Yet another person confusing the words CONCLUDE and ASSUME. The theist in this debate continually says, "it's reasonable to CONCLUDE...." when he's really saying, "it's reasonable to ASSUME...." Assumptions are not evidence.
@@frankcostello2973 When one's argument in a debate is fairly terrible, yes, it is indeed reasonable to conclude. One would be doing a great disservice to not conclude, in fact.
@@outhousephilosophies3992 Humans have a strong instinctive drive for storytelling. (There are good evolutionary reasons for this. It may be that storytelling predates language.) Having this drive, and whenever facing a mystery of some kind, we're inclined to speculate: in other words, to make up a story. It takes a certain additional discipline, plus some capacity for Introspection, to say "I don't know." It's still not common practice. When faced with something profoundly unknown or mysterious, for which there is no reasonable story, many people will call it "supernatural" rather than just honestly saying "I don't know." It's as if they're constructing a syllogism that goes "I don't know, therefore I do know."
God was created by mankind? I agree, like atheist who make themselves as god or material/nature as god. But the true God is different from the created god.
@@borneandayak6725 so which god do you consider the real god? I'm sure you know there is quite a few gods that has being proclaimed throughout the ages.
@@borneandayak6725 If you are talking about the God of the Bible, I want nothing to do with Him.The God of the Old Testament committed genocide against the Canninites !!!
@@paulrichards6894 Your brain is the one not working. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
not only is it still debated the theists are turning up the intensity because the religious decline (at least in the US) all be it slow is consistent and the new generations are less and less religious. the writing is on the wall and they see it and in keeping with that human quality of stubbornness are resisting as much as they can.
Kind of funny this (Christian) God-existing thing. Thousands of years have gone by and the question is still there. That in itself might be the best answer if it is needed at all.
See Deuteronomy 32 where "God" identifies himself as the Phallus (rock that begat thee). He hogs all credits to himself and ignores his wife the Vagina.
@Mark Johnston I have read his stuff the god delusion was given me by a customer say to me Ashy I cannot under stand this book you have it you a potty pagan > have you looked at Richard Dawkins answers his EMAILS on RUclips hilarious
If so then maybe the fact we have been growing wisdom teeth for far longer might mean you shouldn’t just remove them. Interesting how both the god thing and wisdom teeth have been replaced by a scientific understanding back by evidence.
@@ashwayn Ancient Historians would destroy you and this self deluded Charleton pretending to know something unknowable! What is more potty than believing in Fairy stories written by Ancient people who knew nothing of reality!
Because the Trinty and Incarnation are illogical The Trinity is a contradiction It is basically tritheism disguised as monotheism using philosophy and rhetoric
@@borneandayak6725 how many “gods” do you believe in? I’m fairly certain that when you talk to a congregation about a god, you’re referring to the Christian version. When Dan brought up the rape allegations against Yahweh, I would have thought you’d be all over that. Instead you punted. But no worries, I wouldn’t want to have to defend that monster either. I watched a debate with Matt Dillahunty against a Muslim apologist and he wouldn’t defend his version of god either.
S, why are you so concerned about which god when you are too stoo-pid to believe there had to be a god? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
The Biblical representation of God is undefendable. It's silly and cruel with mundane human emotions. Science has pushed the god-of-the gaps all the way back to two remaining arguments. The origin of the known universe and the origin of life and we are learning more about them every day. Every time religion has challenged science it's lost and I expect the trend to continue.
It's funny how you imagine you're smart when you are only a dolt. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
John 3:16 King James Version 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
@@vecumex9466 It’s true God loves you and he sent Jesus and if you call on Jesus and ask him to save you then He sure will!! God Bless You. Please don’t say Boring: Trust me there is nothing Nothing Boring about Jesus!!
When one considers how atheistic beliefs can be understood within the broader context of thinking and living, then theories pertaining to atheism naturally arise.
@@johnstrong3029 Or, to rephrase your nonsense: "When one considers a strawman version of someone they can also pretend such a person can believe and think anything you pretend they can".
Many thanks to everyone for this interesting and respectful conversation. However, as Dan mentioned [paraphrasing], there's something inherently, pathetically *wrong* with a supposed "god" that must constantly be debated, defended, excused, explained and endlessly fought over. If an "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, everywhere present" god were actually real, then "it" should be easily knowable to all people everywhere, and these debates would be completely irrelevant and unnecessary. And the entire futile "thing" of "theology" wouldn't even exist.
@@lamalama9717 Is there really, can there really be doubt in His existence? I think these debates serve the purpose of keeping the broader society civil, ie maintaining the oasis shared by both the atheists and the faithful.
While I respect _some_ of the Adam Lloyd Johnson's arguments, I totally lose it when theists such as him state that one needs religion for "moral truth". Mary Tudor (Queen of England during the 1500s) was driven by her strong adherence to Catholicism to burn non-Catholics alive as heretics. She is only one of countless examples in history where religious fanaticism has directly lead to *horrible deeds* to further what what they firmly believed was "God's will."
And? So many atheists have done bad things too. Do I blame all atheists for that? Was God truly behind what the queen did? Even so-called believers that do bad things, is that all on God? Does God control people like they are His robots? Wake up and stop pretending you know so much about God that sure looks like you don't believe in anyway. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Did you bother to READ and COMPREHEND my post? The last people who should be consulted on matters of "right and wrong" should be Christians! How about figuring out what is best for both individuals and society as a whole? If there were no laws against assault, murder, or theft, _all of us would be unsafe._
@@valerielhw People change laws all the time according to the latest fashionable opinion lawlessnes is increasing with peopledeciding for themselves right and wrong
@@mrshankerbillletmein491 Secular based laws are much better policy than religious extremists making _theological_ laws based on "their" personal interpretations of some holy book. Our forefathers knew this, and that's why they went to great lengths to separate church and state.
@@johngaunt2806 What do you mean prove, I cant prove Ghengis khan existed, or George Washington, there is evidence Jesus existed and who he claimed to be, if the resurrection is true, you are entitled to dismiss if it you want. thats on you
Good debate and love Dan but I wish all debates had an open discussion period or at least a cross examination. It really helps to zone in on each other's logic and faults in their position.
I thought these were supposed to be the good arguments for theism. Sorry, these are just all really bad arguments for theism that have been around for a long time and defeated over and over again.
I would say the same thing for atheism, I think all the arguments for theism are really good, and arguments for atheism are terrible, I have never seen a good atheist argument in any of these debates. I guess we just have different beliefs about what is a good argument.
So far atheism only explains what is and question begging arguments while theistic arguments are sound because you can arrive at a conclusion and the evidence can be seen through history and archaeology. If different philosophers can arrive at the same arguments and conclusions then these arguments are meant to be a common knowledge for mankind
@@ceceroxy2227 Very often theists have no idea what an argument is, much less a good one. See Vanessa below. She doesn't know what "question begging" means, nor what "sound" means in an argument, nor soundness of an argument's conclusion, nor what history and archaeology have to say about (or COULD have to say about) the god question. Here's a hint: if you could take the very same logical form of your argument and apply it to something else that you don't accept, or something else that is mutually exclusive of your preferred conclusions...you are being completely irrational and using very bad arguments. (Just because we have solid historical evidence that Gilgamesh existed AND have the original texts in cuneiform does NOT mean he fought the bull of heaven nor the giant Humbaba. For Jesus we have no extra biblical evidence that he existed at all, and none of the biblical texts are originals. Moreover, archeology has concluded that Moses is entirely legendary. There is no evidence of the Jewish exodus at all--and, even worse, archeologists KNOW where the Jews were at that time. Do religious folks know any of this? Of course not. They just think "argument" means saying something that sounds true to them, and "sound" means that it makes sense to them and seems true. If you asked them to explain what makes and argument valid, and what else makes an argument sound, they have no idea because they don't know what those words mean in logic, or WHY they mean those things in logic.)
@@greyeyed123 Well tell the guy in the debate he doesnt understand arguments and he has a PHD in philosophy, go teach him and William Lane Craig and John Lennox they dont understand arguments, only the brilliant atheists like yourself understand the arguments and how to make them. My guess is you probably dont really understand what logic means and what it is, I generally find most atheists suffer from Dunning Kruger, thinking they are so smart, when most atheists really know nothing about the subject. Probably hear something Dillahunty says and will repeat it, and Matt knows nothing about philosophy. atheists always make me laugh, I was shocked there was a group of people like this, who said these things and acted so smart, when they knew very little.
@@ceceroxy2227 Do you notice how you didn't remotely demonstrate your own understanding of how arguments work? You just appealed to authorities you like...and that was all. Then you accused me of doing what you are doing...because you don't understand how arguments work. Aren't you a little bit curious to find out...rather than simply trusting people you want to believe? You can actually go and verify what people say to see if there is any falsifiable, reproducible, verifiable, and predictive evidence for their claims. You can even look up those words to find out what they mean, and why evidence that conforms to them is useful and dependable. I find many believers consciously STOPPED trying to learn certain things that threaten their belief systems. They don't want to know. So even in their rebuttals, they hide behind authority figures and suggest someone, somewhere must have a good argument for their beliefs, otherwise...why would anyone believe them? (Hint hint: it's because they want to believe them and never bothered to check if any of it was true or not.) AND...you deleted your reply and ran away before I finished this post. Typical.
BRILLIANT!!! "What happens to my digestion when the stomach dies!!" What a perfect way to reveal the nonsense behind the distinction between the brain and consciousness.
@@jameskelly3745 Geez, it rather obvious. The brain, which gives it’s owner the brain function of consciousness, is an organ. The stomach is also an organ, but it helps carry out digestion of food that has been eaten. Digestion does not occur when the animal’s stomach organ dies, exactly the same as consciousness from a brain stops when the animal dies.
@@jameskelly3745 Yes you did. It is very relevant especially when a theist asks how we can account for consciousness or where does consciousness come from or what happens to consciousness when a person dies. The answers are exactly the same when you replace consciousness with digestion and replace brain with stomach.
@@bagwadias you are wrong I am right. The stomach can stop working and you can still be alive. You can live without a stomach so therefore there's nothing I said that was wrong. You need to learn how to read.
I was 5 years old when I told my Roman Catholic family that I didn’t believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and…God. I caught my mother wrapping my Christmas gift from Santa, after that, I was sure that none of these characters were real. I actually thought my parents were trying to play a trick on me or some. Then I realized that they believed in God…a lot. They tried everything they could for years to brainwash me…. and Catholics are not nice when you mock their religion. Tough childhood. That was 50 years ago… they lost. They’re lost to indoctrination, crazy Bible thumpers… family occasions are always interesting. I tell them how crazy they are, and they call me a sinner who will go to hell….good times. I say God lives in the imagination of believers.
@@StevenLemken-it9vu Wait a minute, is this coming from someone that literally has nothing other than faith to support his beliefs, and someone who depends on he said this, and he said that in order to believe in the impossibility of God? Am I getting a lesson in nonsense from someone who has no evidence to verify and confirm the existence of God? Faith in your belief is evidence of nothing. You do realize that your claim would be thrown out of court as hearsay don’t you? God is the scientific impossibility my friend, you’re the one giving and impossible God the credit for creating everything with zero evidence to support your claim. Believing in something doesn’t make it true, especially without verifiable evidence to prove the claims within your beliefs, in which, you have none. That my friend is the definition of nonsense: “spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense; foolish or unacceptable behaviour; In the philosophy of language and philosophy of science, nonsense refers to a lack of sense or meaning, claims without evidence. Hearsay: means any information that has been heard from hear and there that can not be verified, such information can not be believed because the source can not be authenticated. I could go on and on….you’re the one who believes in nonesense, not me, I simply don’t believe in the unverifiable nonsense that you do. Be well.
@marksandsmith6778 no my friend science tells us how things work philosophy leads us to how it came about that's where God comes in if you heard of james tour he is a physics scientist and christain or John Lennox professor of mathematics from Oxford University he has even debated richard Dawkins an atheist and my list can go on and on this even anthony flew has come around to at least a creator even though not the christain God a painting requires a painter a building a builder and so on dr william lane Craig has debated many atheist as well as to philosophy and science privilege planet goes in to the fine tuning of our planet how there are too many things in place that if one thing was off we would not exist earth's distance from the sun our atmosphere when it comes to oxygen and so on even DNA which is the building blocks of humans animals insects and so on my friend as far as being a christain there is no debate that Jesus existed scholars even atheist acknowledge this I sent have enough faith ti be an atheist be well my friend I would suggest listening to debates between professor john lennox and Dr richard Dawkins be well my friend
Dan Barker is good. Very, very good at presenting his argument. I think his years as a preacher paid off handsomely. Now of course he has supercharged his powers of persuasion with solid reasoning. Thanks, Mr Barker.
Yes I agree. I'm all about Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, but there's something about the way D. Barker lays out his arguments in such an extremely straightforward way while simultaneously taking shots at religion. It's fucking beautiful and I can't get enough.
