How Evolution Might Disprove God 

Darwinian Evolution (i.e. Macro-Evolution) and Micro-Evolution are not the same thing. Mainstream misinformation / disinformation propaganda has cloudied and mixed these distinctly different issues for decades. Darwinian Macro-Evolution (i.e. Common Descent of All biological systems from a single-celled ancestor) has Not been confirmed through the scientific method. It is un-observable, presumably because it may have occurred over a span of millions/billions of years. Additionally, Macro-Evolution has Not been observed in nature to the present. On the other hand, Micro-Evolution Has been confirmed through the scientific method and Is observable in nature to the present. *_“When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e. we cannot prove that a single species has changed): nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in his letter to G. Bentham May 22, 1863) Why is Darwin's macro-evolution speculations on the hypothetical common descent of all biological systems from a single celled common ancestor (which is not supported by the standard scientific method, the historical scientific method (i.e. there are no "presently acting causes" that support a common descent belief), Gene Regulatory Network mutation limitations, DNA mutation plasticity limitations, mathematical / computer modeling, information theory, etc.) referred to as a "theory" by the scientific community? Most importantly, the common descent illusion is not supported by the fossil record as revealed in the Cambrian geological layer. *_“I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”_* (Charles Darwin, 1800’s Evolution Theorist, in a Letter to Asa Gray June 18, 1857) Just like the Spontaneous Generation "Theory", Charles Darwin's out-dated 1800's self-proclaimed "theory" of common descent macro-evolution from the materialist ideology / worldview DOES NOT meet the present day definition requirements of being a "Scientific Theory" in modern science and should be immediately downgraded by the modern scientific community. Countries' indoctrination of the masses in the pseudo-science of Darwinian Common Descent Macro-evolution and Social Darwinism, has continued to breed false scientific justification for racism and war in the modern era for over a century and could potentially lead to total human genocide through World War 3.

@@John777Revelation Let me educate you. In Scotland, we have an old saying: many a mickle maks a muckle. String up a lot of micros together and you have a macro. Since we have demonstrated what creotards like to call micro-evolution, and can see macro-evolution in the historical record, they are one and the same. It's just the creotards who refuse to see what's in front of their noses for religious reasons.

@@John777Revelation *Countries' indoctrination of the masses in the pseudo-science of Darwinian Common Descent Macro-evolution and Social Darwinism, has continued to breed false scientific justification for racism and war in the modern era for over a century and could potentially lead to total human genocide through World War 3.* - Now there's a whole bunch of twaddle. In my experience, most racists are devout religious believers. They think they are the image of god, and so assume that everyone not in their image is inferior. Darwinian theory does explain why we have races - it's a combination of natural and sexual selection. It says nothing at all about about superiority or inferiority, though religion has lots to say about those. When a religious believer gets as divorced from reality as you evidently are, it leads them to reaching the wrong conclusion. Perhaps some elementary biological education would help in your case. Have you ever considered getting any? Because nothing in your inane screed against evolution makes any sense, except in the darkness of religion. So chimps are your closest cousins. Why is that so objectionable? Do you seriously think you're the image of your god? Maybe you need to abandon your grandiose ideas about yourself and see yourself from the proper perspective, as just another animal. If there is another genocide, it will undoubtedly be a religious believer that instigates it, to purge non-believers.

​@@Leszek.Rzepecki Exactly. Isn't that what the retarded islamist' scary goal is?. For Islam to reign supreme?

@@lisadabbs2181 Theocrats love theocracy I can't see much if any difference between Christianist and Islamist ones.

?

Yes! With the biggest problem, as many fundamentalists will admit, being the collapse of the Christian narrative on salvation. Their claim is that death entered the world through sin, and only the perfect sacrifice of Jesus on the cross reversed that sentence of death. Obviously that story collapses with evolution, because death was part of nature from the beginning. There never was an Eden! Therefore, there never was a need for a savior to restore us to that perfection.

i love how green the sky is

How is "evolution might disprove God's existence" a rational statement?

​@@michaelarojasDid Alex make that claim? Not in the video I just watched...

Did you listen to him at all? In debate you start with a premise then argue for or against it.

​@ericvulgate I did. Please offer the time index where he makes that claim. Should be easy; the video's only 10 minutes long. *edit:* go to 6:20, where Alex literally says that evolution doesn't disprove god.

I grew up Jehovah's Witness and dad would watch nature programs all the time but when then narrator would describe how an animal evolved he'd be quick to point out that they didn't evolve, god made them that way. Once I went on a "home Bible study" with a prominent elder to try and convince this one dude that he needed to join our cult and we were discussing creation and dude literally exclaimed "look at the trees!"

​@@cygnustspfellow ex Jehovahs witness, this is so relatable

Im a programmer and when i see a tree i get a matrix moment when i realize that the tree its built using specific dna code.

Having been raised atheïst I genuinely don't get the argument lmao does he mean look at the trees because God created them or something? How do trees prove god? Sorry if I'm being stupid, I'm a bit slow

It’s not an argument that I like, but it’s not ridiculous. The idea is that trees (and nature in general) are so complex and work in a perfect system according to a specific set of patterns, and that this could not have occurred without an intelligent creator.

the modern versions of christianity (and other current religions) is what evolved via human selection. humans will continue to select the traits they want to pass on and select the traits to slowly leave behind. perhaps all the different religions and denominations can be considered mutations, species, or subspecies, themselves.... the process of evolution describes religion better than religion can describe evolution

​@@360.Tapestryreligion can't really describe anything accurately to be fair

​@@360.Tapestryreligions also are subject to the consistent pattern of evolution. how many religions suffered and died to give birth to abramistic religions and christianity )) the dna of old religions is still present in bible.

