@@deejaythedeejay 9/10 times featuring someone crying their eyes out. I feel kind of bad for them, having to experience all kinds of Freudian shit going on in their heads. Maybe if Nikki Manaj or someone became a Christian, some would finally realize they're not prophets.
To defend Pascal's Wager, it never really was meant to argue for God's existence, but instead to argue why we should care about God's existence. So, when it is applicable, it is useful, but if you need to go beyond "Why should I care?" it fails.
its still pretty easily defeated by saying that if god doesnt exist and you chose to believe in him, you limited your potential actions and quality of life for no reason. I'm a Christian it just sucks as an argument
Alex O'Connor is the most good hearted and sincere atheist I've ever heard of🎉 his attitude to logic and the smallest details has increased my faith in Christ ❤😂
was it honest? when he talked about religion causing wars, he completely evaded the fact that state atheists in the USSR and CCP murdered more people, explicitly in the name of atheism, than any war of religion did in the past. if you aren’t going to accept that religious wars aren’t really about religion, but then turn around and say the league of militant atheists executing religious people isn’t really about atheism, that seems a massive hypocrisy to me. it’s that classic hitchens conceit of religion simply being defined as inherently bad, and so any accomplishment of religion (in the arts, politics, etc) can be written off as creditable to something else but every wrong of religion is somehow inherently tied to what religion is. he’s a dishonest snake
Really? I saw a short about him and the monarchy and he just came off as almost edgy and disrespectful. I'm certainly not a monarchist but he just dismissed the idea outright without argument and then just said "God doesn't exist" with nothing else. Granted it was a YT short but it just rubbed me the wrong way.
I’d say the reason Genetically Modified Skeptic finds personal experience to be the best is because he’s viewing the arguments from the perspective of “How hard are these to argue against?” and if you argue against someone’s personal experiences it could come across as a personal attack
Additionally it adds on to the consciousness argument because you can’t invalidate something you haven’t lived. Therefore, if you had been through that experience you might believe in God. Conversely, this aligns with the transcendental argument because you could argue the beauty it the fact that we all have different lives and experiences (fearfully and wonderfully made) which leads to a God. And you can keep compiling all these arguments together- I think the point is when speaking with different individuals (typically non believers) some of them may work some may not.
Another reason is that it can't really be used as an argument to try and convince other people, it's just a nice way to convince yourself, often based on personal happiness - it's the argument that relates to the best mental health for everyone! :3
Having listened to his points about it, I think his reasoning is more along the lines of personal experience being highly convincing for the person who experiences them, but close to worthless for convincing anyone else.
@@Colddirector Depends. The personal experience of someone random is a lot less convincing, but the experience of someone close to you you know is reasonable and trustworthy is far stronger.
Agnostic is always funny to me. I have a colleague who refers to himself as someone who believes something but is too lazy to figure it out. Personally, my advice is to question everything but seek an honest answer. "Seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you." If you will. Unfortunately humanity is on a path to extinction where we keep inventing new ways to destroy it all, so earlier is better to fervently try to find what is true.
@@bryanbray6968agnostic could just mean you intellectually believe in some of these arguments for God. But you have no reason to think that one of the world’s religions is the way to something like a heaven
Just a minor quibble: the cosmological argument is not an argument from science, it is an argument from philosophy in that it posits that an infinite causative chain cannot logically exist, and existence itself requires a causative event that is itself transcendent. So it it isn't technically dependent on our scientific understanding of the universe s beginning or quantum mechanics
True. I actually really like the Cosmological Argument and was kind of surprised to see it so low but it’s fine, different people prefer different arguments
I agree, but I also think that he's actually stating that don't want to base the arguments in the pure observation of the material things that we have in "touchable" world, as we have quantum physics that leads to the big bang. Don't know if it made sense, but I do agree with you
The problem of course being that the kalam fails to do so - the problem with pointing to the big bang as a beginning and not a transformation/change of a previous form of some kind is that it is just an assertion. We cannot honestly investigate whether it is a beginning or a continuation. If someone was to come up to me and say that is what they believe I would say ok, cool, I will wait until we know more. But the people who use the kalam argument present it to people as if it is an open and shut case, which is at best out of ignorance, or at worst intellectually dishonest.
I really hate the cosmological argument. It feels like cotton candy. Substanceless. At most, if we give it every benefit of the doubt, it hints at, not proves but _hints at,_ a deistic god. One who made the universe and simply left. Not a personal god, not the Christian god. I don't understand why people use it
I love that Redeemed Zoomer, an early 20 something year old new yorker that loves the Lord, has found himself in a battle with some of the largest internet athiests out there out of the blue. God is putting you on the map and is using you.
Really? He's even being laughed at by other christians for putting out terrible, poorly researched, contradictory videos. If even other christians are watching these videos and going "hey wait that doesn't make any sense" then maybe God is calling him a dumbass lol.
The cosmological argument actually does not speak about causation in a temporal, accidental order, like domino stones falling, but an essential chain of causation, more something akin to contingency.
That's what I thought for some time. Unfortunately, if you put God into any causal chain, even only logical not temporal, you always end up concieving a structure that's larger than God from a mathematical standpoint.
@@toonyandfriends1915 even if it did so successfully (which is questionable), it does so by containing the entirety of God's existence inside a classification of things by "firstness". The other problem is that things are "first" or "second" or "last" only inside the time.
The benefit of these oversimplified representations is that it provides a 'bucket' to fill with more info about each one. A slow learner like me needs starter kits like this
Yeah, I'm the same. That's why I really like explainer-style videos like that from BibleProject and Radical. Unfortunately, I haven't found a good apologetics channel that specializes in explainers.
@@zachhecita the best training for apologetics is to know your Bible well. And as Voddie said (paraphrase) it is only a helper to make room for the gospel in people's hearts. God bless
@@zachhecita you want an apologetics channel to do this kind of stuff? Elaborate. I’m an apologist and I just bought a webcam. Looking for video topics people want
@@rightsidetv4235 It's not really a topic but a style of media content. If you ever watched Vox or Ted-Ed, that's what I'm referring to - graphics-heavy video breakdowns of different topics and subjects. BibleProject is a great example for theology. I'd also recommend Biologos, Radical, The Village Church, and IMBeggar.
@@rightsidetv4235 It's not really a topic but a kind of media content. If you're familiar with Vox or TED-Ed, that's what I'm referring to - graphic-heavy or animated videos that breakdown complex topics. As I mentioned before BibleProject and Radical are great examples for Christian content. However, the former is focused on theology and the later for evangelism. There are other channels I've found that make explainer videos. Check out IMBeggar, The Village Church, The Thomistic Institute, What Would You Do, and Biologos. Most of these channels don't really have an emphasis on apologetics. Those that do often fall short of the standard of quality and research necessary for apologetics. It's understandable that Christian explainer videos are rare, as it is fairly expensive and more difficult to produce than podcast-style or reaction videos.
As an atheist I was fine with your debunk video. It seemed obvious to me you were just doing quick simplistic responses to give an example of the counter argument. I think people took it was to seriously.