"There is no evidence for God, nor has there ever been." You're really some joke. Wow. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Daniel Snyder you are 100% incorrect,modern has proven scientifically the existence of a higher intelligence which is God, do the research instead of taking the lazy way out like every other atheist.
He didn’t give evidence for god, he just said god was the best explanation without giving any evidence at all that such a being is even possible. If it’s timeless, immaterial and space less then his first 3 attributes are indistinguishable from things that don’t exist
@@ramigilneas9274 . It isn't necessary "to give evidence that the existence of x is possible" as a necessary premise toward demonstrating the existence of x. Just as it isn't possible to find evidence purporting to show conclusively the existence of God is impossible. Of course it is.
@@jamesbarlow6423 Usually we don’t need outlandish philosophical arguments to demonstrate that something exists… we only seem to need such arguments for things that can not be demonstrated to exist with actual verifiable evidence. Those arguments for God sound more like the college boy who invents excuses for why none of his friends have ever seen his girlfriend that goes to a different school and is totally not made up at all.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 An 'outlandishly' bad analogy😄. But if there is a God existing aside from the realm consisting of all that is epistemically knowable by us, (e.g. 'dark matter' etc., or multiple universes) it wouldn't be surprising such a Being would exist quite aside from our very limited sensory apparatus, cognitive apprehension, "logic" etc. Indeed, such a Being might find in suppositional oddities e.g. "A=A" an understandably childish version of 'truth' made inevitable by means of a necessary reductionism. "Truth," said Nietzsche, "is a kind of lie without which a certain species could not endure life."
Oh really? How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@joeukonga3793 This question mostly comes down to the missing evidence for god and the fact that humans invented religion because of wishful thinking, as an early attempt to establish a society in which we can flourish and to explain the world around us.
@@lazylenni1017 I've been in these debates a long time, so let me just point out that this doesn't really work in terms of answering joe ukonga's question. The fact that there is a lack of scientific evidence for god, is not evidence that God does not exist. In the same way that, a lack of evidence for the existence of parallel universes, is not a reason to think that parallel universes don't exist. For all we know, we can't measure the existence of parallel universes, or our techniques may not be sophisticated enough to detect them. Unless you are specifically talking about a situation where you know all the variables, such as a cardboard box, and you are asking whether or not a basketball is sitting in it, then yes - a lack of evidence can be used as evidence of absence. But with respect to God, it is not. We can not claim if it exists one way or the other. When someone conclusively claims that God does not exist, the only way they can do so, is by attempting to demonstrate that it is logically impossible, which is a very high bar to reach considering God is in general, poorly defined to begin with. The rest of your practical interpretations of why God was created, is not necessarily germane to the discussion - it could be that people invented the idea of God as an aid in other ways, but that God exists in spite of that.
"claiming ignorance, therefore no god, or they are lying" --- Are you looking for an answer, or just entertaining yourself with others' inability to articulate truth? Peace be with you.
@@andrewferg8737 I'm saying you, and those like you, cannot accept the truth Their is NO god. Humans make up gods because they are scared and ignorant, just like you.
Every single person who thinks like you is a dolt. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Gotta admit, as soon as the god-guy started testifying about his journey I stopped watching. He will go on to use that experience, I’m sure, as “proof” of a deity. Now, should I watch further…?
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Religious apologists lost the argument years ago, they're just recycling the same old arguments, but it doesn't matter anymore anyway. Religion is dying in the United States. 29% of the population are Atheists/Nones (especially among the younger demographic) and continues to grow rapidly which has surpassed the two biggest AND ageing Religious demographics - Evangelicals and Catholics. I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic and Christians schools, had many friends of different Christian denomination and non-Christian ones...I still ended up Atheist. So my inevitable becoming Atheist didn't help Religion, what chance do Christians apologists have?
@@tommy32408 He never once won a single debate. He did, however, excel in mocking and insulting something that doesn't exist according to him. For something that doesn't exist, God sure had his undivided attention.
The less people rely on falsifiable evidence to inform their perspective, the more out of touch with reality they'll be. The tacit acceptance and even endorsement of faith by society is what leads to the normalization of q-anoners and flat-earthers.
The moral argument is one of the weakest arguments for god, which I have ever heard. The origin of moral values can easily be explained through our biological evolution as a social species. I don't understand why this is still such a big talking point for theists.
I hope that our disagreement doesn’t end in disrespect. I want to view things the way you see it but help me understand what you mean. Biological evolution has to come into existence before it can perpetuate, so how did you gather that much faith that a simple dust, which is non-living, can evolve into such a sophisticated creature like humans?
I agree. Usually all the "not moral" things that christians mention, are things that the God of the Bible does himself or tells people to do. Like "abuse women". In debates only one that is not in the Bible is usually "torture babies for fun". Only that? For once, I would like to really hear exactly what are those moral rules that christians claim to get from their God.
Objective morals come from God. Abusing women is objectively wrong. Also God: victims of rape must marry their rapists. God commanded through Moses to keep virgins as spoils of war, but to kill women who had ever had sex. Might want to try a different example next time.
Flat earth creator gods, virgin birth saviors, flying angels, flying demons, flying jinn's, flying genies, flying cherubs with flaming swords, flying fire breathing dragons, flying horse chariots, flying pegasus's, flying horses, flying goats, flying elephants, flying buraq's, talking snakes, talking donkeys, talking ants, sticks that could part seas, giant humans, half men, half animals (centaurs), mammals getting out of graves AKA walking dead DO NOT EXIST and never did. The sun and moon are not being pulled around the hindu flat earth by a flying seven horse chariot..SMH All fables, myths and fairy tales from dead middle east men's imaginations 2 thousand to 3 thousand years ago, no different than today's movies. Cheers
It says to kill (stone to death) a non-virgin in her fathers front yard also if her rapist can prove she is not a virgin. Disgusting middle east book. Cheers
Exactly. *This website is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.* I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along. *It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said Thou shall not kill.* For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6). In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! *Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody!* In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). ***This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.*** ***Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK.*** If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself. *Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven:* For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12). *I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.* The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice and animal sacrifice. *And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear:* It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid (Luke 16:17). There are many more quotes on this topic at my Do Not Ignore the Old Testament web page. *If you follow the links on this site you will learn about all the nasty things in the Bible that are usually not talked about by priests and preachers.* www.evilbible.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------ Google *"10 Biblical Atrocities That Go Overlooked (Part 1) - Real Bible Stories"* (Written by a former minister) Google *"10 Biblical Atrocities That Go Overlooked (Part Two) - Real Bible Stories"* (Written by a former minister) Google *"God's 12 Biggest Dick Moves In The Old Testament - Gizmodo Australia"* Google *"The Will of God - The Christian Delusion"* Google *"The 10 Worst Old Testament Verses by Dan Barker - Freedom From Religion Foundation"* (Written by a former preacher) Google *"Top 20 Evil Bible Stories - Religion - Nigeria"* Google *"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"* Google *"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"* Google *"What Would Jesus Do? - Evil Bible .com"* Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"*
I think this is his first debate, I would say he did his best. Also the format sucks, they didn't get to a second rebuttal. At least he didn't try some lame cosmology like Craig.
There are no good arguments. Theists should just say that they believe in a god because they were raised to believe in a god, it feels good to them, they associate the belief with profound feelings of family/belonging/peace, people they respect believe in god, lots of the people around them believe in god, and they can't imagine a god not existing. Those are the actual reasons they believe, and they don't care if those are terrible reasons to believe such a claim. It is what it is.
@@vanessac0382 it is not an assumption. We have been waiting millennia for a good one. If one existed, we would know it, it’s all you would hear. Most theists don’t realize how poor the evidence and arguments are for god.
@@frankamodeo3640 there is an obvious difference between existing in the imagination and existing in reality. Real things exist in reality and can also exist in imagination as well. Not all imagined things also exist in reality. Yahweh does not exist in reality. Only in imagination. The same as all gods past to present.
@@scooby3133 Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art? For it is his art and his creation.Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter, otherwise the painting would have created itself.However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection.Contingency is the source of imperfections, God is the source of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God.
@@frankamodeo3640 God is the source of perfections? That's make-believe fantasy. The god character of the bible has never been demonstrated to exist in reality. It is literally an imaginary character.
@@scooby3133 Notice how he didn’t answer your earlier comment but went on to explain some other unconvincing thing about his “tooth fairy science.” This is almost a rule of behaviour for most theists. To avoid reality and go on about their fantasy story.
If it exists, prove it. No other question, just prove it, testable evidence, period. No BS, just prove it, and philosophy is not proof, it's not testable, and the bible is not proof, there's no corroboration of the bible. You can't even prove WHICH god is real if there is one.
You are demanding empirical evidence for something that is not empirical. If you're honest, then you would acknowledge that, by your standards, proof is impossible.
@@johnstrong3029 Duh. Yes, there is no proof, thank you for confirming it. Anyone that believes in a deity with no proof of existence is just nuts. There are currently over 2000 different religions, if there was even really a god, which one ???? There isn't one, and if there were, it obviously doesn't give a rats behind about us or he would wipe out this rock and start from scratch, we are pathetic.
God lives at the top of 64th Street in Woodside, Queens, NY. He is usually there at about 5;30PM after he gets off work. He is currently spending 75% of his time eliminating worldwide wokeism.
@MalcolmAmin I agree with you but 99% of the sick (Folie a Deux) woke use the term racist for absolutely everything. If you are talking about Climate Change and do not agree with the woke sheep you will be called a racist. These people that throw about this term are not exactly Gore Vidal clones. The extremely poor education they received along with no concept of critical thinking conjures up that famous picture vision of the simple-minded overweight woman crying in the street sitting on her steatopygic butt yelling at the sky because Queen Hillary was rejected by the American voter. At this very moment the Left is eating its' own and the world is moving to the middle. It's just a matter of time.
Dan is great, and I can relate to him .......Buts far as the afterlife, my own father told me of his near death experience when he almost died of pneumonia in 1929 at the age of 15. He woke up in a hospital looking down upon his body lying in the bed......he said it was real, no dream, no hallucination, and I've never doubted since then that there is an afterlife.
@@HCallahan "What we do know is, that the spirit soul lives on seperate from the body." We know no such thing. Making a knowledge claim without supporting evidence is called lying. After and near are not synonymous.
@@rembrandt972ify He didnt say whether he actually died, he was 15 at the time, but he just knows he was outside his physical body and even went outside the hospital and was unable to get the attention of people he knew though he tried anxiously.
Check out this defense lawyer and this facetious case for a resurrection/gospels: "Call your first witness please" " um eh I don't have one" "What do you have?" "I have a letter here written 40 years after the event" "Written by whom?" "I don't know" "Do you have any witnesses?" "Um no" "You say 500 people saw the zombie" "Oh yes I forgot, we have 500 witnesses for that" "Excellent, what are their names?" "Ah" "One name will do" "Ah" "Not even one name out of 500?" "No" "You're making shit up aren't you" "Well, I have a book coming out..." -Unknown-
There are millions on earth. Today. Who will testify/ wittness that they have personally met the Ressurected savior. These also will willing lay down their life for their wittness. U sir... Choose to go to hell No one can stop u. Have a nice day
@@petepayette6690 This defense lawyer and this facetious case for a resurrection/gospels...is excelllent! This is what I am talking about. Tom anderson 81 did a banger of a job with this. You should read the stuff you comment on.
I find Mr Johnson's arguments pretty weak, perhaps because I've heard them so often. Victims of abuse don't accept it's rightness. Free will is unnecessary to avoid pain and create rules to prevent it. You may do what you like but you can't choose what you like. You can't chose to "want" to eat dirt rather than ice cream. You can choose to eat dirt but only to satisfy some other more compelling want. Nature creates things that may appear designed to us with zero intent. Things that "work" in their environment tend to last and be repeated and things that don't tend to fall apart and not repeat. More interactions and structure provides more opportunity for more interactions and more complex structure. The universe is not fine tuned for us. We are the result of the universe. Douglas Adams gives the example of the puddle that gains conscientiousness and marvels how the pothole was intelligently designed exactly to his shape and size.
"We are the result of the universe." You are the result of being braindead. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Dan is the best... Flat earth creator gods, virgin birth saviors, flying angels, flying demons, flying jinn's, flying genies, flying cherubs with flaming swords, flying fire breathing dragons, flying horse chariots, flying pegasus's, flying horses, flying goats, flying elephants, flying buraq's, talking snakes, talking donkeys, talking ants, sticks that could part seas, giant humans, half men half animals (centaurs), mammals getting out of graves AKA walking dead DO NOT EXIST and never did. The sun and moon are not being pulled around the hindu flat earth by a flying seven horse chariot..SMH All fables, myths and fairy tales from dead middle east men's imaginations 2 thousand to 3 thousand years ago, no different than today's movies. Cheers
Same old you being the doofus you love to be. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Im a little surprised that with the recent intensity of the god existence debates over the last several years that this theist would come with so little ...I expected at least 2x the fallacies he presented. He basically just came to say ...god exists because I believe it to be.
