You Can't Prove That God Doesn't Exist - Debunked 

Thats cool, but you stopped listening to salafi fools to listen to another fool. Stop listening to fools.

you don't have the right to talk about "fools" when you're christian yourself lol. by the way what are you doing here?

+Ludovic Ovsepian Nobody did that. You probably want to re-read.

BlankFX Yeah you did.

Ludovic Ovsepian & predator H2O Nope, I didn't. You really might want to think about it before commenting.

Will Rawlinson2: Jesus looked a lot more like Saddam Hussein or Fagin from Dickens than like this English lad. He was a Jew from the middle east. Go figure. He'd have been tan or brown with black hair and dark eyes. At one point the bible says he had white hair like the wool of sheep...so that's weird. Meaning he was a negro/black albino?

Lol anyone with long hair looks like jesus... some people are so dumb

They should.

Jesus was a middle eastern Jew. So whatever that looks like... Besides, more and more scholars are finding no evidence for a "historic" Jesus at all. Chances are, he was legendary.

Will Rawlinson 2 Yeah, he just debunked all religion, totally.

We Never Do That.

what

That's NOT How It Works. Lets Say That You Killed Someone. If We Apply All The Evidence That You Did NOT Kill The Billions Of Other People On The Earth And Apply That Evidence To The One That You DID Kill, Then Does That Mean You Did Not Kill The Person?

Apoop

@@Dark_Force_Of_Wishes nope not the same thing. If I kill someone it’s not on me to prove I didn’t kill them, it’s on the prosecutor to prove I did. If you believe in the Christian god, that’s a monotheistic religion, meaning you only believe in that one god. Therefore, prove to me that all of the Greek gods never existed.

That would do it sceptical too

The only way you can notice it's existence is if you 100% blindly believe it and for it to be believed you have to be at a state of mental delusion. It's like schizophrenic people who believe they hear voices in their heads. They believe it because they are delusional

@@nightwalker9952 yeah but these people are so brainwashed by their churches that they ignore any contractions

@Ethan Gallegos Oh yeah a thousand year old book is enough "evidence" for you

It's a problem that occurs with any abstraction of reality. Likewise, the number 2 doesn't exist if we are going by this route.

I know right? It really makes his entire video rather redundant imo, especially when he's comparing situations that can have proof found in the positive, despite the "lack of proof" in the negative smh.

Spencer Ciuffo Typical ignorant fallacy. Stop trying to implement God into things. Simply prove he fucking exists with EVIDENCE not BS arguments.

Spencer Ciuffo Which God? Lmao

Spencer Ciuffo you still have no evidence, good going mate

Spencer Ciuffo what a good fictional character he is right

I liked that particular statement. I'd call it a joke, because it caused me to chuckle, but he may have been completely serious.

As someone who grew up drinking tea the English way (with milk and sugar), I know I speak at least for myself when I say that I drink, on average, a minimum of 3 pints of tea every day.

Only reason it's not full of tea is because my friends and I dressed up as Indians and had a tea dumping party. From America with love.

@@tevildo9383 A mere amateur......

and every irishman

It's one of Hitch's greatest lines 😂😂

@@sisyphus645 Hitch or Harris?

@@TheRobdarling Hitch. Harris got it from the great Hitch I believe

WHAT

well I honestly I studay enough to know God exists

Exactly why I believed in god as a kid because I had no choice my mom never let me decide wether I wanted to believe or not

@@thotmagnet3336 if everyone was given a blank page from early age and think for their selves ,religion would loose it's grip and eventually dissapear

@@philipmcguire5039 The word if if if dont exist in reality.

@@mehdialou9827 that's right no one knows really

@@1NumeroUno in the sixths seventys eighty's churches used to be packed to the rafters,every year it has been on a swift downward spiral,thanks be to God pardon the pun

+LordSlag How does that have anything to do with this video? We're talking about paradoxes here.

I'm lampooning the "logic" of theists, I use that term loosely.

Misrepresenting is the accurate term. There is plenty of objective evidence for God's existence.

Stop lying, ignorant moron. There is no such evidence for your superstitions being true. Define your god, present evidence and I'll definitively show how dumb you are:

1. Zeus had sexual relations 2. Sexual relations demand a body 3. A body is a physical reality 4. Physical reality is contingent 5. Therefore Zeus is contingent 6. If Zeus is by definition contingent and God is by definition the only necessary being, Zeus cannot be God. 7. Zeus could have existed, but he was not a God. This argument can be used to disprove any God that has a physical reality by definition: Thor with his magic hammer, Zeus with his penis, Spaghetti Monster with his pasta and meatballs, Vishnu with his abilities to become giant or small, etc. The particularity of the abrahamic God is that he is understood as an inmaterial, eternal, purely existing being which explains why there is something rather than nothing.

This is what those parents tell their kids to say tho

My friend's girlfriend's mum was visiting her. He took them out to eat, before she ate she thanked the lord for the meal! He was like wtf??? I paid for that, and you thanked the lord??? LOL

Most parents'are a joke...

Would that count as false witness?

It's more of thanking god for their parents but ok

Was Zeus held to make the rest of reality from nothing save his being?

@@nics4967 Does this prove the non-existence of Zeus and Apollo?

@@MrSitemaster2 I didn't say it did. A definition of x seems part of any negative proof.

The ancient pagan gods seemed more hedonistic.

Genius

America First, trump-familys businesses= NOT america= DEbunked ....................

Made from bone china - bones of Wolverine.

Chinese steel is like plastic.

Atheists destroyed with facts and logic

Ah, yes. Gawd works in mysterious ways his Horrors to behold.

@@blahblahblah4544 "Most" is the key part here. I think it's hilarious when atheists say "if God existed then bad things wouldn't happen to good people". That's ridiculous. Free will means people can do shitty things to each other. However, it doesn't explain the presence of natural diseases. Cancer and polio need not exist.

@@blahblahblah4544 I agree that pain can be used for good. I have a muscle-wasting disease called SMA Type 2. It has made my life extremely difficult in some regards. But it has also forced me to be better. I don't know that I would trade for being able-bodied. I don't think I would have learned as many lessons as quickly. Pain is critical for growth. However, there are two flaws in your argument. 1) Are you suggesting that a baby getting terminal cancer is justifiable for the potential growth of the parents? In many cases, the unpreventable death of a child can rip families apart. I would say the notion that God only gives you as much as you can handle is false. History shows that people get pushed off the edge repeatedly. One example of people getting cancer when it makes no sense is Nabeel Qureshi. He was building a powerful ministry for Christ. He got throat cancer and died at a fairly young age. Why would God kill such a potent weapon for Him? 2) You have a bias for the modern age. What about the young mother in 1900 who cannot afford this ground-breaking treatment? Just because sometimes it can be treated now, doesn't excuse deaths in 95% of human history. Unpreventable genetic mutations need not exist. I would say even malicious germs need not exist. Rebuttal?

@@blahblahblah4544 also not here to argue, just curious, how do you know that, of all the religions in existence, yours is the correct one? And please dont say "faith" because thats what followers of every other religion can also say.

Ishan Manerikar natural disease came as a result of the first people on earth due to what they did they were cursed by God and that’s why stuff like this is happening

Indeed

Perhaps that's why we continue to study them...?

Not really

Maybe we’re just really behind

Jacob Adams I think it’s important to be careful that Greek thought just so happened to survive, whereas there certainly have been highly intellectual cultures who have no ideological remnants. The Mayans supposedly were one such culture

He would be a great professor at the university I think. Well, on a subject he knows sufficiently for such a job

He has a bit of an accent, but still easy to interpret.