Maybe not the general idea of God, but it can disprove the existence of a God as described in Christianity and from other Abrahamic religions like Islam and Judaism.

and this is why i personally believe if there is a god its an egragor and not a physical being or one above all type creationist construct. reason is one requires a spark to be able to create and have free will, while the other is an embodiment/spark of reality but lacks free will as it just is. of course i also understand why people dont believe in them because egragors are weird, hard to describe and pointless to pray to. it would be like praying to the strings of fate or karma and we all know that's a bitch.

I'm a theist and feel similarly. Whatever the truth of evolution and its causes, the inference to the best explanation is evolution and there aren't any competent competing theories. I would say that for the general theme of biological evolution as opposed to its mechanisms.

@@blusheep2 The problem with theism is it relies on magic, but is unable to produce evidence for a magician, nor for the magic he/she/it weaves. Without natural selection, evolution makes no sense at all. If you regard it as directed, then why have it at all?

I agree with what you said about evolution. Separately I am only an Atheist because I do not find any of the god claims believable or creditable.

Evolution is all assertions of faith

@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Then you clearly haven't bothered educating yourself on evolution. There are mountains of evidence. Faith is for theists. If there were clear evidence against evolution, or even just evidence for a better theory, I would have no problem dropping evolution. It isn't a belief, it is just the best explanation for the evidence we have.

Oh man i hope someday Alex gets wind of you, MindShift. You are killing it!

I'd love to see y'all link

So how did living organisms arise, you POS?

No one cares

@@CanadianLoveKnot Anyone rational cares whether God exists or not.

Where does Christianity reject theistic evolution? Isn't God's response to Job, basically, "If you cannot grasp how living organisms actually come to have their properties, how can you demand I show you the utter complexity behind all of reality and how everything interacts in ways your mind is too limited and cannot grasp?

@@glenliesegang233 The main problem is original sin, which was Jesus's whole purpose and mission to save mankind. What "theistic evolution" are you referring to? and with that model, then who committed the original sin?

@@glenliesegang233 In the majority of Christian circles, this isn't an actual problem. The only place where this 'issue' comes up is in Christian Apologetics, and the best way I can describe them is that they're... a hot mess of contradictions and blatant falsehoods.

@@MG-ot2yr It goes a bit deeper than that. A basic foundation of any religion is that some god or gods created humanity and that's why that/those god/gods have authority over us. With some form of divine reward system in place for those who follow the rules and a punishment for those that don't. And thousands of years ago, when nobody knew how man came to be that "god of the gaps" answer made sense. But once we figured out we're just specialized monkey fish that mythology falls apart. That's not to say there still aren't societal norms like "Don't steal" or "Don't murder" that aren't applicable but claiming "do it or else after you die you'll be sorry" gets really hard to sell.

@@enlacostaizquierda christianity has evolved beyond the eternal life or special reward aspects. now it's all about developing this deep, unwavering loyalty to god so much so that you want to please god even if you are condemned because he is the rightful god above all else - they do it because it's the "right" thing to do. the more it upsets a secular world, the more they feel they are doing a service for the cause. it's a pretty bald "us vs them" situation. but when someone is that radicalized, it's the only light, truth, and way. a bit drastic, a bit perverse (they would say transcendent), but they're reaching into every nook and cranny to make the narrative bulletproof

evolution proves the universe wasn't created for the benefit of humans, which is a fundamental tenet of most religions.

Please elaborate. I really want to know.

Evolution is a process ''from'' not a cause of .

There were a lot of disappointing statements from Muslims on the matter. I went to an Islamic presentation on human evolution, expecting a melding of science and religion that acknowledged scientific findings, but the speaker was a finance graduate who presented fairly staunch evidence that evolution was incompatible with the quran and sunnah. And only then did he go into 'disproving' human evolution using the same sorts of 'missing link' and 'human uniquemess' arguments that I'd seen Christians make.

@infamousshinkicker6924 I also found that denying human evolution felt desperate. Like a child being presented with evidence that their parent was guilty of a crime but looking for loopholes in the story or accusing the forensic scientists of having a wicked agenda because of the uncomfortable sense that the truth destroyed the perfect role model and any sense of stability.

Someone in a youtube comment told me survival of the fit enough. It stuck with me.

But you're still Christian you just don't hold to the super strict literal interpretation about Genesis creation account?

@@blappappa3836 No. I was raised in the belief, that the bible is the literal word if god. To discover, that it contained lies, made it completely unbelievable to me, because what omnipotent god would reveal himself to humanity trough an old flawed book. I am atheistic now. What i was saying is, that evolution alone disproves a creationist christianity and literal interpretation of the bible.

They're both useless douchebags so I'll credit that possibility.

