3:50 No, you're wrong, atheist doesn't think the universe doesn't need a cause in the same way theist say that about god. How do you know something is created? You compare it to something you have previous knowledge of. We have enough information to know how a tree grows or how a galaxy formed, but we don't know how the universe was before the big bang, but as far as we know the default state of the universe seems to be existing insted of nothingness. You have to prove that the default state of the universe is non existence and then you also need prove that god is the one nedeed to change it state
Exactly! Somebody else who understands that the case needs to be made for 1) nothingness “existing” and 2) that it should be the “default state” of existence. The null hypothesis as it were, needs defining why that should earn its place as the default position. Never ever in physics or metaphysics have I heard these two points been put foward.
@Pseudo-numenienwhile I won't argue that there's nothing immaterial (i.e. numbers), what makes you think thoughts are immaterial? They may be (we have no way of knowing); but we can at least see them acted out in the physical world (say a brain scan). We absolutely have no such 'intervention upon the physical' for any of the imagined spirits, gods, etc, that humanity has borne out.
@Pseudo-numenien I've never seen a reason to think thought except happening in the brain. What you mean by 'simply negate all that is not thought'? Quite to the contrary, the only thing we should think, based on evidence, is that thoughts exist only within brains, as a function of brains.
What came “first” exists in a linear view of existence. Once you look at existence in a circular perspective it changes many things. Black Elk Speaks was one of my first reads that changed my outlooks.
The only positive claim I as an atheist have ever made is the positive claim that I am positive that none of the super natural assertions surrounding any religion have been compelling enough for me to believe. I'm sorry if in my case no religion has ever overcome it's burden of proof but that's not my problem now is it.
@@asamcbrez4930 "Who are you trying to convince?" Funny that I say the same thing about the leaders of the confirmation bubbles with crosses on top of them that have their indoctrination sessions occurring multiple times each week
The positive claim you make is not the claim of atheism, but agnosticism. "I don't believe the claims of any religion I have reviewed" does not equal the positive claim, "I know there is no deity", which is the definition of a-theism. Or perhaps I have just assumed too much. Do you know, positively, that there is no deity? How would you prove that negative? Of course, no one can prove that negative. So would it not be more honest to stop at, "I don't believe the claims I have heard. And I do not know." Also called agnosticism.
@@HiJackShepherd I lack belief in any god or god's. I don't entertain the possibility of god's being real. It's fruitless to claim I can prove there are no gods, I can not. I am an atheist. I am without theism. I do not believe in the possibility of god's existing. Gods are the first superheroes developed because of human ignorance. I can't prove this but one thing i'm not going to do is argue with somebody to prove I am an atheist. I don't need you to be convinced.
I view myself athiest and approach matters as such, but where I do approach theism is that I believe that if there is a god I find it highly unlikely it is anything like what historical and modern religions paint it as, and that any being that could fill in the signifier of god is well beyond humanity's capabilities for understanding, rendering religious inquiry as a kind of false start. leaving me skeptical of religous thinkers and institutions and completely disinterested in pursuing my own notion of god.
@@anastasiya256 There are a whole bunch of topics to untangle. First, we are obligated to understand what gods meant to polytheists. That's a matter of language and context. We can accomplish that task. The only goofy part of Christian monotheism is the monotheism part. Why? What made that compelling roughly 2,000 years ago? Platonists figure into this. Zoroastrians figure into this. In different respects, Buddhists figure into this. There's an obvious but confusing relationship between experience and language. "Transcend" is an everyday word. Weights, measures and counts transcend our individual "experiences." Reading through the Pythagorean Sourcebook makes all of these matters pretty open to examination. Pythagoras gave us our term "Philosophy" and he was both a Boxer and a Mathematician. Later, Plato was a Wrestler and a Mathematician. Body and Mind were and remain programmatic disciplines. Not ontological disputes.
@@anastasiya256 I can appreciate that, and in my experience that modestly is more prominent in historical religions which I tend to to respect more than the absurd narcissism found in new age religion
@@Mr._Anderpson that's part of it, but it gets worse. Many of these experiences come from dreams. And dreams are formed from your memories. If you have memories of the biblical god, then, well, guess the rest. It's easy to find people who claim to have experienced god, but you'll notice their accounts aren't consistent *between different people* at all. In fact, they always respect the religion of whoever had the experience. Or if they are/were atheist, it'll respect their knowledge of religion at the time.
Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling had an enormous influence on me. As a rational man, his leap of faith concept seems like a frightening 0:02 concert. Yeah, acceptance God definitely demands a certain leaving behind of total rationality. As a result, I have certainly attempted to fill-in certain rational observations that for myself give proof that there is the existence of God. They are little observations of life that have no rational explanation, but imply the existence of an intangible source that explains everything. I found Martin Buber’s writing to be influential in that regard, I-Thou, particularly. It intellectually fills in the leap of faith.
Yes, like the complexity of the human body. The balance to sustain life is incredible! Birth. I’m always in awe of it. I just cant say, we simply “evolved” into this. It’s far too intricate & things have to be just soo to continue living. ‘Much like the earth. If it were a mm off its tilt or a mm closer to the sun, life wouldn’t be possible. Did that just HAPPEN? The multiverse theory too. To believe the earth in all its precise & delicate position/atmosphere, is just the luck of the draw from many many many times trying & failing, doesn’t make sense to me. The odds for all this to happen again, are basically impossible. Those kinds of things, to me, lend to a design & a creator, than chance.
@@candycolrivall you have to consider is the complexity of the human body. The balance of everything, the way everything works together like an intricate clockwork. It is impossible for that to be a random happening.
@@qcrtheory yes haha hyperbole. Same as our bodies, over time things adapt & figure out a way to keep going. Like, why don’t ppl who take seriously hard drugs, just die the first time they use? They’re quickly changing the chem of their bodies, the balance that keeps them alive. Well, the body knows what it needs I makes adjustments. That’s not to say, you’re A ok doing those things . Because your body will take from Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. But the overarching point is, creation WILL do whatever to survive. If it were simply our doing, humans wouldn’t make the calls creation does to keep life going. If that makes sense. (In order to not to die, the things the body does are drastic but in the end, very necessary. Not every human could know, what to do & make those kinda calls. Based on doing a cost vs benefit assessment) Hopefully that makes sense 🫣😐
I don’t read about religious or non religious things. I don’t care how life started, I don’t care what happens after life. I care about what happens in my life, for me and the people I care about. I don’t try and make those who care about religion change what they believe. I hope they would respect my thoughts also( usually not), and if not I just keep quiet to not upset people I care about. I don’t talk about politics either. My thoughts are my thoughts.
I had an experience where I looked at the moon one evening and knew in my heart that the consistency of the sunrise and set and the geometrical shape of them could not have been without a maker. I started to notice signs of creation everywhere after that. I thought the Truth must be within Christianity but I could not accept the Trinity or that our Creator has a Human as a son. I read the Quran after learning a bit about Islam and upon reading it I submitted to Muhammad PBUH being a messenger of God and the validity of what is written within the book. I was a Nationalist for a decade prior to my conversion to Islam and as you can imagine I didn’t want it to be Islam but it was. 112 Say He is God, One, God, the everlasting Refuge, He does not beget, nor is He begotten, and comparable to Him there is none.
I really appreciate your sharing your personal journey. I was raised Catholic and was always very attracted to mysticism and the life of prayer. I went back and forth for some years between faith and unbelief, but then i began reading Idries Shah studiously, wrote and asked for instruction and as a result had a spiritual awakening. Now almost 40 years later i am happier than i have ever been. I would now say that what religions say about God, some of it, makes sense in terms of my own experience, not in terms of a traditional conception of deity. Re traditional proofs for existence of God, i believe the only genuine, convincing proof can be from personal experience. I do find the argument frim design convincing tho but i think it proves the existence of intelligence in the universe, not a traditional deity idea. Other proofs strike me as too "forensic," like a detective trying to prove whodunit from inadequate evidence. They are merely speculations and are more useful for their inspirational and devotional value. Continue meditating on Being. It can only help!
I grew up in a very catholic rural area in Germany, and as far back as I can remember, no one ever came up with a convincing argument to believe in any God, let alone the biblical version of it. I've read the bible, and I can appreciate it as a historical book of wisdom on which our culture is founded. I've also read atheist literature from Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins. Over the years I developed from an "you must be kidding"-style nonbeliever into a "dawkinsean edgy atheist" and finally into an agnostic who sometimes leans a bit more toward one side and sometimes to the other. I think it's one of the great questions of humanity whether there is a God, or not, and with open minded and tolerant people it's great to discuss this. My basic persuasion is, believe whatever you like, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on the lives of others. Once your belief poses any rules on me or denigrates me in any way - f*ck off.
I absolutely 100% share your experience of reading a book with one intention and come out with the absolute opposite position. I repeatedly read the Bible cover to cover to strenghten my belief in God, and I now have ended up as an anti-theist atheist. Just wanted to point out that this goes both ways. And it's a pretty big percentage of atheists who have read the respectively holy scriptures of their former religion and come out atheists, and even anti-theists. Thank you for your video!
3:18 “The parallelism breaks down… people who talk about God being the first principle, they don’t mean something spacial…” 😂 if x is NOT SPACIAL, x (by definition) EXISTS NO-WHERE… You know what that means? THERE IS NO GOD; GOD DOES NOT EXIST ANY-WHERE. So that’s what I do in that situation… I’m curious to know if you find any issue with my ‘non-locality’ counter-apologetic. 3:11 “the kind of being of the universe, is not the same kind of being of God.” …I frequently stress about people equivocating on the word “being“. just because you read a single dopey book as a kid trying to convince your mother that God isn’t real, doesn’t mean Every or most atheist arguments err the same way… many point out the habit of bad thinking necessary to maintain a belief in God… avoidance behaviors, equivocation fallacies, cult language control, etc. (That’s easy for me to say, I self-deconverted as a child like Russel and Paine… and I was able to persuade my mother that the existence of God is unnecessary and improbable… so I don’t mean to imply that your only knowledge of atheistic philosophy is from this one book I’ve never read. I apologize if I come across that way.) Thanks for the thought provoking video!
I can't say I've experienced that with a book. What I can say however is that the question "what do you mean by being" is what started my journey towards God. People often take Jordan Peterson to task because this is how he answers the question "Do you believe in God", and they are annoyed with the answer "What do you mean by God" and "What do you mean by believe". It might be annoying but when you're talking about fundamental truths and first principles, these definitions are actually of uttermost importance, as annoying as it may be. I realized at that point that every "bible justifies slavery" or "sky daddy" arguments that I would use to criticize Christianity were hilarious strawmen arguments. I had to humble myself and realize that I actually had no idea what Christians actually believed, or what the idea of God meant to them. It was Peterson's "Introduction to the idea of God" that made me accept that I should at least take it seriously instead of dismissing it religion as "the opiate of the masses" because that's just too much of an easy answer. It's easy to notice that science and religion are polar opposites in terms of how they work. But I find that typically, the mistake that we modern people do is to conflate both with respect to which questions those discipline try to answer. I'm no academic, but to my knowledge, the proper way to critically analyze a text is to first and foremost ponder about the intention of the text. This is where I find that most atheists miss the point. The point of a science textbook's is to tell me about how the universe works. The bible doesn't care about that; while it might provide an account of how God created the universe, that's not really the point of the book now is it? So what could it be? If science gives me information about the "how", I don't think it's absurd that the bible give me information about "why". Why am I here? What's the point of living? Why should I love others? Why shouldn't I sin? Why is Jesus the framework for a sinless life? What does it mean to live a sinless life? These questions cannot be answered by science because they are not scientific questions.
I find Peterson ... less than impressive. But why did you turn to religion for the 'why' questions? Were you unable to find any secular answers? There are many. Peterson (especially convinced of this after his recent Alex O'Connor interview) seems to be desperately in need of religion to give him some sort of 'objective' (he says canonical) grounding. I don't know: never had such problems finding (very similar) secular answers. Also, why Bible? Why not say Bhagavad-Gita? I would argue that your dismisal of the 'opiate of the people' (do read the full quote if you haven't it is one of the most beautiful pieces of writing I ever saw) might be the source of the issue: religion is described rather similarly (compendium of wisdom, or some such). Does not knowledge of how inform us about the why? Does a naturalistic explanation of Jesus' body allegedly missing from the tomb not change the answer to why questions? Every 'why' question, to my mind, can only be answered by having a more complete 'how' picture. And if that picture should show that there's no plausible reason to believe in god, will the why answers disappear? I don't think so.
@@qcrtheory but what shall you say if instead of shaking hands with God science finds no one home in the sky? That there never was 'The Artist', that these are ancient INTUITIONS, born from a simplified worldview available to early agriculturalists whose fates were ruled by natural forces, which we inherited and projected onto the sky to create illusions? When you find that you don't have any evidence for an artist, nor any explanatory need for one? Cause that's where I think we're not just headed, but have arrived. No need for gods, no evidence for gods, etc. Do you 'lose meaning', or something? I think not.
Whereas the other kids in my (Roman Catholic) high-school had their "Dawkins edgy atheist phase" I instead had an "edgy Plato phase" - so I suppose I never REALLY turned away from the idea and implications of a God and what was beyond being. Here I am 20 years later more Christian than ever :D
@@Thedisciplemike hello once more my displeasurable friend. Because falsehoods will fail you when it really matters. Many pray to a god that will never save them from their diseases instead of going to a doctor. And quite a few die for it.
I never read the book and never rebelled against or for religion, I don't consider myself atheist either. The reason why I became a mild brand of anti-theist, was the arrogance in telling others what a god/s think, it's also a terrible description of a possible, higher power. I hope there is something more, but have no evidence of anything other than a naturalist form of reincarnation and based on what is said by physicists, that is beyond our understanding. We are not "gods" but for me, this situation makes humanity and everything connected to it, sacred and we have a hell of a lot to learn, evidenced by our lack of respect for what's in front of our eyes.
I'm undisturbed by arguments about whether God created the universe or not. I think it is possible to form sensible ideas and make claims about such things, but it's not anywhere that I would dream of starting the conversation from. Rather, what fascinates me about God, the primal force that drives me to God, is the power of dreams and conscience. To me, God has everything to do with wishes and goodness. From there, we can circle back to the character of the universe itself, and then we could go to a conversation about "did God create the universe." But I would never start at that point, which I believe quickly hits a dead end. Everything for me begins with dreams, hopes, aspirations, goodness, as well as fears, evil, consequence, and conscience. God for me is a label for the good. And the atheist I worry about is not the atheist who has doubts about how the universe began -- for me, the atheist to worry about, is the atheist who does not believe in the good. In fact, I'd take an atheist who believes in the good, over a God-fearing theist who holds the idea that the character of God is evil, any day.
What do you mean by "the good"? As an atheist I believe it's all relative. I'll give an example, being healthy may be "good" for you but at the same time also bad for the invading pathogens that your immune systems kills constantly.
@@chimaobibarnabas Good is that which we profoundly wish for, as our desires are purified through life experience and insight. There is a process at work in life, and something deep within us, that is striving hard to protect and develop something. That thing which we labor to protect and to produce, to expand and to give reign to- and often unknowingly: that is the good.
Watch the final half of the above video. The Easter Bunny, Superman, and Bigfoot are all discrete entities of mundane “being.” They are not ontologically in the same category of God or God’s being.
The same can be said about Religion. "I'm not convinced and you can't show me proof" so what do you wanna tell us besides the point that you see Atheists as fools just because we don't believe in the same thing as you?
Plato's Phaedo: expecting a proof for immortality of soul; finding a rejection of immortality of soul (on a side note: the only time I experienced misology). Also Plato (esp Theatetus): searching for his argument that logos can convey truth; finding a fundamental deconstruction of words and numbers. More generally, realizing that philosophy has no answers and is fundamentally flawed.
