I have faith in that the Bible was just a collection of stories, that has been manipulated over the years. I need no evidence to know that GOD does not exist.
I would’ve watched a 20 minute video that was just cutting back and forth from Matt dillahunty agreeing with Alex O’Conner and then saying that Alex O’Conner is unreasonable
@@airplayrule what are you saying that Matt Dillahunty blocked Alex after making that remark in the debate? I wonder if it was because of that or something else that happened, that’s crazy.
I've spent years reading about and listening to a lot of folks discuss this issue - what would convince a non-theist that theism is likely true - and this has to be one of the finest resources in this context.
@@RichardDuncan-ju1xk God has done a lot more than buying you a beer (which God wouldn’t have to pay for)… God has sent his only begotten Son to offer you eternal life. You must accept the offer, however!
@@michaelderobertis5456, writes _"God has done a lot more than buying you a beer [...]"_ So you say, but since you can present no good evidence for your claim you sound disingenuous, ignorant, or deluded.
The "God of the gaps" argument has always been interesting to me and I sometimes find myself catching my reasoning favoring it. But, on the flipside, I find a notable amount of atheists, both big name atheists and your run-of-the-mill atheists, follow on what I consider the Atheist equivalent of the fallacy it's what I called the "Science of the gaps" fallacy; the notion that everything can be explained away in the realm of science and anything outside of the science is outlandish hogwash.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Yes, it's a faith claim, especially because it excludes the idea of a non-naturalistic answer. It would be much better if the claim was 'one day science may prove whether Gods exists'. That's a possibility, in my opinion, for God has created the universe and its laws according to a rational plan, the physical architecture of which is still largely unknown to us.
Ok, fair question. I am an atheist, and I have no idea what sort of evidence would definitively demonstrate the existence of any deity. You cited several examples, and I myself have contemplated the specific example of the stars being rearranged to spell words. I didn't know anybody else had ever proposed that lol. But my problem is, at several levels, I cannot find a means by which even that event would demonstrate deity, as that term is probably being used here. To me, the biggest single problem is defining deity. You can't do an experiment to find something you can't define. Let's take the rearranged stars problem. What eliminates the possibility that some very advanced species is projecting us as a hologram, and our entire universe could be rearranged at will? Theists raise this kind of superpower for their deity all the time. But what precludes the possibility of some natural being much greater than us, but much less than absolute deity, being able perform such an act? Or take the hologramming out of the equation. Now you have a being who simply has such a profound understanding of physics they know how to deploy enough controlled energy to rearrange stars as a form of communication? So what? That does NOT necessarily demonstrate deity per se. Which gets us back to our definition problem. Only by arbitrarily redefining deity to include some power X, and arbitrarily exclude all other beings from having said power X, can we formulate a test for the existence of this version of deity. The problem is this utterly collapses as a way to specifically demonstrate the Abrahamic deity. It was once widely believed that only the gods could generate lightning. So if you saw lightning, you were seeing evidence of deity. Thor, Zeus, whoever. Virtually any deity could be substituted into this definition. So the 'power' theory of defining deity can never provide closure. Raise somebody from the dead? Advanced biology perhaps, but not necessarily deity. Manufacture a local universe? Fantastic. Definitely a being to be feared. But deity? The absolute source of all reality? How do you get there? I don't think it can be done. Yes, I know about Kalam, and the modern variants of Kalam. I think they all have unfixable holes. So at the risk of sounding like I'm just throwing my hands up in despair, well, I am. I do not know of a single thing that could be done to show the existence of deity as that term is normally used by Abrahamic theists. Yahweh to me is nothing but a tribal war god subservient to a higher deity, who then got an unexpected promotion and now runs the whole show from a remote place that can't be detected by any of the reliable detection methods humans normally use to detect things. The other word for that being 'unfalsifiable.' 'Fictional' also works here. Now I understand that atheism can be misconstrued as 'nature of the gaps' or 'science of the gaps.' But as you stated early on, we have literally no choice but to start with what we know and work from there. What we know first and foremost is the data our brains receive from the outside world on physical paths of perception. We see color, we hear sound, we feel the weight of our own body as we struggle to learn how to deal with gravity. In that sense, 'nature' or 'science' are proxies for things we experience in our shared physical reality, things we can do experiments on. For example, I can convince my flat-earth friend (and I do have one) the earth is a globe using science, and based on nature. Could I convince him by simply asking him to imagine the world is a globe? Because he could also imagine the world was a cube, or a dodecahedron, etc. If he preferred to believe the world was not a globe, how would I cure the gap in his knowledge? I would have to resort to evidence we both share, evidence we could test. His imaginative remaking of the earth could be falsified. But how can I do that for an alleged entity for whom the only 'evidence' is a brain state? Where there is no impact on physical reality that can be tested? Where I have no ability to show whether this alleged being exists only in this person's imagination, versus existing in some unreachable state beyond the reach of physics? At the end of the day, it seems all too convenient that this alleged being has priests and imams and preachers all running around telling us what they think he thinks, but push come to shove, like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, the actual deity is always hiding in some unreachable place, always out of reach of our ability to verify. A sorry mess for us ordinary folk who never actually get to meet this deity, but a great way to make a living for the guys who run around pretending to represent him.
If you're to take the hypothesis of the Christian God, rather than the mere Abrahamic God, you wouldn't say that we never got to meet Him. And if the priesthood was simply a way to make money, why is it still practiced today, when there are infinitely better ways to make money and with most priests living very simple lives?
@@henryvdl3692 Um, yes I would say there's no sound evidence we ever got to meet the Christian god. All we actually have is an old book, written mainly by anonymous authors, none of whom we can confirm actually met the mythic Jesus figure about whom they wrote. It is 100% hearsay, and none of the hearsay exceptions apply. It's not a reliable story. We might give it some credence if it contained no supernatural elements. But it overflows with claims of miracles. I'm not against miracles. I just don't see anonymous, unverified storytelling as a valid way to show they happened in the real world. And even if you could show they all really happened, you still don't know it was the work of a 'god', or simply unexplained science. As for priests, etc., I will grant they aren't all Joel Olsteen money makers. So? Many of them are. I live next to a church like that. There is a ton of money in it for the right skill set. Still, there are others who aren't in it for the money. They just want to be close to a god. What's in it for them? Potentially many things. Power. Status. Personal peace of mind. The narcissistic belief that they understand reality better than the nonreligious. All of those things are very human reasons why priestcraft is still practised today. Humans naturally want all those things. They are not evidence for the alleged reality of an invisible superbeing, whether Jesus or Yahweh or Thor.
@@homealoneuniverse1221 I wasn't focusing on the evidence, although there is plenty of that (I would refer you to this video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-A0iDNLxmWVM.html). My point was that it sounded as if you claimed that the Christian worldview says that we are "ordinary folk who never actually get to meet this deity". No reasonable Christian has ever said that, or anything close to that. Forgive me if I've misunderstood. Once again, power and status can be acquired through other, much less costly means, as can narcissistic satisfaction. I sincerely doubt that people would give up marriage, sex, and other privileges to gain something that can be found through easier methods. Those people are in the minority, which you would discover for yourself if you were to meet a decent number of priests. The vast majority are genuinely kind and generous, which are not traits of a narcissistic or greedy person. Also, I never said that the practice of priesthood is proof of God's existence. I am saying that it heavily implies a sincere belief in God and good intentions, rather than a desire for the alternatives you suggested.
@@henryvdl3692 Ok, first, I do not intend to generalize on motives of clerics of any denomination. There are also Buddhists, Rabbis, Baptist preachers whom I know have chosen near poverty because they think they are doing good. So I don't think we need to argue about that. My original point is perhaps best understood in an evolutionary context. In our early days we needed religion or something like it to survive a hostile environment. It's a social power amplifier. So even though you may get people with good intentions becoming religious leaders, you can also see how it would be attractive to another category of people. All professions attract some narcissists. But what better place to be a narcissist than a man who claims he speaks the very words of deity? And I have seen it enough in my long life to know it is NOT a coincidence. As for your first point, I do think you have misunderstood me. So to clarify, I totally get that the Christian worldview claims humanity has met deity in human form. So what? Scientology claims everybody is infested with ancient disembodied aliens and you have to pay their 'priests' a boatload of money to get rid of them. They are both equally nonsense, until and unless a sound evidentiary case can be made to support the claim. Which is why I responded to the above video in the first place. Claims, by themselves, don't mean anything. But a claim of deity is even worse, because it is probably impossible to support, due to the difficulty formulating a theory of evidence that would work in that special case. I hope that clears things up. Peace.
I would recommend trying to understand what theists mean by God because that would clear up a lot of your misunderstandings and problems. I think a lot of atheists tend to have a narrow, simplistic view of the God of the Bible because he has been painted as a ‘supreme being’ that isn’t too dissimilar to pagan gods. This is not what most believers understand God to be. I recommend this video to start with: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1zMf_8hkCdc.html Peace.
Exactly! St. Thomas Aquinas' wisdom does shine in his statement, "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." As St. John Henry Newman rightly recognizes in his concepts of real assent and informal inference, belief in God and Christianity comes from the accumulation of probabilities. To those insufficiently attentive to the instincts of natural religiosity there is nothing really to say. You need ears to hear.
@Roger Mills I would say faith in a personal God. Claims about God are distinct from philosophical arguments for God. One can be affected by feelings as Trent points out and then there’s logical discourse.
This comment is 2 years old but maybe you will respond anyways: So what if people do not have those instincts for religiosity? What if they are born blind so to speak, and just can't see? How is that fair or a free choice?
