*“When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible, and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." -- Lindsey Brown*
God is real!!!! That's my answer to those "the universe is god/god is love" folks. God also isn't conscious and doesn't have opinions. The problem is none of the 40 churches within walking distance of my home worship love or the universe and I'm mostly addressing those and their claims that I'm not real (also also should be out in death row for being real) because an old book said so
Therefore Endorphins = greater power and therefore we cannot scope endorphins, it's beyond our comprehension! BA-DUM-TSSS! Wait..... we now pretty feckin lot about endorphins... nevermind, continue.
I'm assuming he means frissons and the specific subsection musical frissons which are a very cool effect that not everyone can experience. We also can describe it and analyse and understand it. I think Billy might just need a good thesaurus.
Billy is yet another weak minded person who feels insecure and needs to create a fantasy that there is a little man in the sky who loves him and will take care of him and send him to an eternal paradise. Anything to the contrary will be brutally denied by billy. Religious people are very ill.
When a claim is made we have to have the shared understanding of a working definition. Like when we discuss religion, gender, politics, or anything else.
Only if its evidentiary-scientific. Social constructionism can be identified rightaway. All religious arguments are social constructs and now it’s psychiatry of the masses. Thus the diagnose is scizophrenia religiosa. Delusions. This analysis can now be quantified and falsified with 12000 years of data since we bred the low IQ agrarian beasts.
You ever see that documentary called "What the Bleep Do We Know"? I made the mistake of paying money to see that at an indie-arthouse theater when it came out. I was told it was deep and thought-provoking, I thought it had to do with science, etc... It was fucking insufferable. 2 hours of "What if?", "Could this be?", "Quantum!", "Electrons!"...just atrocious woo of the highest order.
@@Theosis1981 No, MOST theists have no concept of sin, because most religions have no such concept. This term arises exclusively in Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
@@Theosis1981not agrees with everything they do, but everything they believe. When God hates everything you do you know you have made him in your image.
If the appreciation of beauty required a higher being You'd expect everyone to have the same standard for beauty and that it would be the same for every generation.
@@TheLevantin That could possibly be the best explanation for the scripture declaring God created us in His image. But I disagree only in the part that that declaration doesn't make us God. Have a wonderful day.
@@wwlib5390 To perceive “beauty” you only need a brain (and sensory organs, of course). no god necessary, just as no god is necessary to perceive “redness”. The existence of red things is not proof of a god. The existence of beautiful things is not proof of God.
music and beauty are perceived and then processed (assigned subjective value) by our cognition. no evidence to assume magic, 'higher power' or other psycho-fantasies.
@@Theosis1981I don't see any reason to believe that is true. Feels more like a circular definition. Certain people, usually older or conservative ones, think certain types of art are "dumb" or "degenerate" particularly when they are new and so the society that produced them must be. History is full of the older generation of the time getting upset at new artistic movements they don't like. Only for the younger and later generations to appreciate them.
DAMN YOU! I normally make a comment about an "inability to understand buttons or feed himself; the sort who wears velcro shoes and a helmet while tethered to his social worker out for a walk" or I suggest that it must have been difficult to convince one of the nurses to dial for them...or my personal favourite, that they've walked into the middle of a room, naked from the waist down, shat on the floor, sat down in the mess, wiping faeces through his hair and proceeding to eat glue with a spoon. *BUT I REALLY LIKE YOURS!!* (also, when not all their dogs are barking, I refer to them stomping around in circles, with their hair on fire, punching themselves in the face and screaming *"YELLOW!"* over and over again) Feel free to make liberal use of any of those! Live well, Laugh readily, Love. Unconditionally. *AND TELL JOKES!!*
@@Theosis1981 vaguely similar beliefs are not the same. There a reason that there are over 45,000 denominations of CHRISTIANITY alone: not even Christians can agree, let alone the rest. Try again.
@@tonyclements1147 and let's not forget that "the Abrahamic God" is not even a single being, nor a consistent one! There are two DIFFERENT "Gods" in just the first two pages on the Bible! The character _evolves_ over time, from YHWH, the storm/war god of a small Middle East tribe, then over time, other nearby gods and/or characteristics of other nearby gods get rolled in, growing until eventually it becomes a monotheistic deity. Then along comes a charismatic apocalyptic preacher who started a cult, then was deified in a Game of Telephone. Now they need to invent a way to having two gods, but still having a single "God", so they added in the god of wind/life (the "holy spirit") and invented new math: 1+1+1=1. ☝️ How many people who believe in "the Abrahamic God" believe that 💩, you ya reckon? 🤣
@@Theosis1981 If you ask a majority of Abrahamic theists of course they're going to give you a similar Abrahamic deity. Hindus won't. Pantheists won't.
Musicians, composers, can tell you exactly why we respond to music as we do. Why a major chord evokes a different emotion than does a minor chord, is music 101.
@@charlesoliver2535 you're right. I remember being taught that starting at a very early age - to search for the right pinnacle of feeling. And then that feeling and the mutual validation of it becomes the guiding light of the teen and young adult, and hopefully survives as the young believer begins having children.
@@bobbabai A few may have "logical" justification for believing. But from my own experience, it's to maintain the feelings. I've had heated discussions with theists. The words, "I'd believe even if it was demonstrated to be false!", came from them. The analogy to that imho is like a drug addict learning their drug will kill them.
There's definitely beauty in music, one especially beautiful moment is in the song 'Judith' by A Perfect Circle where the term 'FUCK YOUR GOD' is screamed.
Questions for theists: 1. what is the purpose of worship (grovelling) to a being of ultimate power? 2. Why would an ultimate begin invent humans to 'play' with? 3. Why does a 'loving' god allow it's subjects to kill each other and invent weapons that could wipe out human life on earth? 4. Why is god a 'he'? This implies sexual orientation and a female gender exists? 5. Why do theists often seem thick as mince?
As an agnostic pantheist and thus a irreligious theist: 1) to score brownie points with the priests of the religion and prevent persecution 2) boredom, maliciousness, discovery,v etc 3) see above 4) the tendency of human societies to implement patriarchal power hierarchies 5) Religions discourage unauthorised learning because they tend to make unsubstantiated assertions and learning that impedes their control
I’d have asked this caller about what pieces of music specifically he associated with his experience, and what steps he took to study these experiences further. I myself am a religious person (Jewish) and a trained musician. I have had what I can call spiritual experiences brought on by music, and I’ve devoted my life to understanding those experiences better - I studied music theory, music history and composition, I wrote music, and I even wrote operas and oratorios expressing my experiences and memories. That is, I think, a reasonable response to being perplexed or befuddled or awed by spiritual experiences.
Willy has listened to the show enough to know what the hosts are looking for and what the weaknesses of his position are. The response he got was entirely predictable.
As someone who's studied psychology and been playing instruments since 8 years old. We absolutely do understand music and why it has the effe t it does.
People tend to be lost when thinking about subtle subjects. The fact that things are beyond our understanding isn't proof of anything except how inept we tend to be.
According to people like Billy, "I don't understand what lightning is, therefore god(s) did it," used to be a valid argument. It makes sense if you don't think about it.
Wait. Atheists don't HAVE a definition for any god. They're responding to theist CLAIMS that there is a god. It's entirely up to theists to define whatever it is they mean by that.
The problem with arguments from ignorance and incredulity is that they're so often wrong following a basic investigation that the arguer _could easily have carried out_
Music is profound in a way that is beyond explanation, but humans can deliberately create unique pieces of music that move people to feel a specific way that is profound beyond explanation. It is not that music is beyond human understanding. It is only that music is beyond human words.
I am an agnostic but i dont know why some religious think we need a god to appreciate beauty - of nature for example, listen to a nice song, to know whats right and wrong -thats why we have brains. Of course beauty and music is subjective.