Atheism in the age of the internet and RUclips has been battered intellectually. Especially in emphasizing science as the "rock" they stood upon. As science shifts, pivots, adjusts etc...an avowed atheist starts to follow anything that will satiate intuition. "The Athiest doesn't stop believing in nothing. They'll believe in anything" G.K. Chesterton
That argument breaks down when we look at science as a step-wise refinement process, though. The scientist can prove that their knowledge is improving. An instance of such proof is the step-wise progress in the form of more and more sophisticated machinery, machinery that would not function if the scientist's knowledge of the natural world hadn't improved in fidelity. Intuition is only a part of the scientific process -- the other part is empirical verification, which has been done over and over and over again. I won't comment on what atheists will believe or not believe, but scientist's belief are tightly constrained by what can be verified in the empirical world.
@@LionKimbroGood point but describing the universe won’t get you there. I believe it’s always going to be an intuitive leap based in consciousness ie being.
Ok. I am a hardcore atheist and I believe that religion is for primitive apes that have no concept of how the world works. Atheists believe in hardcore facts. Obviously we learn more everyday, so it is my duty to find out what is fact from fiction.
@@LionKimbroI agree with what you say. But the problem is that Official Science has turned into a new priesthood that does not admit that it is a work in progress and that it's conclusions are only provisional and always subject to revision. Instead they like to make exaggerated claims, or leave them to be inferred.
An increasingly common experience. Chesterton had a similar one, as did I. Once you've seen what classical theology and mysticism have to say, so much atheism is revealed as simplistic and becomes completely irrelevant.
Is comparing the kind of being of any god and the universe workable? If we want to use the kind of being of God as a comparison, the god must be demonstrated rather than merely imagined, leaving us back at the beginning. While I get the Aquinas first mover idea, it doesn't lock us into belief in a god because there is no guarantee whatever force, set of conditions, or god which nudged the scales billions of years ago still exists. It certainly doesn't lead us to a benevolent god who cares what we had for breakfast or in which ancient tongue we murmur. The ex-nihilo argument is just "God of the Gaps", but in Latin. It is disappointing how many people still don't understand atheism. They like to say atheists believe in nothing or they believe there is no god. No. Atheists simply say the burden of proof hasn't been met. Is there a god? Who really knows? The ones who claim to know one way or the other are full of themselves. All I can say with certainty is modern religions & most especially fundamentalism aren't it. Virgins don't conceive. Nobody can stop the sun from moving across the sky by raising his arms. There are no magical flying beasts to have carried Mighty Moe to Jerusalem. The idea of the ascension of Christ depends on a firmament for him to escape. Hic Rhodus. Hic salta. (Apologies for the long response. Just because I don't see it the same way doesn't mean I hate you or think you're an idiot. You're obviously thoughtful, which is all that may be asked.)
@@jonunderscore I sincerely wish I could provide you a set of conditions. Personal revelation is obviously out the window, since schizophrenia is a thing. If I start hearing voices, that's going to make me doubt my sanity, not believe in a god. The pillar of fire which moves would be a pretty good trick, if we are referring to the god of the Torah and Bible. It seems the universe & especially living beings would be different if a benevolent superintelligence were involved. The laryngeal nerve in the giraffe is a good example of the absence of design or insane and inefficient design if the god is involved. It isn't my intent to refute a god or sway those who believe away from their faith. It merely seems to me there are only arguments for a god and not evidence of one. Most of the arguments fall into the "god of the gaps" style of reasoning. We don't know what sparked the universe or life, therefore god. Best wishes, fellow traveler.
I read the book at least 30 years ago and didn't provide me with anything more than snippets for arguing with theists. My intent at the time was to disqualify opponents. It was very immature of my part: I was desperate to win. I should read it again under a different light. But it was one of these little stumbling blocks that allowed me to differentiate between being logic from being rational.
@@jonunderscore I’d argue a god addressing every single human on the planet at once with the same message would work for me. One that even deaf and blind people would receive. It could be something else, but that would be a start.
@@worldnotworld no it hasn’t. We have books that claim one existed. The problem is the claims in the books are story’s of claims and not the claims themselves.
It seems to me that the atheist's argument in Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H Smith, that you retold, is an argument for agnosticism, rather than an argument for atheism. If "The creator is a brute fact," or "The universe has always been there," or "The universe was created from nothing," are all equally brute facts, then I don't see how the argument argues for anything other than agnosticism: "These are all equally weak arguments, in terms of explanation."
I wonder if your mysticism inquiries ever lead to exploration with psychedelics? I found them quite beneficial after a lifelong intellectual journey that was primarily focussed on creativity and reading about myth, spirituality and trying to understand human nature. Psychedelic, means mind revealing and it does reveal the contents of your unconscious for hours at a time and that's very useful project. I really appreciate your content and contribution.
The argument about first cause-God or Universe-hands a victory to atheists because assuming the Universe as the axiomatic first cause conforms to Occams razor. Why postulate two unexplainable entities when you only need one? Besides, the strongest argument for God will not be found in the absurd universe but within our lived experience.
My 5¢ on God the Creator of the Universe. First, Universe means "all there is", so that includes God - whatever that is. In this scenario, if God created all there is, then he necessarily created itself too. But this is contradictory: to create itself, it first has to already exist. But if it already exists then it cannot come to existing again. Second , if we exclude god from the universe of "all there is", and go ahead to claim that god created "all the rest of what there is", I refute it by pointing out that my parents created me, and neither of them is God; Pizza chef created the pizza I am having, potter created the pots...and none of them is God. I can go on an on and itemize "all there is", and show that "none of what there is" is God's creation, and actual causes of everything there is can be identified (theoretically of course, in practice that's hard to do for lack of time). So, god is not the creator of the universe. Third: Happy Waisak Day, and on the occasion, let me paraphrase the Buddha: The Buddha described the Universe as follows: >>The world; the cause of the world; the cessation of the world; and the way to the cessation of the world have all been declared by the Tathāgata as appearing within the six-foot-long living body with perception and mind.
72 years "Catholic" For me, in my humble subjective opinion, Christianity and my faith is "Practised ". not " Debated". Get up each morning shoulder your cross and climb your 7 story mountain. The first stanza Nicene creed " I believe in one God. Father almighty. Maker of Heaven & Earth." If someone want's to argue about first principles and actuality. If It is all total BS. Do I care? am I bothered? No. Arguments on the matter are to me ; pure narcissistic dilettantism. on either side . Go and do something for someone else. " Loose yourself" and you may find the answer in " Not self". "Pax Vobiscum" .
Since the beginning of history, mankind's concepts and ideas about what exists in the universe have been challenged by facts. Our imaginations have proven, countless times, incredibly poor when faced with reality. Neither theists nor atheists can solve the infinite regress: and this counterargument fails to point out WHY the universe (or any other, non-theistic concept) would have to correspond to our imagination (for the necessity of the First Principle). I don't understand why religious people (including 'sophisticated philosophers') have the chutzpah to think their imagination is sufficiently developed to dictate to the universe what it can or cannot do/be. Which of these sophisticated philosophers thought that the Earth was 4 billion years old? None. Nobody. Why? No human could have thought of that (except perhaps as a joke), before we had the evidence that demanded such ridiculous theorizing. Because reality delivers with a shrug what imagination can scarecly conjure. And then to stand on this rock of ignorance and shout 'my thinking tells me that this concept we don't know enough about, which is already more wonderous than philosophers could have ever imagined, and which with lots of evidence we still cannot comprehend, cannot in any circumstance have such and such properties as another imagined concept' sounds ... Well. So very, very human. And when you take that first step, whats a few more characteristics added to this imagined Creator? Why not make him good, and worried about you, and so on and so forth. This is like Star Trek; a lot of technobabble, but in the end, still about parochial, human drama with a different set dressing.
Derrida pulling your sleeve: that 'of different kind' you're invoking has metaphysical story in it already. Eg: we don't of anything that is not connected to anything else in order to be of 'true different kind'. That 'of different kind' is the 'outer' determining the 'inner'. The 'whole' bigger than the sum of its parts etc. The story doesn't end with the atheist argument. Neither with the 'of different kind' argument. The story goes on :)
Yeah book that I read that changed my mind was..wait for it...Bible. one of the most horrible and horrific books ever put together by men. Main character is sadistic, narcistic dictator who demands love and worship or else you shall shower. oo he also curses whole family line because of 2 people didnt know right from wrong and no one had taught them that. So because of that he cursed their line. Best part is that then he needed human blood sacrifice of his own son to forgive what he had done in the beginning, yet somehow that wasn't enough and people are still called sinners and sin is in the world somehow still. It's like the blood magic failed. Ou and he loves incest, so much that at one point in the story he drowned all but 8 people and then those 8 very old people repopulated the earth again. Ain't that a lovely story I tell you. So full of goodness and happiness and forgiveness that it makes me weep for joy. *sarcasm*
Interesting, my own journey began with an non-religious family, but there was a sense that my parents were raised in a traditional religious setting but raised my brothers and I with very little influence in that life. Any critical instruction was left to the public school to teach. I was involved and attentive, developing an atheistic mindset due to the evolutionary mindset of the world, loving to argue these points with religious classmates. But when university came, I experienced an existential crisis, and all that was offered to me by my parents was get a job and make money. So my rebellion against this pitiful solution was to turn to mysticism, which was always flashing here and there in my deep conscience. The awareness of self, and the thought that my inner being can not just vanish, no longer exist, simply could not be. I jumped in headfirst into a Christian life, gave up everything to change, and began to pressure myself to conform to church expectations, and entered seminary with the thought that to be the best I could be, I needed to begin a life of a hardened, disciplined instruction and then to teach and evangelize. But then I hit a new wall, politics within the church. Man was that depressing, and into the abyss I fell. Since, I have not forsaken that mystic calling, but now I rely on experience and instruction to guide my path, and to test what comes my way through philosophy and wisdom. That's why I enjoy this channel. Thanks Michael.
There is politics present in any human endeavour where you have to collaborate with other people….. If you try to do anything as a job, the experience will make you hate it. That’s one conclusion I came to during my college existential crisis. 🙃 which is another reason why “getting a job” (like people suggest) cannot provide adequate meaning in life…
Two Americans asked God for guidance from their heart in whole sincerity, it was Allah who answered their call, one man came from Jewish family and other man came from U.S military family. Both men came to Islam for the miracle their experienced, true story posted on YT, unbias reports, both men started to hear Islamic call-to-prayer Azan in the middle of nowhere, both men reported same incident. Both men were former """enemies""" of Muslims. If it were NOT for the miracle, they wouldn't have bother with Islam, both men were truly longing for God and guidance. If your heart is pure, this could be you in the next, you cannot fake your supplication to Allah. Your Creator knows about you, more than you know of your own self inside and outside.
@@LogicStandsBeforeGod provide a source for your fan fictions, please. Preferably several with different writing since a single source can easily be fake if it's not straight out of wikipedia or some other trusted and well tested source.
@@rikuleinonen Fictions are made by men. Whereas unbiased reports came from our mortal enemies, so they genuinely experienced the miracle after they made the supplication to God. They did not come to Islam after studying Islam for months, but they came to Islam when their supplication was met with a miracle.
Two Americans asked God for guidance from their heart in whole sincerity, it was Allah who answered their call, one man came from Jewish family and other man came from U.S military family. Both men came to Islam for the miracle their experienced, true story posted on YT, unbias reports, both men started to hear Islamic call-to-prayer Azan in the middle of nowhere, both men reported same incident. Both men were former """enemies""" of Muslims. If it were NOT for the miracle, they wouldn't have bother with Islam, both men were truly longing for God and guidance. If your heart is pure, this could be you in the next, you cannot fake your supplication to Allah. Your Creator knows about you, more than you know of your own self inside and outside.
The book you keep referring to, I think it is "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith from 1974. While that book had some things correct, the First Cause debate has moved passed what was being thought of back then and more evidence has shown that between 0 and approximately 10^-36 seconds we have no current model that details what exactly happened at this time. There are many working hypotheses, from quantum fluctuations (current highest supported possibility) to cyclic universe. This is the very tiny amount of time that one could propose a god, except that is a God of the Gaps fallacy. The First cause argument is also a Cosmological Argument which is debunked by the simple question of 'Is the universe is in fact contingent?' We have no idea whether this universe “had” to exist or not, nor whether it is in fact the only one and not just one of a potentially infinite number of different universes in a “multiverse” for example. Why God should be considered a “necessary being” and inexplicably exempted from the argument that everything has a cause. If a God exists to cause the universe then, by the same argument, this God must itself have a cause, leading to an infinite regress unacceptable to most theists. Simply asking "does God have a cause of his existence?” therefore raises as many problems as the cosmological argument solves. Even if one accepts that the universe does in fact have a beginning in time (as the generally accepted Scientific Theory of Big Bang Cosmology suggests), the Cosmological Argument does not explain why there could not be more than one first cause/mover, or why the chain could not lead back to several ultimate causes, each somehow outside the universe (potentially leading to several different Gods). Neither does it explain why the something which is “outside the universe” should be “God” and not some other unknown phenomenon. There is no compelling reason to equate a First Cause with God, and certainly Aristotle did not conceive of his Prime Mover as something that should be worshiped, much less as the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God of later Christian, Jewish and Muslim tradition. The whole concept of causality and time as we understand it is based entirely on the context of our universe, and so cannot be used to explain the origin of the universe. Causal explanations are functions of natural laws which are themselves products of the universe we exist in, and time itself is just an aspect of the universe. If there is no “time before” the universe, then the whole notion of “cause” ceases to apply and the universe cannot sensibly have a “cause” (as we use and understand the concept). Indeed, perhaps there IS no “cause” of the universe. Claims that if there are “laws of nature”, then this implies the existence of a lawgiver, or God. However, the analogy of social order based on man-made laws does not extend to scientific or natural laws, because nature's laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. As an atheist myself, I do not think any god that has been defined and presented to me is even possible, most if not all of the definitions that I have been presented with are internally inconsistent, full of nonsense or are mostly improbable, thus I am justified in rejecting them all until such a time as where good evidence is provided. This video did not change that.
Stop framing God in the category of causality - start approaching God phenomenologically in the perspective of 'the question', 'the secret', 'the mystical non-ground' and 'love'. This will help you more than this endless "logical" debates, which are just going nowhere.
I think the Proofs for Existence of God are really just a way for us to explore the paradoxes that result from trying to rationally comprehend the Totality of Everything. The results are similar to what you get in Set Theory.
@@hellucination9905 " Stop framing God in the category of causality - start approaching God phenomenologically" This just boils down god to a concept only. As this only explores theist's experiences of awe, transcendence, communion, or encounters with what is perceived as the divine presence, this has nothing to do with a being which is able to do things independent of the mind that is thinking about the god. This method does not determine that a god objectively exists as a separate entity. " in the perspective of 'the question', 'the secret', 'the mystical non-ground' and 'love'." Everyone has questions, but a true answer is better than a false answer. So, until you have a true answer, the only valid position to have is 'I do not know'. The secrets are in the same spot as the question. It is better to have a true answer to a secret than to have a false one, thus again 'I do not know' is still more valid than a made up answer to the secret. While experiences of the mystical non-ground can be deeply meaningful and significant for individuals, they often lie beyond the realm of empirical verification and may be understood primarily through subjective experience and interpretation. Thus it is flawed as it suffers from many kinds of bias, including interpretive bias, confirmation bias, cultural bias, psychological bias and even subject to desire for meaning fallacies. "This will help you more than this endless "logical" debates, which are just going nowhere. " Yeah, they go nowhere because of all of the various issues with the phenomenological approach inability to separate reality from imagination.
