@@LyovaCampos I'm assuming you're talking about his views on universalism. He's orthodox; universalism isn't a heresy. That's just a buzzword that freaks people out.
@@weezy894 You haven't studied our religion correctly then - universalism AND all of Origen's allegorical blasphemies were condemned by the Church as contrary to Scripture & tradition, so educate yourself, instead of listening to an arrogant pretentious sophist who shamelessly TWISTS the words of both Scripture, St. Nyssa AND the decisions of our Ecumenical council, ok? We eastern Orthodox reject him & all the modernist innovators who try to paint our faith in their own image. Moreover, he & his ilk believe in the pagan Aristotlian god of just 1 act & will, who's like an involuntary machine dependent on his necessities, and has no emotions. They are false prophet who contract the Word of God, so you need to wake up, because he drags innocent souls with him to the everlasting fire of Sheol & FYI THIS is an objective reality which you should fear from, not his imaginary Disney movie of "all shall be saved"🙏❤
@@weezy894 You haven't studied our religion correctly then - universalism AND all of Origen's allegorical blasphemies were condemned by the Church as contrary to Scripture & tradition, so educate yourself, instead of listening to an arrogant pretentious sophist who shamelessly TWISTS the words of both Scripture, St. Nyssa AND the decisions of our Ecumenical council, ok? We eastern Orthodox reject him & all the modernist innovators who try to paint our faith in their own image. Moreover, he & his ilk believe in the pagan Aristotlian god of just 1 act & will, who's like an involuntary machine dependent on his necessities, and has no emotions. They are false prophet who contradict the Word of God, so you need to wake up, because he drags innocent souls with him to the everlasting fire of Sheol & FYI THIS is an objective reality which you should fear from, not his imaginary Disney movie of "all shall be saved"🙏❤
@@weezy894 @weezy894 You haven't studied our religion correctly then - universalism AND all of Origen's allegorical blasphemies were condemned by the Church as contrary to Scripture & tradition, so educate yourself, instead of listening to an arrogant pretentious sophist who shamelessly TWISTS the words of both Scripture, St. Nyssa AND the decisions of our Ecumenical council, ok? We eastern Orthodox reject him & all the modernist innovators who try to paint our faith in their own image. Moreover, he & his ilk believe in the pagan Aristotlian god of just 1 act & will, who's like an involuntary machine dependent on his necessities, and has no emotions. They are false prophet who contract the Word of God, so you need to wake up, because he drags innocent souls with him to the everlasting fire of Sheol & FYI THIS is an objective reality which you should fear from, not his imaginary Disney movie of "all shall be saved"🙏❤
Cold is the privation of heat. Prison is the privation of freedom. Hell is based on your free will, and the result is the privation of the source of all good, which is God.
DBH does believe that hell is real. He simply thinks that at the end of all things, every single existing thing will find its true reality in God.@@jasonb4321
@@fermingarza6357hell is a manmade construct to control the weak minded is all Spending eternity kissing some guys ass sounds like hell to me but I don’t believe in heaven either
I became an atheist because I wanted to seek and prioritize truth among all else. I don't hold the position that nothing supernatural exists, as that would require extensive knowledge. However, I withold my belief in the supernatural until it can be sufficiently demonstrated. It's an effort to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible.
Great video. This seems to be a more powerful argument for agnosticism. I also don't know what is meant in the last slide where you talk about existence preceding nature... I just have no way to conceptualize that.
God, a nonmaterial omnipotent spiritual being, set off the Big Bang, thus giving existence to not only the material world but also space and time (nature). God is Existence. Therefore, because of God, we exist. God precedes nature.
@@fermingarza6357 Even if we accept that existence is the first cause as it were, the thing that the natural world is contingent on, for existence itself to be God does it not need to have agency and personhood? Otherwise wouldn't it just be a principle not a being one can have a relationship with?
No... You are deferring to the next instance. Instead of accepting that the universe may be "self sustaining", you instead argue that a supernatural being has to sustain it while failing to see that it itself would have to be sustained by something else. If it were sustained by our natural realm then the whole "natural world - supernatural being" system again would be "self-sustaining" or whatever you guys want to call that. Therefore a non "self-sustaining" system isn't possible without an infinite chain of more super natural beings supporting the less supernatural being all the way down to the natural. He failed to take his argument through to the end. Religious people always conviniently stop whenever you can make a somewhat convincing analogy. Let's humor the analogy used in the video however to deomstrate how flawed it is: when in a box feeling gravity pulling you towards one end you would indeed only be able to tell that you are being pulled to one end. It may very well be that the box is on the floor on earth. It could also be accelerating upward at 9.8m/s^2. Some guy named Einstein figured that out. Now let's say you indeed are on earth on the floor. What sustains the floor? The floor itself. The atoms push each other way so the planet doesn't collapse and the mass attracts the mass together so it doesn't float about.
I am pretty sure the box analogy was just meant to be a commentary similar to Plato’s cave. That being we only know what we have experienced, so even if we are told the truth it’s beyond our experience. To that fact, any truth we learn beyond our experience or understand is a belief. It’s really not that crazy of a concept. It happens all the time in a much smaller scale in the material world. Humans experience what looks like a flat world and when people tried to tell the truth most people rejected it. That being said, I’ve never done a scientific test to prove the sphere nature of the world, I just have reasonable faith in what others have told me. It’s not really a proof to god, as others pointed out, it’s more a proof to agnosticism.
What would be the evidance that our universe is self creating and self sustaining? And why would a supernatural being have to be sustained by anything?
How did he come to know that most atheist claim that there can be nothing but material in the way he is using it. saying we have no way of knowing if there more that material, is not the same as we know it's all there is. So this all rest on a strawman. There is more that one type of materialism and charry picking one the way his is, feel like a lie.