I got the same sense of disappointment too. I thought the theist here, knowing beforehand who their audience was, would have come with way better arguments.
@@trevlac2000 Either that, or he's an honest theist. "Man... fuck it, I don't know why! I just believe it on blind faith!" Honestly, I would feel it refreshing if _one_ of them just owned up to it and blurted it out.
You really don't think much. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@davidjanbaz7728 Oh dear once again a theist who is WRONG My position is no one has EVER shown any reasonable evidence for god Whenever anyone asks for such a reasonable thing all they get is lies tap dancing and avoidance JUST like you did You are unable to give any reasonable evidence so you lie THAT is YOUR problem
Well, in God one believes by faith since scientifically and rationally its existence cannot be verified; in fact, the non-existence of it can be verified.
You sure love being stoo-pid. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
I'm astounded Johnson would still use the arguments he is using against Barker. it's as if he has never once heard any objections to the usual christian arguments ever before.
@casparuskruger4807 That's the thing. None of these Christians actually listens. Because if they did, they would have to change their minds and that's really scary to them. Interesting how Johnson said that rape is objectively immoral, but of course he has no answer to the question "if your god is all knowing and all powerful and all loving, how does he allow any rape to happen?"
Who had a financial crisis? Did someone see justice since too big to fail? Creation of a state means tolerating an amplifier for evil. The state proves wisdom with nuclear mutual assured destruction. The cult authorities have 500 years of documented torture & looting called the inquisitions. Vanity always knows the way. Even more intense than the fact Jesus never existed, Mary is a slur, even her sister is a Mary. This is astounding, as we consider the believers hold this Roman lampooning as dear, sacred text. The antidote to Christianity is literacy & the state has no interest in it. Instead, we have Trump, violently getting a photo of himself holding up a bible in front of a Christian church
@Margie Smith No. Actually you misunderstand. Passion against the 'belief' in God is a totally separate issue. "Atheism" simply means' without gods'. It has nothing to do with the extremely profound intolerance it takes to be against the rest of all Humanity. Billions of people across the Planet Earth, have a belief in God or gods. I hope you find one day just how dangerous Atheism is. An Atheists idiocy is believing that truth can be shown by real evidence. Anyone who studies Epistemology knows just how idiotic that is. He's unhinged and an imbecile. Do you want to know what is really true? Of do you have faith because some books told you without evidence?
There is no debate you are stooo-pid. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
The comment section is full of immature neckbeards that only know how to argue and insult people because they believe in something greater than themselves.
Somehow in your nitwit brain, you think making multiple doofus comments add up to one smart one. Hey dolt, they don't. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
----"The Bible does address the issue of rape. As expected, when the Bible mentions the crime of rape, it is depicted as a gross violation of God’s design for the treatment of the human body (Genesis 34). The Bible condemns rape whenever it is mentioned. For example, there is a particular passage in the laws given to the nation of Israel before entering the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. This passage (Deuteronomy 22:23-29) spoke directly against forcing a woman into a sexual encounter against her will, or what we know today as rape. This command was meant to protect women and to protect the nation of Israel from committing sinful actions."--- It goes even further in addressing it. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@2fast2block interesting, although I’d interpret that story as one of lies murder and theft , it says nothing of the morality of rape , in fact after her victimisation Dinah was to be married to the perpetrator? I’d say numbers 31 comes closest to giving a commandment on rape , and that’s not a commandment against it just who you should do it to ( only virgins)
@@outhousephilosophies3992 then ignore what I gave that shows it is wrong. Ignore what I gave on how the bible starts and you can't get around it. Ignore, ignore, ignore.
@@jameskelly3745 oh, it's you again shown to be wrong so you want to jump all around with other topics you also have no idea what you're talking about. What's next, global warming?
In regards to the goodness of Adam's god, Dan could've asked, "according to what objective moral standard can you say your god is good?" and then present the Bible god as the monster it is. In regards to the arguments Adam presented to "prove" the existence of god, we can ask which god has been proven to exist? Baal? Thor? Shiva?
You can stop pretending you're a thinker, it's not working. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@thegroove2000 Don't forget, somebody created the DEVIL for a purpose. He was given a job to do as part of the overall divine plan. It will all make sense, eventuality.
Once again I come to the conclusion that an education doesn't make you intelligent, you are born intelligent. Or maybe it's just impossible to reason for god without a child-like mentality.
Let's see how you reason. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@dharmadefender3932 , usually when they're crazy. I don't think this guy is crazy. I'm not intelligent and I reasoned myself out of Christianity. Took a while, a lot of thinking and honesty, but I did it myself. If an idiot like me could be 99% certain that there are no gods, then there are no excuses for others. Also, I was born into Christianity and still could find my way out of it.
@@wernercolyn892 lol I tried holding others to the same standard I hold myself to, but I gave up when I realized nobody could meet those standards. Now I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
Yahweh started out life as a Canaanite god with wife children then the Jews left the Canaanites adopted Yahweh dropped the wife and chavs made him more godlike.....took them 400 years to drop the other 3 Canaanite gods though
Being raised in a Christian culture, I also could have invested my faith in the story that my soul would be saved and other souls would go to hell, or some equally horrible place of eternal suffering. I just thought the story was ridiculous. After all, why would a god bother creating souls that he knew ahead of time were going to fail his test and suffer for eternity … unless he was a monster?
@@xXFUEGIxX If you had the power to create souls, would you create ones that you knew ahead of time were going to fail your moral tests? If you did, you would be a monster.
@@xXFUEGIxX And by the way, according to theologians, God kicked Lucifer out of heaven for sinning ... so that means that sin existed before the insane god created Adam and Lilith ... (Jewish version) and that sin first existed in heaven ... not on earth. Silly stories ... fabricated in the minds of men with overactive imaginations. “We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.
@@junevandermark952 Everry soul comes with a free will to choose. When God creates a soul, He already know whether the soul will believe the Gosepl or not. Once a soul is created, it cannot be "erased". For God to only create souls that will believe the gospel is to remove free will or control that soul
@@junevandermark952 He is a fair God. Giving everyone a chance. He simply doesn't create a soul, then "erases the soul because He knows the souls wouldn't believe it.
Does God exist? Probably not. Now I'm an atheist so you might wonder why I say "probably" but the reason is simple in that I think the deist argument that the universe had a creator, without ascribing traits to that creator, is a reasonable position to take. Evidence still needs to be provided of course and as I said, I'm atheist rather than adiest. It's one thing to think the universe had a creator. It's something else entirely to start talking about an all powerful, all knowing god with personality traits. Do I think Yahweh exists? Certainly not. Yahweh's prominence came after the Babylonian Exile (along with a lot of Genesis and Exodus). Before that he was one of many gods in the region of Canaan (it's slightly more complicated than that in terms of the history of Yahweh worship but fundamentally, he's just like every other god). If we limit "God" to being the creator of the universe as we know it then it's absolutely reasonable to theorise the such a being might exist. However that being doesn't need to be all powerful or all knowing, they don't need to have a personal relationship with their creation and they don't need to have sent avatars of themselves to interact with mankind. The simulation hypothesis for example isn't unreasonable given that human beings have created limited simulations in the form of video games, social media etc. In that scenario, if miracles happen they could be cheat codes or someone messing with the programming of the universe. But even if we are a simulation it's far more likely that it's some kid in his bedroom who has been letting his "universe sim" run for a few hours. I think it's unlikely that we're in a simulation but not impossible but any claim requires evidence and if you say that the creator, be they an all powerful eternal being or a kid running "universe simulator 2000" is beyond any evidence then there's no point in having the conversation. The problem I have with debates about the existence of a creator is that they tend to devolve into an argument about a particular version of the creator. For me there's no point in making arguments about Yahweh until you've first established the basic idea that the universe could have been created by someone or something. Invariably, religious apologists in such debates tend to try to argue for their own version of the creator, completely skipping over the fundamental concept of a creator without ascribed traits and that's why a lot fo these debates are meaningless.
@@TheWorldTeacher Oops I meant adeist. Though I am trying to figure out how to never die...it's not going well. But no "probably not" isn't the equivalent of "probably yes." If I jump off a cliff, will I fly? Probably not. But there is a chance, a tiny infinitely small chance that everything we think we know about the laws of physics is wrong and I'll take off like Superman. It's incredibly unlikely and thus the phrase "probably yes" wouldn't apply. It's probable to 99.9999% certainty that God doesn't exist. And anyone who latches on to that 0.0001% is betting on some really long odds.
@@jedsithor: 🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of sounding facetious, any person who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron. Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise He wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept, and therefore, has no influence on the eternal, timeless Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The ONLY omni-property that comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since The Monad knows absolutely everything (i.e. Itself). The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth-hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted, simultaneously, with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I'm sure most everyone would indicate the head, at least in the first instance, agreed? Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God or The Goddess), which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion. Of course, the more intelligent Theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely NOT a person in the etymological sense, and not a person even in the common-usage of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent “entity” as being a person? The mere fact that Theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person require gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague and undefined term. Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal that possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I'm planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals). Those who reject the assertion that animals are persons, would necessarily refuse to accept any intelligent extraterrestrial species as persons. Many otherwise perspicacious Theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a radical Hindu cult, first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s, by a truly delusional retired pharmacist named Mr. Abhay C. De), HONESTLY believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna manages to incorporate relative time into the timeless realm (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades of sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher himself. Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must NECESSARILY transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. Neither Eternal Beingness, Unlimited Consciousness, nor Blissful Quietude (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit) necessitate personality. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from (Absolute) Truth. The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for theists referring to Ultimate Reality as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of MIND (by which they really mean some degree of Universal, Infinite Consciousness). However, it is indeed possible (and in fact, is the case) that the foundation of being is Pure Consciousness Itself. Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa” or “brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristics of Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated awareness, et cetera, and we humans are, quintessentially, of the same Nature. In other words, we are, fundamentally, “God” (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Most arguments for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. As explicated elsewhere, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a reasonable contention, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity, is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness. There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity): 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Also, some theists use teleological arguments, claiming that humans have an INSTINCTIVE disposition towards worshipping God. This may be so, but that is not evidence of Ultimate Reality being personal in nature. Again, that thou art - the worshipper and the worshiped are of the same essence. 2. Because they may have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. The Real Self is synonymous with “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Necessary Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, “The Source of All”, etcetera. Cont...
@@TheWorldTeacher Consciousness is an emergent property of the development of the brain. It grows as we experience the world and then it's shut off when we die. There's nothing mystical about it. Do we fully understand it? No but there's no reason to suggest that it doesn't operate according to the laws of physics, just like everything else. Because of the way we experience the world on a personal level it's very difficult for most people to accept that their own consciousness has a beginning and an end so we latch on to things like an afterlife or some kind of eternal consciousness beyond the limits of our bodies when in reality, you live and you die and that's it.
Do you realize how complex this universe is let alone life, and you're suggesting that the Creator is not necessarily all knowing or all powerful? If The Creator doesn't have these attributes then there will be no laws as standard in which material and immaterial things can be weighed upon. You agreed that a creator is possible for the universe to exist but you also have an idea of your God that is not knowing and not powerful. Your proposed creator and your idea of God are a contradiction of thought and your position. It is possible that we are a simulation but this place was made real for us, so we cannot doubt that it's unreal. Everything is made through numbers, math and codes similar to digital reality. Digital characters are real in the digital environment, but not to the user of the game because the truth is, that the game and characters are just 0,1
@@jamesparson "He could be hiding behind some sofa" You could be hiding from reality. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Always out of context!!! 🤣🤣 the audience even gave a moan on that one. It’s funny how a simple charitable reading of the text that we know is immoral, is always “out of context”.
@@lepidoptera9337 "Solipsism" ----- Are you suggesting your self as the center, origin, or evidence of existence in and of itself? Or are you unfamiliar with the import of that term? Please clarify.
Still convinced that God exists. I have experiential knowledge of Him. And you can too. Please be respectful if you choose to reply to me, and I will respond in kind. Thank you 🙏
It’s a shame, the rebuttals from Adam is extremely weak. He had a huge mountain to climb but only took a little stroll around the valley. His answers wasn’t for everyone, it was just an answer for theist to hold onto their faith in other words Christian apologetic.
Adam is just reading off his script and he's not really "talking" to the audience in a sympathetic way that generates attention to the main question of God's existence.
Not understanding that the multiverse is merely a god of the gaps analogue was kind of hilarious. Like, yes, you can attribute anything and everything to it since it's outside of everything we know and understand. Just as your god claims to be. You missed the point entirely.
Adam Johnson loves the phrase "what is the best explanation" but his definition of explanation is something like "something that makes me shout WOW NOW I GET IT". Explanation means nothing if it makes you feel shivers in your gut, it means something if you can predict new things that eventually happen. Thinking that a god told humanity not to kill might make your gut move, but understanding how evolution favored gregarious species, where not killing the rest of the pack is an advantage for survival, gives you tools to understand human psychology, among others.