The condescending nature of the video was what really brought all the negative attention. The classic "virgin reddit atheist" vs the "christian chad" nature of the video what was really inspired all the negativity surrounding it and redeemed zoomer as a whole
How can you watch the video and come away thinking that it was fine? It was dripping in condescension all the while promoting misunderstandings of logical concepts/committing logical fallacies, at times presented complete misunderstanding of atheist/agnostic arguments, at times presented misunderstandings of biblical texts… like what? Good grief lol
@@AbundantChris Ultimately, it's a two-way street. I've been an atheist and a Christian (now pantheist) and I've seen both sides as demeaning and self-absorbed, at least in how they come across (not referring to logical fallacies, which is a different discussion). Redeemed Zoomer is one of the better ones IMHO, at least when it comes to condescension. If you want to see arrogance at its finest, look up Matt Dilahunty vs. Ray Comfort. Matt is bad to an extent, but Ray... holy shit.
@@AbundantChris atheist content is famously never condescending. lol. I was fine with it because I never took it as serious. It was a lighthearted introduction to the counter arguments.
As a Christian, I love the Cosmological argument. Dr. William Lane Craig's explanation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument was what helped me accept God intellectually.
@@asianbrokie can you provide a quick explanation or a video of it being debunked? Since it's been debunked, "a thousand times," I imagine you won't have a hard time finding a video or article to cite. Thanks!
In a nutshell: *This is NOT an apologetics channel* Just a channel for giving quick explanations of christian things. People need to have this in mind whenever they start an argument with you as if you were really trying to prove God's existence once and for all
@@bbrainstormer2036 Indeed it does, but it is the exception. Even the atheist arguments video had this theme of quick explanations in it, even when he is doing apologetics this theme persists. I also noticed that in his videos "why I am not X" its more about his reasons for believing or rejecting something rather than proving it to us a denomination is wrong.
Apologetics channel or not; he made rebuttals to what he's seen as atheist arguments against God's existence. You can expect legitimate, well-intentioned rebutts to that. Agreed with the arguments for God video though.
Pascal’s wager is fine for people who are on the verge to convert from other reasons/arguments. And it’s just like “what do you have to lose?”, or if they are having a crisis of faith. People who use it as an argument in and of itself are in error but I don’t think that’s what it was intended for.
I still don’t like pascal’s wager as it makes people think believing in God is solely about / for your oneself. Which is just wrong and actually prevents people from developing their faith
Yeah, I thought it was pretty neat! I saw a lot of people in the comments trying to debunk it and they did make good points, but wow the video was good and cool!
Pascal never meant for his wager to be some proof. He was simply responding directly to Montaigne's agnostic skepticism to show it's not rational. He was running the "Gamblers logic" to its final conclusion trying to show how Montaigne and co. were not being rational in his their skepticism. They were not being rational, they just simply didn't WANT to believe in a God due to their hedonism or whatever. If they were truly rational, they would try and hedge their bets. In addition, he used it to try and show that it's in somebody's best interest to TRY and believe in God. He fully understood that simply believing in God by hedging your bets was not true belief, but that it's always in your interest to fully try and believe in God even if you can't (although he does fully believe that if a person really tried, they would end up becoming a Christian and if they don't it's because they don't actually want to believe in God) In his Pensees he also covers why you can easily rule out other religions as well
If i recall correctly, he acknowledges that however I am due for a reread of his Pensees anyways. He has an argument for why you have to "play" in this game/dichotomy @@IanM-id8or
Christian apologetics helped end my 10 year atheism streak. I was miserable and nihilistic, but now Christ has set me free! Glory to God in the Highest and His Son Jesus Christ! ✝️
@jaycefields756 same brother. Life without God led me to act wrecklessly & not value my own life; like just have fun while I'm here & once I get fed up with the agony, I'll just end it.
@@billincm1034humans are social creatures. All human thoughts occurs in the context of relationship. Someone who tells you not to listen to anyone is, themselves, attempting to influence you.
Redeemed Zoomer, I have been watching you videos for some time now and have loved seeing the journey your channel has been going through! I love your content, thank you!
You are, in my book, on of my most respected christian youtubers out there. Your honesty and humility far outweigh a lot of apologists and I really respect. I wish when discussion about the existence of God ever comes to mind, people of all sides: atheist, agnostic or theist should have the same honesty and humilty as you. You're honestly a good inspiration for how discussions should be done and if I ever were involved in a discussion about God, I hope it'd be with someone like you (This is coming from an agnostic atheist btw)
Faith is not a path to truth. Pure and simple. This is demonstrated by the fact that people believe in untrue things all the time. It's about as reliable as a coin toss.
@@deejaythedeejayWell, if that is your default thinking on marriage, you must have had some bad experiences with women I take it? Sorry man. Communication is key. Also, if you can't tell if your wife is cheating, then you deserve to be cheated on.
@@roargathor I’m joking. The example was that if faith isn’t a path to truth then you shouldn’t expect it to be true in other ways, like your wife loving you, you have faith in that.
@@deejaythedeejay Nope, because love has evidence. If your wife acts in a way consistent with love, she's more likely to love you than if she doesn't, this is a point brought up by Alex in his response to Zoomer.
The Arguments that convinced me the most are The Moral Argument, Transcendental Arguments, and consciousness. Never heard of The Mathematical Argument for God, definitely going to do some research into that. Despite some of your odd political views, your channel has really helped me get closer to The Faith.
@@Matt-uk7zq Yeah he went on The Crucible Podcast, it is a smaller Orthodox Christian/right leaning political podcast. They got into rights and Zoomer said he doesn't believe freedom of expression is a human right, saying that we as a society should not tolerate paganism or blasphemy against god. He didn't really elaborate what that means, but I would assume it involves some form of government retaliation against those that followed paganism or blasphemed. Again who knows, I tried asking him repeatedly for clarification and he just ignored me every time.
@@badclassicalmusic he and many others see interpreting a book written for the same culture that saw women as second class citizens in a more progressive way is some sort of heresy.
I agree. I always get weird looks when I tell people I was a math major at a Christian university, probably because too many people think of that as an oxymoron. Many of history’s great mathematicians were strong believers.
Oh good! I was wondering if you would respond to these claims. Also, nice to see you grew a beard lol. You look a lot wiser XD I cannot deny Christ due to my personal experiences and those of my family. Denying Christ would be like denying the nose on my face, the rising of the sun, or the spherical nature of the earth. As Glenn Kaiser said in one of his songs "Everything I've come to know points me to the fact of You"
Amen! :D I was born very early and the doctors were very incompetent, but thankfully a life saving doctor helped me! What are the odds of that happening? Coincidence? I think not!
Be wary if the mindset "everything I see points towards ____." It's usually a sign that opposition hasn't been considered carefully and openly or that there isn't a good understanding of the landscape. Very few things in reality are ubiquitous supported on a side. Or to put it another way, if everything you see says you're right, how can you know if you're wrong? If you can know if you're wrong, then you cannot know you're right either. Falsification in a practical sense.