"Is there something outside nature" what even kind of question is that? its basically: is there stuff that have no properties of existing but exists", like "this thing exists but not in an existing way, instead of it it exists in non-existing way"
Ok... i usually avoid this type of content, but youtube deside (for some reason) to show me this, so i watched it and desided to respond. 1. Atheism is not a belief nor naturalism or anything else aside atheism. Non-theism is literraly what is it. Atheists themselves can hold any beliefs, unless they do believe in god. They can deny any supernatural, some supernatural, or even believe in every single supernatural... thing, aside god. So, you can't argue against naturalism and declair you do some form of gotcha to atheism or atheists. 2. 1:06 here we have a proposition to understand how god definded in great riligious traditions and conclude - atheism is irrational. From point of view of believer? Maybe. If i belived in diety i'd probably was confused why some other people can't see things my way. From point of view of an atheist? No. Why for any non-believer, any religious standings should bare any weight? If i do not belive in god, i do not belive in his word, therefore in his book, therefore any of his claims is pointless to me coz i do not belive he exist and can made them. 3. Naturalism (reminder - is not atheism by default) is not a belif system :) It's a phylosophical idea. Most of the people use it like a lense to analise the world. And most importantly, it can be discarded immediately if it's found to be usless. Or can be combined with any other lense of phylosophical ideas. Unlike religion, coz if you do something like this with your religion, you kinda... bad in the eyes of god of this religion? Am i wrong? And as far as i know, naturalism never condemned anyone who desided to use any other phylosophical idea. Or maybe naturalism is too wrathfull and destroys such traitors on spot so they can't tell their stories. Allways a possibility :) So - with factual errors like this in the FOUNDATION of this critique, you can't go well. Coz you can't decide who you criticizing, for what exactly, and can't accuratly describe ideas you think people you critisizing hold. P.S. English is not my first language, so i hope, it wasn't to much pain to read my comment :D
If an atheist can believe in Ghosts and the after life but not in God itself, then how can him or her remain a real atheist? You are wrong in describing Atheism as merely a non belief in God. Atheism is contingent upon a denial of all pre-ternatural and supernatural phenomena.This is why materialism/naturalism goes so well with Atheism, they require each other in order to survive, otherwise Atheism means nothing at all. In other words, atheism is the direct result of a total naturalist or materialist view of the world , cosmos, existence, etc, etc.
@@Salazar-79 no, I'm absolutely correct in my definition of atheism. I'm not arguing with assertion most atheists are naturalists, but there is absolutely nothing requires atheists to be naturalists. More on that - I personally know several people who spiritual and strongly opposed to the idea of personal god, and one dude who believe in souls and ghost, but agnostic towards idea of creator. And you can look for this combination online, especially considering some new age stuff and weird cults, like Scientology. Lots of them believe in immortal souls, supernatural things like magic, but rejected the idea of any god/ believe God is just an evolutionary stage of humanity. I can be wrong, but Mormons believe we can achieve godhood.
@@oldensad5541 Oh yes I know those types exist, I am just pointing out the inconsistency and incoherence of their position, God belongs in the same world view as immortal souls etc, if you follow logic it leaves no room to hold that in tension with a non belief in God.
@@Salazar-79 I dunno. Everyone have their own logic throughline. Someone like me, definitely falls under your umbrella description, and I can understand it perfectly fine. But some people are pretty sure supernatural exists, just for some reason can't fit any God in this scenario. And despite my disagreement with their beliefs, I can easily understand them, and follow their explanation. I don't think we have some universal criteria for marking some positions exclusively "consistent" and other exclusively "inconsistent". Usually it's mix of everything. Little bit of logic, rationality intuition, hope and beliefs. Someone for example can believe, as you mentioned, in existence of souls and ghosts, but baffled by famous "problem of evil". This person can become naturalist, and discard any possibility of supernatural, or this person can hold to their beliefs, but came to conclusion any type of Personal God is impossible under our conditions. Both of this conclusion a pretty consistent, and I can't see how second one is necessary flawed in any particular way.
Generally speaking - everything exists because of an original cause of some sort, so by extension the universe itself most likely exists because it was brought into being by something or someone. As a bit of an agnostic/deist/former Christian - my only argument is with the various specific details many religions are so confident and assured of. The idea of a first cause that was intelligent being responsible for what we see around us is not unusual at all - whether all the specifics argued by various faiths are is another matter.
Generally speaking, that which is not explained by science, is that which is claimed for the 'outside of reality' creator. Religion is the inability to say'I don't know.'
The fundamental level of reality doesn't come into being. It is without be6gin or end, and what we see is just the rearrangement of that fundamental stuff that make up the universe. So the universe is eternal intrinsically as the universe is identical to this fundamental stuff. Given that the unuverse is eternal, why suppose that something outside rhe universe needs to keep the universe in existence?
There seems to be some confusion in the comments about the arguments being presented, in particular the first argument. The burden of proof is on those who hold the premise that nature is a self-sustaining system. Currently, we know that there are mechanistic processes in nature but nobody has proved that everything in nature (especially consciousness) is purely mechanistic, let alone that nature is a self-sustaining system. As it stands, the self-sustaining system idea is only a supposition at best. In this system, everything is a finite, mechanical cause and, as a result, there are an infinite number of finite causes causing finite causes and processes. Nobody believes in a self-creating, perpetual motion machine, and yet, this is exactly what the self-sustaining system proposes. Even some rationalists don't agree with this and want to go with the idea that our universe is a simulation created by highly intelligent beings. This is basically a 21st century deism.
The first argument is irrelevant, it’s just a subtle reworking of ‘shifting the burden of proof’. Not believing in magic should not necessitate a burden of proof. The second argument (which doesn't belong to Bentley Hart), is also irrelevant, as the theist is also bound by the limitations of their consciousness to relay information about the universe, regardless of what they believe. The third argument is problematic as having no answer (honest people), is preferable to having a non-answer with no explanatory power (theists). Beyond that, it has multiple issues regarding causation and time.
Your first point is countered by the fact that there's lots of evidence for God, such as philosophical arguments. I think that you misunderstand the second argument. The theist's position is that consciousness is a reliable, honest source of information. As stated above, there is evidence for God's existence. Also, don't leave us hanging: what are its issues concerning causation and time?
@@thehighlander6770 Arguments aren’t evidence, they’re arguments! And I think you probably realise I’m quite familiar with most of them. Good evidence however, that would be interesting. “The theist's position is that consciousness is a reliable, honest source of information” That is demonstrably incorrect. As a flippant example nearly 40% of Americans believe in ghosts. At best, our mind provides a ‘useful illusion’ of the universe in which it lives. We trust it due to it’s continued reliability not de facto reliability. It is this continued reliability and ability to corroborate that we use to apportion trust to all ‘minds’. The entry point for the issues with time, is that everything we know suggests that time is a property of our universe. We currently (and possibly ever) can’t investigate the very early universe as our known rules of physics break down. Therefore we don’t know that time is even a coherent concept in that epoch. And that’s just the beginning of it, however, none of it precludes a God. If a God can ‘puff’ any chosen universe into existence last Thursday, then it’s impossible to disprove that, but our inability to disprove it is not evidence that it happened.
@@thehighlander6770 Unsurprisingly, H, you can't show a single bit of this supposed evidence. And those philosophical arguments never get to your particular god. I don't misunderstand the second argument at all. You claim that conciousness comes from your god. No evidence for this at all. Tell me how you would know to start something if there was no time, no idea of "when".