He is far kinder, humbler and more fair-minded than Christopher Hitchens and although extremely smart will probably never match Hitchens in wit and even less in world experience. I can't see Alex going to war zones just yet....still there's time.😊

Christopher Hitchens was rube and a hack who got absolutely spanked by William Lane Craig. You better hope Alex can exceed that drug addicted forked-tongue Hitchens.

No. Very very different styles, almost opposite.

Hitchens isn't exactly perfect either he was a huge Bush Jr fan

That's pretty silly.

Watch the video, dont start preaching like a r*tard. Doesnt make christians look good at all

@@Leszek.Rzepecki Well the restless part seems pretty accurate. I've seen many believers and non-believers strive for that goal.

@@theboombody Curiosity or boredom make us restless. The contented are at peace!

The opposite happened with me. In studying mathematics, I became fascinated with infinite series and saw something mystical about them. We can get an approximation of Apery's constant as close as we want, but there's something amazing about knowing its exact value, which nobody knows yet. It's useless, but fascinating.

Why does evolution exist if God does not

@@michaelarojas Nonsensical question. Prove God exists, first, before you go any further. All you're doing is just putting your favored deity in front of the equation and saying "Oh look, God did it!" This is like a math teacher asking you to show your work and you're just saying 'you just know'.

The mind's logic is built off of organizing the emotion. The emotion is built off of organizing instincts. Therefore not cutting out your humanity can lead to further arguments a 'proper' person wouldnt do. Which is why academia has garbage, like was it stanford recently or harvard that got caught faking studies?

Yet, you cannot defend atheism as an intellectual position negating God. Nobody can. Atheism is intellectually lazy and weak.

I don’t know whether you can, but science and mathematics absolutely can be proven. It’s the most hilarious thing that a superstitious person would ask for proof.

@@SchgurmTewehr He's lying. Atheists lie incessantly. They always strawman whatever theists argue. I'll smoke any atheist on the science and evidence. They have none. The atheist has nothing but pretense, posturing, evasion, burden shirking, endless lies and cheap excuses.

My experience of Alex is that he regards an argument as "evidence." It isn't, not in any scientific sense. Arguments are just exercises in philosophy, they aren't grounded in reality. Science is, because it is based on factual observations, and relates to objects and processes that can be seen and tested by others. Science is objective in that regard. If I make a scientific discovery, it can be checked by others, who will find the same result, or who will disprove the claim. Science doesn't prove anything, it can only disprove claims, which is why science cannot disprove a god - there's nothing there to test.

Oh i like that

@@F-hj9mz 😆 🇦🇺

So these cities just popped into existence through random chance?

No, the argument really is that living organisms could not form from raw materials without intelligent guidance. Are you smart enough to understand that?

@@CanadianLoveKnot Nope, they were built by us ants. 😉

I share your tendency to blame problems on religion, and it's not just fundamentalism that creates problems, it's the entire enterprise. Religious thinking is all magical thinking, and nothing good ever came of it.

​@Leszek.Rzepecki I think that's totally unfair to blame religion. Atheism is relatively new to us. So, to just put all "bad" things onto religion is lazy noncritical thinking. I can easily turn back and say this about atheism. Well, the 20th century was by far the bloodiest century in human history because of the rise of atheist led nations. Communist China, Nazi Germany, and Communist Russia alone brought the most needless death on human race. Then I could quote some Nietzsche. Make a decent argument about how when people of power don't fear a higher power than themselves, like God, they always seem to look at the common folk as worthless. Dehumanizing them and that's what leads what happened in the 20th century. And if I put some serious thought on these I could make a strong argument against atheism at least on that topic can I not?

​​@@Leszek.Rzepecki Nothing good ever came of it. Christianity specifically can be credited with Hospitals, even to this day christian hospitals like St. Luke's is FREE for any child that needs taken care of. Universities, historically started by Christians. That's why they graduate with cap and gowns like a church choir members wore. The scientific revolution was started by Christians. Christian theology can be credited with the start of western society. This doesn't necessarily prove that the Christian God is true. But we can definitely debunk the claim that nothing Good came from religion. Specifically Christianity brought us so much great things today.

In Communism, atheism is the motor, not the steering wheel. Hitler wasn't an atheist. So.....

Ancients could be pretty smart. Most people today still can't understand things Eratosthenes could. Like how he used the alternating interior angles are congruent geometrical theorem to calculate the circumference of the earth.

I appreciate you steel manning the Christian perspective verses a strawman approach. Much respect.

@chandir7752 - and there are many christians who have done that already. Then there's the fundamentalists, a vocal minority, who can't even think about it.

Theistic evolution, inspiring phylosophy has a vid on that

From my understanding, most Christians today accept evolution and interpret Genesis as metaphorical.

@@PeterBarkerMusicThat's also my experience, but recently I was invited to some kind a Bibleclub that I was told aimed to critically discuss Christian belief. And after a few sessions it turned out they were basically orthodox creationists, the guy I talked even went so far as to say that Christians who don't take Jesus literally aren't real Christians, and that the Bible has an objective moral authority. Not representative but man, it was wild to see how lost people can get when they attach themselves scripture. Which is kinda incentivized by the common framing of the Bible as literally God's word.

