible being (aka god) must be non-existent.
@@nagranoth_ 1°- Make an argument 2°- See that argument get debunked 3°- Ignore that debunking because you are obviously right, or because only a fool says in his heart that you are wrong, or something, don't know...
@@tsinquisition3455 slight change to the order of things 1 -decide what you believe 2 -make an argument leading to your beliefs 3 -ignore any criticism because you of course were right in the first place 4 -profit!
@@nagranoth_ 2000 years? Not exactly. In fact that's actually one of few arguments they've made many of us still believe. The Bible in its current form is most certainly *NOT* 2000 years old. I think it's closer to 700 years old actually if your counting when it was put in one collection.
"But how could something as beautiful as Stephen Woodford come about through purely natural processes? " Beauty does not exist in the object; it is a judgment that relates to how it might enhance your survival and reproductive opportunities.
@@thomasmaughan4798 Are we supposed to believe that without any back up? 😆 No, beauty is imprinted, casted in Steph's.. see how easy to assert the opposite? 😆✨
[02:09] 1. Imagination Game (Ontological Argument) [04:26] 2. Watchmaker [07:47] • Argument from DNA [08:44] 3. Cosmological Argument [11:20] • Kalam Cosmological Argument [13:34] 4. Moral Argument [14:51] 6235 Slides Missing 10:00 “Everything that exists has an _explanation,_ but not necessarily a cause. A cause is a very specific _type_ of explanation.”
@@TheDizzleHawke, I'm not a saint. I wouldn't touch God with a barge-pole. We're not speaking. And I boycott both Heaven and Hell. “The only explanation for the creation of the world is God's fear of solitude. In other words, our role is to _amuse_ Our Maker. Poor clowns of the absolute, we forget that we act out a tragedy to enliven the boredom of one spectator whose applause has never reached a mortal ear. Solitude weighs on God so much that he invented the saints as partners in dialogue. ¶ I can stand up to God only by confronting him with another solitude. Without my solitude I would be nothing more than another clown.” - Cioran
@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy I’m using the term ironically. I always appreciate people who take the time to timestamp videos in the comments. I call them RU-vid angels.
@@TheDizzleHawke, I know you didn't mean this literally. But it carries that bad taste. May you be well. You might like my playlist on the best of atheism:
"look at these atheists repeating their daily prayers" or just commenting on RU-vid videos. (1) Find a youtube video about religion. (2) post the same comment you have posted on all previous youtube videos on religion. (3) Go To 1.
None that I know of would, because it doesn’t acknowledge the argument at all , and most would recognize your ad-hom ATTEMPT . Because atheists RU-vidrs argue from emotion over any “ seeking truth claims”
Snowflakes are incredibly complex; they must therefore be the result of design. They are also unique, nor do they breed. It follows, therefore, that there must be a god of snowflakes crafting each one on the fly.
@@norelfarjun3554 It's no problem at all...to a rational person. It simply demonstrates that the notion of linking complexity to intentional design is utter nonsense.
It's a miracle that you were born. Women are born with a few million ova and cannot make more. Men produce several million sperm each day. That one particular egg chanced to be fertilized by one particular sperm to result in you is miraculous. But wait... Since only 30% of fertilized ova make it all the way to baby-most of the rest failing to implant or being miscarried-your existence is even more miraculous. That you failed to be stillborn, suffer SIDS, die from a childhood disease or accident, and so on, and lived all the way to the point when you made this comment is a miracle of staggering proportions. However, your existence does not prove the existence of any god. You were not "chosen" to exist. Your existence is the chance result of an infinite craps game in which you managed to repeatedly avoid throwing a seven, at least up until your comment. Remember that "miracle" doesn't solely mean "the work of divine intervention," but also "a highly improbable event." Your existence is a miracle, a highly improbably event, but it does not prove that any god exists.
This guy took 15 minutes to fail to debunk Christianity. I guarantee I’ll pin him to the floor in 10 minutes but guaranteed he won’t debate me publicly
Yeah, i think you are correct, he will not waste his time with you, but I am one of his students, and if you can present a single argument for your god that I can not debunk or if you can counter a single one of my arguments, I will do my best so that you get your debate. Sounds fair?
I gave you 2 months to come up with anything valid or interesting. Do you still need more time, or do you now understand why a debate with you wouldn´t make any sense?
Ontological: The greatest in quality not quantity. Evil is the lack of good, it's doesn't/cannot exist on its own. Cosmological: Nothing has no potential. God is eternal. Infinity means endless. You know that the Euthyphro dilemma is a false dichotomy, right?
@@braamhechter5053 It was tongue in cheek. But while the universe as we know it appears to have begun to exist, how does that equal a deity? And even if we could prove that nothing can begin to exist without a cause, can you demonstrate that timeless energy ever began to exist? Can you prove Tinkerbell did not kiss the void and make the universe spring forth? The best position to take when insufficient evidence is available is "I don't know." That's not a failure, it's a position of power, because you are then able to pursue a real answer that is backed up by all the evidence and contradicted by none.
If everything has a cause, so does God. It's just that His cause is metaphysical, and not physical. Namely, it is "Nothing Is Not". God is the source of Life. Nothing has no life, so God is free to create anything that can exist.
