4 Arguments for the Existence of God
Vložit
- čas přidán 7. 06. 2024
- PATREON: / generalistpapers
This is not a video trying to convince anyone of anything. It is an educational, informative video on the historical arguments for God's existence.
Some sources:
Philosophy of Religion by C. Stephen Evans and R Zachary Manis
Philosophy of Religion an Anthology by Louis P. Pojman and Michael Rea
Follow me here:
Twitter: / harrisonholt2
Instagram: /
Music by Kevin MacLeod.
Was going back through older videos after enjoying this channel and oh boy is this comment section different from the rest.
Neat video man, loved it! ^^
Love the videos! Nice voice too, good pace.
Anyone knows the title of the McLeods' music in the background ?
Now I'm feeling anxious again about what lies beyond the universe...
Nobody knows. But if there's a motherfucker out there who started this whole shit and let it go haywire, then he or she's an idiot.
People are born just to die? Hmmm
me every night thinking too hard needing reassurance
@@hudson3934 When you think about it - there is nothing to be anxious about. Before you were born, you had either no existence, which means that you had no pain or suffering; - Or you had a different existence of which you have no memory, and which was followed by the life you have now. Either way, life is both an incredible gift and a huge challenge. Death is either a doorway to another life or an undefined period of peace. At 66, I am aware that I have been lucky so far, and I make an effort to appreciate every moment, - not that I always succeed... The cruel and vengeful god of the Abrahamic traditions is a logical impossibility when you give it serious thought. They were stories to terrify children and turn them into willing slaves. It took years of study to completely free myself from that fear - but these days we have the internet and a much more enlightened science to guide us and free us from unwarranted fear.
starting out with "what made" fails the entire question by presumptions.
Nice video, but the background music was a bit loud
It's just the Kerbal Space Program background music
That's god talking to you 🤣
Would a true God really depend on people telling other people about him? using a book full of errors, mistakes and contradictions?
A true God wouldn't "depend" on anything.
The way it did anything would be the correct way... even if it made no sense to us.
@@LuckyFlesh logically then,there is no God... because things are not perfect
@@raymondgrimaldi9207 that logic you're using is stupid. the abrahamic god doesn't "depend" on the bible to tell people about him. there's no statement in it that says so
you people need to get educated about the stuff you're attempting to debate. you're all coming off as a bunch of redditors
@@roserose109 praying and worshiping to a worthless, useless God,is even more stupid... especially when he doesn't exist...you people need to get out of fantasy land
Yeap the quran is a comic book me to me as an ex-muslim
Am I the only one who was getting A-level philosophy flashbacks watching this? 😂
I am always baffled by people asking: why is there something like existence and then jump to the universe? And so fail to answer the question of what existence itself IS. Is existence an attribute to an object or is it the very foundation of anything within existence? Can there be anything outside of existence? Is it possible for existence not to exist? And if existence is the very foundation of everything within existence, does that then mean that existence itself is god? The final question would be: if existence is God itself and I exist could it then be that my actual foundation is and always will be rooted within God? So what are you really?
God.😂 I'm God.
@@RohitSingh-vo6sq well, you actually really are. There is nothing else. Existence is the purest form of being. And if you want to know whether this is BS or real. Let slowly go of everything including yourself. How? The meditation of doing nothing or if you want to shoot yourself into heaven smoke 5meo dmt. That'll clear things up.
There has to be two existences. One necessary existence and possible existence. Necessary existence is god and possible existence is observable reality and creations.
@@longjunior7638 It is interesting you say that. Two existences. What I have found to be true by research and self-inquiry during the past 25 years is the following. When we, through meditation, psychedelics, or self-inquiry, are capable of letting go of what we believe we are, a total disappearance of this world occurs. This is factual and not an idea. And because I have encountered this state more than once, I started asking questions. Like, what is the common denominator in the state of being identified and letting go of all identification? What I found is that being always remains. Meaning being as in existing. Now, what we perceive as God is being/existence in its purest form. Being in its purest form is unidentified, therefore it is formless, infinite, and nondual. Existence/God has to be formless because in this way, it can come into being as anything. Anything within existence carries this formless core within itself. Therefore, we could say God/existence is all there is. You are that. Dualism comes back online as soon as we become aware of an "I" as in "I am." It would be better to have a real conversation about this, but anyway, I hope this helps.
@@izzydawiz7486
So you altered your brain states-the brain we use to process our impressions of the outside world-and you claim the disappearance of the world is _factual?_
This is an important topic, and I'm glad to see you have an interest in it.
Unfortunately, most of your audience (likely because they got here through your historical videos and just want more of those, because they're awesome) don't seem particularly interested in this. Which is normal, I suppose.
I've got one note to make:
"Not scientifically, because as of yet there has been no scientific evidence for God"
Well duh, that's what happens when you try to use the method designed to discover the workings of the natural world to discover the being that invented nature, and is therefore by necessity *outside* of nature and completely independent of it, ie. not part of nature.
It's like using a cookbook as an instruction manual for building rocket ships. It's a grossly inappropriate tool.
P.S. I enjoyed the video itself. Thank you for making it.
Peace, blessing, mercy of the mighty God is upon you, brother. the only accepted religion is Islam. the true heavenly bools and prophets are revealed and chose from Allah inviting people to worshiping him. Allah, you know that I am inviting people to enter Islam and believe in you to satisfy you. you know that I am trying to satisfy you. how we could make sure? what is true religion? what is the evidence? and all the topics related to faith are present in the Holy Quran, the words of Allah. tell me your questions that are preventing you from accepting Islam. religion comparisons are present in the Holy Quran. Also, doctor Zakir naik has done these matters. for looking at the scientific shreds of evidence in the Holy Quran, look at this article 1drv.ms/b/s!AmL9SYpFyLhJaiDZWMe57FtRN5w?e=no9nP8
Thank you for reading 🥰🥰🥰
In the "better" cosmological argument, there even is no reason to assume that the universe itself can't be the neccessary being on which the remainder is contingent; conversely, if a god were to exist, there equally is no reason to assume that it would not be itself contingent on something even further beyond it.
Versions of the cosmological argument also often come up when religious people try to argue that science fails to explain how the universe started but religion has an "answer", but of course, their "answer" just pushes the problem elsewhere rather than resolving it: if god did create the universe, then who or what created god? if their answer is that god always existed, then why do they accept that whilst not being able to accept the possibility of the universe always existing? Besides, just because an answer has explanatory power doesn't mean its accurate: you can explain that rainbows exist because they are the farts of unicorns who use their colourful farts to leap great distances, but thats not an accurste explanation for the existence of rainbows.
The first premise for the teleologival argument, that there exists in nature a beneficial order to things, seems at best overly optimistic; as humans (and plenty other organizms as well) we constantly struggle with all sorts of negative aspects from nature; in fact, that struggle is a fundemental part of evolution weeding out the least fit individuals of species. Evolution itself also contradicts at least the creation myths told in the scriptures of abrahamic religions where humans and other animals we know today were suposedly created, whilst we now know they evolved, and without any indication in those scriptures of evolution happening or any intention for such a process by the suposed creator.
If there is a creator, that still doesn't mean it must be a god, if it is a god it didn't necesarily stick around, it doesn't tell us any attributes of the creator, so it's certainly a stretch to go from this weak argument for a creator to imply that that creator is the god of a specific religion.