Sir Hasslich he would colleges love gender studies majors and the person who made this comment that I am commenting in seems to speak a lot of English for knowing very little

@@sirhasslich536 he unfortunately would probably get fired for offending people.

Jesus is lord

Thank for this comment.

When I ask my dad what is the purpose, the meaning of life etc, his answer was, to live it, and to learn. Still resounds in me. And sufficient to give me joy and ,meaning, and purpose at 64. No delusions of after life , or wish granting entity.

The meaning of life is "people are not wearing enough hats".

@@alkristopher Still better than the other way around.

Not necessarily. A "god" could be some hyperintelligent AI from another galaxy or something.

Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. On another note, I go back to a great quote from an awful film: "What does _God_ need with a starship?" -James Tiberius Kirk

@@ParadoxapocalypSatan stop lying to yourself Everyone knows that the flying spaghetti monster is God

@@milesandrews6711 Correct.

@@flyingspaghettimonster2925 greetings God

Cosma lol

You. You will bring chaos into this world.

why not just 1 steel teapot made in China?

Thank you, you're a great person

I'm fairly sure some astronaut has already done that just for the memes. :) Don't know if they've gotten far enough into space yet for it to be Russel's teapot, though. :P

They don’t actually contraddict anything, it’s just that we don’t know enough about em to understand shit😂

@@lilloponko1966 Lol wdym are you on about atheists or QM I'm getting confused in my own comment 😂

@@lilloponko1966 I mean, sometimes it does contradict itself. Just take a look at how matter behaves in the center of a neutron star. The behavior of matter violates the Pauli Exclusion Principal in the center of a neutron star.

@@excuseyou7198 there is a huge difference between an occurence contradicting a MODEL or a principle than a thing being two things that contradict each other. If something contradicts a model, then the model is not fitting to describe that thing. So yeah, that is enough proof to know that the model isn't correct in that particular case. Do you know what a principle is?

@@nathd9746 you don't understand shit about quantum mechanics if you say such a thing. What is your example of a thing that is two things that contradict each other in QM?

Before you were a driver, you are a person. Before God became man 2000 years ago, he is God. He is in everywhere and people still waiting that man to come back. You cannot see God and you can see a man. I cannot find any contradictions on that.

Or why god hates the devil for doing gods work and giving the ppl who don’t “believe”a place to burn and be torture, I mean god gave satan dominion over the earth and bibles says God is the creator of all evil btw loIsaiah45:7

Because Jesus sins and Christian hell both have zero probability, and that these contradictory verses were intentionally written that way to cater for all people. I don't think the men who wrote the Bible were stupid. It is quite clear they certainly didn't believe in this nonsense, or that their delusional level was worse than any Christian ever! Its MORE likely they intentionally wanted to deceive and manipulate the population of ignorant and superstitious desert Arabs, oh and obviously women in particular. I find it even more shocking when conversing with a female Christian! I mean they AGREE to be submissive to their man, and that they are worth less!! Its like the most pathetic anyone could ever get.

Well, Hell from a Christian Theological perspective isn't ruled by Satan, Satan is just another prisoner there and most somewhat intelligent Christians believe that Humans follow him there because they sin and "forsake" God, using their free will in ways that aren't in line with God's vision. Like if an Artist draws something and it sounds great and feels great, but then gets interrupted by things, and isn't focused on the painting, it doesn't align with the original vision anymore. Which then the Artist usually would have to throw it away and start over, which is basically an analogy for how a Christian's baptism works, theologically speaking(and not the literal dunking in water).

@@fenrirsilver6441 Except an artists analogy with a believer is not the same, because belief is not a choice. IF the artist believed his painting was the best ever, then even if it didn't align with the original vision, he would not agree UNLESS he stopped believing first. Since this is confusing to get it straight, the point is the analogy is not correct. It would be similar to the 'Christian Theological perspective' that a Christian believer felt that natural gays CHOOSE to be gay, when we know this cannot be correct, as it would be like you (if straight) choosing to be gay, I'd say most (straight) people could not get sexually aroused by this. Therefore why think the gay is doing that. I realize this is not about gays, but we are talking Christian Theological perspective here :D The artist analogy doesn't work. A better analogy would be gays who don't then 'throw it away and start over'! Although we are aware that Recovery From Religion does exist, but to help someone to reason effectively again is not an instantaneous action, as most tend to continue the irrational false fears of hell, for some time before they are cured. Merely informing deluded Christians the simple fact that there is zero sufficient evidence and zero good reason to believe in ANY claimed God, usually takes time to accept. Mainly because the church (and then parents etc) have safe guards in place for questioning! (ie a GOOD thing) And for placing the burden of proof on, you can't prove him false! But under that poor reasoning then all Christians should believe in lepricauns and Bigfoot and any mythical character until proven false, which would be ridiculous obviously. We believe in things when there's sufficient evidence and good reason to do so. OTHERWISE (if you believe without this) then you are classed as gullible; naive; weak-minded; deluded and indoctrinated into nonsense, by definition.

@@kimsland999 Yeah, true there was a guy that I meet back in high school, been a while so I forget what kind it was but it was during some kind of summer camp. This guy was a Catholic, and he told me something I had never been aware of at the time, it seemed so absurd, the Priest and his family had to literally make sure he only read things that aligned with the Catholic ideals. Makes sense I mean(gating a kid's education out of safety, because it might lead to unsavory paths; still don't agree at all with the extent though), but it shocked me as a kid to hear that, I sort of came from an open-minded family, it was Christian based sure but my mom was really open to the ideas I would come up with, probably too open if I am being honest(seeing as once in middle school I had convinced myself that a belief in that the world was a slain dragon from some otherworldly knight, happened to be true and even preferred that dragonology book that said it over the bible... I was a weird kid). However, I came into my own beliefs, I may have been grown up in a Christian family, and I may even consider myself Christian, however, my own actual reasoning behind a lot of things actually is probably very different from most Christians. Hell, I have yet to find a pastor or church that agrees more than disagrees, if anything a lot of my beliefs actually comes from nigh anti-theist works like say Nietzsche, as a single example. I even really rely on conventional science, or even metaphysics that heavily lean on it, like say Determinism(to some degree; and not Predeterminism, big difference). If you want somewhat of a glimpse I do actually have a comment directly to this video, somewhere in the feed, albeit it is just a glimpse.

It is the religious who must prove their gods, the onyx of the proof is with them.

​@The Great SteveO No one says that. What we say is, "since you claim gods exist, how about you provide some evidence."

to everyone here, if you have the time please read this. just wanted to share my view. quantum fluctuations, the idea of nothingness, gravity, and everything else we perceive to exist in the universe can never just exist for no reason whatsoever. even if we say that time is infinitely old (which it is not) such as the singularity expanding and reverting endlessly (found this from another comment) that infinite loop couldnt have started without the singularity, and the singularity could have never existed out of nowhere. in short, reality has an infinite amount of origins and that infinite amount of origins can never exist without anything and everything starting from something. and that something is god. god is an existence you perceive as something that is affected by space, matter, time, and even reality itself. the god i believe in is not limited by these things, as he is the creator, the omnipotent being and the beginning of everything. as i said earlier, nothing can ever exist out of nowhere and as everything has an origin and something it came from, comes an infinite amount of origins and the only possible reason regardless of era or advancements that we could ever get is that it came from something. something that is above all, something that is not limited by trivial things such as it being created or being compared to the universe and our idea of existence. youre mind is too limited on your idea of reality without even questioning itself. science explains the origin through the "big bang theory" as that bang couldntve existed out of nowhere as well, science has never been and will never be able to answer how that event even happened, with an exception of the existence of god.