The Argument from contingency Fact 1: The universe is contingent Fact 2: Everything contingent needs a 'necessary being' (non contingent) to make it exist Conclusion: The universe needs a necessary being to make it exist Necessary being is God
Spend time studying Advaita Vedanta (Non dual Vedanta) and argue against their understanding of God. That would make for an interesting video. Or better yet, make a vid of you having a dialogue with an Advaitin monk. That would make for a very interesting video. I recommend Swami Sarvapriyananda of the RamaKrishna Order. Just an idea.
@@dmitriy4708 It's not recent, it was always this version bro. I've never heard of a historical Cosmlogical argument that had such premises, because they obviously aren't dumb to consider that.
@@u_phil Ok. It does not make this argument less fallacious. Inductive argument structured as deductive (begging the question fallacy here), fallacy of composition, equivocation fallacy for 2 types of beginning to exist (ex materia and ex nihilo), lies about the Big Bang cosmology, lies about Guth-Vilenkin theorem, lies about impossibility of infinite regress being established, omission of this argument's reliance on A theory of time, disregard for Einstein's relativity, complete non sequitur about timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal creator as a result. It is a ridiculuosly flawed argument.
How does natural selection explain the complexity of the universe? Galaxies dont undergo natural selection. Also what do you mean by nature? Looks like you dont believe in God but believe in Nature, so didnt you just make nature your God?
Humans have evolved moral senses, as a shitload of evidence shows. These are innate in us, though given enough time and evolutionary stress, they could morph. But they seem objective to us, and are functionally ‘objective’ in how we interact with people. Killing another person or stealing, cheating etc just seems wrong, no matter how we justify it post hoc. That’s an objective value that did not need a god to implant it in us. Psychology, animal behaviour studies, anthropology and sociology have shown this.
I think this is based upon the universal quality that all living creatures have, that they tend to avoid suffering and seek pleasure. This is the basis of our morality
When humans lived in small tribes, everyone that was able to was expected to contribute towards the needs of the tribe. Those that were selfish, thieves, or murderers would most likely be killed or abandoned. Thus they wouldn’t reproduce. Only people who contributed to the tribe’s well-being would. These days, unfortunately, the immoral individuals are put on a pedestal instead of being punished. Sometimes they are even worshipped by the ones that suffer the most from their actions. I don’t know what’s to become of this world.
The evidence counters your own reasoning though. Evolutiona could create objective morals, it could only respond to them. In much the same you have evolved to 20c a comfortable temperature
@@st.michaelsknight6299 I don’t understand the structure of your sentences. Please elaborate. What I stated is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the latest research and some of the leading researchers in evolutionary psychology and anthropology
@@billkeon880 What I mean is this. Evolution didn't create cold, but it did give polar bears a nice warm fur coat to deal with the cold. Morality is the same way in humans, evolution didn't create morals, but it responded to the moral reality. We can prove this with rape. From a naturalistic evolutionary perspective, rape is quite effective in spreading ones genes. But yet we find it utterly repugnant, and rightly so.
Religion first injects you with a big dose of shame. This puts it at a great advantage, as it manipulates your humane emotions, to it's own benifit. Not surprisingly, it has the cure for the injected dose of shame. However, shame is an important emotion, and thereby, should not be used by others to manipulate you with.
Well, a lot of behavior does tend to be shameless, and without some steering, children naturally head towards the more shameless acts as they grow older. That's why more young adults are interested in showing how drunk they can get rather than how many books they can read.
Theists should pray to god everyday that he send them better arguments...because so far in history they haven't been able to come up with any. It would take a miracle...
What I most dislike about the DNA is language argument is the "we intuitively know it's a meaningful pattern" part. Our brains detect faces in rock formations and toast, we eat a room temperature pepper and our brain screams "Hot!" due to chemical signalling, our brains are so easily fooled and seeking patterns where there aren't necessarily any
It isn't DNA. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system. There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. There isn't even a way to test the claim that nature can. There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition.
@@sombodysdad idk what your last sentence is a definition for, but in a materialist (naturalist) perspective isn’t all systems we do have, that fall under the coded info systems, natural?
The problem us that their idea of 'codes is a misrepresentation of DNA. Biologists appropriated a linguistic term to describe a process that more closely resembles using a template. Code is more precisely used in terms of linguistics.
@@oliverhug3 As a former Christian, I would agree, but only because at least that would give one a legitimate foothold. Moving forward towards a personal god, however... ...I don't see it.
Furthermore, like Steven already stated, nobody would ever assume a watch was made by Mr.Fixitall but rather by someone who specializes in making watches, so even if the argument worked it would more or less imply that humans had a humanmaker, birds had a birdmaker and mountains had a mountainmaker. But to this very day we can see new humans coming into life and we can observe the land changing its shape without a single hint of influence by a deity.
Come on Steven it's time for a rebuttal of Craig Videos at Capturing Christianity. You are the one who knows the Rationality Rules, should be easy for you!
I don't think you can use the black swan fallacy against the cosmological argument, because the fallacy relies on the opposition ignoring evidence to draw a universal conclusion from a set of facts, and there does'nt seem to be any evidence that there is an exception to the "law" of causality, except that there have been discovered exceptions to a few universal conclusions we've made in the past, but then that becomes a statistics game for how often there are exceptions to rules we make, and i do not have the data to say one way or the other.
The first premise of the moral argument can easily be rejected. No need to go on to the 2nd. “If god does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist”. I reject that premise. That premise cannot be shown to be true, therefore it can be rejected. Done.