I know many people here have already explained their issues with these arguments, but I'll attempt to do the same, but also show why using simple analogies can be misleading. I used to be a Christian, so I'll also attempt to cover how people might respond to my points. 1) The gist of this first argument is that you can't prove something doesn't exist, therefor it is irrational to assume it doesn't if you have no evidence for it. People have already pointed out that this is shifting the burden of proof onto nonexistence, but I'll try a different tact - if you believe in something purely because you can't disprove it, then the same is true for everything. If you don't want to have a double standard, it is in your duty to believe in EVERYTHING you can't disprove, whether it be in all other religions, aliens, flying hippos or a god that creates gods. It is for this reason that not having evidence for something is enough to disregard it. Now, my problem with this analogy - this only sounds sensible because rooms are something we see every day, and are by definition something that has something externally. Let's say one of people in the room declared that there is an invisible table in the room. When the other searches around and finds nothing, he says there isn't a table. He then continues to berate and belittle the other, proving that anyone who doesn't believe in the table is an awful person - the analogy you used has a hidden message about how atheists behave, and I can't help but see it as bad faith. 2) 'Why would we trust our mind's reasoning that naturalism is true?' I would like to remind you that a mind also reasoned that naturalism isn't true - this is a non-argument because it can apply to almost anything. You can literally make it a blank space, 'Why would we trust our mind's reasoning that _____'. If you're instead arguing that our own senses can't be trusted, then we are left with nothing to trust, except the existence of our own mind ('I think, therefor I am'). 3) This is a particularly funny argument whenever I hear it - it relies on the idea that the universe should have been caused by something, and the idea of something that just exists doesn't make sense. If you haven't figured it out already, this is also a problem theism - if a god caused the universe, what caused the god? And what caused that? And that again? The reason I find this so funny is that many theists will readily believe their gods are allowed to just exist without known cause, but the universe itself isn't allowed to because...? Anyways, there goes my long reply to a month old video that appeared in my recommended for some reason. If you want what I actually believe, I believe in the supernatural as much as I believe in Darth Vader, but I also believe in the nonexistence of the supernatural as much as the nonexistence of Darth Vader.
1. The first argument is not a "shifting of the burden of proof", and atheists do in fact, make claims and will move hell and highwater to avoid being caught dead with the burden of proof (what else is the "lack of belief" nonsense definition of atheism if not a perpetual shift of the burden of proof?) Too often, atheists will assume that burden of proofs apply to only a particular person or group of people, as opposed to claims. Atheists see the theist claiming "God exists" and then therefore, naturally, will say they have to substantiate it. The error is they'll extend this to all philosophical and theological debate, implying that they CAN'T have the burden of proof. They're atheist, after all. So what if the atheist says things like "God is a sky fairy", "there is only the physical world", or "morality is subjective." They're atheist, they're a PERSON without a burden of proof. A person has a burden of proof with respect to a CLAIM they make (of which, atheists do, in fact, make claims regarding the realm of theology). I also contest that atheism is a "lack of belief", as I've seen no evidence that atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is the proposition that there is no God, and therefore requires substantiation. That naturalism can not be verified extranaturally is a criticism of naturalism, and it is sound. This does not mean there is an obligation for the atheist to believe in Zeus or flying hippos or whatever. It does imply the atheist is obligated to abandon their superstition/abandon naturalism. And atheists do behave that way. You can see several of the comments on this video corroborating that. 2. "Under naturalism, there is no reason to assume your consciousness' perceptions correlate with truth or reality at all. They align with what's evolutionarily favorable." "Oh yeah, well you're limited too, if naturalism is true!" This is a non sequitur. DBH's point that if you're a naturalist, you have no reason to assume that what you perceive with your consciousness is true, but rather, that what you perceive is evolutionarily advantageous to you. The difference between the atheist and the theist here is that the theist does not assume naturalism, and therefore has no need to be consistent with this, since they do not profess it. Again, this is not a call for the atheist to believe in flying hippos or whatever else you like, but it is a call to abandon naturalism. 3. Dude is seriously using "what caused God" excuse. Come on. I thought you were serious for a second. The video showed a rudimentary pseudo-cosmological argument (namely to criticize naturalism, yet again), but you need to contend with what theists actually say. Guess what? If the "who" in "who caused God" actually caused God, then the so-called God in this argument is contingent and not God at all. God is definitionally necessary, noncontingent, noncomposite. The universe itself is not allowed to because the universe is contingent. Ever heard of the Big Bang? Also, DBH, being a classical theist, I think is using this pseudo-cosmological argument in an essentially ordered sense (as opposed to an accidentally ordered one, which assumes temporal causation) Your so-called refutations are anything but. Thanks for playing.
the idea that God is created is like the worst objection to theism , stop living on the internet and read a book on the philosophy of religion or something
@@user-cz1mz3pp9n If you’re so indoctrinated by philosophical materialism that you can’t even IMAGINE the possibility of anything else…well that kind of halts the discussion.
@@joshsuko8185 maybe because i'm as any human have experienced only material things and my imagination have ability only to generate anything as a product of my previous experience But other people take some material stuff(emotions, ideas, math objects, religious experience) and call it non material arbitrarily Emotions exist in a brain, changes in emotional state correspond to state of a brain perfectly and any change in brain change emotional state Ideas are generated by brain, perceived by brain and exist in brain(while being correlated to the world outside of a brain) math objects are some kinds of states of brain(physical object) created through contact of brain in a body with physical world and so on like why are you - someone with as you may think non material experiences of some sort are a human with a sophisticated nervous system and not something else entirely why your as you may think non physical mental state is fully dependent on your relations to physical world what can you think of that is as it may be is not physical and have no relations to physical universe? like everything supposedly immaterial for us to be able to say anything about it manifests itself in one form or another in physical dimension religious "non material" stuff refers in my opinion in most of the times to material thoughts about material objects that are not currently present at the moment and saying that it is in another realm is an excuse to why something someone claim is there have no signs of being there
David Bentley Hart's writings don't lend themselves to being adequately explained in a short 7 minute video presentation. Oversimplification to the point of misrepresenting him is inevitable in such a format. He's the kind of writer who has to be read and then re-read several times in order to grasp everything he's saying. This video makes him seem easy to dismiss, which he isn't if you actually understand his positions. He's not a garden variety Christian apologist. He's Eastern Orthodox and believes firmly in the doctrine of Apokatastisis, so his theology is radically different from that of the mainly Protestant Evangelicals that militant atheists are used to butting heads with, and he has no real desire to convert anybody. He actually has nothing against atheists as such. He only attacked the 'New Atheists' for being lazy and limiting their attacks to obviously retarded forms of Christianity that any teenager could tear apart rather than taking the time to understand the broader and more mature Christian tradition that would actually require deep study and contemplation. However, DBH always respected Christopher Hitchins and regards him as the only one of the 'New Atheists' that actually made a strong case for atheism with the problem of evil. A debate between DBH and CH was being planned but then CH got really sick and left this world, so it unfortunately never happened. That would have been a debate worth seeing, especially since the two were very alike in the sense that they both shared a strong preference for a strategy of attack rather than of defense. Had this debate happened DBH would have been forced to make his belief in Apokatastisis public much sooner than he actually did because Apokatastisis is the only thing that makes it possible to present a plausible theodicy without compromising either God's omnipotence or omnibenevolence. Hitchins used to wipe the floor with Christian apologists who don't believe in and affirm Apokatastisis because they simply can't offer a plausible theodicy that doesn't make God either impotent or evil or both.