It's called agnostic atheism

@@DomainAspect Yup

Yeah, mainly because the idea of a god (one not associated with a religion) is so under defined that there’s no possible way of knowing what would disprove it as we don’t know what it is. Religion tries to add detail to their god claim but all this does is make it possible to disprove.

@@DomainAspect not only agnostic atheists believe in God not associated with religion philosophical theists do also

@@arcticpangolin3090 people who believe in God outside of religion all this "proof" that God doesnt exist like what is in this video is nothing more than comedy

Ah yes a finite being with a very limited understanding trying to explain omniscience...wonderful buddy you are something else

@@sonysunny2147 This is hypothetical. I'm yet to see someone actually prove these concepts even exist. I'm giving them (you too maybe?) the benefit of a doubt. And besides, I'm not the one who started to throw around these concepts to begin with.

@@patrikgrguric535 fair enough...its just the arrogance (not @ you) "proving god does not exist" claim that ticks me off. The problem with these arguments are its humans arguing against each other proving or disproving whatever they believe. So the debate itself is mute. For instance someone argues that dog is more intelligent than cat and another argues against. Unless the dog or cat can argue for themselves the argument is nonsensical.

@@sonysunny2147 true that. god may exist. we only interpret him through religion. hence, god is holy, but religion is not. to put it bluntly, how dare some shepherd a thousand years ago tries to form whole cult around this amazing being? what's crazier is that, people still follow these same ideas even now. but then again, for the common people religion helps them understand this concept of god, so religion is okay. but at least we can keep them up to date.

Let me first clear up one thing, I am not religious myself. I am agnostic, if you want me to use a fancy word. I do want to say that free will and omniscience are not necesarily contradictory though. Free will does often come down to making a choise. The claim you make is that because God, conceived of as an omniscient being, knows what your choise will be, the choise is not really free. But this is of course rediculous. Merely knowing what someone will choose is not necesarily the same as robbing them of their freedom. If I give you the choise between getting slapped amd getting a nice gift, I can be quite sure you'll pick the latter. Knowing this im advance does not imply that the choise is any less free tho! The claim of omniscience is, if I understand correctly, strongly related to the notion of "God's plan". God, so say believers, has a plan for you. He has made you who you are, which in turn leads you to make the decision you make. This does not mean that you do not decide tho! You do decide for yourself, based on the person that you are, your hopes, desires, weaknesses, etc. There may or may not be a God who created those and knows about them. Either way, they are still yours. Even if there is a God who knows what you'll do, you still have to do it.

You treat your kids the way "god" treats his "children" and not only will you go to prison, the likelihood is that the other prisoners would make sure you never got out alive - even prisoners love their families.

dude, God is no babysitting your ass! he gave us freedom, that a nice way to say "you're on your own"... make some money, stay out of jail... period.... 😁 😁

@@nabokkills5435 it's not actual freedom if you are still going to be punished if you do bad stuff when you die. You're still technically doing what HE wants.

@@genericbro2440, wrong... you CAN absolutely do what he doesn't want you to do.... but if you're doing what HE wants, why would you be punished?... the punishment element applies to the rapist, murder, thief....etc. not to the liar, lazy, bully, you're not going to hell for cursing or looking with desire other women than your own.... am not saying I know this from God, but that's what a logical mind would do.... hell is just a contract clause... something that you want to put in paper, just in case!... of course God never would say it with these words... you have to be able to INFER IT... think outside the box!!!

@@nabokkills5435 i mean ... I don't think this is being free. If there are consequences, people are not going to want to live free. People are going to force others not to live free in order to not get the punishment. But I see where you're coming from.

Well that actually shouldn't even trigger any theist. Proven can be only facts. Religion is about faith. Therefore it has nothing to do with facts or proving really. By common sense it can't be disproved neither obviously. Theist telling that God has been proven lacks selfawarness.

@@Reality-Distortion its worse. too many theists say the assumption that god exists is a fact not an assumption. even worse a fact that doesn't need to be proven. there are so many things necessary to create the abramic god that are contraditrory and so many say this definitions are only . . . "guidelines" makes the discussion with them blurry and intangible, so basically worthless. no clear definition of their god as defense to a nonexisting intagible thing that only belongs to the realm of fantasy. And their logic is weak A.F. that is the basis of their proof. weak logic. the debunk of abramic god is good. the one by epicure and even more. occams razor in regard to creation is just saying if you need something to create everything, why you need to come up with a nother thing that has not part of it. you do not need to make things more complicated by adding "god was there too". but remember Bob was there too. ask Andy Weir!

Yuikichi Ichigo Just saying, Christians could be wrong as well.

@@Reality-Distortion Faith: The absolute absence of logic and sense.

@Yuikichi Ichigo -- ironic that you use the human element to say that an atheist "could be wrong" about god, yet you have no problem accepting that those same humans have created a god that you willingly accept.

Genetically Modified Skeptic Hey, could you and or Steve (Coop ftw) make a video on this guy "Irving Copi"and his razor? That would be Awsome. Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard Irving Copi writes: "In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." - Copi, Introduction to Logic(1953), p. 95 Lets see, by considering and understanding the whole quote this bit becomes True. "it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence." Ergo, *Burden of proof met. ERGO, God doesn't excist. Still, we have more than that as evidence. Such as the consistent failure to prove god, the consistent failure of everything associated with or supposedly from god, faith healing, prayer, basically magic (holy or other), all historical and scientifical knowledge, the absence of evidence for anything assurted/claimed in the Bible, the inaccuracy and extrodinary contradictive nature of scripture, the fact we know the Bible and all scripture was written by man and then there's Aron Ras entire fucking channe,lol. Did i miss something? OH yeah, the Fact Adam and Eve are allegory making the supposedly son of gods sacrifice completely irrelevant and pointless as the Sin as generated by Adams and Eves actions never actually excisted in the first place. And finally the fact that the very religion itself is a amalgamation of most if not all ancient mythologies. I'd give ample examples and comparisons however, a RU-vid comment only holds so much. So, in light of everything presented: God Absolutely Do Not Excist. God is Dead and there's so many nails in his/it's coffin it looks like a 3rd graders poor excuse of a woodwork hedgehog after he whent ham on it with the Nail Gun. Lol. *As there's no evidence for god this negative claim doesn't have a burden of proof because it is a Null hypothesis.

These are not good arguments. They've all already been addressed many, many times over. First, in regards to the paradox of omnipotence, there is a very straightforward answer. If what it means to be omnipotent is that an omnipotent being can do all (but only) things logically possible (i.e. he can't make a contradiction true), then an omnipotent God would not be able to create a rock so big that he cannot lift it. But, that wouldn't count against his omnipotence, because the existence of a rock so big that an omnipotent being can't lift it entails a contradiction. But, suppose being omnipotent means an omnipotent being can do anything - even make contradictions true. Then, if God is omnipotent, then he can create a rock so big that he can't lift it, but then he'll just go ahead and lift it. That is a contradiction, but if you assume God is omnipotent (to get the thought experiment off the ground), and if omnipotence entails the ability to make contradictions true, then God can make contradictions true. Second, on the paradox of omnipotence, omniscience, and free will, this is simply made a common mistake of modal logic. The argument goes like this. Premise 1: Necessarily (If God knows you will do A, then you will do A). Premise 2: God knows you will do A. Conclusion: Therefore: Necessarily (You will do A). In other words, you *must* do A. The problem is that this argument is invalid. Here's an example that illustrates the point. Premise 1: Necessarily (If Bill is a bachelor, then Bill is unmarried). Premise 2: Bill is a bachelor. Conclusion: Therefore: Necessarily (Bill is unmarried). In other words, Bill can never get married! From the fact that God knows you will do some action, it doesn't follow that you must do that action, only that you will do it. Third, the problem of evil? Really? This has been addressed by countless philosophers and theologians both historically and contemporarily. Philosophers (even atheistic philosophers) have almost universally abandoned the logical problem of evil as you present it here; they did so 50 years ago after Alving Plantinga's "The Nature of Necessity". RR might not be persuaded by any of it, but to just pretend like they don't exist, or dismiss them by calling them "back flips" is, well, dumb.

your dumb.