@@chandir7752 What do you mean by "take Jesus literally"? I don't think I've ever met a Christian that didn't literally believe that Jesus physically resurrected. 😭

The universal fine-tuning argument disproves the Theist God. It also disproves atheism. We have observable evidence for one universe with the inherent Physical Constants. Unless some evidence can be produced to refute this, then it's fine-tuning. Universal fine-tuning precludes any physical interference in the universe, therefore any Religious idea of God is out. No miracles. The System itself is fine-tuned with free-running processes within the System i.e Evolution.

It *would* disprove young earth creationism entirely, which is why the vast majority of opposition to evolution in religious circles comes from people with young Earth creationist views

@@PeterBarkerMusicTrue. But I assume it would also disprove any creationism story that had us 'made in the image of a deity' irregardless of old or young.

Some of them probably do. I'm not one of them. I will always believe in some kind of inherent absolute morality even if we have difficulty interpreting it sometimes. Relative morality is even more of a minefield of pitfalls to justify than the ridiculous magical supernatural stuff. Avoid relative morality at all costs. It will lead you to a bad place.

How did living organisms arise, Steve?

​@@20july1944 let me guess...magic?

@@20july1944 I don't know the answer but my best guess would be abiogenesis.

It's an understandable mistake. Apololists themselves typically conflate refuting evolution for an argument for God. Between 20-40% of USA adults are young earth creationists. Apparently evolution hits a sensitive nerve.

The concept of an all-loving god at least. It won't disprove for example, a god that doesn't care. Or an evil god.

The argument really is that living organisms could not form from raw materials without intelligent guidance. Are you smart enough to understand that?

But how can unproven theory be itself a proof

​ abiogenesis is a scientific problem. if you don't know how it is done, fine. me neither. saying it can't be solved is an odd claim. it seems your best reason for saying abiogenesis is impossible, is that you wish to introduce magic, in the form of god. just on principle, any scientist would say Id rather have the problem unsolved than admit magic;. Once your theory includes magic as a theoretical entity, you don't have science any more. If Magic is in the theory then the things we say are physically impossible suddenly are possible. We can't explain anything at all unless we can say firmly there are (an infinite number of) things that cannot happen. Science says no human walks on water. No human dies and is resurrected days later. If you want to do science and be able to explain things, do not introduce magic. Live with unanswered questions. If you want to answer questions with magic, then by all means do magic.

Nonsensical claim

What about the living things' own souls? God is *an unnecessary* add on. As redundant as the fifth fire extinguisher 🧯 in a small room. @@20july1944

What does that mean for this conversation? I ask out of curiosity

@@_Egon 👆 See the first thing I said.

@@_Egon If you're curious what the point was since it's not really relevant to the point of the video, I guess I felt inclined to say it because this video will likely be watched by many christians and many of those christians will likely be of the YEC variety who insist on believing there's evidence for the supernatural and try to convince themselves and others of that by attempting to disprove a strawman of evolution and, in many cases, the strawman is unintentional since they've been miseducated about evolution. Alex already corrected some of the misinformation by explaining that evolution does not mean that one species gives birth to another species as a single generation transition but maybe this lesser known fact I've mentioned will spark the interest of someone who's never taken a real interest in understanding evolution having only heard of it from people strawmanning the idea in an effort to discredit it.

​@@Where_is_Waldothis Is really interesting actually, I hate how I have a lot of troubles finding information about this

@@randomusername3873My recommendations: Gutsick Gibbon North02 Stefan Milo

You could further reduce that to evangelical apologists. I'm not sure people, especially in the US, realize how fringe evangelicals are on a global scale. Somebody can defend his faith (which is what apologists do) without believing the mythical parts of the Bible that were never read as literal truths before the 19th century. This whole evangelical concept of literally inerrancy is a modern concept.

@@MrSeedi76no it is not lol. Go back to the 1400s and tell that to the pope. They burned people for much less theological difference than that.

@@MrSeedi76 I'm pretty sure that most of the really faithful Christians believe in Original Sin. And that isn't compatible with "there were never only two humans alive."

Let me put it this way: religious believers are no better than believers in voodoo, because they have no evidence for their magical sky-daddy.

​@@Leszek.RzepeckiSo you declare Plato, Newton, Leibniz, or for example (one of the greatest mathematicians) John von Neumann, who presented good arguments for God, all idiots. What's strange is that, unlike all of these, I've never heard of a notable work of yours. 😂

Can you give us some examples so we can understand?

​@@andrewdouglas1963The Christian god is said to be good, loving and merciful...but according to Christianity the majority of humans are burning for eternity in Hell ...that's a contradiction that suggests Christianity isn't true.

@@nakkadu That's the person's choice. Not God's choice. God wants people to choose him. Sorry but that in no way whatsoever suggests Christianity isn't true. Try again. Btw, hell is eternal separation from God. The analogy of what that is like is burning in flames.

@@andrewdouglas1963 The Bible tells us that the only way into heaven is to accept Jesus as lord. How is it someone's choice to go to Hell if they've never even heard of Jesus? Your comment is nonsense.

@@nakkadu The bible says you will be judged by what you know. If you have heard of God and rejected him, you will be judged accordingly. If you haven't heard of God, (which is a very tiny fraction of the human race) you will also be judged accordingly. God is the ultimate justice and people will be judged fairly.

The argument really is that living organisms could not form from raw materials without intelligent guidance. Are you smart enough to understand that?

@@20july1944 that's abiogenesis, not evolution

@@ashleysherlock5705 That's right, abiogenesis is the key question, not evolution either way.

