tbf its only in modern times that Leprechauns are shown in human-like form ..in Scots and Irish beliefs the faeries were more like personalities in an Animist tradition but aye point taken .
I disagree with Aron regarding there being no possibility. We know the limitations of a 1D object, a 2D object, a 3D object, and we somewhat know and are learning the spatial 4th Dimension of time. To assume there is no possibility of higher dimensions that we can't see and understand because of our place in the 3D is ignorant. We may not be able to define those theoretical dimensions, but there's a possibility they exist. Could there be a God or greater power in one or all of those dimensions? Of course.
I don't want to be rude but I think you didn't understand Aron on this. What you've said can be true in philosophy. In science there has to be some adherence to reality. Before you can say something is possible, first you have to show that such a possibility exists. Only then you can hypothesise the probability of "something" (and it still can be equal zero). In other words first you have to show the existence of possibility of something or you can't be warranted with your position into any serious consideration. Let me give you an example. Can there be life somewhere in the Universe? Well - we know, that in at least one place life is POSSIBLE (on Earth), that's why you're granted to hypothesise about the PROBABILITY of extra terrestrial life. You can't do similar thought process with God or fairies. I hope I made myself as clear as I could.
@@Amsztel It's certainly not rude to have a differing opinion. I'll review what you have to say. I agree with Aron that not "everything" is possible, but only when applying the scientific method to material objects in a material universe. He says while using "evidence and logic," which are human tools we use to better understand everything around us. However, I think it's incredibly arrogant to say there is no possibility of God, especially after I've heard so many of his friends like Matt Dillahunty say there's no way to have absolute certainty. Aron literally even makes the point that you can't prove there is no God with certainty (Yes, he contradicts himself in the same video). Aron is making the same mistake Theists make by putting "God" or whatever "unknown" there is in the universe into a box with human characteristics. When Atheists ask for "evidence" they're wanting something potentially beyond our comprehension to humanize evidence for us so we can better understand. That's a bad faith position and personifies a God to the equivalence of the one in the Bible that gets angry or jealous. I don't believe in the Christian God, and I don't think it's a serious position to sit around saying you're waiting for writing in the sky or for a God to speak to you. I AM an Atheist. Don't get me confused with a bible thumper. But it's funny you're taking the position of science while assuming I'm coming at this from a philosophical point of view, when many of the conversations I've had on the subject I just mentioned were from other Atheist Scientists. And I don't agree with your example. You're saying we can hypothesize life somewhere else in the universe because we know of at least one planet with life on it where it's possible. Who exactly said people are allowed to hypothesize that these possible extraterrestrials have big heads, disproportionately large eyes, green/gray hues to their skins, that they operate saucer shaped ships, that they probe people, and that they communicate telepathically? None of those things are attributes that match the life on this planet, yet people still hypothesize what they think extraterrestrials could look like and what they do. I can still hypothesize what a universe with a God COULD look like and I at no point said you have to accept it.
Well i think there is a distinction to be made. Now we know that we live in 3D world, 4 if we count time as Einstein proposed, and ofc we cant say that there is no possibility that we might discover more dimensions, but what Aron is saying is, that there is no there there, nothing that would actual give us any sign of this supernatural being, except the made up stories, or the delusion of the people. Therefore if we can't indicate that that thing is possible, and since there is no evidence, and there is a huge amount of evidence that states that the universe nor humans have no need for a god, then it most likely that the thing is impossible. Im not saying that we can't be wrong, if it turns out too be that there is a god, then i can live with that, what matters is the truth. So far, religon is failing at that.. Horribly.
@@stevenknight6756is it possible there is a thing we cannot know in a part of the cosmos we cannot reach , which does not produce any effects humans can ever sense in any way ? Maybe. Calling that thing God is a bit of a stretch though .