@@danielhughes441 you'll find that most people in the world don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about religion or the absence of it. It affects no one, least of all him to be uninformed and without conviction. He mentioned he was nervous, he's likely never even talked about his beliefs to someone with a different opinion. Are you expecting an actual valid argument from a theist or what? All of the conversations progress more or less like this anyway, so you must only watch for the drama. Which is kind of sad.
British independent school product in every way. His inflexible, flimsy, circular points are cloaked in a supposedly polite ..... slow.... step... by step... manner of speech. Product of his indoctrinated, narrow culture and time.
Billy is the type of Brit who always leaves team meetings having been assigned zero action points. He talks but he says nothing. He would happily argue, thoroughly unconvincingly, for sitting the opposite way round on a toilet. Fortunately, I have worked alongside precious few of his ilk, or I would have pulled out all my hair decades before I lost it naturally 😂
Its a bit sad - I know so many christians and muslims who are really honest and answer most of the times: I FEEL more comfortable with the IDEA that there is a higher power behind our existence. They phrase it in many different ways but in the end... they have very similar "understanding" of why they are believing in a god. They really do BELIEVE. Don't know. But believe. And I find it OK as long they don't wanna pressure their religion on anybody else. For me as a German many soccer fans are kind of religious. But they don't have the need to make anybody else being a soccer fan. This is a nice guy like many religious folks. He just should accept his BELIEVE being exactly this: He believes. He doesn't know at all but just WANTS to believe.
@5:00 Basically, he says that he has emotions, he calls them experiences but they're just emotions. So because he has emotions, therefore Jesus! Magic! Alakazam!!
You could call it that if you want, most people just call it gravity. Calling it a higher power doesn’t add any properties to it or change how it acts so why call it something different?
1 minute mark. I’m wondering to myself “is this Mr. British? He sounds similar. Please don’t let him be Mr. British.” Guess time will tell is he is or not.
It's important to nitpick because everyone is so quick to smack the label of god on literally anything. My old church had a habit of that. Your work alot? Your job is your god. You spend alot of time at the bar? Alcohol is your god.
The old "I don't understand a subject, so therefore I plug in the supernatural to explain it" method of avoiding doing the hard work of studying and research. I am both an artist and an art historian. There is a great deal of research into the entire field of aesthetics, which is what this guy is invoking. To start with, he has no idea what causes the sensation of beauty but as much as it is hard to describe in words, virtually every human being knows what beauty is. It is an experience. Basically it results from evolutionary forces with two main driving forces. (1) As fruit eaters, the great apes developed a third color receptor in our eyes so that we can experience a larger gamut of colors vs most other mammals. And the red/orange/yellow coloir range signals ripe fruit. Thus our appreciation of the colors in a sunset can be directly correlated to a reward response in the brain to discovering something that makes us feel good. It is entirely possible that the great apes are the only mammals that experience sunsets as something we call beautiful. Certainly humans are the only animals with the sophistcated language that allows us to communicate this with each other and make paintings, poems, music, etc to express what we feel about it. (2) We are hard wired for pattern recognition. In evolutionary terms, an animal that can discern the difference between random natural noises, and the rhythmic sounds produced by an animal walking of breathing has an improved ability to survive when an animal is hunting them. Pattern recognition probably evolved first in reptiles, amongst land organisms, and grew out of a basic rhythmic behavior which we see amongst cold blooded creatures across the globe, but we also see pattern recognition amongst marine species, so it probably ultimately originated in the sea. It is common for reptiles to communicate to other reptiles that they have found a warm bit of sun to bask in by swaying back and forth in a very simple kind of dance. As a result lizards, and other retiles, commonly bask in groups of two or more even though they are not social species. This has the evolutionary advantage of ensuing the better survival of the group despite not appearing to outwardly care for each other as individuals. We observe that alligators will commonly congregate, and this appears to stem from a recognition that groups form near a food source, so therefore joining the group leads to a greater chance of eating. Likewise bees are seen to communicate their excitement of discovering a source of pollen and they do a kind of dance that communicates what and where. By dancing they increase the survival prospects of the hive. Survival gives a pleasure response within the brain. Schooling fish and flocking birds often move in a coordinated manner that stems from following very basic patterns that have the result of improving mutual survival through group behavior. Dance is the earliest form of art, seen in multiple animal groups, and has clearly existed for hundreds of millions of years. Humans have a larger brain, and language. When you mix the rhythmic nature of dance with vocalisation, you get music. Humans make the most sophisticated extension of dance, divide it into two types we label as dance and music, but it is all just an extension of rhythms that originated in very basic behaviors that are fundamental across species and animal groups. We can describe responses to patterns and visual stimuli as being fundamental to life. It is always connected to improving survival. As hominids developed ever more sophisticated culture, our responses to pattern recognition, rhythm, and visual signals meant we developed ever more sophisticated cultural experiences, however, the biggest mistake the caller makes about this is in thinking that spoken language must be applied to all of these things. He does not understand that music is itself the language that describes those particular group of feelings. Dance is also a language. Painting and sculpture are languages. Poetry is a language. They are all languages that express feelings that are not directly translatable into spoken language. We need to use the type of language that best suits different kinds of experiences. He is attempting to shoehorn spoken language into the experience of music. This confuses him. If he simply allowed himself to experience the music for what it is, and let the joy flow in his brain, he is simply experiencing what it is all about - the primitive part of the brain responding to rhythm. Music is not just a simple pattern. We like patterns that have small surprises. We like patterns that build suspense, but allow release. We like patterns that repeat. We do not like overly complex patterns. He is over-thinking the experience. In poetry we also like patterns. There are patterns in literature. A story has a beginning, a middle, and a conclusion. We love happy endings, but more than that we like stories that evoke emotion and make us connect to the characters. Writers construct these things in a poetic manner that causes pleasure. The stories are not just random facts, they follow a predictable pattern. Not so predictable that we get bored, but it does follow an artistic progression that stimulates feelings of pleasure. We love paintings of landscapes that are not just random scenes, but reveal beauty and artistry. The artist uses concepts such as the rule of thirds, golden ratio, and other devices that cause the viewer to appreciate the things in the scene and to provoke both thought and emotion. Art can be awesome, but that is not the same as thinking that it cannot be understood. Mozart famously would study the way balls on a billiard table move as they bounced off each other and bounced off the sides. He was consciously looking for patterns that he could incorporate into his compositions. He was remarkable for the endless variety within his music, but not because it came from god, but because as a human, Mozart was able to use his brain to continually reinvent the types of patterns he was using. Rather than turning this into an obscure mystery, as the caller is doing, we should instead stand in awe that a man was able to do this most human of things in a way that is so very creative. There may well exist something that points to a god, but all that music does is point to the fact that we are evolved animals with a cultural ability that is different to other animals. Art points to evolution, and survival. Nothing more. And knowing that allows me to appreciate it even more for what it is rather than what it is not.
@@diogeneslamp8004 Worth reading, but not worth a like? :) just kidding you. I lecture in this sort of thing - what is art? What is beauty? How did it originate? What makes great art great and memorable, and so on. Theists often distrust tertiary education because it causes them to investigate the way we investigate so much of the way the human brain functions. The uneducated think that love is a mystery, while a Neurology graduate will have discovered the interplay between DNA, electrical impulses, and how evolution has created something that operates as a feeling computer, producing chemistry in the process in a marvellous emergence of consciousness. We are only in the first century of figuring out how it all works, and it is a study that will take centuries, but some of the broad stroke stuff such as understanding the mechanics of how and why we make music is amongst the easier things to comprehend. The thing that I find really incredible is how, through teaching, we can communicate the experience of the past and inspire students to find true joy in following their passions. Instead of relying on his own incredulity, the caller would benefit by enrolling in any university that will require him to attend a beginning philosophy class in his first semester. I often see theist fundamentalists who start with stubborn resistance to considering any proposition other than 'god did it' and gradually discover that analysing the how and why of thinking processes benefits them in everything else they do. Logic should always be a compulsory class, but it rarely is. They tend to not thank their philosophy lecturers, but the lecturers have the satisfaction of observing how these very resistant believers will in most cases bloom into more curious individuals with at least some understanding about how the world works outside the simplistic explanations in their respective holy books.