"but understanding how evolution favored gregarious species, where not killing the rest of the pack is an advantage for survival, gives you tools to understand human psychology, among others." We still have various animals that do kill for survival. We still can't even get creation and life without God. We still call jokes like you a F00L for good reason. How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life? Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
-Is there a debate about the existence of a specific god or any gods? -Yes. -God(s) does not exist. -There should be *ZERO* debate. Humans don't and won't know everything, We're uncomfortable with that. Therefore an all powerful, all knowing god exists to fill the gaps. Nope, that doesn't follow.
Are you gonna call Leibnitz scared of reality? Do you think he was intellectually dishonest? What about Aristotle, or Plato? It is embarrassing for atheism that pagans as important as Plato and Aristotle have emerged monotheistic at the point of rationalism without even having a religion. None of these men viewed God as ''God of the gaps'', but as the final ''Unmoved mover'' or the ''Uncaused cause'' - they view God as the ultimate foundation of reality which cannot be logically denied - you cannot have ''turtles all the way down''. Most atheists such as yourself, are in reality, trying to convince themselves that God doesn't exists, because they would be responsible for their immoral behavior. And judging by your comment you didnt even watch the video.
"-God(s) does not exist. -There should be ZERO debate." No, you have zero logic. Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God. So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally. Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis. God is the reason for us and all we have. ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html The odds are NOT there. ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will. In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final. A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist. Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. - Dan Barker -
Always the most eloquent , articulate , coherent and intelligent Dan Barker ! Bravo ! Dan most effectively cuts thru all the nonsensical religious apologetic arguments for a belief in God or gods ! He is among the best debaters on this subject which includes Matt Dillahunty , Seth Andrew's, Aron Ra , Sam Harris , Richard Dawkins , Christopher Hitchens and many others who have left their scholarly imprint on this subject !
Dan. 1. What existed before the universe and how was it created? Big bang believers have "faith" in a non-intelligent design. How is believing in intelligent creation / design anything closer to your analogy about elves? 2. Maybe you believe that the universe always existed? This also would take a ton of faith. And why are you ripping on Christianity when the debate is theism? Could it be your childish resentment against the church? If you don't believe in God then be happy in your new life. You don't seem content in the energy you give off. Maybe you are right that there were much more qualified in the audience. It's funny that the Godly man shows courtesy, grace and respect... While on the other hand Dan compares belief in God to elves... Pretty weak. Don't be like Dan.
In order to convince anyone not already predisposed to being convinced, a Christian has to show two things. (1) That God exists, and (2) That God is good. Let's _assume_ (1). Let's *assume* that God exists. That leaves (2). The Christian has to _demonstrate_ that God is good. Not _assume_ that God is good or simply assert that God is good. The Christian has to show some _evidence_ that God is good. And that cannot be done. At least it cannot be done on the Biblical record of God's wanton killing of babies, justification of slavery and genocide, condoning of rape, and barbaric punishments for the slightest breach of arbitrary and nonsensical rules.
Every religion has its own god. They all believe their religion is the one and only. How would a theist explain a child is allways born in the right religion. Religion was created to control society, god was invoked to explain the world they didn’t understand.
It’s quite an unreasonable leap to think any design requires intelligence. If this intelligence is law abiding energy, and we want to call it “god,” then sure “god” exists. But it’s no theistic god that we’re familiar with…
I just got to 12:20 where he says he will argue for theism rather than for the validity of christianity. From his reasonable and friendly introduction, to his non-smobnish manner of speaking, I get the sense that he recognizes the absurdity of the christian position, understands the likelihood and is uncomfortable with coming across as illogical, and that he won't get away with much with Dan and the audience. He doesn't sound combative, and doesn't come across as one to ignore any points made and bury his head in the sand so he can continue to pretend his position wasn't shot down again and again. A safer move on his part.
There is no Space and Time only Spacetime... Luke Barnes talks nonsense...he has no training in Ancient History..Sean Carroll showed his fine tuning claims to be false
Former Christian here. I actually think Johnson did pretty well, especially in regards to immaterial existence. If I was going to argue for the existence of God, I would probably want to use similar arguments.
Adam needs to learn how to better wrap up his points. He simply stops speaking in the midst of a topic. No summation, no “thank you”. Just an abrupt stop. It’s jarring.
Design arg. 1. We've only everseen design come from intelligent mind. 2. The universe has evidence of design. 3. Therefore the universe was designed by an intelligent mind. (Even Hitchens thought this fine-tuning argunent was the strongest for God's existence.) "We've never seen design come from any source but an intelligent mind." S.A.: "What about rock crystals?" ---------- 1. Whatever has a beginning must have a cause 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. "Since it 'is,' space time matter therefore the cause is spaceless, timeless and immaterial." S.A. "But isn't it true that for anything to exist it must occupy space?" ----------- Objective truth: morality. "Is it morally ok to abuse women?" If yes, isn't that akin to 2+2=5, which is untrue in all possible worlds?
@@anthonymorris5084 . I know. But it's an odd argument in any case. Even quartz crystals evince evidence of appearance of 'design' but no one would suggest they have that quality due to an organizing 'intelligence', eh?
@@jamesbarlow6423 First you have to accept your characterization that "quartz crystals evince evidence of appearance of design." There are an awful lot of weird things about, that don't represent evidence of intelligent design. People like to find and see things that help underscore their beliefs. An objective examination just finds a weird "thing". Your example of the universe is commonly advanced as intelligently designed simply because planets are balls and magically circle other balls. It's actually nothing but violent chaos. Why would this even be created or exist? Why would a creator make the Earth, and then make an infinite amount of uninhabitable poisonous space and chaos? Cheers.
@@anthonymorris5084 . I am agreeing with you Morris, from a different angle. Read again. To sum up from my perspective: what appears the result of intelligent design to us is as you say the result of the way we think---a necessary subjectivism involving the inherent weakness of our logic. (Just because polar bears, e.g., are white it doesn't follow the reason why this is so must be "to camouflage", etc.)
Its more like 2 people waking up and one saying OUR favourite coulour is blue now but the other person is saying no its still green, and please dont abuse me its not moral from my point of view
Yet another person confusing the words CONCLUDE and ASSUME.
The theist in this debate continually says, "it's reasonable to CONCLUDE...." when he's really saying, "it's reasonable to ASSUME...."
Assumptions are not evidence.
hehe ...so right 👍🏽
it is reasonable to conclude
@@frankcostello2973 When one's argument in a debate is fairly terrible, yes, it is indeed reasonable to conclude. One would be doing a great disservice to not conclude, in fact.
certainly that is subjective and depends on our bias
if you conclude something it is also an assumption
It's quite simple: God was created by mankind,not the other way around
Agree but you comment makes me wonder why our( humans ) inherent need to continually create them , every culture has a supernatural
@@outhousephilosophies3992
Humans have a strong instinctive drive for storytelling. (There are good evolutionary reasons for this. It may be that storytelling predates language.)
Having this drive, and whenever facing a mystery of some kind, we're inclined to speculate: in other words, to make up a story. It takes a certain additional discipline, plus some capacity for Introspection, to say "I don't know."
It's still not common practice. When faced with something profoundly unknown or mysterious, for which there is no reasonable story, many people will call it "supernatural" rather than just honestly saying "I don't know."
It's as if they're constructing a syllogism that goes "I don't know, therefore I do know."
God was created by mankind? I agree, like atheist who make themselves as god or material/nature as god. But the true God is different from the created god.
@@borneandayak6725 so which god do you consider the real god? I'm sure you know there is quite a few gods that has being proclaimed throughout the ages.
@@borneandayak6725 If you are talking about the God of the Bible, I want nothing to do with Him.The God of the Old Testament committed genocide against the Canninites !!!
It's hard to comprehend that this is still a debatable issue in 2022.
Why not. Half the world is believing in one thing or the other. Others are opposed both dogmatic.
agree with pat..silly subject...the fact so many believe just proves how the brain doesn't always work
@@paulrichards6894 Your brain is the one not working.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
not only is it still debated the theists are turning up the intensity because the religious decline (at least in the US) all be it slow is consistent and the new generations are less and less religious. the writing is on the wall and they see it and in keeping with that human quality of stubbornness are resisting as much as they can.
@@redpillpusher I showed evidence that it's your side is the absurd one. You're more than welcome to prove me wrong.
Kind of funny this (Christian) God-existing thing. Thousands of years have gone by and the question is still there. That in itself might be the best answer if it is needed at all.
See Deuteronomy 32 where "God" identifies himself as the Phallus (rock that begat thee). He hogs all credits to himself and ignores his wife the Vagina.
@Mark Johnston I have read his stuff the god delusion was given me by a customer say to me Ashy I cannot under stand this book you have it you a potty pagan > have you looked at Richard Dawkins answers his EMAILS on RUclips hilarious
If so then maybe the fact we have been growing wisdom teeth for far longer might mean you shouldn’t just remove them. Interesting how both the god thing and wisdom teeth have been replaced by a scientific understanding back by evidence.
Go to hell along with them
@@ashwayn
Ancient Historians would destroy you and this self deluded Charleton pretending to know something unknowable!
What is more potty than believing in Fairy stories written by Ancient people who knew nothing of reality!
Why won’t theist ever defend the god that they really believe in? Christian arguments for god never seem to be about the Christian god
Because the Trinty and Incarnation are illogical
The Trinity is a contradiction
It is basically tritheism disguised as monotheism using philosophy and rhetoric
The debate is about God in general sense, not specefic one like Christian's God or Muslim's God.
@@borneandayak6725 how many “gods” do you believe in? I’m fairly certain that when you talk to a congregation about a god, you’re referring to the Christian version. When Dan brought up the rape allegations against Yahweh, I would have thought you’d be all over that. Instead you punted.
But no worries, I wouldn’t want to have to defend that monster either. I watched a debate with Matt Dillahunty against a Muslim apologist and he wouldn’t defend his version of god either.
S, why are you so concerned about which god when you are too stoo-pid to believe there had to be a god?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
The Biblical representation of God is undefendable. It's silly and cruel with mundane human emotions. Science has pushed the god-of-the gaps all the way back to two remaining arguments. The origin of the known universe and the origin of life and we are learning more about them every day. Every time religion has challenged science it's lost and I expect the trend to continue.
Man created God in his own image.
God definitely lives, in the imagination of the believers.
@@lepidoptera9337 That's where a lot of churches come in to play.
It's funny how you imagine you're smart when you are only a dolt.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
John 3:16
King James Version
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
BORING!!!!!!
@@vecumex9466 It’s true God loves you and he sent Jesus and if you call on Jesus and ask him to save you then He sure will!! God Bless You. Please don’t say Boring: Trust me there is nothing Nothing Boring about Jesus!!
"atheistic theory"? How can not needing or believing someone else's hypothesis become the theory of the listener?
Yes, how can a debater say such a fundamentally stupid thing?
When one considers how atheistic beliefs can be understood within the broader context of thinking and living, then theories pertaining to atheism naturally arise.
@@johnstrong3029 Or, to rephrase your nonsense: "When one considers a strawman version of someone they can also pretend such a person can believe and think anything you pretend they can".
Many thanks to everyone for this interesting and respectful conversation.
However, as Dan mentioned [paraphrasing], there's something inherently, pathetically *wrong* with a supposed "god" that must constantly be debated, defended, excused, explained and endlessly fought over.
If an "all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, everywhere present" god were actually real, then "it" should be easily knowable to all people everywhere, and these debates would be completely irrelevant and unnecessary. And the entire futile "thing" of "theology" wouldn't even exist.
If a God possessed all the omni-qualities theists attribute to it there would be no doubt about its existence.
@@lamalama9717 You're exactly right.
@@lamalama9717 Is there really, can there really be doubt in His existence?
I think these debates serve the purpose of keeping the broader society civil, ie maintaining the oasis shared by both the atheists and the faithful.
@@lamalama9717 doubt makes God exist. You cannot doubt something if there is nothing
Basic Knowledge about God is easy but men want to complicate their lives so...🤔
While I respect _some_ of the Adam Lloyd Johnson's arguments, I totally lose it when theists such as him state that one needs religion for "moral truth".
Mary Tudor (Queen of England during the 1500s) was driven by her strong adherence to Catholicism to burn non-Catholics alive as heretics. She is only one of countless examples in history where religious fanaticism has directly lead to *horrible deeds* to further what what they firmly believed was "God's will."
And? So many atheists have done bad things too. Do I blame all atheists for that? Was God truly behind what the queen did? Even so-called believers that do bad things, is that all on God? Does God control people like they are His robots?
Wake up and stop pretending you know so much about God that sure looks like you don't believe in anyway.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Who decides what is right and what is wrong
@@mrshankerbillletmein491
Did you bother to READ and COMPREHEND my post?
The last people who should be consulted on matters of "right and wrong" should be Christians!
How about figuring out what is best for both individuals and society as a whole? If there were no laws against assault, murder, or theft, _all of us would be unsafe._
@@valerielhw People change laws all the time according to the latest fashionable opinion lawlessnes is increasing with peopledeciding for themselves right and wrong
@@mrshankerbillletmein491
Secular based laws are much better policy than religious extremists making _theological_ laws based on "their" personal interpretations of some holy book. Our forefathers knew this, and that's why they went to great lengths to separate church and state.
