Even though I'm no Eastern Orthodox Christian, I have to agree with Fr. Peter Farrington all the way. We Christians have to stand up to atheism and tell those non believers that there is a God. The best case I can give out is about a book written by Rice Broocks. The name of the book is God's not dead. I've read it many times and it makes sense. As for me, I've had some friends who do believe in God and some don't. And I don't make assumptions of who's a believer and who's not a believer.
You know, I notice in the comments that the people who are "debating" Fr. Peter seem to be more focused on attacks on him due to his looks or irrelevant criticism. Something that one should've pointed out was the lack of scriptural evidence, only 1 verse was quoted by him at 2:43. All the rest of his evidence was based off of logic and scientific findings. I think he did this because there are a lot of translations and some are written by people who have no clue what they are doing. It's only that I find it funny that when someone makes a good point that differs from the masses opinion, they too often get shut down.
Man, theists have run out of arguments. I watched this video in hopes of finding an argument for god that I hadn't heard before, but he just rehashed the same stock arguments: god is a feeling, god is beyond science, how could this have all randomly happened, atheists can't prove god doesn't exist, etc. If you want to convert atheists, you should probably come up with some new material.
@@justinianthegreat1444 You are misrepresenting the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe (scientists are not exactly sure what was before the Big Bang); the most honest answer (due to scientific knowledge being still young at the moment) one can give is "I do not know". For one to say that the universe had a creater (or a designer), despite the ongoing research concerning the Big Bang model, as an argument for a god being the one responsible for its existence, is a logical fallacy; the God of the Gaps fallacy. Also: Justinian does not hold a candle to Trajan; the Byzantine Roman Empire is a joke compared to the Imperial Roman Empire.
Interesting interpretation by another human religious leader, but not all atheists are alike as not all Christians or beliefs in other religions are alike. Each person has their own ways in life's journey on what ever path they follow. At least he is not hateful and tries to be understanding to some extent. At least it seems so.
+Jennifer Isaacs Very true, every person is different. However, he is not a religious leader, he is just a minister. And Orthodoxy is not a religion but a way of life that has nothing to do with other religions.
All religions are ways of life that have nothing to do with one another. Hopefully no superiority complexes turn into cultish ways and excuses to do harm. Otherwise fine with me.
Love is a feeling. You say your god is a BEING. If a person requires differing levels of evidence for accepting feelings as true as opposed to beings...so what? They are different things. Someday you will realize that your god is merely a feeling.
+Deacon Verter You are a being, correct? And I guess you experience love, right? According to your logics someday you may realize you are just a feeling? I don't get it...
how do you handle the errors in the bible? II Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. VS II Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. 22 vs 42, good luck only people that have no evidence has faith, if they had evidence then that would be reasons (even if they are bad reasons)
+dan b There is a Catholic bible and there is an Orthodox bible. The Catholic is the shorter and incorrect interpretation of the Orthodox. Which one are you reading?
This one of the problems with Christianity... They don't know how to explain mistakes, because they only focus on specific parts. Judaism answers the question very well. The first time speaks of when he was kinged, and the second time speaks of how long he reigned. (not the Judaism isn't BS either)
Just because you love something does not make it real. Hell I love the idea of living forever is it possible, no. I love the idea of karmic justice Is it real, no. Just because you Love a god that also can give you those things doesn't make him real.
Ike Like Yes, but trying to convince me or to take comfort in the love of a being that I do not believe exist is a hollow gesture. It would be equivalent to telling you that you should take solace in knowing a unicorn or fairy loves you. I may believe that they exists and they love us but my belief in it provides you no comfort,because you know unicorns and fairies don't exist.
+triplebackspace Yes, but I was not trying to convince you. God is unconditional love and the fact that you personally don't feel it doesn't mean He does not exist. You don't feel the moving of the molecules in your body, but you know they are there...
Ike Like Yes, but just telling someone that something they can't detect loves them does not provide enough proof that he does in fact exist. I know there are a lot of things in reality that I can't detect, but I tend to err on the side of caution, when choosing to believe something. That is why I am a supporter of the scientific method, and tend to trust the statements of those who site its use in determining results. The method someone uses to make a claim is important to the amount of creditability I will give to that persons truth statements. To me the scientific method is just a more intellectual, logical , and reasonable method of measuring reality then those proposed in the religious text. It seems to me admitting that one does not have all the anwers and then looking for those answers through examination, is superior to just taking the word of people now long gone,who had an even less complete picture of reality then we have today.