@@ThePaull3d Some distinctions would need to be made. The natural human instinct is to be religious, but if that instinct is hampered or has become twisted in some way due to things beyond a person’s control such as an illness that affects their mental state then Catholicism allows room for that. God doesn’t hold people responsible for things that are impossible for them to do, that would be cruel. He isn’t bound by anything though and can present Himself in really particular ways. If one is willfully blind or sees the truth of faith and refuses to submit to it, then that’s a different matter.
As an atheist, before showing me evidence of any god, you would need to provide me with an explanation of how exactly I am supposed to believe in something beyond space and time when I define existence as being within space and within time at some point. There was no time before the universe, so how can something have existed before the universe in order to create it? You could just say that it is a simple truth that God is beyond spacetime, but that's not the problem. I find the mere idea of something existing beyond spacetime to be inherently nonsensical, incoherent, and inconceivable.
So then did time always exist, as an infinite point, or was it necessary inevitability? If these two positions are false or illogical, then we come to a third choice: a first mover. One that created time that has no origin and exists by necessity itself. Its also not really that hard to comprehend. We can think of abstract ideas that have no bounds in the physical universe, such as numbers. Yes, there's the description we give of it that are human construct, but it doesn't matter if it is called 'I,' 'one' or 'uno,' its numerical value is still '1,' and our universe has been found to follow many rules according to numerical values, such as the Universal constants. However, these numbers themselves hold no tie to spacetime themselves, and thus are something not bound to time, space and perception.
@@luxither7354 Time has always existed in the sense that it has existed for all time, but time has not existed for an infinite amount of time. Why can’t time exist by necessity itself? I can imagine whatever I want, but I can’t conceive of something existing outside of time and space in a way that is logically consistent with what I consider the concept of “existence” to mean. It may be that our definition of existence is one that we have created as humans, but that doesn’t contradict the fact that I can’t see how one could believe in something “existing” when it doesn’t fit our definition of existence without employing some form of doublethink. Therefore, for me to understand how something can exist without conforming to our definition of existence, someone would have to give me a new definition of existence that both permits God to exist and also remains consistent with our empirical observations of the universe. If such a definition exists, please provide it to me.
@@legospaceskeleton "I find it the mere idea of something existing beyond spacetime to be inherently nonsensical, incoherent, and inconceivable." Where is the contradiction? What makes it nonsensical? "Why can’t time exist by necessity itself?" If you claim that the past is not infinite, and also claim time exists without a first mover and is by necessity, then you've found yourself in a metaphysical absurdity. How can time be caused if there was no time to cause it if atheism is true and there is no mind to move it? Who's "us"? What do you mean by "our definition"? What you're saying is not clear. Existence is the the ontological property of being. Empirical observations are not the only way to understanding truths about reality, and to assume so would be begging the question for naturalism, and would also be self defeating.
@@DarkArcticTV Thanks for the reply. I’m currently on holiday and so will be busy for the next few days, but I’ll try to get back to you about all this at some point soon.
I'm an atheist. The best argument for the existence of God is the fine tuning argument. It really is quite convincing. If one of the couple dozen or so physical constants were different by a mind-boggling minuscule amount that we wouldn't be here. My biggest problem with it is the water puddle story from Douglas Adams. The environment around the water puddle isn't "fine tuned" to give the water puddle its shape. It's the other way around, the water puddle conforms to its environment, that's what gives it its shape. Similarly, perhaps if there were different physical constants there wouldn't be life or the universe as we know it, but maybe there would be a different kind of universe with a different kind of life that arose out of those different physical constants. Also, we don't even have a full grasp on the physical laws of our own universe, so talking about what a different universe would be like with different physical laws and constants is speculative at best. Edit: I forgot to include that the multiverse is also a candidate explanation for this. If there are an infinite number of universes then there are bound to be some which support life, and that's one we find ourselves in. The multiverse also seems like a more likely explanation than God because it's a logical step that's been made and verified by science multiple times. We discovered there are other continents with people than just the ones we live on. We discovered there are more planets than just Earth. We discovered that the stars in the sky are the same as the Sun. We discovered there are billions of galaxies besides the Milky Way. Now we have the universe, and it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility at all that there may be a multiverse with many, if not an infinite number of universes. (End edit.) Another edit: We also don't know how much variation the physical constants could possibly have. Yes, if they were different by a mind-boggling minuscule amount then our universe as we know it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here. However, it might be the case that the possible variation is even smaller than that, or it might even be zero, in which case the argument fails. (That would bring up a different set of questions and arguments, but the fine-tuning argument would fail. End edit.) I do really want God to be real. I'd like to be a Christian. The community, meaning, love, having a higher purpose, etc., is very appealing. I don't like it that nihilism, in my view, is correct. One day I'll be gone, everyone I love will be gone, humanity will be gone, the Earth, Sun, and galaxy will be gone, and all that'll exist for infinity is cold, empty space devoid of absolutely anything at all. However, my feelings, what I want, what is appealing, what I don't like, etc., has exactly zero bearing on what is true. I can't just make myself believe something, I have to be convinced that it's true. Unfortunately, I believe the truth is that we live in an ultimately meaningless universe.
Let me put it to you this way. Would a multiverse disprove God, or would it further prove His omnipotence and infinity? I say, it would prove His omnipotence and infinity, as now we have several multiverses, and these multiverses still operate under the same rules as our universe, with some variation that is still not drastic enough to break what we know. However, what we have to keep in mind is that science proving God really only scratches the surface of Who God is. How do I mean? Science proves God as Creator, that much we know, but if that's all He did, then, Who IS God? We see that God is more than a Creator. For instance, God created Humans in His Image, and we share three attributes, with one being well known, the other being less known, and the other completely unknown. The Body is what we know through biology. The Body breathes, it digests, it feels, tastes, smells, looks, hears, and balances. The Soul is the least known, and all we really have to show for the Soul is emotions and complex/abstract thought. The conscious, if you will. The Spirit is the attribute we do not know anything about, even Christians are on the fence of what the Spirit is, and many people say it doesn't exist. But to get to the meat of Who God is, He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, The King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. God also loves you. It may sound empty, but it really isn't. God created you, and God loves you. He loves you so much, He created you one of a kind, and created you to not be a robot. God loves you so much, He waits for you with open arms. God loves you so much, that He gave His only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die, not for the white man, or the Jew, but for the sinner. The sinner is you, and the sinner is me. The sinner is the Buddhist and the Muslim, the atheist and the pagan, the apostate and the believer. God died for ALL of us, for every single one of us, and resurrected so that whoever believes and puts faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, surrenders to Him, and requests for His love, they will not die, but receive an eternal life, free of pain, of sickness, of suffering, of tears and of sin, forever. Name one other god whose love is so great, they did all of that for their creation. Exactly, there is no pagan god that has done that. Those false gods want your good works or animal/human sacrifices. But what does God want from you? Your faith. For it is grace through faith that saves a sinner for an eternity.
God of the gaps or Naturalism of the gaps arguments do seem to suffer from the same weakness. But I find that the conclusions of these arguments are usually different. "Science can't explain X, but it might one day". If the argument were typically "God doesn't explain X, but it's possible He might ..." then I wouldn't be nearly so sceptical.
So, would you accept another explanation: >We can't explain X. An entity, which is not a god, explains X. Let's call this entity a poof-o-orb, a blob, that has magical powers. It has no mind, no will, it's not a being nor a spirit. The only thing is does is to explain X. Would you accept poof-o-orb to exist?> You're welcome.
Hi there, atheist here. I greatly enjoyed the video and appreciate the even handed approach. I must admit that I have to hang my hat on the first two arguments that you provided. I've said before that testable, repeatable evidence that proves a deity to the exclusion of other explanations, though I do admit that I don't know what that would be. Philosophically speaking, I could personally see a possibility of a sort of guiding hand in the development of life. Something like nurturing spirits, albeit rather impersonal ones, giving different species little nudges here and there. Now, I could not believe that this would point towards a "Capital G" God, or even an intelligent one, and I also know that this is just an argument from improbability when one boils it down, but the question was for what I thought was best. I really don't find any of them very compelling, to be honest, since one can't argue the sky into being a different color nor can you simply argue a god into existence, and both would almost certainly require a leap in logic (let alone faith) to get to a God. Thank you again for the video and thank you for the invitation to share my thoughts.
I’m Catholic, we take it on faith and using logic, we can reason that God exists based on observations in nature. Forgive me for my ignorance but wouldn’t it be more accurate for an atheist to say that they are agnostic?
@@beatlecristian an atheist can be gnostic (knowing) or agnostic (lacking knowledge) that a particular god exists. For example, if your god is the sun, that it brings life, etc. I would be a gnostic theist. I have evidence the sun exists and that plants use the sun for photosynthesis. But if the sun required praise or performed miracles, you would have to present evidence for those claims. I am a gnostic atheist when it comes to Chiron. I know there could not possibly be a half human half horse animal, so I know for sure Chiron is not a god. I am an agnostic atheist when it comes to a Christian god because it could be possible, but I haven't see sufficient evidence to say that the Christian god exists. What evidence would prove the Christian god exists? Something better than has been offered up in the past 1600 years because everything that has been presented so far, does not prove the existence of the Christian god.
I’m a bit late to this, but as a I’m currently an Atheist I’m happy to address your question. I think the fine tuning, kalam and other philosophical arguments are not very good arguments for the Christian God. For most of these dilemmas a “I don’t know and nor do you” answer is the only honest answer. If you ask a physicist for example, what causes the BiG Bang, they might have hypotheses based on available information. But the answer to which hypothesis is correct is always “I don’t know”. And the hypotheses is Never God because there is no data to back that up. It seems quite arrogant to say it was definitely God that created the observable universe. That is why Atheists sometimes argue that if you do postulate it is God who created the observable universe, that you are committing the “God of the gaps” fallacy. And this kind of reasoning applies to most philosophical arguments for God. So unfortunately for me I guess, I would only be convinced there is a God, if there is some scientific proof presented. Something you say is impossible because God is Supernatural. If God is real though, he can enter the natural world as he did in the form of Jesus. So I might be convinced if I ever met Jesus version 2. But I can’t be sure. To be fair though, I’m a scientist and I do trust the scientific process generally. If I was born in a different culture or place or time, I’d probably believe in God. People are just easily convinced generally about something being true if the majority of a population believe it to be true. I’ve just been lucky to grow up in a country where most people don’t tend to be brought up (indoctrinated) to follow a particular belief.
