@@bozo5632 Just idiotic claims on your part. .. there is likely one universe and we are likely the only intelligent life in it..which is highly suspect..opens the door wide to the supernatural and all that comes with it. ''a universe from nothing'' which also opens the door wide to the supernatural. And of course the BELIEF that matter is all there is which is nonsense since if that was true everything would be a rather simple construct and we would know way more than we actually do right now.
I mean, I was an atheist for four years and the problem of evil wasn't even something that I considered as a problem; it was not the thing that made me an atheist. Simon, at the beginning of the video, claims that three religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) have evasive answers to this but that's not the case. Someone who has read the Qur'an can clearly understand the reason for evil. It's very clearly explained, so it's clearly not an issue for Muslims. The most significant issue for atheists is that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God. And since a god can't be limited with physical reality, there is no way to prove it. Hence, most you can do is choose to believe and atheists don't do so. It's that simple.
What's the difference between an invisible gardener and no gardener at all? And to me personally is not just the direct evidence that's not there. I see no indirect evidence of such an entity either, no ''footprints'' or ''smell'' so to speak. To the point in which it makes no difference. If this entity is so remote from us, so distant, so far, doesn't intervene with anything, even if it existed, why bother?
@@BOeRNsupremacy What is the difference between invisible 11-dimensional strings and no fundamental particles at all. Perhaps the flaw is not in what you don't see but in what you think you should be looking for.
@@quinnmendel449 The difference between 11-dimensional strings and the 'invisible gardener' is that the strings don't tell me how to live my life who to sleep with and in what position. The joke aside the existence or not of 11-dimensional strings doesn't inform day to day decisions. The influence is ephemeral. On the other hand Religion has far more influence on society. You're comparing apples to pears. Good luck! God bless!
@@BOeRNsupremacy Perhaps you underestimate M-theory. They don't call it the theory of everything for nothing... Who says that God dictates your life? Some religious nuts? Just because some old guys with agendas said God has some rules for you, does not mean that God actually cares about you and your behavior. You confuse God with religion.
Honestly as a life long atheist, coming from multiple generations of atheists. Student of philosophy and religion that is the most elegant way I’ve heard someone put it. Well said
Actually, the evidences are so plentiful , infinite to enumerate. Just because you have lack of education does not mean there is Absence of evidence. … Your negative claim that God does not exist Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities. A negative claim is a colloquialism for an affirmative claim that asserts the non-existence or exclusion of something. A negative claim can be proven, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl. Claiming that it is impossible to prove a negative is a "pseudologic," because there are many proofs that substantiate negative claims in mathematics, science, and economics, including Arrow's impossibility theorem. There can be multiple claims within a debate. Nevertheless, whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
But by retreating to this interpretation of god you just denied every god of every monotheistic religion around today. Debunking the resurrection of Jesus is obviously not a problem for your god when you claim that he didn't do that to begin with. Debunking the omnipotence claim of the christian god is obviously not a problem for your god when you claim that he isn't omnipotent to begin with, et cetera perge perge. But by doing that you didn't support any religion with an argument. You simply created a new religion that denies every other one.
@@AliothAncalagon sure. The goal of this "religion" is to differentiate imagination from reality. Since the monotheistic faiths don't do this very well, yes I refute them.
Is it so difficult to understand that God was created by man to try to answer some fundamental questions which we have not been able to solve. We have a long way to go to even explain something so natural as gravity.
most of the answers i hear from christians about that is, "god permits evil. because if there is no evil, then how would we know what is good." but then it contradicts an all loving god.
Yes, it’s one of the simplest/best if there was a god it means it is frequently watching children being tortured by sick persons and doesn’t do anything while having infinite power
God is not a being but being itself. It is THE ontological essence of reality. Institutionalized religion has childish and immature image of God, thanks to Richard Rohr and others we can imagine God now not just like the old man judging from the sky, but as the pure Love that emerges in everything. We are the ultimate creative expression of the Mystery, with a wide range of experiences of learning, some of them involving pain and potential suffering. What if YOU are that being that can lower suffering in the world? It is a complex challenge to be the one that takes responsibility towards suffering of others, no doubt, but a good way to start is to liberate yourself from your own pain in the company of Infinite Consciousness and inspire others without words .
Kuhn starts by saying that he eschews organized religion, then Blackurn opens with arguments against Judaeo Christian religion. Then Kuhn reminds gently that he is numb to the argument from evil and Blackburn continues down that path. About 3/4 of the way to the end, he finally says, "Of course, if you've got a much more abstract conception of God, then perhaps this argument doesn't apply."... and that is the end of that line of reasoning and we are back on "God lets bad stuff happen".
I’d say arguments against god suffer from a poverty of input, most typically because people refuse to define god in meangingful ways. The god that many people in the English speaking world (Blackburn included) are familiar with is the judeochristian god, obviously. So it’s going to be natural for him to reply with that conception in mind. Most arguments for god focus on one aspect of the supposed nature of god and then work from there; it would be nice if someone wanting an argument against god did the same thing. If Kuhn asked “what are some good arguments against a necessary being?” Maybe the discussion would’ve gone differently. But honestly I don’t think Blackburn is into this stuff on the level where a discussion over that question would be meaningful. If you’re looking for something along those line, though, I would recommend Thoughtology and Majesty of Reason. Both great channels for metaphysics and philosophy of religion-related discussions.
The overwhelming lack of evidence for any proposed god is all an atheist needs. We don’t have any burden, so we don’t require evidence or arguments for atheism
@@PaulHoward108 no I’m saying it’s a response to a single claim. The claim is that there is at least one god.. But non of the people who make this claim can demonstrate any truth to their claim. So I don’t believe their claim And that makes me atheist
You people and your pseudo rational fantasies. Have fun in your multiverse... Truth of the matter is there is likely one universe and we are likely the only intelligent life in it..which is highly suspect..opens the door wide to the supernatural and all that comes with it. ''a universe from nothing'' which also opens the door wide to the supernatural. And of course the BELIEF that matter is all there is which is nonsense since if that was true everything would be a rather simple construct and we would know way more than we actually do right now.
@@fortynine3225 Hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of starts and trillions of planets ... Why would a god create all that waste if we are the only place with life on it?
What kind of question is that. I *don’t* explain evil existing with a god, because I don’t believe in any gods. Thus I also don’t believe in divine accountability. Divine accountability is as much a nonsensical fantasy concept to me, as Pink Unicorn accountability is to a christian or muslim or hindu.
@@williamesselman3102 lol, who or what do you mean by ‘the rest of us’. Religious people? Regardless of whatever fancy religion or god you believe in, do you even realize that you agree with me (an atheist) on more gods than with the vast majority of people worldwide who have a different religion than yours?
Best arguments? You got to be kidding! Edit: I absolutely respect him as a fellow human being but really wasn't expecting such a dumb argument and calling it "the best".
