"Atheists can't answer these questions" ...or Can We?
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 04. 2021
- Islamic apologetics channel Towards Eternity has a challenge for atheists. I respond.
Towards Eternity posted a video titled “Atheists Can’t Answer These Questions” where they asked 3 questions which they say not only undermine atheism, but also point to the existence of god. I give my answers to these questions and discuss the logical fallacies present. In my opinion, the god of the gaps reasoning here is the biggest issue, but the fallacy of composition and some scientific illiteracy make appearances too. In this atheist / Muslim debate, sometimes we have to humble ourselves, admit ignorance, and work to find answers from there. Let’s try to assume less and use scientific skepticism more.
How Carl Sagan Beat Pseudoscience (The Sagan Method)
• How Carl Sagan Beat Ps...
------------------------------------------FOLLOW------------------------------------------
Twitter: / gm_skeptic
Facebook: / gmskeptic
Discord: / discord
------------------------------------------SUPPORT------------------------------------------
Patreon: / geneticallymodifiedske...
PayPal: www.paypal.me/GMSkeptic
Sources and other links:
Original video:
• Atheists Can't Answer ...
Addendum to the original video:
• We Answered The Object...
------------------------------------------Resources for atheists in need------------------------------------------
Find a Secular Therapist: www.seculartherapy.org
Recovering from Religion helps connect those who are leaving or have left their religion with support, resources and community: www.recoveringfromreligion.or...
Resources for Ex-Mu’s: exmuslims.org/join-us/
This video contains 100% therapeutic grade skepticism.*
*This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA
The host of Towards Eternity's video was respectful and stuck to the topic at hand rather than smearing his detractors. Let's do the same, everyone.
Also: How Carl Sagan Beat Pseudoscience (The Sagan Method)
czcams.com/video/yUgdrno-2xY/video.html
Ohhh I think Viced Rhino answered these questions. He has a really cool answer for the black pencil part.
Civility is how we will progress as a society
@@lekiscool yup, was a very cool video.
9 hours ago?
I think his answer to the second one was “pick an analogy.” XD
"can your science explain why it rains." "Yes, yes it can!"
Explain to me. Why does it rain?
@@ketslaketsl3486 is it really that hard to just look it up
Sokka was always the best
@@ketslaketsl3486 water, heat and clouds.
@@ketslaketsl3486 clouds condense, water falls, water evaporates and creates clouds, cycle continues
All these “cannot answer” videos have one ultimate fallacy: even if I cannot provide a right answer, it does not make their false answer right by default.
Great observation.
i know right? when they say i need to prove that god doesn't exist, and ask me to explain myself, i say why on earth should i have to answer to someone who worships a baby killing, torturing, vain and jealous psychopath without reservation or question? how can you justify killing all the first born of Egypt? how can you justify solomon ordering the dashing of the babies against the rocks the slaughter of their me and the taking of there women? that it wasn't slavery their god doesn't like, just not his people, that in the flood they gloss over all the pregnant woman and children left to drown, i could go on but i wont. don't give me but the new testament waah. if Hitler said look boys i've changed id still say no. besides. they did not change. the entire history of religion is one of misery and horror. i think treating the religious with anything other than contempt is no different than being an apologist for the behavior of the Nazis. there is no excuse, and their history and continued behavior bear out my contempt.
Great vegetables.
If your worldview cannot provide the right answer (i.e., the truth), then you should find another worldview.
@@user-fh5nu4jg9l
Statistics would confirm that to be science as well. If something cannot be proven, it "rejects said hypothesis to be true", it doesn't say it is "therefore false". Both faith and the scientific method only approach truth, but if it doesn't find it, then it simply is that; no answer. ACTUALLY, I would even say that any faith that keeps pushing anything and everything not proven to be "definitely a divine force" is shooting itself on the foot; faith and spiritualism cannot be explained so pushing anything as true or false does not help a religion, as it would also break the scientific method (mind you, I am agnostic, so none of this matters anyway).
"I am ignorant, therefore god."
...said every superstitious mental-midget EVER!!!
"I would prove God's existence even if it means I will not understand the deeper meaning of the universe because, the only valid answer is God." There are people who are religious, but know a lot, but ultimately never question God's existence, because they never had the reason to do so or because there was no need to do so. Only the ones who suffer will know the pain and just like that only the ones who need God will try to do so. Many people who believe in God are those who never had the reason to question his existence or actually benefit from believing it, or are forced to do so. There is no in between.
@@squeaky_balloon What does the word god mean to you? If there are 8 billion humans and 3 billion of them are atheists, there are about 5 billion different definitions of that word. Of the 3,000 or so gods that have been created by humans, to which do you refer?
@@squeaky_balloon Only one question : Even if he exists, does he care?
If a creature with human like morals of compassion, hate, love etc. exists (God/Allah), who has unsurmountable knowledge and is supposedly the best guide and ruler, the most loving, etc., who knows about things from tiny events on the scale of atoms to large world ending scenarios and cares for his creations through all of them, why does he ignore the more than a billion starving human beings within which most of them die a painful death through hunger?
Or why does he allow diseases like Bone Cancer, various cell diseases, deformities, and millions of other different misfortunes to affect innocent babies? Leave a sinful grown adult alone who deserves gods punishment according to the Bible and Quran.
If God exists, why is he involved in Human affairs so much trying to guide others into following a rule of law and everything but at the same time, doesn't seem to care much about major catastrophes? Tsunamis, Floods, Volcanic Eruption, Heat Waves, Droughts etc have killed billions of Humans in all of history(most of them being innocent and most of them being very religious and even good people)?
@@jonahjerryson4913yea because you were born into a religious family… if youre a real chryou would believe in god making the world, humans coming from dirt, women coming from men’s ribcage, dinosaurs not being real and more, it doesnt make sense to believe part of christianity and not all of it… and humans arnt special… we are the most intelligent species but thinking we’re special compared to other animals and god looks like us is just a unthought narcissistic idea
I have three questions no atheist can answer
1) what is the last digit of pi
2) how many digits are in pi if you remove every other digit
3) if a tree falls in a forest and none is around, what's the second to last digit of pi.
You are technically right ✅️
I can actually answer number 2, pi has an infinite number of digits, meaning 1 and 3 are impossible to answer, but 2 is possible to answer because infinity / 2 = Infinity. So the number of digits in pi if you remove every other is infinity
its 4, 0 and 7
@@AnnoyedSonic sure thats an answer, unfortunately infinity is not a quantity, as requested in the "how many" part of the question. by definition the word infinite just means impossible to quantify. So the answer you gave to "how many digits are in pi if you remove every other digit" is basically saying you don't have an answer.
also the point of this post is a meme. r/woosh
At least 1 in all the questions, take that
“You cannot live in a brick, so it cannot make a house”
His pencil example is really week. He says you cant draw a rainbow with a black pencil, because it lacks colour.
But a pencil also lacks the ability explain feelings of love, but a pencil can be used to write a love letter. Some things cannot be done with a black pencil, but others things can be done, even though the pencil itself cant describe love, but the pencil can in fact explain love and feelings if "it works" or interact with a human.
There are things atoms can not do under any circumstances, but there are also things they can do when working together.
@@evil001987 Ah but you CAN draw a rainbow with a pencil. It wont be a rainbow with all the usual colours but its still a rainbow. Even when trying to make his point he makes the simplest mistakes. he should have said you cannot draw the colours of a rainbow with a regular pencil.
@@ASavageEye well you can make colors as well if you arrange graphine flakes properly.
Q1 when he told about atoms and humans was kinda stupid. Imagine if a brick is one kind of an atom, you take enough bricks and other atoms and you make a house. Just like with a human
@@skyrask1948 Ok so thats cool to know, thanks, I had no clue. You see this is why science is amazing and religion is a fekin joke.
The first question is like saying "if a brick doesn't let you cross a river, there's no way bridges can let you cross rivers, if they're made of bricks"
"therefore, allah"
@@nutronstar45 ah yes
allah holds the bricks together for you
Very well said. I'm gonna use this!
Hello there!
Edit: *I have written many comments, if you want to reply then fully understand my comments all to way to the final one then reply with consideration of the latest comments; thank you!*
I’m just a curious, incredibly friendly, and highly rational free-thinker. Nevertheless, the creator of the car & wheel is crucial for the creation of it, that’s the whole point of the argument, you can’t expect metal components given enough time and energy to naturally form themselves into engines and leather seats, and then finely tune itself to give AC and a speedometer, etc. You *require* a creator, which in this case is a human. The universe is vastly superior, much more complex and unfathomably vast, and I fully understand the universe is different, but actually, the same reasoning can be applied - if not even better applied. Nature’s natural and universal laws have seemingly eternally existed, but that’s exactly where God makes sense: living things don’t come from non-living things naturally, the very essence of life and consciousness is a greatly profound question. Not to mention, the prophets were extremely truthful people, and truthful eyewitness accounts of miracles exist. If God’s existence is unprovable, undoubtedly our very best bet is to be, at the least, an Agnostic Theist. The Agnostic meaning = doesn’t know if God exists, and the Theist meaning = believes in God anyway. My goal is not to prove my argumentation is irrefutable, my goal is to aid rational choices and free thinking. Thank you. 🙂❤️
2:00 sir, you can draw a rainbow with a black pencil. you just can’t colour it in.