I also take issue with the watchmaker analogy; we know what human made objects are like, and thats why we assume there must have been a maker. Complexity, intracacy, and purpose alone do not infer a creator. Besides, what exactly would be the purpose of humans and other organisms, we survive and reproduce to pass on our genes; humans have also managed to create amazing things that are passed on from generation to generation of humanity, initially to improve survival and reproductive chances, later for ease and luxury (at least for those humans in the workd who can afford in under the global capitalist hegemony), and for understanding and satisfying curiosity. Is an individual organism's purpose then nerely to play its part in evolution? And for humans, aside from their part in the evolving of the species, also to play their part in progress and the evolving of society? And then what is the purpose of evolution? What is the purpose of our human progress from cave dwellers to modern society and beyond? I don't see any inherent purpose (like a watch is made for humans to keep time), I don't rhink we hsve one, I think we make/choose our own purpose based on what we value and wish to contribute to, and humanity as a whole has no purpose, it's just a complex system full of intracate human parts, that just get taken wherever it is taken by the choices of each of those human parts.
regardig the ontological argument, it's just a weird assumption that the human mind would be incapable of imagining something greater than truly exists; the human mind can conjure up plenty of great things that don't exist nor have any chance of coming about under the right circumstances. Polytheistic religions existed long before the monoteistic abrahamic religions came about; simply combing all the functions and powers of the polytheistic gods into 1 all powerful god is something the human mind is perfecfly capable of, particularly if he wants to claim his god is superiour to the gods of the polytheistic religions (early Israelites/Jews did acknowledge the existence of other religions and their gods but just considered them as being lesser barbaric gods not worth worshipping; they believed their god to be superior, in contrast to modern religions who think that either other religions have a false account of the right god or are just false religions that don't worship real gods).
The special pleading "rebuttal" ultimately relies on the cosmological argument, and again, there is no reason to think that the neccessary being must go as far as a god (instead of stopping at what we know: the universe). In fact, whilst we can imagine a god, we fail to comprehend the entire universe and its greatness, so reality can at times be greater than what we can imagine, so we can't rely on what we can imagine to be the greatest when there are things that are greater than we can imagine.
The moral argument is very weak. There are indeed those who believe there is no objective morality, and in fact, unless we can prove that there is an objective morality, we cannot base an argument on the existence of it, for else we push the problem down the road from being about whether you believe a god exists to whether you believe objective morals exist: it still boils down to what you believe, but nothing is proven true.
However, even if objective morals exist, there are plenty of secular explanations offered for objective morality.
Hiding underneath this argument is the assumption that morality comes from god, which is itself problematic. There are two possible situations if we get morality from god: 1. god itself is what gives us moralty, and thus god can change morality if it likes, murder can become moral whilst giving a starving person some food can become immoral; it is subject to gods will, thus subjective (at best appearing objective to us because we have to control over it) (also, gods benevolence in this case seems like a cheat, as god itself can determine that its actions are good). 2. god relays to us what is moral but cannot change what is moral; morality must therefore have a different source beyond god (also god isn't all powerful nor fully in control).
The argument by the polytheistic ancient Greeks, btw, was often phrased along the lines of "that what all the gods agree on is moral" which means either their agreement is what created morality (and if one changed its mind that could change morality) or that there were some higher moral standards that the gods had to agree on, aside from all the additional rules the came up with themselves and didn't neccessarily agree on; these are the same issues as with a single god.
What these arguments all have in common is that, aside from ultimately being weak and not holding up to scrutiny, even if they'd held up, they never prove the existence of any specific god(s), so it could be one from a religion different than the one you believe in, or even one that is not worshipped by religion at all.
Believe in god should honestly not even be a discussion, if it provides you comfort, community, purpose, or anything else that benefits you, to believe in a god or partake in religion (you can believe in a god without it being one of a specific religion, you can believe in the god of a specific religion but still not actively partake in the religion; you can partake in a religion without belieiving in its god), then by all means do so.
Do so,
as long as you don't force it onto others,
as long as you don't affect others who do not wish to be affected by it,
as long as you don't attempt to enforce your religious rules trough politics or other power,
as long as you don't spew hatred towards others whilst claiming to be backed by it,
and as long as it provides you with benefit without making you dependent on it.
Take care of yourself,
love yourself,
be yourself.
What no... A well structured logical conclusion that doesn't infringe on anyone's right to believe in anything and doesn't offend people... On the internet. Blasphemy!
@@NewnickAKAthebanker-bw2rv Best believe it!
You just read my mind, based
Regarding your statement about the Genesis creation story. I have never understood the first part of the Pentateuch to mandate belief in something like Young-Earth-Creationism. Augustine, a Catholic from the 350s A.D. believed in a kind of evolution; I do not think he was a heretical Bishop.
@@josephpostma1787 I don't get it either. Young Earth Creationism, cannot take it seriously lol. I mean, how do they explain the many things we know to be over 6,000 years old... makes no sense
"I refuse to prove that I exist,'" says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
-- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
e follows i except after c
Odd how people never look at older videos on channels they like after subscribing.
I end up adding the ENTIRE CHANNEL'S VIDEOS to my 'Watch Later' playlist. Needless to say, my 'Watch Later' playlist is nearly 3,000 videos long...
Ooooh the Kerbal Space Programe music
The cosmological argument is not time constrained. It's not a question of whether or not contingent beings had some cause in the past, the question is what is sustaining their existence at any given instance independent of time. Everything besides a necessary being would need to depend on something else for their present existence.
The Cosmological argument is full of fallacies.
The most prevalent is the non sequitur fallacy.
Even if EVERY other aspect of the argument is given (which it isn't) it still doesn't lead to a god as the conclusion, because nothing in the argument creates a need for the cause to be sentient
Are you guessing or are you just making things up as you go? Or are you not aware why the proponents of the Kalam think that the cause of the universe must be a personal agent?
@@tictac7359
Ok, Kalam's cosmological argument.
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause
I reject the premise because nothing has ever been demonstrated as beginning to exist.
The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy states taht neither matter nor energy can be created nor destroyed but merely alters forms.
This means nothing is demonstrated to have an actual beginning, and everything is merely existing material going through changes
Kalam's argument never included a personal agent.
That was added later by Christian apologists due to their religious biases.
Kalam's argument was...
1- Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2- The universe began to exist
3- Therefore the universe has a cause.
The personal agent was added later by Christian apologists due to religious biases.
Have you always existed Jimi G? Did you exist as a person in 7th century? Do persons come into existence?
Listening to too much Alex O’Connor??
great summaries. I always shout at the screen with these arguments. What do they mean by 'god"'. What do they mean by 'the universe'? The way you said the ontological argument gives god attributes supports that the idea of god is a human concept that has evolved and changed as societies have evolved.
I agree that almost always "God", except in the Ontological argument, is an unclear, ambiguous term, so, according to Kreeft's Socratic Logic, these arguments are illogical until a definition of God can be given.
One of my favorite arguments is that of the "Unmoved Mover"
the odd issue with abrahamic "monothesistic" religions is that they also imply a pantheon of supernatural beings that act with god-like powers and even war with each other to explain "evil" so these arguments always leave out any argument for the existance of the auxilliary beings that are also so central to the religions. they are timeless and eternal, yet at the same time fight a war that will somehow end in world of "time" (cf. revelations), which is logically inconsistent. it is laughable because this assortment of different orders of angels and demons is equivalent to the set of roman gods yet the christians are blind to that.
The major problem with the most of the refutations of The God is that they assume that the belief in God entails that a man in sky, like Jesus Christ is God. But even if we just look the definition of God, it's evidently proven that Jesus Christ cannot be God.
We are Trace Elements find us together literal talking only.
I honestly find it hard to believe any modern scholars take any of these arguments seriously.
The moral argument is completely wrong. Morals depend on the culture. Look at the Prophet of Islam. He had a wife who was 9 years old when he was in his 40’s (I think). Today that would be just about one of the most amoral things an adult can do, but we are told “that’s just the way it was back then”. If morals come from god, why did god change his mind on pedos? Especially if the Prophet is the messenger of gods and spoke directly to god. Why didn’t god tell him that marrying a child is morally wrong? Morals do NOT cone from god.
And even if they didn't vary, it still would not indicate that morals originated with a god.
You should read Ruth Benedict's "Patterns of Culture". She studied many different cultures in many times/places throughout the world. Her conclusion: every form of behavior, no matter how egregious it might appear to us in our time/culture, has been considered normal and proper at some point in time in some culture.