TOTALLY AGREE! He begins with 'bad things I don't like have happened' But however true, it's neither an argument for or against. Only that it's a god(s) he doesn''t like. The 400,000 species of beetles is interesting, along the lines of 100 billion stars in this galaxy and 100 billion galaxies in the universe. But Einstein had a much better refutation; late in life he said to his assistant Ernst Straus : "What really interests me is, did God have a choice in the creation of the universe". He recognizes the seeming perfect distribution of evidence for and against, and as only he could, realizes that the Abrahamic God could have no other universe. I'll link two articles of brilliant minds parsing Einstein's statement....they're VERY good: archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/millennium/m1/overbye.html?source=post_page--------------------------- history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einsteins-third-paradise.htm
There is no up or down in space. So in reality up and down is perspective of people. Even good and bad are mostly perspective too like killing a man or having a slave was considered as normal back inthe days but now. So u have to ask is what is good and bad how to define. perspective of people change based on time period and different ideas. The ideas emerges from human mind and the laws are implemented. In reality the world is a place with fortunate and unfortunate events for every man. We are just witnessing and we couldnt comprehend the reality thats it.
@@DarthMakroth i dont think so. All i am saying for example eating dog or any pet you consider them as bad thing. But we eat lot of chickens and beef mean while when they are baby when any bad things happens to them we feel bad for them after they grow we feel ok to slaughter them. ( I am not vegan just making points here. The perspective of people change the bad and good in reality.)
If there were no 'up' and 'down' option in space it would be two dimensional = forwards/backwards + left/right. Of course good/bad can't be quantified, that's my point. They're relative, just like 'up' and 'down' are.
Atheist: If God had planned everything before including everyone's fate, then why would he punish atheists for not believing in him? Believer: I have no fucking idea
it's funny but that is the classic materialist determinism idea. I want to remember you that on a very materialistic standpoint there is not free will. So what you say can be turned as: believer: If determinism had planned everything before including everyone's fate, then why we should blame serial killers? atheist: I have no fucking idea
If I may play devils advocate, God isn’t bound by time. Therefore, what doesn’t make sense in terms of time (punishing “after” planning) is probably just limited to us modest humans. So yeah, “I have no eff’in idea”
@@posterizedz what is the meaning of “not bound by time”? This is just some thought, easy to say and to attribute to something somehow but in fact that has no meaning
@@rotorblade9508 all the millions of people who had an NDE say that there is no time on the other side. So even if one thinks that are just hallucinations that mean that our bran can grasp the concept. That was explained very well by a priest who had an NDE , he said "here we watch time as a stick , view from a side, in afterlife you see the stick/time as watching through it from one side"
@@francesco5581 Hmm. But the definition of hallucination is the perception of something that is not real. So if we are assuming they were hallucinating, and there are good reasons to think so, then why should we assume their impressions of timelessness were accurate? Btw I know there are many NDEs but I didn't knew there are millions of them. Do you have any sources for that? I heared many reporting about light and a tunnel, not so much about timelessness. But you're saying all of those millions say "there is no time on the other side". Do you gave any sources for this too?
Good and Evil is just a human construct. There is No good or Bad , just action and experience. There is No death either , just a Journey and a transition into different States
@@raspberrypi4970 I think this is the best response to argument from evil. Saying something is good would be meaningless unless there is some evil to go with it.
I agree that good and evil is just a human creation but we can’t say for sure that death is not real because that’s not something you can prove, it’s an opinion
Understanding who created being evil will answer the question. God has no obligation to answer that question,but God has a purpose to end evil in this world
The Tao doesn't take sides; it gives birth to both good and evil. The Master doesn't take sides; she welcomes both saints and sinners. The Tao is like a bellows: it is empty yet infinitely capable. The more you use it, the more it produces; the more you talk of it, the less you understand. Hold on to the center. When people see some things as beautiful, other things become ugly. When people see some things as good, other things become bad. Being and non-being create each other. Difficult and easy support each other. Long and short define each other. High and low depend on each other. Before and after follow each other. Therefore the Master acts without doing anything and teaches without saying anything. Things arise and she lets them come; things disappear and she lets them go. She has but doesn't possess, acts but doesn't expect. When her work is done, she forgets it. That is why it lasts forever.
To be honest, I am all powerfull person in my house and I am too much generous though, i give my kids the best food, cloths and best life, But still sometimes I get angry and my kids complain for me to be rude and brutal. They are not satisfied!
Still feel that there are different interpretations of free will, in particular whether free choice and free will are the same thing. Free will could be an ability to position or move oneself, whereas free choice is more a response to a situation.
I feel like people who argue against free will argue against a strawman. They treat the fact that our thoughts come from our brain as if that's incompatible with free will. I'd rather have a sensible approach to free will. Free will is simply our ability to think, sometimes thinking takes a while (free will) and sometimes thinking is so instantaneous we don't know 'where' that thought came from (determinism).
Evil is a word I suggest that we should stop using. The word "evil" suggests that a devil is in control of one's supposed soul. That story was made up by men in ancient times that didn't know any better. We would do societies world over a favor by discarding that word in the archaic garbage bin, and start using the words "emotionally damaged" in its place. However, for those who insist on using the word evil, while pointing outward, I suggest you ponder on the following quote. “People who claim that they're evil are usually no worse than the rest of us... It's people who claim that they're good, or any way better than the rest of us, that you have to be wary of.” ― Gregory Maguire, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West
Physicists call the fine-tuning in the universe miraculous and Supernatural. Lots of them have quotes that say they believe it looks like a superintelligence as monkeyed with the parameters. That's evidence and you know it.
Proving Monotheism is false is entirely possible. Monotheism defines god as a being which no greater can be conceived. The contradiction between the definition and reality is essentially the grounding for the argument from evil.
-"Monotheism defines god as a being which no greater can be conceived" "Greater" seems far too subjective, especially when there are different senses of greatness.
@@samuelstephens6904 It's a theistic definition posited by St. Anselm as part of his ontological proof of god's existence. Greatness in this sense is absolute eg: Omnipotence, Omniscient, omnibenevolent.
@@B.S... But I don't know what greatest means with respect to, say, power. For example, the number seven is greater than the number six. But there is a number greater still than seven: eight. And so on _ad infinitum._ For every number you can think of, I can think of a greater number. There is no greatest number. Is "power"(whatever that even is) like that? Or is there some cap to how powerful one can be like there is a limit to how far north someone can travel? The same challenge could just as easily be run with omnibenevolence. It's not clear to me that these are things for which we can never conceive greater than just like I can always conceive of a greater number. The terms are too vague.
@@samuelstephens6904 I'm an atheist by the way. The definition of greatest is in the statement. It is not a quantitative property. It's simply, god is greater than any other being imaginable. It doesn't matter how you measure it. Omnipotence is absolute by definition, there is no omnipotence + (more).