If salvation is important to god, he has the moral obligation to show up.
👌🏻👌🏻👌🏻
he did
@@ceceroxy2227 prove it.
@@ceceroxy2227
Yeah, that's what Christians want the other 75 % of the Earth's inhabitants to believe - without succeeding.
@@johngaunt2806 What do you mean prove, I cant prove Ghengis khan existed, or George Washington, there is evidence Jesus existed and who he claimed to be, if the resurrection is true, you are entitled to dismiss if it you want. thats on you
Good debate and love Dan but I wish all debates had an open discussion period or at least a cross examination. It really helps to zone in on each other's logic and faults in their position.
My favorite Dan Barker debate is just that. It's with Jason gastrich and I uploaded the video
I thought these were supposed to be the good arguments for theism. Sorry, these are just all really bad arguments for theism that have been around for a long time and defeated over and over again.
I would say the same thing for atheism, I think all the arguments for theism are really good, and arguments for atheism are terrible, I have never seen a good atheist argument in any of these debates. I guess we just have different beliefs about what is a good argument.
So far atheism only explains what is and question begging arguments while theistic arguments are sound because you can arrive at a conclusion and the evidence can be seen through history and archaeology. If different philosophers can arrive at the same arguments and conclusions then these arguments are meant to be a common knowledge for mankind
@@ceceroxy2227 Very often theists have no idea what an argument is, much less a good one. See Vanessa below. She doesn't know what "question begging" means, nor what "sound" means in an argument, nor soundness of an argument's conclusion, nor what history and archaeology have to say about (or COULD have to say about) the god question. Here's a hint: if you could take the very same logical form of your argument and apply it to something else that you don't accept, or something else that is mutually exclusive of your preferred conclusions...you are being completely irrational and using very bad arguments. (Just because we have solid historical evidence that Gilgamesh existed AND have the original texts in cuneiform does NOT mean he fought the bull of heaven nor the giant Humbaba. For Jesus we have no extra biblical evidence that he existed at all, and none of the biblical texts are originals. Moreover, archeology has concluded that Moses is entirely legendary. There is no evidence of the Jewish exodus at all--and, even worse, archeologists KNOW where the Jews were at that time. Do religious folks know any of this? Of course not. They just think "argument" means saying something that sounds true to them, and "sound" means that it makes sense to them and seems true. If you asked them to explain what makes and argument valid, and what else makes an argument sound, they have no idea because they don't know what those words mean in logic, or WHY they mean those things in logic.)
@@greyeyed123 Well tell the guy in the debate he doesnt understand arguments and he has a PHD in philosophy, go teach him and William Lane Craig and John Lennox they dont understand arguments, only the brilliant atheists like yourself understand the arguments and how to make them. My guess is you probably dont really understand what logic means and what it is, I generally find most atheists suffer from Dunning Kruger, thinking they are so smart, when most atheists really know nothing about the subject. Probably hear something Dillahunty says and will repeat it, and Matt knows nothing about philosophy. atheists always make me laugh, I was shocked there was a group of people like this, who said these things and acted so smart, when they knew very little.
@@ceceroxy2227 Do you notice how you didn't remotely demonstrate your own understanding of how arguments work? You just appealed to authorities you like...and that was all. Then you accused me of doing what you are doing...because you don't understand how arguments work. Aren't you a little bit curious to find out...rather than simply trusting people you want to believe? You can actually go and verify what people say to see if there is any falsifiable, reproducible, verifiable, and predictive evidence for their claims. You can even look up those words to find out what they mean, and why evidence that conforms to them is useful and dependable. I find many believers consciously STOPPED trying to learn certain things that threaten their belief systems. They don't want to know. So even in their rebuttals, they hide behind authority figures and suggest someone, somewhere must have a good argument for their beliefs, otherwise...why would anyone believe them? (Hint hint: it's because they want to believe them and never bothered to check if any of it was true or not.) AND...you deleted your reply and ran away before I finished this post. Typical.
BRILLIANT!!! "What happens to my digestion when the stomach dies!!"
What a perfect way to reveal the nonsense behind the distinction between the brain and consciousness.
Food stops moving and you would need surgery. How is that relevant to consciousness?
@@jameskelly3745 Geez, it rather obvious. The brain, which gives it’s owner the brain function of consciousness, is an organ. The stomach is also an organ, but it helps carry out digestion of food that has been eaten. Digestion does not occur when the animal’s stomach organ dies, exactly the same as consciousness from a brain stops when the animal dies.
@@paddlefar9175 no shit. Did I say anything wrong? If so what?
@@jameskelly3745 Yes you did. It is very relevant especially when a theist asks how we can account for consciousness or where does consciousness come from or what happens to consciousness when a person dies. The answers are exactly the same when you replace consciousness with digestion and replace brain with stomach.
@@bagwadias you are wrong I am right. The stomach can stop working and you can still be alive. You can live without a stomach so therefore there's nothing I said that was wrong. You need to learn how to read.
I was 5 years old when I told my Roman Catholic family that I didn’t believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny and…God. I caught my mother wrapping my Christmas gift from Santa, after that, I was sure that none of these characters were real. I actually thought my parents were trying to play a trick on me or some. Then I realized that they believed in God…a lot. They tried everything they could for years to brainwash me…. and Catholics are not nice when you mock their religion. Tough childhood.
That was 50 years ago… they lost. They’re lost to indoctrination, crazy Bible thumpers… family occasions are always interesting. I tell them how crazy they are, and they call me a sinner who will go to hell….good times.
I say God lives in the imagination of believers.
5 y.o.
Great.
But its ok to believe in fun characters at that age.
12
15
Maybe not.
So you believe in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything that's called nonsense
@@StevenLemken-it9vu Wait a minute, is this coming from someone that literally has nothing other than faith to support his beliefs, and someone who depends on he said this, and he said that in order to believe in the impossibility of God? Am I getting a lesson in nonsense from someone who has no evidence to verify and confirm the existence of God? Faith in your belief is evidence of nothing.
You do realize that your claim would be thrown out of court as hearsay don’t you?
God is the scientific impossibility my friend, you’re the one giving and impossible God the credit for creating everything with zero evidence to support your claim.
Believing in something doesn’t make it true, especially without verifiable evidence to prove the claims within your beliefs, in which, you have none. That my friend is the definition of nonsense: “spoken or written words that have no meaning or make no sense; foolish or unacceptable behaviour; In the philosophy of language and philosophy of science, nonsense refers to a lack of sense or meaning, claims without evidence. Hearsay: means any information that has been heard from hear and there that can not be verified, such information can not be believed because the source can not be authenticated.
I could go on and on….you’re the one who believes in nonesense, not me, I simply don’t believe in the unverifiable nonsense that you do.
Be well.
@@StevenLemken-it9vu science..
@marksandsmith6778 no my friend science tells us how things work philosophy leads us to how it came about that's where God comes in if you heard of james tour he is a physics scientist and christain or John Lennox professor of mathematics from Oxford University he has even debated richard Dawkins an atheist and my list can go on and on this even anthony flew has come around to at least a creator even though not the christain God a painting requires a painter a building a builder and so on dr william lane Craig has debated many atheist as well as to philosophy and science privilege planet goes in to the fine tuning of our planet how there are too many things in place that if one thing was off we would not exist earth's distance from the sun our atmosphere when it comes to oxygen and so on even DNA which is the building blocks of humans animals insects and so on my friend as far as being a christain there is no debate that Jesus existed scholars even atheist acknowledge this I sent have enough faith ti be an atheist be well my friend I would suggest listening to debates between professor john lennox and Dr richard Dawkins be well my friend
Dan Barker is good. Very, very good at presenting his argument. I think his years as a preacher paid off handsomely. Now of course he has supercharged his powers of persuasion with solid reasoning. Thanks, Mr Barker.
Yes I agree. I'm all about Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, but there's something about the way D. Barker lays out his arguments in such an extremely straightforward way while simultaneously taking shots at religion. It's fucking beautiful and I can't get enough.
There is no evidence for God, nor has there ever been. There are only "arguements" for God. To quote the Hulk - such a puny god
I like how in Thor: Ragnarok Loki blurts out, "See it hurts"
@@jamesparson Atheist Capeshit fan - like poetry.
I bet you buy toys too.
@@floydthomas4195 Bless your heart
"There is no evidence for God, nor has there ever been."
You're really some joke. Wow.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Daniel Snyder you are 100% incorrect,modern has proven scientifically the existence of a higher intelligence which is God, do the research instead of taking the lazy way out like every other atheist.
''Describing it as a spaceless, timeless,,,, space time thing'' Ha ha that was brilliant !
Hates material possesions, also, build me a new cathedral.
Believers tend to speak of such things as eternity, timeless spaceless omnipresent omnipotent as if these things are crystal clear to them .::::….
God is good is a circular fallacy...we have no real evidence for the 1000s of Gods we have created!
If your statement was an actual argument, then you would be committing the fallacy of begging the question.
thank father Jove that Dan is back.. I missed him
Where was he?
He didn’t give evidence for god, he just said god was the best explanation without giving any evidence at all that such a being is even possible. If it’s timeless, immaterial and space less then his first 3 attributes are indistinguishable from things that don’t exist
"Anything that exists must occupy space in some sense." True?
@@jamesbarlow6423
It seems to be true for everything that can be demonstrated to exist.
@@ramigilneas9274 . It isn't necessary "to give evidence that the existence of x is possible" as a necessary premise toward demonstrating the existence of x. Just as it isn't possible to find evidence purporting to show conclusively the existence of God is impossible. Of course it is.
@@jamesbarlow6423
Usually we don’t need outlandish philosophical arguments to demonstrate that something exists… we only seem to need such arguments for things that can not be demonstrated to exist with actual verifiable evidence.
Those arguments for God sound more like the college boy who invents excuses for why none of his friends have ever seen his girlfriend that goes to a different school and is totally not made up at all.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 An 'outlandishly' bad analogy😄. But if there is a God existing aside from the realm consisting of all that is epistemically knowable by us, (e.g. 'dark matter' etc., or multiple universes) it wouldn't be surprising such a Being would exist quite aside from our very limited sensory apparatus, cognitive apprehension, "logic" etc. Indeed, such a Being might find in suppositional oddities e.g. "A=A" an understandably childish version of 'truth' made inevitable by means of a necessary reductionism. "Truth," said Nietzsche, "is a kind of lie without which a certain species could not endure life."
“Does god exist?” …..No, debate finished
Oh really?
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Why doesn't God exist
@@joeukonga3793 This question mostly comes down to the missing evidence for god and the fact that humans invented religion because of wishful thinking, as an early attempt to establish a society in which we can flourish and to explain the world around us.
@@lazylenni1017 "This question mostly comes down to the missing evidence for god..."
Says the dolt that clearly ignored the evidence I gave.
@@lazylenni1017 I've been in these debates a long time, so let me just point out that this doesn't really work in terms of answering joe ukonga's question. The fact that there is a lack of scientific evidence for god, is not evidence that God does not exist. In the same way that, a lack of evidence for the existence of parallel universes, is not a reason to think that parallel universes don't exist.
For all we know, we can't measure the existence of parallel universes, or our techniques may not be sophisticated enough to detect them. Unless you are specifically talking about a situation where you know all the variables, such as a cardboard box, and you are asking whether or not a basketball is sitting in it, then yes - a lack of evidence can be used as evidence of absence.
But with respect to God, it is not. We can not claim if it exists one way or the other. When someone conclusively claims that God does not exist, the only way they can do so, is by attempting to demonstrate that it is logically impossible, which is a very high bar to reach considering God is in general, poorly defined to begin with.
The rest of your practical interpretations of why God was created, is not necessarily germane to the discussion - it could be that people invented the idea of God as an aid in other ways, but that God exists in spite of that.
Every single person and argument they use, can be summed up by this, either they are claiming ignorance, therefore god, or they are lying.
"claiming ignorance, therefore no god, or they are lying" ---
Are you looking for an answer, or just entertaining yourself with others' inability to articulate truth?
Peace be with you.
@@andrewferg8737 I'm saying you, and those like you, cannot accept the truth
Their is NO god. Humans make up gods because they are scared and ignorant, just like you.
Every single person who thinks like you is a dolt.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Gotta admit, as soon as the god-guy started testifying about his journey I stopped watching. He will go on to use that experience, I’m sure, as “proof” of a deity. Now, should I watch further…?
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
I thought Christopher Hitchens settled this argument 11 years ago.
Religious apologists lost the argument years ago, they're just recycling the same old arguments, but it doesn't matter anymore anyway.
Religion is dying in the United States.
29% of the population are Atheists/Nones (especially among the younger demographic) and continues to grow rapidly which has surpassed the two biggest AND ageing Religious demographics - Evangelicals and Catholics.
I was raised Catholic, went to Catholic and Christians schools, had many friends of different Christian denomination and non-Christian ones...I still ended up Atheist.