This guy don't know color blind so he can't think like one. Keep focus boy !
The harder you press the pencil the darker the color so you could make a rainbow with different shades of gray.
u can use shading
A colorblind guy once mailed to Bob Ross that he can't paint himself due to his condition and Ross as the boss he was showed him the beauty he could create just with black, white and gray.
Luigi, don't be a dinophobe, it takes all colors to make a rainbow. Except black, there's no black in a rainbow.
A fun thing is always: There are things that just are. Laws of physics, gravity etc.
They want to argue "But where did they come from? Clearly a god must have created these laws!"
And upon the question "where did god come from" they answer "they just are"...
So their answer in their mind is sound, but the same answer without the god is not.
im not an atheist and the "where the God come from" question is actually can be answered in my belief. The God is a supernatural being and that is out of our mind we can't think about the existence of God because it's to complex for the human mind and there for we need a word a fact that we can trust on and belief.
Exactly this 👆
As a muslim, we believe our minds are very limited. Whenever people ask this question, my answer is "he has been here forever". It might seem impossible for something to be here forever when, technically existence never had a start. But, god is the one who created the concept of time, the concept of a start and end.
So while yes, the question of "how things were before time" might seem impossible, we are but very limited in our knowledge
We have the same beliefs then
A christian friend of mine once said "Idk, maybe he's like Stan lee and we are the comic characters". That was the chillest answer I got and I honestly love it.
"You cannot give a feature you don't have, to someone else."
God is evil, gotcha.
damn gottem. didn't even think of this lol
Damn, You're right lol. I always forget how in all of their arguments God is always the exception to all the rules they create to explain things.
I think he would respond something like,
"Blah blah special pleading, god can do anything, blah blah"
God is also mortal, cus he gives the characteristic of mortality. He is also immortal and the same time, making him illogical. But he is also the source of all logic and therefore perfectly logical.
Checks out to me.
That's why the monotheist had to invent a devil at some point.
As Richard Feynman once said, "I'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned"
i really like that
Oh fuckin finally! Thank you so much! You are the first person to actually correctly quote that statement. I have now found three comments where people claim it was Carl Sagan who said it and while Sagan no doubt felt the same way, it wasn’t him who said it.
...You mean : "Dictatorship" ? ;)
@@jacobwatson6093 what do you even mean?! What is the question, where existence is the answer?
@@danielbristow2367Existence itself is a mystery.
When I was in my college years, I'd allow my religious friends to try to make logical arguments against me as an atheist. It was exhausting though, because they always used fallacious logic. And when my friend said he wouldn't read Stephen Hawking's works because the scientist was against God's teachings or whatever, I gave up on trying to have arguments with religious people. Until that point, I thought my religious friends could appreciate Stephen Hawking despite their religion.
epstein island🎉🎉🎉
@@MeevinEdgehe still a smart guy and doesn’t discredit his work
You ever heard of the backfire effect? Basically, everyone will believe what they want to believe even if there's scientific proof otherwise, they will simply strength from their own belief, because you trying to prove that they're wrong will simply make them think that they must be right if someone is putting in the effort to make them believe otherwise.
@@MeevinEdge fake news
@@opportunity3278 nuh uh
"You cannot give a feature you dont have to someone else" this statement attempts to redefine biology and in turn completely erased the ideas of genetic mutation and recessive traits.
and also particle physics. None of the processes would occur if this "principle" was true
You couldn’t make anything from anything else if this were true. Well done, he proved cooking doesn’t exist.
I'm taller than my father was so he gave a feature to me that he did not possess.
"A human has a variety of feelings while atoms don't have any."
*An atom looks shocked and hurt, then turns away while sad violin music plays*
Thanks for the laugh xD
Of course atoms have emotions. It’s just hard to tell because their faces are so tiny.
Atoms get excited and relaxed. Those are the real terms for various states that atoms can be in.
Apologists for Islam are even worse than Christian Apologists. Is there truly anyone who believes this side show snake oil salesmans atom spiel
😆
"you cannot give a feature you don't have to someone else"
Me: Gives abs to my drawing
Why only abs? Get a big chest, biceps and legs.
me: makes a white oc
@@qq-lw2vp omg I love ur name lol
@Khush Bakht Khan pog champ- wait... god uses the word pog... g o d i s B r i t i s h... omg I love this irl headcannon...
@Ohio State but like...
W h a t i f i t i s ? ? ?
Thank you for your work and for your patience. Born and raised as a roman catholic in Germany I started to doubt some stuff during adolescence. There were no answers, no empathy just commandments like “believe and act as you’re told or you’ll end in eternal flames”. Being indoctrinated for a long time I called myself an agnostic and resigned the Catholic Church at the age of 20. It took me another 30 years to accept myself as an atheist. I sometimes envy religious people for their confidence and the comfort of their churches and believes. Being 62 the end of my live comes in sight. But still I’d rather go to hell than claiming to have found the black cat in a dark room. And even if there are gods (nobody can falsify this idea) I prefer to go back to carbon cycle rather than sitting in Valhalla and drinking mead or playing the Lyra the whole day long or having fun with virgins or whatever you’re promised if you just believe in the unprovable concept of a creator.
Your story is important. I’m an atheist and there seem to be fewer atheists in the Netherlands, where I was born and raised, than what the numbers may suggest. I ‘say’ this because I talk to lots of people as part of my line of work and more often than not when I speak with someone who claims to be an atheist, I either sense a bit of doubt when it comes to superstition, or they say things like “I don’t believe in a god, but I think there’s “more between heaven and earth than we know”.
Sometimes I feel that a lot of atheists don’t understand how hard it really is to be brought up in a religious environment and to break out of it.
I was raised a catholic. My parents were catholic, I went to a catholic school, played football for a catholic football club, I had to go to church, they wanted me to join the choir (which I did), my father was a professional musician and he played the organ in that church, later he was the conductor of the choir, my mother would tell biblical stories, we watched programs for kids on an evangelical television broadcasting company, we had memberships for all sorts of catholic institutions and so forth. And my parents didn’t even saw themselves as highly religious people!
Pillarization or ‘pillarisation’ (the vertical separation of citizens into groups by religion and associated political beliefs) was still very present in our society in the 1970s (I’m 56 years old). This meant that I and many kids from my generation and older, were surrounded by people who believed in the Christian god. And when you grow up in an environment where literally all people, important people, people you love, relatives, friends, but also teachers, grownups, adults, people with important jobs, EVERYBODY you grew up with takes this whole god thing very seriously. Then who are you to question the truth of it all?
My first doubts came when I was in church, probably 7 years old, listening to a preacher who told a story about forgiveness and the consequences thereof. I don’t think I ever gave it a thought before, but when I listened to that story it just didn’t make any sense to me. The consequences…, this was about heaven and hell. And I remember thinking there can be NO WAY that this god that everybody’s loving so much, because he’s soooo good, that he would create something like hell, a place where you’ll burn and be in a terrible pain for eternity?!?!?!
So I made something up and I figured it out pretty quickly: hell wasn’t what we all think it is, absolutely not! No, hell is earth. Hell is where we are. Literally. Just look around and see what’s going on here on our planet. Wars, killing, hunger, diseases, pain, not just now, but it wasn’t much better in the old days if you had to believe in the stories about the history of earth and…..
Well…, that was me when I was only 7 years of age.
Of course I didn’t think god wasn’t real, but I was proud of myself for debunking the first, but very important myth that a good god could do or even think of such evil things.
It took me a couple of years of questioning more and more to finally come to the conclusion that god isn’t like a person who watches from above and do things that we don’t understand. No, by this time (I think I was 14 or 15 years old) god turned into a colorful ‘energy’ that was nothing more and nothing less than the key to the whole universe and the answer to all the questions we couldn’t answer.
A couple more years later I thought “well, who am I kidding? If this is what god is, why call it god anyway?
Of course, the idea of the bible as a book of truths was something I discarded a long time ago already.
But there was one thing I couldn’t let go of for a very long time actually. And you probably already know what it was. The afterlife. I really wanted to believe that death didn’t mean that everything ends there. Not for me and not for my loved ones.