Theists love to claim that atheists can't justify their morality, claiming that it must be subjective without God. My favorite response to this fallacious reasoning is to point out that morality is based on the fact of nature that suffering is undesirable. This is not a subjective opinion, every living creature in existence follows this pattern. Thus, objective morality without God.
@@loveableheathen7441 suffering is a subjective state experienced by living creatures to indicate to that damage is being done or some need is not being met. This is a description of a biological system, it is not a moral claim. Living things do not like being harmed is just an observation. Pain experienced is just a series of electro-chemical reactions in the nervous system. How is this fundamentally any different from any other chemical reaction. How is this any different from a computer throwing up an error message, or slowing down because it has malware? Just because creatures do not like pain is not grounds saying it’s wrong to inflict pain on others.
@@swihun8930 "This is a description of a biological system, not a moral claim" Suffering itself is not moral or immoral, but the concept of suffering is the basis of morality.
RR attacks the impossibility of actual infinites by saying (12:00) : "they produce results that seem absurd, but, nevertheless, are true" ... "any set with Cantor's property is going to yield unintuitive results" ... "infinite sets have weird properties, get over it". So RR is siding with the idea that the universe is an actual infinity / is a Cantor set? Just handwave the clearly absurd consequence of thinking that Earth and Jupiter have both orbited the sun an infinite number of times? That is not a valid reply to the premise that the universe began to exist.
2 minutes in and I hope the reality of this video is noticed by everyone. There are two basic categories as I see it, that arguments for god fall into. They can overlap as well, but we have two routes: 1. I don't KNOW something(s), therefore, magic. 2. I don't CARE to know something(s), therefore, I will not face my own beliefs. Ultimately, it's that simple. God arguments are just primitive ideas that occasionally get a facelift, but they weren't correct centuries ago and aren't correct now. It's either argument from ignorance/incredulity, or they don't care about truth, at least in this one category. I'm not trying to clump everyone into this realm that sounds like extreme idiocy or anything; it's not about intelligence-it's about knowledge and the efforts people take to acquire it accurately. The majority of people I'd say are fairly rational but have been brainwashed to exempt theism specifically from examination.
The 2 arguments for not being a god I hear are. 1)There is no evidence.2)If there is a LOVING god why does evil exist.If you are perceiving reality through duality,what evidence can be presented of that what is not in duality and not bound in time/space. If there is duality then non duality also exist..As love is beyond good and evil this cannot debunk the existence of god.If you have not perceived that understanding you have not faced your belief .
The problem with the Kalam is just that we have no reason to think anything that began to exist has a cause. Everything that we see isn't something that began to exist, it's just a rearrangement of existing material that happened to stumble its way into a shape that we had a definition for. A more honest argument would have been P1: all things that exist are rearrangements of other existing things P2: the universe is a thing that exists C1: therefore the universe is a rearrangement of existing things
The whole pizza examples has been debunked. It's intellectually dishonest and doesn't even make sense within the ontological argument. It's impossible for the greatest pizza to exist because there is no objective definition of what the greatest pizza would be. It's incoherent. So it doesn't follow the first premise which is "is it possible?" because no it's not.
@@VileVendetta The same accusation van be levelled at any "greatest possible anything", up to and including god. Doubly so, because not only is there no coherent definition of greatest "X", I've yet to see a coherent definition of god.
Unnecessary and pointless, but, they gotta protect snowflake's feelings. Big mean viewers shouldn't dislike it if they like it. Something along those lines, I'm sure.
@@acrazedtanker1550 Someone at RU-vid's HQ said they made the decision in order to protect small youtubers from targeted dislikes, and made the point that other social media platforms eg. Instagram, Twitter don't have dislike buttons but in my opinion that's obviously a pretty shitty example because RU-vid is unique, in the way that it is also a search engine, we come to RU-vid specifically to seek information at times, and if that information is false I'd like to be able to observe a like to dislike ratio on a video to determine whether or not I think it may be a waste of my time ...
My take on likes and dislikes selection, is that it should be about me being able to signal to the algorithm God which type of content I prefer to see or not. If I like a type of video I get more choice for that. If I don't like it I get less of it. It should not, in my opinion be a censorship tool. If I think something is dangerous or very offensive to me, I should be able to report that through the reporting system for further vetting. There will always be minority taste that can earn the creators a platform. But these don't buy the buttons on the the next exec suite so they have to go. If dislikes meant people didn't get that stuff presented to them they would have to spend their entire life searching to be offended.
1 Corinthians 1:23-25 (KJV) But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
Regarding the cosmological argument, "cause" assumes "time", and if spacetime "began" with the big bang, then the causal paradigm (dependent on the chronological sequences we are familiar with) doesn't apply to the universe itself.
Aquinas argument isn't looking for the "first cause" because he is not using a modern interpretation of "cause". As pointed out in the video a "cause" is only a certain type of explanation, Aquinas is actually using a different one. The cosmological argument in Summa Theologica is made based on Aristotle's causality. To compare the two: The modern version of cause and effect as developed in famous philosophical work "The Matrix Reloaded" can be described as the necessary connection between an action and reaction. You eat the sex cake and you have an orgasm. Aristotle's causation differs in that it has to do with the logical priority of efficient causal relations. It my vulgar terms, it is looking at a cause and effect hierarchy not a cosmological causational chain. For example, in Aristotelian causation, gravity is the cause of plant life, because gravity is necessary to form the planet in the first place for the plants to grow in. For black swans to exist, there would need to be the "form" of a swan first. If "nothing" is a human abstract concept, then what made possible abstract thinking? This is also why potentiality and actuality are key concepts, it is ordering things in terms of what makes things possible, he is not actually considering the timing of the cause. If a cause is a certain type of explanation, you could say that Aquinus is looking for what's the "top" explanation of the pyramid of explanations, not the first cause in a causation chain. This means Aquinas is NOT presupposing that everything must have an a cause that came first, its not necessary in this version of causation. In fact, the only thing he presuppose is that nothing (except for God) can cause themselves. Aquinas would probably actually would agree that you don't need a "first cause." but you do need the top one.