This is a very important point -- that man, left to himself (without supernatural influence), can decide that what you might consider heinous is going to be the norm for that point in time. Therefore, man left to himself will devolve into a 'dog eat dog' state where the strong make the rules and the weak are without recourse.
A perhaps superior way of living (love your neighbor as yourself) is something that God highly recommends -- but it is not inherent to mankind. Kinda scary, isn't it?
@@bravehome4276 The initial premise is correct, but your follow up is a non sequitur fallacy.
There is no supernatural influence, so when humanity becomes in absence of it is what it is now.
No need for any gods, and not need for religious texts that promote genocide against non-believers.
The natural state of humans is no "Dog eat dog"...heck that isn't even the natural state of dogs.
Humans are social animals and developed social rules before they ever even developed speech
@@MrGreensweightHist Sorry, but your argument "there is no supernatural influence" is a presumption, not a fact.
You should read Ruth Benedict's "Patterns of Culture" to see the broad spectrum of 'social rules' people have accepted as 'good' before you presume that their 'good' meets with your approval.
You may not 'like' the possibility that God exists. But whether in the Old Testament (Ezekiel 33:11, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live") or the New Testament (Matthew 26:52, "...all who take the sword will perish by the sword"), it is clear God does not promote genocide. But neither will He withhold judgement when His time for that comes.
If He exists, and has the power to create the universe and the incredible complexities within it, then whether we 'like' His judgements or not is immaterial. But it's best to know them, so that we can 'live' with the consequences of our choices....
@@bravehome4276
Not a presumption.
An observation based on the laws of conservation of energy and mass and Newton;s laws of motion.
Your assertion there is would be the presumption
Belief in a god is avoiding the consequences of ones choices.
If I wrong someone, which I try very hard not to do, I have to seek forgiveness from that person, and make amends with that person.
When you wrong someone, you just have to close your eyes and ask your imaginary friend for forgiveness, which he always gives because he's really just a personification of your own superego anyways.
You don;t have any source of supernatural guidance.
The Bible is not the word of a god, it is the traditional stories of superstitious, violent, xenophobic, men.
It is Commandments based on things like one person having a shellfish allergy so the community bans shellfish for everyone.
Its sole purpose was to give a priest class control over masses of ignorant people
What god exist?
The ontological argument argues for the nature of god, not the existence of a god
By asking the question, we give life to the idea that there is a god.
The trick is the unjustified jump from "I just proved ANY god" to "Hey, this is JHW!"
The concept of “nothing” cannot have the ability to act, otherwise it would exist as a “potential act” and be one of many things that exist. If the universe came from “nothing” then this nothing would have had the ability to become the universe. But the concept “nothing” as we previously explained, cannot have the ability to act, therefore, the universe could not have come from nothing on its own.
Since there are things that do exist, then “something” must have always existed, because as we just proved, things cannot come from “nothing” on their own.
If time had ever proceeded at an infinite rate, which is like fast forwarding through a motion picture, we would not be here today because all events would have already occurred in a single instant. Therefore, time has always progressed at a finite rate and any mathematician can prove that time could never have progressed over an infinite time interval. The proof goes like this, pick any number no matter how great. You can always add one to it and thereby make it greater in value, therefore you can never reach infinity.
And you cannot say that all we need to do is to wait an infinite amount of time and then we would reach infinity, because then you are assuming that you can wait an infinite amount of time. However, this is what you were trying to prove and so that is not proof at all. You cannot assume to be true, that which you are trying to prove to be true otherwise you can prove anything to be true, even that which is false. Therefore, time could not have started an “infinite” time ago and therefore had a beginning a finite time ago.
Since “something” always existed as we previously proved, it had to have existed before time started. Since space and time are one entity called the space-time continuum as Einstein pointed out, then this “something” had to have existed before space and time existed and therefore caused space and time.
Since this “something” existed outside of space and time it cannot be made up of material things, because material things can only exist in space. And this “something” could not be just chaos which has no order, because as we previously proved, something cannot come from nothing on its own, hence order cannot come from pure disorder. Therefore, this “something” had to have had the ability to cause order, space-time, material things, beauty, life, everything in our universe, including our universe and natural laws and rules. Since we call ourselves beings, then we should at least call this “something” a Being, who we call God.
Since only God always existed, and the universe is not made of God as we just proved, then God must have created the universe out of “nothing”. Since “nothing” does not even exist, then God must have infinite Power in order to have created the universe from “nothing”. Since all people desire happiness, then God must have created us to be happy out of love for us.
Naturally, all creatures should love their Creator. For us to love God from our heart, God had to create in us a free-will, because no person can be forced to love, otherwise this would not be true love from their heart. With our free-will, we can choose to do good or bad to our neighbor and this is why there is sin in the world, because some people have chosen to hate God and their neighbor and are only interested in pleasing themselves. God did not create evil, nor does He desire evil, but he does allow sin to happen because He had to form us with a free-will, in order for us to love Him and others from our heart.
The more one learns about emergence, the clearer it becomes that the teleological argument is logically quite weak.
And to the "cultural relativism doesn't disprove the existence of an objective morality" point: it doesn't have to. Like everything in philosophy (and science), the burden of proof lies on the one making a positive claim. If the claim is "objective morality exists", the burden, then, is to support that claim, not to show why it isn't true. And as far as I'm aware... no one has found any support for that claim. The only thing I've heard is that "all humans agree on some specific moral ideas", but even if that were true (it's not -- there are people who truly believe murder, rape, etc. are fine, though they are the minority thankfully) it would only support the idea that *humans often agree* on morals. It doesn't support the idea that there is an objective morality at all; in fact, it's more logically convincing that humans tend to agree on certain aspects of morality because humans all have certain things in common with each other (namely, we all evolved from the same organisms, and therefore we all have commonalities inherited from both that organism and the process of evolution itself).
You ever notice how many of these "universal moral truths" can be contextualized as "if it lowers survival or reproductive success, it's bad, but if it increases those things, it's good"? I don't think it's a coincidence that this set of behavioral guidance is also the driving force of evolution. In other words, it seems clear upon inspection that any "universal morality" is actually just "morality shared by all evolved beings, but not truly universal as a law of nature, as a result of evolving at all".
The first way you phrase the cosmological argument is fallacious completely on the ground that we don't know if the universe had a beginning and as you said even if we did figure it out that it didn't have a beginning then that still wouldn't point to it being a God and let alone any specific version of a God
Jesus Christ I hope you don't think the second or the first arguments are good especially that second one just sucks because it's literally essentially starting with and insanely weird premise about contingent beings existence requiring that the cause must therefore be some ultimate necessary being which is literally basically just starting by saying that you rub yourself with shit today in order to catch more fish and then caught a lot of fish because the area you fish always has a shit ton of fish so therefore rubbing yourself with ship must have been the reason why you caught so many fish which is literally just begging the question and the starting with the assumption that what you did or claimed is actually the case
You ask me how I know He lives, He lives within my heart
That's what is boils doen to indeed, belief, faith.
You can't rationally convince someone of god existing, but it is not somethig one should attempt to rstionalise in the first place.
If believing in god is more beneficial to you than not belieiving in god, then believe in god, if it's not, then don't.
Keep your beliefs to yourself and to the people who wish to share in it with you.
Respect all others regardless of whether their beliefs are the same or different.
@@nienke7713 if by "keep your beliefs to yourself" you mean don't share it with people who don't believe the same way, or even don't try to convince them of what you believe, then I disagree with you.
People are trying to convince others of the things that move their hearts all the time, not necessarily in a religious context, so why should we forbid sharing your religion with others? Of course, there's a limit when convinience, respect or patience are betrayed. But in a friendly environment, in a casual conversation, in a relationship, there's no reason someone should hold back from sharing their faith with the other person.