@Josh Heter - why is making a rock so heavy that you can't lift it an invalid demonstration of the contradictory nature of omnipotence. I can make something so heavy I can't lift it. No contradiction there. You seem to misunderstand the nature of omniscience and free will. If a being knows the outcome of every choice you will make, then you do NOT have the freedom to choose otherwise. Finally, here is another contradiction. If god is omniscient and knows every future outcome, what is the point of praying to that entity to alter an already fixed outcome?

Voice of Reason did you not read my response? There are easy responses to those first two "problems". If you'd like to learn more about the prayer issue... philosophy.osu.edu/sites/philosophy.osu.edu/files/Peititionary%20Prayer%20Eleanore%20Stump.pdf

definition of God never worked and is not a real definition but a claim to a definition refused because it is nonsense that does not function as a definition as the attributes conflict as well as are impossible to function as just words used to HIDE a god in that do not permit such lies... tell me a square round hole is there and i call you a liar...that is how Atheist know and theist serve lies and so are SATANIST so deep as victims they have no clue what they are and think they are the opposite despite proof in face they are in fact OPPOSING TRUTH WITH LIES and false ways to claim truth is there when not. God being against his own commands and order to murder and kill babies just to steal land and how he is so terrified of IRON CHARIOTS makes it clear god is goat headers piles of lies.

Fred: It is impossible to prove there was NOT some kind of "first mover" god(s)(ess)(esses). While I do not believe in any claims of gods, I accept the POSSIBILITY of one existing outside of the established claims of a god. There is no flaw to my notion, until and unless someone can assert with evidence to have the entirety of knowledge in the universe, the concept or possibility of a god always remains.

Peter: Take a deep breath... lay off the Tequila...then try editing your post to make some sort of sense....

first mover was MOTION ITSELF and proof nop gods exist as all and any gods would need to move and movement is as old as infinity so motion from weak frail imperfect link is 1st cause and god...has zero place to even try to be anything but MYTH!

But then you AGAIN come back to the original problem of "what caused the first motion". To assert YOU have all the answers or know for a fact things that are unknown is ridiculously arrogant and shows how fragile your ego truly is. If you have empirical evidence of HOW the universe formed and what CAUSED the Big Bang, please go collect your Nobel Prize, otherwise I'd suggest spending your time trolling Christian forums, since that seems to be around your intellectual capability.

Wanna try to explain on what “moral plain” children with cancer makes sense? According to apologists human morality comes directly from god. Too convenient to suggest that goodness has a different meaning for god when facts don’t add up. As for humanizing god, sorry but it’s the other way around. God allegedly created humans in his image, usually intended as physical and/or spiritual. Can’t have it both ways. Always shifting the goal post every time a contradiction is pointed out. The old excuse of the inscrutability of god is just that: an excuse to wiggle out of explaining an untenable position.

Yes I agree with that. In the quran God is described as merciful and oft forgiving to those who repent rather than benevolent so it clears up some of that debate for us Muslims.

@@pansepot1490 God and Humans are still different beings so it is wrong to give God human qualities when we dont understand what "His image" means. Otherwise, in the Quran atleast, God says that all shall be compensated for their suffering in the mortal world in the here after. Ironically I was born with cancer, in the end I am to be compensated an equal amount of what I had suffered. In fact any mother who dies in childbirth, no matter her religious orientation, she will go to heaven. But again, atleastin the Quran.

Knowing the future certainty and making educated guesses(computer)of limited possibilities can't be equated. Thus the computer supernatural diety comparation is flawed. Further strengthening my point by the 'eternal' and 'omni present' creator doctrines - in this perspective it's always " *ME NOW HERE*, so how can anything be Free of ME" It's valid even if there are infinite possibilities and any nbr of reality. Simply, 3O deities don't work. Pretty controversial. That's why politeis make a bit more sense in Morality and Power disputes.

God created you, he's omniscient, he knows whether you'll sin or not even before creating you, thus he knows whether you'll be damned to hell or not before your birth, how's that indicative of freewill? If I know all your actions with 100% certainty before you even get to make them, then how are you free if I'm able to absolutely predict your every move? God knows what'll do so there isn't any point at all. If there's two choices, A and B that I can make, and God knows I'll pick choice A then I cannot ever pick B, otherwise God will be wrong and that cannot happen. Equating God with a machine-learning algorithm that learns predictions that doesn't even come close to "omniscience" or 100%, that're based on existent limited data is not only a laughably false equivalence but also shows the complete lack of critical thinking one needs to have in order to possess faith in any kind of deity. The critical thinking capacity is so sub-par that anyone can become complacent in their sense apparatus of rationality, casually coming up with half-baked responses in order to swiftly assuage that uncertainty in their ego-investment while smugly being self-satisfied with their comforting familiarity with the deity they have deemed to exist.

Later the man proofed that black is white and got killed on a street crosswalk.- D.Adams

My favorite author, love it :)

That's one of my favourite jokes from the entire series, and that's saying something.

@Phil Tonge Charlie Chaplin was an atheist?

common sense, is not scientific. if science is the understanding of material reality, and reality of itself, common sense , won t do! common sense is the least common of the senses.

common sense = rational thinking in this case

+Paul Schultz *_"If this is 'common sense', I would HATE to see stupid!!!"_* Then I'd advise you not to look in the mirror.

@Paul Schultz Then who created god?

Cameron Youngs I’m glad God made me an athiest, you agree?

@@Ellie_2810 I'm an athiest I swear to god

Yes I'm an atheist I swear to Prometheus

@@pard3sh15 ooh the irony 😂

This isn't funny. You all will be begging for forgiveness from that thing that birthed himself to himself and then sacrificed himself to... Uh .. himself for stuff that all people even the ones not existing yet so HA... I Think... Idk now my head hurts. And THATS proof! Of .. dammit.... I'll be back I gotta go read and misinterpret some stuff..

Very easily

He can very easily prove he doesn't owe you millions

@@dag_will2615 he can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt

@@kohhkeith3788 s

@@Sednas WTF happened lol

abrahamic religions assume there is objective good and evil

This is a ridiculous rebuttal because remember we are not talking about different cultural view points. The criteria for sin is laid out in the bible of which the God of Abraham stems from. That said, there is stated thou shall not kill. We all know this is one of God's rules and in the bible God enforces said law with his own hand. This is not the case in the real world. Regardless of man's definition of evil or sin God has his own and we see no examples of God interfering in man's affairs to enforce his definition of good and justice. That's why his argument is sound #peace

@@magnumopus8202 actually it is not. The bible clearly states evil will not be done unpunished but goodness will be greeted with eternal life. We as humans can say why does god let people die, but if you’ve actually read the bible it clearly gives goodness the chance for eternal life. And also don’t come with any foolish argument like ”why does evil exist” beacuse that is also written in the bible, just as everything else. The biggest problem in non-believers is they don’t actually read the book. Also god does interfere with evilness by giving people the chance to live by the law of God and therefore, gifting them with eternal life. So what you’re saying is basically the same as saying the government does not interfere with illegal activity, beacuse it happens all the time. But just as almost all societyes, God punishes evil, therefore he interferes.