No all it means is that the cause which brought the universe and time or spacetime into existence, must necessarily exist outside of time. Because the cause that created time cannot exist within time. So time which, ""began" with the big bang" and by implication the causal paradigm does not apply to the cause, not the effect.
now that i call clickbait. All you essentially did was provide quite frankly fallacious or not critical objections. To be precise, i am pretty sure you didn't think of the objection to languages appearing naturally.. Since of course they evolve but they are always a conscious act of men. This kind of fallacious thinking actually applies to all of your objections
Funnily(and also kind of sadly) these rebuttals have been around for some decades at least if not centuries and yet theists don't let go of their arguments or their position
Tbf you could turn that around. If the rebuttals are still being used centuries later without success, then there's something wrong with the rebuttal (as far as the audience is concerned anyway).
Yes they do, these arguments have been responded to several times and the arguments have been modified several times, if all philosophical positions could be defeated by rebuttals found in a highschool textbook then there would be zero philosophical or theological research, yet people still study it.
@@benholroyd5221 point taken, so the conversation should be zeroed in on the specifics of arguments, rather than their ability to convince. Otherwise, flerfers' arguments are valid.
I look at these rebuttals as mainly for the undecided. Since theists didn't reach their beliefs through logic it is not going to be very effective to convince them to change. Most people incorporate held beliefs into their identity, Admitting you were mistaken is not possible for some.
"Everything that exists has a cause" is not a premise that I have heard theistic philosophers down the centuries defend, especially none of the scholastics like Aquinas. "no-one has defended a cosmological argument of precisely this form" (Arguing for Atheism, p.4).
Nothing in this video is about Jesus or any religion whatsoever. No one (somewhat intelligent anyway) has ever said that arguments for the existence of god prove Christianity or any other religion
@@earlofdoncaster5018 Christians use the cosmological argument to prove A God exists. They then use other arguments in conjunction with this one to prove Christianity true. Your creating a strawman and applying it to the general Christian community as if we as a whole say the cosmological argument then proves Jesus died for our sins.
@@bigfoot3763sorry your wrong. The video depicts a image of the christ opposite the narrator. Most modern day theists are either Christian or muslims, so indirectly this video is directed at Christians. ( go to Ecce Homo (Martinez and Gimenez) Wikipedia for proof of first statement.
@@bigfoot3763 the second half of your comment is correct. Evidence of a god or gods existence wouldn't validate Christianity or any other religion. Logic dictates that only one, if any set of spiritual beliefs proposed by humanity, from any point in history, could be correct but all human spiritual concepts could be wrong. Therefore evidence of a god/ gods existence wouldn't necessarily please the followers of the bible .
What always has fascinated me is that someone naively can think one youtuber can debunk thousands of years of philosophical thinking with a video of 15 minutes. That's shows the level of arrogant stupidity that mankind is achieving nowadays.
Not that we worry much about it, but there are at least four hundred years of often very carefully thought-out science that has been thrown onto the dustheap, “debunked” if you will. With every hypothesis that is firmly established, many others are pushed aside. And as you know, very good science is often subsumed by better theories that understand the older hypothesis as a special case. The aether theory for the propagation of light was a very serious contender in the minds of truly great physicists like Rutherford. We likewise can expect a number of philosophical problems to evaporate, and new ones to present themselves. This is all to the good. Otherwise we would still be sacrificing animals to the gods. (Are kaporos hens and roosters an exception? ) Now we know that god doesn’t need sacrifices. He just likes to watch when people masturbate.
I’m sure I’ll watch this and learn nothing. None of these "debunking God" videos ever work because you’re trying to debunk something that you also don’t know exists, can’t prove it doesn’t exist, but confidently tell theists that God doesn’t exist, meanwhile saying that theists don’t know that God exists, and can’t prove it
@@datboi42 oh so you posted in ignorance then? Okay You've no support for your claim these videos don't work. Okay The burden of proof is upon the claimant. If you claim a god exists then the burden of proof is upon you I didn't see him claim that god doesn't exist anywhere in that video and you didn't even watch it lol Theists don't know that god exists and have thus far failed to prove he does for over 2000years Don't pray for guidance then, see if I care lol. Probably wouldn't have helped you anyway 🤷♂️
I have officially unsubscribed and stopped donating to the ACA after I learned that they cancelled you. Such a shame. All they talk about nowadays is lgbtq and veganism instead of atheism. I’ll be donating my previous ACA payments to you from now on. Thank you for everything you do 👏
My response for the DNA argument is that not everything that we recognize as a message is a message. In this case, we calling DNA (and RNA) a code doesn't make it one.
@@sombodysdad It doesn't en the part that it rewrites itself and doesn't need a programmer. Also, What about the dark DNA? We have tons of our DNA serves no visible function.