@@20july1944 my point was that evolution and nature in general has too much suffering for me to believe in the Christian God, although evolution doesn't disprove a creator entirely. So you could believe in a creator because you don't know how else life could have started, but for me, it couldn't be the Christian God.

@@20july1944 Nice projection. Maybe consider something went over your head.

So... who made god?

wtf? he said that if a complex system cannot evolve with simple and sucessive achievement, his theory would fail. why a cell couldn't evolve?

No, that won't happen with me, Curtis you ignoramus.

Sounds like nonsense which is exactly what atheism is.

So, please explain your hypothesis about the origin of the base 4 encoded data for pyruvate decarboxylase, motor proteins, flagella motor complexes of 2 types, the 2 different hosts of nanomachines involved in DNA replication, and the whole of data driven protein synthesis in 2 forms. Both the machines and the code had to co-exist simultaneously. No random process can do this. The Superintelligence which did is awfully close to God.

Any god which can be disproven is not God. When you reject the existence of God, all you are truly rejecting is an image you create in your own mind of what you have decided this ridiculous "god" must be like. And to call the Creator of Space-time and Author of the laws of physics a " Flying Spaghetti Monster" only serves to show how ridiculous the human who claims to smugly know "the Truth", actually is. Even Hitchens admitted he felt guilty when he took a cheap shot and stopped an honest discussion with ridicule when debating Christians. Why did his conscience bother him? The Holy is destroyed at the price of something utterly irreplaceably beautiful being lost. And the atheist mocks the very concept of the holy. Read Solzhenitzyn if you wish to see the actual consequences of deliberately eliminating a belief in God from a society. (hint- the death toll exceeded 100-1000-fold all who died in every battle committed in the name of Jesus since His death.)

Evolution is not a random process. Your 5th grade understanding of it does not prove it wrong.

Metaphysics Context The monad, the word and the idea, belongs to the Western philosophical tradition and has been used by various authors. Leibniz, who was exceptionally well-read, could not have ignored this, but he did not use it himself until mid-1696 when he was sending for print his New System. Apparently he found with it a convenient way to expound his own philosophy as it was elaborated in this period. What he proposed can be seen as a modification of occasionalism developed by latter-day Cartesians. Leibniz surmised that there are indefinitely many substances individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way, each substance being coordinated with all the others. This is the pre-established harmony which solved the mind-body problem, but at the cost of declaring any interaction between substances a mere appearance. Summary The rhetorical strategy adopted by Leibniz in The Monadology is fairly obvious as the text begins with a description of monads (proceeding from simple to complicated instances), then it turns to their principle or creator and finishes by using both to explain the world. (I) As far as Leibniz allows just one type of element in the building of the universe his system is monistic. The unique element has been 'given the general name monad or entelechy' and described as 'a simple substance' (§§1, 19). When Leibniz says that monads are 'simple,' he means that "which is one, has no parts and is therefore indivisible". Relying on the Greek etymology of the word entelechie (§18), Leibniz posits quantitative differences in perfection between monads which leads to a hierarchical ordering. The basic order is three-tiered: (1) entelechies or created monads (§48), (2) souls or entelechies with perception and memory (§19), and (3) spirits or rational souls (§82). Whatever is said about the lower ones (entelechies) is valid for the higher (souls and spirits) but not vice versa. As none of them is without a body (§72), there is a corresponding hierarchy of (1) living beings and animals (2), the latter being either non-reasonable or reasonable. The degree of perfection in each case corresponds to cognitive abilities and only spirits or reasonable animals are able to grasp the ideas of both the world and its creator. Some monads have power over others because they can perceive with greater clarity, but primarily, one monad is said to dominate another if it contains the reasons for the actions of other(s). Leibniz believed that any body, such as the body of an animal or man, has one dominant monad which controls the others within it. This dominant monad is often referred to as the soul. (II) God is also said to be a simple substance (§47) but it is the only one necessary (§§38-9) and without a body attached (§72). Monads perceive others "with varying degrees of clarity, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity". God could take any and all perspectives, knowing of both potentiality and actuality. As well as that God in all his power would know the universe from each of the infinite perspectives at the same time, and so his perspectives-his thoughts-"simply are monads". Creation is a permanent state, thus "[monads] are generated, so to speak, by continual fulgurations of the Divinity" (§47). Any perfection comes from being created while imperfection is a limitation of nature (§42). The monads are unaffected by each other, but each have a unique way of expressing themselves in the universe, in accordance with God's infinite will. (III) Composite substances or matter are "actually sub-divided without end" and have the properties of their infinitesimal parts (§65). A notorious passage (§67) explains that "each portion of matter can be conceived as like a garden full of plants, or like a pond full of fish. But each branch of a plant, each organ of an animal, each drop of its bodily fluids is also a similar garden or a similar pond". There are no interactions between different monads nor between entelechies and their bodies but everything is regulated by the pre-established harmony (§§78-9). Much like how one clock may be in synchronicity with another, but the first clock is not caused by the second (or vice versa), rather they are only keeping the same time because the last person to wind them set them to the same time. So it is with monads; they may seem to cause each other, but rather they are, in a sense, "wound" by God's pre-established harmony, and thus appear to be in synchronicity. Leibniz concludes that "if we could understand the order of the universe well enough, we would find that it surpasses all the wishes of the wisest people, and that it is impossible to make it better than it is-not merely in respect of the whole in general, but also in respect of ourselves in particular" (§90). In his day, atoms were proposed to be the smallest division of matter. Within Leibniz's theory, however, substances are not technically real, so monads are not the smallest part of matter, rather they are the only things which are, in fact, real. To Leibniz, space and time were an illusion, and likewise substance itself. The only things that could be called real were utterly simple beings of psychic activity "endowed with perception and appetite." The other objects, which we call matter, are merely phenomena of these simple perceivers. "Leibniz says, 'I don't really eliminate body, but reduce [revoco] it to what it is. For I show that corporeal mass [massa], which is thought to have something over and above simple substances, is not a substance, but a phenomenon resulting from simple substances, which alone have unity and absolute reality.' (G II 275/AG 181)" Leibniz's philosophy is sometimes called "'panpsychic idealism' because these substances are psychic rather than material". That is to say, they are mind-like substances, not possessing spatial reality. "In other words, in the Leibnizian monadology, simple substances are mind-like entities that do not, strictly speaking, exist in space but that represent the universe from a unique perspective." It is the harmony between the perceptions of the monads which creates what we call substances, but that does not mean the substances are real in and of themselves. (IV) Leibniz uses his theory of Monads to support his argument that we live in the best of all possible worlds. He uses his basis of perception but not interaction among monads to explain that all monads must draw their essence from one ultimate monad. He then claims that this ultimate monad would be God because a monad is a “simple substance” and God is simplest of all substances, He cannot be broken down any further. This means that all monads perceive “with varying degrees of perception, except for God, who perceives all monads with utter clarity”. This superior perception of God then would apply in much the same way that he says a dominant monad controls our soul, all other monads associated with it would, essentially, shade themselves towards Him. With all monads being created by the ultimate monad and shading themselves in the image of this ultimate monad, Leibniz argues that it would be impossible to conceive of a more perfect world because all things in the world are created by and imitating the best possible monad.