@@artistjoh That was a great OP. I studied chemistry and had great difficulty explaining why I knew and remembered complicated reactions of molecules. My "think of them as moving blobs" wasn't helpful at the time. If I'd said dancing and music I think it would have made more sense to them. Took me years to realise my scientific part of the brain was the same as my artistic part.
I could see if music and beauty were only manifested outside of us, but _we_ are the ones who make music and many people are beautiful and have beautiful qualities. How can it only be explained via a “god” when people create music and beauty completely independent of any “god”.
The fact that we can't fully describe the impact of music means that it was created by a higher power? Yet we know that music is created by persons. The power to create music is clearly within the capacity of humans. How does the fact that we may not be able to describe it imply anything beyond the fact that we can't describe it? Why does describing it have a higher priority than creating it? As far as know, there are no gods that create music. We know that there are humans who do. As far as a definition of God is concerned, I didn't hear that this question was raised at all in this video. It's puzzling to me that the issue ever really comes into contention. 99% of the persons who ever use the term "God" mean something very close to this: an omnipotent, omniscient, personal, singular, unitary entity who created, owns, and rules the universe and has the power to abrogate natural law at will and has a particular interest in human affairs. Theists who use some fuzzier, less specific definition like "God is love," for instance, are simply trying to evade the issue and get away with a murky concept that is too vague to be challenged. It's also an equivocation. The concept of God does not conterminously map onto the concept of love. "X loves Y." There is nothing in that statement that implies anything about the existence of God as anyone normally understands the word. When we use the term "love" we are very rarely making any reference to the concept of "God." "God is love" blatherers are also reifying a quality. Love is not a thing. Love is an emotional relationship that sentient beings have in respect to other things or beings. So, saying "God is love" is just horsesh*t. Ditto with "God is the universe, God is everything, God is universal consciousness," etc. Almost everyone who "believes in God" believes in something analogous to a "guy in the sky." They believe in a discrete entity with opinions, likes, dislikes, thoughts, perceptions, intentions, and who commits acts of intention. That's what the word "God" fundamentally means to almost everyone. Of course, to Jordan Peterson, God is "the highest value in the hierarchy of values." This is one of most ridiculous, vague equivocations and reifications on the market. But it does get him out from under the burden of having to offer a meaningful definition or evidence for the existence of God, while still implying (but never stating) that he "believes in God." Peterson gets the 1st-place, all-time Weasel Award in the category of Belief in God.
Those who say that God is love have obviously never read Genesis and Exodus for themselves. They simply let someone else read it to them and tell them that it means something completely different than what the words on the page actually state.🙄
It doesn't bother me if someone wants to believe in some 'higher power' or whatever exotic extra-reality fantasy they entertain. What I am offended by is lies. When someone tells me with a straight face that they have knowledge of things that are provably unknowable (e.g life after death.) and insists that I modify not only my world view but also my behaviour to suit their fancy.
@@alexale5488strange how science has not come to that conclusion despite the tons of evidence. Might be due to the evidence actually not being very good?
@@quentind1924 What you said doesn't make too much sense. It is assumed that during an NDE, the body has given up entirely on all vital signs. So, if there is a "soul", it is no longer a functional body to be attached to. But with resuscitation, you can restart the vital signs before the cells start to decompose to irreversible damage.
@@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279 Because materialism prevails. But research has been done on NDEs. There are peer-reviewed medical journals of this cases on NCBI and The Lancent + many more scientific/medical publications. The thing is, if there is an afterlife or a soul, science is not near to find it. Just as entangled particles in a quantum system prove there's a non-local immaterial channel through which particles are aware of one another, consciousness might as well be immaterial. Copenhagen interpretation provides a mathematical model for predicion, but forces academics to go on the route "shut up and calculate", ignoring the "How" or "Why" questions. Please, if you want to find out more about NDEs, read the Pam Reynold's case which was verified by Robert Spetzler, world-renown pioneer in neurosurgery. Pam explained things during a time she had no vital signs, her body was drained of blood and cooled down to slow metabolism. Then continue with research done by Sam Parnia, Michael Sabom, Peter Fenwick, Kenneth Ring, Bruce Greyson, Raymond Moody, Allan Hamilton, Pin van Lommel.
Sigh - Same as usual - Comes on with there is god then comes the if, maybe, I feel, I believe, but never a I know to back up a god like he started with. Also lets say we humans can not understand music in its full form, now to the end of humanity, then doesnt the caller have to atleast wait to the end of humanity to come to a conclusion that there is a god? Why conclude now at this moment when we humans have still not given up understanding?
"When I see things like beauty, i can't find the words to describe it to completeness, therefore god showed it to me." > How can you demonstrate that god showed it to you "I don't want to"
Caller: if you assume this...if you presuppose that.... you get no where. I can do these things all day long and make millions of them, but it gets you nothing. Its like trying to prove the supernatural using philosophy. You can cover lots of ground and you still end up empy handed. Answer the damn question.
ZEUS: Thor, what makes you busy at this moment? THOR: As usual, but when I needed good laughter, I listened to the mortals' atheists' discussion. ZEUS: Laugh? What a waste! Back to serious works!
"Atlas Shrugged came significantly later in my exposure to Objectivist literature. It is only as of late that I am gaining an appreciation for some of the more subtle intricacies of Miss Rand's nuances." -Anonymous-from an Objectivist forum
For me the best counter to this type of reasoning is “Would a medieval peasant be justified in believing in the existence of Pluto?” “Of course, we now know that Pluto exists so their belief was correct” “But at the time they had no reason at all to believe it, so they were correct essentially by sheer blind luck”
It irks me to no end when people give credit for the things humans have done to a god. Don't thank god your surgery went well. Thank the surgical staff.
Is... why we like music not obvious? We seem to find different noises pleasing, and we've had thousands of years now to hone the sounds, how we make them, figure out which parts we like about each sound... Music is pretty formulaic, you can do a lot of crazy stuff in experimental pieces (and a lot of classics today were once experimental), but the vast majority of the music we hear day to day is on a rhythm that kind of lines up with our internal clock, with pleasing sounds that match up with the rhythm, all layered on top of each other. It takes a lot of skill to make, but the basic concept seems pretty easy to grasp.
"Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions." -Ayn Rand-
I think the word Billy needs to describe the indescribable is numinous. And we know there's a bit of our brain that's responsible for that feeling, something which evolution can handily explain. Genuinely he's a pretty good example for the evolution of religion and why it's been so important. Somewhere back in his family tree someone experienced numinous sensations that helped that ancestor live. Like drumming felt spiritual and kept his tribe together through the night sitting at a fire drumming rather than walking away alone and being eaten. For millions of years life was full of things we couldn't explain or understand to the point of madness. "Why does the sun return? Why does it go away sometimes?! Might it go away forever !??!!" Repeat that for every single natural phenomena that as a hunter gatherer was a matter of life and death that would seem incomprehensible. If we hadn't, as a species, been able to find a way to navigate the mysteries of existence we wouldn't have been able to grow as a species that let us start to find answers. Meaning those of our ancestors that were happy to trust that a magic rock because they had a numinous experience were able to go to work and gather food rather than be terrified about the unknown. Repeat that for millions of years and we're left with this chunk of our brain which was useful and gives us very cool experiences. Which is again we can see light up in our brains and document and understand. Also I'm writing this while being told about how I could learn about the LDS and that they'll send me my own missionary and I'm soooo tempted. But also I would rather do anything else recreationally with my spare time. Like listen to really great heavy metal and have a mini spiritual experience myself and thank evolution for why it feels so cool.