"Who Is This God Person Anyway?"

Oh yeah ? Do you have a nose on your forehead?

Pete Grusky lol

@@petegrusky2715 wut?

according to mythology you can only see a unicorn if you are a virgin female, and at the end of a rainbow, which is impossible since a rainbow goes in a complete circle around the globe.

@@CryoticMienshao nope

😂

What about invisible 10ft purple dragons? Because mine's having an existential crisis right now...

Please answer... She's quickly falling into a nihilistic viewpoint.

@Ethan Gallegos Help me please! You obviously have some insights into this matter! She's almost gone entirely at this point... How do I save my invisible friend? Is the path to truth achieved by not knowing what punctuation is?!

I'd like to point out that I'm responding to a person who thought that a serious theological debate was taking place when they commented on a thread involving two users talking about imaginary creatures... Neither of which claiming said creature to be remotely close to that of a supreme being...

That's the point, he did say depending on the definition.

Let's deal with this statement. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yH2X8Vmu5TY.html

NPC #34254334 Response: no

Sun Flower Lmao stfu . There’s no errors or contradictions. You haven’t even read it in the slightest. Looking up in google “bible errors” it’s not reading it. And nobody said God doesn’t know about the laws of the universe, dumbest shit I’ve heard. Of course he does. He’s the creator.

@@mr.punkie5872 Claiming that there are no errors or contradictions doesn't make those errors and contradictions go away.

@@blahblahblah4544 me j

@@blahblahblah4544 to be fair I don't expect people to believe my weird experiences.

@@ghuttsmckenzie4269 more people like you man!!! 🙌

@@pavelm.gonzalez8608 how am I supposed to tell them I saw a hellhound, the grudge girl ghost, and a creepy floating black stick In the middle of the night and expect them to think I shouldn't be in a an insane asylum. It doesn't seem realistic.

@@ghuttsmckenzie4269 And these HAVE to be Abrahamic God-sent visions and not for example 1) dreams 2) delusions 3) tall tales / lies 4) signs from some other God or telepathic being you don't believe in 5) drug-based hallucinations 6) some other weird brain chemisty shit - how? Could you please break down the method how you conclude these are definite signs from your God and not some of those other things mentioned? I'd be very interested to know how you know it.

@@skaetur1 Yep that too. Although, Crhistians will use their favorite (iT wAS sAtiN!!1!1!) excuse.

KandaPanda And how did the universe just pop into existence? Checkmate atheist.

@@evangelistkimpatrik I wouldnt be so mindlessly arrogant as to claim to 'know how it started (if, in fact, it did)' and then use 'faith' as 'evidence'. ;-) Your post is far from 'checkmate' as its merely restating the issue I posted about the theistic claim that god exists. If you can explain how god was 'created' and give evidence to support it, then there is zero reason for anybody to accept your claim that god didnt require a creator. Sadly for you....you still have yet to provide tangible evidence that a god exists in the first place, let alone that it didn't require a creator. I'd give you a bit of credit, however, if you could list the main logical fallacy your post is based on....

KandaPanda Lawrence Krauss argues that the universe came from literary nothing. Now where did that ”nothing” come from? Same as first cause. We simply need a first cause.

@@evangelistkimpatrik 1) no he didn't. If youd of actually read his work youd see that he *created his own definition for nothing.* 2) attacking his argument instread of what I said....is a logical fallacy. Atheism isn't dogmatic....thus, not all atheists believe the same or even similar things. You can say 'one atheist says this' and pretend like _all atheists agree._ That would be yet another logical fallacy. 3) if a first cause is needed, your god would require it too. If your god doesn't require one....then you just figured out why its possible for something less complex, like a universe, to do the same. If your incredulity is such that you feel that 'nothing can exist without a first cause'....then be intellectually honest and include your god in that.

KandaPanda I just pointed out that we need a first cause. For many atheists it’s nothing, as Lawrence Krauss defines it, and for theists it is God. The point being that our position is no different. Without a first cause we end up in an infinite regress, which is logically impossible.

why? u cannot possibly think that it is a good evidence for his not existence.

@@LeventeCzelnai I never said he didn't exist. Rule of Burden of Proof, if you argue something exists or is true it is on you to prove it, not me to prove the contrary. Otherwise...you can't prove that a dog didn't made the universe, so it is ON you to prove that I AM WRONG.

@@Jose-yt3qz if u want to get a 100% confidence in God , of course u won't get it. this is why its faith. there are some questions like 'is there God', we need answers to and have to live by that fact our chance for error is pretty significant.

my point was, it's not reasonable to reject its non existence based on that we can't prove it exist. even if the Christian theology doesn't adds up, there are 1000000 possible ways to think about the concept.

@@LeventeCzelnai Oh yes, certainly, notice that I never made the claim that any divine figure doesn't exist, for all what I know the Real Gods can be the Aztec Ones, problem? We can stay the whole day discussing it, but eventually the end question is always 'So, okay, nice metaphysical theory, but how do we know that actually exists?' And to make it worse, how do YOU know that the existing dvine figure is this one you worship?

bibviz.com Here is a site that lists all the contradictions in the bible. You can also find it by googling "Bible Contradictions." It's funny just how terribly written the bible truly is! Sometimes God contradicts himself in the bible. So how can we even give him the title of omniscient? How would God know everything when he doesn't even know what he really wants? Edit: In the bible God also regrets making Saul king, because Saul turns his back on God (for some reason.) However if God were omniscient, why wouldn't he already know that making Saul king would in turn lead to him turning his back on God?

Debunkosaurus The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster says the contradictions were placed in it to test your faith.

But i cannot find a statement in the bible that every letter in the bible has been proofread by god.

B Sto Irrelevant. If there is a contradiction in the Bible, then God (as described in the Bible) cannot exist because His's description would be self-contradictory.

That would be like saying: if there is any contradiction in all biographies about your mother, your mother cannot exist.

Arifur Rahman Because God gave free will to humans they choose what to do they make choices on their own so sin is what a human has chose to do

God wants mankind to choose him and for that to happen there must be free will which raises the possibility of sin but thats just how things work for light to exist so must darkness and for good to exist so must evil

So your teacher is a novice?

if you consider there is something like god it would have a intelligence that is infinite times bigger than ours. Therefore we would never be able to understand it... It's like ants tries to understand string theory...

either everything is god's will (therefore no free will), or humans have free will (and nothing is god's will) - the two are mutually exclussive, can't have both at the same time

I'm not asserting such a being does exist, but I would suggest that omnipotence and omnibenevolence could easily be reconciled with a being who possesses the _power_ to act, but whose _love_ causes _self-restraint_ . That is to say, a parent will allow a child to fall, so the child can learn to stand and ultimately walk _because_ the parent loves the child and _wants_ the child to learn. The child isn't allowed to fall because the parent _doesn't_ have the power to prevent it, nor because the parent _doesn't_ love the child. The same could apply to omnipotence and omnibenevolence (assuming that inaction is motivated _by_ love).

@@truerealrationalist A baby with cancer and many other people doesn't get this chance so his goodness would be limited and only apply to some.

omnipotent (limitless abilities) means that one can do the evilest evil

@@truerealrationalist an all powerful all knowing all good God would be able to create perfect beings with all the knowledge possible therefore making a painful process of learning unnecessary

@@vladimirchobgto9691 If we had infinite knowledge, but lacked the ability to act on it, would this not also lead to suffering? The image of the main character from Black Sabbath's Iron Man comes to mind.