When you find something so strong and good, that can give you a reason to live in the middle of the chaos (that's what faith means to me), then not sharing it with someone would actually be wrong and unloving.
@@jhcv1993 I mean that you shouldn't push your beliefs onto others. Debating in appropriate situations is fine, sharing with those who want it is fine. But don't go harassing people in the street with preachings for example.
Also don't try to make others live by religious rules of they don't want to.
Don't go restricting what others can eat, who others can love, what others can wear, how others can be and express themselves, what medical treatment they seek, how to live and/or end their live, etc. Just let them figure it out for themselves, as long as they're not affecting anyone who doesn't want to be affected by it, it's none of your business to tell them they shouldn't. (And no, by affecting, I don't mean that the idea of it is somehow repulsive or upsetting).
And yet, people of different faiths, who believe in very different gods, often feel the exact same way in their hearts. Why is your heart more trustworthy than theirs, or more trustworthy than the hearts of people who don't feel that way at all?
does that hurt?
Arguments for the existence of a god? Before such an argument can be presented you will need to have a clear valid ( valid meaning it contains no logical fallacies or unproven claims) definition for god.
The whole point of being religious is to assume God exists and try to figure out what He's like. If you can define God, you've won life, you know everything - but no one does. That's why theology is so complex
@@sempersuffragium9951 "The whole point of being religious is to assume God exists and try to figure out what He's like."
If you have no evidence for a god, there is no reason to assume a god exists.
And religion is not needed for a person can believe a god exists without
"If you can define God, you've won life, you know everything"
Meaningless babble.
"That's why theology is so complex"
Theology is not required to believe a god exists.
@@cnault3244 You cannot have evidence for something you cannot define. Religion (the Christian anyway) is a mode of thinking, not a set of notional prepositions
@@sempersuffragium9951 "You cannot have evidence for something you cannot define."
Of course you can. You could see something, have no idea what you are seeing, and take photographs of it.
". Religion (the Christian anyway) is a mode of thinking, not a set of notional prepositions"
Not really. Christianity is a belief that there is a single god, this god had a son who was born of a virgin ( a very common theme in numerous mythologies), and that this son died and was resurrected.
That isn't a mode of thinking, that is belief in miraculous events because you have faith those events happened.
@@cnault32441. That's not evidence of anything. Evidence can only exist in relationship to something. If you find a bloody knife, it's not evidence of murder (especially if you don't even know how to define murder) - it's just a bloody knife. Only once you define something, can there be things that are evidence of that.
2. That's not really accurate. Christianity is a belief in the Bible, the entirety of it. And what the Bible is, is basically one long description of who God is. Just believing some guy was resurrected 2000 years ago, is kind of pointless. The reason so many people revere those stories, is because they point to what is highest
Got to "there is no scientific evidence of god" well, that answers my question.
Non-existence is not dependent on having scientific evidence, for it could just be the case that we don't have evidence yet as we don't have the necessary tools to look at that evidence.
Gott mit uns
*kurwa*
Why the assumption that there is any difference between “natural” and God’s being? Why would the natural world and phenomena be separate of its creator? Science could be a measure and observation of phenomena that are purposeful aspects of intelligent design.
If you’re wondering I do believe in God, but not the God you’ll find depicted in popular religion. God = Nature
Like in this video you talk about “natural” evolution vs what? Creationism? That’s not the only model to describe intelligent design.
This video should be watched before using again the ontological argument which is flawed as demonstrated several centuries ago.
Intelligent design has been disputed after XIX cent
X
Sorry, bad video. But nice drawings. Did you pay loyalties to Karbala SP for the music?
All of the arguments are inherently flawed
Can someone please explain to me how exactly a supposed existence of the supernatural creator of the universe can be used to justify hundreds of very concrete and specific rules which are different from creed to creed?
if God exists, being God he has to the the very best of the very best and at the same time the worst of the worst at playing hide and seek. he is the alpha and omega, lots of people have claimed to have found him and yet no one can point to him.
Well, I like the analogy with the Sun. You cannot really see the Sun, at least not directly, but without it you cannot see anything else
I studied Philosophy intensively for many years when I was a student. I loved it. Nevertheless, in the end, I came to the final conclusion that it is merely an exercise of extreme mental masturbation and nothing else. Unlike Science, you can't prove anything with Philosophy, just like you can't build anything with it. These 4 arguments are a magistral example of how some Philosophers try to justify pseudo-rationally something (God) that has nothing to do with reality.
Thank you for this remarks, you phrase it so much better than I could.
Yep
Thx for the heads up.
If the Reasoning is sound, the Premises are true, and the Terms are clear and unambiguous, you have proven something, with no doubt.
I see a plane and i ask wow how'd they make that?
I see a beautiful painting and I ask wow who painted that?
I see nature, the skies, the oceans and I tell myself "no way this was intelligently designed".
Watch a skunk accidentally kick a stone into a puddle and it will make beautiful ripples. The skunk therefore purposely designed them.
@@painbow6528 when I see the water ripple I see design in nature, the Laws of physics given by a Law Giver, a Creator. It's beautiful.
@@ectoplasmicentity It was a skunk. I literally told you it was a skunk.
Buddy you need to like… really rethink ur life
I have just been reading all ur comments on this video alone and like buddy, there’s many points where you just like, dissociate and ignore the facts infront of you
I see a plane and I know they are not naturally formed.
I see a panting and I know it was not naturally formed.
I see nature and I know it was naturally formed.
Yup.....God exist.
Jesus Redeems Ministry watch and see for yourself that God is really
I like the argument on the crash course episode that goes sorta like: The universe doesn't exist unless it is perceived. Living creatures do not perceive it all the time, so there must be a God perceiving it at all times.
Wow, that is the biggest nonsense argument I have ever heard for the existence of a god, and that is saying something
Even a 1 year old understands object permanence and that existence is not contingent on perception
"The universe doesn't exist unless it is perceived." -- what? What kind of claim is that?
I don’t want to hit the like button as it’s now on 666 likes and the irony is just too brilliant to break!
As always, the more interesting arguments of Godel and Avicenna are ignored. Although they are harder to categorize than the rest, and Godel's is quite difficult to explain.
Nevertheless, most proofs require a definition for existence, don't provide one and so breakdown at the slightest demand for clarification. The betters ones either try to define existence (e.g. Godel, Aristotle) or try to formulate an argument that doesn't require a detailed definition. For example, Avicenna (and Aristotle also) uses an _attribute_ of existence as a postulate. Namely, that the cause of something that exists must also exist. Hence instead of showing that God exists, he shows that some "thing" that exists is God.
Determining the attributes of God are even harder due to the large number of assumptions and definitions you'd be forced to make. So it's not really worth bothering yourself with.
There are no logically sound arguments for a god
@@MrGreensweightHist ugh... except Godel's was verified to be correct by a computer. It is definitely "logically sound." As in that it follows from the assumptions. Its assumptions are debated however, and since they talk about something outside of the natural world we have no way of testing them.
This is not to mention Godel's authority on logic since he was the foremost logician of the 20th century. There are other logically sound proofs for God as well, though none have been computational verified other than Godel's as far as I know.
@@hexa3389 Godel uses an ontological argument based on MANY fallacies including having to redefine what the word "god" means.
It is internally consistent, but not logically sound.
Let's break down his 14 points.
1 The world is rational.
2 Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).
3 There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.).
4 There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5 The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
6 There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.
7 The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
8 Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
9 Formal rights comprise a real science.
10 Materialism is false.
11 The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
12 Concepts have an objective existence.
13 There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
14 Religions are, for the most part, bad- but religion is not.
1-9 is a mix of some valid points and some assumptions
10 is where it starts falling apart. ON what ground is the assertion that Materialism is false based? None.