@@jlayman89 Well everything I see points to the earth being round, and the things I see in opposition to that don't have any evidence behind them. I get what you're saying, but it's not what I meant.
@@TheStarshipGarage I can look out right now and I don't see any curvature to the ground. That's at minimum 1 thing that would also support a flat earth. It's also compatible with a globe, but my point is people get very entrenched in their existing views so much that they even begin to see opposition as supporting them. That's when it's and issue and leads to dogma and division.
@@jlayman89 Again, I think you're misinterpreting my point and what I said, what I'm saying is that as I come to understand things and see both sides of the argument, it only leads me in one direction. I never said I hadn't considered both sides of the argument or that I outright ignored other viewpoints, it's that as I've matured and experienced life, it's pointed to one answer. For brevity's sake, I just used a line from a song. Furthermore, the song I took that quote from is on an album where the theme is disenchantment with life, repentance, and salvation. It's the story of the journey of a man who becomes disillusioned with the material world and searches for answers, and through that search, he slowly comes to realize what the true answer is. I don't understand the reason to argue.
Thanks for supporting Jordan Cooper, I find it awesome that you can get behind his teachings. Just subscribed after seeing your videos for a couple of months (I couldn't help but support your channel).
Dude, I have been saying that same argument about demonic activity in the secular western world vs the more pagan eastern world for so long, and you’re the first other person I’ve ever heard articulate it. Makes me happy to hear someone thinking the way I do.
I respect you for responding to criticism in the way that you do; however, I still do take issue with the mathematical argument because stating that having infinite sets leads to proof that the infinite is real and that the logic of math proves that God is real, isn't substantial in any major way. Theoretically, you can argue that there's an infinite number of combinations of letters with an infinite length, but that wouldn't constitute proof of God's existence. Calculus works with infinities, yet it's able to be comprehended by humans. I think that rather than being proof of God's existence, math is proof that we as humans can always understand more about the universe and a proof of humanity's potential. Full respect to your faith of course. You do you, I'll do me.
I think his point centers around the Mandelbrot set, because that was something that we discovered, yet it has infinite complexity. The universe is finite, yet here is something that we didn’t make that is infinite. Therefore it must have been made by something that is itself infinite, which is God.
Ah, you're making a jump there. Firstly, it doesn't need to be _made_ by anything. Secondly, you can derive infinity from the finite. Nothing that says you can't. Complexity isn't an inherent thing. Otherwise I could point at a circle and say "Wow, it has infinite sides! Who made all of those sides if not for God?" And have literally the same argument
@@StarryxNight5 I think, respectfully, that you're still not getting the point. Firstly, "it doesn't need to be made by anything" doesn't account for it, and quite frankly, it's not an argument at all. Math is abstract and therefore by definition is immaterial and is grounded upon a mind. Secondly, "you can derive infinity from the finite" actually proves the point of the argument. You can divide "1" indefinitely and so one can argue infinity actually exists all around us, but this is something you can't verify by sense data, given that "infinity" and "1" are mental abstractions also. And the correspondence of the abstraction of "1" in your mind to the actual physical object you're counting as "1" (like an apple, or a tiger, or what have you) is a whole other topic of transcendental argumentation on its own. As for "complexity" not being an inherent thing, even the abstract concept of "complexity" presupposes a preexisting metaphysical standard by which you assess whether a certain collection of entities is "simple" or "complex", and therefore presupposes God. The awesome thing about transcendentals is that we didn't invent them and they are all abstract and invariant and therefore grounded upon a mind, and given the fact that this mind is not our own, only an immaterial and invariant (i.e. unchanging) personal (because it should have a "mind) entity is able to account for these. And that's exactly what you have in the Christian philosophy of reality, knowledge, and truth. And no, you can't say "but Muslims can use that argument too!", because their Quran presupposes the truth of the Injil (Gospels) and Tawrah (The Pentateuch) and yet also contradicts both of these, thereby crossing out the Muslim deity as a choice for gods that can account for all reality and experience. And if you try appealing to a different kind of god, you'd still find that this god you're trying to replace the Christian God with has essentially the same attributes necessary to account for reality. This means it's the Christian God all over again, but with a different name, done for the sake of not admitting the Christian God to be true. As for "Wow, it has infinite sides! Who made all of those sides if not for God?" ignores the distinction between the physical and abstract. We're not talking about the physical sides of any given circle. We're talking about the abstract concept of infinity itself, and the act of making a predication of the abstract "circleness" onto the physical object that we consider participates in the universal "circleness".
Well said, however, a few points that I want to make against this. (There are points that I don't understand though so maybe you have already covered those points). I'm coming to this argument as neither an atheist nor a Christian, as I do believe that there could be a spiritual element to things if not a higher entity(entities) which we can regard as God(s). First, regarding the "christian God" thing. If we have a God (and/or Gods, and or some higher form of spirituality in a sense) that "has essentially the same attributes necessary to account for reality", it may prove your point true. However, it doesn't make the Christian God more real than say Hindu Gods because both fulfill these conditions. It is even possible(not necessarily the case though) that both of their theologies have some truth in them but don't provide the full picture. Next, "you can derive infinity from the finite" does not imply that it has to be (you can call this a contradiction but I don't exactly agree with him on this or understand why he used that point). For all we know, something could just... be there as it is and continue to be there as it is. This applies to both buddhist worldviews and the Christian God (as mentioned, I'm not an atheist). It's just that it doesn't necessarily have to be a non-abstract, tangible singular entity like the Christian God (although it could be). "As for "complexity" not being an inherent thing, even the abstract concept of "complexity" presupposes a preexisting metaphysical standard by which you assess whether a certain collection of entities is "simple" or "complex", and therefore presupposes God. " While yes this presupposes there are things we definitely do not and are incapable of understanding for at least the time being and at most for as long as our existence, this does not necessarily mean that they consist of a single god or even multiple personified Gods. For all we know, it could just be an abstract form of nature or a less materialized, personified spirituality.