"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the "particle" of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the MATRIX of all matter." - Max Planck, Father of Quantum Physics "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness." … … … "Anyone who becomes seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that there is a spirit manifest in the laws of the universe, a spirit vastly superior to that of man." - most famous physicist and philosopher Albert Einstein … … … "If quantum mechanics hasn’t profoundly shocked you, you haven’t understood it yet. Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real.” - Niels Bohr, a Danish Physicist … … … "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." - Sir Isaac Newton This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent being. And if the fixed Stars are the centers of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must all be subject to the dominion of One. [...] This Being Governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all: And on account of his dominion he is wont to be called Lord God παντοκρατωρ, or Universal Ruler. ~ from General Scholium written by Sir Isaac Newton
My Theory Dimensional -1 i Singularity Genesis Fractal Particle Theory D-1iSGF Particle is able to Program itself but never the same result because the particle structure always changes through it's own awareness, By splitting itself into 2 using [ i,i ]. This -1 Particle is a dimension itself, containing information of self for Existence to be. Explained below will show by awareness of self to see what self [is] arises [ i ]Manifestation of Possibilities. Like you in a Dream Observing you aka "awareness" or you can be you actually awake in your Dream aka "awakened". But in this case it happens simultaneously * variable v - vibration is a energy source that reaches point to of (~f) variable x - x is the enlightened number variable (~f)- wave frequency is a perfect harmonic numeric energy code to access the Void variable [i,i] - infinit/infinit loop variable d - dimension variable p - particle variable m - manifestation (-1) Particle⚫ reason is do to self being, because nothing else Interacts with the Particle Not even with itself, the equation of ( 0) -1p+0p= -1p or 0p+ -1p=-1p either will do. Then v(x)=(~f)see variables* When the Particle does de-fusion it become two Particles○/○●=●. -1dp(~f)/2dp(~f) =1dp(~f) because they are still one in the same❔ Almost like a Dream? Time is irrelevant Except within: Void is Dimensional [ i ] Zero [+-0md(~f)], the Infinite Possibility of Manifestations that decodes the information from the Particle , to bring upon reality. The second same Particle leaves the original Dimension, appearing in a time Manifestation of the Void. That's why the Void can never be filled. -1dp(~f)( +-0md(~f)) + 1mdp(~f) =1mdp(~f) 1st manifestations dimension Fractal Particle So -1 Dimension became 1 Manifestation Dimension in the void Particles know when they're being observed because they Observe themselves. So In combination of -1d and -+0d/1mdp you get: (-1dp(~f)+2mdp(~f))1mdp(~f) (+-0md(~f)) +1mdp(~f)) 1mdp(~f) + 1mdp(~f)(1p(~f)) 1mdp(~f) + 1mdp(~f) = 2mdp(~f) Genesis? Singularity 2 Dimensional Manifestation Fractal Particle. Pure Thought Energy from the Particle that got decoded to information to Create Reality from Manifestation within the Void.. [-1dp(~f)(+-0md(~f))]+ 1mdp(~f)) + 2mdp(~f) 1mdp(~f) + [-+0mdp(~f)] + 1mdp(~f) + 2mdp(~f) = 3mdp(~f) Or 3rd Dimensional Manifestation Fractal Particle Results of Possibilities immeasurable in 3 Manifestations Dimensions do to unknown variables, origin D-1iSGF Eventually D-1iSGF goes back to -1dp(~f) or non-awareness And not -1dp(~f) , -+0md(~f), 1mdp(~f) then [ i,i ] All over, back to self-awareness. [i] Information can never fill, just recycled in the same order...Destruction and Chaos Creation and Order You can't Change what works. -1dp(~f), -+0md(~f), 1mdp(~f) this is known as Superior Positioning - Tesla was more in tune the Albert ever was
@@raspberrypi4970 I can explain the implications of QFT (quantum field theory) in a paragraph or two, without using any formulas. Care to put your theory in English? It sounds like you are proposing panpsychism...
@@ptgannon1 Not Panpsychism. 'All' don't have a mind but 'All' creates a Mind structure. Without something the mind is useless. The Universe and everything in it shapes your mind. This is the first part of my Theory. You read my 2nd part. The Absolute of No Beginning nor End can never be questioned. All answers require a starting point/ Cause and everything else that happens after is an Effect. But since there's No Beginning nor End there's no starting point. Something that can never be created nor destroyed. So where do you go from there. To Create a starting point/ the 1st Cause ever, you would have to consider No Beginning nor End the starting point as awhole itself, since there's no individual starting point within itself because it's infinite. So now you have a Cause. Almost like an infinite finite without limits but 1 bound. Effect is created. The only 'Why' question that can arise is the Effect, because like I stated, the one and only Cause already happened. Everything else is just the Effect/ Continuous.
@@raspberrypi4970 I'm having some trouble following that. It almost sounds like Roger Penrose's cyclic universe theory, which says there was no beginning to the universe, it just gets reborn over and over again. As for the mind (meaning consciousness?) until we learn better, I assume that it's an emergent quality that comes out of the brain as a tool - a working draft or outline, to tell the brain what's going on and constantly change the draft based on feedback from the the brain.
A notion of god restricted to a superficial knowledge of the Judaeo-Christian line fails to capture the subtle and embodied conceptualization of deity in the orient. The universe, even as far as currently known ,inspires adoration ,reverence and compassion.
How does one gain more reliable information than can be acquired through the scientific paradigm? What makes your method more reliable rather than just your inner feelings of confidence?
Without knowledge of reincarnation and karma there's no logical explanation of evil. Once someone understands these topics, it's clear why someone suffers and why someone has much better conditions of life.
the answer would be, until we see one or have any indication they exist we can't support or affirm that idea. While the fact that there is a God is obvious from His creation.
Extraordinary claims (such as the existence of Zeus, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Allah, Shiva etc) require extraordinary evidence. Claims without proof can be discarded without proof.
@@williamesselman3102 more fallacies 🤦♂️ you really are a delusional illogical man bandwagon You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief
@@itsallinyourhead8251 if I told you to believe something because everyone else does that would be a fallacy. I'm asking you a question. Is it your claim that 87.5% of the population of the planet Earth believes in God without proof? Is it your claim that of the thousands and thousands of atheist conversion stories on the internet that all of them converted to Christianity without proof?
Too many gods . . . I can't decide which one to declare as being the one true "real god". Maybe there are more than one "real gods"? Maybe there are, say fifteen "real gods", a Catholic real god, a Presbyterian real god, a Lutheran real god, an Islamic real god, which one? Please help.
@Apstore Login I would say agnosticism or, even more suitably, ignosticism is the default. Nobody's born believing the Earth is a sphere either but I wouldn't say being a flat Earther is the default position. People need to be able to reject or accept propositions before we can label them as theists or atheists IMO.
It is illusory to be affirmatively without belief in something ambiguous like that "God or god" concept, without the person using the word providing a definition and use for their intended meaning. Otherwise, what the atheist, or the religious person (who claims to believe in something they also call "God") intends to express is indecipherable to the non-religious folks in the room.
The line of distinctions that scientists draw between science and religion is something that is not grouned in science whatsoever. That's interesting to notice.
Maybe the scientists you allude to are not speaking from a scientific point of view, but a philosophical one? A scientist can have different modes of thought. It's not like once a scientist, they can never think about anything other than through science.
The "physical world/universe" exists, in large part, due to duality and the interaction and balance of these opposing forces. Light v Dark; Positive v Negative; Right v Wrong, Good v Evil, Up v Down, Happy v Sad, Male v Female, Hot v Cold, Wave v Particle, etc. seems to be interwoven within the fabric of the "physical world/universe". This apparent property of the physical world/universe does not preclude the existence of a Prime Observer/Cause.