11 This is a non sequitur and utter nonsense. Nothing can be connected merely by analogy
12 This is false, Concepts do not have objective existence, they have subjective existence.
13 There is no such thing as a scientific philosophy nor theology.
14 This is a subjective opinion.
So I must reassert that there are no logically sound arguments for a god
@@MrGreensweightHist I must admit that I don't fully understand Godels proof due to my poor understanding of modal logic, however I don't see the 14 points of his argument anywhere mentioned, and the general outline of the proof given on wikipedia seems wholly different from what you have presented here. The version on wikipedia has 4 theorems, 3 definitions, and 5 axioms. And later in the article it is mentioned that
> In 2014, they computer-verified Gödel's proof (in the above version). They also proved that this version's axioms are consistent, but imply modal collapse, thus confirming Sobel's 1987 argument.
At this point it is important to mention what "logically sound" means, that is when an implication follows correctly from the stated definitions and postulates. Godel's proof has been shown to follow from its stated postulates and definitions properly. So it is logically sound.
However, it is important to mention that its axioms cannot be verified since they talk about non-imaginative objects outside of the visible world. This means that they cannot be experimentally verified. And so the stated proposition might not hold. However this doesn't mean that it isn't "logically sound."
Edit: Godel isn't trying to prove any religion's God, but God as he has defined it. "Redefining God" isn't a downside of his proof.
From the wiki...
Gödel left a fourteen-point outline of his philosophical beliefs in his papers.[1] Points relevant to the ontological proof include"
They cherry picked out points 4,5,13, and 14
I went to all 14 points as a whole to be more thorough than the wiki
As for the computer, there is a saying, "GIGO" Garbage in/Garbage out.
I can get a computer to "verify" the sky is pink if I set the computer's parameters the way I want.
I am also familiar with the term logically sound.
Gödel's arguments do not follow correctly from the stated definitions and postulates
He jumps all over the place, from the imaginary tot eh tangible, for the natural to the supernatural, with no logic bridging those gaps.
It is, quite frankly, a mess.
" non-imaginative objects outside of the visible world. "
No such thing
Morals are entirely cultural. In middle eastern and Indian cultures its not immoral to beat your sister to death for sleeping with a man she's not married to. That doesn't happen in the UK or the US. Morals are entirely cultural. Thou shalt not kill is one of the 10 commandments, and yet the death penalty is active throughout the abrahamic world. Morals are entirely cultural and have nothing to do with human nature. Incest relations are totally taboo in our society but were the absolute norm in Ptolomeic Egypt. Suicided is expressly forbidden in the Bible, but there was a sect of Japanese Buddhist monks who thought it was the sure path to enlightenment. Morals are absolutely cultural. Therefore one culture cannot be said to be objectively wrong. Morals are subjective.
I agree but I think what he was saying is that the general idea of morals (such as murder and stealing being inherently wrong) is common across every culture.
"Thou shalt not kill is one of the 10 commandments, and yet the death penalty is active throughout the abrahamic world"
that's wrong. the commandment is "thou shall not murder", and the word "murder" in the word originally used means to "lie in wait to shed innocent blood". aka: premeditated murder.
you'd think people who wanted to debate this stuff would be more educated on the thing they're debating
@@roserose109 Can you read Aramaic? Or possibly Ancient Greek? Or even possibly Hebrew? No? Well then I guess you're reading a bible that is based on a translation. Ive forgotten which language that Bible was written in... Oh that's right not English. Youre basing you're reading on a translation from 1200 years later. From Greek, from Latin, into English. The commandment is "thou shall not kill" as translated from the Aramaic into English.
@@withonelook1985 Lol no. Exodus was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic, and the Hebrew word used is תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח, which is distinct from the Hebrew word for killing. תִּֿרְצָֽ֖ח implies a premeditated or unlawful killing, which we would call a murder.
@@spydomination18 We figured out murder and stealing is bad LONG before we invented gods.
Yes.
I do exist.
Now quit bothering me.
There really are no reasons to conclude any god or gods exist.
You’ve admitted there is no evidence. There are only claims which can be better explained naturally.
Nop
there is none.
As a Buddhist. I believe in Buddha because he was a prince from a Kingdom that existed in History. I believe Muhammad existed because he was a conqueror and his decendents can be found true out history. Jesus Christ existed, but people who carried on his legacy tend to change certain facts along history. I don't believe Zeus existed same as how I don't believe there is no "God". Because we can't prove it and wasn't part of human history as a historical figure. Prove it and i will believe it
Universe needs a first cause. But God doesn't?
God didn't come out of a mother of someone. God wouldn't have been created in a way a person could comprehend.
God is a necessary being, if he was not it would be an infinite regress which is fallacious.
@@kami-og5wf "God is a necessary being,"
This is a false claim
"it would be an infinite regress which is fallacious."
Infinite regress is not fallacious
@@MrGreensweightHist infinite regress within philosophy exists as a fallacy
@@kami-og5wf Infinite regress fallacy and the idea of infinite regress in the universe re not even remotely the same.
Infinite regress is when you propose an explanation that in turn requires and explanation and so on.
For example...
Q: Where did te universe come from?
A: God made it.
Leads to the question: Where id God come from?
This is an infinite regress fallacy. A case in which the explanation has no actual explanatory power.
Ironically, the idea of an infinite universe is not an infinite regress fallacy because...
Q: Where is the Universe Come from.
A: The universe is eternal.
This does not cause an explanation that requires further explanation.
The answer offers a coherent, self-contained, answer to the question.
And the only answer that does not require dismissal of the known laws of physics.
Hello, I'm enjoying your channel, just discovered it yesterday with the video on heraldry.
I feel bound to point out though, in regards to the comment on the teleological argument, that to suggest that complex design could simply "happen" or "evolve" is illogical, especially if we use Darwin's theory as an example. The huge problem with his theory is that it defeats itself: a species would die out before the necessary changes or "evolving" could take place. For example: let's say we have several people at the edge of a high cliff, and one by one we push each of them over the edge. How many would we have to kill before one of them sprouted wings? And even if one did begin to sprout wings, as this process takes millions of years, he would still die before the "evolution" were complete. Furthermore, each person would be an individual body; what killed him, would not be passed on to his offspring, (if he had any).
So, the way I see it, to counter the "watch argument" from this standpoint requires making huge assumptions.
Anyway, thanks for the videos, keep it up!
Oooooooh boyyyyyy do you not understand evolution in any possible way. Adaptation is not a spontaneous thing due to a random pressure nor does a species need to die off in order to evolve. Your example of pushing humans off a cliff until they sprout wings is such a misunderstanding of what the theory is that it actually hurts.
Here is the most basic example of evolution at work that I teach to grade 6s. In England there is a species of moth called the pepper moth. The MAJORITY of the species was a white moth with a black speckling, however in the they was enough mutation and genetic differences to provide a gradient from white all the way to black. Since they lived on Birch trees the black moths were eaten much more regularly so there were less of that trait in the population. (Note that white moths don’t only make white moths, there would be a percentage that some of their offspring would be black based on their genetics). All of a sudden the industrial revolution starts and all the birch trees around the major cities were coated in soot. The white moths began to stand out and were eaten much faster than normal while the small black moth was now better hidden and began to reproduce more than the white moths. This shifted the gene pool of the areas towards being mainly black moths with some white moths. That is the basics of evolution. Genetic pressures through a shift in reproductive rates that give specific traits an advantage. Another more modern example is that elephants are beginning to shift towards becoming a tuskless animal. In the past tusks were a major advantage however now they are a liability as poachers kill elephants with them. Due to this the small population of tuskless elephants is being to grow as they are being selected for.
Using your example again it would be that there were already a small population of winged humans through mutations however their wings gave them no genetic advantage. Then if you pushed everyone off a cliff only the winged humans would survive due to their inherited advantage and then left to reproduce the next generation would be much more winged than the previous. Of course this is a stupid example since we wouldn’t go straight from no wings to wings. There would be many transitional forms between the two. Bird feathers for example were first a heat regulation device used by large dinosaurs. Smaller dinosaurs were able to take advantage of these feathers in a different way however by jumping and gliding. Over millions of years the lighter the bones and lighter the animal the further and longer they were able to glide and apparently the better they were able to survive and reproduce until they were so light that they could fly.