I would love to go through a scientific exercise with you. But we would need some ground rules. We must adhere to the scientific method, any conclusion we come to must be based on available evidence, and any evidence or conclusion may not be undermined by the promise of future and contradictory evidence which is not yet known. That is pretty standard practice for the process of scientific inquiry, can we agree on this?
It is not necessary for every biblical account of the "risen Jesus" to be a hallucination. All it would take is one person to hallucinate a brief apparition of Jesus, or one case of mistaken identity, or one lady to stumble across the wrong tomb and find it empty (or make the mistake of thinking there *was* a tomb, given crucified victims were typically left out to rot). Any *one* of those events or any combination could set easily off the rumor mill such that, decades later, there would be dozens of sensational stories on the oral record for the gospel writers to pick up and write down. This does not make it reasonable to explain away every possible experience as a hallucination. If I believed every story in the Gospels was absolutely experienced *exactly as described* by someone, then it I would doubt they were hallucinated. The descriptions aren't all of things that are common to hallucinate, and it'd be strange for that many to all hallucinate independently and at different times. Peter, however, hallucinating a 30-minute conversation with Jesus, perhaps absolving him of the guilt he felt for denying his teacher and running away, is exactly the kind of thing that can happen and exactly the kind of thing that would set the rumor mill going.
I'm a Nonduality Theist. This is a great episode and this channel is IMO one of the better, well thought through channels that covers this type of subject matter.
Honestly, I also don’t know what it would take to convince me of supernatural things, because at the end of the day the ideas just don’t make sense to me and I find plenty to object to in all the arguments I've ever seen. I don’t think we can demonstrate minds are immaterial things whatever that would even mean. We also can’t demonstrate existence of minds other than our own and even then it is questionable to talk about demonstration when knowing our minds exists is an immediate individual state of affairs rather than any meaningful reasoning. I’m also not aware of any moral truths existing. Morals seem just stability points connected to our evolutionary history and they are associated with a kind of homeostasis with our environment. Very much a material state of affairs. Numbers then again I don’t think exist as such, rather they are just names given by humans to particular aspects of the process by which information is handled by this universe. I believe in expectation values, strategies I discover and by which I can expect to be able to play the game better than otherwise. I’m not sure I believe in anything else at the end of the day really. I find it unlikely the universe came from nothing or came at all in any meaningful way, more likely it’s just misguided human taste for causes and reasons when it comes to fundamental existence which may not have anything like that at all. We know of only one state of affairs evolving into another state of affairs in this cosmos of ours. Generalising from that doesn't really get you very far and perhaps there is nowhere to get to.
"I find it unlikely the universe came from nothing or came at all in any meaningful way, more likely it’s just misguided human taste for causes and reasons... we know of only one state of affairs evolving to another state of affairs." Well, that is Aristotelian Formal Causation then, which is fundamental to understanding causation. Explanations and causes aren't just "human tastes". There's a reason why when a set of particles (such as 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom) form, that every single time they form a water molecule. Never do they wind up being something different, it literally never changes, nor evolves. They are true to "form" of their essence, every single time. It literally never changes. The very essence of what they are causes them to be a water molecule every time, never a petroleum molecule or aluminum oxide. Acorns always wind up forming into something that is within the realm of their essence (even if it's badly mutilated), it will be some sort of plant, never a rock or a bird. This is formal causation. Cause and effect, and explanations, are absolutely provable, and absolute fundamental metaphysical reality. They are as provable as 1+1=2, every single time, and if true, God exists. Denial of cause and effect, and that things have explanations, to me is like denying 1+1=2. This sort of argument sounds like Sean Carroll or someone.
@@thegreatcornholio7255 Generally speaking there is essentially nothing to prove in "1+1=2". Conceptually it's an arbitrary definition made by humans for practical reasons and physically it refers to trivial state of affairs. "Cause and effect, and explanations, are absolutely provable, and absolute fundamental metaphysical reality." As exemplified by Münchhausen trilemma, nothing is absolutely provable or at the very least humans don't currently have any grasp of such matters. If you think otherwise, I'm confident you have failed to understand the essentials of logic. "There's a reason why when a set of particles (such as 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom) form, that every single time they form a water molecule." To be exact H2 and O atoms don't necessarily form water molecule and are quite happy to exist among themselves as separate atoms in large quantities as well. They form water when set on fire, but they don't need to burn otherwise. I'd also like to stress that in nature there are a great many often unlikely ways things can evolve and in a large set of things many of these unlikely ways happen all the time. Even particles aren't any unambiguous things when looking at the scale of quantum fields. However, that's probably not the point you tried to get across so I'll respect the principle of charity and ignore this particular issue. Never the less getting back to your point, how would you in general know there is a reason for the arbitrary state of affairs in nature? What would that reason be, how would it work, what would be the reason for that reason? Generally speaking following back the route of how nature evolves from one state of affairs to another does not seem to allow humans to reach any meaningful and unambiguous conclusion to such questions so it seems humans know nothing of such things. Humans simply observe the current state of affairs and how they evolve. Physics is only descriptive, it makes simplifications to build models based on those observations and then people use those models to make pragmatic predictions to play the game of expectation values so to speak. These explanations are fundamentally only useful fiction since we can't verify their correspondence to absolute truth. At no point do we reach a thing like first cause for anything. We only see evolution of state. Luckily that doesn't matter, we can still play the game, but it really does seem to be all we know and do. Observation is not a proof, it can act as a demonstration that may or may not support expected usefulness of a particular model. Only in mathematics and logic are things proven in a more strict sense and even then the proofs only tell that from assumptions a certain set of conclusions follow, but the assumption are still uncertain and ultimately the provability of formal axiomatic theories is quite limited as demonstrated by Gödel's incompleteness theorems and of course in the end in more general sense due to observations like Münchhausen trilemma.
@@derre98 Well, I guess I'll respond, but the point is that when you said that humans want to assign causes, and explanations to things; it is for a very good reason. It's because everything has causes and explanations. That's what things like science are about and just assume (unless you're into modern scientism, atheist stuff, then you rely on the principle right up until the point it disproves your atheist world view and then dump it). "speaking there is essentially nothing to prove in "1+1=2"." -In mathematics in logic, we have what are called "mathematical proofs" and "logical proofs". " Conceptually it's an arbitrary definition made by humans for practical reasons and physically it refers to trivial state of affairs. " -This means you are in the nominalist view of philosophy, which most mathemticians and the greatest mathematical physicists on earth like Penrose, Vilenkin and others, disagree. However, I agree with you, but either way, descriptive or real, never do mathematical laws change, and never is 1+1=8 for example. " If you think otherwise, I'm confident you have failed to understand the essentials of logic. " -I don't thinks so. "To be exact H2 and O atoms don't necessarily form water molecule and are quite happy to exist among themselves as separate atoms in large quantities as well. " -Yes, that's correct, and Aristotle, and every aristotilean, thomist and whomever came after, explains that in detail. These are called "potentials" and for some reason every substance must adhere to a set of potentials. H20 combined has the potential for water, and maybe some other potentials by themselves (as you exaplaiend). But the point is, when H2 and O are combined, they MUST be the actualization of some potential, according to their form. Threre are zero times, when a H20 combine in large enough numbers, and it forms into a goat, or into oil. That fact never evolves, it never changes. It forms into water, or one of it's other potentials, every single time. This is a formal cause. All the science stuff you explained about H and O, I'll take your word for it, but that's simply not important. The point is, this is true of everything that exists that can change, it has a set of potentials, and it when it changes, it will always actualize into one of those potentials. This is Formal Cause. "I'd also like to stress that in nature there are a great many often unlikely ways things can evolve and in a large set of things many of these unlikely ways happen all the time." -Never outside of their potentials. It could be that it changes to *something else* that has new potentials, but it, in and of itself, will never change to something that is beyond the potentials of its essence. "What would that reason be, how would it work, what would be the reason for that reason? Generally speaking following back the route of how nature evolves from one state of affairs to another does not seem to allow humans to reach any meaningful and unambiguous conclusion to such questions so it seems humans know nothing of such things. Humans simply observe the current state of affairs and how they evolve." -Ok... Well, that's empericism. I'm not a strict Empericist, but that's how humans know most things. And there's other epistemological modes. How we form things like "proofs" in mathematics. We can prove them conceptually, then we can see that they are applicable to real events in nature. This is what Kant referred to as "synthetic" reasoning. We can take logical constructs, and verify them in the material world, as though immaterial abstract reality has some magical connection to the material world, and the material world must obey them. And in science "theories", and the conclusions are often very unambiguous, and very clear. In the real world, we have many experiential reasons to have beliefs (like I'm sitting in a chair right now typing and that I exist). All of these seem very reliable, and there are very good reasons to believe that they are true. There's certainly more reasons to believe that they are true, than the negation which just seems to be pure skepticism, intellectual nihilism. "Physics is only descriptive, it makes simplifications to build models based on those observations and then people use those models to make pragmatic predictions to play the game of expectation values so to speak. " -See Nominalism above. I agree, but this does nothign to disprove, or bring doubt to cause and effect, and explanations (aka The Principle of Sufficient Reason). "These explanations are fundamentally only useful fiction since we can't verify their correspondence to absolute truth. At no point do we reach a thing like first cause for anything." -"fiction"? That's a huge assertion, which you certainly haven't given any reasons to support. Well, I think people who believe to the contrary give *very* good reasons. These include people like Aristotle, St Aquinas, Gottfried Leibniz, Kurt Godel, and they explain in detail, why you are wrong about that; and I feel they are extremely convincing. If you feel there is no "first cause" of anything, you need to bgive reasons you believe some of the assertions you have been making (with no supporting reasons so far, just assertion, just as people like Carroll who I mentioned and other scientism atheists). Understanding cause and effect (including formal cause) IS the purpose of the scientific method, and other areas of epistemology. If you think it doesn't exist, or it's "fiction" or at some point it just quits being true, then I think you need to be able to explain when it stops being true, and how you came to know that. I'm just being honest here, usually when I hear people make these sort of grand assertions, about cause and effect being "fiction", or that they've upended all of human reason, so they can now support a meaningless universe that "just exists, without explanation", it's always just that, a grand assertion, with very few reasons given. Can you give a single example of something that changes, and scientists think there's no reason as to why, or where they've decided there'll be no explanation? I challenge you to find *anything*, apart from mutli-verses, "quantum soup universes" or something else that helps them support their atheism? A SINGLE thing that isn't needed to support their atheism, that they say "there need not be an explanation for that, it's a 'fiction' that everything must have some cause or explanation". As William Lane Craig points out, this is a gross example of Special Pleading. Anyhow, thanks for sharing your points. Most of my questions are rehetorical, because I may not have time to keep reading responding (bc of my work requirements).