@@ClearLight369 Most arguments for god end up just being a "god of the gaps" argument. So, yes, even if the answers tend to be wrong, they are still answers that someone can grab onto.
It depends on how your being (dasein) reflects on, sees, or merges with the idea of God or the Universe as beings themselves. The former seems immaterial and not reachable by the scientific method, while the latter is concrete and potentially understandable by the scientific method. This may explain, at least in part, the gap in the analogy.
It doesn’t have anything to get wrong as it doesn’t pose anything that could be right or wrong. It’s a blank slate with no claim. It would be pretty cool if theists figured out what atheism is. It’s simply not being a theist.
The simplest possible definition of atheism is obviously not what Millerman is discussing in this video. Instead, he is talking about specific cosmological claims made by atheists in response to certain theist concepts that he, personally, found uncompelling. Not every discussion about "atheist" vs. religious beliefs is about the most essential definitions of atheism. A) that's boring, and B) there are other beliefs that a preponderance of atheists believe and which certain thinkers, like the author of the book Millerman discusses, promote. So yes, technically you can be an atheist and profess *no* particular explanation for the origin of the universe. However, that's not what Millerman is discussing here. And if one's beliefs about God/lack of God partly hinge on explanations for the origin of the universe (which is reasonable), than it's also reasonable to compare various competing theories.
@@joemiller7082 He's specific enough by referring to the one book mentioned at the beginning by George H. Smith, whose cosmological argument he eventually found wanting. It seems pretty apparent that he then went on to consider many other arguments and considered the topic in greater depth after reading his one book. And also that this single video is not supposed to be he final argument on the topic. He just presents a very brief summary of his own journey and mentions a book he found influential. At no point did I hear attempt a formal definition of atheism, though.
@@johnrogstad1278 when he says “what atheism gets wrong,” he is making a sweeping generalization that atheism is a thing that can be gotten wrong. Atheism itself makes no claims. Any claim that could be wrong is something tacked onto atheism. The title itself poisons the well. It creates a narrative of bias before you even watch.
@@gowdsake7103 eternal properties that exist within the universe have been the name of god in very few religions these are the only evidence of identities we can call gods.
@@magouliana32 eternal properties like gravity are just that, eternal properties. Gravity isn't a god. It's just gravity. A god is a conscious, omnipotent being. Gravity only acts how it always has. It also doesn't think. So it's not a god.
@@rikuleinonen how about Justice, Harmony, beauty among others ? These are some of the idea-entities we recognized as Gods. We do not k ow if they think but they exist and are eternal and have an effect throughout the Universe and Kronos(time) cannot defeat them.
@@magouliana32 you calling them gds doesn't prove they are. A gd must have control over itself. If it never exerts it, then it **practically** isn't a gd.
Nobody actually understands what the Universe is or means. To invoke gods as an explanation sounds like a stopgap to me. Theists still have to explain why "I don't know, more research is required" is a worse answer than " I don't know, therefor god(s)".
Hi there nice video! Not quite like you describe but i come from the same background and came to believe in God studying philosophy. It was especially through reading Dostoyevskys "the possessed", where i felt he showed the emptiness of a totally humanistically atheistic position. Also through reading Georges Bataille i came to believe stronger in God. Ended up with Kierkegaard in my bachelor tho! And now I am a priest in the lutheran church in Norway. Im following ur channel mostly because of my interest in Dugin. My wife is also russian. But she dont care for etiher philosophy or politics ;P Daniel.
God of the gaps and special pleading fallacies. You haven’t demonstrated any gods exist nor have you proven the universe required a god to begin with. You have asserted without reason that your god exists and is uncreated, which ironically debunks your idea that everything requires a creator.
Dude you can't even get the argument right and therefore failed to understand the logical fallacy. Many theists argue that the universe is so complex or that it works so well or some other thing and therefore the universe needs a creator. But when we use your logic on god, you reject your own logic. If you think that the universe is so complex that it REQUIRES creator, then your god which would be even more complex then the universe according to theists would also require a creator. That is following your logic but instead of being consistent in your logic you want to carve out a special exemption for god. This is what is known as a special pleading fallacy. BTW it's YOUR idea that the universe needs a creator, most atheists are perfectly fine with saying that they don't know how the universe formed. Also notice how I said formed and not created? I said formed because saying created implies a creator and that's a level of dishonestly that your side takes and our side doesn't. We don't know how the universe began or if it begin at all. We are actual honest enough to say we don't know while you claim that you do know but can't provide any evidence to back up your claim.
@@HiJackShepherd ugh. Theists love circling definitions. Whatever people say only means what **they intend** to say. Not respecting intent is called "twisting someone's words". The good faith assumption for their intent is part of the actual **textbook definition** of atheism, which is "disbelief OR LACK OF BELIEF in a deity or deities". That doesn't inherently conflict with being agnostic. There's no reason to choose one or the other unless you, in bad faith, assume their intent for them and say they meant "disbelief in a deity or deities" just to bring up a meaningless contradiction. You conveniently ignored part of atheism's definition to seem like you have a point. That's not even including the fact your statement has no relation to whether explicit atheism or agnosticism are valid. It's a strawman, made to look like you've disproven something when in reality you put up a strawman in the form of a contradiction, then took it down by asking them to pick, as if the contradiction is valid, when none existed in the first place.
@@HiJackShepherd So you don't even understand what the words mean. "A-theism means without God." No, it means not believing in God's existence. "Agnostic means I don't know." No, it means "I CAN NOT know whether God exists". Both terms are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to be an atheist and be open to the idea to believe once compelling evidence exists. You will find many atheists who currently do not believe but accept anything is possible. Someone going "I know for a fact there is zero chance a God exists" isn't atheism, that's foolishness.
If only you had told us what page number that argument shows up on. Ah well. I guess a strawman it is then! I made a response to this, I do wonder if you will respond to that?! :D
I read it 20+ years ago so I don't remember the page number but I've shared with you as best as I can recall one of his arguments and why it produced a kind of a-ha moment in me about the topic of "kinds of being." Hopefully that's enough for some viewers either to read the book themselves or to follow some other thread in my remarks, like the reference to Heidegger. Thanks for watching and commenting. -MM
@@millerman Right... so strawman due to memory! Got it! Man if only you had said "I don't really remember what the book said" in the video then I wouldn't have to say you made a strawman. Perhaps you might relabel this video as "I forgot what a book I read 20 years ago says and I think that makes all atheists wrong about god somehow!"
@@DeconvertedMan No. The argument is clear (go read the book). And so is its weakness. Well, clear to people who can think and understand, so not to everybody. If you are unable to consider the argument, and don't want to read the book, well thanks for watching and commenting anyway! Helps boost the channel so that people who will consider the argument and might read the book can find the video. Much appreciated. -MM
Before I watch this video, I like to state that atheism doesnt get ANYTHING wrong (or right). Atheism is a POSITION, not a belief, assertion, explanation, ideology, or religion. Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented.
I know the Smith’s book well. “Credo quia absurdum.” I believe it because it is absurd. Bought it through Laissez-Faire Books in the late 1980s. From him to Murray Rothbard, and from him Rand and then to Robert Nozick. I actually discovered Carl Schmitt through a book by Leonard Peikoff titled, “The Ominous Parallels.” Thank you for commenting on Smith’s book.
which lends credence to it always being there. also, what is this nothing you talk about? - for no man can think of such a thing (if it be the lack of something or anything) also, also, "dead matter" -- that is matter. don't really know what you mean by "dead"
@@arturzathas499 Relax, nobody is trying to take away from you the religion of the magical premordial soup that somehow turned rock into life. You can believe what you want! Go wild!
@@goonofhazard2203. Life turns dead matter into more life all the time. What do you think happens when you eat? Without consuming dead minerals your body will die.
@@goonofhazard2203 Your words simply reveal your ignorance of just about anything. No one believes in the "primordial soup" as there's plenty of evidence organic molecules form spontaneously anywhere there are the proper elements and a source of energy. And its not atheists who believe life came from a "rock" - we leave that to christians and their adorable story of a man made of dust and a woman made out of a rib. It's always so pathetic when a theist tries to use the term "religion" to describe what atheists believe. And it's especially amusing when you use the term "religion" as a pejorative when its theists who belong to a religion. Unlike you, I don't automatically assume that a religion is automatically a bad thing. In my view, some religions are mostly bad and others are mostly good, even if they are all likely to be incorrect. Why do you belong to a group you find so distasteful?
I had a similar experience when I started looking at the Bible once I was old enough to bring a mature attitude to it and I wasn't being offended by it because I had a child's mind and I think the subject is a little bit heavy for a child and what I noticed is that God commits murder and then declares himself innocent. He abdicates paternity of Jesus. He declares that he is not and could not be in heaven and that any and all human humiliation and torture is equivalent to the sin that only killing his son can remedy, his son. That is not his son, of course and therefore the remedy has never been true and all of history seems to bear that out. That replacing any kind of loss of father with a surrogate father doesn't attend to the pain of the Providence of the interest in this symbolic or surrogate father. Even though humans with symbolic systems need this and have needed this and must seem to need it for many different psychological social and I would say economic reasons. It has done nothing to explain the source of human pain and suffering
It wasn't a book but _persons_ who convinced me. I saw in the atheists I met or read or watched onscreen, even old ones, something like an adolescent, heady rebellion that did not feel like wisdom. Certainly there is immaturity in religious belief as well, but in mature religious people, I experienced a quality of openness, intelligence, and wisdom that felt to me the right path to follow.
So what convinced you of the supernatural is just how people appeared to you. Not proof. Not reason. Just total emotional perception. Blind faith, to put it simply.
@@rikuleinonen There's a saying making the rounds, "I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in" -- which is likely applicable here. But I would point to your umbrage. The staccato sentence fragments, the idea that you've nailed me down as a blind-faith-following-emotional-fool. As I said in my comment, there's an adolescent feel to it. I could have been clearer in my comment I suppose -- but what am I to do, write a spiritual biography in a youtube comment? But I will say one thing, which is that nothing "convinced me of the supernatural", and it wasn't "emotional perception" -- whatever you might mean by that -- or much less "blind faith". Yuck! I was talking there about discerning a _path_ to follow. What are the sorts of people, how are they living their lives, how are they treating others, what words are coming out of their mouths, how intelligent and rational are they, how even-tempered, how wise about thoughts, emotions, sensations and their connections, who has the broadest, most far-sighted view -- these are the sorts of impressions that have guided me in listening to others, not so that I can parrot some "belief" they might have, but that I can engage in my own phenomenological investigation into the truth of reality, using not just logic, but the entirety of my senses and imaginal faculties. No one needs to be "convinced of the supernatural". But if you believe that your idea of what is "natural" is definitive in some way, or that you don't have a great deal to learn about the truth of what you presently think of as "supernatural", then I would suggest that, perhaps, you have foreclosed your investigation.
@@markcounseling I myself **just** had the displeasure of arguing against an irrational christian. Like mere moments ago. Actually pretty sure it's ongoing. The origin of the argument was simply the statement that if god does not require a creator from the theist's perspective, the universe doesn't require one from the atheist's perspective either. The one I was arguing with simply stated "but god is existence itself and the cause of all things so it doesn't apply" which I just stated to be a special pleading fallacy. They shifted from that point to morality. Calling my suffering meaningless. In fact, they said my whole existence was meaningless. That they were right. Only their morals were objectively correct. I proceeded to talk about how morals are generally subjective apart from a few objective standoffs, but as I talked about how they were a narcissist, they even had the gall to ask **me** if them being a narcissist was a bad thing. They didn't consult their "objective" morality. No. They asked me, an atheist, if narcissism was wrong. They wouldn't have to if they believed what they said they believe. Before we even got to the morality, he sent a message saying "you're squirming" with 3 emojis attached. A plain old insulting ad hominem, straight out of a child's temper tantrum. And you're seriously trying to tell me atheists are worse? Not in my view, at least.
@@markcounseling also if the supernatural were to present itself to me in any perceivable form, I'd accept it. In the very argument I had earlier, the person I was arguing with me said that if I finally died and was brought in front of christ, that I'd spit in his face in my pride. I simply said I'd ask him why he has hidden himself from me, why he does things the way he does, if the bible is true and what I should do now. I'd ask the questions from the source. I don't consult unproven third parties for my beliefs. Only my own deduction, observation and reason. If a supernatural being in front of me said the bible is true, I'd read it from cover to cover and follow it until the day I die. Hasn't happened yet, though. I WISH there was an afterlife. No seriously, I do. The eternal nothingness that likely awaits me isn't comforting and I'd escape from it if I could. But until the day comes that I can comfortably say "yep there's an afterlife" from what I've gathered myself, I won't believe in one.
@@markcounseling either way, I believe that which is natural to be that which I can prove. That's very broad. If I encounter something I haven't encountered before, it simply enters my world view. Adaptation based on what you have available. Prediction to fill in the gaps the best you can. The investigation never ends so long as there's something to find. Even once you've found everything, you keep looking since you never know if you missed anything. Either way, you've still provided no evidence for what you believe to be natural. Doesn't matter if you call it supernatural or natural, really. What I'm chasing here is god. Have you witnessed god? Felt god? Had god talk to you? Anything at all? I can't disprove first-hand experience but being provided with the opportunity to truly experience it second-hand would be a blessing. I want nothing more than to be relieved of the fear that I'll simply cease to exist one day. But to accept that relief, I must make certain that I'm not lulling myself into a *false* relief first. Far as I know, the universe is pretty cruel. A blissful respite like that would be rather uncharacteristic.
I don't really get why a god would be more likely to be uncaused than a universe. I think perhaps you're saying something like your god lacks any substance, so in a sense they're less than physical things, and closer to nothing? But it seems to me that if they had the power to create physical things, then they would have to be just as much something as physical things are.
The difference between the universe and god is that the universe demonstrably exist. What's the point of adding a god, which you can't explain, to explain the origin of the universe? Adding a god just shifts the problem. Instead of having to explain the universe, you would now have to explain god and also how he supposedly created the universe.
@@hellucination9905 He didn't explain it. He just added a god and then said that we should accept that we can't explain god, because we can't explain the universe.
The question of the “kind of being” is nothing more than a special pleading logical fallacy. “God makes the first cause different. Ta Da!”. Not very satisfying. We need to go deeper to make this satisfying. All this stems from the implicit null hypothesis that 1) nothingness exists, and 2) that nothingness is the default state of being. You need to be able to prove those two things are true. Simply slapping a big old god in the philosophical uncomfortableness and calling it a day, doesn’t address the shape of the philosophical hole it’s trying to fill.
Your objection to the first principle being applied to the universe instead of god is not coherent. Your response is “they’re different things” but this isn’t a valid response to the logic. It doesn’t address the question as to why this first principle brute fact cannot just be applied to the universe itself. The point is that, in some form, a brute fact needs to be assumed. Why is the universe not a viable candidate? Can you actually answer that question? Because all I see here is special pleading.
like notions of creator gods, the universe is unknown. the universe also has a beginning by observation, so that requires an explanation. there's the complexity of the fine tuning, which has yet to be explained. also there is the complexity of life which will either need to be explained by addendums to current evolutionary theory or by some kind of creative intelligence, or both. god of the gaps isn't a good argument, because it's perfectly reasonable for semantic code to have a programmer rather than emerge from white noise.
@@larrycarter3765 it's inference to the best explanation of observable phenomena... if everything seems to be outwardly emmanating from a single point, the best hypothesis is one of progression. progress implies a beginning. if you've got a better idea, i'd love to hear it.