At least the chimp would actually see a real, tangible entity enter the room and repair the TV. The ape may even get to observe how the soldering iron works, just the way it's been foretold, in ... "The Wholly-Repair Manual". Oh, yes, and the TV is working again.
Billy uses the "God of the gaps" argument. He said: I do not understand the impact of music therefor God. It's similar to the people that did not understand lightning and said it must be Thor.
We have a thing called Music Theory that makes testable predictions of how human hearing and neurology respond to certain combinations of tones and sequences of tones. Composers of music have been exploiting this for centuries. Beethoven was *completely deaf* when he wrote his 9th Symphony, yet he was able to predict the effect that his work would have on listeners despite his deafness.
Our brains can only sense a limited spectrum of stimuli. There are an almost unlimited set of phenomenon out there, waiting to be explained as we speak, that our brains are unable to rationalize...yet. It takes people like Nikola Tesla, Albert Einsten, Newton, etc... to explain the mystery of our existence. In the future, the questions of what the higher power is, will be explained. Unfortunately, cult leaders arose out of those questions in the past, where they have corrupted what the higher power actually is, leading to humans to think of it as some cosmic dictator, demanding worship of him and his special most perfect can do no wrong cult leader.
All of that music that Billy mentions as being beyond (his) comprehension was composed by humans. Maybe some of them were inspired by a belief in god, but, as is often said "the fact that people believe something does not mean that that thing must be true".
Because surely the definition of the most important thing in the universe and our lives if it was to exist, and the biggest universal question, is a very important thing. Why would you be so wishy-washy about something which you claim is the most important thing in existence?
So the power of not understanding Quetzalcóatl was the trouble. So Odin misunderstanding caused the Northern Crusades? Deities missed their human dishonestly factor on their beliefs, maybe
If some claimed to be a werewolf you want real proof, if someone said they can fly you demand evidence...but God gets a free pass on all accountability, proof or evidence to any claim, belief, or demands...nope if someone has to prove magic is real so does religion with a God beyond "muh book says so"
Keeping the idea of god undefined and ambiguous allows people to believe in a thing and just assume they all share similar beliefs when it seems each believer has a unique concept of that thing.
A simple Google search of “why do humans enjoy music” reveals countless scholarly articles that mostly say music triggers the reward centers of the brain and endorphins, dopamine, and oxytocin are released. Phenomenon explained negating the need for a god as an explanation. Hey Billy, try using Google to solve your so called mysteries that aren’t mysteries at all.
They say the definition of insanity is mindlessly repeating the same argument over and over again, hoping to achieve better results: This would have been relevant if Billy had had an argument to start with!
I am often told that I get it wrong because I just don't understand the bible. So when the bible says Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. This doesn't mean god spoke to Moses face to face this is obvious because 1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. What we need is a theist to tell us what words to change so it all makes sense.
In fairness, most humapes don't know how a tv works either, and showing one to a previously uncontacted people would likely create a stir. On that, when the watch maker line comes up and t says "you find a watch on a beach", am I supposed to be me who knows what watches are, or someone who has never seen manufactured items? This seems like a significant distinction to make.
My cats love the taste and smell of catnip and cat treats for reasons that they can't possibly describe or explain. Purina, however, understands it quite well. Does that make Purina a god, or at least a god of cats?
I don’t know about that “why would you believe something you can’t prove” because we all do that every day. Not everything can be proven, but we assume it.
![Kumamoto Masters Japan 2024 | Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] vs. Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) [2] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIjZybhsWqA/mqdefault.jpg)
*“When inventing a god, the most important thing is to claim it is invisible, inaudible, and imperceptible in every way. Otherwise people will become skeptical when it appears to no one, is silent and does nothing." -- Lindsey Brown*
That's generally why popular gods often transition that way
strange how the theists all know what it's thinking though 😁
@@truthgiver8286 -- Theists know everything.
Billy's unwillingness / inability to defend his god-beliefs are partly why religions have lost credibility here in the UK.
Who says he was trying to explain why a cult leader had anything to do with a god? A higher power is real, religion is false.
@@Miodrag.Vukomanovic Is there a “Higher Power”? Can you prove that?
@@Miodrag.Vukomanovic
What higher power are you referring to?
@TheLevantin iT dEpEnDs On WhAt YoU mEaN bY pRoVe...(in other words, no)
@@Miodrag.Vukomanovic evidence?
That's why we need definitions FIRST. If your god is defined as just some feelings then yeah, we all have feelings.
God is real!!!! That's my answer to those "the universe is god/god is love" folks. God also isn't conscious and doesn't have opinions. The problem is none of the 40 churches within walking distance of my home worship love or the universe and I'm mostly addressing those and their claims that I'm not real (also also should be out in death row for being real) because an old book said so
Lol. Good one.
Billy here's a possible answer to your music experience.
Endorphins
And that certain vibrations resonate with rhythms in our body, etc
Therefore Endorphins = greater power
and therefore we cannot scope endorphins, it's beyond our comprehension!
BA-DUM-TSSS!
Wait..... we now pretty feckin lot about endorphins... nevermind, continue.
Noooooo! It's literally impossible and we'll never ever make any progress on explaining it!!!! Ignore all the papers that did decades ago :(
I'm assuming he means frissons and the specific subsection musical frissons which are a very cool effect that not everyone can experience. We also can describe it and analyse and understand it. I think Billy might just need a good thesaurus.
Billy is yet another weak minded person who feels insecure and needs to create a fantasy that there is a little man in the sky who loves him and will take care of him and send him to an eternal paradise. Anything to the contrary will be brutally denied by billy. Religious people are very ill.
When a claim is made we have to have the shared understanding of a working definition. Like when we discuss religion, gender, politics, or anything else.
Only if its evidentiary-scientific. Social constructionism can be identified rightaway. All religious arguments are social constructs and now it’s psychiatry of the masses. Thus the diagnose is scizophrenia religiosa. Delusions. This analysis can now be quantified and falsified with 12000 years of data since we bred the low IQ agrarian beasts.
as a professionally trained musician, I think this is how physicists feel when they hear about quantum woo
You ever see that documentary called "What the Bleep Do We Know"? I made the mistake of paying money to see that at an indie-arthouse theater when it came out. I was told it was deep and thought-provoking, I thought it had to do with science, etc... It was fucking insufferable. 2 hours of "What if?", "Could this be?", "Quantum!", "Electrons!"...just atrocious woo of the highest order.
I don't believe I have heard that tune: can you perform quantum woo with woodwind instruments?
Billy has all the qualities necessary for becoming a Church of England Bishop!
😂
😂😂
I was laughing out loud in Canterburry. 😂
I think belief in God might disqualify him. :)
I had him as just a C of E vicar but it sure sounds like Anglican waffle to me.
I thought it was theists who nitpick their definitions of God.
Why?
To make their god agree with them about EVERYTHING
The day theists start claiming their god disagrees with them is the day I may start taking their claims more seriously.
@Theosis1981 find me a Christian who will honestly say, "i don't think homosexuality is wrong, but God does because he's an asshole"
@@Theosis1981
No, MOST theists have no concept of sin, because most religions have no such concept.
This term arises exclusively in Abrahamic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
@@Theosis1981not agrees with everything they do, but everything they believe.
When God hates everything you do you know you have made him in your image.
If the appreciation of beauty required a higher being
You'd expect everyone to have the same standard for beauty and that it would be the same for every generation.
What a sad world to live in, where it would take a "higher power" to show you beauty.
A higher power is out there, waiting to be explained...religion on the other hand is false.
What a wonderful world to live in when you realize that 'higher power' is the One Who provided the beauty in the first place.
@@wwlib5390 Beauty comes from within, not from outside. We are all the “higher power” ourselves?
@@TheLevantin That could possibly be the best explanation for the scripture declaring God created us in His image. But I disagree only in the part that that declaration doesn't make us God. Have a wonderful day.