Said duality is a fake duality of interpretation. There is no "Light v Dark". "Dark" doesn't really exist. We simply call it "Dark" when there is not much light. Your duality is no duality between 2 different things. Its a duality between something being there and the same thing not being there. So the only claim you actuall supported with your argument is that things that are there can also not be there. As a result you have shown absolutely nothing.
Unfortunately your assertions are categorically wrong: Identity, distinction for an example duality =dual-ness, categories, forces, dark-, and bright-ness, right- and wrong-ness, up- and down-ness, happi- and sad-ness, but also any measurable property such as space and time, mass and energy but also each and every number and law (of a game, of legislature, of logic, of morality, of physics) but also each and every !!!!ASSERTED!!!!! God EACH is PSYCHE = an imaginary inside brain effect = does NOT exist. All that DOES exist on this occasion, it is PHYSIS = the things we are fabricating PSYCHE from/about, objects, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles and LOGOI = the assertions = expressions OF Psyche Bbtw the categoriccally correctly opposed symbols are light (specific communication = *action)* versus no-light *(no such action)* brightness *(PSYCHE!)* versus darkness *(PSYCHE!!!!!)* The awareness = property = Psyche is obviously not being elicited during dormancy!!!! Neither bright- nor darkness that is - well, when we are not dreaming....
Not being able to prove that no uncaused first cause, or observer, did not exist, does not magically mean it did. You are using an Argument from Ignorance Fallacy.
Strictly from a theists POV: It doesn't seem like the Problem of Evil is a good objections. It might be argued successfully against some formulations of god, but there are certainly some formulation of God that avoid the issue entirely. As a non-religious Classical Theist: Although a slight issue may arise, God under this formulation is better described as a verb. Not a being among many that plays with it's creation when it wants too, and not one that created the universe and left but one that is actively creating it. Meaning holding up all of existing things, as the foundational reality of all. As a Christian: The problem of Evil seems (mostly) a problem in terms of emotion. Why would God allow this? We may not know, but that doesn't seem to subtract from what He did. Entered into creation as a man to be beaten and killed, innocent of the crime they said He committed. Not promising to get us out of our suffering(in this life) but to enter it intimately, to show His unending love for us. Doesn't answer "why did thing x happen/ why is it happening" but it gives a general response to how we can see suffering and the important role it has in our lives. One thing people need to remember, Christianity is not a religion of merely propositions, but it is almost more importantly, a worldview. “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” C.S. Lewis
Well your man god is still a prick who can't even be bothered to stop children being beaten. Wrongful execution is a miscarrage of justice. "Entered into creation" what on earth does that mean? You're just making this stuff up from a story book. The real issue is why would anyone apologise for this nonsense.
That's not an argument, it's a request. And without a valid answer to that request, atheists have no basis for accepting the claim. As always, the burden of proof falls to the claimant.
The fact is any argument trying to prove a negative in reference to all of eternity will always consist of that arguments. This guy discredits God for the evil in the world, but won’t credit God for all the good. And since there’s more good in this world then evil due to the fact they were all still alive , it should be game set match God which if there is no God then good and evil don’t exist in the first place. And to say the universe is not perfect is to make man’s idea of perfection the eternal universal meaning of perfection itself. I think atheist argue more from a standpoint of transcendent Morality then even people who believe in God do . Atheist have a very- Man- centered view of the universe
That's right If 5% of people live a miserable life in the world, the remaining 95% live a very prosperous life. Freud said that man is a tormented creature, who likes to mourn by remembering the sorrows of his life. Even though millions of joys in life have been bowing before his door, but he prefers to be sad by remembering his sorrows and pains.
@@attamalik1983 I think that’s because most people who don’t have an eternal mindset always seek validation or happiness in something outside of themselves. Their horizons are external, and away from the eternal present moment
-"This guy discredits God for the evil in the world, but won’t credit God for all the good." An atheist like myself or Blackburn can easily credit God for all good in the world because that is immaterial to the argument. Theists believe that God is morally perfect or maximally good. God can be responsible for good things, but if he is also responsible for evil things then he is not morally perfect or maximally good. He would be morally _imperfect_ and _partially_ good. -"if there is no God then good and evil don’t exist in the first place." What motivates that view? -"And to say the universe is not perfect is to make man’s idea of perfection the eternal universal meaning of perfection itself." This is a problem though. What relationship does "the eternal universal meaning of perfection" have to "man's idea of perfection?" Do they overlap at all? How would we know? It could be the case that Hitler was closer to actual perfection than MLK and your intuition that this is false is incorrect because it's based on "man's idea of perfection" which isn't actual eternal perfection.
@@samuelstephens6904 But see, to say there is no god because there’s evil in the world Makes God responsible for our actions therefore if you’re going to use that premise then you have to credit him with the good also Which, both sides presumably being the total responsibility of God would in effect eliminate good and evil altogether and replace it with the simple pragmatism of effecting gods Will . And to reduce that argument from the general to the individual, that would be saying there is no god because somebody broke into my house last night and stole my TV. As far as perfection or a perfect universe , that idea can be only defined by the Imperfect standards of an imperfect man. If man is not perfect And unaware of the purpose of all reality, how could he define what perfection is ? The atheist arguments against God are based on religious characterizations rather than narrowing it down to the simple idea of whether there could be a higher power above us that exists in the sublime connections between each other And in the simple awareness of the separation between us and the universe that without an inherent Metaphysical disposition, we would be totality sublimely blind to. I think the proof of God or a higher power is in our subjective feelings. Language and science are only for empirical limits of space and time
@@francis_who I think we should have reliable methods to seperate fiction from realituly. The scientific method does this well, there could be others. Without a method its just speculation and post hoc rationalization. Thats all fine and great for a hypothesis, but people like to claim these as profound truths. Maybe, maybe not.
@@williamesselman3102 at one point I thought i had experience with God, and later learned good reason to question that interpretation of those experiences.
@@francesco5581 then how come I could bet my life this god will never ever ever ever appear? What a coincidence don’t you think? That this god is indistinguishable from everything else non existent? Every single trait of this god mimics the non existent. And for a being that is said to be able to do anything it just simply can not reveal itself. No matter what!!! Lol
How do supernatural miracles fit in with the natural world? Does not reason itself presuppose a natural world? To my mind it is wanton foolishness to explain the mysterious by way of the impossible or the unknowable.
Well, I point to the mere complexity of physical organisms and the complex interdependencies of various living things as evidence of a God. Plants and animals gas exchange, DNA molecule and its ability to store the instructions for assembly of a complete human being or other life form, Sexual reproduction - the interdependence and fit of male and female and how this is more advantageous than asexual methods like parthenogenesis. It all seems too complex and statistically improbable to have "evolved" in a synchronous way through random mutations and processes. Thus believe there is an intelligent designer behind the natural material world. How has matter emerged from, and particles and their properties come to be what they are? It is important to remember that just because you can describe the composition of matter, doesn't mean you can create it ex-nihilo (from nothing). Only a "Creator" who sets the laws of physics in motion could have done it (intelligent design).