[2D is not the center of the universe, 0D is the center of the mirror universe]: The mirror universe theory is based on the concept of parity violation, which was discovered in the 1950s. Parity violation refers to the observation that certain processes in particle physics don't behave the same way when their coordinates are reversed. This discovery led to the idea that there might be a mirror image of our universe where particles and their properties are flipped. In this mirror universe, the fundamental particles that make up matter, such as electrons, protons, and neutrinos, would have their charges reversed. For example, in our universe, electrons have a negative charge, but in the mirror universe, they might have a positive charge. Furthermore, another aspect of the mirror universe theory involves chirality, which refers to the property of particles behaving differently from their mirror images. In our universe, particles have a certain handedness or chirality, but in the mirror universe, this chirality could be reversed. Leibniz or Newton: Quantum mechanics is more compatible with Leibniz's relational view of the universe than Newton's absolute view of the universe. In Newton's absolute view, space and time are absolute and independent entities that exist on their own, independent of the objects and events that take place within them. This view implies that there is a privileged observer who can observe the universe from a neutral and objective perspective. On the other hand, Leibniz's relational view holds that space and time are not absolute, but are instead relational concepts that are defined by the relationships between objects and events in the universe. This view implies that there is no privileged observer and that observations are always made from a particular point of view. Quantum mechanics is more compatible with the relational view because it emphasizes the role of observers and the context of measurement in determining the properties of particles. In quantum mechanics, the properties of particles are not absolute, but are instead defined by their relationships with other particles and the measuring apparatus. This means that observations are always made from a particular point of view and that there is no neutral and objective perspective. Overall, quantum mechanics suggests that the universe is fundamentally relational rather than absolute, and is therefore more compatible with Leibniz's relational view than Newton's absolute view. What are the two kinds of truth according to Leibniz? There are two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible. What is the difference between Newton and Leibniz calculus? Newton's calculus is about functions. Leibniz's calculus is about relations defined by constraints. In Newton's calculus, there is (what would now be called) a limit built into every operation. In Leibniz's calculus, the limit is a separate operation. What are the arguments against Leibniz? Critics of Leibniz argue that the world contains an amount of suffering too great to permit belief in philosophical optimism. The claim that we live in the best of all possible worlds drew scorn most notably from Voltaire, who lampooned it in his comic novella Candide.

Metaphysics is old ppl jerking off in a circle.

GISHGALLOP!

@@ready1fire1aim1 None of what you described about Leibniz has anything to do with suffering, even to the extent it's correct. Truths of reasoning can have opposites that are also truths of reasoning - see Axiom of Choice or Euclid's Parallel Postulate. If you stick with pure reasoning, it can tell you anything. You have to link your axioms to the real world for your reasoning to give accurate results, and faith-based religion explicitly rejects that.

I think David Hume said that about the ought-is problem. He knew it to be true but hoped people wouldn't know and take advantage of it. Most people don't know it.

It would be reasonable and logical for me to want to be an accountant instead of an artist, but reason and logic sure can be duller than you can imagine.

@@theboombody I prefer to live in the real world instead of a fun fantasy.

The reason Christians disagree on how much of the bible is to be taken literally is purely based on the fact that science has soundly disproven so much of it.