@@veganlasagna325 Hi! I appreciate the awesome cordial and polite discourse. It should be said that at this point, if anyone would argue "but the gods of this particular worldview can account for it too," then the one making the argument has now given up atheism for some form of theism, and the only argument left to be had at this point is to figure out which among the gods is actually the real one. And then I would say that the Hindu Gods don't meet the conditions the same way the Christian God meets the conditions. Why? Let me set up the scene below: The concept of "1" and "infinity" presuppose things like "distinction" and "oneness" and "many-ness" and "identity". These are other categories of transcendentals, all of which cannot be verified by sense data, that "interlock" or are "interwoven" or "operate in conjunction with "1" and "infinity", and thus also work with the laws of logic. All of these are transcendentals that, if non-existent, make knowledge impossible. All of these are presupposed prior to any physical observation (i.e., you can't look at a water bottle and pick it out from among a set of other objects without first presupposing that a bottle has its own identity distinct from all other objects; just by sense data, we cannot know that "distinction" even exists; rather, this abstract universal "distinctness" is predicated or applied to or interpreted upon or imposed upon the bottle, supposing that the spatial [another abstract concept!] separation [yet another abstraction!] of the bottle from among the other objects makes that bottle distinct). In order to account for these, one has to ask the question: Which one is the ultimate basis by which to define reality? Is it the "one"? Or is it the "many"? Is everything a unity, or a diversity? If reality is ultimately "diversity," then how can we say that any individual entity has any real relation to another entity? How can we say that there are such things as "atoms" when each particular atom shares in no real universal "atomness"? How can we even say atom A and atom B are similar if there exists no such thing as a universal abstract by which to compare the particulars atom A and atom B? If everything is diversity, then there is no shared universal reality among all the entities that exist. You can't say there is such a thing as "facts" because you cannot know that fact A and fact B are both facts, given that there is no such thing as "fact-ness". A and B are nothing more than unrelated particulars. In fact, you can't even call them "particulars" as though there exists a thing called "particular-ness". However, if everything is ultimately a "unity", then how can you call atom A as its own identity that is distinct from atom B? Everything is one reality, and there ultimately are no distinctions between atoms and trees and apples and tigers, et cetera. And so we know that reality must be such that unity and diversity are both equally and paradoxically ULTIMATE. Remember, the concept of unity and diversity are both presupposed PRIOR to making observations, and so these are imposed upon the physical world, rather than observed from the physical world. And given that it is even impossible to reason or form arguments without the presupposition of the abstract concepts of "unity" and "diversity", we cannot pretend that they do not exist. Knowledge is IMPOSSIBLE without them. So how do we account for these ABSOLUTE, INVARIANT, IMMATERIAL, ABSTRACT REALITIES? Simple: the MIND of an ABSOLUTE, INVARIANT, IMMATERIAL, PERSONAL BEING who possesses a MIND (because otherwise, how can we ground ABSTRACT realities if the entity accounting for these doesn't have a mind?) who is BOTH ULTIMATELY UNIFIED AND DIVERSE. This cannot be merely an ultimate Unity, because distinctions wouldn't exist. And this cannot be merely an ultimate Diversity, because then no unity or class or categories of things can be made. Turns out, that's exactly what the Christian God is. One being who is three persons, existing eternally and co-equally. He does not merely take one form at a time, but rather all three persons CO-EXIST and are CO-ETERNAL and are CO-ULTIMATE, but the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Spirit and the Spirit is not the Father. AND YET THEY ARE ONE GOD. Ultimate Unity, and ultimate Diversity. That's why we call reality the "UNI-VERSE". A reality that exists as a reflection of the unity and diversity within God. (Pardon me for the words in all caps; I swear I'm not screaming hahaha I'm capitalizing for emphasis). And how do we know this? The answer is simple, though controversial: God revealed Himself in history and interacted with humans. We also know this by the impossibility of the contrary, and by the very nature of the transcendentals previously mentioned. This is why the epistemology of the consistent Christian is what we call "Revelational Epistemology". The laws of logic do not simply describe reality. The laws of logic (as far as they are a reflection of the mind of God) GOVERNS HOW we describe reality. It turns out that these immaterial abstract concepts in our minds (math, logic, induction) accurately describe reality around is because the One who gave us our minds and provided rules for our thinking is the same One who created the reality we're living in. He made our mind and the physical world such that there is true correspondence and relation between our mental abstractions and the physical world around us. If everything is physical (i.e. matter in motion), then there is no such thing as "thought" and "reason" and "logic" and "mind", and even "person", and therefore "knowledge", which is by its very nature and definition an abstract concept contained in the minds of persons, cannot exist if everything is physical. This is why materialism is an untenable worldview. And by extension, positing the existence of an immaterial world of the abstract without also positing the existence of an eternal mind won't make sense because "abstract" will lose its meaning if it is not contained in a mind. Now how does this compare to the Hindu Gods? For sake of argument I would assume that by "Hindu Gods" you would mean the Brahman, or what Hindus consider to be ultimate reality. Here's a few things to note: Firstly, Brahman is an ultimate unity in Hinduism. Brahman may appear in many forms or manifest in many things. But this doesn't make Brahman a diversity. This alone disqualifies the Brahman from accounting for the one and the many problem. Secondly, see below: Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world’s production. Who knows then whence it first came into being? He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. - Rig Veda 10.129.6-7 >> This is from the Rig Veda, a sacred text for Hindus. This is said in reference to creation. They don't know who or what or how everything was created, and as such, it appears their God didn't reveal to them this information. The Rig Veda even speculates whether their God knows or not. Such a God who does not even have all knowledge cannot account for infinite abstract realities like math. Thirdly, given that Brahmin is an ultimate unity, Hinduism also asserts that all of reality is one. Meaning, all distinctions and differences in reality are illusory. They are not real. We apparently live in this world called "Maya", distinct (note the use of the word "distinct" here) from Nirvana, which is a point where we now understand the true nature of reality, and we're finally reunited with Brahman or ultimate reality. We will keep being reincarnated into various forms of life depending on our Karma, and will only transcend this reality once we've achieved perfect enlightenment. Only then will we go to Nirvana. But what's the glaring problem here? If reality is ultimately one, then we're all already in Nirvana! Why? Since reality is all one, THEN THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN MAYA AND NIRVANA! Therefore, the apparently ILLUSORY experience we have in this reality where there are distinctions and differences is FUNDAMENTALLY NOT DIFFERENT from that supposed state of Nirvana! This is why Hinduism cannot ultimately account for reality. Now, we're left only with Christianity, where: - we have an eternal, unchanging, personal, immaterial, authoritative Being who is both ultimate Unity and Diversity. Therefore we can have: - moral laws (immaterial and unchanging laws that govern behavior) - laws of logic/reason (immaterial and unchanging laws that govern our thinking and view of reality) - real unity and real diversity in reality (this makes science possible; we can distinguish between particulars and universals this way; or else we cannot say that Rocket B will get to the moon because we got Rocket A to the moon; we are not assured of any real universal Rocketness that applies to A and B so as to call B the same with A; etc.) - real persons and real wills and real life (because physical does not give rise to immaterial; if materialists want to assert that it can happen, then they are appealing to something miraculous within their worldview; therefore they cannot complain against God or Christians who cite miracles as evidence for the Christian faith lol) - mathematics and infinity - concepts like "telos" (purpose), "destiny". "love", "beauty", etc. Note how none of these are verifiable by sense data but are, again, just like the transcendentals, imposed upon reality. Hope this helps!
