Dawkins' central argument against God, fixed.
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 05. 2024
- Most atheist who realize it are rather embarrassed by the fact that the central argument of the most famous atheist's book is a fallacious argument. However, I think Dawkins is onto something. See my proposal for improving the argument in the video.
Donate crypto:
BTC: bc1q4gp2w6s9fpcucg7yjshnwn8hkfvzn8ysd7tpkf
ETH/BNB/USDT: 0x27fFfD1e1F7d220670599E84E82dAE0165a21784
TRX/USDT: TXAta2wY7QzBa5cwQd2tNWjhYyS8sa3fH1
When 2 people agree on what a 'god' is maybe I'll listen. Hasn't happened yet but it's only been a few billion years.
God = commandments
@@cardndmch Cool story, which "god's commandments are we supposed to care about and how would we ever know what they are?
@@shannontaylor1849 Israël's God
Interesting.
I certainly agree that his central argument is weak but I need to review again the 2nd law of thermodynamics and entropy generally, haven't studied pure mathematics/physics for a long time. Interesting video, nice one.
Thank you, I hope you help me promote it :D
I don’t understand how this video reached me, but I’m glad it did. Great work on this video, and especially your conclusion.
make sure you help me spread it pls
check this one out czcams.com/video/p0MZD_4mVfE/video.html
@@aleph1285 absolutely will do, good luck in your CZcams career.
I like your idea of updating Occam's razor to a more version using information theory, however I think is suffers for inherent insurmountability: Consider radioactive decay - which any self respecting physics will tell you is a random process. Let's say I take some data. Since randomness has unbounded (kolmogorov) complexity, if I use your information compression principal I will be forced to accept any non-random model that explains data. Since any dataset can be model by an arbitrarily complex model, I will never conclude that 'radioactivity is random'. Similar applies to quantum mechanics and by extension almost all of modern physics.
not necessarily, computer programs can be pseudo-random or even random if designed properly.
I’d have to disagree. The second law of thermodynamics is about physical processes that occur naturally. However, God is not a being that is made of all the same type of stuff as particles are. God, with ability to control objects and himself, can add energy into a system. Rebuilding any energy that was lost or no longer concentrated.
This argument you build assumes that God’s form has the same properties as a naturalistic, unaltered system of particles or energy. However, that is a false assumption as the mind can control energy.
The second law of thermodynamics, in of itself, does not disprove Gods existence. Nor does it pose any threats to theism.
Plus, even granting the entropy rich nature of God, all this would show is that minds such as Gods at least, can exist at high entropy. However, this is still wrong since entropy is about disorder or uncontrolled or varying energy levels. But again, minds don’t operate the same way atoms or electrons do. A mind is a different entity. So by trying to use the second law of dynamics, it is assumed that the mind of God or minds in general, are necessarily naturalistic, or made of particles.
its utterly wrong to say that you dont need an explanation of the explanation. craigs examples are stupid: (yes, stupid). if you find s tomahawk you infer the hunan designer since that doesnt require any more explanations than you already have. If you find weird machinery on the backside of the moon you assume humans, since alien hypotesis is way more improbable.
A. I note that WLC omitted the word "probably". Then he commends the simple solution, while inserting a more compex solution. An immaterial mind is simple, but the information it posesses is not.
B. The cosmological argument is not a reason to posit a god.
C. An alternative cosmological argument:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. We cannot discern a cause for the universe.
3. Until we do, we assume the universe did not begin to exist.
B is just an assertion. C is just bad reasoning. Besides the fact that most scientists believe the universe has some sort of beginning, does it really make sense to assume any material entity did not begin to exist until we know what the cause of its existence is? Wishing you the best and hope you have a blessed day!
@@zaktan7197 Fascinating isn't it?
Why is B an assertion? How do we know a cause is god?
What is wrong with C? There's no unified theory on the matter, you would have work to do to demonstrate the word "most". And what would be the relevance? We just don't know.
Why can't we work with a hypothesis of an eternal universe instead of an eternal God?
The universe must have began to exist though. If increase in entropy is inevitable, then the universe should be at it's highest entropy state; and we know it's not. Therefore, the universe has a cause because it began to exist. Thats why you should not assume the universe did not begin to exist in the 3rd claim.
@@al7bndgsh706 The universe wouldn't have to begin if it's always been here. Why is your third sentence true? It's non sequitur with the second. And surely entropy is increasing all the time so it is at its highest level now. And you've not explained its relevance.
Put simply. We've no reason to believe a god or anything else caused the universe, so we have to assume that nothing did, so where's the problem with my cosmological argument? It's as valid as the Kalam.
@@al7bndgsh706 The universe wouldn't have to begin if it's always been here. Why is your third sentence true? It's non sequitur with the second. And surely entropy is increasing all the time so it is at its highest level now. And you've not explained its relevance.
Put simply. We've no reason to believe a god or anything else caused the universe, so we have to assume that nothing did, so where's the problem with my cosmological argument? It's as valid as the Kalam.
The premise does follow. WLC even admits it in the beginning after denying it doesn't.
There is 0 reason to believe God exists.
No it doesn’t it’s an inductive point firstly secondly the premise doesn’t lead into the conclusion
@@devaxionrl8189yes it does
5 Thomas asked him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going; and how can we know the way?” 6 Jesus assured them, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32
repent my brothers and sisters, only Jesus Christ saves.
Except god isn't real and the man they call Jesus is dead and can't save anybody. Here is an idea then, I'mma do what Jesus did: I am the son of god. There we go, now you must worship me, right? Because that's essentially all Jesus did was make a claim that was false lol. So why won't you believe me but you'll believe him? No, Jesus did not come back alive after death either.
@@yehldyehld "20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, " Romans 1
"16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. " John 3