@@williamesselman3102 "Only a "Creator" who sets the laws of physics in motion could have done it (intelligent design)." refuted so many time. You don't know, therefor God. It is just a non sequitur.
God and religion are two separate issues. There can be a god -- or gods -- but all religions can still be manmade. I can't prove to you that religions are manmade, because to a believer, you can never offer proof, no matter how solid. A believing mind will just dismiss your evidence and double down in its belief. As for a god or gods, it just always struck me (since I was mature enough to think about these issues) as unnecessary. The god of the bible to me is just so obviously a creation of man and I can't spend my entire life trying to convince others of that. What a waste of my time and my life. The question of god is the same as the question "Is the glass half full or half empty?" It's all how the individual chooses to look at it. It could even be that biologically some of us are more prone to believe while others are more naturally inclined to not believe. The big problem with religion is that too many believers are not content to just practice it on their own but insist on practicing it on others. Go to your church or wherever, do your praying, but don't expect special rights not accorded to others and don't push your religious agenda no me. It just sounds so damn easy yet it is constantly permitted or attempted. And I want to add something else here. From my perspective, all religious believers of a particular god do not actually believe in god (if there is one), they only believe in their version. Let me explain: Imagine that tomorrow there is a booming voice in the sky heard all around the world by everyone, and in their own language, too. Imagine that the blind are made to see, that missing limbs grow back, hospital patients are cured, etc., but here is the catch. The voice says: Yes, I am God, but I've got to tell you something, All your earthly religions are false. They were just stories passed down from generation to generation. Well, if you're a diehard Christian and it's Jesus or the highway, you're going to deny that this is legitimately god. William Lane Craig certainly couldn't believe it was god; if there is no Jesus then it's clearly the devil or some alien trying to trick us. I can you tell exactly what god is: anything you want god to be. That is proven day in and day out on this planet. In closing, I think we live in a natural world and there is no special entity pulling the strings.
Only two kinds of people are happy in this world: the crazy and the self-realized. The crazy because he/she doesn't understand anything, and the self-realized because he/she understands everything.
Science has not answered most of the Big questions in nature because Science has limitations to what it can do. Professor of Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, mathematician, broadcaster and author Marcus du Sautoy in his book, . He took over this position from atheist Richard Dawkins in 2008. What are some things we can't know? 1. Could we ever know if we hit the bottom, or will we find out that it's infinitely divisible? 2. What is infinitely large? Is the universe infinite or finite? 3. What if I took a spaceship out, would I hit a wall? What's on the other side of the wall? Is there a dome we'd ultimately hit? Do we live in a simulation? (Marcus du Sautoy believes so) 4. What is consciousness? Will the machines we are currently making some day become conscious? There are still a lot of things we do not know. It’s important that people realize there are limitations to science. “Perhaps we need to think about more positive dialogue perhaps with science and society and issues of religion, for example, and we look for ways can share the different ways we look at the world rather than polarizing it,” du Sautoy said. "I wonder, whether as I come to the end of my exploration at the limits of knowledge, I have changed my mind about declaring myself an atheist. With my definition of a God as the existence of things we cannot know, to declare myself an atheist would mean that I believe there is nothing that we cannot know. I don’t believe that anymore. In some sense I think I have proved that this God does exist. It’s now about exploring what quality this God has." From atheist to agnostic believer after more than a decade of holding the position as Professor of Public Understanding of Science.
Yeah, sure. And if we just call the universe 'the universe' instead of calling it 'god', does that mean we're atheists? Even atheism uses reference to god. Instead, one can just say that theology is nonsense.
If God is the universe, then there is absolutely no problem with evil. Everything just is. You are back to evolution and more freak random nonsense. On the other hand, if God is a person, evil can be explained. This is a fallen world in need of redemption.
Over 300,000 gods later and the game of find the real god goes on. But, this time its for sure. As long as you don't look too deep. Or ask inconvenient questions that might unravel their delusion.
@@williamesselman3102 You know that I don't play that way. A break away Jewish sect. That needed too justify that theological split. Ah yes ! A new prophet and a new message. That always works. Just ask the Mormons and the JW's how easy it is. 😁
@@tomorrowmaynevercome3171 You would have made a great pagan. And would have had the same absolute conviction in the reality of the god or gods popular at the time. A second century christian would scream heresy on seeing your current dogma. Christian metal. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Where is ANY evidence showing ANY god hypothesis (and there are millions) is more likely than alternatives? The onus of proof for any claim of existence ALWAYS rests with the person making the claim of existence.
The problem with this dynamic between you and I is the idea that you go into every scenario like this with the belief that the theist you are having a conversation with has not been honest with themselves. That is your arrogance.
In the theist- atheist Dynamic, you are the tiny minority. There are two possible scenarios. Either the overwhelming majority of humans for all of known history are wrong or you are. One of us doesn't pass the credibility Factor.
@@stromboli183 For you to say that, you must not be at all familiar with what I read. Here's an example that specifically covers your challenge, actually a podcast with transcript: blog.shabda.co/2018/10/15/from-science-to-religion-and-back/
Really? Good and evil are the dualistic concepts, maybe, of the manmade Abrahamic religions, as darkness is a lack of light, or silence a lack of sound, a continuum. Your thinking, and mine as I was raised in an ostensibly Christian culture, is so imbued with two millennia of conditioning, it is difficult to see it for what it is. Worth trying. Our morality arose from our evolution as social animals. Lions' morality - it's OK to kill the young of the pride male you usurp. We only say our morality is best because it is ours. I await your misinterpretation.
made by men who didnt even know each other... and accepted by 85% of the human population from thousand of years. Maybe is atheism a man made concept shared by 2-4% of humanity ?
@@francesco5581 popularity has no bearing on truth!!! That is a fallacy my friend!! The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. If it did, then the Earth would have made itself flat for most of history to accommodate this popular belief
All evils are connected. All combining into one great power, a losing power nonetheless. However, by locking all evil together in such a biblical fashion is the proof that all good is focused and connected simultaneously. This is God
For 70 years I tried to believe in the existence of a god that was pure divine love, but within my own sense of common decency ... I knew better. I knew that if I had the power to create a universe, suffering would not exist. Finally, I stopped trying to fool my self, and since then (I am now 81 years of age) have believed as did Stephen Hawking (before he died) that the universe always existed ... no creator ... malevolent ... or otherwise ... involved.
'God's existence doesn't depend upon our arguments.' - Carl Gustav Jung. But we still try. If the theists win the argument, God pops into existence. If the atheists win, God leaves.
Whether or not Jung actually said this, it’s hardly an insightful point. Nothing’s existence is contingent on my arguing for it. But we still need reasons to believe/not believe and that’s where arguments come in.
When I was a budding young agnostic I thought, "I'll read the atheists. I'll read the theists. If the atheists make the best case, God doesn't exist. If the theists make the best case, then I'll believe in God." Then I realized the folly of this.
I don't follow his line of argument for atheism. He has not said anything. Start with apparent ignorance of what the Bible says. G-D warns of various punishments for failing to follow his commandments, some of it highly prophetic from some 3,000 years ago which we see actualised in recent years. Where is our behaviour today much better than that in Biblical times which led to the destruction of great cities such as S'dom? This speaker is applying his own concept of morality, without any real understanding of how the universe came about in the first place and the part we are required to play in preservation of life, and the heavy price we have to pay for going against G-D.