@@wwlib5390 To perceive “beauty” you only need a brain (and sensory organs, of course). no god necessary, just as no god is necessary to perceive “redness”. The existence of red things is not proof of a god. The existence of beautiful things is not proof of God.
music and beauty are perceived and then processed (assigned subjective value) by our cognition. no evidence to assume magic, 'higher power' or other psycho-fantasies.
@@Theosis1981 you mean like nude statues and paintings?
@@Theosis1981
"Vulgarity and lewdness" by whose standard of beauty? His subjective one?
@@Theosis1981I don't see any reason to believe that is true. Feels more like a circular definition. Certain people, usually older or conservative ones, think certain types of art are "dumb" or "degenerate" particularly when they are new and so the society that produced them must be.
History is full of the older generation of the time getting upset at new artistic movements they don't like. Only for the younger and later generations to appreciate them.
Absolutely.
It's actually frightening to know there's people out there so completely unattached from reality.
I suspect Billy is befuddled by a lot of things. Rocks, water, trees.
Don't forget words or definitions of them
DAMN YOU! I normally make a comment about an "inability to understand buttons or feed himself; the sort who wears velcro shoes and a helmet while tethered to his social worker out for a walk" or I suggest that it must have been difficult to convince one of the nurses to dial for them...or my personal favourite, that they've walked into the middle of a room, naked from the waist down, shat on the floor, sat down in the mess, wiping faeces through his hair and proceeding to eat glue with a spoon.
*BUT I REALLY LIKE YOURS!!*
(also, when not all their dogs are barking, I refer to them stomping around in circles, with their hair on fire, punching themselves in the face and screaming *"YELLOW!"* over and over again)
Feel free to make liberal use of any of those!
Live well,
Laugh readily,
Love. Unconditionally.
*AND TELL JOKES!!*
Reality
Theists asking 'why' of atheists? Strange because they never ask why of the bible
Because my mind gets blown, therefore: God
"Fucking magnets; how do they work?!"
-his Holiness Violent J
Blow implies a Blower.
(Blown implies a Blowner)
He doesn't seem capable of explaining what he believes in. Also I disown him (I'm from the UK).
He might have a brain injury. He is all over the place
Noooo soupdragon, don't give up on Billy just yet 😅!! He'll eventually get there........ Eventually!! Maybe 🤔
Why do we nitpick the definition of god?
The same reason theists nitpick the definition of god🤦🏻♂️
@@Theosis1981ask a theist, other than one from your church, to define God.
@@Theosis1981 vaguely similar beliefs are not the same. There a reason that there are over 45,000 denominations of CHRISTIANITY alone: not even Christians can agree, let alone the rest.
Try again.
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2
They can’t even agree on biblical canon, but somehow they’re all right.
@@tonyclements1147 and let's not forget that "the Abrahamic God" is not even a single being, nor a consistent one! There are two DIFFERENT "Gods" in just the first two pages on the Bible! The character _evolves_ over time, from YHWH, the storm/war god of a small Middle East tribe, then over time, other nearby gods and/or characteristics of other nearby gods get rolled in, growing until eventually it becomes a monotheistic deity. Then along comes a charismatic apocalyptic preacher who started a cult, then was deified in a Game of Telephone. Now they need to invent a way to having two gods, but still having a single "God", so they added in the god of wind/life (the "holy spirit") and invented new math: 1+1+1=1.
☝️ How many people who believe in "the Abrahamic God" believe that 💩, you ya reckon? 🤣
@@Theosis1981
If you ask a majority of Abrahamic theists of course they're going to give you a similar Abrahamic deity.
Hindus won't.
Pantheists won't.
1. Argument from ignorance
2. God of gaps
Booole oo waataa
Saved you 20 mins.
A volcano is of far greater power than I am. I can still explain how it fucking works.
Musicians, composers, can tell you exactly why we respond to music as we do. Why a major chord evokes a different emotion than does a minor chord, is music 101.
Why is it that believers' "logical arguments" for belief in a god are never the reasons they came to believe in a god?
They came to believe for feelings sake. And are looking for justification to keep believing/feelings.
@@charlesoliver2535 you're right. I remember being taught that starting at a very early age - to search for the right pinnacle of feeling. And then that feeling and the mutual validation of it becomes the guiding light of the teen and young adult, and hopefully survives as the young believer begins having children.
@@charlesoliver2535it's literally this
@@bobbabai A few may have "logical" justification for believing. But from my own experience, it's to maintain the feelings. I've had heated discussions with theists. The words, "I'd believe even if it was demonstrated to be false!", came from them. The analogy to that imho is like a drug addict learning their drug will kill them.
Their indoctrination didn’t involve logical thoughts but life experience tells them they should find some.
There's definitely beauty in music, one especially beautiful moment is in the song 'Judith' by A Perfect Circle where the term 'FUCK YOUR GOD' is screamed.
Questions for theists:
1. what is the purpose of worship (grovelling) to a being of ultimate power?
2. Why would an ultimate begin invent humans to 'play' with?
3. Why does a 'loving' god allow it's subjects to kill each other and invent weapons that could wipe out human life on earth?
4. Why is god a 'he'? This implies sexual orientation and a female gender exists?
5. Why do theists often seem thick as mince?
As an agnostic pantheist and thus a irreligious theist:
1) to score brownie points with the priests of the religion and prevent persecution
2) boredom, maliciousness, discovery,v etc
3) see above
4) the tendency of human societies to implement patriarchal power hierarchies
5) Religions discourage unauthorised learning because they tend to make unsubstantiated assertions and learning that impedes their control
That was one of the worst arguments I've heard on this show,
there was no argument. he was trying to argue from ignorance or incredulity. his ignorance got in the way of any argument
And that’s saying something as there’s been some bat shit crazy arguments on here.
Lots of dunderheads in the UK.
One of the worst exchanges period.
You are correct, but the quality of Billy's argument isn't that different from most theist callers
I’d have asked this caller about what pieces of music specifically he associated with his experience, and what steps he took to study these experiences further. I myself am a religious person (Jewish) and a trained musician. I have had what I can call spiritual experiences brought on by music, and I’ve devoted my life to understanding those experiences better - I studied music theory, music history and composition, I wrote music, and I even wrote operas and oratorios expressing my experiences and memories. That is, I think, a reasonable response to being perplexed or befuddled or awed by spiritual experiences.
Wow, for the first time I actually feel bad for a caller. That poor guy was so nervous and soft spoken but he got absolutely destroyed.
Willy has listened to the show enough to know what the hosts are looking for and what the weaknesses of his position are. The response he got was entirely predictable.
As someone who's studied psychology and been playing instruments since 8 years old. We absolutely do understand music and why it has the effe t it does.
The callers mind works like a computer... from the 1980s. Insert floppy disk Side B
Yeah and look at how much computers have progressed since then....human understanding of what a higher power will progress just like that.
Drive error. Try again.
I live in England and I've still only ever seen caricature Englishmen like this in comedy films.
People tend to be lost when thinking about subtle subjects. The fact that things are beyond our understanding isn't proof of anything except how inept we tend to be.
According to people like Billy, "I don't understand what lightning is, therefore god(s) did it," used to be a valid argument.
It makes sense if you don't think about it.
Wait. Atheists don't HAVE a definition for any god. They're responding to theist CLAIMS that there is a god. It's entirely up to theists to define whatever it is they mean by that.
On line 2, we have Kent Hovind...
The problem with arguments from ignorance and incredulity is that they're so often wrong following a basic investigation that the arguer _could easily have carried out_
Music is profound in a way that is beyond explanation, but humans can deliberately create unique pieces of music that move people to feel a specific way that is profound beyond explanation. It is not that music is beyond human understanding. It is only that music is beyond human words.
I am an agnostic but i dont know why some religious think we need a god to appreciate beauty - of nature for example, listen to a nice song, to know whats right and wrong -thats why we have brains. Of course beauty and music is subjective.
Humans and life in general, are just organically framed computers. We ARE the AI, where the higher power is doing its best to destroy us.