How to actually, really debunk literally _all_ arguments for God. In just 4 words: Arguments are not evidence. If God exists in the real world, his existence could be objectively verified. But precisely because God does not exist in the real world, theists are forced to argue their God into existence.
@@ceceroxy2227 I'm talking about existence here. Do. You. Get. This? Great. Unlike reality denynig believers, I have evidence - if not absolute proof - for the truth of what I said: It's the total lack of evidence of any imaginary, forever undemonstrated being that ever magically turned into a real being just because some funny stuff is said about it. According to theist 'logic', Jahveh Stickman exists just because I just made up the claim it's an eternal, uncaused, forever existing being (I could make Jahveh Stickman say all arguments for God). If you deny the existence of Jahveh Stickman based on what I said here or based on what I could make him say in a speech bubble, then you have proven my case: Arguments are not evidence.
Not in the scientific world, yes in the philosophical world And there is some overlap The point is that a logical conclusion from a series of verified facts should be true as well. In the philosophical and (pure) logical world it usually ends here In the scientific world this is the starting point for experiments that will refute or prove the conclusion (which serves as a model prediction)
@@norelfarjun3554 If God is a real-world phenomenon so to say and not a mere idea, then the philosophical world does not matter. Anything else is a theist's admission that God is nothing but a construct in the minds of some people. *_"The point is that a logical conclusion from a series of verified facts should be true as well."_* Keyword is 'verified'. If God could be verified, and if it could be verified that real-word fact X is the product of God and only of God, then yes, it would be true that without God, we wouldn't have X. But then, one no longer needs to argue God into existence. God doesn't magically turn into a real being just because some funny stuff is said about him. What theists refuse to admit is that God is not their conclusion but starting point from which they work backwards to confirm.
@@TheBastius You have phrased that better than I ever managed to when talking to theists. It's annoying how hard it is to explain the concept of "evidence" to them, and I've never been sure if I didn't do it right, or they weren't listening. I once told one that I would believe in his God if a delegation of angels came down in front of witnesses and cameras, and handed me a Bible engraved on pages of pure technitium foil with dimensions perfect 8 x 11 inches down to the atomic level. He said "Well, God doesn't care enough to do all that."
4:58 A watch is not complex. A pinion or wheel is formed of a simple circle. A tooth on a wheel or pinion is a simple item. A wheel or pinion is a simple collection of simple teeth arranged around a simple circle. There are several of these simple wheels and pinions coming together. A simple spring stores energy. The only complexity is the _design_ _process_ by which we take these simple items and bring them together to carry out a particular function - in this case keep regular time. A C G & T/U are simple atomic structures. Proteins are simple molecular structures. They interact in simple ways. It would be extremely complex to _design_ a pet dog. But some other simple collection of simple molecules is inevitable. Whether the particular collection makes a suitable pet is up to the perceiver. Complexity enters the argument only when one _assumes_ _design_. Problem: God-botherers are arse-endian, assuming design.
“But some other simple collection of simple molecules is inevitable. Whether the particular collection makes a suitable pet is up to the perceiver.” It is really a matter of marketing. Consider the Tamagotchi. In my classroom I saw several of these very demanding pets being very well cared for. Consider the 1970s fad, The Pet Rock. The manufacturer claims not one was returned. Retailers were told to release unsold pets: they could fend for themselves. They returned just the bit of cardboard that had the product name.
@@SunlightSentinel I’m not gonna listen to the fact all of my arguments have BEEN debunked because I’m right! In my own mind! Also why?why does it need an “intelligent creator,”?
@@accountlol7409 nobody has "debunked" my arguments. Atheists mostly become epistemic nihilists when they see the arguments are sound and thereby concede to the debate. If I continue I guarantee you'll do the same. My favourite atheist line- "But we can't know" or "Arguments aren't evidence" lmao
@@spongbobsquarepants3922 To answer your question it's something that could have failed to exist. Like you or me. Something necessary can not fail to exist it's necessary. It exists in all possible worlds.
What about the free will paradox? An all knowing being cannot bestow free will, as by having foreknowledge there can be no free will, only the illusion of free will.
@@batman-sr2px who said I'm "attached" to Islam? I enjoy learning about all myths, Islam included. Plus this video isn't about Islam specifically anyway, relax😉
I’ll do you one better- I’ll debunk every argument for theism in two words. You ready? Objection: conjecture! Seriously, try to name an argument for the existence of a god that doesn’t make at least one baseless assumption.
@@ceceroxy2227 why does anything exist in your worldview? I know you say that god is the reason, but then comes the inevitable question: why does god exist? Why does he exist rather than nothing existing? You can take a causal chain back far, but that doesn’t work forever. Eventually, you have to reach a point where you just say that something just does exist-that it exists by necessity. You may argue that it is God, I will go with it being the universe until such a time as a god is demonstrated to exist.
@@ceceroxy2227 For me, and as Sean Carroll puts it, "the universe may not need a *why* but it just is". My opinion: You don't need a book or anyone else to tell you what your purpose is, you can find it yourself. When you see life as finite then it is infinitely precious because this is the only and last time we can do something. Sure, it's scary when I put it like that but it is reality. We must make the most of the little time we have.
@@ceceroxy2227 What makes you think that no one is right or wrong? Clearly steal, rape, and murder are wrong. We have laws to take care of those people. Some people's purpose are also doing God's will such as Hitler. Well, they believe and justify that to be their purpose. I certainly don't take all of my wisdom from Sean Carroll but I thought it would be fitting for the question you posed. Please don't tell me there's a god because we know what is right and wrong. This is the moral argument.
