A "god" is dependent on people believing in it. If a god would not be dependent on people believing in it, then it logically follows that any number of gods can exist. The question is than, who is the "real" one, who is the one that caused the beginning, the day without yesterday? No one can substantiate that, it is in fact an even more absurd idea. An infinite number of gods and no possible way to discern between them. And it's all because religious apologists presuppose (without any evidence or rationality) their deity's existence. It's a circular argument, already assuming the existence of that which one sets out to prove. And I'm not even tackling the problem of proving independency. Stating that infinite regress doesn't make sense is a baseless assumption just as proposing a necessary first cause.
@AnnihilateIgnorance Would one know of e.g. the Abrahamic god without the torah, bible and quran, or even oral prophecy? No, therefore, this deity is dependent on human conception. Since you cannot erase the reality of these claimed "divine" scriptures, at least it can be conceived through this way, and hence, it isn't necessary. Conceiving something, is an act of the mind [thought], it then existists in the mind, not in reality. In short, one cannot think something into existence. That requires a leap of faith, presupposition. And yes, it is circular, even a tautology. You already presuppose the reality of his existence to then "argue" he's not dependent on human thought. It couldn't be more circular than that. First demonstrate, evidence based, that he's real and then you might start providing evidence for why without him nothing can exist. Otherwise it's just presuppositionalistic jibber jabber.
@@lizadowning4389 with all due respect to you i have never ever heard of an athiest making a postulation as blissfully incoherent as god being dependant upon belief, where did you get that from? And what rational Epistimic or ontological reasoning follows up your narrative? Secondly your narrative itself has an unintelligible presupposition which ive never heard from any religous or non religious person, 3rdly the contingency arguement is based upon deductive reason of dependancy which is an Imperically proven scientific fact, which then the rational and unimpeccable conclusion of a necassary existence follows deductively.
@@lizadowning4389you are also from what i can perceive are exhjbiting a solipsistical stance where one cannot actually objectively know of anything outside of our mind, lol, well then i can follow up and say exactly, metaphysical realities are outside of our sensory perceptions therefore they exist, so no matter how much you timidly change the goal posts, it is inescapable reality my friend
@@jihadmahde His use of the term finite was misleading. He was using it in a way that it was unclear what he was talking about. He dismissed the idea of a loop by making a weird analogy with grandmothers creating themselves - but that's just one option. If you and three or four of your friends stood in a circle, each of you leaning back towards the next person, you would all be able to hold each other up. So his dismissal of a loop was unjustified. Infinite regresses are not logically impossible - so despite what Hijab claims, he did not rule them out. And his stuff about adding or taking away - that was incoherent. I bet you can't tell me what he meant by that and why it makes a case against contingent things. By the way, when Hijab asserted that a necessary Being cannot be any other way, he's asserting that God has no free will.
This will be a very short video.
Above 1k views 🎉
A "god" is dependent on people believing in it.
If a god would not be dependent on people believing in it, then it logically follows that any number of gods can exist.
The question is than, who is the "real" one, who is the one that caused the beginning, the day without yesterday?
No one can substantiate that, it is in fact an even more absurd idea. An infinite number of gods and no possible way to discern between them.
And it's all because religious apologists presuppose (without any evidence or rationality) their deity's existence.
It's a circular argument, already assuming the existence of that which one sets out to prove.
And I'm not even tackling the problem of proving independency.
Stating that infinite regress doesn't make sense is a baseless assumption just as proposing a necessary first cause.
@AnnihilateIgnorance Would one know of e.g. the Abrahamic god without the torah, bible and quran, or even oral prophecy? No, therefore, this deity is dependent on human conception.
Since you cannot erase the reality of these claimed "divine" scriptures, at least it can be conceived through this way, and hence, it isn't necessary.
Conceiving something, is an act of the mind [thought], it then existists in the mind, not in reality.
In short, one cannot think something into existence. That requires a leap of faith, presupposition.
And yes, it is circular, even a tautology.
You already presuppose the reality of his existence to then "argue" he's not dependent on human thought. It couldn't be more circular than that.
First demonstrate, evidence based, that he's real and then you might start providing evidence for why without him nothing can exist.
Otherwise it's just presuppositionalistic jibber jabber.
@@lizadowning4389 with all due respect to you i have never ever heard of an athiest making a postulation as blissfully incoherent as god being dependant upon belief, where did you get that from? And what rational
Epistimic or ontological reasoning follows up your narrative? Secondly your narrative itself has an unintelligible presupposition which ive never heard from any religous or non religious person, 3rdly the contingency arguement is based upon deductive reason of dependancy which is an Imperically proven scientific fact, which then the rational and unimpeccable conclusion of a necassary existence follows deductively.
@@lizadowning4389you are also from what i can perceive are exhjbiting a solipsistical stance where one cannot actually objectively know of anything outside of our mind, lol, well then i can follow up and say exactly, metaphysical realities are outside of our sensory perceptions therefore they exist, so no matter how much you timidly change the goal posts, it is inescapable reality my friend
uhhh, what did he just say?
czcams.com/users/shortswPyaNMDwriE?feature=share
a load of incoherent nonsense designed to sound logical, but which in fact is full of unjustified assertions and vague statements.
@@bengreen171 can you explain these incoherencies? instead of claims.
@@bengreen171 please respond to mehdi
@@jihadmahde
His use of the term finite was misleading. He was using it in a way that it was unclear what he was talking about.
He dismissed the idea of a loop by making a weird analogy with grandmothers creating themselves - but that's just one option. If you and three or four of your friends stood in a circle, each of you leaning back towards the next person, you would all be able to hold each other up.
So his dismissal of a loop was unjustified.
Infinite regresses are not logically impossible - so despite what Hijab claims, he did not rule them out. And his stuff about adding or taking away - that was incoherent. I bet you can't tell me what he meant by that and why it makes a case against contingent things.
By the way, when Hijab asserted that a necessary Being cannot be any other way, he's asserting that God has no free will.