Some religious people have lost faith in humanity so think anything positive must be external.
@@nealjroberts4050 yes I agree. I think for other religious is a way of trying to validate a belief in a god also.
What a silly Billy!
That guy was the most non-committal, milk-toasty, wimp I have ever heard on this channel. How annoying!
Straight up coward
There've been a handful like him, but he is top-tier.
@@danielhughes441 you'll find that most people in the world don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about religion or the absence of it. It affects no one, least of all him to be uninformed and without conviction. He mentioned he was nervous, he's likely never even talked about his beliefs to someone with a different opinion. Are you expecting an actual valid argument from a theist or what? All of the conversations progress more or less like this anyway, so you must only watch for the drama. Which is kind of sad.
@@SleepFaster18 Yes, I know. I’m not a noob.
British independent school product in every way. His inflexible, flimsy, circular points are cloaked in a supposedly polite ..... slow.... step... by step... manner of speech. Product of his indoctrinated, narrow culture and time.
Professional musician here: we know very well pretty much everything there is to know about music.
Can you explain the psychological mechanisms at a neurochemical level?
Remember these believers *are* the best God has to offer for its existence...let that sink in if it hasn't
Billy is the type of Brit who always leaves team meetings having been assigned zero action points. He talks but he says nothing. He would happily argue, thoroughly unconvincingly, for sitting the opposite way round on a toilet.
Fortunately, I have worked alongside precious few of his ilk, or I would have pulled out all my hair decades before I lost it naturally 😂
Its a bit sad - I know so many christians and muslims who are really honest and answer most of the times: I FEEL more comfortable with the IDEA that there is a higher power behind our existence.
They phrase it in many different ways but in the end... they have very similar "understanding" of why they are believing in a god.
They really do BELIEVE. Don't know. But believe.
And I find it OK as long they don't wanna pressure their religion on anybody else. For me as a German many soccer fans are kind of religious. But they don't have the need to make anybody else being a soccer fan.
This is a nice guy like many religious folks. He just should accept his BELIEVE being exactly this: He believes. He doesn't know at all but just WANTS to believe.
@5:00 Basically, he says that he has emotions, he calls them experiences but they're just emotions. So because he has emotions, therefore Jesus! Magic! Alakazam!!
Alakazam got me. 💀
I think these arguments can be summed up as "argument from awe".
Although it's weak, gravity might be the "higher power" of this universe ?
You could call it that if you want, most people just call it gravity.
Calling it a higher power doesn’t add any properties to it or change how it acts so why call it something different?
As a fellow Englishman I apologise for Billy on behalf of our country
1 minute mark. I’m wondering to myself “is this Mr. British? He sounds similar. Please don’t let him be Mr. British.” Guess time will tell is he is or not.
It's important to nitpick because everyone is so quick to smack the label of god on literally anything. My old church had a habit of that. Your work alot? Your job is your god. You spend alot of time at the bar? Alcohol is your god.
The old "I don't understand a subject, so therefore I plug in the supernatural to explain it" method of avoiding doing the hard work of studying and research. I am both an artist and an art historian. There is a great deal of research into the entire field of aesthetics, which is what this guy is invoking.
To start with, he has no idea what causes the sensation of beauty but as much as it is hard to describe in words, virtually every human being knows what beauty is. It is an experience.
Basically it results from evolutionary forces with two main driving forces. (1) As fruit eaters, the great apes developed a third color receptor in our eyes so that we can experience a larger gamut of colors vs most other mammals. And the red/orange/yellow coloir range signals ripe fruit. Thus our appreciation of the colors in a sunset can be directly correlated to a reward response in the brain to discovering something that makes us feel good. It is entirely possible that the great apes are the only mammals that experience sunsets as something we call beautiful. Certainly humans are the only animals with the sophistcated language that allows us to communicate this with each other and make paintings, poems, music, etc to express what we feel about it.
(2) We are hard wired for pattern recognition. In evolutionary terms, an animal that can discern the difference between random natural noises, and the rhythmic sounds produced by an animal walking of breathing has an improved ability to survive when an animal is hunting them. Pattern recognition probably evolved first in reptiles, amongst land organisms, and grew out of a basic rhythmic behavior which we see amongst cold blooded creatures across the globe, but we also see pattern recognition amongst marine species, so it probably ultimately originated in the sea.
It is common for reptiles to communicate to other reptiles that they have found a warm bit of sun to bask in by swaying back and forth in a very simple kind of dance. As a result lizards, and other retiles, commonly bask in groups of two or more even though they are not social species. This has the evolutionary advantage of ensuing the better survival of the group despite not appearing to outwardly care for each other as individuals. We observe that alligators will commonly congregate, and this appears to stem from a recognition that groups form near a food source, so therefore joining the group leads to a greater chance of eating.
Likewise bees are seen to communicate their excitement of discovering a source of pollen and they do a kind of dance that communicates what and where. By dancing they increase the survival prospects of the hive. Survival gives a pleasure response within the brain.
Schooling fish and flocking birds often move in a coordinated manner that stems from following very basic patterns that have the result of improving mutual survival through group behavior.
Dance is the earliest form of art, seen in multiple animal groups, and has clearly existed for hundreds of millions of years.
Humans have a larger brain, and language. When you mix the rhythmic nature of dance with vocalisation, you get music. Humans make the most sophisticated extension of dance, divide it into two types we label as dance and music, but it is all just an extension of rhythms that originated in very basic behaviors that are fundamental across species and animal groups. We can describe responses to patterns and visual stimuli as being fundamental to life. It is always connected to improving survival.
As hominids developed ever more sophisticated culture, our responses to pattern recognition, rhythm, and visual signals meant we developed ever more sophisticated cultural experiences, however, the biggest mistake the caller makes about this is in thinking that spoken language must be applied to all of these things. He does not understand that music is itself the language that describes those particular group of feelings. Dance is also a language. Painting and sculpture are languages. Poetry is a language. They are all languages that express feelings that are not directly translatable into spoken language. We need to use the type of language that best suits different kinds of experiences.
He is attempting to shoehorn spoken language into the experience of music. This confuses him. If he simply allowed himself to experience the music for what it is, and let the joy flow in his brain, he is simply experiencing what it is all about - the primitive part of the brain responding to rhythm. Music is not just a simple pattern. We like patterns that have small surprises. We like patterns that build suspense, but allow release. We like patterns that repeat. We do not like overly complex patterns. He is over-thinking the experience.
In poetry we also like patterns. There are patterns in literature. A story has a beginning, a middle, and a conclusion. We love happy endings, but more than that we like stories that evoke emotion and make us connect to the characters. Writers construct these things in a poetic manner that causes pleasure. The stories are not just random facts, they follow a predictable pattern. Not so predictable that we get bored, but it does follow an artistic progression that stimulates feelings of pleasure.
We love paintings of landscapes that are not just random scenes, but reveal beauty and artistry. The artist uses concepts such as the rule of thirds, golden ratio, and other devices that cause the viewer to appreciate the things in the scene and to provoke both thought and emotion.
Art can be awesome, but that is not the same as thinking that it cannot be understood. Mozart famously would study the way balls on a billiard table move as they bounced off each other and bounced off the sides. He was consciously looking for patterns that he could incorporate into his compositions. He was remarkable for the endless variety within his music, but not because it came from god, but because as a human, Mozart was able to use his brain to continually reinvent the types of patterns he was using. Rather than turning this into an obscure mystery, as the caller is doing, we should instead stand in awe that a man was able to do this most human of things in a way that is so very creative.
There may well exist something that points to a god, but all that music does is point to the fact that we are evolved animals with a cultural ability that is different to other animals. Art points to evolution, and survival. Nothing more. And knowing that allows me to appreciate it even more for what it is rather than what it is not.
That was worth reading.
@@diogeneslamp8004 Worth reading, but not worth a like? :) just kidding you.