@@thegreatcornholio7255 "The point is, this is true of everything that exists that can change, it has a set of potentials, and it when it changes, it will always actualize into one of those potentials." It seems circular or down right void of meaning to say "things do what we observe them to do" or at least that's what I hear you saying there. Yes, obviously, that's just using words to say nothing. We all know this, it's a trivial tautology. "And in science "theories", and the conclusions are often very unambiguous, and very clear." As a physicist (my day job) I would disagree in a sense that all theories are just approximate models built upon limited statistics, a set of useful fiction waiting for a better theory to arrive upon better statistics. The word fiction is of course there to highlight the uncertainty associated with all existing models, theories and knowledge, not to say that nothing matters, in fact a good theory has predictive power and predictive power is valuable to humans and thus matters to them in the time they live. "There's certainly more reasons to believe that they are true, than the negation which just seems to be pure skepticism, intellectual nihilism." Certainly, most models built upon daily observations can be tested and gambled with and this is normal practice everyone does. Same does not apply to first causes, gods and similar concepts and postulates which essential cannot be tested and only exist in a category of unnecessary ones let alone if they are nonsensical in some ways. "...this does nothign to disprove, or bring doubt to cause and effect" Principle of sufficient reason is in my opinion very bad example as we have no experience of any first causes whatsoever. Therefore we have nothing established to disprove. We only have experience of things evolving from one states of affairs into another states of affairs by "differential rules or differential equations" which we have built as approximate statistical models based on observations. "If you feel there is no "first cause" of anything, you need to bgive reasons" In the previous I gave many such reasons. I do not believe in the first cause because there is no reason to postulate such a thing, there exist no statistics and no observations that would benefit from that postulate. Postulating a first cause would explain and predict nothing, quite the opposite. All causes we know of are nothing more than continuous state evolution, rocks rolling down a potentially infinite hill of which we only know of a small finite slice. There is in general no other reason required not to believe something other than the fact that a postulate proposed by someone has not been justified sufficiently. "Understanding cause and effect (including formal cause) IS the purpose of the scientific method" Scientific method has no purpose, it's just a name given to a method we apply to build useful models, it is the best method that accomplishes this and is followed by humans doing science, humans like me. There can be nothing better than science, because whatever is known and whatever works best is science. Theories are constantly updated to match the latest observations. We build rockets that fly to the moon. Success of a theory is ultimately confirmed by success of our devices and the game itself. "so they can now support a meaningless universe that "just exists, without explanation" I don't care about such things. I do not know if the universe just exists, if the universe has meaning or what is fundamentally true of nature of existence, but what I do know is that I'm not aware of any rational way a "first cause" could be logically consistent or that universe could have a meaning. Meaning is a subjective human concept to the best of my understanding. The only thing about the universe that is obvious is that it exists, it has a state and that human (at least my consciousness) experiences temporal evolution of state which has included being able to build useful models. Human experience of state evolution may be correlated in a complex manner to the state of the universe and thus it is very difficult to say anything unambiguous about matters such as origin of the universe. "Can you give a single example of something that changes, and scientists think there's no reason as to why, or where they've decided there'll be no explanation?" I might as well ask you to give me a single example of something that changes and we know why this change occurs. As explained earlier, we don't know why change ultimately occurs, we only know how it occurs, so pretty much everything we know of falls into the category you ask. I'm not asserting there is no explanation, there might be or there might no be. Although depends also strongly on what you mean be explanation. Scientific explanation typically means a description, a model, a how, something like a map or a painting corresponding to observations. However, a painting is not a cause, its at best an image of a state. I'm simply saying humans don't know of any why, we only know of how. We know of how things approximately evolve from one state to another because of observations and statistics, not why they evolve, how time evolution started or how the first state came to be if there even was a first state or if it even came to be rather than some other "state of affairs" being the case. We simply lack the understanding and/or imagination for such matters and the alternatives proposed by people to these questions are simply nonsensical. It's better to acknowledge what doesn't make sense and what we don't know than to pretend otherwise. I'm not an authority believer so many of the names you mention don't concern me, but in general William Lane Craig and his arguments don't really get respect from me. I've hear many of them and addressed them in various contexts. I've also personally debated a PhD theologian once, that too didn't impress me very much. The others you mention may get some respect from me depending on the context, but not in ever context, some of them more than others of course, Gödel and Carroll more than others. Ideas matter, truth matters, people and especially their beliefs not so much except beliefs in a sense that people should strive to hold as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible. Everyone may have good ideas as well as bad ones, and they do. I think for myself rather than accepting what others have done. If I arrive at the same conclusion as someone famous, cool, if not, that's cool too.
@@derre98 So, it sounds like you think that the fact that H20, when combined, will *never* be oil, and a seed when planted , if it changes, it will either be a plant, or it'll rot, those are its only potentials, and there are zero other options, 100% of the time is a "circular tautology" lol. Ok, fair enough. I should just leave it at that then. It has nothing whatsoever to do with us observing them do something "therefore that's what they do". It's that something is true, and therefore we will observe it, 100% of the time". If you have some principle that is true, then you'd expect that everything adheres to the principle. If you think it is possible for H20, given enough time, may or may not form into oil, then you reject the metaphysical principle. If H20 combines and forms any other things than water, it is because these are one of its potentials, and depending on the the other things acting on it, will actualize one of those potentials. ALL of science just takes Aristotelian causation for granted, and is utterly underpinned by it, and most scientists are utterly oblivious one way or the other, and don't remotely understand it. The only time people try to make exceptions to it is when they're trying to maintain their atheism "cuz science", and then they dump every single principle necessary that underpins their science, and then they start appealing to "patterns" and things without causes, and things they think doesn't require causes, but are completely oblivious to the fact that they are just giving examples of other kinds of Aristotelian causation. If you think that H20 will NEVER form into oil, then you accept the principle, but you can still try to argue against it til you're blue in the face. Rather you agree with the principle or not, the people who do have VERY good reasons as to why they do. If you want to study the subject further to better understand it, that seems like it'd be a good option, if not, that's ok too, it's easier to be an atheist that way. And really, I will just leave it at that.
Atheism makes no "claim" of anything. It's up to theist's to prove their claims. How silly would be for a court of law to require the defendant to prove his innocence? Ridiculous!
There's many reasons as to why people become atheists and even die-hard atheists, at that. Some of those main reasons are pride and arrogance, as I recognize myself in these aspects, during the 7-year period when I had lost my faith, or reject it, more appropriately speaking. It wasn't until I let go of my pride (which is an on-going battle) and let myself be humbled by Christ, that I was able to ascertain him to be the living truth and way. Atheism is a blindness and in most cases, it's a willfull blindness, veiled in pride and arrogance. You could write several books on the topic and still have material left... In the end, it is inevitable that one turns to Scripture and see the eternal wisdom of God: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:22
@@lovinit45454 How come? It'd be more helpful if you gave an example and more of an explanation as to why you think that. As I see it, I am speaking frankly as somebody who was an anti-theist, basically. It is the unfiltered truth of what it entails to be a self-professed atheist. Identifying as agnostic is reasonable, but being an atheist is simply ludicruous because it is a senseless position to hold if it were true i;e: Theism and theists are the saving grace for atheists to identify as atheists, in the first place.
@@csongorarpad4670 "I don't have a cogent answer so I'll just say you're wrong," - the person who has gotten over his arrogance and totally has an answer for everything.
@Roger Mills Since the dawn of human existence there's always been deadly viral infections. Yet all of a sudden Branch Covidians feel empowered to infringe on the rights of every human being by imposing draconian and unconstitutional mandates which the Supreme Court just rejected on a federal level.
As an atheist, it feels like the question is like, what argument best proves something is magic? But how does cause and effect with magic work? You can shoot a fireball from your wand, and call it magic, but now I want to know where that fireball came from. If something can be explained or theoretically replicated, it isn't magic. To me, a god is a purely magical explanation to something. But how can magic possibly exist or explain anything? I need cause and effect. Nothing could prove magic to me because it is logically impossible. At best, one might prove our universe has a creator. But I wouldn't call it magic, or call them a god.