Sotiris Krol We actually have compelling evidence that giant tortoises exist, unlike God, so it's more likely you have a giant tortoise in your house than that God exists.

Patrick Hackett the his tortoise is YUUUGE.i actually have to live in a mansion to give it enough room for a bed.the entire state of Massachusetts is its habitat.

Videotape it with a camera... your rule was no one else is around but a camera is not a person

Sotiris Krol Lol, That's more like it 👍

Sotiris Krol I don't think this one can be disproved.

God made the divine plan and within that divine plan is free will. He gave the Nazis free will to kill the Jews; it wasn't God himself killing the Jews. He allowed the Nazis to kill them because he wont make them do anything unwillingly; he never wanted or forced the Nazis intohis plan. In fact, that's probably something he knew he would have to work with when executing his plan because of their decisions. However, one of the biggest aspects of his divine plan is Jesus, whom was and still is so divine and perfect in nature that, when he died in the cross, he made the ultimate sacrifice which could atone for everyone's sins if they WILLINGLY (not him forcing them to because that's not true belief or love) believe in him to be the only way to heaven. I don't say this with argumentative intentions, but if you'd like to further discuss it or more aspects of the divine plan or any other aspects of Chrisitianity, I encourage you to reply and we can discuss

@@snickerdoodle3711 That makes no sense. You’ve basically confirmed that your god truly has no control over our lives and therefore no control of the outcome, meaning there actually is no divine plan. Try using consistent facts instead of just preaching to me your subjective beliefs.

@@2l84me8 Well, moving forward, I hope you could see my responses as more of an insight to my beliefs than a sermon. I completely understand that free will amongst humans may seem like God never has control but thats simply not true. Some examples: The Bible teaches God parted the sea to save his people so they could escape from the Pharoah's army instead of snapping the army out of existent (which he could do because he's omnipotent) and God gave Daniel the faith and courage to kill Galiath instead of zapping him out of existence because he can. Why does God not just strike down his enemies to take full control since he's omnipotent? Why doesn't he choose to take control of their free will? I want you to explain to me what kind of world you think that would be if God chose to work like that, genuinely

@@2l84me8 Also, rereading your reply, I think I should clarify those instances I mentioned do show how God takes control even with free will within the world.

@@snickerdoodle3711 I personally don’t believe in your god and I don’t understand why you would take the bible literally when mankind has had way too much influence on its writing, resulting in several hundred different sects of said religion.

That always cracks me up🤣

I mean, we know nothing for certain, not instead of having an existential crisis every moment of every day, we use logic to confirm what we can prove to most likely to be true.

That's why he says it's the exception

There is no fucking god that's the answer there is no god we pray it does not work god promises all sins would be over but nothing happens who says something like that if they don't do it that's proves god does not exist there is so much suffering I this world but god does not help he says he will help he does not does not matter when he should do it he should do it right away to end all suffering so the people who are going through so much fucked things I. There life can live a good life is that not enough proof

@@dinarusso1104 See my response above to @SmashEX Entertainment

Omnipotence paradox and omniscience paradox have been debunked since a long time. And it's not that difficult to understand.

Son Goku ho Son of goku how are you;)

Only the proven existence of string theory would prove any existence of God or some being(s) able to create life and obfuscate its existence thanks to particle wave duality displaying retro causality. This is also a solid argument against omnipotence because strings are not always benevolent.

What is the definition of God and how is it contradictory? What contradictions are you referring to?

@@zeraphking1407 Those in the video. It's a month since I wrote that, and I can't remember exactly to what I was referring, but it should be pretty self-explanatory. Note, I'm not arguing the case for or against the existence of a deity, just the definitions as stated in the video.

He can do anything

@@CaiBuster he cant

umbrella

You get a pass on that one. The 'm' and the 'n' are right next to each other. ;-)

What does 'raineth' mean?

It is an archaic or poetic third person verb form of rains used to ensure that a line of verse scans.

The first time I heard this quotation (from NZ's first Chief Youth Court Judge the late Mick Brown) I thought "This guy's on to it." "Shit happens" (and often to the good fella) as The Buddha might say.

Rather than baffle me, it saddens me... But I'll keep spreading his quote all over Morocco regardless...

+Shawnaldo75 This is one of the worst examples of revisionist history. It baffles me that it's so commonly accepted as true. I'll focus on the history of the relationship between Christianity and science, since I'm more familiar with it as a Christian than I am with other religions' relationships with science. While there are sadly some notable exceptions, the Church has been one of the most important institutions in history for the advancement of science. It's true that the Enlightenment helped bring about great scientific progress, but it's simply false to say that there were "1800 years of mental retardation" before that. Case in point - the following scientists were/are Christians (or at least semi-Christian theists): - Robert Grosseteste - Albertus Magnus - Francis Bacon - Nicolaus Copernicus - Johannes Kepler - Galileo Galileo - Isaac Newton - Antoine Lavoisier - Michael Faraday - Louis Pasteur - Gregor Mendel - Max Planck - Robert Andrews Millikan - Georges Lemaître - John Lennox - Francis Collins - Fabiola Gianotti As you should be able to see, some of the most important scientists in history have been Christians. I should note that that list of nowhere near complete. One of the most interesting examples is perhaps Fabiola Gianotti, the current director-general of CERN and a key figure in the discovery of the Higgs boson. She has said of her religious views, "Science and religion are separate disciplines, though not antithetical. You can be a physicist and have faith or not." Now, as I mentioned above, the Church's history with science hasn't solely been positive. Some scientists were mistreated or even persecuted for pushing scientific theories that were considered to be antithetical to certain aspects of Christian theology. But even then some of the popular stories contain more legendary aspects than truth (as is the case with Galileo). Also, some of the scientists were punished not because of their scientific views but rather for holding to heretical theology. And, yes, the Church has an ugly history in terms of how it has dealt with atheists and skeptics - but then again that was over heresy, not science. Basically, your argument is about as silly as the idea that Christopher Columbus proved that the Earth isn't flat. (Note: Mostly for simplicity's sake, my use of the term "Church" refers to Christians worldwide, not any specific denominations.)

+brenden95delaney And? How many of those scientists breakthrough discoveries came from reading the bible? How many came from attending mass, and singing the praises of The Yaweh? How many came from saying "if god created everything, then it logically follows that: ... ... ..." And how many came from the completely rational belief that, through experiment, measurement, and/or observation, we can learn true things, and that those things have an innate and unquestionable truth to them, because we can observe and measure them, irrespective of whatever the bible, or the church might say on the matter? And how many scientists did the church crucify, in the meantime? Yes, it's possible to compartmentalize one's beliefs, and still conduct science. At it's core, that is the purpose of science, to prevent preconceived notions from clouding truth... that, however does not mean that it is a great aid to the scientific process to hold firm, unwavering beliefs in magic, or that there is a major institutionalized pressure that exists in direct opposition to knowledge from reason/knowledge from science.

+TheBrothergreen, You know what they say: "With so many scientists in Hell, the place must be fully air conditioned by now.