I think it was after I had my first surgery under full anesthesia. When I woke up I slowly realized that I was away, I didn’t remember anything, I didn’t feel anything, no pain, absolutely nothing… and then I squeezed that last little bit of religious ballast, the result of many years of brainwashing by people who have been brainwashed themselves for all of their lives, out of my system. And oddly enough, it felt like a relief.
It’s a long story, but atheist people need to realize that it’s extremely hard to think rationally when you’ve been told irrational bs since you were born by the people you needed to trust more than anyone else.
And for lots of people, if not most people, it’s impossible to do. It’s so much easier to not ask too much questions and just believe what you’ve been told to believe.
Thank you for sharing your story, Mario.
@@mariodriessen9740 I think this story is quite common for people who grew up going to religious schools. (I am nearly 70).
My first doubt appeared about 7 when I came out of confession and two Protestants beat me up, stole my rosary and threw it down a drain.
My guardian angel didn't warn me. The claimed all knowing, all powerful god did nothing?
I told the priest about this. We had been told that the rosary was sacred and gods property we were privileged to look after.
The priest told me I must have deserved it some way by sinning without realising it?
This didn't add up to me. That was the beginning. By age 14 I was jumping over the school wall to avoid going to mass.
In later years, trying to find what might be true, I read the bible, koran, Bhagavad-Gita, etc and many other books. After a time you see a pattern in all of them.
The conclusion I arrived at was this, which I formulated as a question.
The truth is independent of perception it doesn't care whether you like or believe it or not. That's what makes it truth and not opinion.
One two part question for people with superstitious religious beliefs.
(A) If someone told you (or you read in a book) that the sun used matches and candles to spread light and heat at night.
Would it be obvious to you, how self evidently illogical, irrational, unreasonable and nonsensical this idea was? (Would you understand why)?
(B) If someone told you (or you read in a book) that something capable of creating a universe and everything in it, used puny humans and books to spread accurate information.
Would it be obvious to you, how self evidently illogical, irrational, unreasonable and nonsensical this idea was? (Would you understand why)?
All gods are imaginary. No people = No imagined gods.
I had an explosive run from very confidently religious to atheist in a matter of a couple years when I was 12-14 after a string of sad episodes that occurred in my family. I realize that religion didn't help me relieve the pain, nor did believing in a loving all-powerful God make it any easier to accept the tragedies that were happening around me. It was a very difficult trip and it hurt quite a bit (I had to completely discard everything that I believed about life and the world after all) but after I completely rejected any form of spirituality I started feeling more at ease with life and myself and others than I ever had before. I don't envy people who have faith, I'm happy they found their way to be happy and serene, but otherwise I just don't care.
This is honestly sad to see from a catholic pov
I'm catholic and will never give that up because it's the only thing that gives me comfort about death
Why be atheistic when.uncan be agnostic
There is so much of this universe that without God is left to miniscule chance that logically could not happen
To me: Religion was a foundation that builds on morals and such. However, they will never answer the truth of the universe, that we must do ourselves
Me too, well said 👍
Religion is not necessary for moral. Also technically you could argue that religion is a bad way to teach moral because "If you are a good person because of eternal damnation are you really a good person?"
Religion was made when people didn't know alot, so they just tried to fill every gap with god
So sad, people are missing out on the love and relationship that comforts every day through knowing Jesus. Why does everything have to be proved (it never will be!). Just look at the beauty of a flower without having to wonder hmmm, how did that come to be that shape/colour, etc. Can't you just accept a God of design. No-one will ever work out the universe. I for one look forward to the day I die and find out 😊
@@user-tb9nd4nw8y ngl same, its over tho when i actually see the big man
The first argument is basically: "Letters alone are meaningless! Therefore, words, phrases and texts cannot ever be formed from letters since they don't mean anything."
Guess alloys are fake according to the host?
Wonder what he thinks about assembly lines
It is a pretty good analogy.
"Blue paint isn't green, and yellow paint isn't green, so if you mix them the resulting paint won't be green."
"Freshly cut wood is rough, and sandpaper is rough, so rubbing one with the other won't make either one smooth."
"Ice is solid,. and salt is solid, so if I add salt to ice it can't become a liquid."
@@wizardsuth SCIENCING!!!
Host: "Atheists can't answer these questions"
Atheist: "Answers question"
Host: "Aight, let me just move this goal post"
"Man, sure glad these goalposts are on wheels. If they weren't, hoo boy, someone might discover that religion is just a tool we use to make sure the poor self-regulate their own poverty"
Or either they would love to say 'You are a liar'!!!
Maybe i shouldnt
speak too harsh about this, but honestly?
I think its embarassing.
I think the Host was, yes, 'respectful', kinda,
but also without Dignity and such.
Alone the fact that he claims no one can answer
this when probably everyone can answer this
with above gradeschooler knowledge? Its outright
embarassing.
Maybe I'm too harsh, but he should have talked
with people if he really wanted a viable video.
But like this, he just created a Video-Title
that is a Lie and build on that Foundation...
Am i really too harsh?
@Khush Bakht Khan Thanks, I am convinced.
@Khush Bakht Khan Wait, so if there had to be a creator to create the universe because nothing can come from nothing, who created the creator? Was it a giant turtle? Because I read somewhere it was a giant turtle, and that book was pretty awesome too, probably nearly as unique a fusion of prose and poetry as the Quran. Is it turtles all the way down...? 🤔
"Copper, iron and other metals in nature can't make anything on their own. So the internet in my computer must be the work of God."
This is a bad example because metals actually can't make a computer without an intelligent creator. The questioner tries to extend this point to atoms as well. In his video he said "bricks cannot form a house on their own".
To refute his point is actually a bit harder and requires a bit more depth on atomic interactions to explain the phenomena.
Actually understanding atomic interactions is not necessary to demonstrate that the analogy is false.
Computers are intelligently designed by humans. They belong to our natural reality; so to their tools, their materials and the procedures followed.
Creator gods are supposed to reside in a supposed supernatural reality.
@@marknieuweboer8099 a theist would argue that God is the "glue" that created intelligent life which then gave way to the creation of tools from basic materials. I don't understand your claim that God can only exist in a supernatural realm and not a real realm, you can't prove that assertion. But you can prove chemistry and quantum mechanics, so it's a much stronger argument IMO.
@ NoahD: it's not my claim. Take it up with theists.
Replacing tools, materials and procedures by a vague analogy like "glue" doesn't help. What does the word mean? What does it consist of? How does it work? We can answer such questions for designing computers, not for some creator god or another using "glue" to design intelligent life.
Oh - and why does that "glue" not apply to using chemistry, quantum mechanics and atomic interactions? You undermine your own argument.
I love how you stay polite and calm . This is another thoughtful and informative video. Bravo Drew:).
saying that 'atoms can't see or hear so they can't make something that can' is like saying 'i cant live in a brick so I can't live in a brick house'
I think that's the easiest to understand example of how atoms work
Oh my god! That is literally the exact same thought that I had when I watched this!
Again talking about both man made things. Bricks and houses. What about a heart? Put all the cardiac cells together it doesn’t automatically start functioning as a heart. What is it(soul) that leaves the body when your heart or other organs can still function? What is natural death? Why can’t you collect functioning organs from people who died of other causes like accidents and make another human being? So it’s true that some kind of atoms put together may function as a unit with new characteristics, but it’s not true for complex creations like a human being or plants etc
@@abdussamee9363
1. "Put all the cardiac cells together it doesn’t automatically start functioning as a heart." It is actually possible to grow heart tissue in a petri dish that has a sychronous heartbeat, given the right conditions/outside influences.
2. "What is it(soul) that leaves the body when your heart or other organs can still function? What is natural death?" I assume what you're talking about here is death by natural causes. But that only means that the cause of death was failure some part of the body without the impact of external factors. No doctor would ever say that anyone passed away due to 'their soul leaving their body'.
3. "Why can’t you collect functioning organs from people who died of other causes like accidents and make another human being?" Have you heard of organ donation? Obviously we can't create entirely new human bodies from old organs yet (why would we want to anyway), but it's certainly already possible to replace parts of it without big complications.
hope that helps :D
It’s like computers. Electricity and the metals and plastics that they’re made of aren’t smart, but arrange parts in a certain way and boom, computer
"Sodium and chlorine are dangerous substances"
"Salt is the mixture between sodium and chlorine"
"Salt isn't dangerous"
"The only possibility is the flying spaghetti monster's blessing over salt"
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Actually consuming too much salt can be deadly and in not recommended:P
Sodium and chlorine
@@WawrzynPL So can consuming too little salt.
@@WawrzynPL sure but it isn't dangerous to the point of exploding on water, unlike sodium by itself
The quote "Just because you can't explain it doesn't mean that you can explain it" immediately comes to mind.
"Atoms don't have wheels, so cars are proof of god's existence."
And something that doesn't have a property cannot give that property to something else. Therefore god has wheels.