The only thing evolution scientifically shows is that species adapt and change their physical structure over long periods of time. That part is scientific and is based on observed facts. To go further than that and say it proves nature possesses no intent is philosophical speculation, not science.

@@theboombody It is scientifically observed though that you can have design arise without a designer. Evolution does not show that nature has no intent, but it shows that this is possible. So it makes the argument of "look at the trees" less appealing

All of science points to a deep intrinsic order which underpins all of reality. All discoveries demonstrate parts which interact with great precision. Living systems require massive amounts of both base 4 digitally encoded data, and a massively parallel operating system of logic gates with feedback loops which create flexible responses to subtle environmental cues. The DNA in your body, if uncoiled and linked together, would reach from the Earth to the Sun and back, not once, not twice, not 5 times, but 30 times.and every nanometer in every healthy cell is doing precisely what is needed for you to be free to both be a healthy atheist, and deny the evidence I have discussed for a good average of 80 years. God does not exist as something within and bound by the Universe. "Exist" is too limiting a word to explain how a Superintelligence which creates reality ,"Is." A hard concept, but hope you are up to it: the creator of anything it has created is outside of their creation. If you make a beautiful painting, and someone demands to be shown you, the creator of the painting somewhere within the frame and on the canvas- no. It is impossible. Monet is not within his paintings. Alex is a thinking atheist, and I respect that. But, if he drops who he thinks he is looking for, and serves others, and looks deeply into what science has revealed, he will find what is outside his conception.

​@@glenliesegang233"Complexity therefore god."

​@@shassett79"complexity therefore nothing" - atheism

No, unlike theism, atheism doesn't require thought-terminating cliches because atheism has no dogma. An atheist might choose to study complexity with the goal of deepening their understanding, or they might not. It's really up to the individual.

They do actually that life happens as random chance (an extremely low chance that calling it a miracle -intentional work- would billions time more convincing than betting on the chance itself) or conciousness, feeling, and so on are just atoms, chemical, no meanings whatsoever behind it. You love someone is just some chemicals playing around inside your head, and you should trust those random chemical playings inside your head (your consciousness, your thoughts) seem to be ridiculous to me. If atheists can prove that by injecting "loving" materials inside your brain, make them reacts the "exact" way so it makes them "love" someone -this is controllable- then I'll believe it. Otherwise, The onus is on the non-believers to prove the meaningless of life.

Yep, "god" made us flawed and were urgently trying to correct that with medicine, biotechnology and so on. We are straightening out every garbage that he placed here to make our lifes worse, but sure its all about heaven and hell 🤡🤡

As you say, the fact of universal suffering is a major problem with respect to the question of a loving God. It's my view that something set this System up so that Life might come about. The universe seems to be fine-tuned and that precludes any physical interference in the universe. The Creator cannot stop the suffering on Earth. The Physical Constants have to be what they are for a universe and Life to arise. That means the universe can't be any other way, and suffering is an unavoidable price we pay for Life. It's rough, but i don't think it can be any other way.

Much of the advancement in science from the 1500's to today was achieved by believers who wanted to know more about God's creation. Mendel, Newton, Kepler, Boyle, Faraday, Euler, etc. Even the guy who found the vaccine against smallpox was religious. But of course the politics of today don't want people to know that. They want it to be religious blue collar conservatives vs academic LBGT democrats. They don't want people to pay any attention to LBGT blue collar workers or religious academics. It doesn't fit their narrative. That's why I try my best to ignore the two-party system since I think it's really just one party pretending to be two in order to stir internal conflict.

Nah, it was more of the other way around since the evangelical, fundamentalist literal interpretation of the Bible was an invention of the 19th century.

Someone hasnt read any Christian literature.

Right?!

Lmao I'm not sure what part of the atheist community is that. Haven't encountered such thing yet

​@@justaway6901 Many people actually doesn't know that a atheist can also be intellectual and enjoy studying things that most people doesn't. A intellectual just has some natural curiosity and likes talking things that are not in the stream.

99% sure a few of the Great philosopher did just those thing and worse. Homeless, drunk... I can't remember names off the top of my head... sorry Not disagreeing with you, just remembered it when reading your post. Cheers

He only masterbates after tea

Sweetie, if you clowns had any evidence for your magical sky-daddy, you'd be falling over yourselves to produce it. Instead, you just thump your bibles harder and harder under the delusion that makes them more plausible.

He didn't really though did he

If there is a God (or gods), humans did not create it (or them), but humans have created religions with anthropomorphized deities.

What created man

​@michaelarojas DANGER: You're about to get into the rabbit hole. Take with you the Golden Thread. You may need it later.

​@@michaelarojas It's good you're asking WHAT, instead of WHO.

Now replace "Christian" in that little essay with "US evangelical" and you're closer to the truth. I hate how the whole RU-vid debate between religion and atheism always revolves around these fringe evangelicals.

@@MrSeedi76 except that argument is Biblical. If there are Christians who don’t believe their god is perfect, then they’re just fools worshipping a imbecilic sky-daddy.

@@MrSeedi76I’m pet sure any Christian has to believe god is perfect.

I think your conception of God is wrong. You can’t just rationalise something that’s deeper than the material world down to these surface-level questions you’re asking.

God is perfect, humans are just made in the image of God but we are no where near perfect.