@@larrycarter3765 astronomers did. Everything seems to be expanding from a singular point in space. That point is too far for us to observe due to the expansion rate of the universe outpacing lightspeed, but it's likely it exists. And the fact it's expanding continuously right now implies it did that in the past. It must have began at some point in time.
It's rather interesting that you focus on a "case against god" that is really not particularly important. Most atheists I'm familiar with only comment on this argument as an example of the Special Pleading Fallacy. Theists ascribe special characteristics to a creator being, which, if there is such a being, some of those characteristics would have to apply - however, theists are unable to provide any evidence that such a being is possible nor any evidence that such a creator being is necessary for our Universe to exist. Usually theists end up in the weeds of presup nonsense - "god is because god is". The one thing always lacking is evidence that supports the claim.
The case against atheist? At he is t. Kneel to trace picture children. G is an incomplete whole with one square angle drawn in Earth. O is a whole measure. D is a split whole with two square angles drawn in Earth. Sacrificed, Holy measured. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
First demonstrate the existence of a "God". That is the fundamental starting point. You can't say anything about this "God" unless and until you have demonstrated its existence. To do otherwise is to indulge in story-telling.
Heidegger took me to the Being in everything. He took me to the Water-Being in all of us. Water is Creation, we are the Creators of everything. IT IS the New Paradigm for the Earth. Thank you Michael for all your work!
@@drummersagainstitk "The book of Genesis has so much to do about Water. It tells about the creation of the heaven and the Earth, the light and all of life. But nowhere does it mention the creation of Water ITSelf! We are just "given an image" (mirror image) of the spirit of god hovering over the Waters. It seems that this comes to highlight that Water seen as a primeval element that precedes the creation story as we know it. And I think that what underlies that is the recognition that Water has no form. Water is formless. And in a way IT includes all forms, Water can take upon any form. Formless taking upon form!" ~ Rabbi Yakov Nagen
@@aMoEbaNoos water isn't formless. It's H2O, 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom bonded together. It has as much of a form as any other substance. You can solidify or liquidify nitrogen even if it's naturally a gas, for example. Water is formed when you combine hydrogen, oxygen and heat. It's why the exhaust of a hydrogen-powered car is water. We can literally create water and have been able to do so for ages.
Maybe it is incorrect to apply the lens of "production" (poesis) to the realm of the divine? Maybe we could learn by asking a simple question like "What is a thing," which Heidegger did? No? Well, who said that anything true about the god or gods would be disclosed to just anybody without some thoughtfulness?
@@millerman This is just side-stepping the issue. Do you have any good, credible evidence for the existence of your "God"? I have fairly recently come to the conclusion that ALL "God"-existence claims are basically "God" of the (created/imagined) gaps. Your response here is entirely in line with that.
Christian's God has got a 'divine son' for a companionship in the dominion of the universe, whereas the God of OT has got non beside HIM as god. So Christians you are chasing a non existing God, who isn't the God of OT? There are seven more verses like below are found in the OT, where God says, repeatedly there is no God beside HIM. Isaiah 45-5 *There is no God besides Me* Deuteronomy 32:39 *there is no god with me* Isaiah 44:6 *beside me there is no God* .
As much as I hate theists, this argument is disingenuous. Many say that Jesus (divine son) is synonymous, i.e. the same as God himself. They're both God. Technically distinct (not sure why), but functionally the same. If that's what they believe, your argument would fall flat to them.
@@rikuleinonen c1) _"Many say that Jesus (divine son) is synonymous, i.e. the same as God himself. "_ Claim in the line c1 is bogus according to NT itself. As you know NT makes it an explicit claim that nobody knows the Hour will come except the Father, therefore they are no co-equal. _"They're both God. Technically distinct (not sure why), but functionally the same. "_ Which is why the God of NT is not the same God as the God of OT.
@@rikuleinonen _"As much as I hate theists, this argument is disingenuous. "_ Your fair enough statement, people's hatred of Muslims, at the end of the day it is Muslims out of love, we invite others to Islam.
@@rikuleinonen Two anecdotal experiences posted by two fellow Americans and there was no middle man in both narrated story posted on YT. Two Americans asked God for guidance from their heart in whole sincerity, it was Allah who answered their call, one man came from Jewish family and other man came from U.S military family. Both men came to Islam for the miracle their experienced, true story posted on YT, unbias reports, both men started to hear Islamic call-to-prayer Azan in the middle of nowhere, both men reported same incident. Both men were former """enemies""" of Muslims. If it were NOT for the miracle, they wouldn't have bothered with Islam, both men were truly longing for God and guidance. If your heart is pure, this could be you in the next, you cannot fake your supplication to Allah. Your Creator knows about you, more than you know of your own self inside and outside...
I don't believe in God because the evidence for God doesn't convince me he exists i will also ask what Gods did people believe in 200k years ago so God is something outside of space and time
I've looked into it and all I can find is people preaching verses as if they're inherently true (blind faith) or just plain vile stuff. Ya'll are part of the reason I'm anti-theist and not just atheist.
@@-RiSK-AK by vile stuff I didn't mean only stuff preached by muslims. I meant the Quran itself and what the religion imposes upon people. I found it vile and full of falsehoods.
@@rikuleinonen Your basing your falsehoods upon nothing and you literally have no source to take your morals from or know what is true or false, arguing with people like you is just tiring and a waste of time, if you dont want to submit to Allah(God) then thats up to you, we only here to deliver the message and not forcing people to join the religion of Allah(God).
@DJH316007 i know exactly what it means. And you committed it. "You can't understand logical fallacies therefore God" was never the argument. You strawmanned the position.
@@Thedisciplemike DJH has a point here and you're just not understanding it. As far as I can tell, at least. In the video, he states the argument for being causeless doesn't apply to god because god is a different kind of being. He doesn't actually explain what that means. Just, apparently god is somehow special because ??? and thus exists. It really is just "the fallacy doesn't apply to god but does to the universe because ???, thus god" and nothing more.
Очень понравилось это короткое эссе, наконец понял, что Хайдегер мистик, мистицизм ближе всего поэзии. Поэтому у него восемьдесят книг и только поставленный мистический вопрос о бытии. Современная философия, вспоминая Витгенштейна, - это о взаимоотношении дисциплин человеческого знания. До появления естествознания философия и была знанием.
@@Thedisciplemike Well, since you thought it's okay to put words into my mouth, I thought I'd return the sentiment. How do you like your own medicine, hypocrit? Now, let's baseline, do you claim your fairy tale is 100% true?
All Godly religions contradict themselves. In the Old Testament, the god created people, then killed the same people in the Great Flood because they were evil. This god literally said he "regretted his creation". In follows this god was not omniscient and not omnipotent. Similarly, the Son of God in Christianity was crucified and wept like a child: "Father Why Have You Foresaken Me". He could not even save himself, let alone save others. In Islam they try harder to be intelligent saying God is Not Born Nor Does God Give Birth (Koran surah 112). Yet the Koran has many passages saying God created this & that. There is no Creator God. Any true God is merely a human personification of the moral laws of nature.
Stop with the omniscient and omnipotent nonsense regarding God. Your are just projecting your human will to power onto God; you are making a vulgar fetish out of God. Read some mystical theology to get an actual understanding of the intellectual problem named 'God', which is based in the phenomenonological experience of the 'un-ground' or 'non-ground' of Being. This phenomenonological experience will be open to you, too - but you have to sharpen your intellectual senses (you read right) first.
@@hellucination9905 Hello. No. It is you that is being vulgar. You appear to wish to preach about a god divorced from ethics. God is not any "ground of being". What you have posted is so dumb. God is never about the "intellectual". God is the Spirit of heart & conscience.
So you are a theist because you misunderstand the attributes of the universe. That isn't profound. You also misunderstand atheism as a concept, because it doesn't explain anything. It's simply a negative response to a single question.
Yes, I own Smith's book and have reed it several times. What he gets right is the futility and uselessness of calling a god "unknowable." This led me to the realization that, as an analogy, it makes no sense to say, "I don't _know_ if an 8'4" woman exists but I _believe_ she's a good person who loves avocados, hates broccoli, likes cats, dislikes dogs, gets angry at being interrupted, sad when it rains and she wants a new sofa." See the cart/horse problem? The beliefs _assume_ prior knowledge or they're just idle speculation. And those with such a _personal_ god are always going on about how their god is "good" and loves/hates or likes/dislikes this or wants this or that. This shows that they are gnostics; making a knowledge claim and have inherited a burden of objective proof, as opposed to the agnostic theist i.e. deists. Yet such objective proof has never been forthcoming so they can be ignored. What do I mean by objective proof? Imagine a loved one of yours gets kidnapped. The kidnappers demand a ransom. But before you pay up, you can demand something of them: that they _prove_ the abductee is still alive i.e. _exists._ What the theist would accept as such objective proof is the same as what atheists can demand of theists for their god.
However, if we actually understand how the universe was created, we can observe there is the wind element & heat element causing physical matter to both form and become unstable. This wind element & heat element somehow found its way into similarly created life forms, which somehow became people. The physical bodies of people are agitated by the unstable wind element, heat element, various chemicals, etc, which cause (the other inexplicable reality of) the mind to become agitated. Plus there are life instincts, which again cannot be explained. Thus the lust for life and the internal agitations cause the minds of people to do evil things. Evil is the product of an unstable violent universe. However, amongst this unstable random violence, there appear a few people with a heightened consciousness, who can calm down these erratic forces of nature. These few people are The Prophets, The Saints, The Enlightened. These people are The Angels or Gods. They teach people about the Law of Nature; how to best avoid suffering; how to best maintain well-being; despite the many challenges.
Heat is the chaotic kinetic energy of atoms. The more they move around, the more "heat" there is. These forces can rip apart bonds and form new ones, causing chaos. As for the wind element? Not sure what you're on about. Perhaps the nuclear forces? They're fundamental forces, but so is gravity. And magnetism, too. Not really special. Also if you'd care to provide any proof of these supposed "enlightened" rather than just rambling on about them, we could have an actually nuanced discussion. If you'd like my take on your supposed "enlightened", then just look for experts in any given field. Want to avoid suffering from disease? Get tested by a doctor. Or learn about how diseases spread in the first place. Tell people to divert their coughs away from others, for example. Can't do anything about your genetics, though.
So but your argument if I understand it that saying that there's not a God is like saying there's not an Ethan hunt. But even then there's a Tom Cruise. What if there's not a Tom Cruise? What if you can never know who Tom Cruise really is? Could you still give your life to Tom Cruise. And even more importantly since we agree that we are such psychological and social beings. What about your father? Is your father your father? What kind of person should occupy the highest tier of the paternal relationships of the human mind and what types of other factors the mother divorce, death, domestic abuse, social forces could intervene in that connection? Is the brain prepared for that by evolution? Is the brain prepared for the type of pain that can come to be associated with the Father figure? And is it prepared to associate anything but pain with the Father figure? And then we need to include all the faculties that mitigate for pain and then see them in terms of the roiling mass of social and psychological forces across time, including mass warfare. It is amazing to me in a day and age where we know so much about cults and group psychology that no one wants to consider the psychological forces that lead people to adopt a surrogate father and how that affects all groups that look to improve humanity and the type of corrupting influence it can have over their best intentions. More simply Jordan Peterson. It makes a very good definition of the the pyramid seeking all uniting fictional character of God, but that God also represents a surrogate father. A fictional father is a surrogate father and while many people accept the transition from the father-seeking brain to the god-seeking brain, they don't think about what types of emotional forces can enter into that. The average narcissist turns themselves into a god to fill the hole left by the father. And Society can do this for all of its own. Totally honest reasons, but that also leads to a society filled with people who have a God complex, which seems to be the intention of the Bible Shakespeare and the English language and all of its political systems. A political system is a symbolic system and symbolic systems do things that creatures with symbolic systems need them to do, including, like it's God, covering up a host of pain or sin or impossible quandaries as to the balance between life and death.
You talk claptrap; special pleading cause =god. No philosophical or metaphysical has any bearing on the truth of god`s existence. You believe claptrap, then it is real for you ,that's how it works .God has no explanatory power ;it serves just to plug the holes in your understanding how the world works.
3:50 No, you're wrong, atheist doesn't think the universe doesn't need a cause in the same way theist say that about god. How do you know something is created? You compare it to something you have previous knowledge of. We have enough information to know how a tree grows or how a galaxy formed, but we don't know how the universe was before the big bang, but as far as we know the default state of the universe seems to be existing insted of nothingness. You have to prove that the default state of the universe is non existence and then you also need prove that god is the one nedeed to change it state
Exactly! Somebody else who understands that the case needs to be made for 1) nothingness “existing” and 2) that it should be the “default state” of existence. The null hypothesis as it were, needs defining why that should earn its place as the default position.
Never ever in physics or metaphysics have I heard these two points been put foward.
Yeah. Every time i read metaphysical philosophy. It's just theology in new clothes as millerman points out. Its all anti-realism nonsense.
@Pseudo-numenienwhile I won't argue that there's nothing immaterial (i.e. numbers), what makes you think thoughts are immaterial?
They may be (we have no way of knowing); but we can at least see them acted out in the physical world (say a brain scan).
We absolutely have no such 'intervention upon the physical' for any of the imagined spirits, gods, etc, that humanity has borne out.
@Pseudo-numenien I've never seen a reason to think thought except happening in the brain. What you mean by 'simply negate all that is not thought'?
Quite to the contrary, the only thing we should think, based on evidence, is that thoughts exist only within brains, as a function of brains.
What came “first” exists in a linear view of existence. Once you look at existence in a circular perspective it changes many things. Black Elk Speaks was one of my first reads that changed my outlooks.
The only positive claim I as an atheist have ever made is the positive claim that I am positive that none of the super natural assertions surrounding any religion have been compelling enough for me to believe.
I'm sorry if in my case no religion has ever overcome it's burden of proof but that's not my problem now is it.
but do you believe in supernatural things or paranormal activities?
Well you're the one who has to come to your own conclusion. As an old friend of mine used to say is "who are you trying to convince?"
@@asamcbrez4930 "Who are you trying to convince?" Funny that I say the same thing about the leaders of the confirmation bubbles with crosses on top of them that have
their indoctrination sessions occurring multiple times each week
The positive claim you make is not the claim of atheism, but agnosticism. "I don't believe the claims of any religion I have reviewed" does not equal the positive claim, "I know there is no deity", which is the definition of a-theism. Or perhaps I have just assumed too much. Do you know, positively, that there is no deity? How would you prove that negative? Of course, no one can prove that negative. So would it not be more honest to stop at, "I don't believe the claims I have heard. And I do not know." Also called agnosticism.
@@HiJackShepherd I lack belief in any god or god's. I don't entertain the possibility of god's being real. It's fruitless to claim I can prove there are no gods, I can not. I am an atheist. I am without theism. I do not believe in the possibility of god's existing. Gods are the first
superheroes developed because of human ignorance. I can't prove this but one thing i'm not going to do is argue with somebody to prove I am an atheist. I don't need you to be convinced.
I view myself athiest and approach matters as such, but where I do approach theism is that I believe that if there is a god I find it highly unlikely it is anything like what historical and modern religions paint it as, and that any being that could fill in the signifier of god is well beyond humanity's capabilities for understanding, rendering religious inquiry as a kind of false start. leaving me skeptical of religous thinkers and institutions and completely disinterested in pursuing my own notion of god.