@@terryhinch Let us pray to Chevrolet, the big gas guzzler in the sky
Lmao 🤣
Actually that was similar to my first thought: none of the parts of a plane can fly on their own, but put them all together and you can.
@@brammeijboom1873 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
My favorite saying about stuff like this. "The Universe is under no obligation to make sense to you."
Easy response: "I am under every obligation to attempt to make sense of the universe."
@@fisharepeopletoo9653 but not anything that you like
It's must be supported by lots of evidence
@@fisharepeopletoo9653 Easy rebuttal: "If the universe you make sense of is not the universe, you are not making sense of the universe."
@@efulmer8675 the universe would have to prove his Sense making false no?
@@nobodycares99 That could be accomplished by his sense-making predicting one thing and then the universe doing another.
It’s always an interesting conversation to have when you’re speaking to someone about their religious beliefs and they are capable of following logical paths of reasoning but they seem to somehow end up off the path because their beliefs weren’t the end of that path. You can often see moment they step off that path and either reach out for a logical fallacy or abandon logic entirely.
Who created the Creator? If a believer can accept that the Creator has no Creator, why should the Universe be any different?
Superficiality will not be an excuse at the Judgment of our deeds.
How superficial are those who believe that this reality always existed just by itself without any intelligence involved? (this is what atheists sustain by denying God)
They do not think enough to understand *the simple fact that from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes.* They ignore the intelligence put from the beginning. For example, the intelligence mentioned includes the exact value of the speed of light matching the manifestation of what we call "gravity", working together since the primordial conditions to form in the end this reality, which hosts intelligent life that is able to feel / understand / admire / enjoy / respect / love the Creator, especially through His human form, Jesus Christ.
Those wise enough understand that *God is not bounded by time (not being bounded by what He has created), respectively He is eternal, always existed, which means that He was not created,* but atheists ignore, also, other fact about the nature of God that *our power of comprehension will always be like how much the cups can think to understand the man who made them". Anyway, they have no excuse because we have Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity, to be able to understand.*
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God wanting to see the *free* choices/deeds. The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose, Satan with the other fallen angels (who, according to the "Parable of the weeds", have altered this world, the DNA... making the carnivores, the parasites, the viruses, bad bacteria etc.... to sustain the useless suffering) and their tools, the evil=stupid humans, not with the One who has offered freedom.
Therefore, we live into an altered and ruled world by the fallen angels, *allowed as an exam for our immortal soul (for us) to prove to the Creator how good we really are, how much we love perfection and how much we detest evilness=stupidity,* to prove that we are not following the demons anymore, through our deeds in this short earthly life, which will be judged 100% correctly for each of us. *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
In conclusion, what the unbelievers of the truth should understand is the fact that all evil we do, which cannot be forgiven by Divinity, is sending us to hell, instead of Heaven. This short earthly life is our chance to prove that we can be allowed into Heaven, to prove that we love perfection and always strive for it, by doing our best to use freedom only for good.
According to the following two testimonies (and many hundreds more available on CZcams) all evil we do, which cannot be forgiven by Divinity, is sending us to hell, instead of Heaven:
"Atheist College Professor dies and sees hell and demons - it changed his life - Pt 1";
"Atheist College Professor dies and sees hell and demons - it changed his life - Pt 2";
"Man Sees Unthinkable Horrors in Hell - Christians Being Tortured! (Mario Martinez)".
Therefore, the believing of the truth revealed by God/Jesus will help / convince / determine... us to always strive to do only good for the rest of our earthly life (and to always regret deeply our bad deeds, to sin no more), to be easier for us at the Judgment, to go into Heaven before many others, to never taste hell, to be more loved by Divinity, but *ALL humans will be judged for their deeds* (as seen into those videos mentioned).
I wish only well to everyone and as much wisdom as possible for everyone! To be saved!
Exactly!
Because univer never exist alwys it’s came to being that’s why it needs cause how cause this univers he is intelllgent powerful wise he create theses atheist
The day i make my own religion i'll say God became so powerful he created himself on a paradox
"Simple water"?
Boy, semen is way complicated than you think.
Clearly they missed the basic lesson about mitosis and meiosis cell division, chromosomes, RNA and DNA replication, etc in high school.
simple water lmao
@MλresDλniel TV Every matter in this world is made out of atoms, even human body.
You're right, tissues are made out of cells. And cells are made out of bio molecules like protein and nucleic acid. And molecules are made out of two or more atoms that bond together.
@@alvianekka80 It doesn't give me any new relevant information. If I'm curious about your new PC, i want to know CPU, videocard models. If you answer me, that your PC consists of atoms, I would think that you are strange.
@@user-gt2th3wz9c Bruh, we're talking about Genesis Science here, not daily ignorant and blissful life.
"I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned" - Richard Feynman
Y e s
I’m an atheist but don’t you think that’s just ignorance your rather not know an answer that can’t be questioned just because you may have some sense of self superiority people like that don’t sound intelligent they sound arrogant
@@KingBipo This is not about ignorance, but about blind acceptance. Although I'm ignorant on many subjects, I'm not justifying or celebrating ignorance. I would rather know than not know, e.g. what is the Christian vs the Muslim vs. the Jewish vs. the Buddhist views on questions of morality. I would rather be much more knowledgeable on Greek Mythology as well, and would be glad to have installed all of Homer's writings, the Quran, and the Kabbalah in my head. But that doesn't mean I mustn't question their views.
I think the atheist approach is much more democratized and humble: there is no absolute authority, except for the scientific method of experimental validation. Every single idea, book, person can be wrong, including e.g. Newton, Einstein, or anyone else. Every answer can be falsified and questioned. On the other hand every person can, potentially, acquire the power of knowledge, try to answer.
@@TheEranTalmor well in order to be a proper debater you must know all of those things but if you do follow a religion the whole point is that you follow and acknowledge that your inferior because if there is a god simply you are you have the freedom to disobey but you wouldn’t have the right to disagree because you are corrupt so what does your opinion mean that’s the point of religion self acknowledgment that’s why I respect religion because it builds being humble unless you don’t follow properly and you have a sense of Christian superiority but just saying those aren’t real Christians
Good point
2:19
Another counterpoint to this argument is this:
Let’s imagine I have a tiny cube. If I push it at one end, will it roll continuously? No.
Now let’s imagine I have 200,000,000 of these cubes, all glued together to form a low definition, rough sphere
Can it roll? Yes.
How does that work? Does god decided to grant it the property of rolling after I make it?
Very well spoken, and very respectful. Great video!
Metal doesn't move, but my car does... Fellas, I think my car may be powered by God? Wait, my weedwhacker is moving too... Damn, this is one hell of a spiritual experience.
I am currently setting up my [human infant] to a series of pulleys attached to a train, on a negative gradient, and already with a velocity of 10 m/s.
I bet I can get this baby to move the train.
Have you tried God Supreme? Way better than God Plus & leaves less supernatural residue
Sand can not create a phone call, but your phone, with a radio chip and CPU made of sand, all phones are powered by god.
@@charlzthehuman6550 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@freddan6fly 🤪😂
Basically all his points boil down to the classic: “I don’t understand, therefore God!”
I think therefore... I am... Lol
The dude even inadvertently admitted it in the preface to the 3rd question. "We see gaps between causes and effects"...therefore god. Literally the definition of "god of the gaps". This should be enough proof to corroborate the hypothesis that you can't argue with people like him.
I prayed to God to make me a teleiophile and look at that? I STILL love nick wilde best as his 8 year old fox cub self! In a way I follow Satanist philosophies however I'm an atheist all the way through.
@@failedsocialexperiment2382 ?
Buy the premise and its expected you'll buy the argument.
So in the first question, what he says is "Why can a car drive when the engine can not do it on it's own".
Like what?
I admire your patience... Keep up the good work!
“One can’t give what they don’t have to another.”
Debt
Lmao
You have no right to be this funny, take my like.
69th like
That's actually genius bro, I wish I had thought about that.
That doesn’t address the point he’s raising though lol
"3 Questions Atheists can't answer"
more like
"How to tell I never visited a biology class"
IM-
More like
"How to tell I'm a fucking idiot"
@UCSVIpaC4H5kRM98tYSTi3Hw let's keep it respectful
He lacks common knowledge and is blind to the facts but no need to call him idiot
@@redacted5065 He isn't blind to the facts, he actively denies it. He is an idiot
@@sini0071 He is an atheist so he is acting like da person who made da vid was wrong :\
you were absolutely righteous and rational in your answers, I love it
You're a saint to be so patient with those questions. I eyerolled so hard my corneas highfived my brain on the way back.
I believe “I don’t know” is a valid, honest answer.
So you are agnostic?
@@tchrisou812 I don't think he's anything because agnostic is believing in a god who hasn't interacted or plans to interact with the world since the beginning of time.