So my inevitable becoming Atheist didn't help Religion, what chance do Christians apologists have?
No. Hitchens never won a single debate he was ever in. The fact is' God Exists and atheists are ignorant af.
I don't think Christopher Hitchens ever settled any argument but he does have a good speaking voice.
@@tommy32408 He never once won a single debate. He did, however, excel in mocking and insulting something that doesn't exist according to him. For something that doesn't exist, God sure had his undivided attention.
@@robinrobyn1714 It seems to me that he just didn't want God to exist even though he might have believed. Sometimes entertaining.
The less people rely on falsifiable evidence to inform their perspective, the more out of touch with reality they'll be. The tacit acceptance and even endorsement of faith by society is what leads to the normalization of q-anoners and flat-earthers.
QAnon was a troll post that got out of hand. I say let’s keep the flat earthers though, kind of weeds them out and makes them easier to identify.
The moral argument is one of the weakest arguments for god, which I have ever heard.
The origin of moral values can easily be explained through our biological evolution as a social species.
I don't understand why this is still such a big talking point for theists.
@@lepidoptera9337 Exactly 💯, Nothing
I hope that our disagreement doesn’t end in disrespect. I want to view things the way you see it but help me understand what you mean. Biological evolution has to come into existence before it can perpetuate, so how did you gather that much faith that a simple dust, which is non-living, can evolve into such a sophisticated creature like humans?
I agree. Usually all the "not moral" things that christians mention, are things that the God of the Bible does himself or tells people to do. Like "abuse women". In debates only one that is not in the Bible is usually "torture babies for fun". Only that? For once, I would like to really hear exactly what are those moral rules that christians claim to get from their God.
Objective morals come from God.
Abusing women is objectively wrong.
Also God: victims of rape must marry their rapists.
God commanded through Moses to keep virgins as spoils of war, but to kill women who had ever had sex.
Might want to try a different example next time.
Flat earth creator gods, virgin birth saviors, flying angels, flying demons, flying jinn's, flying genies, flying cherubs with flaming swords, flying fire breathing dragons, flying horse chariots, flying pegasus's, flying horses, flying goats, flying elephants, flying buraq's, talking snakes, talking donkeys, talking ants, sticks that could part seas, giant humans, half men, half animals (centaurs), mammals getting out of graves AKA walking dead DO NOT EXIST and never did. The sun and moon are not being pulled around the hindu flat earth by a flying seven horse chariot..SMH All fables, myths and fairy tales from dead middle east men's imaginations 2 thousand to 3 thousand years ago, no different than today's movies. Cheers
It says to kill (stone to death) a non-virgin in her fathers front yard also if her rapist can prove she is not a virgin. Disgusting middle east book. Cheers
Exactly.
*This website is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.* I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along.
*It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said Thou shall not kill.* For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21).
God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6). In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!
*Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody!* In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered
The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). ***This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.***
***Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK.*** If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself. *Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven:* For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12). *I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.*
The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice and animal sacrifice.
*And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear:* It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid (Luke 16:17). There are many more quotes on this topic at my Do Not Ignore the Old Testament web page.
*If you follow the links on this site you will learn about all the nasty things in the Bible that are usually not talked about by priests and preachers.*
www.evilbible.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------
Google *"10 Biblical Atrocities That Go Overlooked (Part 1) - Real Bible Stories"*
(Written by a former minister)
Google *"10 Biblical Atrocities That Go Overlooked (Part Two) - Real Bible Stories"*
(Written by a former minister)
Google *"God's 12 Biggest Dick Moves In The Old Testament - Gizmodo Australia"*
Google *"The Will of God - The Christian Delusion"*
Google *"The 10 Worst Old Testament Verses by Dan Barker - Freedom From Religion Foundation"*
(Written by a former preacher)
Google *"Top 20 Evil Bible Stories - Religion - Nigeria"*
Google *"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"*
Google *"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"*
Google *"What Would Jesus Do? - Evil Bible .com"*
Google *"Why Jesus? Nontract (August 1999) - Freedom From Religion Foundation"*
Right? That was a crazy argument to use. Just clueless...
From wisdom to despair. This is why pastors should study a bit of philosophy and apologetics. So many bad arguments 😔. It's sad
I think this is his first debate, I would say he did his best. Also the format sucks, they didn't get to a second rebuttal. At least he didn't try some lame cosmology like Craig.
There are no good arguments. Theists should just say that they believe in a god because they were raised to believe in a god, it feels good to them, they associate the belief with profound feelings of family/belonging/peace, people they respect believe in god, lots of the people around them believe in god, and they can't imagine a god not existing. Those are the actual reasons they believe, and they don't care if those are terrible reasons to believe such a claim. It is what it is.
@@greyeyed123 well, that's an assumption
@@vanessac0382 It's not an assumption. If it were, you would have offered a good argument.
@@vanessac0382 it is not an assumption. We have been waiting millennia for a good one. If one existed, we would know it, it’s all you would hear. Most theists don’t realize how poor the evidence and arguments are for god.
Gods do exist, all of them........as imaginary characters.
A typical lazy atheistic response concerning The God Question,The Imaginary Friend,The atheist is a strange breed.
@@frankamodeo3640 there is an obvious difference between existing in the imagination and existing in reality. Real things exist in reality and can also exist in imagination as well. Not all imagined things also exist in reality.
Yahweh does not exist in reality. Only in imagination. The same as all gods past to present.
@@scooby3133 Can a picture be a masterpiece and the painter imperfect in his art? For it is his art and his creation.Moreover, the picture cannot be like the painter, otherwise the painting would have created itself.However perfect the picture may be, in comparison with the painter it is in the utmost degree of imperfection.Contingency is the source of imperfections, God is the source of perfections. The imperfections of the contingent world are in themselves a proof of the perfections of God.
@@frankamodeo3640 God is the source of perfections? That's make-believe fantasy.
The god character of the bible has never been demonstrated to exist in reality. It is literally an imaginary character.
@@scooby3133 Notice how he didn’t answer your earlier comment but went on to explain some other unconvincing thing about his “tooth fairy science.” This is almost a rule of behaviour for most theists. To avoid reality and go on about their fantasy story.
If it exists, prove it. No other question, just prove it, testable evidence, period. No BS, just prove it, and philosophy is not proof, it's not testable, and the bible is not proof, there's no corroboration of the bible. You can't even prove WHICH god is real if there is one.
You are demanding empirical evidence for something that is not empirical. If you're honest, then you would acknowledge that, by your standards, proof is impossible.
@@johnstrong3029 if your honest then you'd admit you don't have any admissible, verifiable evidence that any supernatural beings exist
@@johnstrong3029 Duh. Yes, there is no proof, thank you for confirming it. Anyone that believes in a deity with no proof of existence is just nuts. There are currently over 2000 different religions, if there was even really a god, which one ???? There isn't one, and if there were, it obviously doesn't give a rats behind about us or he would wipe out this rock and start from scratch, we are pathetic.
@@johnstrong3029 I think it’s best not to argue with atheists keyboard warriors🤦♂️.
God lives at the top of 64th Street in Woodside, Queens, NY. He is usually there at about 5;30PM after he gets off work. He is currently spending 75% of his time eliminating worldwide wokeism.
Some of us should probably not try to be comedic. Comedy is best left to comedians,Hoophartid!!! Excellent try though.😏
@MalcolmAmin It is the religious belief of the sick left. Medically it is called "Folie a Deux".
@@gregoryholden3255 I'm just a boy with a dream!
@MalcolmAmin Words evolve. Take the word racist. Today it means "You don't agree with me. You are a racist"
@MalcolmAmin I agree with you but 99% of the sick (Folie a Deux) woke use the term racist for absolutely everything. If you are talking about Climate Change and do not agree with the woke sheep you will be called a racist. These people that throw about this term are not exactly Gore Vidal clones. The extremely poor education they received along with no concept of critical thinking conjures up that famous picture vision of the simple-minded overweight woman crying in the street sitting on her steatopygic butt yelling at the sky because Queen Hillary was rejected by the American voter. At this very moment the Left is eating its' own and the world is moving to the middle. It's just a matter of time.
Dan is great, and I can relate to him .......Buts far as the afterlife, my own father told me of his near death experience when he almost died of pneumonia in 1929 at the age of 15.
He woke up in a hospital looking down upon his body lying in the bed......he said it was real, no dream, no hallucination, and I've never doubted since then that there is an afterlife.
Near death experiences are not after death experiences.
@@rembrandt972ify Maybe, you know that for a fact? What we do know is, that the spirit soul lives on seperate from the body.
@@HCallahan "What we do know is, that the spirit soul lives on seperate from the body."
We know no such thing. Making a knowledge claim without supporting evidence is called lying.
After and near are not synonymous.
@@HCallahan You said your father almost died. You didn't say he died and came back from the dead.
@@rembrandt972ify He didnt say whether he actually died, he was 15 at the time, but he just knows he was outside his physical body and even went outside the hospital and was unable to get the attention of people he knew though he tried anxiously.
Check out this defense lawyer and this facetious case for a resurrection/gospels:
"Call your first witness please"
" um eh I don't have one"
"What do you have?"
"I have a letter here written 40 years after the event"
"Written by whom?"
"I don't know"
"Do you have any witnesses?"
"Um no"
"You say 500 people saw the zombie"
"Oh yes I forgot, we have 500 witnesses for that"
"Excellent, what are their names?"
"Ah"
"One name will do"
"Ah"
"Not even one name out of 500?"
"No"
"You're making shit up aren't you"
"Well, I have a book coming out..."
-Unknown-
There are millions on earth. Today. Who will testify/ wittness that they have personally met the
Ressurected savior.
These also will willing lay down their life for their wittness.
U sir... Choose to go to hell
No one can stop u.
Have a nice day
Excellent. Hope you don't mind if I use that.
@@derhafi ecellent what. What are you talking about ?
@@petepayette6690 This defense lawyer and this facetious case for a resurrection/gospels...is excelllent! This is what I am talking about.
Tom anderson 81 did a banger of a job with this.
You should read the stuff you comment on.
@@derhafi you are lost.
I find Mr Johnson's arguments pretty weak, perhaps because I've heard them so often. Victims of abuse don't accept it's rightness. Free will is unnecessary to avoid pain and create rules to prevent it.
You may do what you like but you can't choose what you like. You can't chose to "want" to eat dirt rather than ice cream. You can choose to eat dirt but only to satisfy some other more compelling want. Nature creates things that may appear designed to us with zero intent. Things that "work" in their environment tend to last and be repeated and things that don't tend to fall apart and not repeat. More interactions and structure provides more opportunity for more interactions and more complex structure.
The universe is not fine tuned for us. We are the result of the universe. Douglas Adams gives the example of the puddle that gains conscientiousness and marvels how the pothole was intelligently designed exactly to his shape and size.
"We are the result of the universe."
You are the result of being braindead.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Oh boy, that Adam Lloyd Johnson FAILED big time in everything he said, it was child's play for Dan Barker :)
which part
Dan is the best... Flat earth creator gods, virgin birth saviors, flying angels, flying demons, flying jinn's, flying genies, flying cherubs with flaming swords, flying fire breathing dragons, flying horse chariots, flying pegasus's, flying horses, flying goats, flying elephants, flying buraq's, talking snakes, talking donkeys, talking ants, sticks that could part seas, giant humans, half men half animals (centaurs), mammals getting out of graves AKA walking dead DO NOT EXIST and never did. The sun and moon are not being pulled around the hindu flat earth by a flying seven horse chariot..SMH All fables, myths and fairy tales from dead middle east men's imaginations 2 thousand to 3 thousand years ago, no different than today's movies. Cheers
Same old you being the doofus you love to be.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Arrogant... Blasphemer
Sinner/ crimnal awiting to
Be brought to judgement.
It is appointed for U
To die once then the judgement
@@petepayette6690 yeah...how DARE you not believe in talking donkeys! Thou art guilty!
@@maddyboombaddybaddy6532 what do you have against
Talking donkeys?
@@maddyboombaddybaddy6532
If you have ever sinned. You need the savior
Im a little surprised that with the recent intensity of the god existence debates over the last several years that this theist would come with so little ...I expected at least 2x the fallacies he presented. He basically just came to say ...god exists because I believe it to be.
I got the same sense of disappointment too. I thought the theist here, knowing beforehand who their audience was, would have come with way better arguments.
Curiously Thomas Aquinas presented all the arguments for God in the 1500s? Don't think that there has been any new ones since then
He’s an atheist waiting to happen
@@trevlac2000 Either that, or he's an honest theist. "Man... fuck it, I don't know why! I just believe it on blind faith!" Honestly, I would feel it refreshing if _one_ of them just owned up to it and blurted it out.
@@historicalbiblicalresearch8440 whether old from thousands of years ago or newly reformulated all "arguments for a god or gods" are ludicrous.
IF ? you state god exists PROVE IT !
You really don't think much.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Atheists like to state God doesn't: Ditto!