But religious folks typically don’t put much weight on _understanding_ God, but rather on experiencing God… through mysticism
@@anastasiya256 There are a whole bunch of topics to untangle. First, we are obligated to understand what gods meant to polytheists. That's a matter of language and context. We can accomplish that task. The only goofy part of Christian monotheism is the monotheism part. Why? What made that compelling roughly 2,000 years ago? Platonists figure into this. Zoroastrians figure into this. In different respects, Buddhists figure into this. There's an obvious but confusing relationship between experience and language. "Transcend" is an everyday word. Weights, measures and counts transcend our individual "experiences." Reading through the Pythagorean Sourcebook makes all of these matters pretty open to examination. Pythagoras gave us our term "Philosophy" and he was both a Boxer and a Mathematician. Later, Plato was a Wrestler and a Mathematician. Body and Mind were and remain programmatic disciplines. Not ontological disputes.
@@anastasiya256 I can appreciate that, and in my experience that modestly is more prominent in historical religions which I tend to to respect more than the absurd narcissism found in new age religion
@@anastasiya256 I suppose the question is are people experiencing god through mysticism, or are they having experiences and calling it god?
@@Mr._Anderpson that's part of it, but it gets worse. Many of these experiences come from dreams.
And dreams are formed from your memories. If you have memories of the biblical god, then, well, guess the rest.
It's easy to find people who claim to have experienced god, but you'll notice their accounts aren't consistent *between different people* at all.
In fact, they always respect the religion of whoever had the experience. Or if they are/were atheist, it'll respect their knowledge of religion at the time.
Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling had an enormous influence on me. As a rational man, his leap of faith concept seems like a frightening 0:02 concert. Yeah, acceptance God definitely demands a certain leaving behind of total rationality. As a result, I have certainly attempted to fill-in certain rational observations that for myself give proof that there is the existence of God. They are little observations of life that have no rational explanation, but imply the existence of an intangible source that explains everything.
I found Martin Buber’s writing to be influential in that regard, I-Thou, particularly. It intellectually fills in the leap of faith.
Yes, like the complexity of the human body. The balance to sustain life is incredible! Birth. I’m always in awe of it. I just cant say, we simply “evolved” into this. It’s far too intricate & things have to be just soo to continue living. ‘Much like the earth. If it were a mm off its tilt or a mm closer to the sun, life wouldn’t be possible. Did that just HAPPEN? The multiverse theory too. To believe the earth in all its precise & delicate position/atmosphere, is just the luck of the draw from many many many times trying & failing, doesn’t make sense to me. The odds for all this to happen again, are basically impossible. Those kinds of things, to me, lend to a design & a creator, than chance.
@@candycolrivall you have to consider is the complexity of the human body. The balance of everything, the way everything works together like an intricate clockwork. It is impossible for that to be a random happening.
@@qcrtheory yes haha hyperbole. Same as our bodies, over time things adapt & figure out a way to keep going. Like, why don’t ppl who take seriously hard drugs, just die the first time they use? They’re quickly changing the chem of their bodies, the balance that keeps them alive. Well, the body knows what it needs I makes adjustments. That’s not to say, you’re A ok doing those things . Because your body will take from Peter to pay Paul, so to speak. But the overarching point is, creation WILL do whatever to survive. If it were simply our doing, humans wouldn’t make the calls creation does to keep life going. If that makes sense. (In order to not to die, the things the body does are drastic but in the end, very necessary. Not every human could know, what to do & make those kinda calls. Based on doing a cost vs benefit assessment)
Hopefully that makes sense 🫣😐
I don’t read about religious or non religious things. I don’t care how life started, I don’t care what happens after life. I care about what happens in my life, for me and the people I care about. I don’t try and make those who care about religion change what they believe. I hope they would respect my thoughts also( usually not), and if not I just keep quiet to not upset people I care about. I don’t talk about politics either. My thoughts are my thoughts.
I had an experience where I looked at the moon one evening and knew in my heart that the consistency of the sunrise and set and the geometrical shape of them could not have been without a maker. I started to notice signs of creation everywhere after that. I thought the Truth must be within Christianity but I could not accept the Trinity or that our Creator has a Human as a son. I read the Quran after learning a bit about Islam and upon reading it I submitted to Muhammad PBUH being a messenger of God and the validity of what is written within the book. I was a Nationalist for a decade prior to my conversion to Islam and as you can imagine I didn’t want it to be Islam but it was. 112 Say He is God, One, God, the everlasting Refuge, He does not beget, nor is He begotten, and comparable to Him there is none.
Now demonstrate how you know that "God" is a different kind of being, the explain which god you mean.
I really appreciate your sharing your personal journey. I was raised Catholic and was always very attracted to mysticism and the life of prayer. I went back and forth for some years between faith and unbelief, but then i began reading Idries Shah studiously, wrote and asked for instruction and as a result had a spiritual awakening. Now almost 40 years later i am happier than i have ever been. I would now say that what religions say about God, some of it, makes sense in terms of my own experience, not in terms of a traditional conception of deity.
Re traditional proofs for existence of God, i believe the only genuine, convincing proof can be from personal experience. I do find the argument frim design convincing tho but i think it proves the existence of intelligence in the universe, not a traditional deity idea. Other proofs strike me as too "forensic," like a detective trying to prove whodunit from inadequate evidence. They are merely speculations and are more useful for their inspirational and devotional value.
Continue meditating on Being. It can only help!
I grew up in a very catholic rural area in Germany, and as far back as I can remember, no one ever came up with a convincing argument to believe in any God, let alone the biblical version of it. I've read the bible, and I can appreciate it as a historical book of wisdom on which our culture is founded. I've also read atheist literature from Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins. Over the years I developed from an "you must be kidding"-style nonbeliever into a "dawkinsean edgy atheist" and finally into an agnostic who sometimes leans a bit more toward one side and sometimes to the other. I think it's one of the great questions of humanity whether there is a God, or not, and with open minded and tolerant people it's great to discuss this. My basic persuasion is, believe whatever you like, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on the lives of others. Once your belief poses any rules on me or denigrates me in any way - f*ck off.
I absolutely 100% share your experience of reading a book with one intention and come out with the absolute opposite position.
I repeatedly read the Bible cover to cover to strenghten my belief in God, and I now have ended up as an anti-theist atheist.
Just wanted to point out that this goes both ways.
And it's a pretty big percentage of atheists who have read the respectively holy scriptures of their former religion and come out atheists, and even anti-theists.
Thank you for your video!
You've made a terrible mistake! :-)
From Russia, 23 y.o.
I had the same story with Engels's book "Anti-During" like 3 years ago.
3:18 “The parallelism breaks down… people who talk about God being the first principle, they don’t mean something spacial…”
😂 if x is NOT SPACIAL, x (by definition) EXISTS NO-WHERE…
You know what that means?
THERE IS NO GOD; GOD DOES NOT EXIST ANY-WHERE.
So that’s what I do in that situation…
I’m curious to know if you find any issue with my ‘non-locality’ counter-apologetic.
3:11 “the kind of being of the universe, is not the same kind of being of God.”
…I frequently stress about people equivocating on the word “being“.
just because you read a single dopey book as a kid trying to convince your mother that God isn’t real, doesn’t mean Every or most atheist arguments err the same way… many point out the habit of bad thinking necessary to maintain a belief in God… avoidance behaviors, equivocation fallacies, cult language control, etc.
(That’s easy for me to say, I self-deconverted as a child like Russel and Paine… and I was able to persuade my mother that the existence of God is unnecessary and improbable… so I don’t mean to imply that your only knowledge of atheistic philosophy is from this one book I’ve never read. I apologize if I come across that way.)
Thanks for the thought provoking video!
I can't say I've experienced that with a book. What I can say however is that the question "what do you mean by being" is what started my journey towards God. People often take Jordan Peterson to task because this is how he answers the question "Do you believe in God", and they are annoyed with the answer "What do you mean by God" and "What do you mean by believe". It might be annoying but when you're talking about fundamental truths and first principles, these definitions are actually of uttermost importance, as annoying as it may be. I realized at that point that every "bible justifies slavery" or "sky daddy" arguments that I would use to criticize Christianity were hilarious strawmen arguments. I had to humble myself and realize that I actually had no idea what Christians actually believed, or what the idea of God meant to them. It was Peterson's "Introduction to the idea of God" that made me accept that I should at least take it seriously instead of dismissing it religion as "the opiate of the masses" because that's just too much of an easy answer.
It's easy to notice that science and religion are polar opposites in terms of how they work. But I find that typically, the mistake that we modern people do is to conflate both with respect to which questions those discipline try to answer. I'm no academic, but to my knowledge, the proper way to critically analyze a text is to first and foremost ponder about the intention of the text. This is where I find that most atheists miss the point. The point of a science textbook's is to tell me about how the universe works. The bible doesn't care about that; while it might provide an account of how God created the universe, that's not really the point of the book now is it? So what could it be? If science gives me information about the "how", I don't think it's absurd that the bible give me information about "why". Why am I here? What's the point of living? Why should I love others? Why shouldn't I sin? Why is Jesus the framework for a sinless life? What does it mean to live a sinless life? These questions cannot be answered by science because they are not scientific questions.
I find Peterson ... less than impressive.
But why did you turn to religion for the 'why' questions? Were you unable to find any secular answers? There are many. Peterson (especially convinced of this after his recent Alex O'Connor interview) seems to be desperately in need of religion to give him some sort of 'objective' (he says canonical) grounding. I don't know: never had such problems finding (very similar) secular answers.
Also, why Bible? Why not say Bhagavad-Gita?
I would argue that your dismisal of the 'opiate of the people' (do read the full quote if you haven't it is one of the most beautiful pieces of writing I ever saw) might be the source of the issue: religion is described rather similarly (compendium of wisdom, or some such).
Does not knowledge of how inform us about the why? Does a naturalistic explanation of Jesus' body allegedly missing from the tomb not change the answer to why questions?
Every 'why' question, to my mind, can only be answered by having a more complete 'how' picture. And if that picture should show that there's no plausible reason to believe in god, will the why answers disappear? I don't think so.
@@qcrtheory but what shall you say if instead of shaking hands with God science finds no one home in the sky?
That there never was 'The Artist', that these are ancient INTUITIONS, born from a simplified worldview available to early agriculturalists whose fates were ruled by natural forces, which we inherited and projected onto the sky to create illusions?
When you find that you don't have any evidence for an artist, nor any explanatory need for one?
Cause that's where I think we're not just headed, but have arrived. No need for gods, no evidence for gods, etc.
Do you 'lose meaning', or something? I think not.
Whereas the other kids in my (Roman Catholic) high-school had their "Dawkins edgy atheist phase" I instead had an "edgy Plato phase" - so I suppose I never REALLY turned away from the idea and implications of a God and what was beyond being. Here I am 20 years later more Christian than ever :D
Way cooler phase you had
20 years, and you still can't demonstrate the truth of what you believe.
@@almcdermid9669 He only made a comment not to demonstrate anything to you or me.
@@almcdermid9669 why pursue truth?
@@Thedisciplemike hello once more my displeasurable friend. Because falsehoods will fail you when it really matters. Many pray to a god that will never save them from their diseases instead of going to a doctor. And quite a few die for it.
I never read the book and never rebelled against or for religion, I don't consider myself atheist either.
The reason why I became a mild brand of anti-theist, was the arrogance in telling others what a god/s think, it's also a terrible description of a possible, higher power.
I hope there is something more, but have no evidence of anything other than a naturalist form of reincarnation and based on what is said by physicists, that is beyond our understanding.
We are not "gods" but for me, this situation makes humanity and everything connected to it, sacred and we have a hell of a lot to learn, evidenced by our lack of respect for what's in front of our eyes.
I'm undisturbed by arguments about whether God created the universe or not. I think it is possible to form sensible ideas and make claims about such things, but it's not anywhere that I would dream of starting the conversation from. Rather, what fascinates me about God, the primal force that drives me to God, is the power of dreams and conscience. To me, God has everything to do with wishes and goodness. From there, we can circle back to the character of the universe itself, and then we could go to a conversation about "did God create the universe." But I would never start at that point, which I believe quickly hits a dead end. Everything for me begins with dreams, hopes, aspirations, goodness, as well as fears, evil, consequence, and conscience. God for me is a label for the good. And the atheist I worry about is not the atheist who has doubts about how the universe began -- for me, the atheist to worry about, is the atheist who does not believe in the good. In fact, I'd take an atheist who believes in the good, over a God-fearing theist who holds the idea that the character of God is evil, any day.
What do you mean by "the good"? As an atheist I believe it's all relative. I'll give an example, being healthy may be "good" for you but at the same time also bad for the invading pathogens that your immune systems kills constantly.
@@chimaobibarnabas Good is that which we profoundly wish for, as our desires are purified through life experience and insight. There is a process at work in life, and something deep within us, that is striving hard to protect and develop something. That thing which we labor to protect and to produce, to expand and to give reign to- and often unknowingly: that is the good.
Atheism is just “I’m not convinced and you can’t show me god”. The same argument can work for the easter bunny, superman, and big foot.
i am posting here to educate people.
Watch the final half of the above video. The Easter Bunny, Superman, and Bigfoot are all discrete entities of mundane “being.” They are not ontologically in the same category of God or God’s being.
The same can be said about Religion. "I'm not convinced and you can't show me proof" so what do you wanna tell us besides the point that you see Atheists as fools just because we don't believe in the same thing as you?
@@joesoftware1 yes. Correct.
@@tätt_ninjahr it seems to me like they ARE atheist.
Plato's Phaedo: expecting a proof for immortality of soul; finding a rejection of immortality of soul (on a side note: the only time I experienced misology). Also Plato (esp Theatetus): searching for his argument that logos can convey truth; finding a fundamental deconstruction of words and numbers. More generally, realizing that philosophy has no answers and is fundamentally flawed.
Michael, I'm new to your channel. You ever listen to Oxford Prof. John Lennox? I think you'd like him.
No but thanks for the recommendation
@@millerman Lennox is a Christian apologist, and not a very good one. His area of expertise is mathematics.
Atheism in the age of the internet and RUclips has been battered intellectually. Especially in emphasizing science as the "rock" they stood upon. As science shifts, pivots, adjusts etc...an avowed atheist starts to follow anything that will satiate intuition. "The Athiest doesn't stop believing in nothing. They'll believe in anything" G.K. Chesterton
That argument breaks down when we look at science as a step-wise refinement process, though. The scientist can prove that their knowledge is improving. An instance of such proof is the step-wise progress in the form of more and more sophisticated machinery, machinery that would not function if the scientist's knowledge of the natural world hadn't improved in fidelity. Intuition is only a part of the scientific process -- the other part is empirical verification, which has been done over and over and over again. I won't comment on what atheists will believe or not believe, but scientist's belief are tightly constrained by what can be verified in the empirical world.
@@LionKimbroshould be constrained in a similar way journalists should be constrained. Both today seem to be anything but constrained.
@@LionKimbroGood point but describing the universe won’t get you there. I believe it’s always going to be an intuitive leap based in consciousness ie being.
Ok. I am a hardcore atheist and I believe that religion is for primitive apes that have no concept of how the world works. Atheists believe in hardcore facts. Obviously we learn more everyday, so it is my duty to find out what is fact from fiction.
@@LionKimbroI agree with what you say. But the problem is that Official Science has turned into a new priesthood that does not admit that it is a work in progress and that it's conclusions are only provisional and always subject to revision. Instead they like to make exaggerated claims, or leave them to be inferred.
An increasingly common experience. Chesterton had a similar one, as did I. Once you've seen what classical theology and mysticism have to say, so much atheism is revealed as simplistic and becomes completely irrelevant.
@@worldnotworld how could atheism be irrelevant if it isn’t a thing that could be anything?
It’s just an answer to a question.
@@joemiller7082 Well, the phenomenon is relevant, but the arguments don't hold.