These atheist arguments are very weak. He primarily uses the argument of the problem of evil, which is flawed because the Abrahamic God is infinitely wise. Therefore, there is an ultimate reason behind suffering that you cannot access. Next.
@@FelixBat let me clarify. I meant it might be reason A,B,C, ect... but most definitely, there IS an ultimate reason according to our Abrahamic concept of God. Next.
@@FelixBat no worries buddy. I never claimed I have "proof". I am just using logical and philosophical approaches. In islam, we have a naunced tradition. Achieving heaven is mainly based on the mercy of God's forgiveness and your good deeds that is inline with your good intentions. No blood sacrifice, no middle man, no confessions. You make mistakes and everyone does. You simply stand back up ask God for forgiveness, correct your behavior and God will forgive. Of course there is a much naunced discussion of major sins and minor sins. But I was just explaining in general.
@@truthinknowledge8312, The chief heuristic that allowed me to believe in God but not the Abrahamic god is the simple reasoning that says a benevolent God would not make animals sensitive to pain and then tell religious people to kill them for food. The religions of meat eaters are immoral. It's incredibly gross that people claim to be religious but choose to eat meat.
Free will is not about choosing evil. Free will is about choosing God or not God. This is a fallen world in need of redemption. Because of the fall, God separated himself from his creation.
@@TheRealCatof the only God who can exist- the All Mighty Supreme Being. Vishnu is an attribute and not a being. Allah is a perversion of the Hewbrew God.
In my understanding i got from Roman catholicism, God is good. The Devil is the deviance from that. God saw it and knew it was a testing tool for man. God is the most powerful and could snuff out evil but allows it to contrast his goodness and give the choice to man. Do good or bad and reap your rewards. If some fall in the process as it shall be done. In the end all will be judged at once. Heaven n hell created from there. I'm now bhuddist and see the truth
Aren’t these arguments based on a logical sense of reality? If yes, then, one could easily counter argue with logical reasoning by saying - evil and architectural deficiencies might exist - to help practice the Christian philosophy of Jesus Christ by serving and comforting one another as well as acting with their abilities to improve their lots. It is the design that meets the spiritual growth needs of humanity to develop knowledge, understanding, compassion etc. as Adam and Eve sought from God. It might all be “Human’s design” as desired and granted and not that of God at all.
@@fr3d42 All those are the consequences of seeking knowledge. They serve to challenge humanity to find answers cooperatively as disciples of Jesus Christ.
@@fr3d42 Jesus does not Humans have caused the pain and suffering in order to be knowledgeable. Be careful what you ask for. You might get it - as the saying goes
@@scoreprinceton humans caused lions to eat gazelles ? Earthquakes and tornadoes too? What is the logic in that, and what divine knowledge could a 3 year old getting malaria get us?
Is it your claim that 87.5% of the global population believe without proof? Is it your claim that of the thousands and thousands of atheist testimonies who have converted to Christianity that they have all done so without proof?
The problem of evil definitely one of the most difficult, maybe not solveable by man. God may want us to manage affairs on earth and into the solar system, galaxy and universe and whatever else, no matter what; while at the same time holding out a better life in a divine reality after death. Perhaps the divine life only possible in divine reality, while in physical reality only physical existence possible; which leads to the question if God has a purpose for physical reality / existence other than preparation for divine life / reality, in the case one believes that God created the physical universe.
@@tomorrowmaynevercome3171 Science is 3rd party verified proof you can test yourself. There is no version of proof better/greater than an empirical Science. None. Which religion would you care for me to debunk first?
Mr. Kuhn, Are you the son of Prof.Dr Thomas Kuhn professor at MIT/HARVARD? Compatibility of religions,Mary the mother of Jesus is mentioned 7 times in the Quraan and ( author/revealed)Mohammed only once. Prof.Dr Nasir Fazal Cambridge.
Arguments against a God are as pathetic as arguments for a God, but over the years, I have come to the conclusion that athiests carry the heavier burden. Why must they expend so much energy trying to disprove something that no one can either prove or disprove. It would seem that those who don't believe would be free from the burden at all and they could just go along in life and leave the believers to believe. Of course, atheists have to play along sometimes with the believers' rituals and sometimes the proselytizing, but these things are easy enough to accommodate or to dodge completely by telling people politely to mind their own business. I don't know this gentleman, but maybe he is one of those atheists who can live and let live, but when atheists organize and develop standards of behavior and proselytize their position on the matter, they begin to look an awful lot like the religions that they despise.
"Recover"? Maybe not. If there is a Creator then no fallacies or inabilities would exist in Him. Evil is real, at least in this area of our Galaxy. And Maybe we are its Creator. Maybe the existence of evil means that our brains are still struggling with being social. We are still in a barbaric early stage of understanding, but our hubris always has us thinking that we're further along.
I think the rejoinder to Mr. Blackburn after he referenced the "theodicy" should of been, "So Simon, with all of the examples that you have given of evil and injustice in the world, how did you determine that those examples are in fact unjust and evil as an atheist?" This is not just an issue for the theist, the atheist has to provide a rational explanation for the presence of evil and injustice as well. He obviously feels strongly about his examples, I would love to hear his obvious great intellect explain how objective evil and injustice truly exist from his own worldview. Just one man's question.
-"Mr. Blackburn after he referenced the 'theodicy' should of been, 'So Simon, with all of the examples that you have given of evil and injustice in the world, how did you determine that those examples are in fact unjust and evil as an atheist?" The title of the video is "Atheism's Best Arguments." Blackburn's view of good and evil, or his response to the moral argument, is irrelevant to the topic. -"This is not just an issue for the theist" Uh, yeah it is. The Euthyphro Dilemma ring a bell? How religious people determine genuine examples of good and evil has been hotly debated for thousands of years, so it's categorically absurd to say that it's "just not an issue."
Any amount of evil is incompatible with the existence of an all-powerfull and benevolent god, even if there wasn't evil that wouldn't imply the existence of god automatically. With regard to your second question: Why a world without evil would be inconvenient?
@@luisferNoMyths If there is no God, there is also no evil. Evil is a departure from the way things ought to be. In a natural world there are no "oughts".
I think the point is that "less" is very much conceivable from where we are now. For example, I can imagine a possible world where all else being equal one less person dies during the Holocaust. Conversely, I can also imagine a possible world with one more. It seems, though not impossible, extremely implausible that the exact number of people that died during the Holocaust in the actual world was "the best" or something.
He let's distruction happen = free will. All destruction, volcanoes, earthquakes, climate change.. who's choice? He let's means love, do we know any dictator who has love in them? Love and free will go hand in hand, without one there isn't the other.