Btw something that confuses me is how high the mathematical argument is for you, because I feel like a lot of these you said they don’t work because of god of the gaps, however mathematical does the same thing? You see a crazy coincidence or a fractal with infinite sides and shapes, and you say “this is insane, therefore god”… but I still feel like that’s leaping to a conclusion?? Idk maybe I’m missing something
Yeah but I still don't see how that proves God exists? It's cool math stuff that's crazy to think about, and some insane things that seem like coincidences, but I don't get why that means there was a creator behind everything
@@bagelcatinator8243 its an argument about infinity. If God does not exist then all the numbers and information in maths would be finite because everything that would cause them would be finite however infinities do exist so for example the mandlebrot set used has infinite complexity and there is nothing that is generating that complexity. it comes from the equation so you need something to be able to hold and deal with infinities and God is a capable of holding and dealing with infinities and nothing else can
The one thing I love about these tier lists is that it helps show just how much people can differ with regards to the preferences for certain arguments. For me, my tier list would probably look like: S Teleological, Evidential A Cosmological, Moral B Consciousness, Mathematical C Personal Experience D Ontological, Transcendental F Pascal's Wager For me, my criteria is largely based around how well the average person could understand the argument, how convincing the argument can be (so how well it can stand up to criticism along with how much positive evidence can be provided in support of the argument), and how effective the argument can be at actually bringing someone to Christ (not just generic deism).
I've still never heard a decent response to the puddle analogy against the Teleological argument. Say a puddle gains consciousness and comes to the conclusion that the hole it exists in had to have been intelligently designed because it's body perfectly fits every minute crevice in the hole. That is basically the teleological argument. And the fallacy is clear. We know the hole wasn't intelligently designed because the puddle is bound to perfectly fit its environment no matter the hole it finds itself in. This disproves the logic that an intelligent designer must necessarily exist because in order for us to have existed in the first place, our circumstances would've had to be adequate for our survival, else we wouldn't be here to discuss this. You could go further by pointing out just how inhospitable the world we live in truly is. While we have solved a lot of these problems with science, cancer still proves prevalent. And we have seen that no amount of praying to the supposedly all-loving god has aided our attempts to cure cancer. As such, I find the teleological argument one of the least convincing.
@@myles6235I don’t think your puddle analogy works here because what’s stopping the puddle from thinking it’s own body is intelligently designed to fit around any whole it sees. Surely we can’t assume one side of the analogy without considering the other because consciousness isn’t just the ability to be aware of your surrounding but also awareness of the self. This doesn’t disprove the teleological argument for God. In regards to cancer you can’t blame everything on God for human choices. Cancer has been healed by God on some people, just listen to their testimonies. Cancer also has a natural cure, DIET. People’s diet is the biggest cause of most cancerous deaths, the animal protein you eat feeds the cancer cells in the body, and to reduce and even heal from cancer you need to be on a plant based diet. It has scientifically been known to reduce and cure cancer within patients and individuals, to show you even further proof, look into the Blue Zone populations, study their diet and the science behind their diet, you will also come to the same conclusion.
@@CollyCollz If you have a conspiracy theory about cancer, thats great. The point is that 80% of the earth is uninhabitable, the sun literally gives us cancer, there is unavoidable death all the time. If the world were intelligently created, we wouldn't have tailbones or share so much DNA with monkeys. The earth is clearly not created to be perfect for human survival.
@@myles6235well what’s stupid is if you don’t do your research on the things I’ve said, simply saying it’s stupid doesn’t invalidate my point 😂 anyways do what you want with that information and keep blaming God for every ill in your life
I really like the cosmological argument, because it relies on basic principles that most atheists don't deny ( entropy affects everything in this universe, stuff in this universe comes from other stuff).
Except nothing HAD to make the universe, perhaps it just always existed, and the big bang is just what existence does, maybe it has done it before. Saying God had to make it is just assuming what you want to be real. A Hindu could say the same, that their gods made the universe. So how do you know which God made the universe?
I like the cosmological argument the most, because even if it wasnt true, its still more propable with God than without, and you cant argue against that statement. Therefore, atheists dont follow their own logic, its prettymuch the same with intelligent design and moral argument.
But the universe can't have always existed, at least by the definition we use. A split second after the Big Bang, supposedly, the universe was a miniscule spot of existence with absurd amounts of energy condensing into matter. What find it have been before? There is no logical or scientific explanation as to what could have been before the Big Bang. It couldn't have been the Big Crunch theory, because that denies entropy. Once the universe reaches a state of equilibrium, it will remain there. If not at equilibrium, the universe will progress towards equilibrium.
@@joojotin By what standard do you base a god being more probable? We simply don’t know the process of how universes form, nor the statistics of what attributes natural universes tend to have compared to intentionally created ones.
@@joojotin its more probable with God? oh you mean the entity that created literally everything, knows literally everything? the same one that punished everyone for the action of 2 people? lets Satan have dominion over the world that houses his favorite creations? The same entity that created, cancer, aids natural disasters and imbues everyone with sin and punishes us for sinning even though he made it so intrinsic with us that nobody can not sin and had to send his half human half divine son to die to rectify it? the same entity that is all loving but sends people to be eternally tortured? That makes more sense than no God creator of everything?
You should check out the Modal Ontological argument, which is a much stronger version. Its best known version is advanced by Alvin Plantinga, a Reformed philosopher. He also has another great argument called the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism.
I'll have to look into it, because I personally think the Ontological Argument belongs in F tier. I seriously don't see why so many people think it's good, and I don't think a single person has ever been convinced by it. Why is a maximally great being actually necessary? All one has to do is say "I don't think there is a maximally great thing" and the argument fails. It's purely an argument from reasoning, like trying to conjure God by *thinking* Him into existence.
Plantinga is very pleased with himself, that's for sure. I'll copy a comment under Noel Plum's criticisims. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vbhTaQe5vJ4.htmlsi=N3GuEfExZXaUHbB6&t=640 As a philosophy major I find his criticisms valid, and the EAAN works just as well to argue against god. Plantinga is basing his notion of what a "benevolent" God would do (i.e., give us reliable faculties and not leave us in confusion) upon what God has allegedly TOLD him a benevolent being would do. Remember, for Plantinga, "benevolence" doesn't mean "not wanting to cause harm," (that's a secular definition, and according to Plantinga, baseless) it means "God's nature" (which we only know is one of not wanting to cause harm because God has allegedly told us about His nature via commandments). But how does Plantinga know that God's nature is not that of a deceiver? Because God has told him so. So Plantinga has not the slightest reason to think that a benevolent God would give us reliable cognitive faculties. That is something Plantinga takes zero cognisance of. It's hard to imagine a philosopher being that bad, but here we are. When Plum walks through the 4 possible scenarios, by my lights he's 100% correct. The EAAN is very poor logic. F-tier. That's not even addressing how out-of-touch Plantinga is with reality. Psychologists and neuroscientists are well aware of the shortcuts our brains take and the mistakes they make. I encourage you to look into that. The EAAN, then, is premised on naivete that no well-informed person accepts. First premise is wrong. Our cognitive faculties are unreliable.
I have never been an ardent viewer of your channel but after looking at the video "All arguments for God explained in 10 minutes" and this one I have to say that all the atheists dislike bombing your channel is crazy and uncalled for, not only did they dislike the previous video but they are doing it to this one as well which is just the most childish thing I have ever seen. Brother you are doing a good job with your channel and I wish to see future uploads once this harassment stops. God bless.