Adaptations don’t just magically appear when needed. They form through mutation and are selected for due to certain pressures. This is why certain major changes lead to extinction if they happen too fast or the species has no beneficial mutation.
@@bullscott12 "Oooooooh boyyyyyy do you not understand evolution in any possible way. "
Followed by "that I teach to grade 6s"
Anyone that starts off by insulting and berating someone has NO business being a teacher.
@@LuckyFlesh Uh huh yet I am one. My students also don't make wild claims about science they don't know. I am lucky enough to be able to supply this information to students before these warped beliefs take form. I only take that tone to people who spout false information while acting like an expert......also only online lol
You have no clue what you are talking about.
@@LuckyFlesh "Anyone that starts off by insulting and berating someone has NO business being a teacher"
You are wrong.
As a history teacher, how we act in a classroom and how we act out of it are two different things.
I would never insult or berate a student over not knowing something.
I would gladly do so to someone here because these people are not my students.
I do not owe spreaders of misinformation the same courteous I owe my students who are seeking to learn
All arguments for existence of God are missing one crucial component: evidence.
I strongly suggest you a great boo about this issue: I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, by Norman Giesler and Frank Turek. After reading and debunking it, then you might be able to return and comment.
@@marcelogazzoli4279 I don't expect evidence to appear in another book when THE book isn't able to provide any. Just the title of the book you're describing misses the point of atheism entirely - it's not a faith, it's the opposite of faith. It's the simple expectation that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and what claim is more extraordinary then the claim that a supreme, all-powerful entity created and controls everything? "Gut feelings" and unsubstantiated claims of miracles are simply not going to cut it.
@@red_wullf Have you already read that book?
@@marcelogazzoli4279 I have not read the book you’re recommending, but have read enough information and reviews about it to know that it’s just another book written by apologists who put a spin on tired, old ideas. It’s self-affirming for Xians but adds nothing truly new or insightful that most non-believers haven’t heard before. If you’re referring to the Bible then, yes, I’ve read that one.
@@marcelogazzoli4279 "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" is nothing but a long winded strawman argument seeking to create a false equivalency.
Being an atheist requires no faith.
@2:50 You claim that the cause of the universe could be a natural phenomena. But when we ask the cause of the universe, we are asking what caused nature. All the things that are in the world around us. So how can the ultimate cause of nature be a natural phenomena? That too would have to be explained. What caused the natural phenomena?
He would say evolution! That's their answer for almost everything.
Here's the thing...
We can reach the limit of our knowledge and say "We don't know" that still doesn't make a god the answer
The position is not that we don’t know the cause of nature therefore God exists. That would be fallacious (arguing from ignorance).
If you don’t know then you must at least be open to the idea that God may exists, and you just don’t know. You can only argue from what you know, and not what you don’t know.
@@tictac7359 "If you don’t know then you must at least be open to the idea that God may exists, "
Uh, no.
I do not have to be open to people claiming literal magic is real without evidence.
I have to be open to anything that has evidence and if your side could ever actually present evidence I would be open to that...but you never do.
All your side ever has is logical fallacies.
Who is talking about magic? Or believing anything without evidence? That you would compare the idea of God to magic is rather sad. But you think you are the smart one.
Well said causes have beginnings. To say that the universe was randomised is the say that everything was randomised. For the ultimate cause to be random everything in time and space would have to also be random. But it not because God created the universe.
"To say that the universe was randomised..." Who said the universe was randomized? That's a false dichotomy: the options aren't only "either everything is random, or else God created the universe". The universe could have been created by a thoughtless, unconscious force that's nothing like a god and has no intelligence.
@@IceMetalPunk That sounds sarcastic because i cannot take your statement seriously.
well, nice try
I tend to find that a lot of simple counter arguments to the existence of God, which for the argument can be substituted with "a deity", tend to hinge on moral relativism or nihilistic beliefs.
moral relativism period is flawed by the system for the development of social law. an act becomes a normality (tradition), which becomes a more (moral), which becomes a social Law, which becomes an absolute Law. this is a natural review process that all humans use to develop social laws aka ethics which has the side effect of generating culture. thus while not all morals are universal they are not relative as they are processed through a review process. the social laws that remain after the review process is complete are absolute. that immorality is in this review process actual laws, mores, norms, and acts that are enforced by the legal contract that do not match the social contract, that is the wording of the law is different than the interpretation of a law by the public.
that said any roads that leads to nihilism are a dead end.
I found your comment quite interesting, and I wanted to point out a few things:
-First of all, I agree with the fact that every social law comes into existence only after a review process; you could argue that this even exists in the most extreme of situations because longterm consequences usually exist thanks to equally long processes (you could compare how little remains of greek culture in the middle east after the macedonian conquest, and how deeply orthodox beliefs remain in modern day Russia). If you want to push on the idea, that same process happen on an internal level.
-I don´t quite understand the following sentence: "thus while not all morals are universal they are not relative as they are processed through a review process". For me, this reinforces the idea of the relativity of morals; each act only makes sense in a certain context, so the idea that ethics are contextual (at least for me) means that are context dependent (being economical, social etc.). And as Heraclitus said: No man ever steps in the same river twice"; historical change happens so frequently that the ideas of one generation can be quite the oposite of the morals of the following one.
-And finally, I find way harder to determine when moral norms do not correspond to the legal ones. Each social group is so complex that you will find someone (sometimes entire groups of interest) that consider something moral/beneficial.
I hope you see this comment. Maybe you believe that most of my ideas are too historicist of related to marxist ideas of social change. Cheers!
This is a straw-man argument.
There are no arguments against the existence of a god that hinge on moral relativism or nihilistic beliefs.
Moral relativism is simply a fact of existence, and nihilism has nothing to do with the subject.
@@MrGreensweightHist you are using moral relativism as an ineffective dismissal of the information presented. this is bound by nihilism mostly out of the pretext that having morals is relative and thus has no context creating a paradox, which identifies your statement as a philosophical dead end and this falls into Nihilism because because of your pessimistic attitude, which is a hallmark of nihilism, which again is a dead end.
Morals are not relative, they are absolute. there is an absolute truth. we just don't know what it is. In the absence of that knowledge we do two things: we have faith, even if that faith does not include a formal god and diefies humanity or natural law, which is a part of Theology; the second is that we aim to find that truth, which is a part of philosophy.
We cannot definitively prove God either does or does not exist. We can be fairly certain that he does and that the probability that he exist is indicated by the very act of deification.
thus most arguments against God are Moral relativism and Nihilistic which are dead ends, which indicate that they are invalid.
@@fuge74
No. I am not.
Regardless of if morality is objective or relative it has no bearing on the argument as to the existence of a god.
Morality could be objective and come from something other than a god.
Morality could be relative and the god in question is merely inconsistent.
That is was neither moral relativism nor nihilism have ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand and are not arrangement for nor against a god.
You want to PRETEND most arguments fall into those categories because it allows you to avoid the actual argument which is simply...."You have no evidence for a god"
Morals are relative.
This, as stated, has nothing to do with the existence or not of a god, but morals are FACTUALLY relative.
They change from culture to culture, and even from time period to time period within a culture.
Up until 1967 interracial marriage in the U.S. was considered immoral and illegal.
Up until 2015 same sex marriage was considered illegal and immoral, but Netherlands acknowledged it back in 2001.
If you an I listed things we considered moral or immoral, I guarantee we would not agree.
In fact, no people in the WORLD are likely to agree completely
But again, the FACT that morality is relative has ZERO bearing on the existence or not of a god.
@@MrGreensweightHist Cognito ergo, sum.
you basically just defined moral relativism and provide its connection with nihilism.
not agreeing is not a basis for dismissal.