DBH's theology is hardly "watered down." It is very sophisticated and draws from ancient and medieval sources, along with being logically rigorous. He's also quite familiar with Hinduism and Buddhism. Philosophical naturalism, as the belief that nothing exists beyond physical forces and objects, is an unjustified limitation on what is admissable as existing, and "nature" on this definition cannot account for its own origins and contingency. That naturalists have felt so compelled to try to reduce or explain away consciousness and subjectivity -- the one thing we know immediately, that's unlike anything else in our experience -- suggests that perhaps their worldview is too small.
Superstitions: Superstitions are beliefs or practices that result from ignorance, fear, or trust in magic or chance. It is impossible to be superstitious about something for which there is no proof or evidence e.g. gods. It is impossible to be ignorant about something for which there is no proof or evidence e.g. gods. It is impossible to fear something you know doesn't exist. And atheists certainly don't believe in magic.
@@xa4445 Seriously is all your stupidity derived from your delusion or do you have a routing of banging your head 50 times against the wall each morning? Prove me wrong: 1. Is it possible to be superstitious about something for which there is no proof or evidence? 2. Is it possible to be ignorant about something for which there is no proof or evidence? 3. Is it possible to fear something you know doesn't exist? 4. What sustainable proof or evidence can you provide that your god isn't just magic you invented? 5. Prove any of those apply to atheism other than that's what you want to believe without proof or evidence.
Because we experience existential awe about reality it has nothing to do with our man made gods and scriptures.Thankfully we won't live ti infinity .Yikes!
This box argument is so disingenuous. It casts the theist as knowing what "floor" is, and is seen as smart because we all know what "floor" is, but the theist still has no evidence, and it casts the atheist as incurious. Many atheists become atheists because the questions "why" and "how" are insufficiently answered by any given theistic viewpoint. Why do neither of the people push on the edge of the box? If all that exists, as far as either knows, is the box, and they will live out their existence in the box, then does it matter if it's floor or gravity or the backs of 4 elephants outside the box? If Jehovah, the Amazon employee driving the truck, says nothing, then does it matter if the atheist doesnt believe? If Jehovah kills the atheist because he didnt believe, and the theist gets to ride along in the truck telling Jehovah how great he is forever (the length of an Amazon shift), then is Jehovah good? Here's my analogy. Two cave men are standing in a field looking at the moon. One says, "It must be a god!" and the other asks, "Why?" and then they never agree.
JimBob laid out the problem of a mechanistic universe much better and explains just how destructive it is to the naturalist worldview on their own terms. If you want to hear those arguments laid out even more philosophically check out Jay Dyer and his version of TAG
Dear Visual Catholic, you seriously gone out of your way to extend the simplicity of atheism. You know this, ie that atheism is the simple lack of believe in a god and/or gods. How that comports with naturalism, big bang, metaphysics, etc. is irrelevant, and you know that …. Total misdirection and sad 😔
YOU CLEARLY dont know what the definition of atheism actually is. How can asking for factual verifiable compelling evidence for a supernatural claim be considered a "superstition"? Atheism is simply a question; CAN YOU SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE¿?
There is a failure in the presentation of the positions that comprise being an atheist. An atheist need not assume that physicalism is the only interpretation of reality. I don't need to assume that there is nothing supernatural to be an atheist. Nor entities that are not made of matter or energy or do not respond to the laws of perceived reality. I am an atheist. That is, I do NOT think that God exists. The idea "God exists" is not in my mind. This absence of an idea has no requirement and does not represent an interpretation of reality. In my case, I have not seen that there is the slightest need to consider that something sustains the existence of reality continuously. But that is not related to my atheism. In any case, I find it contradictory that you affirm that someone affirms that there is nothing outside of reality (being that reality is everything that exists). Stating that there is nothing outside of reality is tautological. The strange position is to affirm that there is something apart from what exists, which also exists. It is not possible for humans to affirm that they possess an objective truth. An objective truth is one that does not depend on people's opinions. It is people who think that something is true and that kills any possible objectivity. No. Existence cannot be prior to what exists. This is absurd. This results from an idealistic interpretation of reality and right here shows its logical flaw. Existence is not an ideal entity that dwells on a supernatural plane. To assert such a thing would be gratuitous and unfounded.
As a Christian, I have had the sincere joy of seeing some really smart/thoughtful atheists find and place their hope in Christ. Besides, as the comments here demonstrate, atheism is such tired and boring position to take. ; - )
@@rubemartur8239 said, "Unless you point which terms isnt logic based, i could think you are doing Ad ominen." XD LOL proving me right. Seeing as how they don't understand logic it makes sense they would not understand logical fallacies either.
Its' always hilarious how chrsitains have to lie about others. Unsurprisingly, atheism is simply the conclusion that a particular god or gods don't exist. Claiming it is a "superstition" fails hilariously, since supersitions depend magical nonsense. I, as an atheist, dont' by into magic. Hart seems to be just one more ignorant theist who has to pretend that everyone "really" does agree with him, when we do not.
The people in these comments have clearly read or listened to a single of harts talks and it shows... great work spreading these ideas.
Hart is the biggest heretic of our time
@@LyovaCampos I'm assuming you're talking about his views on universalism. He's orthodox; universalism isn't a heresy. That's just a buzzword that freaks people out.