True, this is the first video in a while I've seen atheists bombard. I don't blame them, it's easy views and the arguments aren't fleshed out so they don't have to spend too much time thinking about a response, but it can come off as dishonest
I had a secular STEM and business background before having a near-death experience and going through God the Father's judgement process of my entire life so far up until that point, so my faith is founded in meaningful and vivid personal experience (which I understand is just anecdotal evidence for everyone else). After I was given a second chance, I took religion seriously and found the Cosmological and Teleological arguments the strongest with my scientific (not theological) paradigm and education, so it's interesting how different mental wirings rank all the arguments differently. “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.” - Werner Heisenberg
I'm proud you owned up to the weaknesses of your last video. Also, the transcendental argument for God is one of my favorites as well! However, it's so philosophical that it's easy to misunderstand. I'm currently working on an infographic to explain the strengths of TAG, for that reason.
Ontological Answer: X is the tastiest possible cookie that can be conceived. The tastiest possible cookie that exists is tastier than one that does not exist. This just shows the format of the argument is entirely circular and question begging. “The greatest being exists because the greatest being is defined as existing.”
No because idea of the tastiest cookie conceivable is not like the idea of a great possible conceivable being. There aren't intrinsic values that makes a cookie maximally great as it is subjective on what a tasty cookie is depending on the person also a maximally great cookie must necessarily exist in every possible worlds which means it cannot be consumed so it's not really a cookie. Inspiringphilosophy has a good playlist on the ontological argument that u should give a watch.
@@Rocky-ur9mn Any critique of the tastiest possible conceivable cookie equally applies to the greatest possible conceivable being. “Greatest” is equally as subjective as “Tastiest”. It is not a demonstrable metaphysical fact that it is greater to exist than not exist. That is the preference of living things though. The tastiest possible cookie exists in all possible mouths necessarily.
Wellllll, that’s not a good take at all. The argument that Anselm made is determining what being in *_general_* - not just rational, irrational, or biological beings - could be conceived as the “greatest possible being”. *Greater* and *greatest* in this context refers to quality and quantity of attributes. The “greatest possible being” is a being who has the highest quality and quantity of attributes, which would be infinitely many since a finite being can always be bested by an almost-identical being if it possesses even one greater attribute. Obviously, rational beings are greater than irrational beings since the former can manipulate the latter, so substituting a “cookie” for “greatest possible being” is a misuse of the terms in the argument.
Great video! I also liked GMS' vid as well despite him being an atheist. The only thing is that I like the cosmological argument for God's existence the best. Granted, I'm very much a classical theist realist, but I still think that it (and the ontological argument) gives the best description of what we mean when we say the word "God". Imo, you have to define the word "God" before any debate about God can be had.
@@Theo_Skeptomai because if you say objective truth is false then you are contradicting yourself by saying it’s objectively false as an objective truth, it’s something he said in the video I found funny
I actually think Pascal's Wager is very misunderstood and it deserves more credit than people give it now days. It is not an argument for God's existence as much as it is supposed to be an argument adressed to someone asking "Why should I believe in God?" And in that regard I think it is quite effective. The point of it isn't to convince someone that God actually exists as much as it is to pursuade someone who may be on the agnostic/not sure side to believe in God. The objection about "What if I end up believing in the wrong God" I think is ridiculous and absurd because anyone seriously comparing Christianity, Judaism and Islam would realize that Christianity inevitably wins out on every level. Plus, even if it doesn't convince you follow a particular religion, why can't it persuade you to believe in an ethical God at the very least in general sense?
@@samwainwright880When talking about "proof for God" We are specifically talking about Monotheism specifically, that is, a transcendent creator, not the ancient polytheistic understanding of gods which were basically just what our own modern society would call "superheroes". That would leave you with only three monotheistic religions to choose from, which are Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. Islam you can discard almost right away as it pretty much fails on every level, historical, moral, ethical and the very fact that it emerged so much later than both Christianity and Judaism and directly borrowed concepts from both pretty much destroys its credibility. That only leaves you with Judaism and Christianity, which is a more complicated debate that I won't get into right now. Also I don't understand what you mean when you say "theism if true would cost you all of this existence"? What do you mean? It doesn't "cost" you your existence as much as it simply changes the way you live your life.
@@legodavid9260 well if not true then your whole existence will be constrained by illogical rules such as current ones such the supposed immorality of homosexuality, working on the Sabbath and requirement for circumcision and traditionally slavery being morally allowed, death penalty for minor offences, punishment for sorcery and other imaginary crimes, human sacrifice etc, plus just wasting time doing lengthy research and analysis of something with as much value as any other fiction book
@@legodavid9260 I'm presuming you believe if there is a God then God is the basis for all morals. If true then Islam is all moral, so you have absolutely no grounds to discard it as a candidate.
@@samwainwright880 the miracle claims of Islam aren’t as historically backed as Christianity, among other things. Also, here’s my essay on why God exists, to refute your previous claim: docs.google.com/document/d/1tF5jYkVji5ImX5DdFQig6pZwQ3K0b1sIuMgClWqadsI/edit
You say that you’ve had experiences that are unexplainable apart from God. I’d love to see a Kingdom Craft episode about such experiences if you’re willing to share!
What a great RU-vidr. Most RU-vidrs would just completely ignore the criticism. But instead, you responded to it. Truly an amazing guy. God bless bro and keep up the g rest videos.
@@InfinityReptar I think Redeemed Zoomers video was better strictly based on my understanding of Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15 but obviously both videos make good points
I simply want to add a meager voice here as someone who has background and ongoing training in math and science and who believes in God. I double majored in cellular & molecular biology and theoretical mathematics in college. Now I am in my last year of the physician scientist dual-degree training. I did my PhD work in systems and molecular neuroscience. There will be many more physicians and scientists who are much more accomplished than me and who would argue for either Christianity or for atheism. Speaking for my own faith, it is rooted in theorizing, reasoning, and often methodically "wrestling" with myself to where I could answer to my own conscience.
If you use the mathematic argument to convince someone that a transcendent being exists, totally cool, but it completely undermines your goal because you can never arrive at the God of Christianity. because if the Christian God created Math, and he is one god in three persons, his theologically irreducible attributes rely on the concept of numbers (math), meaning God created one of his attributes, which is both a contradiction and a heresy. The argument of math is an argument for Deism, and an argument *against* Christianity.
Kant's moral argument seems very convincing to me. He presupposes the idea of justice and works from there. Also you should do a video about the best philosophers (kind of like your theologian tier list). George Berkley and St. Anselm are some of my favorites.
You know Kant but do you know Kierkegaard? Also the categorical imperative fails at many level, that’s why the deontological argument doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.
Kierkegaard has his own set of problems, but I enjoy him just as much as Kant. Probably more so because Kierkegaard was so dedicated to the Christian faith. All I was doing was bringing up an argument Zoomer did not mention. Can you point me to a resource that critiques Kant, I would love to learn more.