The argument of total absence, If a god or goddess were to exist, We would have seen it already. We have billions of cell phones on the streets. I would expect him or her to live among us or come visit us daily, weekly or even yearly. the fact that there is not one proof of his presence is one if the best proofs, but. there are many more.
me vaccinating my child is just the same. he thinks im bad because I let him suffer, im doing it for a bigger purpose and the bigger problem is, I can't explain it to him: he is one yers old
@@junkyt6109 im just talking about feeling/seeing pain and not understanding the reason/why of it. im not saying that im god either or that my child is the people in the church. I don't even have kids
@@TyrellWellickEcorp I can imagine that it's not very convincing for you like it is for eye bee-sea (and like what mr blackburn is saying is not very convincing to me) and thats fine. but NO sense (like 0,0000 sense)???? that should mean you didn't even read it
How shallow!!! His arguments can be taken seriously ONLY is he intends to criticize the traditional religion's conception of God with a view go beyond them. His criticism only applies to an anthropomorphic conception of God, which is another way of saying that conception of God which is a human projection.
I mean the title implies that he will provide the atheist point of view as well… personally I don’t think he is shallow I just think he’s expressing his view which is the point of metaphysics of God. His argument only applies to the traditional view because he’s either focusing on God of Abraham or God of philosophy. You can check Swinsburne’s argument for God he doesn’t commit anthropomorphism but there’s criticism to his argument as well
“...death of a child in africa...” is God’s doing or is most of the evil in the world because humans have free will? humanity can’t have it both ways... God gave us free will and hence he gave us the power to make the world a better place or ruin it.
the big bang is weird though. i can see how some believe in a god. having said that there was probably a positive and negative randomization of something
It was probably a bubble popping in an infinite other-space, or something we don't have enough information to properly conceive yet. Dark Gravity is 96% of the "known" universe and we know nothing about it yet.
So this is the atheist best argument that there can be no God because He allowed evil and bad things to happen in the world? Perhaps we mere mortals don’t fully understand the intricacies of a God creation of all things? Free will is mentioned here yet the Bible gives us a good explanation as to why we have free will in the first place. God first created Adam and Eve in a garden where everything was provided for them. Safety, shelter, an abundance of food everything there would need to be happy. But how would they know what happiness truly is and appreciate it if they knew know misery or sorrow? Perhaps there was no night in the garden of Eden either but endless light coming up from every living thing. How would they know or even have a preference between dark and light if both options were not available? It is by reason of the fall (partaking of the forbidden fruit) that we can have a choose to choose good over evil, that we can suffer even things that we find unbelievably bad yet be able enjoy experiences that are unbelievably good. This is my eyes is the absolute wisdom of God. He puts a tree in the garden of Eden that he commands Adam and Eve not to partake yet He tells them in the same breath it is their choice to do so or not. And when they do God proclaims that man has now become as one of us to know good from evil. It is so obvious that this is the scenario God wanted in the first place but it had to come by choice of man not of God because where is free will to take place? Suffering as we all know in varying degrees is not pleasant to experience but suffering does offer us an opportunity to help and ease the suffering of others. How could we ever gain the ability to be compassionate and empathetic if we never witnessed or experienced grief and sorrow? Seems to me that God knew exactly what He was doing when He created not just the universe but how our interactions with it can help shape us and mold us to become more like God.
Mixed and spotty architect, or a mixed and spotty creation? Sins description within the bible is more pervasive that which pertains to freewill, for instance Romans 8, which talks about how all of creation is subject to sin, and therefor is in a degrading state, and awaits for God's restoration. See grace and sin are biblically described as 2 opposing forces (Romans 5:12-21), so within the evil of this world, the real question is if there is evidence of grace? We have access to this grace we now stand, according to the Christian world view because of Jesus, and specifically the death and resurrection. So 1 means of assessing the possibility of grace being a present force in the world is assessing the historicity of Jesus and the resurrection. There is also the end development of this salvational process which is the idea of Heaven, the current of a two step sotierology, the bible reports is a restorative act of God, to a cosmos and a people, where sin no longer reigns, hence the end of evil. Near death experiences are useful for ascertaining wether such a salvational process is happening, relevant to stage 1.
Why is someone with so much knowledge so preoccupied with God? Does he think God is so preoccupied with him? The evil resides in the misrepresentation of any religion. And why put all his miracles and deeds in the ancient scriptures. Why not today's new God adventures. It hurts but we are just energy same like the so called Gods.
Are you scientifically literate at all? Do you know why physicists hated the big bang? Do you know why they embraced the multiverse? I'll assume that you don't and I'll tell you now. They hated the big bang because having a beginning the universe might have had a creator. When one throws in all the fine tuning of the universe it REALLY started looking suspiciously like it was " created." The multiverse (for which there is NO proof) saved them...all they had to do was believe.
-"Why is someone with so much knowledge so preoccupied with God?" Maybe because it's interesting? Maybe because it's something billions of people believe in, a belief that is of significant consequence?
Once again, God gives us a choice...free will to believe in any or no God. If we had the ultimate answer of one true God, how can you justify our will of choice. The same with evil and disasters. We cannot pick and choose what we want to do ie. murder, adultery, etc, and yet expect God to protect us from other evils and sufferings of this world. We cannot have our cake and eat it too. ....and we cannot assume to know the intricate ways of God. Some day it will all make perfect sense to us but not in this relm or our human worldly existence.
Interesting how Blackburn justifies his atheism based on the premise that God exists and how much evil God allows to occur. But you cannot negate God's existence based on his arguments. I believe he is looking for all the wrong arguments. Humanity is like a moth in the darkness searching and flying toward the light. Evil and goodness are various shades of grey or darkness and we are somewhere between the two.. I would further argue with the following question to any atheist friend of mine: by being so sure, definite and clear in your denying the existence of God, you must know everything. For only he who knows everything can be so sure of any one thing. However knowledge is limited for humans, since each time that we answer some important question or discover an amazing new fact, be it physics or anything else in our universe, more questions arise. This cycle is inevitable as we try to refine our understanding of the reality around us. So my friends, there will always be something we do not know, and we will never know everything in order to make any clear, sure and true statement about the existence or non-existence of God.
Point well taken, however, I believe with limitations, also not withstanding the limitations of the legal system, (lol). You said: "Therefore, I can know things to be true even though I have limited knowledge." This is true of the person who is color blind and is having an experience of the world around him/her. This is also true of the man who sees the full spectrum of colors and is having an experience of the world around him. Therefore the question comes down to the completeness of the truth either is experiencing. My point, and probably I did not make it very clear, is that our knowledge come to us with inherent limitations: sensory, intellectual, already acquired knowledge, etc. When it comes to God, I guess, it also comes to definitions, but if we take the Judeo-Christian model , we are dealing with superlative attributes, theoretically outside the reach of our senses, our consciousness and understanding. To come close to any understanding of God, (and therefore a discovery of existence), you would need a knowledge beyond our human abilities. Thus, I maintain that to make any definite (and true) statement about the existence, (or lack thereof), of God is not possible with our limited knowledge. So with all due respect, when an atheist makes a clear statement about the non-existence of God, we must assume that he knows everything, because to know everything is to be God (by definition). I enjoyed the exchange: thank you
Sorry- my original comments are outside the scope of doctrine and belief systems and have to do with the limitations of human understanding and knowledge and therefor making any comments on the existence (or not) of a God is futile. So I am afraid your response is not along the original ideas I had naively set out. As to the courts, the truth is temporal and limited, viz., all the court rulings that are being reversed these days.