@@davidjanbaz7728 Oh dear once again a theist who is WRONG
My position is no one has EVER shown any reasonable evidence for god
Whenever anyone asks for such a reasonable thing all they get is lies tap dancing and avoidance JUST like you did
You are unable to give any reasonable evidence so you lie THAT is YOUR problem
@@davidjanbaz7728 atheists say that Superman never existed.
Well, in God one believes by faith since scientifically and rationally its existence cannot be verified; in fact, the non-existence of it can be verified.
You sure love being stoo-pid.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
DO it then : Ricky!
I'm astounded Johnson would still use the arguments he is using against Barker. it's as if he has never once heard any objections to the usual christian arguments ever before.
@casparuskruger4807 That's the thing. None of these Christians actually listens. Because if they did, they would have to change their minds and that's really scary to them. Interesting how Johnson said that rape is objectively immoral, but of course he has no answer to the question "if your god is all knowing and all powerful and all loving, how does he allow any rape to happen?"
Dan Barker rocks!
Dan is a great debator, one of the best there is.
Who had a financial crisis?
Did someone see justice since too big to fail?
Creation of a state means tolerating an amplifier for evil.
The state proves wisdom with nuclear mutual assured destruction.
The cult authorities have 500 years of documented torture & looting called the inquisitions.
Vanity always knows the way.
Even more intense than the fact Jesus never existed, Mary is a slur, even her sister is a Mary.
This is astounding, as we consider the believers hold this Roman lampooning as dear, sacred text.
The antidote to Christianity is literacy & the state has no interest in it.
Instead, we have Trump, violently getting a photo of himself holding up a bible in front of a Christian church
I never regret watching a debate with Dan.
No these are light weight debaters, not very good at all either one of them.
YES A GREAT MASS DEBATER FOR SURE
@@ericday4505 who is a great debater in your view.
I can appreciate how Adam takes the hits in stride. Dan doesnt hold back and I love it!
Dan takes no prisoners 😂😂😂
I can appreciate how Dan Barker completely lost the debate.
@@robinrobyn1714 🤡🐑
@Margie Smith Dan Barker was pathologically unhinged at something that doesn't exist according to him!
@Margie Smith No. Actually you misunderstand. Passion against the 'belief' in God is a totally separate issue. "Atheism" simply means' without gods'. It has nothing to do with the extremely profound intolerance it takes to be against the rest of all Humanity. Billions of people across the Planet Earth, have a belief in God or gods. I hope you find one day just how dangerous Atheism is. An Atheists idiocy is believing that truth can be shown by real evidence. Anyone who studies Epistemology knows just how idiotic that is. He's unhinged and an imbecile. Do you want to know what is really true? Of do you have faith because some books told you without evidence?
The answer is an unequivocal No. No debate required.
There is no debate you are stooo-pid.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Thoughts don't cause anything...Brains do...and they are physical
Demonstably not . Minds do ....and they are immaterial
The comment section is full of immature neckbeards that only know how to argue and insult people because they believe in something greater than themselves.
All these arguments for God are circular and fallacious
Somehow in your nitwit brain, you think making multiple doofus comments add up to one smart one. Hey dolt, they don't.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Just on Christian morality , where in the bible is rape morally wrong ?
----"The Bible does address the issue of rape. As expected, when the Bible mentions the crime of rape, it is depicted as a gross violation of God’s design for the treatment of the human body (Genesis 34). The Bible condemns rape whenever it is mentioned. For example, there is a particular passage in the laws given to the nation of Israel before entering the Promised Land under Joshua’s leadership. This passage (Deuteronomy 22:23-29) spoke directly against forcing a woman into a sexual encounter against her will, or what we know today as rape. This command was meant to protect women and to protect the nation of Israel from committing sinful actions."---
It goes even further in addressing it.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
@@2fast2block interesting, although I’d interpret that story as one of lies murder and theft , it says nothing of the morality of rape , in fact after her victimisation Dinah was to be married to the perpetrator? I’d say numbers 31 comes closest to giving a commandment on rape , and that’s not a commandment against it just who you should do it to ( only virgins)
@@outhousephilosophies3992 then ignore what I gave that shows it is wrong. Ignore what I gave on how the bible starts and you can't get around it. Ignore, ignore, ignore.
@@2fast2block show me a place in the Bible where it says slavery is wrong. Look in the New Testament also it condone slavery
@@jameskelly3745 oh, it's you again shown to be wrong so you want to jump all around with other topics you also have no idea what you're talking about. What's next, global warming?
In regards to the goodness of Adam's god, Dan could've asked, "according to what objective moral standard can you say your god is good?" and then present the Bible god as the monster it is.
In regards to the arguments Adam presented to "prove" the existence of god, we can ask which god has been proven to exist? Baal? Thor? Shiva?
You can stop pretending you're a thinker, it's not working.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
The Bible God is so moral,he wiped out millions in the OT and had his only Son tortured to free us of the Sin he created and continues to ignore !
I've written two books, one proving that God exists and another proving no gods exist.
That way, I sell twice as many books.
Respect !
HOW DEVILISH.
@@thegroove2000
Don't forget, somebody created the DEVIL for a purpose.
He was given a job to do as part of the overall divine plan.
It will all make sense, eventuality.
@@tedgrant2 YOUR GOING TO HELL.
@@tedgrant2 Only pulling your leg. Its all non-sense. I am well aware.
😆😆😆
Once again I come to the conclusion that an education doesn't make you intelligent, you are born intelligent.
Or maybe it's just impossible to reason for god without a child-like mentality.
Let's see how you reason.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Well, also smart people can believe stupid things too.
@@dharmadefender3932 , usually when they're crazy. I don't think this guy is crazy.
I'm not intelligent and I reasoned myself out of Christianity. Took a while, a lot of thinking and honesty, but I did it myself. If an idiot like me could be 99% certain that there are no gods, then there are no excuses for others. Also, I was born into Christianity and still could find my way out of it.
@@wernercolyn892 lol I tried holding others to the same standard I hold myself to, but I gave up when I realized nobody could meet those standards. Now I give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
its the open-mindedness
If atheism is simply a lack of belief, then why argue against theism at all? There is no reason for the debate at all.
of course there is - beleivers get to vote on stuff that affects us all based on their fairy tales
Modern Physics has ruled out any cause for the Universe....also Evolution gives us the moral instinct
notice they believe in all scientific facts except the ones that contradict their god..........
I believe in dan barker
🤣🤣🤣
If there was solid evidence of God, there would be no need for debate…
Has Johnson updated his thinking over the last 20 years or so? His preamble was one big pile of very dusty and seriously questionable arguments.
It is amazing that in these types of debate, the “God” is never named/identified. In fact, they always assume that we know already.
Since Dan was a Christian and Adam is a Christian: take a wild guess!
@@davidjanbaz7728 Yeah? So is his God Jesus Christ because he’s a Christian?
Yahweh started out life as a Canaanite god with wife children then the Jews left the Canaanites adopted Yahweh dropped the wife and chavs made him more godlike.....took them 400 years to drop the other 3 Canaanite gods though
@@paulrichards6894 true but what does this have to do with my original comment?
@@Ibanezflyingfingers given you the character and IDENTITY of the god they are worshipping
Being raised in a Christian culture, I also could have invested my faith in the story that my soul would be saved and other souls would go to hell, or some equally horrible place of eternal suffering.
I just thought the story was ridiculous.
After all, why would a god bother creating souls that he knew ahead of time were going to fail his test and suffer for eternity … unless he was a monster?
It's not that God created souls, but He knows which Souls will believe His Word (the gospel), and which Souls would not
@@xXFUEGIxX If you had the power to create souls, would you create ones that you knew ahead of time were going to fail your moral tests?
If you did, you would be a monster.
@@xXFUEGIxX And by the way, according to theologians, God kicked Lucifer out of heaven for sinning ... so that means that sin existed before the insane god created Adam and Lilith ... (Jewish version) and that sin first existed in heaven ... not on earth.
Silly stories ... fabricated in the minds of men with overactive imaginations.
“We are all hallucinating all the time, including right now. It’s just that when we agree about our hallucinations, we call that reality.” Anil Seth … neuroscientist.
@@junevandermark952 Everry soul comes with a free will to choose. When God creates a soul, He already know whether the soul will believe the Gosepl or not. Once a soul is created, it cannot be "erased". For God to only create souls that will believe the gospel is to remove free will or control that soul
@@junevandermark952 He is a fair God. Giving everyone a chance. He simply doesn't create a soul, then "erases the soul because He knows the souls wouldn't believe it.
Does God exist? Probably not. Now I'm an atheist so you might wonder why I say "probably" but the reason is simple in that I think the deist argument that the universe had a creator, without ascribing traits to that creator, is a reasonable position to take. Evidence still needs to be provided of course and as I said, I'm atheist rather than adiest.
It's one thing to think the universe had a creator. It's something else entirely to start talking about an all powerful, all knowing god with personality traits. Do I think Yahweh exists? Certainly not. Yahweh's prominence came after the Babylonian Exile (along with a lot of Genesis and Exodus). Before that he was one of many gods in the region of Canaan (it's slightly more complicated than that in terms of the history of Yahweh worship but fundamentally, he's just like every other god).
If we limit "God" to being the creator of the universe as we know it then it's absolutely reasonable to theorise the such a being might exist. However that being doesn't need to be all powerful or all knowing, they don't need to have a personal relationship with their creation and they don't need to have sent avatars of themselves to interact with mankind.
The simulation hypothesis for example isn't unreasonable given that human beings have created limited simulations in the form of video games, social media etc. In that scenario, if miracles happen they could be cheat codes or someone messing with the programming of the universe. But even if we are a simulation it's far more likely that it's some kid in his bedroom who has been letting his "universe sim" run for a few hours.
I think it's unlikely that we're in a simulation but not impossible but any claim requires evidence and if you say that the creator, be they an all powerful eternal being or a kid running "universe simulator 2000" is beyond any evidence then there's no point in having the conversation.
The problem I have with debates about the existence of a creator is that they tend to devolve into an argument about a particular version of the creator. For me there's no point in making arguments about Yahweh until you've first established the basic idea that the universe could have been created by someone or something.
Invariably, religious apologists in such debates tend to try to argue for their own version of the creator, completely skipping over the fundamental concept of a creator without ascribed traits and that's why a lot fo these debates are meaningless.
"Probably not" is the PRECISE equivalent of "probably yes". ;)
"adiest"? You mean you will never DIE? :p
@@TheWorldTeacher Oops I meant adeist. Though I am trying to figure out how to never die...it's not going well.
But no "probably not" isn't the equivalent of "probably yes."
If I jump off a cliff, will I fly? Probably not. But there is a chance, a tiny infinitely small chance that everything we think we know about the laws of physics is wrong and I'll take off like Superman. It's incredibly unlikely and thus the phrase "probably yes" wouldn't apply.
It's probable to 99.9999% certainty that God doesn't exist. And anyone who latches on to that 0.0001% is betting on some really long odds.
@@jedsithor:
🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT):
There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of sounding facetious, any person who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron.
Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise He wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept, and therefore, has no influence on the eternal, timeless Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The ONLY omni-property that comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since The Monad knows absolutely everything (i.e. Itself).
The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth-hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted, simultaneously, with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I'm sure most everyone would indicate the head, at least in the first instance, agreed?
Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God or The Goddess), which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion.
Of course, the more intelligent Theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely NOT a person in the etymological sense, and not a person even in the common-usage of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent “entity” as being a person? The mere fact that Theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person require gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague and undefined term.
Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal that possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I'm planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals).
Those who reject the assertion that animals are persons, would necessarily refuse to accept any intelligent extraterrestrial species as persons.
Many otherwise perspicacious Theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a radical Hindu cult, first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s, by a truly delusional retired pharmacist named Mr. Abhay C. De), HONESTLY believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna manages to incorporate relative time into the timeless realm (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades of sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher himself.
Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must NECESSARILY transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. Neither Eternal Beingness, Unlimited Consciousness, nor Blissful Quietude (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit) necessitate personality. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from (Absolute) Truth.
The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for theists referring to Ultimate Reality as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of MIND (by which they really mean some degree of Universal, Infinite Consciousness). However, it is indeed possible (and in fact, is the case) that the foundation of being is Pure Consciousness Itself. Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa” or “brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristics of Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated awareness, et cetera, and we humans are, quintessentially, of the same Nature. In other words, we are, fundamentally, “God” (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit).
Most arguments for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. As explicated elsewhere, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a reasonable contention, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity, is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness.
There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity):
1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Also, some theists use teleological arguments, claiming that humans have an INSTINCTIVE disposition towards worshipping God. This may be so, but that is not evidence of Ultimate Reality being personal in nature. Again, that thou art - the worshipper and the worshiped are of the same essence.