Former Copt here. You present us with a set of beliefs before we can even learn to walk and talk. I say the onus is on you to prove them, otherwise, they would just be a mental mindset no different from the toothfairy and no one has any reason at all to adopt them if all your so-called evidence is coincidental, at best. Also, instead of talking about us between yourselves, talk with us. We're routinely silenced and erased in your churches. I don't care if you want to keep up your delusions but you're not going to impress a critical thinker with your ways.
Xavios He does make a valid point (and like he said he wasn’t arguing for Christianity but simply against atheism). Atheism is unable to answer where the universe came from. If science tells us all things come from something then isn’t it logical to say that matter and energy must have a source from which it came? Most atheists just brush off the question as if they don’t need to answer it but it is an important question.
@@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn Atheism is not about answering where the universe came from and it is out not our job either. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Thats it. Now when you people say there IS a god the burden is on you to prove that there is god. So far you havent done that. Meaning we have no reason to believe your claim.
+Luca Hulot (Akle) Science make us believe in the existing of parallel universes. Have anyone seen them? No real evidence, yet people believe they might exist.
Ike Like parallel universes ? yes and so what ? if it's based on calculation and logic, yes. but religious god are not based on math and logic. just egocentric love and loneliness of humans.
I hate to disagree with this orthodox minister - but I think he defines faith wrong and then criticizes atheists for using a different version. Faith in the bible: "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1) Manning faith does NOT rely on evidence, it is used in PLACE of evidence. So, equivocation fallacy, right? Only got 50 seconds in before I spotted that and had to stop.
+Tovec8 (Hebrews11:1) actually means: "Faith is a look at the unknown" as explained by St. John Chrysostom. Much like the science is a look at the yet unknown. Now St. John Chrysostom was an ascetic who studied every possible orthodox writing before making any statement. Your interpretations of (Hebrews 11:1) is based on...?
He says atheist is like a blind man who claims there is no proof for color. That's a weak argument because color indeed does not exist outside of human experience. Color is a subjective response to a specific stimulus. What actually exists is the frequency of the magnetic spectrum which the brain forms into a response that we recognize as color after the photons hit the retina. So if you want to use color to prove God than God exists only as a stimulus of the brain of external stimuli, a subjective interpretation of the outside physical world but does not exist outside of the brain.
atheist here. This was hilariously entertaining from the very first moment. It’s so crazy for me to think their are real adults out there believing such silly things even today in 2021
Look, he is wearing a funny dress, a silly hat and a huge necklace so he must be right? Sorry for the sarcasm but sometimes these people just get to me! Every point he makes here has been successfully refuted over and over again. Does he even allow himself think for himself?
I never trust a person who dresses in a costume. I also don't trust anyone who lies as much as you do. The problem is religion, all of them, not atheism. I really don't have the time to go over point every detail since almost every word you've said is either wrong or an outright lie.
+Therealhatepotion 1.Do you know what a "costume" is and do you have any idea what this minister is wearing? 2. Evidence of lie? 3. You are so busy, but still you found time to write us this, I wonder why?