@@weezy894 You haven't studied our religion correctly then - universalism AND all of Origen's allegorical blasphemies were condemned by the Church as contrary to Scripture & tradition, so educate yourself, instead of listening to an arrogant pretentious sophist who shamelessly TWISTS the words of both Scripture, St. Nyssa AND the decisions of our Ecumenical council, ok? We eastern Orthodox reject him & all the modernist innovators who try to paint our faith in their own image. Moreover, he & his ilk believe in the pagan Aristotlian god of just 1 act & will, who's like an involuntary machine dependent on his necessities, and has no emotions. They are false prophet who contract the Word of God, so you need to wake up, because he drags innocent souls with him to the everlasting fire of Sheol & FYI THIS is an objective reality which you should fear from, not his imaginary Disney movie of "all shall be saved"🙏❤
@@weezy894 You haven't studied our religion correctly then - universalism AND all of Origen's allegorical blasphemies were condemned by the Church as contrary to Scripture & tradition, so educate yourself, instead of listening to an arrogant pretentious sophist who shamelessly TWISTS the words of both Scripture, St. Nyssa AND the decisions of our Ecumenical council, ok? We eastern Orthodox reject him & all the modernist innovators who try to paint our faith in their own image. Moreover, he & his ilk believe in the pagan Aristotlian god of just 1 act & will, who's like an involuntary machine dependent on his necessities, and has no emotions. They are false prophet who contradict the Word of God, so you need to wake up, because he drags innocent souls with him to the everlasting fire of Sheol & FYI THIS is an objective reality which you should fear from, not his imaginary Disney movie of "all shall be saved"🙏❤
@@weezy894 @weezy894 You haven't studied our religion correctly then - universalism AND all of Origen's allegorical blasphemies were condemned by the Church as contrary to Scripture & tradition, so educate yourself, instead of listening to an arrogant pretentious sophist who shamelessly TWISTS the words of both Scripture, St. Nyssa AND the decisions of our Ecumenical council, ok? We eastern Orthodox reject him & all the modernist innovators who try to paint our faith in their own image. Moreover, he & his ilk believe in the pagan Aristotlian god of just 1 act & will, who's like an involuntary machine dependent on his necessities, and has no emotions. They are false prophet who contract the Word of God, so you need to wake up, because he drags innocent souls with him to the everlasting fire of Sheol & FYI THIS is an objective reality which you should fear from, not his imaginary Disney movie of "all shall be saved"🙏❤
Belief in a literal Hell is the ultimate perversion.
Cold is the privation of heat. Prison is the privation of freedom. Hell is based on your free will, and the result is the privation of the source of all good, which is God.
Neither atheists nor David Bentley Hart believe in eternal conscious torment (hell). So, why add an irrelevant comment here?
DBH does believe that hell is real. He simply thinks that at the end of all things, every single existing thing will find its true reality in God.@@jasonb4321
@@fermingarza6357
Gods that don’t exist can’t be the source of anything.
@@fermingarza6357hell is a manmade construct to control the weak minded is all
Spending eternity kissing some guys ass sounds like hell to me but I don’t believe in heaven either
I became an atheist because I wanted to seek and prioritize truth among all else. I don't hold the position that nothing supernatural exists, as that would require extensive knowledge. However, I withold my belief in the supernatural until it can be sufficiently demonstrated. It's an effort to believe as many true things as possible and as few false things as possible.
Great video. This seems to be a more powerful argument for agnosticism. I also don't know what is meant in the last slide where you talk about existence preceding nature... I just have no way to conceptualize that.
The idea is that to cause itself to exist, Nature would need to exist already.
God, a nonmaterial omnipotent spiritual being, set off the Big Bang, thus giving existence to not only the material world but also space and time (nature). God is Existence. Therefore, because of God, we exist. God precedes nature.
@@fermingarza6357 Even if we accept that existence is the first cause as it were, the thing that the natural world is contingent on, for existence itself to be God does it not need to have agency and personhood? Otherwise wouldn't it just be a principle not a being one can have a relationship with?
No... You are deferring to the next instance. Instead of accepting that the universe may be "self sustaining", you instead argue that a supernatural being has to sustain it while failing to see that it itself would have to be sustained by something else.
If it were sustained by our natural realm then the whole "natural world - supernatural being" system again would be "self-sustaining" or whatever you guys want to call that. Therefore a non "self-sustaining" system isn't possible without an infinite chain of more super natural beings supporting the less supernatural being all the way down to the natural.
He failed to take his argument through to the end. Religious people always conviniently stop whenever you can make a somewhat convincing analogy.
Let's humor the analogy used in the video however to deomstrate how flawed it is: when in a box feeling gravity pulling you towards one end you would indeed only be able to tell that you are being pulled to one end. It may very well be that the box is on the floor on earth. It could also be accelerating upward at 9.8m/s^2. Some guy named Einstein figured that out.
Now let's say you indeed are on earth on the floor. What sustains the floor? The floor itself. The atoms push each other way so the planet doesn't collapse and the mass attracts the mass together so it doesn't float about.
I am pretty sure the box analogy was just meant to be a commentary similar to Plato’s cave. That being we only know what we have experienced, so even if we are told the truth it’s beyond our experience. To that fact, any truth we learn beyond our experience or understand is a belief.
It’s really not that crazy of a concept. It happens all the time in a much smaller scale in the material world. Humans experience what looks like a flat world and when people tried to tell the truth most people rejected it. That being said, I’ve never done a scientific test to prove the sphere nature of the world, I just have reasonable faith in what others have told me.
It’s not really a proof to god, as others pointed out, it’s more a proof to agnosticism.
What would be the evidance that our universe is self creating and self sustaining?
And why would a supernatural being have to be sustained by anything?
How did he come to know that most atheist claim that there can be nothing but material in the way he is using it.
saying we have no way of knowing if there more that material, is not the same as we know it's all there is. So this all rest on a strawman. There is more that one type of materialism and charry picking one the way his is, feel like a lie.
"Is there something outside nature" what even kind of question is that? its basically: is there stuff that have no properties of existing but exists", like "this thing exists but not in an existing way, instead of it it exists in non-existing way"
Ok... i usually avoid this type of content, but youtube deside (for some reason) to show me this, so i watched it and desided to respond.
1. Atheism is not a belief nor naturalism or anything else aside atheism. Non-theism is literraly what is it. Atheists themselves can hold any beliefs, unless they do believe in god. They can deny any supernatural, some supernatural, or even believe in every single supernatural... thing, aside god. So, you can't argue against naturalism and declair you do some form of gotcha to atheism or atheists.
2. 1:06 here we have a proposition to understand how god definded in great riligious traditions and conclude - atheism is irrational. From point of view of believer? Maybe. If i belived in diety i'd probably was confused why some other people can't see things my way. From point of view of an atheist? No. Why for any non-believer, any religious standings should bare any weight? If i do not belive in god, i do not belive in his word, therefore in his book, therefore any of his claims is pointless to me coz i do not belive he exist and can made them.
3. Naturalism (reminder - is not atheism by default) is not a belif system :) It's a phylosophical idea. Most of the people use it like a lense to analise the world. And most importantly, it can be discarded immediately if it's found to be usless. Or can be combined with any other lense of phylosophical ideas. Unlike religion, coz if you do something like this with your religion, you kinda... bad in the eyes of god of this religion? Am i wrong? And as far as i know, naturalism never condemned anyone who desided to use any other phylosophical idea. Or maybe naturalism is too wrathfull and destroys such traitors on spot so they can't tell their stories. Allways a possibility :)
So - with factual errors like this in the FOUNDATION of this critique, you can't go well. Coz you can't decide who you criticizing, for what exactly, and can't accuratly describe ideas you think people you critisizing hold.