10:10 One of the tricks they use to sneak up their god is say "A cause" instead of causes. Many things have many causes but if they accept that they are accepting politheism.
Infinity is a concept not a number. So planets may have rotated an infinite amount of times, and still have rotated less than a different planet that has rotated in a larger set of Infinity.
PLEEEEEEASE make this into a full video! I dont care how long it has to be I will literally watch ALL of it! Many times ive needed to use these logical statements but didn't know enough to completely explain them to the theistic people I know. Your channel in an extremely valuable source of information for me and other atheists who need these brilliant counter arguments and you teach them in very digestible ways. Thank you for your good work, i can personally say that it was your debunking videos that helped me get out of christianity without a complete mental breakdown (though it still was very traumatic especially since it caused a lot of problems with my family) thank you so much!
The probability of life occurring on its' own is not statistically improbable, but statistically impossible. Cells have a 30% replication rate if there was to be a "primordial slime". Many scientists believe in God, and can't find a way science disproves God. Instead, how God is proved.
Well you could debunk theism in two minutes. Of all the thousand gods invented by man since cave man days, nobody has ever able to prove a sky magician exist.
Jesus proved God exits by rising from the dead and showing his risen body to thousands of witnesses. No mere human can do this. Of course, you can deny the testimony of all those witnesses, but then you must also deny Caesar, Alexander the Great, Napoleon, and Shakespeare existed because there is more historical evidence for Jesus than all those four men combined.
@@bobblacka918 Not really. A lot about Jesus was written decades after this supposed Jesus existed. Nobody that was around when this supposed Jesus lived ever wrote about him. So it is likely he was written into the one of many Bible stories decades after he supposed of existed. Even the governor Pontius Pilot doesn't mention Jesus. Pontius Pilot was written into the Bible in regards to Jesus decades later.
@@bobblacka918 , That's a load of crap. Just saying. There is more evidence of Napolean's existence than Jesus... He left his own writings, his own laws, he was quoted by leaders of other nations, he met leaders of other nations, he signed treaties with leaders of other nations, hundreds of books were written about him during and shortly after his life. We know exactly where he is buried, he has coins and buildings attributed to him... hundreds of thousands have attested to his existence. There is more evidence of Shakespeare's existence than Jesus... He published dozens of books of poetry, wrote dozens of plays, owned and operated a playwright. We have books about his life from people who knew him. We know where he lived, and where he is buried. Thousands of people attested to meeting him. There is more evidence of Julius Caesar's existence than Jesus... Caesar left his own writings, has had buildings attributed to him, has his image on coins, dozens of independent writers wrote about him while he was still alive... others have quoted his other works which didn't survive. In fact, thousands of people can attest to his existence... tens of thousands, as he conquered people and put down rebellions. There is more evidence of Alexander's existence than Jesus... Alexander has had buildings attributed to him, has his image on coins, dozens of independent writers wrote about him while he was still alive; although only things which survived were later works which used other's biographies. In fact, thousands of people attested to his existence... tens of thousands, as he conquered people and put down rebellions. Evidence for Jesus Existence... people believed he lived... That's it. That's all. Only oral stories, no writings by him, no writings about him from people who knew him... the gospels were written decades after his death... and Paul only wrote about his followers and his church, not Jesus himself as he never actually met Jesus. So, please stop accepting these absurd lies as though they are the truth... actually do your research... and make sure what you're told is _fact!_
@@bobblacka918 Ummm what testimony ? This would be the son of god who was god. Sacrificing himself to himself for the sin he created, for a whole weekend ! If you going to argue he wasnt the son of god I will laugh at you If your going to argue he was just a guy then umm your book is full of reincarnation If your going to argue he was a god then boy are you in a mess ! How can a god even die, how can a god be wrong in the first place, why didnt he just die during the opening lie aww dead kid big ooooohs
I have a background in evolutionary genetics, and have a very thorough understanding of DNA and how it works. I fundamentally disagree that DNA is a literal "language" by any reasonable definition. To call DNA a "language" is metaphorical, as it does not communicate any MESSAGE. I acknowledge that humans could create a communication system based on 4 letters and encode it chemically using DNA. But this could be done using thousands of other chemicals, and even other physical phenomena (at least temporarily) such as energy or magnetism.
RR recently collaborated with Jon Perry and discussed this fascinating subject. As someone who is learning about evolution, this video has been really clarifying. Hope you'll find it as interesting as I do :) Origin of genetic code: what we do and do not know Channel: Stated casually - Jon Perry
@@norelfarjun3554 You've (apparently) misunderstood my point. But just for your consideration, EVERY language contains metaphorical terms and phrases, so I'm not sure how you could justify the statement there is "nothing metaphorical in languages".
@@1970Phoenix Yes, there was a mistake You wrote "metaphorical" and I read it as "metaphysical" and I thought you were trying to say something completely different. I still think that language is a tool for transmitting information through some medium, and there is no obligation to attribute meaning to the language itself. This means that language does not have to contain messages. To send a message, you use any language But that does not mean that the message is an integral part of the language At least that's how I see it
Does the morality-argument not have another problem in premise 1? If it's god that decides what is objectively moral, doesn't that automatically make the morality in question a subjective morality? Since a being/person/entity has made the decision, that seems to me the definition of subjectivity.