@@unclejoe8313 that's not what agnostic is, I don't think. And I've seen agnostic used as a modifier for atheist and theist. As well as gnostic. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god. But doesn't assert that no god exists or that gods existance is impossible. A gnostic atheist is someone who doesn't believe in god, bad asserts to know 100% that no god exists.
I mean... no one really knows for sure, why are people pretending they do?
Better to have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned
The real question is: Can atheists not answer the questions, or can theists simply not accept the answers they recive?
no, the real question is: Can't atheists answer the questions, or can't theists accept the answers they recive?
I bet you stupid atheists can't answer this question:
why did I piss my pants while sleeping yesterday 😢
No one said his answer wasn't acceptable, but you seem to have deduced this yourself
.
Hhhhh good luck
A question lack of intelligence. I must say
@@user-re8bw2js6pays the person, that can’t even get my comment right. People like that theist in the video, can’t accept any answer that doesn't includes a deity. These people love to use the _god of the gaps_ answer, which GeneticallyModifedSkeptic already pointed out. And there are dozen of theists like that out there, which tried to use these type of questions, to "destroy" science or atheism. That's a fact, and most of them can’t accept the answers either.
You did a great breakdown of his nebulous arguments. I watched the Toward Eternity video and the person speaking asked question which aren't testable without external help to make the question-line rigorous: 1) Where do these characteristics come from? 2) Who is the judge and who is the prisoner? and 3) What is the real reason? His questioning is unfocused and all over the map. E.g. when he jumps between behaviors and atoms, he skips the granularities in between which may be discussed in terms of biology, chemistry and physics.
This is the most respectful religious debate I’ve seen in a while
This isn’t a debate.
Atheist IQ:
The Obvious answer is, All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster and how he holds the universe together with his noddlely appendages.
Ramen my brothern. Don't forget to go relax on Friday.
@@xanebateup8069 Genius
@@Vynnter not genius...there is an actual church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the “Ramen, Brother” thing is an accepted part of Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, otherwise known as Pastafarianism.
Edit: removed “Invisible”, added “Pastafarianism”
@@Danlows1 Oh wow, didn't know that. I first thought this was a joke, but now that you mentioned it, i searched it up and you're right. Thanks for informing me!
Ramen brother.
“As the radius of knowledge grows, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.” -Einstein
Such a dumb quote to bring up, those were valid questions, and I as an atheist wasn't really convinced by the answers provided
@@Dante-nu5cn but neither you were convinced by the other guy's answers
@@Dante-nu5cn just out of curiosity, what did you find lacking in the answers provided in the video?
While Einstein wasn't really religious, he did believe in Spinoza's God and also said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". So I'd be a little more careful who you quote next time.
@@byron3718 quote isn’t meant to dispute the validity of religion, the quote is to reaffirm that the more we learn, the more we begin to understand how little we know
The "God of the gaps" theory has always perplexed, sometimes angered me, simply because of its obvious intellectual laziness. As you've indicated, Drew, more hypotheses must be formulated indefinitely to quench our thirst for the knowledge that seems so tantalizingly close.
I was away for awhile, but am back. Liked and subbed (again).
Peace.
1 Corinthians 15:1-4
King James Version
15 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
@@Angus-Johnson-8334Shut up bot
@@wokeydokey6885 not a bot
14:18 - "... if we accepted [all hypotheses that hypothetically explain our observations] we would have to accept a vast number of mutually contradictory explanations of the same observations ..." This lack of intellectual rigour and willingness to accept untestable hypotheses perfectly explains why there are so many different - and mutually contradictory - religions.
The burden of proof does not lie with people rejecting a statement, opinion or belief, it lies fully with the people pushing it and claiming its' validity.
I claim the validity (and more) of "there are no gods".
According to my following simple and undeniable demonstration, there should be no more atheists. Because of the following two simple facts:
- *from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes*
- *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process*
the existence of the Creator of this reality (God/Divinity) *is proved* by the existence of this reality with intelligence into it.
That is why atheists renounce to elementary logic and to simple rationality intentionally when they believe that this reality has always existed without any intelligence involved.
*God is not bounded by what He has created,* but atheists, in their superficiality, do not want to recognize their limitations. For example, science will never be able to really know, at least, what a photon is (the magnification process being infinite). Regarding the Creator of this reality (the nature of God etc.), our power of comprehension will always be like how much the cups can think to understand the man who made them (comparison mentioned in the Bible), but *we have Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity, to be able to see God and what He expects from us.*
I would much rather be stuck in a loop questioning everything rather than pretend to have answers to make myself feel better
Well religion makes you feel the most important in the universe
@@matheusformanskimiguel3822 also interesting how most gods in human history are animals that are anthropomorphized, and how man was made in god’s image. When most gods are made in man’s image
if you don't know what a can of beer is good for then you deserve your loop.
@@matheusformanskimiguel3822 perversely religion works in two opposite ways here... on the one hand it tells you you are special, were specifically created by a powerful force that now wants to guide your life with arbitrary rules, on the other hand though most religions also find flaws with us and will tell you you are pathetic, bad, broken or not worth god's love.
No wonder religion messes up your mind, it can't decide which lie to run with. And so every believer has to wrap their brain around contradictory base premises like that.
@@iwilldi That's nowhere near what OP meant and you know it.
“Mankind is made of two kinds of people: wise people who know they're fools, and fools who think they are wise.” - Socrates.
got shakesphere over here spouting some profound wisdom
"Two continents on this planet are named after a man whose only claim to fame is that he had the courage to say "We don't know" " - Yuval Noah Harari
I like that.
Fish do a swim and horses do the runs - The Daxtinator
Wow I bet you came up with this because, well it fits perfectly with the saying dumb people say "smart people think they are fools" to appear smarter.
It's actually quite funny, the guy says
- The fact you observe something does't mean you understand it
Then he claims to understand how laws of nature work(will of the god), based on observing them
Atheism isn’t about having the answers. It’s rejecting that the answer is a god.
Bro, that first question is literally: I can’t live in a brick, how come I can live in a house made of a lot of bricks? Or: Milk is a liquid, Sugar is a bunch of small crystals and eggs are slimey. There’s no way they can make a cake!
Like the house thing, bro... is the exact same thing I thought to myself. If he is thinking in those metaphors he should be able to come up with the house/brick example or if he hears/reads this metaphor, accept that things can work that way.
Glad that this im not the only one wgo thought of this
@@redwolf4025 My advice to you watch to "red staff" series from youtube. YOU WILL REACH THE TRUTH !
You will need a bit of flour too :)
He's a cake racist.. and also Hates HOUSES!!!!
It’s fun that he’s arguing for Allah. I can imagine a Christian listening up to right before then and being like “this guy knows what’s up” and then he drops the “therefore Allah” 😂 😧 😂
I think Viced said this in his video? dunno
@aden lol yes 😂😂😂
Yeah that's the generality of these apologetic arguments. They can always be used for every different kind of god, and thus (in addition to other reasons) utterly fail.
Someone pointed out to me that religious believers reject atheistic reasonings for not believing, but put a Christian with a Muslim to argue which god/text is true, and suddenly they start using a lot of atheistic reasoning to debunk each other. "You can't use those useless I need them".
@@Onoesmahpie That which proves too much proves nothing at all. Blaise Pascal had the same problem. Even if his reasoning had been sound regarding Pascal's Wager, it could not prove the truth of Catholicism, which was his hope.
I know English in 2 out of 10, so if the translation is bad, I'm sorry.
The best answer to almost any question on the subject of religion for me has always been this: "A human as a species and as a separate being is not able to fully realize the boundlessness of the surrounding world, therefore, as a bad artist, he draws sketches that seem to him to look natural. but the difference between science and religion is that science continues to look for details for the drawing and supplement" It is difficult for me to live with the realization that I am even less error within the universe, but it is sobering and gives a reason to develop
Great video, it's the first one that I see on your channel and meen, you earn a subscriber
In the first question he uses an example of a black pencil being unable to draw a rainbow, but this example alone can disprove his entire position. Take if you would 7 colored pencils, no one of these can draw a rainbow themselves as they lack the other 6 colors, but by using all 7 of them you can create a rainbow because even though a 'rainbow' was not a property any of them possessed, a 'rainbow' is merely an emergent property composed of 7 colors which each of the 7 colored pencils possessed one of. The only way for his comparison to actually prove his point is if the only way for a pencil to ever be able to draw a rainbow there must be a special 'rainbow pencil' and no pencil that isn't one (even if it can do more things) can ever be part of a process that leads to a complete rainbow drawing that doesn't require a 'rainbow pencil' at some point.
I was thinking a lot more simply, I guess. I was thinking it is easy to draw a rainbow with a pencil, the same way it is easy to draw a face or a tree or an ocean(if you are artistic enough to do so in the first place.) Just because something lacks color doesn't mean you haven't drawn it.