P.S. English is not my first language, so i hope, it wasn't to much pain to read my comment :D
Not all non-theists are atheists. But DBH was targetting the New Atheists which are anti-theists and naturalists
If an atheist can believe in Ghosts and the after life but not in God itself, then how can him or her remain a real atheist? You are wrong in describing Atheism as merely a non belief in God. Atheism is contingent upon a denial of all pre-ternatural and supernatural phenomena.This is why materialism/naturalism goes so well with Atheism, they require each other in order to survive, otherwise Atheism means nothing at all. In other words, atheism is the direct result of a total naturalist or materialist view of the world , cosmos, existence, etc, etc.
@@Salazar-79 no, I'm absolutely correct in my definition of atheism. I'm not arguing with assertion most atheists are naturalists, but there is absolutely nothing requires atheists to be naturalists.
More on that - I personally know several people who spiritual and strongly opposed to the idea of personal god, and one dude who believe in souls and ghost, but agnostic towards idea of creator.
And you can look for this combination online, especially considering some new age stuff and weird cults, like Scientology.
Lots of them believe in immortal souls, supernatural things like magic, but rejected the idea of any god/ believe God is just an evolutionary stage of humanity.
I can be wrong, but Mormons believe we can achieve godhood.
@@oldensad5541 Oh yes I know those types exist, I am just pointing out the inconsistency and incoherence of their position, God belongs in the same world view as immortal souls etc, if you follow logic it leaves no room to hold that in tension with a non belief in God.
@@Salazar-79 I dunno. Everyone have their own logic throughline. Someone like me, definitely falls under your umbrella description, and I can understand it perfectly fine. But some people are pretty sure supernatural exists, just for some reason can't fit any God in this scenario. And despite my disagreement with their beliefs, I can easily understand them, and follow their explanation. I don't think we have some universal criteria for marking some positions exclusively "consistent" and other exclusively "inconsistent". Usually it's mix of everything. Little bit of logic, rationality intuition, hope and beliefs.
Someone for example can believe, as you mentioned, in existence of souls and ghosts, but baffled by famous "problem of evil". This person can become naturalist, and discard any possibility of supernatural, or this person can hold to their beliefs, but came to conclusion any type of Personal God is impossible under our conditions.
Both of this conclusion a pretty consistent, and I can't see how second one is necessary flawed in any particular way.
Generally speaking - everything exists because of an original cause of some sort, so by extension the universe itself most likely exists because it was brought into being by something or someone. As a bit of an agnostic/deist/former Christian - my only argument is with the various specific details many religions are so confident and assured of. The idea of a first cause that was intelligent being responsible for what we see around us is not unusual at all - whether all the specifics argued by various faiths are is another matter.
Generally speaking, that which is not explained by science, is that which is claimed for the 'outside of reality' creator. Religion is the inability to say'I don't know.'
Agreed!
I am an atheist and I thought this video was really well done 👍🏻
Thank you, it's kind of you to say that!
The fundamental level of reality doesn't come into being. It is without be6gin or end, and what we see is just the rearrangement of that fundamental stuff that make up the universe. So the universe is eternal intrinsically as the universe is identical to this fundamental stuff. Given that the unuverse is eternal, why suppose that something outside rhe universe needs to keep the universe in existence?
There seems to be some confusion in the comments about the arguments being presented, in particular the first argument. The burden of proof is on those who hold the premise that nature is a self-sustaining system. Currently, we know that there are mechanistic processes in nature but nobody has proved that everything in nature (especially consciousness) is purely mechanistic, let alone that nature is a self-sustaining system. As it stands, the self-sustaining system idea is only a supposition at best. In this system, everything is a finite, mechanical cause and, as a result, there are an infinite number of finite causes causing finite causes and processes. Nobody believes in a self-creating, perpetual motion machine, and yet, this is exactly what the self-sustaining system proposes.
Even some rationalists don't agree with this and want to go with the idea that our universe is a simulation created by highly intelligent beings. This is basically a 21st century deism.
The first argument is irrelevant, it’s just a subtle reworking of ‘shifting the burden of proof’. Not believing in magic should not necessitate a burden of proof.
The second argument (which doesn't belong to Bentley Hart), is also irrelevant, as the theist is also bound by the limitations of their consciousness to relay information about the universe, regardless of what they believe.
The third argument is problematic as having no answer (honest people), is preferable to having a non-answer with no explanatory power (theists). Beyond that, it has multiple issues regarding causation and time.
Ok, thanks for stopping by!
@@VisualCatholic aka the catholic has has nothing to rebut these points.
Your first point is countered by the fact that there's lots of evidence for God, such as philosophical arguments.
I think that you misunderstand the second argument. The theist's position is that consciousness is a reliable, honest source of information.
As stated above, there is evidence for God's existence. Also, don't leave us hanging: what are its issues concerning causation and time?
@@thehighlander6770 Arguments aren’t evidence, they’re arguments! And I think you probably realise I’m quite familiar with most of them. Good evidence however, that would be interesting.
“The theist's position is that consciousness is a reliable, honest source of information” That is demonstrably incorrect. As a flippant example nearly 40% of Americans believe in ghosts. At best, our mind provides a ‘useful illusion’ of the universe in which it lives. We trust it due to it’s continued reliability not de facto reliability. It is this continued reliability and ability to corroborate that we use to apportion trust to all ‘minds’.
The entry point for the issues with time, is that everything we know suggests that time is a property of our universe. We currently (and possibly ever) can’t investigate the very early universe as our known rules of physics break down. Therefore we don’t know that time is even a coherent concept in that epoch. And that’s just the beginning of it, however, none of it precludes a God. If a God can ‘puff’ any chosen universe into existence last Thursday, then it’s impossible to disprove that, but our inability to disprove it is not evidence that it happened.
@@thehighlander6770 Unsurprisingly, H, you can't show a single bit of this supposed evidence. And those philosophical arguments never get to your particular god.
I don't misunderstand the second argument at all. You claim that conciousness comes from your god. No evidence for this at all.
Tell me how you would know to start something if there was no time, no idea of "when".
What is really Astonishing is the fact that they undermine an old religion to establish a new one !!!
How smart !!!! 😂
Just because physicalists can't explain how nature came about doesn't mean there's a Santa Clause.
Good job Christians don't believe in any kind of Santa-like figure then, isn't it?
Excellent job on this video. Thank you!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I know many people here have already explained their issues with these arguments, but I'll attempt to do the same, but also show why using simple analogies can be misleading. I used to be a Christian, so I'll also attempt to cover how people might respond to my points.
1) The gist of this first argument is that you can't prove something doesn't exist, therefor it is irrational to assume it doesn't if you have no evidence for it. People have already pointed out that this is shifting the burden of proof onto nonexistence, but I'll try a different tact - if you believe in something purely because you can't disprove it, then the same is true for everything.
If you don't want to have a double standard, it is in your duty to believe in EVERYTHING you can't disprove, whether it be in all other religions, aliens, flying hippos or a god that creates gods. It is for this reason that not having evidence for something is enough to disregard it.