For an agnostic or an atheist there is a difference between being uncomfortable saying “gods don’t exist” and having reasons to believe that “gods do not exist.” How we feel, individually, about a statement is irrelevant to its truth value. the reasons we have for a particular belief can be evaluated as sufficient, insufficient, or unclear. There is nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know” when you have insufficient information. But, in the face of sufficient evidence, saying “well, it is logically possible that blah, blah, blah” simply doesn’t cut it. We have far more evidence that the god worshiped by the Christian’s does not exist than we have as individuals that the medicine the doctor prescribed for us is not going to kill you. Not only is it logically possible it is simply possible that the medicine will kill you. But, will you not take the medicine on that reasoning? This is the same as having strong evidence that god is nonexistent and claiming that you don’t know, because it’s logically possible that the evidence and reasoning is wrong. so, if you are agnostic, why do you take your doctor’s advice?
The universe has 4 fundamental properties time space matter and energy. All depend on each other for their existence. Therefore all came into existence simultaneously. The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe will have an end. Therefore the universe is not eternal. Therefore the universe had a beginning. We know that anything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause. Therefore the cause of the universe MUST be eternal, immaterial, nonspatial, and non-energetic. We know that the degree of complexity of living systems and the fine-tuning of the universe cannot possibly be accidental. Therefore the cause of the universe is intelligent, eternal, immaterial and transcendent. in other words God. It is impossible for God NOT to exist.
You really assume a lot there!! "Therefore", "therefore", "therefore", "therefore", "therefore".... never heard that 'assumption is the mother of all fuckups'?!?!? Besides, You better read up on your physics knowledge or perhaps even demand Your school money back. I have happened across religious people before, that pulls this stunt, and each and every one seems to forget one crucial factor... the closed system!!! "The second law of thermodynamics only deals with the irreversibility of heat conversion to another form. The second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems." Btw... who said it had a beginning?? Many scientists are starting to accept the idea of a multiverse. If that should be the case, then the Big Bang wasn't the "beginning" that you are talking about and it would absolutely not require a god figure behind it. Beliefs are like cages You cannot see. They keep You from learning, from growing, from being truly free!
I have a argument to this. So we can prove the 1st 2nd and 3rd dimension. We can’t prove there is a 4th dimension though or higher. Our science tells us that odds are that there is a 4th dimension and higher. Odds don’t prove anything though. We don’t know how to prove it either maybe our science isn’t advanced enough or maybe we just are not meant to. In that same sense maybe that’s how god works.
I reject premise 1 "God is defined by his miraculous nature". God "defined" as the the agent of nature, contrary to metaphysical naturalism. I reject premise 2 "IN THIS reality". Natural time is not "real". So it's Aron Ra that does not exist inside of time. Ra can only exist as a created embedded agent inside of spacetime.
Obviously you have been told the bible is true and either didn't read it or went into reading it with your mind closed to the words within the book of multiple contradictions.
@RickMason-yj7pv nope. I used to be Catholic... became agnostic atheist since the Catholics lie...and then studied mulitple religions and still do till this day by reading their books....I am a born again Bible believing Christian since the Bible is the word of God who still studies the Bible. If you want to show me 1 single contradiction I will be more than happy to prove it wrong. I want 1 btw not a website or a 2 page essay....people seems to skip this part and don't show 1 contradiction like I asked and continue to post a website since they themselves can't find a single full proof contradiction...I should know I was once agnostic atheist. God bless.
I know there is no extraterrestrial life the same way I know that there's no God. Go ahead. Try shooting down my logic and then watch me obliterate yours.
Around Ra makes a lot more sense than any religious person 👍
Thank you for watching and commenting!
tbf its only in modern times that Leprechauns are shown in human-like form ..in Scots and Irish beliefs the faeries were more like personalities in an Animist tradition but aye point taken .
Thanks for the addition!
"It's not possible for a monkey to fly out of your ass" -Aron Ra
Thanks for watching!
what if it's invisible?
Love that guy !!!
Thanks for watching!
I disagree with Aron regarding there being no possibility. We know the limitations of a 1D object, a 2D object, a 3D object, and we somewhat know and are learning the spatial 4th Dimension of time. To assume there is no possibility of higher dimensions that we can't see and understand because of our place in the 3D is ignorant. We may not be able to define those theoretical dimensions, but there's a possibility they exist. Could there be a God or greater power in one or all of those dimensions? Of course.