I have gone the length to put together an answer for a friend of mine. I'll copy paste: First of all, his constant blinking is giving me a continuous cringe, and is really pissing me off. One cannot prove that a man loves his wife. Because love is an illusion of our nature. It's another word for attraction. Attraction can be measured, and can be proven. Not only psychologically, but also through brain activity, and body functions. For instance when you hug someone you like, lots of dopamine is produced, and floods your brain, which is why it feels so good. This is also why a person can love another person during or after a relationship with another. The belief in God is a huge jump from loving your wife. You can prove you have a relationship with your wife. You can't prove your relationship with God. You might love God, but many people have fallen in love with abstract things... It's no different. Jesus most likely lived, however it can't be proven because there's only evidence of people referring to him. There isn't even one piece of archeological artifact that shows Jesus writing to someone. It's always someone to him. The pastor says that scientists are believers because they discovered the beauty and complexity of the earth. However most scientists are believers, because their parents and surrounding communities were and are believers. They were believers before they were scientists, and they continued with the presupposition. In fact when scientists learn, most of the time they change from belief, to disbelief. (just look at Richard Dawkins) "We do not need to prove that God exists" Then I don't have to prove that unicorns exist. "God is not subject to the scientific proof. He is not part of our universe" Which is why it was fallacy of him to say that he can prove it scientifically. Since God is not part of our universe, we cannot know him, unless he comes to us. And if he came to us, science which is another word for discovery, would discover God, and consider him a scientific fact. "we should not expect to see him" Exactly my point. You should not. What you cannot observe, doesn't exist to us, until it can be observed. "God is revealed in his works" How do you know what his works are? There are thousands of them, and each one can be traced back, and could be proven to be written by humans. Whether it be the Qur'an, the New Testament, or the Torah. He said that there is a need for a creator, yet he did not say why. He just stated it, with no reason, other than faith. However faith is subject to science.. It needs reason. Where is the reason behind that faith? "Like a blind man saying there is no proof for color" That's a very good argument. Except we can actually prove color to blind people, by giving information directly to the brain. Also, color does not need to be seen in order to be understood. Color is merely information. Information can be explained. Here's an example that you can actually do yourself. Give a blind man three boxes. Inside each box, there is a different color. Red, green and blue. Ask him to put a ball in one of the boxes, let's say the blue one, and then bring in one man on his own. The man looks into the boxes, and says the ball is in the blue box. Call in another man, and ask him to say which one has the ball. Of course he will answer the blue one. It will always be the same answer. That's how you prove color to a blind man. Back to the subject, even if we couldn't prove color to a blind man, the answer is a fallacy. Because if God is so obvious, it wouldn't be like proving to a blind man. If it is like proving to a blind man, there's no reason to try and prove God to atheists, who simply cannot understand. SO either God is provable, or he isn't. Also, God revealing himself changes our free will. If God is known to us, only through god's change, he is changing our mind, and breaking free will. "When we see a garden, we believe that there is a certain gardener involved" Why is that? It's because we have seen gardeners garden, and grow flowers, before. How many times have you see a universe being created? You're automatic response would be none. And that includes our own universe. If a man with no knowledge of what gardeners sees a garden, he will naturally assume that it just grew that way, unless there's some kind of symbol, in which he would think man made. But not because of the garden. Because he sees a symbol, which he has seen done before. We already knew before, that there is a designer. This fallacy is like saying how amazing it is that our ears were created so perfectly for our glasses. In fact, this fallacy also creates a paradox. If complexity means design, then God who is times infinity more complex, would need an even more complex creator. If you say that God doesn't need a creator, then the universe doesn't need one either. "Can an atheist prove that everything and anything came of chance?" Yes. Since we weren't able to prove anything but what we see, which is chance, the only reasonable belief would be chance. "Where did it come from?" We can ask the question. But we cannot answer of us. Just because I can't answer something, doesn't mean magic. It just means that we don't have the answer, and need to make do with what we know. Since we have no proof of God, we know that before everything, came nothing. We don't have a catalyst. In a place where nothing was possible, something became possible. Why? We don't know yet. And I'm comfortable saying that we do not know. You cannot assume through ignorance. You should not assume through ignorance. "We still might insist, well where did the first come from?" We still might insist, well where did the first God come from? Science teaches that all things come from a cause. Within the laws of physics. Even if there was a cause, we couldn't prove it, because it would be outside of physics. "Which teaches us to look for something beyond the physics" Which before, he said, is impossible. He says the fallacy of atheists saying that God cannot exist. When an atheist says that, it's merely a comfortable way of saying, that God probably doesn't exist. Everything in science is about probability. Possibility exists for everything. Probability doesn't. You can give a room full of typewriters to a bunch of monkeys. It's possible that they would write a novel. But they'll most probably end up shitting all over the place, and eating the paper. The probability for that happening is ginormous. Science only counts probabilities that are 10 to the power of 24. God has no proof, and since he's infinite, the chances of God existing, are 0 to infinity. "My grown empathy with the insight of Einstein...." That's subjective, and means nothing. (not to mention Einstein was a deist, and people like Isaac Newton believed in alchemy) "My own insight..." Which is even more subjective. "The burden of proof belongs to those who argue to the contrary" I could say the same, and it would mean the same. Both must provide evidence and base to their claims. Theists simply can't. I love how I thought of the typewriter concept, before him. "mechanism or process that saves those elements of change which are heading in the right direction, and rejects those which are heading in the wrong direction" The fallacy assumes that there is a wrong or right direction... There isn't. It's that certain things are rejected because they don't interact correctly with surrounding. Look at earth. It will be destroyed at a certain point, because the magnetic field will swap polls, and solar flares will destroy it. Because the earth is near something that doesn't interact well enough to stay forever. This is why animals go extinct. I'm just going to say this just in case he brings in thermodynamics. Those laws say that anything left to itself will fall apart. The thing is that it refers to something that's completely left alone. (in vacuum) This means the universe will slowly deteriorate. Which is what the universe is doing. However when things deteriorate they cause energy, and that energy makes the broken things to come together with other broken things, and create something complex.Which is why one theory says taht the universe has always existed, but there's always a big bang, and the universe comes apart, and then comes right back into a small dot, which causes another big bang, and this repeats infinitely. "science does not appose faith" If it's religious, it does. Science is discovery. We cannot discover a reason for religion, thus science opposes it. *brings more examples of religious scientists* This doesn't prove connection between science and religion. It proves that scientists can be illogical. "When you we say that we have experienced God, we are acting on evidence" Evidence is not enough for proof. The evidence must be observable, and testable.