Now, my problem with this analogy - this only sounds sensible because rooms are something we see every day, and are by definition something that has something externally. Let's say one of people in the room declared that there is an invisible table in the room. When the other searches around and finds nothing, he says there isn't a table. He then continues to berate and belittle the other, proving that anyone who doesn't believe in the table is an awful person - the analogy you used has a hidden message about how atheists behave, and I can't help but see it as bad faith.
2) 'Why would we trust our mind's reasoning that naturalism is true?' I would like to remind you that a mind also reasoned that naturalism isn't true - this is a non-argument because it can apply to almost anything. You can literally make it a blank space, 'Why would we trust our mind's reasoning that _____'. If you're instead arguing that our own senses can't be trusted, then we are left with nothing to trust, except the existence of our own mind ('I think, therefor I am').
3) This is a particularly funny argument whenever I hear it - it relies on the idea that the universe should have been caused by something, and the idea of something that just exists doesn't make sense. If you haven't figured it out already, this is also a problem theism - if a god caused the universe, what caused the god? And what caused that? And that again? The reason I find this so funny is that many theists will readily believe their gods are allowed to just exist without known cause, but the universe itself isn't allowed to because...?
Anyways, there goes my long reply to a month old video that appeared in my recommended for some reason. If you want what I actually believe, I believe in the supernatural as much as I believe in Darth Vader, but I also believe in the nonexistence of the supernatural as much as the nonexistence of Darth Vader.
1. The first argument is not a "shifting of the burden of proof", and atheists do in fact, make claims and will move hell and highwater to avoid being caught dead with the burden of proof (what else is the "lack of belief" nonsense definition of atheism if not a perpetual shift of the burden of proof?) Too often, atheists will assume that burden of proofs apply to only a particular person or group of people, as opposed to claims. Atheists see the theist claiming "God exists" and then therefore, naturally, will say they have to substantiate it. The error is they'll extend this to all philosophical and theological debate, implying that they CAN'T have the burden of proof. They're atheist, after all. So what if the atheist says things like "God is a sky fairy", "there is only the physical world", or "morality is subjective." They're atheist, they're a PERSON without a burden of proof. A person has a burden of proof with respect to a CLAIM they make (of which, atheists do, in fact, make claims regarding the realm of theology).
I also contest that atheism is a "lack of belief", as I've seen no evidence that atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is the proposition that there is no God, and therefore requires substantiation.
That naturalism can not be verified extranaturally is a criticism of naturalism, and it is sound. This does not mean there is an obligation for the atheist to believe in Zeus or flying hippos or whatever. It does imply the atheist is obligated to abandon their superstition/abandon naturalism.
And atheists do behave that way. You can see several of the comments on this video corroborating that.
2. "Under naturalism, there is no reason to assume your consciousness' perceptions correlate with truth or reality at all. They align with what's evolutionarily favorable."
"Oh yeah, well you're limited too, if naturalism is true!"
This is a non sequitur. DBH's point that if you're a naturalist, you have no reason to assume that what you perceive with your consciousness is true, but rather, that what you perceive is evolutionarily advantageous to you. The difference between the atheist and the theist here is that the theist does not assume naturalism, and therefore has no need to be consistent with this, since they do not profess it. Again, this is not a call for the atheist to believe in flying hippos or whatever else you like, but it is a call to abandon naturalism.
3. Dude is seriously using "what caused God" excuse. Come on. I thought you were serious for a second. The video showed a rudimentary pseudo-cosmological argument (namely to criticize naturalism, yet again), but you need to contend with what theists actually say. Guess what? If the "who" in "who caused God" actually caused God, then the so-called God in this argument is contingent and not God at all. God is definitionally necessary, noncontingent, noncomposite. The universe itself is not allowed to because the universe is contingent. Ever heard of the Big Bang?
Also, DBH, being a classical theist, I think is using this pseudo-cosmological argument in an essentially ordered sense (as opposed to an accidentally ordered one, which assumes temporal causation)
Your so-called refutations are anything but. Thanks for playing.
the idea that God is created is like the worst objection to theism , stop living on the internet and read a book on the philosophy of religion or something
@@xa4445 Any book recommendations?
Existing while being non material is the same as not existing
Only true if you except that matter is the only thing that exists. How could you possibly know that?
@@joshsuko8185
what does it even mean to exist without ths existence being material?
@@user-cz1mz3pp9n If you’re so indoctrinated by philosophical materialism that you can’t even IMAGINE the possibility of anything else…well that kind of halts the discussion.
@@joshsuko8185 maybe because i'm as any human have experienced only material things and my imagination have ability only to generate anything as a product of my previous experience
But other people take some material stuff(emotions, ideas, math objects, religious experience) and call it non material arbitrarily
Emotions exist in a brain, changes in emotional state correspond to state of a brain perfectly and any change in brain change emotional state
Ideas are generated by brain, perceived by brain and exist in brain(while being correlated to the world outside of a brain)
math objects are some kinds of states of brain(physical object) created through contact of brain in a body with physical world
and so on
like why are you - someone with as you may think non material experiences of some sort are a human with a sophisticated nervous system and not something else entirely why your as you may think non physical mental state is fully dependent on your relations to physical world
what can you think of that is as it may be is not physical and have no relations to physical universe?
like everything supposedly immaterial for us to be able to say anything about it manifests itself in one form or another in physical dimension
religious "non material" stuff refers in my opinion in most of the times to material thoughts about material objects that are not currently present at the moment
and saying that it is in another realm is an excuse to why something someone claim is there have no signs of being there
If a supernatural force exists, It doesn't require you to worship it and It's unknowable.
David Bentley Hart's writings don't lend themselves to being adequately explained in a short 7 minute video presentation. Oversimplification to the point of misrepresenting him is inevitable in such a format. He's the kind of writer who has to be read and then re-read several times in order to grasp everything he's saying. This video makes him seem easy to dismiss, which he isn't if you actually understand his positions.
He's not a garden variety Christian apologist. He's Eastern Orthodox and believes firmly in the doctrine of Apokatastisis, so his theology is radically different from that of the mainly Protestant Evangelicals that militant atheists are used to butting heads with, and he has no real desire to convert anybody.
He actually has nothing against atheists as such. He only attacked the 'New Atheists' for being lazy and limiting their attacks to obviously retarded forms of Christianity that any teenager could tear apart rather than taking the time to understand the broader and more mature Christian tradition that would actually require deep study and contemplation.
However, DBH always respected Christopher Hitchins and regards him as the only one of the 'New Atheists' that actually made a strong case for atheism with the problem of evil. A debate between DBH and CH was being planned but then CH got really sick and left this world, so it unfortunately never happened.
That would have been a debate worth seeing, especially since the two were very alike in the sense that they both shared a strong preference for a strategy of attack rather than of defense.