@@rpsdata I get that, but to be fully charitable I took what he was saying to instead of being that you can't 'draw' a rainbow instead to refer to the fact that a black pencil cannot, under normal circumstances, be used to create the 7 different colors needed to make a rainbow. I hope this doesn't come off as rude, but if you're interested I'll explain why I used the example I did even though your idea also came to my mind (not that you're wrong mind you, but I just didn't think that it lined up perfectly).
Now, I am sure that there are cases where you could use a black pencil to create each of the seven colors needed for a rainbow even (maybe with special paper, or surfaces, or something), but that would give him room to sorta pull back about that not being what he meant as he was merely giving this as an easier to understand example (potentially even arguing that your introduction of special circumstances if you introducing an outside element which proves his point of there being an outside element). Which is why I felt it best to address the point on the basis that he outlined, wherein a pencil can only be used to make drawings of one color and the implied requirement for a rainbow is to use all 7. Under these conditions, referencing how one could use 7 differently colored pencils that have different properties but are still pencils still follows the rules he outlined while pointing out the emergent properties as the Drew talked about, and this comparison also works since he was trying to say that atoms can't be used to create something they aren't themselves. One could say that your comparison is akin to him saying that atoms cannot make up the body of a human being (the outline/drawing of a rainbow), which isn't correct as I don't think he denied that our bodies are ultimately composed of atoms when you break it down, instead he was referring to the 'intelligence' behind a human being or any other life (in this example this is represented by the colors of a rainbow), the 7 colored pencils in this example each represent different types of atoms and it is their interaction together that allows a new drawing to be possible where none were able to originally do it, and when you realize this you see that his example required that there was a pencil that had 'rainbow' as an inherent property (in this case a higher intelligence) for 'rainbows' to ever be fully colored. By this though, it's not simply enough for a 'rainbow pencil' to exist, as it must also be impossible for normal colored pencils (atoms) to be able to ever make a fully colored rainbow as he posits it's impossible for atoms to ever make the full 'intelligence' behind animals. Granted disproving this example doesn't render his full point moot, but it does reveal that for a truly fair example of what he was referring to you have to make a far more complicated system than he realizes.
Sorry that I rambled on for awhile, but I like to talk about some of these things and ultimately the point I felt should be pointed out wasn't that his metaphor was built on a faulty premise (that you cannot draw a rainbow with a black pencil), even though it was, but that his example inherently disagreed with his own argument that emergent properties don't exist, and he simply closed his mind off once it 'agreed' with him and failed to consider alternate perspectives.
@@rpsdata Spot on! My immediate reaction to that awkward rainbow analogy was, yes, you can draw a representation of such a thing with a pencil.
The rainbow carries millions of colours. We could see 7 distinctive colours only. The boundaries are not defined and mix of various colours at various levels give different shades, just like TV where only 3 basic colours are needed to define all 16 million known colours!!
If I have a black pencil, and a piece of rainbow scratch paper, I can draw rainbows, and all kinds of colorful images!
By his original analogy, that would be like if the universe *itself* contained the potential for order and structure out of chaos, needing only any random stimulus to set it off... which is probably not far off from reality. I think it's fair to say he's dead wrong. 😄
"you can not give a feature you don't have. To someone else"
Bald hair stylist
Ha!
Lol
Creative
i dont support the original argument u put into quotes i just wanted to point out that the example u gave doesnt really work since a hairstylist doesnt GIVE hair, a bald hairstylist doesnt give that feature they dont have (hair) to their client. they do nothing more than what the name suggest and that is styling. this ofc unless we are talking about wigs in which case that would be correct :D
@@luanamariamusat4920 they do not have a hair style yet they are able to give a hairstyle.
For example this bald hair stylist does not have a mohawk as they have no hair however they are able to give someone else a mohawk.
I went and looked at question 2. It's really badly phrased but these are the notes I took while watching it and I think they summarise it in a way that makes it easier to understand. It's just a more advanced form of the usual arguments about evolution and life etc etc
If everyone is a soldier a commander is required
If everyone is a prisoner, a judge is needed
It is a rule that you can't be a judge and a prisoner at the same time
A room can't be dark and light at the same time
A piece of paper can't be dry or wet at the same time
Generally, one can't hold opposite attributes at the same time. This is a contradiction
Now think of a building being built, if we do not accept the architect to build it, it will be a contradiction to assume that the bricks are building this on their own.
The bricks will therefore be prisoners (controlled) and judges (controlling) at the same time.
The bricks have no ability to form a building on their own as they are both the controlled and the controller if no architect is assumed.
He is arguing that the atoms in the human body are the same in that they can't be controlling and controlled at the same time.
How can atoms get along with each other and create so many people every day while they have no knowledge, free will and life? (aka how to they know what to do if there is no atom controlling and therefore no atom being controlled?)
In summary, bricks can't form a building without an architect and atoms can't form a human body without a creator themselves.
I guess I'm just glad for the great phantom noodley appendage pressing me down on the earth and preventing me from flying off the earth.
"I don't know how things work, therefore magic."
*SEIZE THE WITCH*
why do you think they were burning the witches
Because they are streotypists????
@@asherong909 😂🤡
Boss: I thought you were going to be late? You live 20 minutes away. You got here in 10 minutes.
Me: Magic🧙♂️
Faith is the ultimate "trust me bro...."
The unbelievers of the truth are like those who live in "a house" (this world) but do not want both to follow the rules of the Builder/Owner (they denying Him) and to pay "the rent" (which means, in brief, to strive always only for good, for perfection, to never do evil, especially to not do evil intentionally) so that in the end, when they will face the Builder/Owner of the house (at the Judgment), they will regret their incorrect and undeserved using of the house (their earthly life).
_"In everything you do, remember your end, and you will never sin."_ Sirach 7, 36
*_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
@@filmeseverin That entire argument relies on the fact that someone OWNS the "house". You still don't prove God. This is more of shunning than an argument.
I have proved the existence of God in many other posts (answers and top comments / new threads). Those interested can sort the comments to read enough from my recent and quite recent messages to see my demonstrations.
@@filmeseverin Rocks literally disprove god. Rocks have been carbon dated to more then 6000 years ago - which is when the Bible claims the universe began.
That guy really didn’t even think about his own question, is like asking if my foot can’t run on its own, how can my body run
Thanks for your channel
Wish there were more like it
The main difference boils down to science being cool with "I don't know" as an answer.
It's also ok with, "we were wrong."
As Neil Tyson says(talking about UFO's) I don't know what that is, period. PERIOD!!!
Being a Christian and a student with an interest in science I have struggled with the nature of the universe and creation. I came to the conclusion that humans know nothing, we observe so little of what exists and we come up with answers either in a religious sense or a scientific sense. Like the story of 3 blind men interacting with an elephant, one feels the trunk and thinks it's a snake, one the legs and thinks it's a tree, one the hair on the tail and thinks it's a bush. None of them are right but are using what they know to form a conclusion. So while you may know many religious people who think they know and understand everything, a good portion of us admit to not knowing and just turning to religion as a means to explain the unexplainable.
I remember a lot of my childhood days getting shouted at if I answered with 'I don't know' to a question I didn't know the answer to.
Or "I don't know yet".
"a football player isn't a team, so they can't come together to make a team" this is literally his argument
That's the basic counter to any fallacy of composition.
Not exactly, it’s more like “10 football players by themselves don’t have the skill to beat a football team, so how could 10 of them together beat a football team?”
Your analogy is more like “an atom can’t come together to make a group of atoms” which isn’t really his argument
A tree isnt a forest, so a bunch of trees cannot be a forest
No, actually: "a team isn't a wholly different thing, distinct from its members or unexplained in terms of them". #1 is a really, really good point. His only good point, really, because even to #3 I could just respond with "they just are". Like theists imagine their gods, "He just is".
@@icygood101
#1 isnt a good point because it ignores emergent properties
If nothing new could ever emerge then history, on the cosmic scale, would be a series if closing doors; all it would take is one time that a property didnt emerge across the universe and it would disappear forever.
I love that Terry Pratchett reference with the turtle. 😄😆
for the first question i like to use binairy as counter argument,
1 or 0 dont mean much on their own, yet when you have enough of them they can create basically anything. It works the same with atoms, molecules etc.
Question 2 is basically ”what is DNA and I am confused about how it works”
Programming for our cells! (Simplified,) Our cells basically use it like programming in a computer, how to work, what to do, all that.
@@user-H_mI think they meant that the person in the original video talking about Allah was saying that, not the commenter themself.
Corrected, "What is DNA and i am generally confused on how it works, so it must probably be something god made!"