-"Interesting how Blackburn justifies his atheism based on the premise that God exists and how much evil God allows to occur." That's how a lot of arguments work: accept a premise or some part of it conditionally _for the sake of the argument,_ derive an absurdity from that premise, and then reject the premise. So the argument could go like... 1) If God is all good, then there is no gratuitous suffering in the world. 2) There is gratuitous suffering in the world. 3) Therefore God is not all good. -"But you cannot negate God's existence based on his arguments." You can render his existence very improbable or force the believer to bite other bullets to defend against the argument, such as giving up arguments from design or critical components of moral epistemology. -"by being so sure, definite and clear in your denying the existence of God, you must know everything." Why would you think that? I can be very confident in my knowledge of something without knowing everything. I can be confident that 1 + 1 = 2 without knowing how the weather works. I can be confident about what I ate for dinner without knowing what you ate for dinner. -"For only he who knows everything can be so sure of any one thing." This view is called *infallibalism* and is super unpopular among professional philosophers and epistemologists.
@@samuelstephens6904 Thank you for your interesting comments. First, as to the sureness that 1+1=2 . Yes indeed you may be sure that that equation is true, but the problem with it is representative and a model. It is used to keep track of quantities or reality. I used to tease my kids by asking them how many apples there were in a bowl, and after counting, they would say, let's say 7. Then I would say, that actually there were 7 one apples, given that they were all different and not identical. When we say, 1+1=2, we have the premise that each one by definition is equal to any other one. This of course is not true of the real world. How many genes in the human genome? But are they identical from individual to individual? I think we know the answer to that. So this is a good example of of my point. The perimeter of our knowledge is limited. We keep pushing and expanding the field of knowledge. Although we must admit that there are "things" that we do not know of. So as we get new insights, we expend our knowledge base, just like at one point 1+1 was equal to 2, but if at a point you are willing to recognize that no one thing on this earth is exactly the same as any other, the equation becomes a convenient representation, and that is all it is. Our knowledge has expanded just a little bit. You point out that "accept a premise or some part of it conditionally for the sake of the argument, derive an absurdity from that premise, and then reject the premise. Agreed that we use this methodology in proving or disproving a point. However because we use it now, it may not be an accepted methodology in the future. Upon closer examination, you may find that this does not work in reverse, and you may find that there are a whole set of assumptions that that were left out of the premise. In fact this, in a different way, is applied to any problem-solving in mathematics or physics: one is given initial conditions which are to be used to solve the problem. Interestingly, in this case, the solution is generally known. But what do you do when the solution is no known? Are the initial conditions and assumptions correct? Have we left anything out? How reliable is the solution? You have probably know about the dilemma that Godel left with us, when he proved that in mathematics there is an entire domain of problems that cannot be solved. This goes to the limitations of our knowledge. You say:" I can be very confident in my knowledge of something without knowing everything. " Indeed: the key word is "confident". It is not "absolutely unequivocally sure". You mention that : "For only he who knows everything can be so sure of any one thing." This view is called infallibalism and is super unpopular among professional philosophers and epistemologists. although
to continue... You mention that : "For only he who knows everything can be so sure of any one thing." This view is called infallibalism and is super unpopular among professional philosophers and epistemologists. Unpopularity does not make something untrue! History has demonstrated this over and over, although I hear that there are still people that believe the earth being flat.
The concept of God or Gods or deities is irrelevant and doesn’t bring anything to the creation of the Universe and the apparition of life on earth. It was necessary apparently to take and retain control of the pleb by the caste of priests with magical explanations. It’s unfortunate that the word atheist has been defined as "without God" as if atheism had anything to do with a God concept. Atheism is just a state of mind free from superstition and able to see humanity as it is and not enslaved by illiterate and arrogant priests.
Ironically, atheisms best argument is that theism doesn't have one. If none of you have, you should read the video description, apparently the complete lack of evidence for a god isnt a good reason to be an atheist.
Well, I point to the mere complexity of physical organisms and the complex interdependencies of various living things as evidence of a God. Plants and animals gas exchange, DNA molecule and its ability to store the instructions for assembly of a complete human being or other life form, Sexual reproduction - the interdependence and fit of male and female and how this is more advantageous than asexual methods like parthenogenesis. It all seems too complex and statistically improbable to have "evolved" in a synchronous way through random mutations and processes. Thus believe there is an intelligent designer behind the natural material world. How has matter emerged from, and particles and their properties come to be what they are? It is important to remember that just because you can describe the composition of matter, doesn't mean you can create it ex-nihilo (from nothing). Only a "Creator" who sets the laws of physics in motion could have done it (intelligent design).
@@williamesselman3102 evolution explains all these things, and so does chemistry and physics. Very simple rules can create complexity. And we have evidence for simple things, such as helium and hydrogen at the beginning of the universe, or bacteria at the beginning of earth, becoming more complex, such as sun's and sun fish. Your god has nothing to do with it, especially since there's a hundred gods all claiming to have done the same, let alone that you contradict the very laws of the universe you claim is evidence for a god by invoking a god. You're just stupid, and it's your ignorance that undermines you.
There is one universe which comes from nothing and we are the only intelligent life in it...that sets the door wide open for the supernatural as well as a god...Modern Atheism is about reducing humans to a piece of meat which is similar to also black and white ultra right wing views..
@@fortynine3225 'blah blah blah therefore god.' That's not how reason works. Plus we don't know that we're the only intelligent life. Actuality, you've convinced me you're definitely not intelligent life.
Argument from evil is a trash argument. If God is eternal an incarnation full of suffering is nothing in the face of eternity. Reality demands both poles so good and evil occur naturally.
Energy transfer and entropy are probably two of the most fundamental parts of our finely-tuned reality. From order to disorder in the material world and from disorder to order in the spiritual world. That's a positive negative thing.
It's only fair to say nobody knows what is life, universe and everything, or does all that have some higher purpose, regardless of human intuition and explorations. So humanity must keep on searching for answers, God of religions was nothing compared to modern ideas of natural sciences. Wonder what comes next, when we enter age of time travel and multiverse.
Science and Religion are philosophies on both sides of the same COIN. (The old name of Science was the Philosophy of Nature, and when you get a PhD degree in Physics or whatever field of study, it means Doctor of Philosophy.) Both require FAITH. There is nothing absolute in Science. www.closertotruth.com/ by Robert Lawrence Kuhn Medicine, Nutrition, Psychology, Archeology, Paleontology, as well as all other fields of science are ever-changing and constantly open to re-interpretation. What's confirmed as "scientific truth" today can easily be marked as "scientifically disproved" tomorrow. New discoveries can render the information in this post obsolete at any time.
@@dongshengdi773 Don't want to go into epistemology of scientific model, but from philosophical perspective science is very much about how do we know why is true what we know is true. So i don't think scientific structure of knowledge can ever change, it's build from solid experimental facts, only understanding of this facts can be left to philosophy. Philosophers and alchemists can use other theoretical tools, like asking how do we know something is not true what we know can't be true.