Is comparing the kind of being of any god and the universe workable? If we want to use the kind of being of God as a comparison, the god must be demonstrated rather than merely imagined, leaving us back at the beginning. While I get the Aquinas first mover idea, it doesn't lock us into belief in a god because there is no guarantee whatever force, set of conditions, or god which nudged the scales billions of years ago still exists. It certainly doesn't lead us to a benevolent god who cares what we had for breakfast or in which ancient tongue we murmur.
The ex-nihilo argument is just "God of the Gaps", but in Latin.
It is disappointing how many people still don't understand atheism. They like to say atheists believe in nothing or they believe there is no god. No. Atheists simply say the burden of proof hasn't been met.
Is there a god? Who really knows? The ones who claim to know one way or the other are full of themselves. All I can say with certainty is modern religions & most especially fundamentalism aren't it. Virgins don't conceive. Nobody can stop the sun from moving across the sky by raising his arms. There are no magical flying beasts to have carried Mighty Moe to Jerusalem. The idea of the ascension of Christ depends on a firmament for him to escape.
Hic Rhodus. Hic salta. (Apologies for the long response. Just because I don't see it the same way doesn't mean I hate you or think you're an idiot. You're obviously thoughtful, which is all that may be asked.)
What would a demonstration of God actually look like?
@@jonunderscore I sincerely wish I could provide you a set of conditions. Personal revelation is obviously out the window, since schizophrenia is a thing. If I start hearing voices, that's going to make me doubt my sanity, not believe in a god.
The pillar of fire which moves would be a pretty good trick, if we are referring to the god of the Torah and Bible.
It seems the universe & especially living beings would be different if a benevolent superintelligence were involved. The laryngeal nerve in the giraffe is a good example of the absence of design or insane and inefficient design if the god is involved.
It isn't my intent to refute a god or sway those who believe away from their faith. It merely seems to me there are only arguments for a god and not evidence of one. Most of the arguments fall into the "god of the gaps" style of reasoning. We don't know what sparked the universe or life, therefore god.
Best wishes, fellow traveler.
I read the book at least 30 years ago and didn't provide me with anything more than snippets for arguing with theists. My intent at the time was to disqualify opponents. It was very immature of my part: I was desperate to win. I should read it again under a different light. But it was one of these little stumbling blocks that allowed me to differentiate between being logic from being rational.
I don't see the point of a book describing the case against God until God has been demonstrated to exist.
What would be a sufficient demonstration?
@@jonunderscore I am not sure, but I assume theists have good reasons for their belief in a God so they could share the evidence that convinced them.
He has been demonstrated to exist. I don't see the point of a book claiming otherwise either.
@@jonunderscore I’d argue a god addressing every single human on the planet at once with the same message would work for me. One that even deaf and blind people would receive. It could be something else, but that would be a start.
@@worldnotworld no it hasn’t. We have books that claim one existed. The problem is the claims in the books are story’s of claims and not the claims themselves.
It seems to me that the atheist's argument in Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H Smith, that you retold, is an argument for agnosticism, rather than an argument for atheism. If "The creator is a brute fact," or "The universe has always been there," or "The universe was created from nothing," are all equally brute facts, then I don't see how the argument argues for anything other than agnosticism: "These are all equally weak arguments, in terms of explanation."
I wonder if your mysticism inquiries ever lead to exploration with psychedelics? I found them quite beneficial after a lifelong intellectual journey that was primarily focussed on creativity and reading about myth, spirituality and trying to understand human nature. Psychedelic, means mind revealing and it does reveal the contents of your unconscious for hours at a time and that's very useful project. I really appreciate your content and contribution.
If Monotheism is the same as claiming that one principle explains all that is then i ask back which one is it?
Is it causality?
Is it chaos?
I want to watch how your journey proceeds, roll on ,,, brother.
The argument about first cause-God or Universe-hands a victory to atheists because assuming the Universe as the axiomatic first cause conforms to Occams razor. Why postulate two unexplainable entities when you only need one?
Besides, the strongest argument for God will not be found in the absurd universe but within our lived experience.
My 5¢ on God the Creator of the Universe.
First, Universe means "all there is", so that includes God - whatever that is. In this scenario, if God created all there is, then he necessarily created itself too. But this is contradictory: to create itself, it first has to already exist. But if it already exists then it cannot come to existing again.
Second , if we exclude god from the universe of "all there is", and go ahead to claim that god created "all the rest of what there is", I refute it by pointing out that my parents created me, and neither of them is God; Pizza chef created the pizza I am having, potter created the pots...and none of them is God. I can go on an on and itemize "all there is", and show that "none of what there is" is God's creation, and actual causes of everything there is can be identified (theoretically of course, in practice that's hard to do for lack of time). So, god is not the creator of the universe.
Third: Happy Waisak Day, and on the occasion, let me paraphrase the Buddha:
The Buddha described the Universe as follows:
>>The world; the cause of the world; the cessation of the world; and the way to the cessation of the world have all been declared by the Tathāgata as appearing within the six-foot-long living body with perception and mind.
72 years "Catholic" For me, in my humble subjective opinion, Christianity and my faith is "Practised ". not " Debated". Get up each morning shoulder your cross and climb your 7 story mountain. The first stanza Nicene creed " I believe in one God. Father almighty. Maker of Heaven & Earth." If someone want's to argue about first principles and actuality. If It is all total BS. Do I care? am I bothered? No. Arguments on the matter are to me ; pure narcissistic dilettantism. on either side . Go and do something for someone else. " Loose yourself" and you may find the answer in " Not self". "Pax Vobiscum" .
Since the beginning of history, mankind's concepts and ideas about what exists in the universe have been challenged by facts. Our imaginations have proven, countless times, incredibly poor when faced with reality.
Neither theists nor atheists can solve the infinite regress: and this counterargument fails to point out WHY the universe (or any other, non-theistic concept) would have to correspond to our imagination (for the necessity of the First Principle).
I don't understand why religious people (including 'sophisticated philosophers') have the chutzpah to think their imagination is sufficiently developed to dictate to the universe what it can or cannot do/be.
Which of these sophisticated philosophers thought that the Earth was 4 billion years old? None. Nobody. Why? No human could have thought of that (except perhaps as a joke), before we had the evidence that demanded such ridiculous theorizing.
Because reality delivers with a shrug what imagination can scarecly conjure.
And then to stand on this rock of ignorance and shout 'my thinking tells me that this concept we don't know enough about, which is already more wonderous than philosophers could have ever imagined, and which with lots of evidence we still cannot comprehend, cannot in any circumstance have such and such properties as another imagined concept' sounds ...
Well. So very, very human. And when you take that first step, whats a few more characteristics added to this imagined Creator? Why not make him good, and worried about you, and so on and so forth.
This is like Star Trek; a lot of technobabble, but in the end, still about parochial, human drama with a different set dressing.
Derrida pulling your sleeve: that 'of different kind' you're invoking has metaphysical story in it already. Eg: we don't of anything that is not connected to anything else in order to be of 'true different kind'. That 'of different kind' is the 'outer' determining the 'inner'. The 'whole' bigger than the sum of its parts etc. The story doesn't end with the atheist argument. Neither with the 'of different kind' argument. The story goes on :)
1:32. That's not God, or the 'Creator', it's the character Urizen, the symbol of pure Reason.
Yeah book that I read that changed my mind was..wait for it...Bible. one of the most horrible and horrific books ever put together by men. Main character is sadistic, narcistic dictator who demands love and worship or else you shall shower. oo he also curses whole family line because of 2 people didnt know right from wrong and no one had taught them that. So because of that he cursed their line. Best part is that then he needed human blood sacrifice of his own son to forgive what he had done in the beginning, yet somehow that wasn't enough and people are still called sinners and sin is in the world somehow still. It's like the blood magic failed.
Ou and he loves incest, so much that at one point in the story he drowned all but 8 people and then those 8 very old people repopulated the earth again. Ain't that a lovely story I tell you. So full of goodness and happiness and forgiveness that it makes me weep for joy. *sarcasm*
Belief in a creator doesn't necessitate belief in the Bible
Interesting, my own journey began with an non-religious family, but there was a sense that my parents were raised in a traditional religious setting but raised my brothers and I with very little influence in that life. Any critical instruction was left to the public school to teach. I was involved and attentive, developing an atheistic mindset due to the evolutionary mindset of the world, loving to argue these points with religious classmates. But when university came, I experienced an existential crisis, and all that was offered to me by my parents was get a job and make money. So my rebellion against this pitiful solution was to turn to mysticism, which was always flashing here and there in my deep conscience. The awareness of self, and the thought that my inner being can not just vanish, no longer exist, simply could not be. I jumped in headfirst into a Christian life, gave up everything to change, and began to pressure myself to conform to church expectations, and entered seminary with the thought that to be the best I could be, I needed to begin a life of a hardened, disciplined instruction and then to teach and evangelize. But then I hit a new wall, politics within the church. Man was that depressing, and into the abyss I fell. Since, I have not forsaken that mystic calling, but now I rely on experience and instruction to guide my path, and to test what comes my way through philosophy and wisdom. That's why I enjoy this channel. Thanks Michael.
There is politics present in any human endeavour where you have to collaborate with other people….. If you try to do anything as a job, the experience will make you hate it. That’s one conclusion I came to during my college existential crisis. 🙃 which is another reason why “getting a job” (like people suggest) cannot provide adequate meaning in life…
Two Americans asked God for guidance from their heart in whole sincerity, it was Allah who answered their call, one man came from Jewish family and other man came from U.S military family. Both men came to Islam for the miracle their experienced, true story posted on YT, unbias reports, both men started to hear Islamic call-to-prayer Azan in the middle of nowhere, both men reported same incident.
Both men were former """enemies""" of Muslims.
If it were NOT for the miracle, they wouldn't have bother with Islam, both men were truly longing for God and guidance.
If your heart is pure, this could be you in the next, you cannot fake your supplication to Allah. Your Creator knows about you, more than you know of your own self inside and outside.
@@LogicStandsBeforeGod provide a source for your fan fictions, please.
Preferably several with different writing since a single source can easily be fake if it's not straight out of wikipedia or some other trusted and well tested source.
@@rikuleinonen Fictions are made by men.
Whereas unbiased reports came from our mortal enemies, so they genuinely experienced the miracle after they made the supplication to God. They did not come to Islam after studying Islam for months, but they came to Islam when their supplication was met with a miracle.
@@rikuleinonen V-title posted on YT: "Derrick Feinman How Islam Found Me: My Conversion to Islam"
Two Americans asked God for guidance from their heart in whole sincerity, it was Allah who answered their call, one man came from Jewish family and other man came from U.S military family. Both men came to Islam for the miracle their experienced, true story posted on YT, unbias reports, both men started to hear Islamic call-to-prayer Azan in the middle of nowhere, both men reported same incident.
Both men were former """enemies""" of Muslims.
If it were NOT for the miracle, they wouldn't have bother with Islam, both men were truly longing for God and guidance.
If your heart is pure, this could be you in the next, you cannot fake your supplication to Allah. Your Creator knows about you, more than you know of your own self inside and outside.
The book you keep referring to, I think it is "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith from 1974. While that book had some things correct, the First Cause debate has moved passed what was being thought of back then and more evidence has shown that between 0 and approximately 10^-36 seconds we have no current model that details what exactly happened at this time. There are many working hypotheses, from quantum fluctuations (current highest supported possibility) to cyclic universe. This is the very tiny amount of time that one could propose a god, except that is a God of the Gaps fallacy.
The First cause argument is also a Cosmological Argument which is debunked by the simple question of 'Is the universe is in fact contingent?' We have no idea whether this universe “had” to exist or not, nor whether it is in fact the only one and not just one of a potentially infinite number of different universes in a “multiverse” for example.
Why God should be considered a “necessary being” and inexplicably exempted from the argument that everything has a cause. If a God exists to cause the universe then, by the same argument, this God must itself have a cause, leading to an infinite regress unacceptable to most theists. Simply asking "does God have a cause of his existence?” therefore raises as many problems as the cosmological argument solves.
Even if one accepts that the universe does in fact have a beginning in time (as the generally accepted Scientific Theory of Big Bang Cosmology suggests), the Cosmological Argument does not explain why there could not be more than one first cause/mover, or why the chain could not lead back to several ultimate causes, each somehow outside the universe (potentially leading to several different Gods). Neither does it explain why the something which is “outside the universe” should be “God” and not some other unknown phenomenon. There is no compelling reason to equate a First Cause with God, and certainly Aristotle did not conceive of his Prime Mover as something that should be worshiped, much less as the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God of later Christian, Jewish and Muslim tradition.
The whole concept of causality and time as we understand it is based entirely on the context of our universe, and so cannot be used to explain the origin of the universe. Causal explanations are functions of natural laws which are themselves products of the universe we exist in, and time itself is just an aspect of the universe. If there is no “time before” the universe, then the whole notion of “cause” ceases to apply and the universe cannot sensibly have a “cause” (as we use and understand the concept). Indeed, perhaps there IS no “cause” of the universe.
Claims that if there are “laws of nature”, then this implies the existence of a lawgiver, or God. However, the analogy of social order based on man-made laws does not extend to scientific or natural laws, because nature's laws are descriptive, not prescriptive.
As an atheist myself, I do not think any god that has been defined and presented to me is even possible, most if not all of the definitions that I have been presented with are internally inconsistent, full of nonsense or are mostly improbable, thus I am justified in rejecting them all until such a time as where good evidence is provided. This video did not change that.
Stop framing God in the category of causality - start approaching God phenomenologically in the perspective of 'the question', 'the secret', 'the mystical non-ground' and 'love'. This will help you more than this endless "logical" debates, which are just going nowhere.
I think the Proofs for Existence of God are really just a way for us to explore the paradoxes that result from trying to rationally comprehend the Totality of Everything. The results are similar to what you get in Set Theory.
@@hellucination9905I love what you just said, tho I don't think our atheist friend will be interested or convinced. ❤️
@@hellucination9905 " Stop framing God in the category of causality - start approaching God phenomenologically"
This just boils down god to a concept only. As this only explores theist's experiences of awe, transcendence, communion, or encounters with what is perceived as the divine presence, this has nothing to do with a being which is able to do things independent of the mind that is thinking about the god. This method does not determine that a god objectively exists as a separate entity.
" in the perspective of 'the question', 'the secret', 'the mystical non-ground' and 'love'."
Everyone has questions, but a true answer is better than a false answer. So, until you have a true answer, the only valid position to have is 'I do not know'.
The secrets are in the same spot as the question. It is better to have a true answer to a secret than to have a false one, thus again 'I do not know' is still more valid than a made up answer to the secret.
While experiences of the mystical non-ground can be deeply meaningful and significant for individuals, they often lie beyond the realm of empirical verification and may be understood primarily through subjective experience and interpretation. Thus it is flawed as it suffers from many kinds of bias, including interpretive bias, confirmation bias, cultural bias, psychological bias and even subject to desire for meaning fallacies.
"This will help you more than this endless "logical" debates, which are just going nowhere. "
Yeah, they go nowhere because of all of the various issues with the phenomenological approach inability to separate reality from imagination.
@@ClearLight369 Most arguments for god end up just being a "god of the gaps" argument.
So, yes, even if the answers tend to be wrong, they are still answers that someone can grab onto.
Michael, this was very interesting. Thank you. Thoughts on Harry Neumann. Student of Strauss and friend to Harry Jaffa.
hello. cannot we please avoid stacking this discussion with thinkers from the same tribal group. thanks
It depends on how your being (dasein) reflects on, sees, or merges with the idea of God or the Universe as beings themselves. The former seems immaterial and not reachable by the scientific method, while the latter is concrete and potentially understandable by the scientific method. This may explain, at least in part, the gap in the analogy.