Had this debate happened DBH would have been forced to make his belief in Apokatastisis public much sooner than he actually did because Apokatastisis is the only thing that makes it possible to present a plausible theodicy without compromising either God's omnipotence or omnibenevolence. Hitchins used to wipe the floor with Christian apologists who don't believe in and affirm Apokatastisis because they simply can't offer a plausible theodicy that doesn't make God either impotent or evil or both.
What you forgot to do,was demonstrate any God exists.
Oh right. You can’t.
Is this saying the lack of evidence for the supernatural makes the lack of belief in the supernatural arbitrary? It really sounds like he said that.
He’s saying the lack of evidence that the physical is all there is makes physicalism arbitrary
Philosophical naturalism is an epistemically sound position. DBH's watered-down theology doesn't even make sense even if one is a theist.
DBH's theology is hardly "watered down." It is very sophisticated and draws from ancient and medieval sources, along with being logically rigorous. He's also quite familiar with Hinduism and Buddhism.
Philosophical naturalism, as the belief that nothing exists beyond physical forces and objects, is an unjustified limitation on what is admissable as existing, and "nature" on this definition cannot account for its own origins and contingency. That naturalists have felt so compelled to try to reduce or explain away consciousness and subjectivity -- the one thing we know immediately, that's unlike anything else in our experience -- suggests that perhaps their worldview is too small.
Superstitions: Superstitions are beliefs or practices that result from ignorance, fear, or trust in magic or chance.
It is impossible to be superstitious about something for which there is no proof or evidence e.g. gods.
It is impossible to be ignorant about something for which there is no proof or evidence e.g. gods.
It is impossible to fear something you know doesn't exist.
And atheists certainly don't believe in magic.
Superstitions are beliefs or practices that result from ignorance, fear, or trust in magic or chance. => atheism
@@xa4445 Seriously is all your stupidity derived from your delusion or do you have a routing of banging your head 50 times against the wall each morning?
Prove me wrong:
1. Is it possible to be superstitious about something for which there is no proof or evidence?
2. Is it possible to be ignorant about something for which there is no proof or evidence?
3. Is it possible to fear something you know doesn't exist?
4. What sustainable proof or evidence can you provide that your god isn't just magic you invented?
5. Prove any of those apply to atheism other than that's what you want to believe without proof or evidence.
Because we experience existential awe about reality it has nothing to do with our man made gods and scriptures.Thankfully we won't live ti infinity .Yikes!
Common and tired arguments, "Athiests can not prove that the supernatural does not exist, therefore..."
This box argument is so disingenuous. It casts the theist as knowing what "floor" is, and is seen as smart because we all know what "floor" is, but the theist still has no evidence, and it casts the atheist as incurious. Many atheists become atheists because the questions "why" and "how" are insufficiently answered by any given theistic viewpoint. Why do neither of the people push on the edge of the box? If all that exists, as far as either knows, is the box, and they will live out their existence in the box, then does it matter if it's floor or gravity or the backs of 4 elephants outside the box? If Jehovah, the Amazon employee driving the truck, says nothing, then does it matter if the atheist doesnt believe? If Jehovah kills the atheist because he didnt believe, and the theist gets to ride along in the truck telling Jehovah how great he is forever (the length of an Amazon shift), then is Jehovah good?
Here's my analogy. Two cave men are standing in a field looking at the moon. One says, "It must be a god!" and the other asks, "Why?" and then they never agree.
great vid
thanks!
and when you put on the shroud of Turin you are invisible.
JimBob laid out the problem of a mechanistic universe much better and explains just how destructive it is to the naturalist worldview on their own terms. If you want to hear those arguments laid out even more philosophically check out Jay Dyer and his version of TAG
Dear Visual Catholic, you seriously gone out of your way to extend the simplicity of atheism. You know this, ie that atheism is the simple lack of believe in a god and/or gods. How that comports with naturalism, big bang, metaphysics, etc. is irrelevant, and you know that …. Total misdirection and sad 😔
YOU CLEARLY dont know what the definition of atheism actually is.
How can asking for factual verifiable compelling evidence for a supernatural claim be considered a "superstition"? Atheism is simply a question; CAN YOU SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE¿?
New Atheism didn't end, it's now taken root WITHIN the church with the deconstruction movement.
There is a failure in the presentation of the positions that comprise being an atheist.
An atheist need not assume that physicalism is the only interpretation of reality.
I don't need to assume that there is nothing supernatural to be an atheist. Nor entities that are not made of matter or energy or do not respond to the laws of perceived reality.
I am an atheist. That is, I do NOT think that God exists. The idea "God exists" is not in my mind.
This absence of an idea has no requirement and does not represent an interpretation of reality.
In my case, I have not seen that there is the slightest need to consider that something sustains the existence of reality continuously. But that is not related to my atheism.
In any case, I find it contradictory that you affirm that someone affirms that there is nothing outside of reality (being that reality is everything that exists).
Stating that there is nothing outside of reality is tautological.
The strange position is to affirm that there is something apart from what exists, which also exists.
It is not possible for humans to affirm that they possess an objective truth.
An objective truth is one that does not depend on people's opinions. It is people who think that something is true and that kills any possible objectivity.
No. Existence cannot be prior to what exists. This is absurd. This results from an idealistic interpretation of reality and right here shows its logical flaw.
Existence is not an ideal entity that dwells on a supernatural plane. To assert such a thing would be gratuitous and unfounded.
As a Christian, I have had the sincere joy of seeing some really smart/thoughtful atheists find and place their hope in Christ. Besides, as the comments here demonstrate, atheism is such tired and boring position to take. ; - )
a joy indeed!!
Christ is boring.
David Bentley Cope, King of projection.
Atheism is growing at 1% annually in USA for 25+ years. Newb atheism is hardly dying.
I agree with you that atheism certainly isn't dying!!
Hart, and those who promote his ideas, sounds like he needs some instruction is basic logic and critical thinking.
No they don’t
Bless his heart, he’s stupid.
Unless you point which terms isnt logic based, i could think you are doing Ad ominen
@@rubemartur8239 said, "Unless you point which terms isnt logic based, i could think you are doing Ad ominen." XD LOL proving me right. Seeing as how they don't understand logic it makes sense they would not understand logical fallacies either.
@@rightpa BRUH
Its' always hilarious how chrsitains have to lie about others. Unsurprisingly, atheism is simply the conclusion that a particular god or gods don't exist. Claiming it is a "superstition" fails hilariously, since supersitions depend magical nonsense. I, as an atheist, dont' by into magic.
Hart seems to be just one more ignorant theist who has to pretend that everyone "really" does agree with him, when we do not.
ok, thanks for stopping by anyway!
You did a great drop addressing all of Hart's arguments!
Some heavy intellectual horsepower on display here
@@nature_boy_ thank you.
@@thehighlander6770 I know. thank you.
"You did a great drop addressing all of Hart's arguments!"