Similar to how the ancient people questioned "where do clouds go?", "what is this lighting?", "why am i sick? If there is no cure then god send it", "why is my cattle this angry today? It must be a sign", "how could there be this much water on this ocean, i dont understand how Earth could be sphere yet not in a constant juggle of maintaining this much water", "damn, the stars look so cool! Well, god made them juat for us to gaze on his work! What do you mean they are not actually small?", "where does the wind come from, and why does it not cooperate with my ship? Must be sign of god."
Science has answers to these questions, except "where do we go after we die?"...
And thats why theism is still around.
@@yusufcan-xl2dpScience DOES have an answer for that, just not one people want to hear...
A chemical compound in basically almost any living thing except virus that use rna or other exception. Dna is chemical compound that has structure that provide shape you are familiar with. Each if the 3 strand can be decode to make protein which is what make ech living thing different.
“One cannot give what one doesn’t have to another one.”
The entire field of chemistry says otherwise. Reagents have different properties than their products.
Plus:
If god created everything and everyone and the creator has all the traits of what he created god also inhabits all the bad traits like racism and similar
In other words, "I'm so unimaginative, ignorant, and bound to my own indoctrination that I don't even know what emergent property is, therefore God."
This is actually a principle in law, ("Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet"). However, it applies pretty much only to purchases and sales that ordinary citizens make in everyday life (meaning that you cannot sell or give away what you don't own), but there are many exceptions to this rule: i.e. thieves can sell stolen movable goods on a public sale and the buyer will nonetheless become the new owner; if a person erroneously believes that they are the owner of a real estate for 10 or 20 years without any interventions by the real owner, then they will nonetheless become the owner due to their good faith (_usucapio_); brokers and other types of agents can sell other people's property etc.
hydrogen and oxygen are both very flammable. mix them together, and they become something that can put out flames.
Its a great example of that in action
The best part is that his analogy doesn't even work. Atoms aren't giving us anything, we are made up of them. They combine with others to form something more complex.
You can't draw a rainbow with a black pencil, but you can't draw it with a red one either. You need to combine different colors and paper. The end result has properties (colors) that the individual parts (pencils) don't have.
I looked at the second question, and the conclusion i came to with his explanation is that he's trying to say "the things that happen must have something causing them to happen", he then compared the bricks in a house to the atoms in a body, and said that an object cannot hold 2 opposite properties at once.
Otherwise, he basically reiterated that atoms don't have a will to create, therefore god, while conveniently not mentioning how things can join together on the atomic level without a will behind them
"This metal cannot be driven, therefore it cannot be made into a car"
Atheists renounce to elementary logic and to simple rationality intentionally when they believe that this reality has always existed without any intelligence involved, because *from no intelligence involved no intelligence comes and the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process. That is why the entire process until nowadays is proving the existence of God.*
This reality has been created intentionally so that freedom to be 100% offered, God wanting to see the *free* choices/deeds to reward accordingly. *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10
The problem is with those who have used (are using) their freedom for doing evil on purpose. That is why it is not easy to fight continuously with what Satan has done to this world (carnivores, parasites, viruses, bad bacteria... the so called _"weeds"_ in Matthew 13:24-43) and to ourselves ... because *until our physical death we fight with the works of the fallen angels and of their tools, the evil=stupid people, the consequences of evilness = stupidity.*
@@filmeseverinyou think on far too short a timescale. Given an infinite amount of time, every conceivable thing would happen in the universe just down to probability. There is a high degree of hubris involved in assuming things don’t happen at chance and randomly to lead to where we are today and that some form of intelligence MUST be involved.
This Universe has *a finite* amount of time (from its beginning to its end). I recommend the reading of my recent messages for a better understanding.
By the way, more than 2000 years ago Jesus Christ, the human form of the Creator (God / Divinity) has said:
*_"The sky and the earth won't last forever, but my words will."_* Matthew 24, 35
He also said: *_"I am the way, the truth and the life."_*
Unfortunately, the superficial ones or/and those too deceived do not think enough to understand *the simple fact that from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes,* the entire process until nowadays proving the existence of God because *the results of a process prove the intelligence involved into that process* (even schoolchildren can understand that every photon, ... atom, ... cell has intelligence into it, *not to mention their functionality together).*
They ignore the intelligence put from the beginning. For example, the intelligence mentioned includes the exact value of the speed of light matching the manifestation of what we call "gravity", working together since the primordial conditions to form in the end this reality, which hosts intelligent life that is able to feel / understand / admire / enjoy / respect / love the Creator, especially through His human form, Jesus Christ.
1+1=2, but 1 doesnt have any curved lines, therefore god created 2
Mind of a Christian 💀
Underrated lmao
Pre-Christian Romans be like: II
And god cant give traits if he doesn’t ones so therefore god is a number he has curved lines
@@pajac6809the mind of an atheist is that the universe and everything blew up into existence from nothing and by nothing, i’d say that requires much more faith ngl
The difference is science accepts "they don't know" but religion doesn't
Muslims where the first to put science into the next level, also i recommend checking out the scientific facts in the Qur’an
@@Theotok0s Check out all the violence and killing in the Quran.
@em ma fr, just because there are a few scientific stuff in a religion doesn't mean shit
@@Theotok0s yea bro i Trust you, because my magic has been detroyed by the Qur'an, i realized that Qur'an have some kind of power to burn evil things amazing book keep it up bro if you are attacked by magic try to recite some your book thing i believe it can destroy the spell, my friend has defeated me he is really pious
Purple and red aura need to be known by many people, many people only know the lime aura or the yellow aura, very very narrow thinking they have no knowledge about it 😌😌😌
Second question to me is again another assumption about judgement and I believe in turn about social justice.
I’ve seen it in different language on other videos.
Thank you for giving such wide view on each of these subjects
I would want to point out that making a rainbow with Pencil IS possible but:
1. You need to know which sade will translate to what color
2. Rainbow will be in shades of Gray
3. to Prove it's a Rainbow and not a random stake of shades of Gray you will need to use a filter to show it in color which is possible to get with modern technology.
I don't understand why people can't accept "We don't know, yet."
Your right, not knowing what number the answer is doesn’t prove its 1 because it could be 2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9 and so on This means that not knowing why everything exists doesn’t prove that it’s god this only means we don’t know yet And doing science is what will eventually tell us how and why everything is here
It's an age-old truth: people are scared of the unknown. It's one of the reasons I think religion was ever invented. Biggest thing people are scared of is death - just ceasing to exist. They can't fathom what it is like; they can't comprehend the unknown. So they make up a god who can save them from it; someone who can give them all the answers.
@@enderawesome4521 That's probably a better explanation than any God or conspiracy I've heard all year
Because that's agnostic. Atheistic is "we know there ain't anything."
@@theboombody Atheist: lacks belief in a god/gods
Agnostic atheist: lacks belief in a god/gods but is open to the possibility that one might exist because we can't know for sure
Gnostic Atheist: lacks belief in a god/gods and is certain that one does not and can not exist
They're both atheists.
"Well science can't explain everything, so therefore god."
Of course science can't explain everything, if it could then there would be no more science to do. And where's the fun in that?
That’s like saying it’s God’s fault of your child being a horror show because you can’t explain why they are
If the universe has fun, god must exist (easy explanation for everything) :D :D :D
@@georgy2596 close, they would say it’s demons
They love using god of the gaps fallacy but you can't expect to have a logical debate with people that believe in angels
I disagree, I believe science can explain everything but we just haven’t found the answers yet
Last time I had same argument with religious dude, I simply asked that "If I agree with your reasoning that it is a GOD, can you for sure prove it is that 1 god you are beliving in?". It was the end of argument.
10:09 very true and the loop is closed when you realize both is the same...questioning the world/discerning it
Can you imagine how technologically stunted we would be if everyone was just like "how does it work? God. Why does it work? God."
It’d be very boring as well. Imagine just choosing to believe that one person just created everything when you could instead choose to explore the mysteries of the universe and find infinite possibilities
I once saw an animation about it where Adam and Eve never eat the fruit and even leave the fucking tree to explore, have babies and all animals, tame a dinosaur and ride it until God comes down and literally yells "EAT THE FUCKING FRUIT"
That is rather the point. Religion was used to keep people dumb and obedient. Asking too many questions and changing the balance of power is not good for cult leaders.
@@muchotexto4248 😂do you remember the title, would like to watch this
@@malikkateta5323 I think it was "If man obeyed God"
"A single person can't lift a 500kg weight. Therefore, 20 people can't possibly lift a 500kg weight either if not using God's strength"
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ dude, stop responding with this to everyone's comment. It's spam.
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ that doesn't give you the right to spam it on every comment.
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ "I'm not here to make you happy." So you're trying to convert and educate people about your religion, but yet you have no intention of doing so to benefit them?