Very well articulated and presented video on this issue. Especially the part were you said most atheists keep assuming theistic arguments are from an unknown phenomenon to God. That frustrates me a lot. They consistently fail to understand that classical theistic arguments proceed from known facts about nature to God using deductive reasoning and philosophy.
I don't see that as happening. People engage with the arguments they receive. There are plenty of philophers and philosophically minded atheists who address the classical arguments. But the average theist doesn't present a classical argument. So the average atheist isn't necessarily going to address them.
My own sister said Even if God came down from heaven on a cloud that she wouldn't believe!!?? I have learnt now to just pray for her as every time I mention God she gets really upset
I always ask them these two questions - What "proof" are you looking for? (or sometimes What "proof" would be sufficient?) and "Are you even looking for any proof?" The answer to the first question is something asinine, such as in the examples you showed, or just a blank stare. The answer to the second question is always 'no'. In typing this, I just realized I have been remiss to follow up much after the second question with something like - "If God does exist, wouldn't you agree that it's worth looking?"
As a response to your first question i would say; "i dont know, i leave that for the christians". For your second question; "No, because im not a Christian, i dont believe that god exists and therefore looking for evidence for his existence would be kind of crazy". For your third question; "Of course it would, please tell me where to start and i ll be the first to do it."
@@mike-cc3dd you ignored the first part or my answer. I dont know what would convince and nobody does because nobody has ever observed the supernatural and therefore noone has proof of the supernatural. By saying i ll leave that for christians i meant (and should probably have phrased it better) that when they come up with something they consider evidence for the existence of god i ll be happy as every atheist to evaluate it. Until then i cant judge something to be or not be good evidence or proof of god.
@@dimitrispap777 well one doesn’t have to be a Christian to be a theist. You’re looking for something because you’re here. Here is a decent start. I suggest that you Keep listening to Trent and others like him. We will pray for your spiritual prosperity. God bless and peace.
You saw him teleport the card into the orange, there's no other explanation, yet you deny it happened, you say it's the unknown natural. So let me ask: what would convince you that he magically teleported the card? And it can't be repeating and investigating the magic trick, because that would be science (10:10), and science can't prove magic (10:28). It seems your materialism might be unfalsifiable :s
People who think that reality tv shows are "real“ have much more serious problems than just a broken epistemology.😂 Everything you see in those shows is fake, all of the people you see are actors who only pretend to be amazed by the mysterious magic trick. I saw enough "behind the scenes“ videos that made me question if there are any shows left that aren’t 100% fake especially those highly produced magician shows.
Remember that time God performed numerous miracles in direct sight of Pharaoh but because his desire for worldly power was so great each time it only hardened his heart to God more?
According to a story in the bible. Of course, the bible also says that Pharaoh was about to release the Israelites, but God harnded his heart..I guess the Angel of Death has pretyt big cancellation fees, or God just gets off on seeing kids get killed?
@@richardgregory3684 Ya Pharaoh was going to release the Israelites in the midst of the latter plagues, but when each plague ended Pharaoh changed his mind again to keep them captive. It’s not complicated. As soon as he wasn’t being directly impacted by God’s power his heart was hardened and he resisted God again. This wasn’t God removing Pharaoh’s free will, it was God knowing and telling Moses that pharaoh would resist Him. God doesn’t change His mind and God doesn’t remove people’s free will, if you think so please find me any other examples. Also, you can’t say ‘according to a story in the Bible’ to dismiss me and then cite the exact same story from the Bible to make your case. How does that work? Lol
@@IllogicalMachine Exodus 9:12 "And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh" Exodus 10:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:" Exodus 10:20 "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go." So the bible story makes it absolutely clear beyond doubt, that *GOD* hardens Pharaoh's heart. That is clearly interfering in free will. Moreover, the story openly admits that God did this for the purpose of causing Pharaoh to continue to refuse to release the Israelites so that God could then "show his signs". In other words, God was deterined to inflict the plagues on Egypt and when it looked like Pharaoh was about to submit, God interfered to ensure he had an excuse to carrying on punishing Pharaoh for disobedience (which God caused). And of course, punishing the Egyptians too, even though they were innocent and had no say in the matter. Even we mere humans have outlawed "mass retribution", that is, punishing a whole population directly for the actions of a minority of it. _Also, you can’t say ‘according to a story in the Bible’ to dismiss me and then cite the exact same story from the Bible to make your case. How does that work? Lol_ It works because it exposes the way the bible presents self-contradictions, and exposes the lie that "God doesn;t interfere in free will", which is the excuse Christians invariably quote when asked why God doesn;t stop a maniac from shooting a dozen kids with a machine gun. Of course the whole thing is nonsense and this is but one example of Christianity's internal inconsistency.
Great video. Totally agree about the importance of engaging in philosophical argumentation and reflection when it comes to debating God's existence. For those interested in some relevant Atheistic works that look at the issue of competing explanations, I'd recommend J.L. Mackie's _The Miracle of Theism_ , Gregory Dawes's _Theism and Explanation_ and Jason Beyer's _A Comparison of Judeo-Christian Theism and Philosophical Naturalism as Explanatory Worldviews_
Do you have thoughts on the “limb from nothing vs universe from nothing?” I suppose that doesn’t matter so much as you engage in philosophical discussions that Barker just hand waved away
Real Atheology: Important to remember that philosophy of religion is an invention of the fertile, human imagination. As such, it has much in common with the stories told by our comparatively primitive ancestors. The "stories" of philosophy of religion are more complex, more sophisticated, sure, but they are still a kind of story. The philosophy of religion is essentially making stuff up about stuff that's made up. I say this because philosophy of religion has become the refuge of the thinking theist. They have somehow persuaded themselves that philosophical arguments can bring "Gods" into existence in the real world, which is absurd, of course.
@@karlazeen Yes, it fits and I often lump them together, especially when I am told that I am theologically ignorant, which happens from time to time. Like philosophy of religion, theology - the study of "Gods" - does not bring "Gods" into existence in the real world.
When we say “thats reasonable” we mean “thats understandable” For example, if a sheep herder in 800 BC saw a lightning bolt and thought it was god directly, i would say such an assumption is not unreasonable, yet i would still say it is incorrect
An atheist here, "What would convince me of god?"... Well, two things would have to happen... 1. Theism would have to be represented in the universe in argumentation (every argument for god is not theistic in any way). The thing is is that theism is unnatural in that the only way one would come to know theism (or a specific god) is by example a talking burning bush, disembodied voice, voices/words in head, apparitions, scripture, prophets, divine dreams etc... etc... These things are all unnatural revelations, theism is NOT able to get itself out of that box as no natural revelations exist. Theism requires the unnatural to be known! If no natural revelation exist in that no theistic argumentation is present then theism cannot EVER be rational. For example, if I saw a talking burning bush, it would be impossible to deny what was happening in front of me, however, there would be NO WAY, under the laws of logic, that it would ever be rational or coherent understanding in belief or knowledge. It would then mean that god put me in an irrational position regarding rationality and coherence in logic, simply because the universe HE designed is not pro theistic in nature (that would be god's fault theism isnt rationally possible). Any time type of natural revelations at best would be deistic but not theistic. So theism would have to show itself to be naturally possible in the laws of logic in a universe were theism had natural revelations that are not deistic (since deism and theism are at odds). Apologist, even famous ones, like to use deistic argumentation to show theism yet deism is closer to atheism in every way (literally no difference between an agnostic deist and an agnostic atheist yet plenty of differences between an agnostic deist and an agnostic theist). 2. The second thing is that Theism would have to prevent presuppositions from being used in arguments for god for theism to be rational. Theism would also have to avoid arguments such as the beginning of the universe argument, or Fine Tuning, or the First Cause arguments since neither the theist or the atheist can correctly justify any stance regarding it. This is why presuppositions are the enemy of rationality. You cannot form a justification from presuppositions other wise it becomes a "god of the gaps" type of argument. Its why atheist correctly dont presuppose a godless universe, they dont have to in order to justify atheism. All they have to do is justify their non belief in order to justify atheism.
@@daviddeida That is false... confining reality into a concept of time and space is not a presupposition only available to atheist. The reason is because no one knows the nature of reality itself or the universe so neither the theist or the atheist is required to presuppose anything about its nature beyond what we know.... It isnt required for atheism to be justified. The only thing an atheist needs to justify in rationality and coherence is not being convinced a god exists. Theist like to presuppose that atheist must presuppose to justify atheism yet they fail to understand that that is bad philosophy and bad epistemology. Saying that atheist must presuppose the nature of the universe to justify atheism is no different than saying that theist must justify the nature of god... They cannot know the nature of god so any presupposition regarding Him would be irrational and unjustified. That is kind of the point about presupposing being used to justify a stance is bad philosophy 101.
@@daviddeida I will give you another example... When theist say that natural revelations of god exists such as the trees, the grass, the sunsets, and all of the earths beauty, show a natural revelation of god... that is wrong as it requires one to presuppose god as a prerequisite to that conclusion. It means that without that presupposing, the "beauty" of the earth does NOT show a natural revelation of god. It would then be in the eyes of the beholder. Its where presupposing leads to irrational/unjustified conclusions. The fact remains that the only way to know theism is by unnatural revelations such as a talking burning bush, disembodied voices, scripture, prophets, divine dreams etc...etc... There are no objectively defined natural revelations of god, only unnatural which is a problem because the grounding of theism in general is rooted in presuppositions that require one to presuppose a presupposition... that is horrible philosophy.