I don't know why people are trying so hard to prove the existence of God, it doesn't even need to be proved. I've been told by God through prophets that God does exist and he is the creator of the universe. So, if someone is disagreeing with this fact, then bring your proofs, since your the one who argues that God doesn't exist. And obviously there is no proof. With all due respect to the video creater, if he actually exists :)
Is it possible here to have an open-minded discussion of what religion is? Oh well, even if you can't bring yourself to challenge your belief system I can do it for you. All you have to do is keep reading. New ideas are not scary to people of above average intelligence so what do you have to lose, besides a belief system whose 'church' doesn't allow questioning of the scriptures? Ask yourselves if you would believe anything anyone told you was true but forbade you from questioning it if it weren't of a religious nature? C'mon now, be real. Humans are gullible enough without intentionally turning off their 'logic and reason' capabilities! As the famous astronomer Galileo Galilei once said, and I quote; "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them." Let's dive in shall we? What is religion? Well, all religions are cults by definition and acts. Though there is a stigma attached to the word 'cult' it is synonymous with religion. So what is a religion/cult? When defining a word one must look at how history defines it. Religions/cults have existed almost as long as humanity because we are small beings with small minds, extremely short-lived and are made to suffer from birth to death. Under such circumstances it isn't hard to understand why humans 'created' belief systems that 'promised' eternal bliss for the 'true believers'. Because of the unscrupulous nature of humans and our propensity for lying/manipulating each other for personal gain.......religions/cults were born. Let's be real here. For as long as humans have walked the earth there have been religions/cults hindering every step toward scientific advancement and enlightenment. Religions/cults have had a hand in every violent conflict humanity has suffered. Monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism and Islam are a few of the currently 'accepted' belief systems/control mechanisms being used to manipulate and control the masses. It is the 'secure buffer' between the wealthy ruling elite and the masses they loathe and fear. Religions/cults preach forgiveness of those who wrong us rather than seeking justice, just ask all the children who have been victimized by pedophilic priests (apnews.com/article/baltimore-archdiocese-sex-abuse-report-7d5d3af098da59a1c9313a246566638c). The relationship between religions/cults and governments has existed almost from the beginning of both. It is why these religions/cults enjoy the 'tax-free' status even though they own massive amounts of property and their influence over political agendas is always on full display. 'In God We Trust'? No. Trusting in a deity that has not made an appearance in over 2000 years is just plain stupid. There is no 'personal God' watching over us or if there is........they are most definitely NOT benevolent as indicated by the never-ending suffering that goes on here abated only by death. Look around you and see all the death and destruction that will eventually consume you. What is religion? It is a lie that has kept humanity from escaping this state of constant misery......nothing more.
All 4 arguments are merely strings of logical fallacies.
Cosmological = Non Sequitur. (As is the rephrased version)
Teleological = Personal Incredulity and Argument from Ignorance.
Ontological = Argument from Credulity
Moral Argument = Personal Incredulity Argument.
There is no argument for a god that is not based on logical fallacies.
tbh most arguments against God are Personal Incredulity Arguments. He cannot exist, because the very idea is ridiculous, trivial, or even frightening to many.
@@SquizzMe
You have created a strawman argument.
It isn't.
Theist: Here is my evidence for a god.
Atheist: Here is my evidence against a god.
It is
Theist: Here is my evidence for a god.
Atheist: That isn't evidence. I don't accept your claim
The atheist does not have to argue against that which has not been demonstrated in the first place
@@MrGreensweightHist An atheist must absolutely defend his position that there is no god, because there are just many scientific implications. You cannot deny the existence of a god because there is no objective testable evidence, but not provide that same objective testable evidence that proves an alternative theory. And so far, the scientific community has not done that, and it would be very hard/impossible to.
There are no current proven scientific theories that forbid or contradict the existence of a god, including the Big Bang and Evolution. If anything, those two fit quite nicely in many ways. Atheists don't get to be correct by 'default' because they also have no objective testable proof of the origin/cause of the universe. In fact, MANY studies suggest the possible existence of a non-physical aspect of the universe.
Also, note that our idea of "evidence" is inherently biased to the human experience. Just because our 5 senses cannot detect something, it doesn't mean that something cannot and does not exist. Insisting that the universe can ALWAYS be reduced down to human-detectable 'evidence' is a self-centered assumption.
I'm not a fan of "arguing" for a god, but atheists often smugly think that removes any onus from them to provide any one of the alternative proofs. God is simply one theory.
@@SquizzMe
Strawman argument.
Atheist position is not "There is no god"
Atheist position is, "I do not accept your claim there is a god"
We don't owe you an alternative theory simply because we don't accept your mythology as an explanation
Again, we don't owe you one.
The fact is there are two, but again WE DON'T OWE YOU AN ALTERNATIVE just because we don't believe your explanation.
No it doesn't.
Evidence has a straight forward meaning.
It is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
You have no facts or evidence indicating the claim of a god is true.
If I do not accept your claim there is a god,
I DO NOT OWE YOU PROOFS.
I get to simply say "I don't believe you"
And because you have no evidence to demonstrate your claim, that is all I have to do.
I do not owe you anything beyond that.
@@MrGreensweightHist "We don't owe you an alternative theory simply because we don't accept your mythology as an explanation"
You owe THE WORLD an alternative. You have no testable proof of any origin. So far, you are just as wrong as a god-believer. Forget god. Even if religion never existed, you STILL have no proof of ANY theory.
"No it doesn't.
Evidence has a straight forward meaning.
It is defined as "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid"
Right. "INDICATING". It must be detectable by human faculties. But assuming that ALL things in the universe can do that is an assumption.
"I DO NOT OWE YOU PROOFS"
Yes you do. Just like god-believers need proof of their theory as do you for your theory. Why would I treat you differently? You have as little proof as they do.
History destroys all arguments for existence of biblical psychopath named yahwe.
Yes, God, All Mighty, Exists!
proof?
Dude you missed the best couple of reasons for the argument of God, and that is the argument that God himself makes in the Bible: Prophecy. There are so many prophecies that are so good that despite the fact we know they occurred hundreds of years before hand, maybe even thousands people can't believe they are true. Another clue would be how in John 1:1 gematria hid Euler's number which is pretty impressive, considering the idea of natural logs had not been invented for another 1600 years or so. John MacArthur has done a good job going over how both the books of Daniel and Zechariah detail various wars and conquerors through the Levant hundred of years prior to it happening, and how there is no doubt these books predate Alexander, or various rulers of Egypt, Babylon or Damascus.
@Greg W go review lessons on fulfilled prophecy. Chuck Missler and John Macarthur have both done a great job expounding these lessons.
@Greg W that was the whole point of my original comment. God himself has staked his reputation on prophecy. He doesn't use an ontological argument he doesn't use a first mover argument he doesn't use brute fact arguments he doesn't argue for morality. God, himself, says his Mark of Truth is prophecy. So in a certain sense I don't care what the big names in advocacy say. I gave you two big names and Christian apologetics that base their foundation on understanding Bible prophecy. (Dictated but not reviewed)
Troll!
Not a single verifiable prophecy int he Bible.
Try again
There is an important problem with most religions.
You have to travel to a building and donate, which uses valuable resources.
Jesus, however, had a very useful suggestion that saves time and money (Matthew 6:6).
God doesn't exist. Existence is one of God's creations. Attributing existence to God is a categorical error.
I don't care, it'll make no difference to me.
Huh... Really good job showing the arguments, but they're all bad arguments :/ anyway, moving on. Loving the channel.
Non believers, they`re always looking to disprove that God is. It is self evident proof that He is, because they are still looking to disprove His existence.
You’re conclusión is not an argument, it is just annoying that society are pushing these God theories into our throats. Most of the worlds political system are based on that a God exist and rules shall be created out of that.