Even though I'm no Eastern Orthodox Christian, I have to agree with Fr. Peter Farrington all the way. We Christians have to stand up to atheism and tell those non believers that there is a God. The best case I can give out is about a book written by Rice Broocks. The name of the book is God's not dead. I've read it many times and it makes sense. As for me, I've had some friends who do believe in God and some don't. And I don't make assumptions of who's a believer and who's not a believer.
Atheists are the biggest trolls as they just want to believe in what they want
You know, I notice in the comments that the people who are "debating" Fr. Peter seem to be more focused on attacks on him due to his looks or irrelevant criticism. Something that one should've pointed out was the lack of scriptural evidence, only 1 verse was quoted by him at 2:43. All the rest of his evidence was based off of logic and scientific findings. I think he did this because there are a lot of translations and some are written by people who have no clue what they are doing. It's only that I find it funny that when someone makes a good point that differs from the masses opinion, they too often get shut down.
+INSANITYTOWN I agree
guys an idiot though he believes an invisible man in the sky exists - whats to take serious here its 2021
Man, theists have run out of arguments. I watched this video in hopes of finding an argument for god that I hadn't heard before, but he just rehashed the same stock arguments: god is a feeling, god is beyond science, how could this have all randomly happened, atheists can't prove god doesn't exist, etc. If you want to convert atheists, you should probably come up with some new material.
Oh yeah then how can nothing create something?
@@justinianthegreat1444
You are misrepresenting the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe (scientists are not exactly sure what was before the Big Bang); the most honest answer (due to scientific knowledge being still young at the moment) one can give is "I do not know". For one to say that the universe had a creater (or a designer), despite the ongoing research concerning the Big Bang model, as an argument for a god being the one responsible for its existence, is a logical fallacy; the God of the Gaps fallacy.
Also: Justinian does not hold a candle to Trajan; the Byzantine Roman Empire is a joke compared to the Imperial Roman Empire.
Maybe atheists should stop being so salty and miserable and actualy answear some of these with actual arguments
Interesting interpretation by another human religious leader, but not all atheists are alike as not all Christians or beliefs in other religions are alike. Each person has their own ways in life's journey on what ever path they follow.
At least he is not hateful and tries to be understanding to some extent. At least it seems so.
+Jennifer Isaacs Very true, every person is different. However, he is not a religious leader, he is just a minister. And Orthodoxy is not a religion but a way of life that has nothing to do with other religions.
All religions are ways of life that have nothing to do with one another. Hopefully no superiority complexes turn into cultish ways and excuses to do harm. Otherwise fine with me.
Love is a feeling. You say your god is a BEING. If a person requires differing levels of evidence for accepting feelings as true as opposed to beings...so what? They are different things. Someday you will realize that your god is merely a feeling.
+Deacon Verter You are a being, correct? And I guess you experience love, right? According to your logics someday you may realize you are just a feeling? I don't get it...