In their world, the term “objective” describes God’s supreme subjectivity This is a serious problem of definition, but given this definition there is no problem with the first premise
That makes morality arbitrary yes but not really subjective, all beings are below god, no one is on the same level of god so there is no reason why his moral code wouldn’t apply to all things, truth is above all things, that’s what makes it objective.
@@uekvowzkaebbzuvrgipqxhemmwbhe It's still subjective to him, though. Sure, it might be the highest understanding of morality, or "supreme understanding," but it's still subjective nonetheless.
@@cy-one ontologically god isn’t just a random being, he is the source of truth and meaning for the universe, if you think truth and reality is objective, then gods word is also objective, otherwise everything will be subjective to god, and that’s not what people mean when they talk about subjectivity, they refer to a disconnect between an objective reality and what a subject says about that reality, but in a universe where god exists reality itself is subjective to god
@@uekvowzkaebbzuvrgipqxhemmwbhe *"ontologically god isn’t just a random being, he is the source of truth and meaning for the universe"* Supposedly. The issue is, any argument of this kind for God can be redirected to anything similar at leisure. _The fundamental source for truth, reality and morality is the Invisible Pink Realicorn. Without it, there is no truth. Without it, there is no reality. Without it, there is no morality._ Is there truth? Is there reality? Is there morality? Ergo the Invisible Pink Realicorn exists.
The cosmological argument does not read "Everything that exist has a cause". But "everything that begins to exist has a cause". Would you argue otherwise? And since an universe with an infinite regress into the past is an actual impossibility, then the Universe had a beginning and a cause which we call God. Why? Because only a being that does not need to receive existence from a cause is a necessary being and only Him can be the first motor from where everything comes into existence.
@@JibrilPC Because since man is on the earth there has never been a material structure that began to exist without a cause. I think that if you get away for a minute from the traditional idea of God which we all have in our mind you can easily conclude that in order for anything to exist there must be a cause, then it doesn´t matter whether that cause is the universe or a gigantic mouse. Whatever it is, it´s a self existing being with infinite creative power, intelligence and will. And that is God.
@@paologeminiani why does it have to be self existing and have infinite creative power? the unknown is so vast we cannot narrow it down to such simplicity if we're being honest
@@JibrilPC The only tools we have apart from divine revelation is logic when it comes to God. We can use deductive reasoning to assess that God must be self existing, because if He weren´t then you have an infinite regression in time. In such a scenario you would never come to the first motor (Aristoteles) or to the unmoved mover. You need a necessary being to account for any contingent being´s existence. I find God to be the most plausible and simple explanation.
@@paologeminiani i would argue that speculation isn't sufficient reason to be conviced of a specific idea, and that's all you're doing. It's not completely honest to say that its deductive reasoning to replace a theory that you cannot fathom or consider logical with another theory that is equal in terms of unfathomability
The presence of a book of god/religious beings which can be altered by mortals for purely political reasons is proof that being isn’t omnipotent because an omnipotent being would not need a mutable text. Direct mental interface would suffice.
All of history did happen in about 6000 years, probably less though. Cause history is based on written records, so stuff like the Stone Age and our interactions with the Neanderthals would technically be considered prehistory. Sorry, just had to nitpick
It's a pity you didn't have enough time to do more debunking, cause I'm sure theists would use the "god's very nature is good" counter-argument to answer your last debunking attempt. Great video as always, Steven! Thanks!
The dilemma still stands: Is something good because it's God's nature or is it God's nature because it is good. E.g. is honesty good because it's God's nature or is honesty part of God's nature because it is good (in of itself). Then ask why is dishonest not part of God's nature?
@@justanotherhomosapian5101 Obviously according to their mindset God's nature's nature is good. And if you ask the same question about God's nature's nature, theists will keep on adding more "nature's" between 'God' and 'good'. Perhaps not ad infinitum, but definitely ad nauseam. The honest ones that is. The dishonest ones will simply derail the conversation with any baseless assertion, usually about your motives.
His speedrun wasn't Max%, his speedrun was just 100% aka debunk all common arguement for God so he did fine in this speedrun, he just needs to do some optimization.
They are basically saying it's empty. Not much difference from gibberish. You get absolutely nothing. Asserting nothing. X is X that's it, no ifs, no buts. How uncanny that all arguments for and its properties seem to point out to NOTHING. 🤭
I get where you’re coming from, but it’s not the best retort to P1. A better one would be “are you aware of everything that has ever existed and confirmed they all had a cause?” Unless they can show a completely exhaustive list of all that has existed and their causes, it’s at best an educated guess. As your argument stands, one could say a car begins to exist as some point along its manufacturing process, and that can easily be observed. You could say the car is nothing more than the sum of its parts, which are at a base level, continuous, but the car as a car, begins to exist.
The way I see it is … if god was this supreme supernatural being with infinite wisdom, love and mercy… why does its message have the emotional intelligence of a 7th century barbaric war lord?
@@johndeoliveira8476 like if you don’t follow my commands and spend your very limited existence on earth worshiping me I’ll punish you to hell for eternity …it comes across to me as closer to controlling abusive manipulator then a profound divine being
Debunking? hahaha yeah, ok. I like your confidence though. Now, this said, i would like to see you debate Craig, Plantinga, Stephen Meyer and the likes.