+TheBrothergreen Even with your points having some validity, I don't think that you've really disproved my argument. It's simply not true that, prior to the Enlightenment (and perhaps also the Renaissance), scientific progress was hindered to a great extent by religious authorities. There's a reason why historians by and large no longer use the term "Dark Ages" and instead call that time period the Middle Ages. Though it hasn't had a positive relationship with science in every instance, the Church has consistently been a major patron of science. Even though I think that what I said still stands, I'll certainly respond to your points. I'd appreciate it if you could read my whole comment (apologies for it being a little long-winded): "And? How many of those scientists breakthrough [...]" I never made that claim. In my view, the Bible isn't a scientific book, and I know that many Christians would agree. This is a major part of why so many scientists in history haven't seen contradictions between their faith and their scientific study. Theology and science are two different aspects of learning; theology tells us about God, and science tells us about the universe that He created. Christian scientists can worship God in a church service on Sunday and then continue their worship throughout the rest of the week by studying God's Creation. I'm not saying that science progresses is through Biblical or theological studies or by participating in church activities, but I also don't think that doing any of those things precludes people from doing scientific work. "And how many came from the completely rational belief [...]" I actually largely agree with you here. Science is done best via empirical experiments. The scientific method has certainly been of immense value due to its contribution toward scientific progress. Interestingly, though, the origins of the scientific method has clear links to Christianity, as Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas, among others, proposed theories about the kinds of knowledge that could be obtained by observation and induction. I do my best to balance my interpretation of the Bible in light of sound scientific discovery, in a similar way to how certain theological claims shape my interpretation - for example, I'll never interpret a passage as literally saying that the Earth is flat, just as I'll never interpret a passage to mean that God is evil. (However, I do also try to allow the text to speak for itself, and I actually do admit that I might be at least initially more skeptical of certain scientific claims in part because of that. I won't claim to be free of all bias.) In terms of what the Church says, I may not be the best person to ask, since I'm more of a "low-church" Protestant and don't hold to ecclesial authority as strongly as Christians from some other denominations do. I know that other faithful Christians disagree with me on this point - and have strong arguments - but I'd say that this exact issue should temper the notion of the "infallibility" of the Church. The Church (meaning the historic body of believers, so as to encompass all denominations) can certainly be wrong, and it has been a number of times in the past. Plus, scientists can actually be very helpful in guiding the Church in matters of our knowledge about the universe. In fact, in certain cases, the Church has been inextricably linked with scientific discovery, such as in the formulation of the Big Bang theory; Georges Lemaître, a Catholic priest, proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe (widely misattributed to Hubble). Thus, the Catholic Church's position is that the Big Bang theory doesn't conflict with its doctrine. "And how many scientists did the church crucify, in the meantime?" It's certainly true that the Church doesn't have a spotless history when it comes to its dealings with contrary teachings. The Inquisition definitely happened, and I lament that. However, I do know that many instances of persecution were over orthodoxy and heresy rather than scientific views (though at times the two intersected, as some scientific views were declared contrary to Scripture and Church doctrine). For example, Giordano Bruno was most likely burned at the state not because of his heliocentric views but rather because of his refusal to recant his belief in Hermeticism. Likewise, although Galileo's conflict with the Catholic Church did center around the heliocentricism, it seems to be the case that he was put under house arrest more so for other reasons. The character in his book that advocates for geocentrism - named Simplicio, meaning "simpleton" - was likely based on the Pope (some of his dialogue is direct quotations from conversations with Galileo). Since Galileo refused to deny this, on top of not renouncing heliocentricism, he was arrested. Without this, he might've avoided the conflict, given that the book was a dialogue between two characters and technically didn't advocate one position over the other. "Yes, it's possible to compartmentalize one's [...]" Again, I definitely agree with the notion of doing science as objectively as possible. But I would take it one step further and say that non-theists are not immune from bias. The way I see it, the best way to conduct scientific research would be to operate with an agnostic mindset, although only while in the process of said research. I don't think that this disallows a scientist from believing that good science will point us to God, as long as that perspective is set aside while conducting experiments. Furthermore, calling theism (whether Christian or otherwise) a belief in "magic" is not only an oversimplification but also a misrepresentation. I could go into an explanation for why that is, but I won't due to the fact that it'd be slightly off-topic and because of how long this comment is already. Finally, the idea that the Church exists as an institution in "direct opposition" to science seems to be a relatively recent one. As I said above, famous theologians and other Church figures were directly involved in formulating what a few centuries later became the scientific method. It's only in about the past two centuries that a large amount of Christians have become so suspicious of science and scientists, and I honestly think that that's very unfortunate. I even have to admit that, as a more "low-church" Protestant, my (overall) theological viewpoints - which might be characterized as "Evangelical" - have some roots in (some of) the very movements that originally began to distrust modern scientific research. I find that very regrettable, as it seems to me like the people who began these movements were simply overreacting to new challenges to the faith. In spite of my Protestantism, on this matter I actually find myself agreeing very much with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which states, "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason." There really isn't a dichotomy between Christianity and science, and thus Christians shouldn't make objections to good scientific research. It's unfortunate that it's happened in the past and is definitely being done by some Christians nowadays, but at its best the Church actually promotes science (and it has done so).

Kinda like how people once thought that things could only exist in either waves or particles, until they found out that light somehow exists as both?

Wait, if there's a fallacy in the argument then the argument is incorrect right? The conclusion may still be correct but the argument isn't. That's my understanding.

A fallacy in an argument means that the argument is invalidated. Also, the odds that an argument with a false premise reaching a true conclusion is far far smaller than reaching a false conclusion, unless you contrive it.

(If "I am a person", then "the sky is blue") is a fallacy, even if "the sky is blue" is true. However, this argument is as valid as directly making the assertion ("the sky is blue"). Thus an argument with fallacy is usually equivalent to an assertion. Plus showing how illogical the person is.

lol how ironic

Brilliant! No more arguing ever!

DeathsHood Lol, chainsaw teapots. Do your lumber while also having tea time and don't forget those crumpets.

It could be a steel teapot made in china though

I agree, i dont like religions because followers take it as 100% true, no questions, but as a story book with life lessons the bible is much more acceptable

Ludovic Ovsepian no no no! Me niether, i said SOME lessons, mostly the lessons you teach your kids, be nice to eachother that kind of stuff, hating gay people because a book told you to is retarded

But the morality of the Bible is horrific in places. Stoning of alleged non virgins on their wedding night on her fathers doorstep? God sending 2 bears to kill 42 children for mocking Elijas bald head? Setting out the specific rules on owning other human beings as slaves? Global genocide? instructions to take no thought for tomorrow, sell all your possessions? Saying you have to hate your immediate family if you want to follow Jesus. Stopping the sun in the sky so as to facilitate a slaughter? Make a deal to win battle if a General will kill the first thing that comes out of his house? I cant think of a less moral book.....

jon fromtheUK yes but the lessons i meant were the dumbed down lessons you teach kids and thats it, the book can teach SOME good lessons and the rest is shit, i dont get why people are misunderstanding me

the cub zion storm Exactly what I meant.

bdf2718 say there was a time travel machine. and you decide to go back in the past at the exact same moment you married your wife for example. you are an outside observer of the ceremony and you know your wife is gonna say yes and she does say yes. isnt that free will? you are just someone that knows whats gonna happen but you dont affect whats gonna happen. same with god. although i dont believe in god i just wanna point that out

+Paul Trinca If she had free will she could say no this time. She can't. And that's the point. If you sat at the end of time (it doesn't end, but you know what I mean) with a big list of everything that ever happened (such a list isn't possible, but you know what I mean) then *none* of it could have happened differently. Now take your time machine and transport your list back to the beginning of time (you know what I mean) and show it to yourself. Your past self can't change the future, because from the perspective of your future self, *it already happened that way.* And that's the problem. If omniscience includes knowing what *will* happen, it can't be changed. Therefore an omniscient being has no free will, and nobody else does either. Everything that happens, everything that ever happened and everything that ever will happen is determined by the initial state of the universe. At least, that's how it is if there's an omniscient God (and probably how it is if there's no God at all).