Just a couple of points. First, you seem to be saying that it’s better to accept god’s existence without even asking for any evidence. I am an atheist. I don’t believe in any gods or supernatural, because no reliable evidence has ever existed for either, and no convincing argument has ever been put forth that has convinced me to believe, while there are actually quite a lot of reasons for doubting. For example, we all pretty much accept with certainty that all of the other gods worshipped throughout history weren’t real (Greek, Norse, Aztec, etc), so knowing that it has always been human nature to create gods both to explain the world they lived in and to unite and control their populations, it is no great leap to apply that same principle to every god currently believed in. Even when I was an eight year old, I could understand that concept. The fact that I probably couldn’t describe to you what the evidence would need to be that would convince me isn’t he same as me saying no evidence could convince me. In fact, if there is a god, by its very nature, such evidence would be beyond my imagination until it was shown to me. It would have to be something that I couldn’t explain in any other way though, and if your God exists, He would know what would convince me. Second, where have you been? Every single argument for god that anybody has ever come up with has been debunked countless times. I know you have the internet, so you must know this. Ontological, cosmological, clock maker, fine tuning, Kalam, Pascal’s Wager, the list goes on. All of them debunked, with every fallacy and assumption exposed many times over by tons of different people. You Maude know this, so why are you telling your viewers atheists haven’t done so? Why are you misleading them?
My Dad passed away in 2008. If my Dad came back to life on this earth, it would give credibility to the resurrection claim. If my resurrected Dad, who was an Atheist, said "The God of Abraham is responsible for my resurrection," it would give testimony to the claim. If that God then revealed himself to me and explained and adequately reconciled the heinous acts and contradictions of the Bible, I would say I would have no choice but to believe. The God of Abraham revealed himself, "in person" a number of times in the Bible. Resurrection is in the Bible. I'm not asking for random acts of unexplainable awe.
what we do know is that there is indeed physical matter time and space. for you to propose that we meditate on subjective existential evidence works only for entertainment belief and fantasy but it does not satisfy objective empirical evidentiary standards.
When I’ve been asked “What would convince you god exists?” I always answer that I don’t know. If god exists then the evidence is out there somewhere but until I see that evidence I can’t imagine what it would be.
Its like playing soccer without goalpost of the opponent. Its unfair.😂 Atheist are the one who said there is no evidence of God but do not know what evidence needed to proof God . As if atheist is not interested in God
Doesn’t the admission that scientifically you can’t come to know that a god exists put Christianity in a hole? You’d never be able to justify that Jesus ressurecting suggests he’s divine, let alone that he resurrected at all. I know history isn’t science per se but it’s a naturalistic endeavor centered around probability, and you’ll always be able to find some event(s) more probable than a resurrection to explain the data.
I’m an atheist. The Christian god is essentially silent. Presumably, however, that god would know exactly what would reveal to any given individual the truth of his existence. Atheists who put up a specific challenge to a god as to what might convince them of his existence would be dictating to a god how he should reveal himself. It would be putting themselves above a god, which seems rather silly, if a god did exist. A god would reveal himself to any given individual in a manner and to the degree that would effectively “prove” his existence. The argument made in this video is only attacking some atheist’s poor reasoning skills, but in no way effectively criticizes atheism. That being said, I do think that the video highlights a very good observation.
It's not a matter of the mind anymore. Go for the heart, and speak to their souls, and the mind will follow. That is the answer to convert a lot of these atheists nowadays
Speaking personally as an Atheist, nothing could convince me that God exists. Because the whole concept of there being an all-powerful being that is omnipotent and infallible and whose word is absolute strikes me as logically irrational. Particularly when it comes to morality which can be subjective. Therefore it would be a pointless question to even bother asking me.
@@korbendallas5318Well, they would need to familiarise themselves with what the word atheist means. *atheist* *noun [ C ] RELIGION* *UK /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ US /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/* *Add to word list* *someone who does not believe in any god* *or gods, or who believes that no god or *gods exist:* *As an atheist, I do not accept this *religious* *argument.* *His father was an atheist.*
@@korbendallas5318 Not necessarily. I said morality *can be* subjective. I'm not saying it can't ever be *objective.* Logically speaking no one can be infallible. I mean if I thought morality was never objective then I could then potentially make an argument saying murder and rape were just fine and dandy, which I of course wouldn't. Therefore I deny the suggestion from you that I am a non-cognivitist.
Please everyone, the answer is in Romans 1:17-31. Apart from those who are just angry with God, there are those who won't tell us about the evil deeds and lifestyles they justify. These folks hate God because He is inconvenient to them and God has given them over to their reprobate mind becsuse they love their deeds. They are vain. They knew God once. But they rejected Him. I was one of these. Mind you, if they are young God has not yet lost His patience with them. He had mercy on me to get much older... I too have done things when young and cried out to God to rescue me from these evil addictions. Yet, I cannot deny the justice of God all the time, and His rewarding my trust. He doesn't need to show me His face. God bless us all.
11;56 From what I recall, he said that he "was a Christian". Now he says he has no idea what could change his mind back to believing in God, but God knows. That is an odd turnaround. He places responsibility on God to accept the truth. That's like saying "God, make me accept the truth because I can't do it on my own". My response would be: "Sure you can".
The problem with your framing is, when atheists say "I don't know" to the question "what would convince you," that's also a "gotcha!!" So, what can we answer that would satisfy you? Here's my answer: if your god is all-knowing, your god should know what would convince me.
Mine is super simple. If God appeared to me or even sent one of his messengers to tell me that "yes, God is real and you are a fool," it would be settled.
Atheist and Agnostic here: What would prove god exist? for me.... since God can do anything (supposedly), I would say that there are an infinity of things that he can do to prove me his existence, what kind of silly question is that?
Makes no sense. Your response to the infinite number of things God could do should then be "Why would that convince that God exists, I'm sure scientists will someday find some purely natural explanation for that"... That's why atheism is an unfalsifiable religion. To maintain coherency, no matter what you experienced, you could never believe in God.
It speaks volumes when asking an atheist what is the best argument for God and they say none of them. It reveals an intellectual dishonesty and/or vacuousness.
These examples do not demonstrate "god of the gaps" argument. In each case the atheist is specifically outlining a situation in which the evidence suggests a supernatural explanation. In no instance are they saying: "I cannot explain this, therefore god exists."
I do not know what I am missing however if an atheist says " I would believe in God if I see an amputee healed through prayer" this seems to me to be the same as believing in Christ's resurrection. If the evidence only leaves the conclusion of the supernatural, one is not committing the God of the Gaps fallacy.
" if an atheist says " I would believe in God if I see an amputee healed through prayer"" Have you ever heard an atheist say that? If not, you are presenting a strawman argument. This video's "one question atheists can't answer" is: "What would prove god exists?" The question is moot until the person asking that question has presented a clear definition for the god. To be a clear definition for the god for the god, it cannot contain: - vague attributes - logical fallacies - unproven claims An example for an unproven claim would be to say god exists in a realm outside our universe without first proving the existence of a realm outside our universe. When a theist does not clearly define god and asks the question "What would prove god exists?", the theist is saying I won't tell you what god is, but can you tell me what would prove god exists?
Trent there is a difference between a "Magic Trick" being it's a trick and not real magic. If it was actual magic then that would be a more compelling argument to believe in your God.
I don't know what it would take, but it would be pretty simple to come up with some examples. I need just one example of a verifiable supernatural event that would first prove that something supernatural seemed to happen. From there, we'd move on to whether God exists.
I liked you video until the end when you shifted the burden of proof. If you want to have a philosophical discussion on the nature of theistic debate, that's fine. But that won't prove or disprove either side that way. The default position is god doesn't exist, so it's up to the believer to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to prove their claim is true. Arguing why their claim is bad doesn't prove or disprove the existence of gods. It only illustrates the lack of the ability to articulate a reasonable explanation for the existence of a god (evidence). I'm perfectly fine saying I don't know if a particular god exists or not. But to play along with your burden of proof shift... There are flawed reasons presented all the time. The one that popped into my mind watching the ending of your video was the Kalam cosmological argument. It has been debated and broken apart numeroustimes so i wont go into it, but it does make one think. The issue with logical or reasoning only arguments for the existence of a god is hey, if I granted everyone of your premises, boom god exists. Which god exists? What religion is correct? If you claim x god exists, you have to present evidence for that god. If you win a debate with a vague logic argument that a god more than likely exists, you can't get from that to a specific god.
It's really hard to think of a reasonable reason to believe in a god, because as an atheist, you'd first have to really establish your god. So evidence, then, I guess: observable, testable; if your god interacts with reality, it should be easily theorized. Also, it is difficult to know what reasonable reason caused the theist to believe because, when one hears the reason, they don't have sound reason. The best reason (although weak IMO) might be "fine tuning" of the universe, but the problems with it are: A. it doesn't point to any specific god. It could be Allah, Zeus, or an unknown god, so powerful it has no need for human succour and sacrifice and worship, one beyond our comprehension. B. The universe is fine tuned more to death than life; it is mostly lethal to carbon-based life; what kind of loving god does that? C. Fine-tuned to what metric? To fine tune something -e.g. a car, a piano - means it is manipulated to a standard. So what is the universe standard? What is the metric used for this "fine-tuning", this twiddling of knobs? Interesting thing to do, though, and a good question.
Maybe not an answer to the refined question, but on the subject of people saying, "I don't know what would convince me, but God would." If God exists, and He's all-knowing, then he knew what would convince theists to become theists, and a lot - I would even posit most - of those theists didn't know that the reason that convinced them would have in the first place. And since most Christians believe in a hands-on God, your belief system cannot reject the possibility that God provided the reason in any number - or even all - of the cases. So why should atheists be held to a higher standard of needing to provide a way for God to convince them?