Agreed…asserting either position of the god coin is a fool’s errand. Tomorrow could always bring new information.
I don't want to be rude but I think you didn't understand Aron on this. What you've said can be true in philosophy. In science there has to be some adherence to reality. Before you can say something is possible, first you have to show that such a possibility exists. Only then you can hypothesise the probability of "something" (and it still can be equal zero). In other words first you have to show the existence of possibility of something or you can't be warranted with your position into any serious consideration.
Let me give you an example. Can there be life somewhere in the Universe? Well - we know, that in at least one place life is POSSIBLE (on Earth), that's why you're granted to hypothesise about the PROBABILITY of extra terrestrial life. You can't do similar thought process with God or fairies. I hope I made myself as clear as I could.
@@Amsztel It's certainly not rude to have a differing opinion. I'll review what you have to say.
I agree with Aron that not "everything" is possible, but only when applying the scientific method to material objects in a material universe. He says while using "evidence and logic," which are human tools we use to better understand everything around us. However, I think it's incredibly arrogant to say there is no possibility of God, especially after I've heard so many of his friends like Matt Dillahunty say there's no way to have absolute certainty. Aron literally even makes the point that you can't prove there is no God with certainty (Yes, he contradicts himself in the same video).
Aron is making the same mistake Theists make by putting "God" or whatever "unknown" there is in the universe into a box with human characteristics. When Atheists ask for "evidence" they're wanting something potentially beyond our comprehension to humanize evidence for us so we can better understand. That's a bad faith position and personifies a God to the equivalence of the one in the Bible that gets angry or jealous. I don't believe in the Christian God, and I don't think it's a serious position to sit around saying you're waiting for writing in the sky or for a God to speak to you. I AM an Atheist. Don't get me confused with a bible thumper. But it's funny you're taking the position of science while assuming I'm coming at this from a philosophical point of view, when many of the conversations I've had on the subject I just mentioned were from other Atheist Scientists.
And I don't agree with your example. You're saying we can hypothesize life somewhere else in the universe because we know of at least one planet with life on it where it's possible. Who exactly said people are allowed to hypothesize that these possible extraterrestrials have big heads, disproportionately large eyes, green/gray hues to their skins, that they operate saucer shaped ships, that they probe people, and that they communicate telepathically? None of those things are attributes that match the life on this planet, yet people still hypothesize what they think extraterrestrials could look like and what they do. I can still hypothesize what a universe with a God COULD look like and I at no point said you have to accept it.
Well i think there is a distinction to be made. Now we know that we live in 3D world, 4 if we count time as Einstein proposed, and ofc we cant say that there is no possibility that we might discover more dimensions, but what Aron is saying is, that there is no there there, nothing that would actual give us any sign of this supernatural being, except the made up stories, or the delusion of the people. Therefore if we can't indicate that that thing is possible, and since there is no evidence, and there is a huge amount of evidence that states that the universe nor humans have no need for a god, then it most likely that the thing is impossible. Im not saying that we can't be wrong, if it turns out too be that there is a god, then i can live with that, what matters is the truth. So far, religon is failing at that.. Horribly.
@@stevenknight6756is it possible there is a thing we cannot know in a part of the cosmos we cannot reach , which does not produce any effects humans can ever sense in any way ? Maybe. Calling that thing God is a bit of a stretch though .
For an agnostic or an atheist there is a difference between being uncomfortable saying “gods don’t exist” and having reasons to believe that “gods do not exist.” How we feel, individually, about a statement is irrelevant to its truth value. the reasons we have for a particular belief can be evaluated as sufficient, insufficient, or unclear. There is nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know” when you have insufficient information. But, in the face of sufficient evidence, saying “well, it is logically possible that blah, blah, blah” simply doesn’t cut it. We have far more evidence that the god worshiped by the Christian’s does not exist than we have as individuals that the medicine the doctor prescribed for us is not going to kill you. Not only is it logically possible it is simply possible that the medicine will kill you. But, will you not take the medicine on that reasoning? This is the same as having strong evidence that god is nonexistent and claiming that you don’t know, because it’s logically possible that the evidence and reasoning is wrong. so, if you are agnostic, why do you take your doctor’s advice?