Love is an illusion of attraction, or liking of something. he is just a feeling. Humans are nothing but their brains' actions.
how do you handle the errors in the bible? II Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. VS II Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. 22 vs 42, good luck
only people that have no evidence has faith, if they had evidence then that would be reasons (even if they are bad reasons)
+dan b There is a Catholic bible and there is an Orthodox bible. The Catholic is the shorter and incorrect interpretation of the Orthodox. Which one are you reading?
Ike Like i have read the entire king james version. what version of the bible do you use?
please be specific, that way you have less excuses.
+dan b The Greek, 2016 year old Bible.
MuzzaHukka i don't know what you are talking about
This one of the problems with Christianity... They don't know how to explain mistakes, because they only focus on specific parts.
Judaism answers the question very well. The first time speaks of when he was kinged, and the second time speaks of how long he reigned. (not the Judaism isn't BS either)
Just because you love something does not make it real. Hell I love the idea of living forever is it possible, no. I love the idea of karmic justice Is it real, no. Just because you Love a god that also can give you those things doesn't make him real.
+triplebackspace The existence of God does not depend on our love to Him, however we depend on His love, and he loves us all, even the atheists.
Ike Like Yes, but trying to convince me or to take comfort in the love of a being that I do not believe exist is a hollow gesture. It would be equivalent to telling you that you should take solace in knowing a unicorn or fairy loves you. I may believe that they exists and they love us but my belief in it provides you no comfort,because you know unicorns and fairies don't exist.
+triplebackspace Yes, but I was not trying to convince you. God is unconditional love and the fact that you personally don't feel it doesn't mean He does not exist. You don't feel the moving of the molecules in your body, but you know they are there...
Ike Like Yes, but just telling someone that something they can't detect loves them does not provide enough proof that he does in fact exist. I know there are a lot of things in reality that I can't detect, but I tend to err on the side of caution, when choosing to believe something. That is why I am a supporter of the scientific method, and tend to trust the statements of those who site its use in determining results. The method someone uses to make a claim is important to the amount of creditability I will give to that persons truth statements. To me the scientific method is just a more intellectual, logical , and reasonable method of measuring reality then those proposed in the religious text. It seems to me admitting that one does not have all the anwers and then looking for those answers through examination, is superior to just taking the word of people now long gone,who had an even less complete picture of reality then we have today.
Former Copt here. You present us with a set of beliefs before we can even learn to walk and talk. I say the onus is on you to prove them, otherwise, they would just be a mental mindset no different from the toothfairy and no one has any reason at all to adopt them if all your so-called evidence is coincidental, at best.
Also, instead of talking about us between yourselves, talk with us. We're routinely silenced and erased in your churches. I don't care if you want to keep up your delusions but you're not going to impress a critical thinker with your ways.
Xavios He does make a valid point (and like he said he wasn’t arguing for Christianity but simply against atheism). Atheism is unable to answer where the universe came from. If science tells us all things come from something then isn’t it logical to say that matter and energy must have a source from which it came? Most atheists just brush off the question as if they don’t need to answer it but it is an important question.
@@MrWinMrWin-qr2bn Atheism is not about answering where the universe came from and it is out not our job either. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods. Thats it. Now when you people say there IS a god the burden is on you to prove that there is god. So far you havent done that. Meaning we have no reason to believe your claim.
i'm atheist.
you just need to provide evidence to change my...
"belief" ?
+Luca Hulot (Akle) Science make us believe in the existing of parallel universes. Have anyone seen them? No real evidence, yet people believe they might exist.
Ike Like parallel universes ? yes and so what ?
if it's based on calculation and logic, yes.
but religious god are not based on math and logic.
just egocentric love and loneliness of humans.
There is soo many things unknown and inaccessible to man. Why close your mind to the idea of a supreme being
if you need evidence to believe, then prove to me that numbers are real.
That's the thing, you can't...
I hate to disagree with this orthodox minister - but I think he defines faith wrong and then criticizes atheists for using a different version. Faith in the bible:
"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."
(Hebrews 11:1)
Manning faith does NOT rely on evidence, it is used in PLACE of evidence. So, equivocation fallacy, right? Only got 50 seconds in before I spotted that and had to stop.
+Tovec8 (Hebrews11:1) actually means: "Faith is a look at the unknown" as explained by St. John Chrysostom. Much like the science is a look at the yet unknown. Now St. John Chrysostom was an ascetic who studied every possible orthodox writing before making any statement. Your interpretations of (Hebrews 11:1) is based on...?