0:58 - we don't rush to a supernatural explanation, because...well, there's no actual evidence of the supernatural. So why would that be our *first conclusion?*
I'm an atheist. I don't think belief in God is unreasonable, but I just can't seem to be convinced by the arguments that exist. I can recognise that they're good arguments, but I consider them insufficient to form a positive claim for the existence of God, even as an impersonal detached creator. At best, I personally consider that to be a valid possibility. The rest of the claims made by Christianity (as well as other religions) are even harder to believe. I think human minds are too unreliable to trust eyewitness testimony or even personal experience. Case in point, if what was mentioned in the video happened to me (God manifesting Itself directly to me) I'd probably believe I've gone crazy. But you are right, I honestly can't think of anything that would make me a believer. I don't know if that counts as being unable to answer your question but if it does then I guess I am.
As a hard-line agnostic, I usually watch the wrangling between theists and atheists with some amusement. The speaker here has gone much deeper than the usual nonsense. However, the problem with this, is that the 'question that atheists can't answer', can be put in reverse to theists. You could ask them "What is the best argument for the non-existence of God and what's wrong with it?" or "What is the least problematic argument for there being no god, and what is specifically wrong with it?" As an agnostic, I have no idea whether there is one god, a hundred gods, or no gods at all - and I'm happy to not know. What I certainly don't believe is that the vengeful, jealous, homicidal god of the Bible is at all likely to be the answer. I certainly hope that he doesn't exist, because if he does he is certainly a psychopath judging by Hosea 13:16 and similar verses. Is there a creator? Maybe. Does he sit on a golden throne with weird-looking creatures worshipping him day and night without pause? Highly unlikely.
You're doing a bit of a bait-and-switch here. Let us take, for example, reading the contents of an envelope. One quick difference is you are asking what would convince that particular atheist _at_ _that_ _moment_. And he came up with a quick (and obviously prepared in advance) test. Why didn't you pray and answer his question instead of getting into this whole, "well, if I did he could just declare it a trick"? And if your concept of God cannot provide you with the answer to that question, then why should he (or any atheist) believe that your concept of god even exists? But I will do one a bit better - pray and ask your god what would convince me, and then provide that evidence. If god is all-knowing, then god knows what would convince me beyond any doubt and without any 'gaps' issues. More simply, god's presence would be sufficient evidence for most people. God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present, right? Why then is god simply _absent_? God could present himself to me in person in a fully convincing way, couldn't he? So, why not? That is really the single biggest problem is the lack of presence. God is, primarily, eternal - so regardless of what god may or may not have done in the past, god should still be around today. Why are the miracles described in the bible not regular occurrences among Christians (and never reported among any other religion) - so regular that we take them for granted. So obvious, there is no doubt of their provenance. God can make the lame walk, heal lepers. Why then are there any christian lepers in existence? Any christians in wheelchairs? Why must your evidence rest on the gaps in scientific knowledge instead of pointing simply to christians' lived reality? And this argument you are raising here is even weaker - is sums up to: "If I ask an atheist what would convince him and he answers, then he's wrong because he just cannot think of a way in which it could have happened without god, therefore the entire concept of atheism is wrong, therefore god." Summed up like that, you see the problem, yes?
well i think if everything we have observed cientifically were already written in the bible, that would be a pretty good evidence, the big bang, the evolution of species, the expansion of the universe, the general relativity, black holes, etc. Even things we havent found out, but they turn out to be as the bible said, that would be the hell of an evidence
If I pray and ask god to rearrange the stars a certain way and then it happens I'd believe in god. I think it'd not just be the rearranging the stars, it's that it was done after I'd prayed for it. As an atheist I don't really WANT to be right it's just I can't make myself believe in something that I have no reason to believe in. I want to believe in magic and things like that but it's just not real. I wish it all was.
Yeah, it's an overgeneralization. The problem I see in your argumentation is overspecificity: You ask for a singular specific piece of evidence, and I think that's not applicable. Let me take one step back: "God of the Gap" is not only about the creation of the universe or some other detail, it's about a constant and one-directional movement from theistic to non-theistic explanations for all kind of things (Evolution is a large part though). Everything we see point to material universe, nothing points to gods, and nothing points to any reason to believe that that will ever change. It follows that I can't think of a single specific piece of evidence that should make you believe. The only thing I could think of are numerous pieces of evidence, small and large, that stand against rigourous testing over a considerable amount of time. Because that is what we get from evidence from a purely material world. If it comes to specific beliefs (mostly Abrahamic religions, as I know little about any other type) I can also see quite a few contradictions both internally and with the natural world, so in case I would be touched by God and start to believe instantly, _confusion_ about these contradictions would be the overwhelming feeling. As for philosophical arguments: Kalaam was the argument that bothered me for the longest time. Mostly with the help of others, I now think it's not a good argument. I have to admit that I haven't worked on any other purely philosophical arguments with the same effort (only at this one that I thought was the strongest), but frankly I don't know why that activity would warrant my effort. About the atheistic God of the Gaps (4:00ish): I think your mindreading is not quite accurate. Regrowing limbs or blood in Catholic rituals would *not* be merely a gap, but would *contradict* long-established and extensively researched and evidenced science. That's not even close to God of the Gaps.
I'm very late to this party, but here goes nevertheless. I'm not exactly atheist, but then neither do I follow any religious persuasion. I don't know where we come from and although it's very convenient for some to give the answer as "God", I have to ask "Which God?" There are so many legends from which to choose, so why should I accept that yours is the right one? Simply because so many other people do is not going to convince me. Most people around the world are terrified of snakes, spiders and other creatures, but I have no fear of them because I took the time and trouble to study them. I discovered that they will not attack me if I act in a manner that does not threaten them and I have passed this discovery on to my wife, who is now also quite unperturbed when she encounters these fascinating creatures. The leanings of large numbers of people are not going to affect my views in any way at all. I have done some pretty unusual things on the medical front, like reversing gangrene in a thumb that was condemned to amputation and completely mending two compound fractures in the hind leg of one of my dogs, even though vets suggested its removal. I demolished my wife's advancing arthritis by suggesting a single dietary exclusion and so completely healed a deep burn - down to the bone - in one of her fingers, that the only evidence of this accident is an almost indiscernible scar line around the area. I have resuscitated still-born puppies and a neonate donkey foal with no medical equipment - a method I firmly believe will bring life to apparently dead at birth human babies if it were to be implemented in natal hospitals and clinics. I have done this and more without "divine intervention", meaning that I create my own "miracles". I'm not special in any way: we all have the capacity to think outside the proverbial "box", but people tend not to for some reason that is unknown to me. This leaves me with one question for you: why am I, who has no religious leanings at all, able to accomplish these seemingly impossible things when most Christians, with your deity supposedly supporting them, can't?
1:14 what caused X? Do we expect the correct answer to come from a theologian or from the scientific method? While there is an argument about incorrectly extrapolating from the past, I see this as a reasonableness test. I used scientific method to ensure I’m not listening to ‘the science’ or a scientist that might have an agenda. The scientific method is an approach that essentially anyone could follow to try and test a hypothesis. The value of some religious wisdom is that it is part of past experience and tradition much of it distilled through ‘natural selection’ tested against reality.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:17 🤔 God of the gaps objection claims that arguments for God's existence fail by relying on gaps in knowledge. 01:11 🌌 Atheists avoid supernatural explanations to explore unknown natural ones; some Christians share this approach. 03:56 🕊️ Atheists propose hypothetical scenarios as evidence for God, but they may still commit "God of the gaps" fallacy. 06:12 🔄 Some atheists dismiss classical arguments for God, yet present their own hypothetical evidence. 08:45 🤷♂️ Asking what would convince someone of God's existence relies on feelings more than rational discourse. 11:17 🔬 Science seeks natural explanations; proving God's existence requires philosophical reasoning. 13:48 🤝 Being convinced of something doesn't necessarily make it reasonable; focus on rational discourse. 15:12 🤔 Can a person rationally believe in God? Acknowledge philosophical arguments and varying perspectives. 18:40 📚 Encourage critical examination of arguments for and against God's existence to approach truth.
@@jdotoz The miracle isn't making the bread or the presence of priest. It is true that God often uses natural elements and transforms them into something new, but that's not what Brian claimed. Brian claimed there is ALWAYS a natural explanation for God's miracles. Aside from exceptional miracles, there is no natural evidence to show that the bread and wine become Jesus' body and blood. It's something we believe by faith. It truly is the body and blood of Jesus, but it retains the physical form of bread and wine. That's an example of a miracle that transcends the natural order and cannot be "seen" in the way he described.
Trent mentions Dietric Bonhoeffer. I would urge anyone to read his book The Cost of Discipleship, an extraordinary read which shook me at a time when I was still an atheist.
As a Protestant convert to Catholicism I have read much by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. His story is fascinating. It pleases me so much whenever I meet a Catholic who knows about Bonhoeffer!! Yay!
Hey Trent, we met at the CCv1 conference last year and I bought and really enjoyed your book Case for Catholicism. Really appreciate all the work you do in your ministry. I'm planning on getting the books you recommended at the end of this video, but was wondering if you have had any other request for an Ultimate Apologist Reading List part 2? I am always looking for book recommendations from leading catholic apologist such as yourself, and would love to get an update to the list you created a few years back. Anyway, keep up the great work and God bless!
@@Cogi00 What's your view on owning another person as your property? Is that moral or immoral? Assuming god exists, is it moral for god to punish a person for sins they did not commit? Assuming god exists, would it be moral for god to prevent someone from doing something and then punish the person for not doing what god kept them from doing? Assuming god exists, would it be moral for god to punish a person if that person had no way of knowing they were doing something wrong?
@@cnault32441) No, to me it's not. It's how you treat the person that decides if you're being immoral or not. 2) God punishes sinners, not the saints 3) yes 4) I had an understanding of right and wrong at 5 years old so i can't speak for everyone BUT if they truly did not know wrong from right ( haven't met that person yet) i suppose it would be immoral wouldnt it?