What does "free will" actually mean? Define the term, please. I have never seen it defined in a way that does not contradict the vague concept we seem to have of it, while at the same time being meaningful and logically coherent.

Personally i believe god has limited himself. An omnipotent being has that ability. And why not use it when trying to create order (this is where everyone jumps in and says 'he should be able to do it without limiting himself as he is omnipotent') the bible states that it is impossible for god to lie. This clearly means he cannot do something implying that he isn't omnipotent but very close and still far beyond our comprehension. The limit god has on himself is justice and emotion. He is just and it is stated in the bible that he has a variety of emotions.

LynxKnows This argument would work if the arguments being presented were anecdotal. However, the arguments here are philosophical. Omnipotence literally means that god has the potential to do whatever he wants. Whether or not he chooses to do so doesn’t matter. If there is something god cannot do, then god is not omnipotent. A question you should ask yourself is, can an omnipotent god limit itself?

See ya in the afterlife. Live your life while you can.

Atheist LeftComment I don't know what the point of this comment is

LifeComedyAction Comedy from Theist.

Relationship with Jesus ? How dare you say that Jesus (peace be upon him) is a god ? Jesus (peace be upon him) is a prophet of Allah and not a... oh wait, I don't believe anymore in this stuff too, doesn't matter.

Ali Diouri we feel bad for you having to do all that worshiping and stuff. Worrying about going to hell etc.

Really, I've yet to have anyone actually explain how they come to that conclusion. And my brother and best friend are Atheist. And my uncle has been agnostic for 40+ years. Free will absolutely exists. The only way free will does not exist is if we know our own future, or if some Omniscient being tells us what our future will be and then gives us no choice in the matter. Since neither of these things are true statements we have free will since "God has not revealed our future to us" even if he told us what our future was and showed us. I would bet we would feel cheated to not have a chance to prove it to ourselves since we still don't have perfect knowledge or understanding. What if in the most hypothetical of situations. All the outside circumstances, past consequences, and genetics/luck puts us in a situation where we can consciously make a choice one way or the other with no perceived negative or positive reactions. An inconsequential choice is just that. But we still call it a choice. we have habits that are so routine we don't even do them consciously. I was told when I was 23 that I make an audible clicking noise with my throat that I never knew about. I constantly crack my knuckles at games loading screens. and I can choose not to whenever I desire. Nothing is making me do anything.

@@AKABattousai because simply, if there was some almighty being that created you, who had a "plan," and was omniscient, he would know, by default, every decision you were going to make. And, since he created you in the first place, in order for his plan to work, you would have to do exactly what he created you to do, or.....well, the plan wouldn't work. It's paradox of omniscience and omnipotence. So, there is no free will. You were "created" to do what the Christian god wanted you to do, if you prescribe to that nonsense.

@@trelane88 That wouldn't prove that free will doesn't exist. The key issue here is that whatever choices we make, the consequences of those choices are not something we have a full understanding of. So by definition. and things like trial and error, we can still make wrong choices. and learn from mistakes. Can you explain something to me? If you don't have a belief in a God figure. Can you really scrutinize a made up behavior that you are attaching to him. How do you know he has a set plan for each of us. If a Baby dies 3 seconds after it's born that isn't much of a plan. Unless you then figure what caused that baby to suffer. Was it the product of poverty or basic medical needs. Warlords, Dictators, etc. Free will being part of those situations makes us all alot more responsible than God who we can't even prove is there. To go through life and not believe in a free will would be quite depressing to me. "Oh look here come the rapists again. guess I can't be upset about the situation or even hope that it can change." I can understand not wanting to be subjected to Faith based concepts because those require effort. But to go around trying to kill Hope as well. That I don't understand. Hope in itself starts with the belief that things beyond our control can change. E.I. Free Will

@@AKABattousai People who believe in the Abrahamic God say that he is omniscient and knows everything. That’s one of the biggest things people say about him. If that isn’t true, what about all the lesser known things about him?

@@zacharygilmore1075 If we are assuming things aren't his characteristics. There would have to be some form that the concept is being imagined as. Many mythical Gods are figures that aren't omniscient. usually becoming a character in a story. And the character can be used to teach some moral. and the story is used to be part of the people's culture.

Again this depends on the definition of what you're willing to call "A god" Why call any being "A god" at all? Why not just call it Steve.

Oh Yeah! Joe Pesci

I suppose you could - if one would appear at your request. Hasn't happened so far.

Coda You can always attribute it to space aliens, or embrace solipsism. I wouldn't, because I want atheism to be in principle, falsifable.

Michael Jones You still cannot, technically- it could be a hallucination or aliens with technology indistinguishable from magic.

My 1st year philosophy prof did that to our entire class one day We could not prove we existed lol i got mine tho one day i was late for class and apologized for tardiness He said "No problem,time is just a confidence trick invented by the Swiss" i replied "It is a confidence trick,but perfected by the Swiss"

Wait so God can’t prove himself to him? Then God is not omnipotent.

I have realized that God sounds very much like an animal-breeder who is trying to breed us for docile domestication... like we did with sheep.

You Can't Prove That Atheist Doesn't Exist. From where does Atheist don't Exist or come into existence?

@@user-xr3ye4do5v "you can't prove atheist doesn't exist" Do you even know what atheist means?

​@@wahidahmed2525It a concept. But that concept is never proved. Even It cannot explain what claim.

@@user-xr3ye4do5v that's like asking to someone prove the position that they don't think Santa Claus exists. You claim there is a God, I say "I'm not convinced". I'm an atheist, what is tehre to prove?

you cant prove i don't eat my applesauce

@@Lilly-fh7re touche

I could just ask you if you do or don't. If you don't answer, I assert you don't exist.

@@korytoombs886 :L

the Jiminator All Gods eat their own shit, prove me wrong.... Which one of the shit breaths do you believe in.....

Both evil and omnipotence are defined in the bible. Their definitions are not up for opinion when talking about God in a traditional sense (Judaism, Catholicism, etc)

@@Nepheliad1 is that so? Would you show me what is the definition of evil and definition of omnipotence according to the Bible then?

Although I agree I think that was the point, to give a overall idea, as he said he was gonna go on other definitions of omnipotent in another video. He didn’t mention evil but the definition I would think any aft that harms anything would be evil, unless done on accident. Items can’t do accidents and thus any harmful acts are evil but if someone cuts down a tree and it falls on someone they didn’t see who died because of it it isn’t the tree cutters fault.

In that case, with your definition of an omnipotent being, the god would be subject to the laws of logic rather than the creator of the laws of logic. Wouldn't the term "all-powerful" suggest that the god isn't limited by any laws of nature/logic? I also agree that evil is subjective in the absolute philosophical sense (we can't deductively derive an ought. I actually think the concept of evil/good is just an illusion or belief that we hold, like Hume suggests we can't derive an ought from an is. However, if someone believed in the concept of Heaven/Hell, then I find it very easy to break down their argument on omni-benevolence and free will. If, using their definition of god, god is able create a place where evil (however you define it) does not exist, and he willfully does not create a universe like that right now for all sentient beings, then how can one call him all-good? I don't need to provide a definition of good/evil because heaven and hell are the prime examples of both concepts. I would also ask them if they believe humans will have the freedom to do evil things in heaven. If they say no, then how do they have free will if they can't do "evil" things? If they redefine free will and say that God allows us to have the freedom to do anything that's good, then if god is just and all good, why does he prevent our universe from being like that right now?

Good point. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yH2X8Vmu5TY.html