@@lexlayton7966 there’s a philosopher name Michael Sugrue that has a video on both Kant and Kierkegaard. He taught at Harvard or Princeton back in the 80s, and his lectures are online. He was Catholic and passed recently. I would look up his work for some frame of reference on the topic of Kierkegaard vs Kant. His work on philosophy is top tier, but also if you want to learn about Kant, deontology, and the categorical imperative, you might also want to study Humes and the hypothetical imperative for a frame of reference for Kant’s work. Good luck on your journey.
Disagree it makes me rationalize faith in god even more. Evidential and te logical are the ones i that make believe in jesus. The big bang theory itself is rationalized and came from the work if a catholic priest.
@@2007NissanAltima This is just... such a sad thing to read. I would guess you are in the US. What a sad indictment of the conversative destruction of our public education system.
@@Diviance as a radical centrist, i much prefer religious books in school libraries over graphic sexual content. you cannot convince me liberals have done it better
@@abhi5504 Then lucky for you that there is no graphic sexual content in school libraries. Liberals haven't done anything in the US. We don't even have a left-wing party in the US, let alone a liberal one. In fact, the group you are ostensibly complaining about (the Democrats, I assume)... are centrist. Slightly right-wing centrist, but centrist.
@@Diviance democrats are classified as part of modern liberalism in the US, and they share most views that European liberals do. I also reccomend you look at cases in states like Georgia and oklahoma regarding school libraries
The Cosmological argument is one of my favorites because it was the one that personally convinced me of God. Because we know that everything in the world has a cause, or depends on something else. In that case, we have to either regress infinitely, which is impossible, or there has to be one ultimate and infinite foundation upon which all else depends. That must be God. Aquinas' first two of the Five Ways are my go-to when arguing for God.
We don't know that everything in the world has a cause. That's posited by apologists not by real scientific consensus. Also even if it were true putting the christian god there is a leap of judgement. Rather stop the regress at something we can see and prove, the universe, than add an unnecessary and baseless claim.
@@therick363 An infinite regress requires an infinite amount of previous things to cause us here. That obviously isn't possible, because that would require there to be more than an infinite number of effects to lead to another effect to eventually lead to the present day. In other words, an infinite domino chain can never reach us at the last domino because an infinite number of previous dominoes would have to fall over to reach us in the "current domino," but that can't happen because it means infinity would have to end at us. Also, the universe still had a beginning, so there can't have been an infinite regress within the universe, because time and space in the universe are themselves, not infinite.
@@Protestant_Paladin440 infinite regress just keeps cycling through. Doesn’t necessarily mean infinite amount of previous things. There are different infinity’s. Also we don’t know for sure this universe had a beginning. It does seem like it did yes, but we aren’t sure. And if there was a beginning to this universe there still could have been previous universe before and we wouldn’t know how many. Thats a lot of assumptions about space and time. You forgot the last line I said
@@therick363 "no god needed" if you live in a fantasy world where irrational things like an infinite regress are possible (which they aren't). God, however, is actually needed to solve the problem. An eternal, self-existent, self-sufficient being. Because that's what we need to account for reality. Either this universe is eternal (which it isn't), or something (or someONE) eternal created it. If there were nothing in the beginning, nothing would be today. But since we have something today, then there always was something. And since we know the universe HAD a beginning, something ETERNAL had to give rise. Now whether that's a something or a someone is a whole other debate entirely, and that's where we look to the present world to see what we have. And lo and behold we have morality, personality, abstractions, etc., and therefore whatever our source is must also have these qualities. That's God. Just to note, I don't like the Cosmological Argument either. I just replied here for the sake of argument lol.
7:52 for the development of the eye, the process could be -> animal gets a group of light sensitive cells through a mutation, allowing it to react to stimuli in different ways, giving it an advantage over other animals. -> The children of the animal with mutations that give them more light sensitive cells, or wire the light sensitive cells to more useful responses (for a (bad) example if cells on the head are in shadow, activate fear response would give an advantage as the shadow may be from a predator swimming above it) would have an advantage over its relatives -> Some organisms will have mutations that make the cells indented, which can be used to figure out the direction of the light, this is an advantage, and the same process as the first 2 steps repeats for this until the cells are fully inset -> Some animals may get a mutation that has a patch of see through tissue over the cells, allowing for better protection, or muscles that can be used to change the direction the cell patch if facing, or have different cells that only see particular frequencies of light, allowing the organism to differentiate colour etc all of these mutations going through the same process, until eventually something that looks pretty similar to a fish eye can be seen in the ancient protofish in the sea
I'm so glad you mentioned Genetically Modified Skeptic. He is such an underrated channel for Christians! I think the Teleological argument would be the best argument for God, who agrees? (Also I'm writing this at the time when I haven't seen the full video.)
something i often find a problem with most of these arguments that you find actually good is that they "prove" A god but not THE god if that makes sense like i personally believe there is no way there isnt a god because of my own personal experience but its impossible for me to say which god is real then especially when most religions have the same amount of evidence and reason for them being the right one like here is why it cant be used to say a specific god (only counting those he put c tier or higher) and as you acknowledge in pascal's wager's placement there are other religions with contradictions evidentialism: a lot of religions have people who claim to have seen stuff as well not just christianity personal experience: just like how i said it doesnt exactly tell you which one but just that there is one sure some people say it claims its the god they believe in but that could simply be a god trying to familiarize itself to you with something you already know of moral: honestly shouldnt be b tier as its circular reasoning because saying there is objective morality meaning there has to be god and because there is god there is objective morality and im just going to say morality is for sure subjective for example whether homosexuality is wrong is subjective even if you already know what you think on that topic you cant deny its subjective and ofc even if we say this is all right then it could be a different higher power giving objective morality consciousness: again i dont know why its b tier especially when you agree its arguing for a soul not for god but i agree its not a god of the gaps fallacy transcendental: honestly i agree with the a tier placement here because honestly i feel this is one of the most concrete evidence there is a god but at the same time there is no saying which one ontological: just because the hypothetical idea of something perfect exists doesnt mean it does actually exist and saying existing is greater than not existing so he has to exist only works assuming that he is in fact perfect so circular reasoning mathematics: honestly i think this is the best one but again you cant say this proves THE god but A GOD
As an atheist, that's exactly what i dislike the most with those arguments. Those are deist arguments and i think that deism is way closer to atheism than theism. Why ? To prove theism, you still have to prove a lot of other things. The fact that the god you were talking about is yours. the fact that it's a good god, the fact that your holy book is from them. But also you'll have to prove the supernatural world, magic, prophet, miracles, prayers, dragons, demons, angels, objective morality, rituals, churches, witches, soul, afterlife, heaven and hell and way more... as i don't believe in any of those things, i really fail to see how the deists arguments would prove anyhing even if they were not fallacious.