It doesn’t have anything to get wrong as it doesn’t pose anything that could be right or wrong. It’s a blank slate with no claim.
It would be pretty cool if theists figured out what atheism is.
It’s simply not being a theist.
Some people need to believe everything is organised, like religion is.
The simplest possible definition of atheism is obviously not what Millerman is discussing in this video. Instead, he is talking about specific cosmological claims made by atheists in response to certain theist concepts that he, personally, found uncompelling.
Not every discussion about "atheist" vs. religious beliefs is about the most essential definitions of atheism. A) that's boring, and B) there are other beliefs that a preponderance of atheists believe and which certain thinkers, like the author of the book Millerman discusses, promote.
So yes, technically you can be an atheist and profess *no* particular explanation for the origin of the universe. However, that's not what Millerman is discussing here. And if one's beliefs about God/lack of God partly hinge on explanations for the origin of the universe (which is reasonable), than it's also reasonable to compare various competing theories.
@@johnrogstad1278 if that’s the case, he’d need to be specific. I believe he’s poisoning the well by presenting a strawman.
@@joemiller7082 He's specific enough by referring to the one book mentioned at the beginning by George H. Smith, whose cosmological argument he eventually found wanting. It seems pretty apparent that he then went on to consider many other arguments and considered the topic in greater depth after reading his one book. And also that this single video is not supposed to be he final argument on the topic.
He just presents a very brief summary of his own journey and mentions a book he found influential. At no point did I hear attempt a formal definition of atheism, though.
@@johnrogstad1278 when he says “what atheism gets wrong,” he is making a sweeping generalization that atheism is a thing that can be gotten wrong. Atheism itself makes no claims. Any claim that could be wrong is something tacked onto atheism.
The title itself poisons the well. It creates a narrative of bias before you even watch.
what not beleiving a claim without evidence gets wrong?
how can you be wrong by reserving belief until their is evidence to warrant a belief?
May I ask what position you take on religion now? Do you follow one?
There is another category between atheism and believing, that is knowing the gods exist.
Ummm really please demonstrate ANY god exists
@@gowdsake7103 eternal properties that exist within the universe have been the name of god in very few religions these are the only evidence of identities we can call gods.
@@magouliana32 eternal properties like gravity are just that, eternal properties. Gravity isn't a god. It's just gravity.
A god is a conscious, omnipotent being. Gravity only acts how it always has. It also doesn't think. So it's not a god.
@@rikuleinonen how about Justice, Harmony, beauty among others ?
These are some of the idea-entities we recognized as Gods.
We do not k ow if they think but they exist and are eternal and have an effect throughout the Universe and Kronos(time) cannot defeat them.
@@magouliana32 you calling them gds doesn't prove they are.
A gd must have control over itself. If it never exerts it, then it **practically** isn't a gd.
Nobody actually understands what the Universe is or means. To invoke gods as an explanation sounds like a stopgap to me. Theists still have to explain why "I don't know, more research is required" is a worse answer than " I don't know, therefor god(s)".
Hi there nice video! Not quite like you describe but i come from the same background and came to believe in God studying philosophy. It was especially through reading Dostoyevskys "the possessed", where i felt he showed the emptiness of a totally humanistically atheistic position. Also through reading Georges Bataille i came to believe stronger in God. Ended up with Kierkegaard in my bachelor tho! And now I am a priest in the lutheran church in Norway. Im following ur channel mostly because of my interest in Dugin. My wife is also russian. But she dont care for etiher philosophy or politics ;P Daniel.
God of the gaps and special pleading fallacies.
You haven’t demonstrated any gods exist nor have you proven the universe required a god to begin with.
You have asserted without reason that your god exists and is uncreated, which ironically debunks your idea that everything requires a creator.
Nice. Raised in cliche midwest American Christianity and rebelled after reading the first half of genealogy at 15
Dude you can't even get the argument right and therefore failed to understand the logical fallacy. Many theists argue that the universe is so complex or that it works so well or some other thing and therefore the universe needs a creator. But when we use your logic on god, you reject your own logic. If you think that the universe is so complex that it REQUIRES creator, then your god which would be even more complex then the universe according to theists would also require a creator. That is following your logic but instead of being consistent in your logic you want to carve out a special exemption for god. This is what is known as a special pleading fallacy.
BTW it's YOUR idea that the universe needs a creator, most atheists are perfectly fine with saying that they don't know how the universe formed. Also notice how I said formed and not created? I said formed because saying created implies a creator and that's a level of dishonestly that your side takes and our side doesn't. We don't know how the universe began or if it begin at all. We are actual honest enough to say we don't know while you claim that you do know but can't provide any evidence to back up your claim.
"most atheists are perfectly fine with saying they don't know" Are they? A-theism means without God. Agnostic means I don't know. So which is it?
@@HiJackShepherd ugh. Theists love circling definitions. Whatever people say only means what **they intend** to say. Not respecting intent is called "twisting someone's words".
The good faith assumption for their intent is part of the actual **textbook definition** of atheism, which is "disbelief OR LACK OF BELIEF in a deity or deities".
That doesn't inherently conflict with being agnostic. There's no reason to choose one or the other unless you, in bad faith, assume their intent for them and say they meant "disbelief in a deity or deities" just to bring up a meaningless contradiction. You conveniently ignored part of atheism's definition to seem like you have a point.
That's not even including the fact your statement has no relation to whether explicit atheism or agnosticism are valid. It's a strawman, made to look like you've disproven something when in reality you put up a strawman in the form of a contradiction, then took it down by asking them to pick, as if the contradiction is valid, when none existed in the first place.
@bonpsy No atheism does not mean without god. It means without belief in a god or gods.
@@HiJackShepherd So you don't even understand what the words mean.
"A-theism means without God." No, it means not believing in God's existence.
"Agnostic means I don't know." No, it means "I CAN NOT know whether God exists".
Both terms are not mutually exclusive. It's possible to be an atheist and be open to the idea to believe once compelling evidence exists. You will find many atheists who currently do not believe but accept anything is possible.
Someone going "I know for a fact there is zero chance a God exists" isn't atheism, that's foolishness.
@@MustardSkaven Thank you for helping me to understand.
If only you had told us what page number that argument shows up on. Ah well. I guess a strawman it is then!
I made a response to this, I do wonder if you will respond to that?! :D
I read it 20+ years ago so I don't remember the page number but I've shared with you as best as I can recall one of his arguments and why it produced a kind of a-ha moment in me about the topic of "kinds of being." Hopefully that's enough for some viewers either to read the book themselves or to follow some other thread in my remarks, like the reference to Heidegger. Thanks for watching and commenting. -MM
@@millerman Right... so strawman due to memory! Got it! Man if only you had said "I don't really remember what the book said" in the video then I wouldn't have to say you made a strawman. Perhaps you might relabel this video as "I forgot what a book I read 20 years ago says and I think that makes all atheists wrong about god somehow!"
@@DeconvertedMan No. The argument is clear (go read the book). And so is its weakness. Well, clear to people who can think and understand, so not to everybody. If you are unable to consider the argument, and don't want to read the book, well thanks for watching and commenting anyway! Helps boost the channel so that people who will consider the argument and might read the book can find the video. Much appreciated. -MM
@@millerman You mean the book you didn't remember enough of to give its argument from? :D Ah if only I had read the book in my video response... :D
@@qcrtheory remember when you said you owed me $10,000?
Oh you want a citation to that? Its in a book you can get.
Shame you cannot even get past fallacies
Worse you assert that YOUR god exists but can never demonstrate a single thing it did
great intro
Before I watch this video, I like to state that atheism doesnt get ANYTHING wrong (or right). Atheism is a POSITION, not a belief, assertion, explanation, ideology, or religion.
Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented.
Some utter brainlets about to comment
I know the Smith’s book well. “Credo quia absurdum.” I believe it because it is absurd. Bought it through Laissez-Faire Books in the late 1980s. From him to Murray Rothbard, and from him Rand and then to Robert Nozick. I actually discovered Carl Schmitt through a book by Leonard Peikoff titled, “The Ominous Parallels.” Thank you for commenting on Smith’s book.
The universe has never been observed creating something out of nothing or turning dead matter into life.
which lends credence to it always being there.
also, what is this nothing you talk about? - for no man can think of such a thing (if it be the lack of something or anything)
also, also, "dead matter" -- that is matter. don't really know what you mean by "dead"
@@arturzathas499 Relax, nobody is trying to take away from you the religion of the magical premordial soup that somehow turned rock into life. You can believe what you want! Go wild!
@@goonofhazard2203. Life turns dead matter into more life all the time. What do you think happens when you eat? Without consuming dead minerals your body will die.
@@goonofhazard2203 Your words simply reveal your ignorance of just about anything. No one believes in the "primordial soup" as there's plenty of evidence organic molecules form spontaneously anywhere there are the proper elements and a source of energy. And its not atheists who believe life came from a "rock" - we leave that to christians and their adorable story of a man made of dust and a woman made out of a rib. It's always so pathetic when a theist tries to use the term "religion" to describe what atheists believe. And it's especially amusing when you use the term "religion" as a pejorative when its theists who belong to a religion. Unlike you, I don't automatically assume that a religion is automatically a bad thing. In my view, some religions are mostly bad and others are mostly good, even if they are all likely to be incorrect. Why do you belong to a group you find so distasteful?
Has God been observed creating something?
I swear if RUclips deletes my comment.
I feel ya man.
I had a similar experience when I started looking at the Bible once I was old enough to bring a mature attitude to it and I wasn't being offended by it because I had a child's mind and I think the subject is a little bit heavy for a child and what I noticed is that God commits murder and then declares himself innocent. He abdicates paternity of Jesus. He declares that he is not and could not be in heaven and that any and all human humiliation and torture is equivalent to the sin that only killing his son can remedy, his son. That is not his son, of course and therefore the remedy has never been true and all of history seems to bear that out. That replacing any kind of loss of father with a surrogate father doesn't attend to the pain of the Providence of the interest in this symbolic or surrogate father. Even though humans with symbolic systems need this and have needed this and must seem to need it for many different psychological social and I would say economic reasons. It has done nothing to explain the source of human pain and suffering
It wasn't a book but _persons_ who convinced me. I saw in the atheists I met or read or watched onscreen, even old ones, something like an adolescent, heady rebellion that did not feel like wisdom. Certainly there is immaturity in religious belief as well, but in mature religious people, I experienced a quality of openness, intelligence, and wisdom that felt to me the right path to follow.
So what convinced you of the supernatural is just how people appeared to you.
Not proof. Not reason. Just total emotional perception. Blind faith, to put it simply.
@@rikuleinonen There's a saying making the rounds, "I don't believe in the God that you don't believe in" -- which is likely applicable here.
But I would point to your umbrage. The staccato sentence fragments, the idea that you've nailed me down as a blind-faith-following-emotional-fool. As I said in my comment, there's an adolescent feel to it.
I could have been clearer in my comment I suppose -- but what am I to do, write a spiritual biography in a youtube comment?
But I will say one thing, which is that nothing "convinced me of the supernatural", and it wasn't "emotional perception" -- whatever you might mean by that -- or much less "blind faith". Yuck! I was talking there about discerning a _path_ to follow. What are the sorts of people, how are they living their lives, how are they treating others, what words are coming out of their mouths, how intelligent and rational are they, how even-tempered, how wise about thoughts, emotions, sensations and their connections, who has the broadest, most far-sighted view -- these are the sorts of impressions that have guided me in listening to others, not so that I can parrot some "belief" they might have, but that I can engage in my own phenomenological investigation into the truth of reality, using not just logic, but the entirety of my senses and imaginal faculties.
No one needs to be "convinced of the supernatural". But if you believe that your idea of what is "natural" is definitive in some way, or that you don't have a great deal to learn about the truth of what you presently think of as "supernatural", then I would suggest that, perhaps, you have foreclosed your investigation.
@@markcounseling I myself **just** had the displeasure of arguing against an irrational christian. Like mere moments ago. Actually pretty sure it's ongoing.
The origin of the argument was simply the statement that if god does not require a creator from the theist's perspective, the universe doesn't require one from the atheist's perspective either. The one I was arguing with simply stated "but god is existence itself and the cause of all things so it doesn't apply" which I just stated to be a special pleading fallacy. They shifted from that point to morality. Calling my suffering meaningless. In fact, they said my whole existence was meaningless. That they were right. Only their morals were objectively correct. I proceeded to talk about how morals are generally subjective apart from a few objective standoffs, but as I talked about how they were a narcissist, they even had the gall to ask **me** if them being a narcissist was a bad thing. They didn't consult their "objective" morality. No. They asked me, an atheist, if narcissism was wrong. They wouldn't have to if they believed what they said they believe.
Before we even got to the morality, he sent a message saying "you're squirming" with 3 emojis attached. A plain old insulting ad hominem, straight out of a child's temper tantrum. And you're seriously trying to tell me atheists are worse? Not in my view, at least.
@@markcounseling also if the supernatural were to present itself to me in any perceivable form, I'd accept it. In the very argument I had earlier, the person I was arguing with me said that if I finally died and was brought in front of christ, that I'd spit in his face in my pride.
I simply said I'd ask him why he has hidden himself from me, why he does things the way he does, if the bible is true and what I should do now. I'd ask the questions from the source. I don't consult unproven third parties for my beliefs. Only my own deduction, observation and reason. If a supernatural being in front of me said the bible is true, I'd read it from cover to cover and follow it until the day I die. Hasn't happened yet, though.
I WISH there was an afterlife. No seriously, I do. The eternal nothingness that likely awaits me isn't comforting and I'd escape from it if I could. But until the day comes that I can comfortably say "yep there's an afterlife" from what I've gathered myself, I won't believe in one.
@@markcounseling either way, I believe that which is natural to be that which I can prove. That's very broad. If I encounter something I haven't encountered before, it simply enters my world view. Adaptation based on what you have available. Prediction to fill in the gaps the best you can. The investigation never ends so long as there's something to find. Even once you've found everything, you keep looking since you never know if you missed anything.
Either way, you've still provided no evidence for what you believe to be natural. Doesn't matter if you call it supernatural or natural, really. What I'm chasing here is god. Have you witnessed god? Felt god? Had god talk to you? Anything at all? I can't disprove first-hand experience but being provided with the opportunity to truly experience it second-hand would be a blessing. I want nothing more than to be relieved of the fear that I'll simply cease to exist one day. But to accept that relief, I must make certain that I'm not lulling myself into a *false* relief first. Far as I know, the universe is pretty cruel. A blissful respite like that would be rather uncharacteristic.
Loving these short thought videos. Gives me somthing to ponder while making dinner.
I don't really get why a god would be more likely to be uncaused than a universe. I think perhaps you're saying something like your god lacks any substance, so in a sense they're less than physical things, and closer to nothing? But it seems to me that if they had the power to create physical things, then they would have to be just as much something as physical things are.
Perhaps they're more something rather than less
The difference between the universe and god is that the universe demonstrably exist. What's the point of adding a god, which you can't explain, to explain the origin of the universe? Adding a god just shifts the problem. Instead of having to explain the universe, you would now have to explain god and also how he supposedly created the universe.
Did you even listen to the video? He spoke about this.
@@hellucination9905
He didn't explain it. He just added a god and then said that we should accept that we can't explain god, because we can't explain the universe.
Dare I ask, how is the existence of the universe demonstrable?
@@jonunderscore
You are literally inside of it, you can observe it, measure it, interact with it etc...
The question of the “kind of being” is nothing more than a special pleading logical fallacy. “God makes the first cause different. Ta Da!”. Not very satisfying.
We need to go deeper to make this satisfying. All this stems from the implicit null hypothesis that 1) nothingness exists, and 2) that nothingness is the default state of being.