"... If it's coming from your subjective point of view that still doesn't give you the right to force it as an absolute truth to people." Both of our views are subjective, you can't say that since you think I'm wrong then you must be right. Neither of us can say who is objectively right. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't be forcing your religion upon people in the comments section of a video about an atheist discrediting the questions a theist claimed atheists couldn't answer. I find it quite ironic how you say that I have no right to "force it as an absolute truth to people" but yet this all started because you are spamming a copy/paste response of you trying to force your religion upon people because you believe it to be true.
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ do you know what a period is? I feel like that would help me understand what on earth you are trying to say.
@Gwwc’mp Éfghœ why wont people believe that im a god? they suddenly want proof. i shouldnt have to prove it. what happend to faith?
religion is bs.
After rewatching this and reviewing his second question, I believe it to be an assertion that an authority must exist to force something or someone to do something they dont willingly opt into. The bricks wont willingly form themselves into a building, a prisoner wont willingly put themselves in jail (though some prisoners do surrender to the authorities and plead guilty, but I'll grant their point for the sake of argument.) Therefore, an architect must put the bricks in a given order, a judge must be the one to put a prisoner into jails, and another intelligent force must be behind the forcing atoms into intelligent structures.
The seems to run into the issues or the laws of nature and us being unable to confirm where they came from. Atoms form into their structures due to the force applied by the laws of nature. This immediatly bleeds into his rebuttal about the laws of nature and Drew's statement about not being able to fully assert the source of the laws of nature. Seems to be utziling god of the gaps and intelligent design.
Thank you for this amazing video! I love how you said that theism doesn't necessarily hinder the use of the scientific process, and instead said that the god of the gaps method is leading to a dead end. I feel like this is an amazing statement! I admire your ability to bring across messages. It doesn't feel offensive in any way. Love your work, I hope to see more awesome videos like this.
He was nice about it, but you gotta think. When atheists don't have an answer they simply say science hasn't discovered the answer, but we just need time. They have faith that science has the answers.
Actually we don't know whether science will find all the answers. You're bearing false testimony.
The God of the Gaps fallacy was recognized by Henry Drummond and Dietrich Bonhöffer. Neither was an atheist.
@marknieuweboer8099 I firmly believe that God did create everything, and when I don't know how something works, I believe God does fill in the gaps if you will. What I'm trying to say is that it's more reasonable to say God did it than to say that we just need more time to find the answer. Atheists have faith that their theory works regardless of the evidence. I quote Frank Turek, " I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
@ DailyRR: Repeating your falsehood without addressing what I wrote only makes you look worse.
@@marknieuweboer8099 What are you saying? I did address the fact that we do say God found a way to do it even if we don't know how. Again, the issue is that you are in the same boat.
Watching someone so fundamentally misunderstand science is so SO fascinating to me.
Are you talking about the guy who made the video or the guy who they are reacting to?
@@jessegrepper4676 take a wild guess
@@jessegrepper4676 yes
@@blueredbrickvery
@@jessegrepper4676 Okay
"How can a peacock come from an egg"
This guy forgot that animals needs to eat to grow.
Plus, he doesn't realize that the egg is EVERY BIT as complicated as the peacock.
THIS IS what i think before i see this comment lol
Peacock ? Nah .what about the huge ass ostrich bro. The size of that thing and how it comes from an egg is just mind boggling .
@@andrewjonas6437 just take everything about the peacock and its egg and just upsize it.
How can magikarp evolve into gyarados?
huh checkmate athiests
Electricity and rocks do not contain words. Yet my computer has words on it? God.
Science: we dont know, we're trying to figure it out
Religion: we dont know so it cant be anything other than god
Well not really religion is belief and because we dont know we believe there is a superior intelligent creator, but that does not mean i should say “i dont know something so i will say god” you need to study the thing and thats why religion encourages studying, questioning and observation. Sorry if the sentences dont connect very well.
Those people are called religious fanatics. The actual religious people accept science and religion and that they can coexist
@@omarsaif5354 uh no? Religion doesn’t encourage studying. When someone questions a religion they get ridiculed, not told “good job”
@@rebeccacummings6697 If only this could be more true! Its more like, the people who truly, absolutely stick to reason, alone, are the chads. Using evidence collected and making deductions, and for some, it points to the proof of God, while for some it doesn't (though I REALLY want to say "hasn't" instead)
@@Copp.r true religion encourages studying. I absolutely do NOT blame you at all for your opinion though, because all that ridicule is I swear, is a misrepresentation of religion, a sin on those who comitted it. And I do believe it's difficult to believe me because it's SO difficult to find sources that dont misrepresent.
I am cross towards (these kinds of) theists, they become prideful, and so they ridicule others because of their own self-righteousness, leaving atheists feeling humiliated and that is NO WAY to have a discussion, let alone come to a conclusion.
His first point is literally disproved by *water colours*. Neither the blue nor the yellow are green on their own but when mixed they BECOME green.
Damn you just completely debunked his point with such a simple response.
Green spaghetti monster? I thought his holy noodly appendages was red and yellow.
And equally, there's more than one type of atom. And they can form structures with their own unique behavior. It's also not a good argument for the existance of god, because it suggests that god (who would be the one holding the pencil) wouldn't be able to create human life from atoms.
Green doesn't exist.
@@wokeuptomorrow4533 no, YOUR green doesn't exist. But MY green is the only real Green, and is the source of ALL greens. An ancient colour-chart assured me of this, you foolish A-greenist...
The first question doesn't use the Fallacy of Composition - it uses the converse, that the properties of the whole must also be properties of the part. Which is so clearly invalid that it boggles the mind.
I love how intricately he words these questions to make them sound smart :D
Yet another video that should be renaimed to, "3 questions that aethiests have answered and explained countless times but my personal bias wont let me acknowledge."
No one said his answer wasn't convincing, but you seem to have deduced this yourself , hhh
@@user-re8bw2js6p I'll be honest I can't decide if your reply is agreeing or disagreeing lol
@@Alucia0I saw the same person trying to disprove another comment, they said "we Muslims" and "you atheists," so I would infer that they're disagreeing with you but idk. their reply to you didn't make much sense in my opinion
You mean the answers from your friends were biased
He didn't
As a biologist, he fully overlooks at existence of our research.
Your research will never explain the origin of life or the origin of consciousness, sadly. But keep trying tho it's cute
@@MrFlameRad no need to be disrespectful
@@MrFlameRad Pretty sure it will. There are already many hypothesis and unlike the hypothesis you believe in a scientist isn't bound to believe one hypothesis and just accept 'it is how it is' they can continue to prove and disprove and continue to uncover more question than what they started with and one day eventually the research will explain the original of life. But even now, at least they can move forward unlike your belief that walls your progression and knowledge. Everything you know about life was discovered and practiced because of scientist and not God. It's like when somebody gives a hungry food and they thank God instead of the person that actually fed them. You can believe what you want. I don't consider myself Atheist and do occasionally worship god and pray but it doesn't give me or anyone right to insult the hard work of others. At least they have proof to what they believe in, can't say the same about you and I.
What do you think about this? As a computer scientist, I don't understand what he's talking about.
czcams.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/video.html
@Ezra Cohen i don't mean to discredit science but science has to expand its parameters if it truly wants to understand reality, in my view. If we stick to hardcore materialist science we will never solve consciousness, guarantee it
I wonder if that guy ever played with LEGO bricks.
Guys unicorns exist, an acquaintance of my friend’s cousin read this book that illustrates the vision of an eye witness who saw the unicorns flying through the sky
Teacher: "Johnny, what is six time seven?"
Johnny: "uh, I don't know"
Billy (sneering): "It is 49, duh!"
My point is: even if atheists have no answer for a given question doesn't mean the person who has an answer actually has the right answer.
I have answered for anything,but if you want the correct answer maybe ask someone else 😉
Teacher: What's trinity times porridge?
Johnny: I don't know
Tucker: It's Holy Ghost!
Teacher: Correct Tucker, that's what I taught you! See Johnny, Tucker can answer questions you can't.
My point is, having a question doesn't mean this question makes sense, and having an answer to a question doesn't really mean much in itself, especially when the same person provides both the question and the "correct" answer
Wait, how is your comment from a day ago?
@@NJ-wb1cz Lol
i died after realizing the answer was wrong. good one.
Flying spaghetti monster solve 99% of the questions a theist may have.
My advice to you watch to "red staff" series from youtube. YOU WILL REACH THE TRUTH !
@@enesrp1712 dude.... stop.
Ramen🍜🍝🙏👀
If u are actually not trolling, no, the fsm cannot answer ANY of the questions any theist has.
@@pureone8350 Depends on what a theist typically ask. lol
It is really OK and completely honest to say that you don't know. What is far, far, immeasurably more dangerous is to insist that you do know, when there's no logical reason to suggest that you do.
He's like "But steel is heavier than feather" guy!