I lecture in this sort of thing - what is art? What is beauty? How did it originate? What makes great art great and memorable, and so on. Theists often distrust tertiary education because it causes them to investigate the way we investigate so much of the way the human brain functions. The uneducated think that love is a mystery, while a Neurology graduate will have discovered the interplay between DNA, electrical impulses, and how evolution has created something that operates as a feeling computer, producing chemistry in the process in a marvellous emergence of consciousness. We are only in the first century of figuring out how it all works, and it is a study that will take centuries, but some of the broad stroke stuff such as understanding the mechanics of how and why we make music is amongst the easier things to comprehend. The thing that I find really incredible is how, through teaching, we can communicate the experience of the past and inspire students to find true joy in following their passions.
Instead of relying on his own incredulity, the caller would benefit by enrolling in any university that will require him to attend a beginning philosophy class in his first semester. I often see theist fundamentalists who start with stubborn resistance to considering any proposition other than 'god did it' and gradually discover that analysing the how and why of thinking processes benefits them in everything else they do. Logic should always be a compulsory class, but it rarely is. They tend to not thank their philosophy lecturers, but the lecturers have the satisfaction of observing how these very resistant believers will in most cases bloom into more curious individuals with at least some understanding about how the world works outside the simplistic explanations in their respective holy books.
tl;dr arguments from incredulity are fallacious
@@AbsurdlyGeeky
Wrong assumption there lad.
The OP was explaining how our sense of beauty evolved.
@@artistjoh
That was a great OP.
I studied chemistry and had great difficulty explaining why I knew and remembered complicated reactions of molecules. My "think of them as moving blobs" wasn't helpful at the time. If I'd said dancing and music I think it would have made more sense to them. Took me years to realise my scientific part of the brain was the same as my artistic part.
I could see if music and beauty were only manifested outside of us, but _we_ are the ones who make music and many people are beautiful and have beautiful qualities. How can it only be explained via a “god” when people create music and beauty completely independent of any “god”.
The fact that we can't fully describe the impact of music means that it was created by a higher power? Yet we know that music is created by persons. The power to create music is clearly within the capacity of humans. How does the fact that we may not be able to describe it imply anything beyond the fact that we can't describe it? Why does describing it have a higher priority than creating it? As far as know, there are no gods that create music. We know that there are humans who do.
As far as a definition of God is concerned, I didn't hear that this question was raised at all in this video. It's puzzling to me that the issue ever really comes into contention. 99% of the persons who ever use the term "God" mean something very close to this: an omnipotent, omniscient, personal, singular, unitary entity who created, owns, and rules the universe and has the power to abrogate natural law at will and has a particular interest in human affairs.
Theists who use some fuzzier, less specific definition like "God is love," for instance, are simply trying to evade the issue and get away with a murky concept that is too vague to be challenged. It's also an equivocation. The concept of God does not conterminously map onto the concept of love. "X loves Y." There is nothing in that statement that implies anything about the existence of God as anyone normally understands the word. When we use the term "love" we are very rarely making any reference to the concept of "God." "God is love" blatherers are also reifying a quality. Love is not a thing. Love is an emotional relationship that sentient beings have in respect to other things or beings. So, saying "God is love" is just horsesh*t.
Ditto with "God is the universe, God is everything, God is universal consciousness," etc. Almost everyone who "believes in God" believes in something analogous to a "guy in the sky." They believe in a discrete entity with opinions, likes, dislikes, thoughts, perceptions, intentions, and who commits acts of intention. That's what the word "God" fundamentally means to almost everyone.
Of course, to Jordan Peterson, God is "the highest value in the hierarchy of values." This is one of most ridiculous, vague equivocations and reifications on the market. But it does get him out from under the burden of having to offer a meaningful definition or evidence for the existence of God, while still implying (but never stating) that he "believes in God." Peterson gets the 1st-place, all-time Weasel Award in the category of Belief in God.
Those who say that God is love have obviously never read Genesis and Exodus for themselves. They simply let someone else read it to them and tell them that it means something completely different than what the words on the page actually state.🙄
It doesn't bother me if someone wants to believe in some 'higher power' or whatever exotic extra-reality fantasy they entertain. What I am offended by is lies.
When someone tells me with a straight face that they have knowledge of things that are provably unknowable (e.g life after death.) and insists that I modify not only my world view but also my behaviour to suit their fancy.
NDEs + tons of psychological phenomena offers evidence for a potentially immortal consciousness.
@@alexale5488strange how science has not come to that conclusion despite the tons of evidence. Might be due to the evidence actually not being very good?
@@alexale5488 NDEs being real would imply that god isn't able to tell if someone's alive or not. They factually cannot be true
@@quentind1924 What you said doesn't make too much sense. It is assumed that during an NDE, the body has given up entirely on all vital signs. So, if there is a "soul", it is no longer a functional body to be attached to. But with resuscitation, you can restart the vital signs before the cells start to decompose to irreversible damage.
@@thedarknessthatcomesbefore4279 Because materialism prevails. But research has been done on NDEs. There are peer-reviewed medical journals of this cases on NCBI and The Lancent + many more scientific/medical publications. The thing is, if there is an afterlife or a soul, science is not near to find it. Just as entangled particles in a quantum system prove there's a non-local immaterial channel through which particles are aware of one another, consciousness might as well be immaterial. Copenhagen interpretation provides a mathematical model for predicion, but forces academics to go on the route "shut up and calculate", ignoring the "How" or "Why" questions. Please, if you want to find out more about NDEs, read the Pam Reynold's case which was verified by Robert Spetzler, world-renown pioneer in neurosurgery. Pam explained things during a time she had no vital signs, her body was drained of blood and cooled down to slow metabolism. Then continue with research done by Sam Parnia, Michael Sabom, Peter Fenwick, Kenneth Ring, Bruce Greyson, Raymond Moody, Allan Hamilton, Pin van Lommel.
Sigh - Same as usual - Comes on with there is god then comes the if, maybe, I feel, I believe, but never a I know to back up a god like he started with.
Also lets say we humans can not understand music in its full form, now to the end of humanity, then doesnt the caller have to atleast wait to the end of humanity to come to a conclusion that there is a god? Why conclude now at this moment when we humans have still not given up understanding?
What knid of music was the fanatic talking about: classical, jazz, rap??? I know of people who dislike classical music as much as they dislike rap.
I was thinking that. Modern rap makes me cringe. I understand why though, it doesn't react the same way in my brain as classical or rock music. 😅
"When I see things like beauty, i can't find the words to describe it to completeness, therefore god showed it to me."
> How can you demonstrate that god showed it to you
"I don't want to"
Caller: if you assume this...if you presuppose that.... you get no where. I can do these things all day long and make millions of them, but it gets you nothing. Its like trying to prove the supernatural using philosophy. You can cover lots of ground and you still end up empy handed.
Answer the damn question.
Ben Shapiro disliked this post.
It all makes sense to him in his own mind.
If someone is willing to accept one hypothetical presupposition, then they will keep adding them on. Then the whole thing becomes, "So, see???"
ZEUS: Thor, what makes you busy at this moment?
THOR: As usual, but when I needed good laughter, I listened to the mortals' atheists' discussion.
ZEUS: Laugh? What a waste! Back to serious works!
Billy: If there is a greater power then…. IF PIGS HAD WINGS THEY COULD FLY.
If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its ass on the ground every time it jumped. It does, therefore no god.
Checkmate, theists.
"Atlas Shrugged came significantly later in my exposure to Objectivist literature. It is only as of late that I am gaining an appreciation for some of the more subtle intricacies of Miss Rand's nuances."
-Anonymous-from an Objectivist forum
@@BeefT-Sq
Objectivism is most often a cover for bigotry and psychopathy.
For me the best counter to this type of reasoning is
“Would a medieval peasant be justified in believing in the existence of Pluto?”