Hey Redeemed Zoomer, I've watched some of your videos for a little while now and I appreciate your style and the way you convey your opinions. Though we may disagree I absolutely appreciate the way you approach this subject and it definitely does more good than those who mindlessly taunt and argue baselessly as irregardless of their position only serves to cause disconnect
I know you said for the cosmological argument that quantum physics sort of undermines the “unmoved mover” part but (correct me if I’m wrong) I think the whole thing about particles being in different places at once only really applies to tiny particles and that when you get to bigger objects (such as the entire universe for example) those properties of particles don’t really affect the entire object.
I feel like if you are someone who subscribes to Pascal’s Wager (or uses that as your primary belief for believing in God), then you’re definitely agnostic to a degree, whether you would admit that or not. It really is the “better safe than sorry” stance.
For me, Pascal’s has always been a good response if I’m not trying to convince someone and I don’t really feel like justifying myself, just a very simple response that’s at least better than shutting down the discussion entirely. I think the Cosmological and Mathematical arguments are my personal favorites.
Fully agree. Pascal's Wager is a fun thought experiment with people who already believe. It might be helpful for someone thoroughly stuck between as an agnostic, but the other arguments are far better in every other regard.
Until you realize there are potentially just as infinitely many gods that would punish you for believing they exist on bad evidence as there are gods that grant you eternal life for doing so. Nor should one expect any Deity worth their salt wouldn’t see right through someone hedging their bets. Pascals is not a good argument.
@@Tinesthia it is an extremely good argument. Your many Gods claim can be discarded given basic infinity logic. Also, after factoring in all relevant data, such as eastern religions largely believing in reincarnation and not talking about an afterlife, they become a non factor, leaving only Zoroastrianism, Islam, and Christianity as the only ones with eternal afterlives, and then you just compare the evidence from there. Also, Zoroastrianism can be dropped out, given you go to heaven if you do more good than bad and you can’t convert anyways. So it’s really only Christianity and Islam, which is what we would expect doing the calculations with infinity and with prior probabilities. Then you can go from there and get into the Islam vs Christianity debate, and even scholars agree Christianity is the more likely of the two, given the inadequacy of Muslim arguments and the historical precedence and reliability Christianity provides
The teleological and fine tuning argument has always been my favorite when sharing the good news with others. Although you may find it not so good, it's always amazing to see how perfect this universe is able to keep running. God's creation speaks volumes of His existence. Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
I believe that the teleological argument is still a very strong argument. From seeing Stephen Meyers work, he explained that research has shown that even in the event of a multiverse existing, the very thing generating the multiverses would have to be fine tuned as well. So even if there were a multiverse, and we just happened to be the universe that was made perfectly, there still would’ve been fine tuning in the very thing producing a multiverse. Love your videos by the way!
Right? I see a lot of people defend the cosmological argument but not the teleological argument. Studying biology at college and being an amateur astronomer, witnessing the sheer complexity on both microscopic and macroscopic scale and learning how perfectly tuned the laws of physics that hold it all together ate just made an atheist me one day think ,,Yup, I was wrong. There must be some type of organizing intelligence behind this all"
2:31 "So I'm going to steal that idea" Some random Atheist criticizing this video: "Um, Im pretty sure your Fantasy Book says that you aren't supposed to steal (I am clearly taking this out of context)" ☝🤓
Im interested to know how you concider the Mandelbrot set to have infinite complexity when it is in fact only a PII, Potentially Infinite Interpretation. The only reason it looks like it has infinite complexity is because a rule, the fundamental nature of the Mandelbrot set, the equation Zn+1 = Zn2 + C is applied to a ridiculous extent. The mandelbrot set as we see it, as a 2d shape is only an interpretation, a way that the LIMITED information in the Zn+1 = Zn2 + C equation can be shown. The only reason that it appears that there is infinite information is because if you had infinite time and computation power you could go on applying the rule forever. The information is the rule, not the shape that can be created with this rule. It would be like saying that if you had a pen and an infinite amount of ink, that because you can potentially draw forever, then the drawings are an example of infinite information. In fact, information cannot be infinite, even if our universe would allow for its accomodation. That being said, the existence of god is not proven by maths. The consciousness argument is CLEARLY the superioir one.
I remember commenting about my negative thoughts on the other videos so I want to follow up by saying I really admire your S tier argument and think it is very well spoken
Evil exists so god can destroy it is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. It's like a fireman starting a fire and then taking credit for putting it out.
@@Rikken552 Evil does not have to exist in order for one to be good, it is enough to remember the degrees of virtue. Wasn't God, for example, good before there was any evil in reality? Moreover, some evils do not build any goodness at all, such as teleological natural evil and unnecessary human suffering. A world in which causality is exhausted in the natural is best reconcilable with all this.
@@churka5984 animations,church scandals,christian policies and debunking the bible would be alot heck even the responding to christian channels videos are rare
You're telling me that people who don't have anything better to believe don't have anything better to do? Surprising. I say let them be, that's RZ's first faults, ruffling the feathers of the atheists
I mean.... that's the whole point of their content. That's like saying automotive review channels always talk about cars and whenever a car company does something, they just NEED to talk about it..... like obviously. That's the point.
Evidential should be higher. Even if you are 51% sure the resurrection events actually happened based on historical evidence; it’s a better argument than any of the others.
The cosmological Argument should be S tier. It shows that Science cannot explain the beginning. A world view with only materialism falls apart. The multiverse is the 21st century equivalent of just saying that the world rests on a turtle, and that turtle is held up buy another turtle, and that turtle is help up with another turtle.
What you said about the cosmological arguement is true. Aristotle himself said that syllogism (or rather 'perfect syllogism') works best when working with definite premises. Once we move to the indefinite realm we're really just grasping at straws and won't really be able to build a robust arguement that can affirm nor deny anything
I never knew the "God of the gaps fallacy" had a name, I always heard fellow christians use it to explain stuff they couldn't understand, which was really infuriating
I don't claim to be especially intelligent, and I admit to being very poorly educated (no college education), but I don't entirely dislike the cosmological argument. It seems to me that there are only two possibilities concerning the origin of the universe- either the universe was not, and then was, which should necessitate an uncaused cause, or it has always been (in some form). If there is evidence/reason to suppose that the universe was not, and then was, is that not evidence for/reason to suppose an uncaused cause and ergo a higher power?
There is no evidence that the universe came from nothing, all we know is that it was small, and dense, we aren't able to go before the big bang and recent evidence shows that some galaxies are older than 13B years, by the JWST ofc
@StarryxNight5 it is a higher power by definition. We are talking about the creation of everything in the natural world, therefore the creative cause would be supernatural. Whether or not it is a person is obviously a different argument, but I think it is a convincing one.
@@Garthant What do you _define_ as a higher power? I could claim with many things as supernatural, with incomplete knowledge. I could claim that quantum particles are fey spirits, playing when we're not watching but hiding their play when we try to observe them. I could claim that lightning is a big ol' spider in the clouds that steps on people it doesn't like. I could just not attach myth to either and simply call them supernatural. After all, how else could lightning choose where to strike? How else could an electron know when it is being seen? But these things have clear explanations, if not entirely intuitive ones. Who's to say this uncaused causer is a higher power? Any higher than something like lightning or the sun?