I am a complete village idiot when it comes to philosophy at this level, it makes me wish I had come across this kind of thing when I was a kid and having "deep" discussions with friends without knowing about all the knowledge that came before me. Thanks for exercising this old mans brain!
@@PGP2 We don't have to pay anything. I'm a protestant church attendee btw. I tithe but that's giving through a church not to a church. As in, our resources to the poor through a true church goes further than by myself. There's no requirement for any tithing or how to. I get the suspicion of all things through money, or all things through the lens of power, but let's remember martyrs during times of our cynicism. They're the seeds of the church.
@@PGP2 The "contradiction" as you call it, I would say "distinction" is that it comes from voluntary giving. Out of an over flowing love of Christ that flows out to the rest of creation. So your local homeless are being served by christians out of a love of Christ.
@@PGP2 Ha yes but it's not a subsription fee. It's like me saying whatever charity you're into is a scam, like BLM. And you say no, I voluntarily donated to it. And I say ah ha! You did give it money! See they're a scam! But its even more reductionist because the church is not merely a charitable organization. It's just one of 3 main things the church does- worships God, evangelizes, and serves the poor.
So I’ve came out as an athiest to mother whom is very religious and uh didn’t go so well, long story short just to make her comfortable and so she doesn’t think I’m a demon or some crazy thing I agreed to go to a church w her and ask the priest/pastor some questions, what should I ask him ? Regarding catholic/Christian faith (side note) I have a bit of questions but Would love some extra thank yall
It depends on what bothers you the most with the religion. With catholics specifically, I might question transubstantiation. With Christianity in general, I might question the resurrection of Jesus (see Paulogia's critiques of the supposed evidence). If it's the hypocrisy of the church, I might say how hard it is to buy that God's chosen church could be so corrupt. Or maybe you are bothered that the bible holds faith is such high esteem, when it doesn't seem like a virtue. It's up to you. Everyone gets bothered for different reasons. For me, it was the realization that morality didn't need to derive from God. For my brother, it was when he realized the history of the universe didn't actually align with the Genesis story.
I’m Catholic. I don’t believe in a “big bearded man in the sky.” God is so much more than that. God is the law of cause and effect, socially, psychologically and physically speaking. An atheist might refer to this as “the universe” but I think this takes the agency out of us humans. We have been blessed with the ability to place things on the “alter” and reap what we sow, good and bad. When you read the Bible through this lens it all becomes clear and nothing in the world comes close to Bible in terms of instructions for how to live right. It’s the ultimate “self help” book.
The Bible is very nearly the Swiss Army knife of “self-help” books. There is a chapter on “How to Conduct a Genocide; and How to Justify it Later.” That is one of the most useful chapters, according to William Lane Craig. There is a later chapter on “What to do if you see a raving lunatic in chains, and a very large herd of hogs is close by”.
My heart goes out to all of you. Jesus loves you, and I'd rather look like a fool in all of your eyes and some simple-minded, 'brain-washed', 'religious' freak and speak the truth than to stay silent and watch your spirit descend into a place I would rather you not go. God loves you all, and I'm happy to hear all your retorts!
How can you possibly know that what you believe is the truth. Because of a collection of books written in a time when people were still struggling to understand basic science and would believe basically anything?
@@nebuchadnezzar6894 What are you truly asking? Are you trying to point out a flaw, or are you wondering how I know it's true? My answer varies according to what your intending.
@@luankarsten8596 What he is saying is that bible was written when humans were, well, stupid as hell. They believed nearly everything, even the stuff that was obviously false. So why would the bible be 100% true? Why would it even be 1% true?
"Everything that exists has a cause" means "For any given thing that exists, that thing has a cause". It's referring to the individual things in the universe, not the universe as a whole.
@Ron McCain - I agree! I've seen William Lane Craig accidentally expose this exact flaw in his own argument, but he never even noticed. He first stated his argument by saying "the Universe", but the next sentence he substituted the word "everything" for "Universe" in his argument, and he didn't even notice! The problem is that the idiots who worship Craig are just so dumb that they would never notice his glaring errors.
Well premise 1 of Kalam cosmological actually states that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Not everything that exists. So there in lies the difference. Whatever has a beginning has a cause something that caused it to begin. Your argument is a semantic one based on a misquotation of the Kalam cosmological argument.
@@clintcrowder8833 - and therein lies one of the _many_ faults of Craig's dirty Kalam hack - he never demonstrates how he knows that his favourite god is the exception that "never began to exist". But ... _how does he actually know that?_ He _doesn't_ actually know that! It's just an unstated premise. Now, is there anyone, ever, who has proven that some god didn't begin to exist? _Nope!_ These cheap philosophers just define their favourite god as having the property of "always existing", but never justifying their claim. So ... Clint ... your turn now: Please demonstrate to us all that there exists some god that never began to exist. I'll wait patiently ....
@@pauligrossinoz Well if you listen to the argument he puts forth. He says that because all of Space Time and Matter had a beginning, whatever caused/created it cannot be material. Cannot exist within time. Cannot exist within the bounds of space. It of necessity must be spaceless, timeless and immaterial. It also needs to be immensely powerful to create all of space time and matter. It also must be a personal being who freely chose to bring this universe into existence a finite time ago. We have a spaceless, timeless, immaterial agent that is both personal and immensely powerful. And if you take the fine tuning into account then according to sir Fred Hoyle He is also a super intellect. Not sure of many other things that fit the description based on the available evidence.