Ike Like
What the passage actually says.
Love is better than faith or at least faith alone.
+Jennifer Isaacs The Orthodoxy speaks of Love Faith and Hope. They are inseparable, yet Love is the most important.
First Corinthians 13 ...it can sound like noise without love.
He says atheist is like a blind man who claims there is no proof for color. That's a weak argument because color indeed does not exist outside of human experience. Color is a subjective response to a specific stimulus. What actually exists is the frequency of the magnetic spectrum which the brain forms into a response that we recognize as color after the photons hit the retina. So if you want to use color to prove God than God exists only as a stimulus of the brain of external stimuli, a subjective interpretation of the outside physical world but does not exist outside of the brain.
atheist here. This was hilariously entertaining from the very first moment. It’s so crazy for me to think their are real adults out there believing such silly things even today in 2021
2024 still havent changed a bit lol.
Look, he is wearing a funny dress, a silly hat and a huge necklace so he must be right?
Sorry for the sarcasm but sometimes these people just get to me!
Every point he makes here has been successfully refuted over and over again. Does he even allow himself think for himself?
I never trust a person who dresses in a costume. I also don't trust anyone who lies as much as you do. The problem is religion, all of them, not atheism. I really don't have the time to go over point every detail since almost every word you've said is either wrong or an outright lie.
+Therealhatepotion 1.Do you know what a "costume" is and do you have any idea what this minister is wearing? 2. Evidence of lie? 3. You are so busy, but still you found time to write us this, I wonder why?
I have gone the length to put together an answer for a friend of mine. I'll copy paste:
First of all, his constant blinking is giving
me a continuous cringe, and is really pissing me off.
One cannot prove that a man loves his wife. Because love is an illusion
of our nature. It's another word for attraction. Attraction can be
measured, and can be proven. Not only psychologically, but also through
brain activity, and body functions. For instance when you hug someone
you like, lots of dopamine is produced, and floods your brain, which is
why it feels so good. This is also why a person can love another person
during or after a relationship with another.
The belief in God is a huge jump from loving your wife. You can prove
you have a relationship with your wife. You can't prove your
relationship with God. You might love God, but many people have fallen
in love with abstract things... It's no different.
Jesus most likely lived, however it can't be proven because there's only
evidence of people referring to him. There isn't even one piece of
archeological artifact that shows Jesus writing to someone. It's always
someone to him.
The pastor says that scientists are believers because they discovered
the beauty and complexity of the earth. However most scientists are
believers, because their parents and surrounding communities were and
are believers. They were believers before they were scientists, and they
continued with the presupposition. In fact when scientists learn, most
of the time they change from belief, to disbelief. (just look at Richard
Dawkins)
"We do not need to prove that God exists"
Then I don't have to prove that unicorns exist.
"God is not subject to the scientific proof. He is not part of our
universe"
Which is why it was fallacy of him to say that he can prove it
scientifically. Since God is not part of our universe, we cannot know
him, unless he comes to us. And if he came to us, science which is
another word for discovery, would discover God, and consider him a
scientific fact.
"we should not expect to see him"
Exactly my point. You should not. What you cannot observe, doesn't exist
to us, until it can be observed.
"God is revealed in his works"
How do you know what his works are? There are thousands of them, and
each one can be traced back, and could be proven to be written by
humans. Whether it be the Qur'an, the New Testament, or the Torah.
He said that there is a need for a creator, yet he did not say why. He
just stated it, with no reason, other than faith. However faith is
subject to science.. It needs reason. Where is the reason behind that
faith?
"Like a blind man saying there is no proof for color"
That's a very good argument. Except we can actually prove color to blind
people, by giving information directly to the brain. Also, color does
not need to be seen in order to be understood. Color is merely
information. Information can be explained. Here's an example that you
can actually do yourself. Give a blind man three boxes. Inside each box,
there is a different color. Red, green and blue. Ask him to put a ball
in one of the boxes, let's say the blue one, and then bring in one man
on his own. The man looks into the boxes, and says the ball is in the
blue box. Call in another man, and ask him to say which one has the
ball. Of course he will answer the blue one. It will always be the same
answer. That's how you prove color to a blind man.