Interesting point...thank you for your comment
The universe has 4 fundamental properties time space matter and energy. All depend on each other for their existence.
Therefore all came into existence simultaneously.
The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the universe will have an end.
Therefore the universe is not eternal.
Therefore the universe had a beginning.
We know that anything that BEGINS TO EXIST has a cause.
Therefore the cause of the universe MUST be eternal, immaterial, nonspatial, and non-energetic.
We know that the degree of complexity of living systems and the fine-tuning of the universe cannot possibly be accidental.
Therefore the cause of the universe is intelligent, eternal, immaterial and transcendent. in other words God.
It is impossible for God NOT to exist.
Interesting take.....thanks for watching!
And what makes you think the universe had or needed to have a beginning?
You really assume a lot there!! "Therefore", "therefore", "therefore", "therefore", "therefore".... never heard that 'assumption is the mother of all fuckups'?!?!?
Besides, You better read up on your physics knowledge or perhaps even demand Your school money back. I have happened across religious people before, that pulls this stunt, and each and every one seems to forget one crucial factor... the closed system!!!
"The second law of thermodynamics only deals with the irreversibility of heat conversion to another form. The second law of thermodynamics only deals with closed systems."
Btw... who said it had a beginning?? Many scientists are starting to accept the idea of a multiverse. If that should be the case, then the Big Bang wasn't the "beginning" that you are talking about and it would absolutely not require a god figure behind it.
Beliefs are like cages You cannot see. They keep You from learning, from growing, from being truly free!
I have a argument to this. So we can prove the 1st 2nd and 3rd dimension. We can’t prove there is a 4th dimension though or higher. Our science tells us that odds are that there is a 4th dimension and higher. Odds don’t prove anything though. We don’t know how to prove it either maybe our science isn’t advanced enough or maybe we just are not meant to. In that same sense maybe that’s how god works.
Haha WOW. I just commented on the same thing and just now saw your comment.
Interesting take...thanks for your comment!
isn't this the god of gaps argument
Dont this guy believe in energy that is in everything
Belief does not make something true, never has and never will. Show Us the scientific evidence other than heresy!
Interesting take - thanks for watching!
I reject premise 1 "God is defined by his miraculous nature".
God "defined" as the the agent of nature, contrary to metaphysical naturalism.
I reject premise 2 "IN THIS reality".
Natural time is not "real". So it's Aron Ra that does not exist inside of time.
Ra can only exist as a created embedded agent inside of spacetime.
The Bible is the proof of God. It is self authenticating and self fulfilling. This is clearly the truth since the Bible has 0 contradictions.
Obviously you have been told the bible is true and either didn't read it or went into reading it with your mind closed to the words within the book of multiple contradictions.
@RickMason-yj7pv nope. I used to be Catholic... became agnostic atheist since the Catholics lie...and then studied mulitple religions and still do till this day by reading their books....I am a born again Bible believing Christian since the Bible is the word of God who still studies the Bible. If you want to show me 1 single contradiction I will be more than happy to prove it wrong. I want 1 btw not a website or a 2 page essay....people seems to skip this part and don't show 1 contradiction like I asked and continue to post a website since they themselves can't find a single full proof contradiction...I should know I was once agnostic atheist. God bless.
Very interesting take...thanks for watching!
Sure you are troll then I guess you can explain the contradictions of who carried the cross, Judas's death and Jesus's birth.
Aron ra a could loser and lone star pete a could loser too
Huh?
Get back under your bridge.
@dennisduncan7561 ya you should go back under your bridge weirdo
I know there is no extraterrestrial life the same way I know that there's no God.
Go ahead. Try shooting down my logic and then watch me obliterate yours.
Very interesting take! Thank you for your comment
@@LoneStarPlate I hear clucking.
Oh well.