@@Cogi00 So your response to my 4 questions asking you for your opinion is: 1) owning a person as your property ( in other words, slavery) is OK 2) I said nothing about saints, you didn't answer the question that was asked 3) whatever god does is OK with you, god can treat people as his toys to do with as he pleases ( so much for free will) 4) if they truly did not know wrong from right ( haven't met that person yet) i suppose it would be immoral wouldnt it? So you are saying it would be immoral for god to punish a person if that person didn't know they were doing something wrong? Yes or no?
I have always found it fascinating that imaginary numbers, which do not exist in the material realm are yet a necessary ingredient in modern physics for explaining the natural universe.
Regarding reasonableness and convincing and the difference between them etc. I think a lot of what Trent is saying here is the practical application of the realization that human beings, left to their own nature, are not truly rational creatures. What I mean by this is as follows... We have the capacity for reason. We have the power of Intellect. Just like we have the capacity of physical strength and the power to run. However, if a person does not train strength, or train running, they will never be really strong and never be able to run really fast or really long distances. Nature, left to it's own devices in a fallen world does not develop, it devolves. This is just as true in the realm of reason and intellect as it is in the realm of athletics. In order for man to truly be rational, he must be trained properly. That has always been a rare thing. However, contrary to what most people think, it has actually become MORE rare in the modern world, not less rare. I have personally never met a single person who was rigorously trained intellectually to root out contradiction in their own views, and to scrutinize their own views for logical consistency as much as they do the views of others. The few people I have met who do this, developed the skill on their own, usually as a result of reading old books. If a person is not trained in this way of thinking, then it is virtually impossible to convince them of anything by purely logical / rational argument. This is because what they believe is ultimately not based on logic to begin with. It is based on emotion, sentiment, and other accidents of life. To these people logic is only ever a tool to justify what they believe and to attack opposing beliefs. It is not a means of discovering truth or knowledge. If you are perfectly content to believe contradictory ideas, no amount of logic can ever convince you not to believe those contradictory ideas. The simple reality is that despite man being the "rational animal" the vast majority of human beings are not governed primarily by reason, and never will be. This idea is an illusion that the modern world has bought into, largely to our detriment. This is also why the "age of reason" and the political and social outgrowths of it are currently proving themselves to be such massive and complete failures.
People do not favor teaching critical thinking for different reasons. But the result is that it does not figure in the teaching plans to teach to think correctly from childhood. One can guess what would be the benefits of having a population unable to discern intentional or false information in public or private discourse.
People often use the "atheism of the Gaps" If we have difficulty explaining something, the person will say that it is definitely caused by something that exists in a purely non-theistic world.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Skepticism is not taking anything for granted, much less what seems obviously contradictory. The need to use critical thinking to build each concept and let reality be the final judge of certainties.
A process of reasoning? Is it reasonable to believe in the existence of magical invisible unicorns that are outside of space & time and have no physical evidence of their existence and have never interacted with any of our five senses.
This is my favorite video you’ve put out, Trent. Thank you! I do have one follow up question - what is a characteristic that would distinguish an entity from being in the category “natural” vs. the category “supernatural”? You (rightly) accuse atheists of demanding a natural token of evidence to prove a supernatural entity. But I’m not sure that I’ve clearly heard a definition of “supernatural” in the first place. It seems like we can only grasp the supernatural through philosophy and abstract thinking. And for the record, I am Catholic 🙂 just one with questions.
@@hhstark8663 If the multiverse theory were true, any other universe would be outside the time and space of *our* universe, but contain its own space-time. Would it be natural or supernatural? What about the multiverse matrix they spawn from? Would that be natural or supernatural?
@@hhstark8663 thanks, but this is not totally satisfying because you’ve only explained it in the negative, i.e. what a supernatural being is NOT (not in time and space). The atheist would say, we can only know things that are in time and space, to say otherwise is nonsensical
@@thomasnoone5426 'Outside or beyond time and space' is not negative. My unconscious mind can know things that are beyond time and space. I not know it now but I can be conscious of it in the future. PROOF: some of my past dreams which became reality
I’m Catholic and some of the worst arguments I have heard regarding God’s existence is that they know God exists because “I feel it in my heart.” On the other hand, I can’t articulate well but I see atheists using fallacies in their arguments against God all the time, someone mentioned the “science hasn’t explained that yet but it will” which is a faith claim, which they appear to be against.
atheism is a modern belief system based on the confrontation with the outdated Christian belief system. Modern science is no different what religion was in the MIddle Ages.
@@celestethisandthat8887what about seeing Jesus appear to you. He has appeared to many. You do not receive because you don’t ask. And when you ask but don’t receive. It because you asked wrongly
Odd question, because why does it matter? If God exists, then God exist. Why does my believing or non-believing matter? Belief is belief: all men are created equal. You either believe or don't there are no 'facts' to verify a believe; and should you have facts then it is no longer a belief.
Trent: What would convince you, atheist? Atheist: >suggests something< Trent: No, that's no good. There might be a natural explanation. Have you tried just believing?
Maybe, just maybe, what the Atheist suggested was unreasonable? And it says something about atheism if you can say is "suggests something" instead of an actual point.
@@3yearsbeatthem-jg4nc Then here's an actual point. Personally, I'd take Jesus' followers being able to perform miracles like , and greater than, those of Jesus himself. I'd be convinced if you could show me that whenever two or more of Jesus' followers get together, God gives them what they ask for. I'd say the very word of Christ seems a reasonable point to start from.
@@fynflorentine2512 Trent is not advocating for the existence of God here. He's just saying that there always will be gaps in our knowledge, which is quite obvious. In the end, he's just saying that God exists because potato.
"I'll believe a supernatural being exits if you can prove it is a regular part of the natural world that we observe." That isn't what I would consider to be a "Perfect" explanation because it leaves you open to limitless claims with regards to the "Supernatural". Examples include quite literally any and everything, ie. Ghosts, Santa, Tooth-fairy, Elves, Witches, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, the list goes on.
@@jb31969 You are correct. It isn't perfect. My mistake. Of course, there is no perfect argument, even in science as Popper's principle of falsifiability demonstrates. The very fabric of reality can't be known 100% for certain; there is no absolute proof we are not in the Matrix, so again, great point about it not being a perfect argument. But it is a damn good one. If the job of science is to explain natural phenomenon, then it is wholly unsuited to explaining supernatural phenomenon. We must then use other tools of determining which supernatural phenomenon are credible, and which aren't. And we have those tools; logic, reason, and metaphysics. For example, logic dictates that if we went to the top of Mt Olympus, we won't find giant divine beings arguing. But logic also dictates that there must be an external cause to the universe, a first mover if you will. Reason would argue that the flying spaghetti monster is a made up because we can separate it into three constituent parts and identify where each of the three came from, whereas we have no idea where the concepts of spirit, divinity, or other metaphysical terms comes from. We can not divide these phenomenon into constituent parts and explain how humans put it together, which suggests at some point they must have been experienced as a distinct phenomenon.
It's pretty silly to think that atheists wouldn't concede on the existence of the supernatural when there is an expectation for how the natural world works and how the supernatural would change it as described by holy books. If Jesus himself should up in the modern world and started preaching and healing the sick with his touch I wouldn't say that this is just some "natural undiscovered power", since this is something that would be consistent with what the Bible describes. But none if that matters because all you need to disprove the popular concepts of benevolent gods is the myth of free will paired with sin and hell, and the problem of natural evil/disasters.
Anytime a prominent speaker makes a video titled "atheists can't answer this question" some fedora tipper will make a response video trying to debunk it. So brace yourselves boys for the incoming cringe...
It's an assertion that provokes a response. If you believe strongly that God exists and someone says "This single fact disproves God" I'm sure that you, or one of the many many evangelists out there would try to rise to the challenge. In fact, you would be right to. The answer to his question really is easy or hard, depending on the particular "God" you're talking about. The God of the Bible as described in the bible is at best unfalsifiable and thus unprovable, or at worse proven false a hundred thousand times over. If you define God to be all of the Omnis then he's proven false by contradiction. If you define him as unknowable then he's definitionally not provable. Whatever Theist you are has to be addressed before the question can be answered, which seems impossible enough for you guys to figure out. For some versions of God there are no proofs possible. After all what would convince you that 2+2=7 for all values of 2? I doubt anything could, or indeed should convince you. Why should we have to come up with a way to prove something we've demonstrated to be false? How or why would it be reasonable to demand I come up with a way for 2+2=7 for all values of 2 just to give you something to prove?
Are you ignoring the hyper-cringe of titleling a video "One question atheists can't answer". There has never been a video so titled that didn't contain cringingly bad arguments.
Trent has taught me so much on how to defend our faith!!! 💙💪 I love his non aggressive approach. I've tried it and most protestants don't know how to react to kindness lol BUT I have actually been able to talk to aggressive Protestants and through kindness we have been able to have civil dialogue 😊 God bless! 🙏❤️💙❤️🙏✝️🛐
@@pcm7315 lol it's not easy because they are almost always in defense mode and ready to throw scripture at you. So I understand that going in and I try to get them to just have a normal person to person conversation with me. Then I ask questions and they 9/10 just have misconceptions or just uninformed about the Catholic faith.
your first mistake is being religious. god is not religious, there is no one true religion that explains god better than the other, there is no one religion that god prefers over the other. based on these facts, you should make a logical conclusion.
re: God of the gaps. Apparently the Catholic priest Lemaitre, who found the solution of GR where everything expanded from a singularity, advised the Pope not to make the "big bang theory" (not was it was called at the time) a dogma of the church. Because Lemaitre, a scientist as well as a priest, knew science advances, and the theory may turn out to be wrong or incomplete.
Going to be honest, I came into this video thinking it was just going to be another low effort video that shows ignorance on the subject. Was pleasantly surprised to see otherwise.