Back to the subject, even if we couldn't prove color to a blind man, the
answer is a fallacy. Because if God is so obvious, it wouldn't be like
proving to a blind man. If it is like proving to a blind man, there's no
reason to try and prove God to atheists, who simply cannot understand.
SO either God is provable, or he isn't. Also, God revealing himself
changes our free will. If God is known to us, only through god's change,
he is changing our mind, and breaking free will.
"When we see a garden, we believe that there is a certain gardener
involved"
Why is that? It's because we have seen gardeners garden, and grow
flowers, before. How many times have you see a universe being created?
You're automatic response would be none. And that includes our own
universe. If a man with no knowledge of what gardeners sees a garden, he
will naturally assume that it just grew that way, unless there's some
kind of symbol, in which he would think man made. But not because of the
garden. Because he sees a symbol, which he has seen done before. We
already knew before, that there is a designer. This fallacy is like
saying how amazing it is that our ears were created so perfectly for our
glasses. In fact, this fallacy also creates a paradox. If complexity
means design, then God who is times infinity more complex, would need an
even more complex creator. If you say that God doesn't need a creator,
then the universe doesn't need one either.
"Can an atheist prove that everything and anything came of chance?"
Yes. Since we weren't able to prove anything but what we see, which is
chance, the only reasonable belief would be chance.
"Where did it come from?"
We can ask the question. But we cannot answer of us. Just because I
can't answer something, doesn't mean magic. It just means that we don't
have the answer, and need to make do with what we know. Since we have no
proof of God, we know that before everything, came nothing. We don't
have a catalyst. In a place where nothing was possible, something became
possible. Why? We don't know yet. And I'm comfortable saying that we do
not know. You cannot assume through ignorance. You should not assume
through ignorance.
"We still might insist, well where did the first come from?"
We still might insist, well where did the first God come from?
Science teaches that all things come from a cause. Within the laws of
physics. Even if there was a cause, we couldn't prove it, because it
would be outside of physics.
"Which teaches us to look for something beyond the physics"
Which before, he said, is impossible.
He says the fallacy of atheists saying that God cannot exist. When an
atheist says that, it's merely a comfortable way of saying, that God
probably doesn't exist. Everything in science is about probability.
Possibility exists for everything. Probability doesn't. You can give a
room full of typewriters to a bunch of monkeys. It's possible that they
would write a novel. But they'll most probably end up shitting all over
the place, and eating the paper. The probability for that happening is
ginormous. Science only counts probabilities that are 10 to the power of
24. God has no proof, and since he's infinite, the chances of God
existing, are 0 to infinity.
"My grown empathy with the insight of Einstein...."
That's subjective, and means nothing. (not to mention Einstein was a
deist, and people like Isaac Newton believed in alchemy)
"My own insight..."
Which is even more subjective.
"The burden of proof belongs to those who argue to the contrary"
I could say the same, and it would mean the same. Both must provide
evidence and base to their claims. Theists simply can't.
I love how I thought of the typewriter concept, before him.
"mechanism or process that saves those elements of change which are
heading in the right direction, and rejects those which are heading in
the wrong direction"
The fallacy assumes that there is a wrong or right direction... There
isn't. It's that certain things are rejected because they don't interact
correctly with surrounding. Look at earth. It will be destroyed at a
certain point, because the magnetic field will swap polls, and solar
flares will destroy it. Because the earth is near something that doesn't
interact well enough to stay forever. This is why animals go extinct.
I'm just going to say this just in case he brings in thermodynamics.
Those laws say that anything left to itself will fall apart. The thing
is that it refers to something that's completely left alone. (in vacuum)
This means the universe will slowly deteriorate. Which is what the
universe is doing. However when things deteriorate they cause energy,
and that energy makes the broken things to come together with other
broken things, and create something complex.Which is why one theory says
taht the universe has always existed, but there's always a big bang,
and the universe comes apart, and then comes right back into a small
dot, which causes another big bang, and this repeats infinitely.
"science does not appose faith"
If it's religious, it does. Science is discovery. We cannot discover a
reason for religion, thus science opposes it.
*brings more examples of religious scientists*
This doesn't prove connection between science and religion. It proves
that scientists can be illogical.
"When you we say that we have experienced God, we are acting on
evidence"
Evidence is not enough for proof. The evidence must be observable, and
testable.