Um... no? The burden of proof always lies with the person making a positive claim, not with the people dismissing it. If I said I have an invisible, flying, half-dog half-monkey pet, would you believe me? Probably not. But imagine I then said "well, you can't disprove Monkey-Dog's existence, so that proves he's real!" Would that make sense to you? And yet, that's what you're doing: you're claiming something with no evidence, then saying that it's up to everyone else to disprove your claim otherwise it must be true. That's backwards: if you claim something is real, you must provide the evidence for it, otherwise your claim is baseless and can be dismissed without any further effort.
I would love to see you fill in the missing premise to make this into a valid argument
Premise 1. Non believers are still looking to disprove the existence of God
Premise 2. ?
Conclusion: Therefore God exists
Recently, I found a more compelling reason for God's existence:
1. We didn't understand the world
2. To understand the world, we 'created' God (also, Gods, spirits, and other metaphysical beings) to explain the world
3. At some point, we forgot that we 'created' God
4. So now we have God, and are left with the question of their existence
Who cares?
Ironic how you source from medieval religious leaders who believed that stars were lanterns hung by chain from the heavens. Pretty clear that's not true lmfao yet you all still hang on to the baseless and dogmatic religion for no reason. I'm not going to finish the video, but from what I have seen, it's not worth it to. The first point alone is flawed in so many different ways. We don't know if the universe had a beginning or not, the big band was simply a rapid expansion, but as for the matter that constitutes the universe, that to the best of our knowledge has always existed. If God has always existed, why can't this matter also? If he hasn't, then he isn't god; something superior must have made him. It isn't that people like Niels Bohr and Stephen Hawking are smart, it's that the world is dumb; 93% of it to be exact.
You spelled conceive incorrectly, therefore, God doesn't exist. ;-)
Basically every internet fight lol
According to my way to see it, there is no God… Specifically there is no such one God as Christian’s, Jews, Islam claims. And there is no-none that listens to prayers, your prayers are to boost your own strength.
The universe is so finely tuned nothing else is as finely tuned. If you tried to recreate it using supercomputers then you would need to enter dark matter (I think) and set that constant to 0.0000000 use another billion zeros and then put 1 at the end.. If it was 2 the universe would collapse quickly (a million years or less) ..if you became self aware in a massive fish tank and were intelligent enough to figure out the temperature was set at ridiculous level of accuracy then you would have to assume something set that temperature. The counter argument for this is that there could be trillions of universes and ours is the one set at this unnatural level of precision .But until multiple universes are proven I think this is the best argument. The other answer Is you will find out or not when you die so until then enjoy it and try not to be an asshole
I think you're missing an important consideration: the constants only need to be "fine tuned" to create *the universe as we know it.* They don't need to be that way to create *any* universe, and there's no reason to think some very alien form of intelligence couldn't emerge from a universe with different constant values. You're reversing cause and effect here: we exist as we do because those values are what they are, but that doesn't imply that the values are what they are *so that* we could exist.
and......?
God has proven to us his existence... It is throughout the Bible, with no God there is no conscious , you would need a conscious mind to make a conscious mind, example, no matter how many times a tornado goes through a scrap yard, it won't create a perfect beautiful car
@Anon Ymous If you were to read the bible, you would see that God condemns slavery, slavery was voluntary, for those who were in dept, it was not forced, secondly it is right for God to remove evil...Yall complain when he deals with evil... When he does you say he a murderer.. When he decides to be patient willing to forgive, you say, why does God let this happen and you say he is unjust... The Bible says he will remain patient (that is is Grace) and give everyone an opportunity to repent and to live a Good life accordingly and at the end he will separate the Good from the evil... Tell me what is your solution for the earth's problem?
Teleological Argument:
Evolution does not at all refute God's design. The more science reveals the inner universe of living creatures, the more design is discovered. For example, DNA. For any complex living creature, there is a coding for the development of that creature in its DNA. The DNA itself is coded to allow for development/variations as that creature interacts with its environment.
What Evolution and its proponents shy away from is 'First Cause'. How did the first living creature with DNA come to be? DNA is a language that has many (many many!) components that must interact and work the 'first' time to create life. Nothing can spontaneously generate itself without accounting for its DNA. Since the DNA is too complex to be randomly arrived at (especially for the many different forms created by DNA), it must have been put into place by 'something'. Until Evolutionists can identify a 'something' that is an alternative to God, I'll stick with God (and the Moral Behaviors that He requires).
What would be an interesting exercise is to run some probability math on DNA. What are the 'odds' that it could occur randomly? I once read an article on the engineering of a single living cell (much simpler than DNA). Presume it takes around 400 enzymes to make a single living cell. Just to have a 1 time 'random' arrangement of all components of those 400 enzymes (with all connections in the correct place, alignment of those connections all properly achieved) was computed to be 1/10*26,000 probability. Mathematicians have generally agreed that any probability less than 1/10*150 power is 'impossible' odds. So just getting the pieces in place (not to mention the far more complex arrangement of cooperative instructions in DNA) is impossible -- for just 1 cell. Now think of the myriads of cells, all their divergent DNA, and run probabilities on that and...well, you see where this leaves us.
If God exists, and created the Universe, then He must be 'supernatural', that is outside the realm of space and time. Therefore any scientific measurements we who are 'natural' can come up with must by their very inclusion in the natural be unable to 'measure' God. So no scientific evidence will ever (IMHO) 'prove' God's existence.
One must choose to believe in God by Faith, not Reason/Proof. Once that's done, He has left us a marvelous engineering manual (the Bible) to tell us His plan for us. Enjoy!
Out of the approximately 4,000 gods people believe in, what is your imaginary pet god?
@@deirdre108 Same one Paul proclaimed to the Atheneans in Acts 17.
@@bravehome4276 You are apparently referencing "yahweh", originally the Canaanite god of metallurgy (copper, more precisely) who was eventually promoted to the chief (sky-god) by the Israelites when they adopted the Canaanite pantheon.
@@deirdre108 Your description of events is backwards -- Yahweh adopted the Israelites (via contact with Abraham and his sons) not the other way around.
So you know that what you believe in is illogical?
The fool says in his heart "there is no God". This statement is actually a scripture. Which makes a statement by God Himself. All scriptures are statements by and from God.
The "Scriptures" are stories written by men, and using it to claim to prove a god is a Circular Reasoning fallacy.
@@MrGreensweightHist Exactly. The Bible’s proponents effectively claim, “This book is true because this book says it’s true.” The movie and television series “Fargo” demonstrated this fallacy perfectly by claiming the events in the film are true at the outset of the film, even though the events were not, in fact, true.
most non-believers do not, in fact, think "there is no god", but rather, they just do not think "there is a god"; those are not the same.
I do not believe that a god exists.
I also do not believe that no god exists.
I believe there is a possibility but not a certainty that a god exists.
I believe that if there is a god, it cannot possibly be all powerful, all knowing, and benevolent all at the same time given the cruelty of life.
I believe that a benevolent god would not require/demand worship.
I believe a non-benevolent god does not deserve worship.
I thus believe that if a god were to exist, it would either not demand worship, or be non-benevolent and not deserving of worship, thus I believe there is no reason, other than a personal desire to do so, to worship a potential god.
I believe that if an arbiter god exists, it will not judge whether I practiced religion, but whether I tried to be a good person.
So what you're saying is, "It's foolish not to believe in God, because of this book that was written by God, which I know because the book says it was written by God". Honestly, is there any objective/logical reason to believe "All scriptures are statements by and from God" beyond "because the book says so" or "because someone told me so"?
This philosophy is unnecessary. There are a hundred CZcams videos on the miracles of the Quran. Much less thinking and arguing is required to understand that.
I thought the only miracle claim of Islam is how amazing the Quran can read.
If you study just some genetics in the context of biology, everything points to the existence of a Master Designer...
And then if you study a lot more genetics, everything points to no designer.