2. Because they may have experienced some kind of mystical phenomenon or miracle, which they mistakenly attribute to “God's grace”, but which can be more logically explicated by another means. As explained, all such phenomena are produced by the TRUE Self of all selves (“Paramātman”, in Sanskrit). I, the author of this Holy Scripture, have personally experienced very powerful, miraculous, mystical phenomena, which I formerly ascribed to the personal conception of God (since I was a Theist), but now know to be caused, ultimately, by the Real Self. The Real Self is synonymous with “The Tao”, “The Great Spirit”, “Brahman”, “Pure Consciousness”, “Eternal Awareness”, “Necessary Existence”, “The Ground of All Being”, “Uncaused Nature”, “The Undifferentiated Substratum of Reality”, “The Unified Field”, “The Source of All”, etcetera.
Cont...
@@TheWorldTeacher Consciousness is an emergent property of the development of the brain. It grows as we experience the world and then it's shut off when we die. There's nothing mystical about it. Do we fully understand it? No but there's no reason to suggest that it doesn't operate according to the laws of physics, just like everything else.
Because of the way we experience the world on a personal level it's very difficult for most people to accept that their own consciousness has a beginning and an end so we latch on to things like an afterlife or some kind of eternal consciousness beyond the limits of our bodies when in reality, you live and you die and that's it.
Do you realize how complex this universe is let alone life, and you're suggesting that the Creator is not necessarily all knowing or all powerful? If The Creator doesn't have these attributes then there will be no laws as standard in which material and immaterial things can be weighed upon. You agreed that a creator is possible for the universe to exist but you also have an idea of your God that is not knowing and not powerful. Your proposed creator and your idea of God are a contradiction of thought and your position.
It is possible that we are a simulation but this place was made real for us, so we cannot doubt that it's unreal. Everything is made through numbers, math and codes similar to digital reality. Digital characters are real in the digital environment, but not to the user of the game because the truth is, that the game and characters are just 0,1
Dan Barker is an extraordinary debater.
Adam didn’t really debate - he just explained his various beliefs
Still no god. Thanks for the convo.
According to whom?
@@BibliayFe according to reality
He could be hiding behind some sofa
@@jamesparson or, maybe god is hiding outside of space and time? Good hiding place!
@@jamesparson "He could be hiding behind some sofa"
You could be hiding from reality.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Dan Barker, the man who becomes completely unhinged about a being that he claims doesn’t exist
Because theists need to be shown how ridiculous their beliefs are
Apologetics isn't how you do History...true History is done by checking sources,checking context and probabilities not biases
Always out of context!!! 🤣🤣 the audience even gave a moan on that one. It’s funny how a simple charitable reading of the text that we know is immoral, is always “out of context”.
Does God exist? We have no reason to believe that. Debate over.
"Does [Existence] exist? We have no reason to believe that. Debate over."
@@andrewferg8737 what a fallacious argument.
@@andrewferg8737 Did you go hard solipsist? Never go hard solipsist.
@@andrewfairborn6762 "fallacious argument" ---
Indeed. It is quite absurd to posit existence to not be.
@@lepidoptera9337 "Solipsism" -----
Are you suggesting your self as the center, origin, or evidence of existence in and of itself? Or are you unfamiliar with the import of that term?
Please clarify.
Still convinced that God exists. I have experiential knowledge of Him. And you can too. Please be respectful if you choose to reply to me, and I will respond in kind. Thank you 🙏
God lives in the imagination of believers.
your person experience can never be evidence for me - provide evidence I can use....
No Theist has ever won a Nobel Prize for finding God because they don't live in the real world!
It’s a shame, the rebuttals from Adam is extremely weak. He had a huge mountain to climb but only took a little stroll around the valley. His answers wasn’t for everyone, it was just an answer for theist to hold onto their faith in other words Christian apologetic.
Adam is just reading off his script and he's not really "talking" to the audience in a sympathetic way that generates attention to the main question of God's existence.
a)?How can anything exist before time? b) If everything must have a mover to enter into existence, why isn’t the same rule applied to “God”?
@52:00 "Gives you permission to consider that there might be some suspect out there who, ->who would answer your questions." Dan is a smart man. IDAQ.
Not understanding that the multiverse is merely a god of the gaps analogue was kind of hilarious. Like, yes, you can attribute anything and everything to it since it's outside of everything we know and understand. Just as your god claims to be. You missed the point entirely.
No,the Laws of Physics are based not on design but statistical averages....biofeedback can also explain laws and structure, like DNA
Adam Johnson loves the phrase "what is the best explanation" but his definition of explanation is something like "something that makes me shout WOW NOW I GET IT". Explanation means nothing if it makes you feel shivers in your gut, it means something if you can predict new things that eventually happen. Thinking that a god told humanity not to kill might make your gut move, but understanding how evolution favored gregarious species, where not killing the rest of the pack is an advantage for survival, gives you tools to understand human psychology, among others.
"but understanding how evolution favored gregarious species, where not killing the rest of the pack is an advantage for survival, gives you tools to understand human psychology, among others."
We still have various animals that do kill for survival. We still can't even get creation and life without God. We still call jokes like you a F00L for good reason.
How did you get around the first verses of the bible with God creating and giving life?
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
No wonder God doesn’t answer prayers, he’s too busy designing things. Can’t the angels help out?
-Is there a debate about the existence of a specific god or any gods?
-Yes.
-God(s) does not exist.
-There should be *ZERO* debate.
Humans don't and won't know everything, We're uncomfortable with that.
Therefore an all powerful, all knowing god exists to fill the gaps.
Nope, that doesn't follow.
Are you gonna call Leibnitz scared of reality? Do you think he was intellectually dishonest? What about Aristotle, or Plato?
It is embarrassing for atheism that pagans as important as Plato and Aristotle have emerged monotheistic at the point of rationalism without even having a religion.
None of these men viewed God as ''God of the gaps'', but as the final ''Unmoved mover'' or the ''Uncaused cause'' - they view God as the ultimate foundation of reality which cannot be logically denied - you cannot have ''turtles all the way down''.
Most atheists such as yourself, are in reality, trying to convince themselves that God doesn't exists, because they would be responsible for their immoral behavior. And judging by your comment you didnt even watch the video.
"-God(s) does not exist.
-There should be ZERO debate."
No, you have zero logic.
Real science says nothing does nothing. Real science says if there was something there already it must fit with the evidence of what we know. We know the 1LT says there's a conservation of energy. It can change forms and neither can be created or destroyed. Creation cannot happen by natural means. The 2LT has various aspects, one being the universe is winding down, entropy. Usable energy is becoming less usable, so at one point usable energy was at its max. This all points to a supernatural creation, by a supernatural creator at a certain point in which matter, space, and time were created. When I read how it can happen otherwise, ALL the fools resort to science-fiction. Once a supernatural creation is accepted, then the next step is finding proof of what supernatural power did it. We KNOW these laws. We have NO doubts about them. We also KNOW that the laws of nature can't come about without a Lawgiver, God.
So if you want to pretend to be smart, please give me the laugh by giving your science how creation really happened by natural means. Also, throw in how we got the laws of nature, naturally.
Life only comes from life. Law of biogenesis.
God is the reason for us and all we have.
ruclips.net/video/JiMqzN_YSXU/видео.html
The odds are NOT there.
ruclips.net/video/W1_KEVaCyaA/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/yW9gawzZLsk/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/ddaqSutt5aw/видео.html
Which God,Zeus,Appollo etc
The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. - Dan Barker -
Always the most eloquent , articulate , coherent and intelligent Dan Barker ! Bravo ! Dan most effectively cuts thru all the nonsensical religious apologetic arguments for a belief in God or gods ! He is among the best debaters on this subject which includes Matt Dillahunty , Seth Andrew's, Aron Ra , Sam Harris , Richard Dawkins , Christopher Hitchens and many others who have left their scholarly imprint on this subject !
He does it in the nicest of ways too. That’s hard to have that level of patience that I admire.
Dan.
1. What existed before the universe and how was it created?
Big bang believers have "faith" in a non-intelligent design.
How is believing in intelligent creation / design anything closer to your analogy about elves?
2. Maybe you believe that the universe always existed? This also would take a ton of faith.
And why are you ripping on Christianity when the debate is theism? Could it be your childish resentment against the church?
If you don't believe in God then be happy in your new life. You don't seem content in the energy you give off. Maybe you are right that there were much more qualified in the audience.
It's funny that the Godly man shows courtesy, grace and respect...
While on the other hand Dan compares belief in God to elves... Pretty weak.
Don't be like Dan.
no be like Dan and ask for evidence - something sadly lacking in these debates - especially from the theist side
In order to convince anyone not already predisposed to being convinced, a Christian has to show two things.
(1) That God exists, and
(2) That God is good.
Let's _assume_ (1).
Let's *assume* that God exists.
That leaves (2).
The Christian has to _demonstrate_ that God is good. Not _assume_ that God is good or simply assert that God is good. The Christian has to show some _evidence_ that God is good.
And that cannot be done. At least it cannot be done on the Biblical record of God's wanton killing of babies, justification of slavery and genocide, condoning of rape, and barbaric punishments for the slightest breach of arbitrary and nonsensical rules.
We've already proved that the proofs that God does exist don't actually prove that God exists.
That's the puddle-hole fallacy
Every religion has its own god.
They all believe their religion is the one and only.
How would a theist explain a child is allways born in the right religion.
Religion was created to control society,
god was invoked to explain the world they didn’t understand.
‘the trinity is the best objective of moral truth’. The trinity? Inherently contradictory. Lost my interest right there.
ruclips.net/video/ikJRw8vh5iE/видео.html
It’s quite an unreasonable leap to think any design requires intelligence. If this intelligence is law abiding energy, and we want to call it “god,” then sure “god” exists. But it’s no theistic god that we’re familiar with…
I just got to 12:20 where he says he will argue for theism rather than for the validity of christianity. From his reasonable and friendly introduction, to his non-smobnish manner of speaking, I get the sense that he recognizes the absurdity of the christian position, understands the likelihood and is uncomfortable with coming across as illogical, and that he won't get away with much with Dan and the audience. He doesn't sound combative, and doesn't come across as one to ignore any points made and bury his head in the sand so he can continue to pretend his position wasn't shot down again and again. A safer move on his part.
There is no Space and Time only Spacetime...
Luke Barnes talks nonsense...he has no training in Ancient History..Sean Carroll showed his fine tuning claims to be false
Former Christian here. I actually think Johnson did pretty well, especially in regards to immaterial existence. If I was going to argue for the existence of God, I would probably want to use similar arguments.
Why would a perfect God need to fine tune anything?
and quite the ditherer......10 billion gap between universe and earth.....dinosaurs
Adam wouldn't know a truthful fact if it slapped him in the face!
Tell a lie often enough it becomes the truth.
But it only becomes truth to fools, example, Trump supporters and idiots that watch Fox News.
Adam brings nothing because he has nothing.
And nothing from nothing equals nothing.
Adam needs to learn how to better wrap up his points. He simply stops speaking in the midst of a topic. No summation, no “thank you”.
Just an abrupt stop. It’s jarring.
Design arg.
1. We've only everseen design come from intelligent mind.
2. The universe has evidence of design.
3. Therefore the universe was designed by an intelligent mind.
(Even Hitchens thought this fine-tuning argunent was the strongest for God's existence.)
"We've never seen design come from any source but an intelligent mind."
S.A.: "What about rock crystals?"
----------
1. Whatever has a beginning must have a cause
2. The universe had a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
"Since it 'is,' space time matter therefore the cause is spaceless, timeless and immaterial."
S.A. "But isn't it true that for anything to exist it must occupy space?"
-----------
Objective truth: morality. "Is it morally ok to abuse women?"
If yes, isn't that akin to
2+2=5, which is untrue in all possible worlds?
The universe is not an intelligent design. It is chaotic, deadly and filled with incalculable destructive forces.
@@anthonymorris5084 . I know. But it's an odd argument in any case. Even quartz crystals evince evidence of appearance of 'design' but no one would suggest they have that quality due to an organizing 'intelligence', eh?
@@jamesbarlow6423 First you have to accept your characterization that "quartz crystals evince evidence of appearance of design." There are an awful lot of weird things about, that don't represent evidence of intelligent design. People like to find and see things that help underscore their beliefs. An objective examination just finds a weird "thing". Your example of the universe is commonly advanced as intelligently designed simply because planets are balls and magically circle other balls. It's actually nothing but violent chaos. Why would this even be created or exist? Why would a creator make the Earth, and then make an infinite amount of uninhabitable poisonous space and chaos? Cheers.
@@anthonymorris5084 . I am agreeing with you Morris, from a different angle. Read again.
To sum up from my perspective: what appears the result of intelligent design to us is as you say the result of the way we think---a necessary subjectivism involving the inherent weakness of our logic. (Just because polar bears, e.g., are white it doesn't follow the reason why this is so must be "to camouflage", etc.)
2. The universe had a beginning. - nope sorry zero evidence for that so far....
Its more like 2 people waking up and one saying OUR favourite coulour is blue now but the other person is saying no its still green, and please dont abuse me its not moral from my point of view
The "best" argument for the existence of God is not necessarily an accurate one.