Exactly why should Alex discuss anything with a professional liar? Seems like a waste of time.

I’m pretty sure they were seen a lot but probably people even feared them before they had seen them.

The argument really is that living organisms could not form from raw materials without intelligent guidance. Are you smart enough to understand that?

I think both can be true and both can not be true.

Idiot

More like 1/3rd of potential voters.

Not half of Americans but around half of the voters.

@@willschrankthey may not actively say it but they certainly have views which make it close to that. Hitler and other tyrants didn’t portray themselves as a god but absolutely as some superior being. Just because you don’t know anyone doesn’t mean there’s no evidence. You’re not a good philosopher if you think you have availability to all the evidence in the world. Many Trumpists consider themselves superior while there’s no evidence that the commenter you responded to feels superior to Trumpists.

The other half their God is the money

Probably the most moronic line of reasoning I have heard in the last ten days. Ignorance at its finest.

You can actually make a solid case when it comes to the all-loving Abrahamic God. Since evolution favors certain individuals (the well adapted one). The rest are basically made to suffer

It disproves the events of Genesis which claim Adam and Eve were the first humans. That creates a problem when it comes to original sin.

The Christian god, is the Jewish god is the Muslim god, Gods of the Levant? I dunno but peoples should have a better way to account or describe the mythical beings that may have different proper names and yet all be foundational of the same mythos.

@@jonc4719 They are based on the same story but they’re distinct differences. Judaism and Islam don’t believe Jesus is one head of the three headed God. Islam callas God Allah and in Judaism God is Yahweh. Islam says Allah is a forgiving God and that is illustrated in Adam and Hawwa in the garden after taking a bite of the fruit. Allah isn’t vengeful while Yahweh punishes Eve. There is no concept of original sin in Islam but in Judaism God punishes Eve with a painful Pregnancy and they must leave Eden because they are sinners. You might say all three Abrahamic religions have the same God, but they describe this being in very different ways.

That would be 7 PM in England.

As long as Earth exists it will likely always be 1am somewhere on Earth by that standard metric of time. Your comment seems to convey an egocentric arrogance, as if the time zone that you are referencing is the only time zone of relevance. Time is relative.

​@@vladtheemailer3223nope, one hour ago was one on the morning

The brain damage it takes to not understand time zones

@@vladtheemailer3223 no it would not. I live in the Uk. It posted at 1am

You can critique something doesn’t all of a sudden make it untrue.

Clearly, you've never learned any biology!

If God can create anything, why would it create us with bodies in the first place? Does your god suffer from social inequality? Does your god need courage? You're having your god make up all these unnecessary problems, then providing the means to overcome them. Is florge - the love of the harmony of unsensed senses - desirable? Then life must be created to sense boflorge and neflorge.

😂😂 your comment is good, but I didn't read it

You say "This" then "video". Is "This" and "video" the same thing in your sentence? If not, then what exactly is "This" as utilized in your comment? What methodology you are using to determine "This" is "good" (what is the criteria of "good" that applies to your "This". The content you are consuming (Alex O'Connor) correlates higher quality of logic and articulation than your response seems inflict). I note "didn't watch" does not necessarily exclude 'listening', but that's a colloquially inconsequential distinction.

​@@thequietintrovert8605 1. "This" and "Video" are the same. 2. Just because the comment was simple doesn't mean it excludes any video more complicated than that comment. 3. You didn't mention anything about the fact that saying the video was good without watching it was irrational, so I won't respond to that theoretical arguement.

@@justforfun9780 This is a fun exercise. Just because 'X' was simple doesn't mean 'X' excludes any 'Y' more complicated than that 'X'. 2. That's a fine concept. I don't disagree with that sentiment. In the context of this discussion, that sentiment is a red herring. I didn't mention any subject excluding another subject or 'exclusion' at all. The predicate I utilized was "correlates". The term I utilized was "quality" (specifically; quality of "logic and articulation"), not "simple". I don't regard "simple" and "quality" to be mutually exclusive. Something can be simultaneously "simple" and of high "quality". My comment was merely observing a disparity in the "quality of logic and articulation" between your comment and the video you are commenting on. I did not express a perceived principle of exclusion between the quality of your comment and the quality of the video. So, it's cool that you have that opinion dude, I don't disagree with that sentiment, but I also did not imply anything contradictory to that sentiment if that was the impression you got. 3. You seem to suggest that it is a "fact" that; "saying the video was good without watching it was irrational" (your words, not mine). At first glance your 1st comment did seem to harbor a contradiction, yet under linguistic examination, I noted potential validity in your first comment as one can 'listen' to the video without 'watching' said video and still determine said video to be "good". No linguistic contradiction. The only potential contradiction is more behavioural than linguistic (linguistic behaviour is still behaviour but let's graciously ignore that minutiae) as most people would colloquially register no significant distinction between 'listen' and 'watch' within the context of your 1st comment but that is not enough information by which for me to honestly conclude your 1st comment was irrational (but you seem to) hence why I asked questions and made no arguments. I observe that you did seem to make a response that correlates to that section of my comment. Thanks for participating. This sort of exercise/procrastination is a pleasant distraction.

@@thequietintrovert8605 I did read this comment, but I'm not going to respond to it because school exists. This was still a very productive coversation, and by productive I mean absolutely unnecessary.

Hoping you get help, troll.