“Of course, we now know that Pluto exists so their belief was correct”
“But at the time they had no reason at all to believe it, so they were correct essentially by sheer blind luck”
It irks me to no end when people give credit for the things humans have done to a god. Don't thank god your surgery went well. Thank the surgical staff.
He said music is beyond his comprehension and also good. What???
He’s a lost cause. He’s so deep in his feelings that he’ll never be able to raise his head above their parapet to see the landscape beyond.
Is... why we like music not obvious? We seem to find different noises pleasing, and we've had thousands of years now to hone the sounds, how we make them, figure out which parts we like about each sound... Music is pretty formulaic, you can do a lot of crazy stuff in experimental pieces (and a lot of classics today were once experimental), but the vast majority of the music we hear day to day is on a rhythm that kind of lines up with our internal clock, with pleasing sounds that match up with the rhythm, all layered on top of each other. It takes a lot of skill to make, but the basic concept seems pretty easy to grasp.
This is nothing more than a fallacious appeal to emotion. It is something that theists would use, due to the lack of genuine evidence.
"Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions."
-Ayn Rand-
@@BeefT-Sq As there has never been any supporting evidence for any alleged contact with god, I am under no obligation to accept such religious myths.
@@BeefT-Sq
I don't think using someone who abused their knowledge to justify a lack of empathy is saying what you think it is.
I think the word Billy needs to describe the indescribable is numinous. And we know there's a bit of our brain that's responsible for that feeling, something which evolution can handily explain. Genuinely he's a pretty good example for the evolution of religion and why it's been so important. Somewhere back in his family tree someone experienced numinous sensations that helped that ancestor live. Like drumming felt spiritual and kept his tribe together through the night sitting at a fire drumming rather than walking away alone and being eaten.
For millions of years life was full of things we couldn't explain or understand to the point of madness. "Why does the sun return? Why does it go away sometimes?! Might it go away forever !??!!"
Repeat that for every single natural phenomena that as a hunter gatherer was a matter of life and death that would seem incomprehensible. If we hadn't, as a species, been able to find a way to navigate the mysteries of existence we wouldn't have been able to grow as a species that let us start to find answers. Meaning those of our ancestors that were happy to trust that a magic rock because they had a numinous experience were able to go to work and gather food rather than be terrified about the unknown. Repeat that for millions of years and we're left with this chunk of our brain which was useful and gives us very cool experiences. Which is again we can see light up in our brains and document and understand.
Also I'm writing this while being told about how I could learn about the LDS and that they'll send me my own missionary and I'm soooo tempted. But also I would rather do anything else recreationally with my spare time. Like listen to really great heavy metal and have a mini spiritual experience myself and thank evolution for why it feels so cool.
At least the chimp would actually see a real, tangible entity enter the room and repair the TV. The ape may even get to observe how the soldering iron works, just the way it's been foretold, in ... "The Wholly-Repair Manual". Oh, yes, and the TV is working again.
Keep asking questions, keep asking why! that's science
Billy uses the "God of the gaps" argument. He said: I do not understand the impact of music therefor God. It's similar to the people that did not understand lightning and said it must be Thor.
We have a thing called Music Theory that makes testable predictions of how human hearing and neurology respond to certain combinations of tones and sequences of tones. Composers of music have been exploiting this for centuries. Beethoven was *completely deaf* when he wrote his 9th Symphony, yet he was able to predict the effect that his work would have on listeners despite his deafness.
Our brains can only sense a limited spectrum of stimuli. There are an almost unlimited set of phenomenon out there, waiting to be explained as we speak, that our brains are unable to rationalize...yet. It takes people like Nikola Tesla, Albert Einsten, Newton, etc... to explain the mystery of our existence. In the future, the questions of what the higher power is, will be explained. Unfortunately, cult leaders arose out of those questions in the past, where they have corrupted what the higher power actually is, leading to humans to think of it as some cosmic dictator, demanding worship of him and his special most perfect can do no wrong cult leader.
@@Miodrag.Vukomanovic And when that "higher power" is explained, it will necessarily be within our ken. To explain a thing, one must know the thing.
@@Miodrag.Vukomanovicanother Argument from Authority Fallacy, followed by evidence-free claims.
@@Miodrag.Vukomanovic
Let me guess, your cult leader is better?
All of that music that Billy mentions as being beyond (his) comprehension was composed by humans. Maybe some of them were inspired by a belief in god, but, as is often said "the fact that people believe something does not mean that that thing must be true".
Because surely the definition of the most important thing in the universe and our lives if it was to exist, and the biggest universal question, is a very important thing. Why would you be so wishy-washy about something which you claim is the most important thing in existence?
So the power of not understanding Quetzalcóatl was the trouble.
So Odin misunderstanding caused the Northern Crusades? Deities missed their human dishonestly factor on their beliefs, maybe
If some claimed to be a werewolf you want real proof, if someone said they can fly you demand evidence...but God gets a free pass on all accountability, proof or evidence to any claim, belief, or demands...nope if someone has to prove magic is real so does religion with a God beyond "muh book says so"
what a great example for the appeal from ignorance fallacy
Keeping the idea of god undefined and ambiguous allows people to believe in a thing and just assume they all share similar beliefs when it seems each believer has a unique concept of that thing.
There is an higher power, it is called the power if stupidity
A creature of a greater power showed me that death and destruction is just collateral damage and only rainbows and butterflies are true deity things.
A simple Google search of “why do humans enjoy music” reveals countless scholarly articles that mostly say music triggers the reward centers of the brain and endorphins, dopamine, and oxytocin are released. Phenomenon explained negating the need for a god as an explanation. Hey Billy, try using Google to solve your so called mysteries that aren’t mysteries at all.
Because without a concrete agreed upon definition of a god, that god in question would basically be unfalsifiable.
I see Jeremy, Timothy, Peter and the other one hasn’t wakened up yet, REPOINT, REGRESS, REPEAT!
I believe in a higher power that I have never seen. It is more than 40,000 volts and travels in the wires above the 240-volt cables.
They say the definition of insanity is mindlessly repeating the same argument over and over again, hoping to achieve better results:
This would have been relevant if Billy had had an argument to start with!
"mAYbe...prOBAblY...I beLieVe...I thINk...iT'spOSSibLE....."
He's 100% a monarchist. We can't comprehend people or things greater than ourselves? 😂
I am often told that I get it wrong because I just don't understand the bible. So when the bible says Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. This doesn't mean god spoke to Moses face to face this is obvious because 1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. What we need is a theist to tell us what words to change so it all makes sense.
There's an egg that's 3" around. And there's an egg that's 12" around. So there MUST be an egg that's a bajillion inches around.
Argument from Look at the Beautees.
In fairness, most humapes don't know how a tv works either, and showing one to a previously uncontacted people would likely create a stir.
On that, when the watch maker line comes up and t says "you find a watch on a beach", am I supposed to be me who knows what watches are, or someone who has never seen manufactured items? This seems like a significant distinction to make.
They like to pretend you're not supposed to know even though they know you know.
I think "Billy" is befuddled by a lot of things. For example. Popcorn is a "miracle" if you don't how it works. Lol.
My cats love the taste and smell of catnip and cat treats for reasons that they can't possibly describe or explain. Purina, however, understands it quite well. Does that make Purina a god, or at least a god of cats?
Billys real name is probably 8 of 8, since "resistance is futile"!
A god that is invisible and beyond human understanding cannot be defined.
So lets get started.
I don’t know about that “why would you believe something you can’t prove” because we all do that every day. Not everything can be proven, but we assume it.
So you concede lmao
Why would he claim it's a "principle" that something we can't/don't understand in reality has to have something/someone to understand it?
The sun is greater than us, right? Can't we describe that?
It's funny the thumbnail or whatever says "nitpick"
Omg. At 8:03 my head exploded
IF an assertion is sufficient,
THEN...
Offended by ………OMG …….can we not discuss anything without being offended !
Typo in thumbnail.