You need to be able to prove those two things are true. Simply slapping a big old god in the philosophical uncomfortableness and calling it a day, doesn’t address the shape of the philosophical hole it’s trying to fill.
Why does the universe exist? - "It just does and always did because that's the default state" isn't particularly satisfying either.
Your objection to the first principle being applied to the universe instead of god is not coherent. Your response is “they’re different things” but this isn’t a valid response to the logic. It doesn’t address the question as to why this first principle brute fact cannot just be applied to the universe itself.
The point is that, in some form, a brute fact needs to be assumed. Why is the universe not a viable candidate? Can you actually answer that question? Because all I see here is special pleading.
like notions of creator gods, the universe is unknown.
the universe also has a beginning by observation, so that requires an explanation. there's the complexity of the fine tuning, which has yet to be explained. also there is the complexity of life which will either need to be explained by addendums to current evolutionary theory or by some kind of creative intelligence, or both.
god of the gaps isn't a good argument, because it's perfectly reasonable for semantic code to have a programmer rather than emerge from white noise.
'observation'? Just who did this observing.?
@@larrycarter3765 it's inference to the best explanation of observable phenomena... if everything seems to be outwardly emmanating from a single point, the best hypothesis is one of progression. progress implies a beginning.
if you've got a better idea, i'd love to hear it.
@@larrycarter3765 astronomers did. Everything seems to be expanding from a singular point in space.
That point is too far for us to observe due to the expansion rate of the universe outpacing lightspeed, but it's likely it exists.
And the fact it's expanding continuously right now implies it did that in the past. It must have began at some point in time.
It's rather interesting that you focus on a "case against god" that is really not particularly important. Most atheists I'm familiar with only comment on this argument as an example of the Special Pleading Fallacy. Theists ascribe special characteristics to a creator being, which, if there is such a being, some of those characteristics would have to apply - however, theists are unable to provide any evidence that such a being is possible nor any evidence that such a creator being is necessary for our Universe to exist. Usually theists end up in the weeds of presup nonsense - "god is because god is". The one thing always lacking is evidence that supports the claim.
The case against atheist?
At he is t.
Kneel to trace picture children.
G is an incomplete whole with one square angle drawn in Earth.
O is a whole measure.
D is a split whole with two square angles drawn in Earth.
Sacrificed, Holy measured.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
So the point went right over your head.
My point went over yours, apparently
Fair point. I would've like to hear more of what you make of "being" in this context.
First demonstrate the existence of a "God". That is the fundamental starting point. You can't say anything about this "God" unless and until you have demonstrated its existence. To do otherwise is to indulge in story-telling.
You should talk to Jonathan Pageau, you will have a interesting conversation.
Thats right, keep on with your imaginary man in the clouds.
First cause. First principle. You say the believers perception of God is not a being. The believers don't say that but you do.
Heidegger took me to the Being in everything. He took me to the Water-Being in all of us. Water is Creation, we are the Creators of everything. IT IS the New Paradigm for the Earth. Thank you Michael for all your work!
But something (GOD) had to create the WATER. Amen.
@@drummersagainstitk "The book of Genesis has so much to do about Water.
It tells about the creation of the heaven and the Earth, the light and all of life. But nowhere does it mention the creation of Water ITSelf!
We are just "given an image" (mirror image) of the spirit of god hovering over the Waters.
It seems that this comes to highlight that Water seen as a primeval element that precedes the creation story as we know it. And I think that what underlies that is the recognition that Water has no form. Water is formless. And in a way IT includes all forms, Water can take upon any form.
Formless taking upon form!"
~ Rabbi Yakov Nagen
@@aMoEbaNoos Just bec God doesn't mention the creation doesn't ELIMINATE HIS creating it. The Rabbi is wacked.
@@drummersagainstitk Let's be practical.
Can I live without god? Yes.
Can I live without Water? No.
Can I touch god? No.
Can I touch Water? Yes.
@@aMoEbaNoos water isn't formless. It's H2O, 2 hydrogen atoms and 1 oxygen atom bonded together.
It has as much of a form as any other substance. You can solidify or liquidify nitrogen even if it's naturally a gas, for example.
Water is formed when you combine hydrogen, oxygen and heat. It's why the exhaust of a hydrogen-powered car is water.
We can literally create water and have been able to do so for ages.
Well produce this god thingey then!
Maybe it is incorrect to apply the lens of "production" (poesis) to the realm of the divine? Maybe we could learn by asking a simple question like "What is a thing," which Heidegger did? No? Well, who said that anything true about the god or gods would be disclosed to just anybody without some thoughtfulness?
@@millerman This is just side-stepping the issue. Do you have any good, credible evidence for the existence of your "God"?
I have fairly recently come to the conclusion that ALL "God"-existence claims are basically "God" of the (created/imagined) gaps. Your response here is entirely in line with that.
Christian's God has got a 'divine son' for a companionship in the dominion of the universe, whereas the God of OT has got non beside HIM as god.
So Christians you are chasing a non existing God, who isn't the God of OT? There are seven more verses like below are found in the OT, where God says, repeatedly there is no God beside HIM.
Isaiah 45-5 *There is no God besides Me*
Deuteronomy 32:39 *there is no god with me*
Isaiah 44:6 *beside me there is no God* .
As much as I hate theists, this argument is disingenuous. Many say that Jesus (divine son) is synonymous, i.e. the same as God himself.
They're both God. Technically distinct (not sure why), but functionally the same. If that's what they believe, your argument would fall flat to them.
@@rikuleinonen c1) _"Many say that Jesus (divine son) is synonymous, i.e. the same as God himself. "_
Claim in the line c1 is bogus according to NT itself.
As you know NT makes it an explicit claim that nobody knows the Hour will come except the Father, therefore they are no co-equal.
_"They're both God. Technically distinct (not sure why), but functionally the same. "_
Which is why the God of NT is not the same God as the God of OT.
@@LogicStandsBeforeGod fair enough.
@@rikuleinonen _"As much as I hate theists, this argument is disingenuous. "_
Your fair enough statement, people's hatred of Muslims, at the end of the day it is Muslims out of love, we invite others to Islam.
@@rikuleinonen Two anecdotal experiences posted by two fellow Americans and there was no middle man in both narrated story posted on YT. Two Americans asked God for guidance from their heart in whole sincerity, it was Allah who answered their call, one man came from Jewish family and other man came from U.S military family. Both men came to Islam for the miracle their experienced, true story posted on YT, unbias reports, both men started to hear Islamic call-to-prayer Azan in the middle of nowhere, both men reported same incident. Both men were former """enemies""" of Muslims. If it were NOT for the miracle, they wouldn't have bothered with Islam, both men were truly longing for God and guidance. If your heart is pure, this could be you in the next, you cannot fake your supplication to Allah. Your Creator knows about you, more than you know of your own self inside and outside...
I don't believe in God because the evidence for God doesn't convince me he exists i will also ask what Gods did people believe in 200k years ago so God is something outside of space and time
You should look into islam brother, may god guide you to the right path🌹
I've looked into it and all I can find is people preaching verses as if they're inherently true (blind faith) or just plain vile stuff.
Ya'll are part of the reason I'm anti-theist and not just atheist.
@@rikuleinonen i said look into "islam" not into muslims!
@@rikuleinonen if muslims are holding you away from "islam" then this just proves your massive ignorance
@@-RiSK-AK by vile stuff I didn't mean only stuff preached by muslims. I meant the Quran itself and what the religion imposes upon people. I found it vile and full of falsehoods.
@@rikuleinonen Your basing your falsehoods upon nothing and you literally have no source to take your morals from or know what is true or false, arguing with people like you is just tiring and a waste of time, if you dont want to submit to Allah(God) then thats up to you, we only here to deliver the message and not forcing people to join the religion of Allah(God).
So you can't understand logical fallacies therefore god? That is pretty sad.
Your comment is a perfect example of the straw man fallacy.
Did you watch the video? Your strawman is evident you didn't, or that you didn't pay attention.
@@Thedisciplemike You are just using the word strawman and don't know what it means. Perhaps you should watch and pay attention to the video.
@DJH316007 i know exactly what it means. And you committed it. "You can't understand logical fallacies therefore God" was never the argument. You strawmanned the position.
@@Thedisciplemike DJH has a point here and you're just not understanding it. As far as I can tell, at least.
In the video, he states the argument for being causeless doesn't apply to god because god is a different kind of being.
He doesn't actually explain what that means. Just, apparently god is somehow special because ??? and thus exists.
It really is just "the fallacy doesn't apply to god but does to the universe because ???, thus god" and nothing more.
Очень понравилось это короткое эссе, наконец понял, что Хайдегер мистик, мистицизм ближе всего поэзии. Поэтому у него восемьдесят книг и только поставленный мистический вопрос о бытии. Современная философия, вспоминая Витгенштейна, - это о взаимоотношении дисциплин человеческого знания. До появления естествознания философия и была знанием.
I take "Things that never happened" for 500. And, of course, "Me not bright, so gawd" for 1000.
@@bladerunner3314 if God does not exist, why are you imposing your morality on another?
@@Thedisciplemike If evolution doesn't happen, why are you so adamantly arguing against it?
@bladerunner3314 since when was i "adamantly" arguing against evolution?
@@Thedisciplemike Well, since you thought it's okay to put words into my mouth, I thought I'd return the sentiment.
How do you like your own medicine, hypocrit?
Now, let's baseline, do you claim your fairy tale is 100% true?
Brilliant! I love this.
I'm an atheist and I don't say all that crap you spewed at the start... I don't believe there are any gods. You do? Great, prove it.
Great video
Cool !More please!
All Godly religions contradict themselves. In the Old Testament, the god created people, then killed the same people in the Great Flood because they were evil. This god literally said he "regretted his creation". In follows this god was not omniscient and not omnipotent. Similarly, the Son of God in Christianity was crucified and wept like a child: "Father Why Have You Foresaken Me". He could not even save himself, let alone save others. In Islam they try harder to be intelligent saying God is Not Born Nor Does God Give Birth (Koran surah 112). Yet the Koran has many passages saying God created this & that. There is no Creator God. Any true God is merely a human personification of the moral laws of nature.
Stop with the omniscient and omnipotent nonsense regarding God. Your are just projecting your human will to power onto God; you are making a vulgar fetish out of God. Read some mystical theology to get an actual understanding of the intellectual problem named 'God', which is based in the phenomenonological experience of the 'un-ground' or 'non-ground' of Being. This phenomenonological experience will be open to you, too - but you have to sharpen your intellectual senses (you read right) first.
@@hellucination9905 Hello. No. It is you that is being vulgar. You appear to wish to preach about a god divorced from ethics. God is not any "ground of being". What you have posted is so dumb. God is never about the "intellectual". God is the Spirit of heart & conscience.
So you are a theist because you misunderstand the attributes of the universe. That isn't profound. You also misunderstand atheism as a concept, because it doesn't explain anything. It's simply a negative response to a single question.
Yes, I own Smith's book and have reed it several times. What he gets right is the futility and uselessness of calling a god "unknowable." This led me to the realization that, as an analogy, it makes no sense to say, "I don't _know_ if an 8'4" woman exists but I _believe_ she's a good person who loves avocados, hates broccoli, likes cats, dislikes dogs, gets angry at being interrupted, sad when it rains and she wants a new sofa." See the cart/horse problem? The beliefs _assume_ prior knowledge or they're just idle speculation. And those with such a _personal_ god are always going on about how their god is "good" and loves/hates or likes/dislikes this or wants this or that. This shows that they are gnostics; making a knowledge claim and have inherited a burden of objective proof, as opposed to the agnostic theist i.e. deists. Yet such objective proof has never been forthcoming so they can be ignored.
What do I mean by objective proof? Imagine a loved one of yours gets kidnapped. The kidnappers demand a ransom. But before you pay up, you can demand something of them: that they _prove_ the abductee is still alive i.e. _exists._ What the theist would accept as such objective proof is the same as what atheists can demand of theists for their god.
best philosopher on youtube
Wow are you honestly this dumb!
However, if we actually understand how the universe was created, we can observe there is the wind element & heat element causing physical matter to both form and become unstable. This wind element & heat element somehow found its way into similarly created life forms, which somehow became people. The physical bodies of people are agitated by the unstable wind element, heat element, various chemicals, etc, which cause (the other inexplicable reality of) the mind to become agitated. Plus there are life instincts, which again cannot be explained. Thus the lust for life and the internal agitations cause the minds of people to do evil things. Evil is the product of an unstable violent universe. However, amongst this unstable random violence, there appear a few people with a heightened consciousness, who can calm down these erratic forces of nature. These few people are The Prophets, The Saints, The Enlightened. These people are The Angels or Gods. They teach people about the Law of Nature; how to best avoid suffering; how to best maintain well-being; despite the many challenges.
Heat is the chaotic kinetic energy of atoms. The more they move around, the more "heat" there is. These forces can rip apart bonds and form new ones, causing chaos.
As for the wind element? Not sure what you're on about. Perhaps the nuclear forces? They're fundamental forces, but so is gravity. And magnetism, too. Not really special.
Also if you'd care to provide any proof of these supposed "enlightened" rather than just rambling on about them, we could have an actually nuanced discussion.
If you'd like my take on your supposed "enlightened", then just look for experts in any given field. Want to avoid suffering from disease? Get tested by a doctor.
Or learn about how diseases spread in the first place. Tell people to divert their coughs away from others, for example. Can't do anything about your genetics, though.
God is the mystical ground or "non-ground" for me. Eric Voegelin wrote about this.
no. God is only an exhorter of human ethics.
In summary, there is no God, no Chosen People of God, no Only Son of God. This is the Holy Trinity of Holy Atheists.
So but your argument if I understand it that saying that there's not a God is like saying there's not an Ethan hunt. But even then there's a Tom Cruise. What if there's not a Tom Cruise? What if you can never know who Tom Cruise really is? Could you still give your life to Tom Cruise. And even more importantly since we agree that we are such psychological and social beings. What about your father? Is your father your father? What kind of person should occupy the highest tier of the paternal relationships of the human mind and what types of other factors the mother divorce, death, domestic abuse, social forces could intervene in that connection? Is the brain prepared for that by evolution? Is the brain prepared for the type of pain that can come to be associated with the Father figure? And is it prepared to associate anything but pain with the Father figure? And then we need to include all the faculties that mitigate for pain and then see them in terms of the roiling mass of social and psychological forces across time, including mass warfare. It is amazing to me in a day and age where we know so much about cults and group psychology that no one wants to consider the psychological forces that lead people to adopt a surrogate father and how that affects all groups that look to improve humanity and the type of corrupting influence it can have over their best intentions. More simply Jordan Peterson. It makes a very good definition of the the pyramid seeking all uniting fictional character of God, but that God also represents a surrogate father. A fictional father is a surrogate father and while many people accept the transition from the father-seeking brain to the god-seeking brain, they don't think about what types of emotional forces can enter into that. The average narcissist turns themselves into a god to fill the hole left by the father. And Society can do this for all of its own. Totally honest reasons, but that also leads to a society filled with people who have a God complex, which seems to be the intention of the Bible Shakespeare and the English language and all of its political systems.
A political system is a symbolic system and symbolic systems do things that creatures with symbolic systems need them to do, including, like it's God, covering up a host of pain or sin or impossible quandaries as to the balance between life and death.
You talk claptrap; special pleading cause =god. No philosophical or metaphysical has any bearing on the truth of god`s existence. You believe claptrap, then it is real for you ,that's how it works .God has no explanatory power ;it serves just to plug the holes in your understanding how the world works.
so many weak thoughts here; it’s not really an exploration when you don’t ever walk beyond your the margins of your lantern’s illumination