Head to squarespace.com/unsolicitedadvice to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code UNSOLICITEDADVICE LINKS AND CORRECTIONS Support me on Patreon here (you lovely person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more (very occasional) philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
I'm very much still a beginner in terms of my understanding of philosophy, but I cannot explain the feeling when after you explained the ontological argument, I was like, "Then similarly a perfect coffee **must** exist?" and two minutes later you explain how a perfect sandwich must exist if the ontological argument were true. Man, now I feel like god. Thank you for your vids as always.
@seven.v5 But this response is quite poor. Something that could go out of existence is less perfect than something that is necessary, and must always exist. A "perfect coffee", would then imply a coffee that can't go out of existance, which would mean you couldn't even drink it, meaning it wouldn't be a perfect coffee. So there is a contradiction. In general any material thing, is a contingent thing, and can not therefore be perfect.
@@seven.v5 in general when it come to philosophy, you should be quite cautious if you think you've had some epiphany that completely destroys an argument. There is almost always a counter argument, so it's then your duty to look at the counter arguments and consider their worth.
To be honest, it’s not my favored response either (I also think both the perfect island and the perfect sandwich would be unable to consistently define, though personally not specifically because they are contingent but because they are just not the kind of objects that seem like they could be possessed of every possible perfection) - I much prefer the “existence is not a predicate” response from Kant. I felt like I ought to include the other response though just because it is so influential
I’m an engineering student taking an introductory philosophy course, we’re talking about God right now so this is perfect timing
Месяц назад
Careful as a lot of attacks on religion are currently to supplant it with Marxist descendant religion. All faith based arguments are kind of bad, especially when reality directly contradicts them on predictions.
God, by definition, must be vastly smarter than humans, more powerful, make choices, at times,in ways humans cannot grasp, and exist forever. A "true God" is uncreated, cannot be manipulated by humans. To fit these criteria, no argument humans can make against (God) can be true, and no experiment can prove or disprove God. The only thing atheist arguments can actually do is shòot down human conceptions about God.
Proof of there having been a Superintelligence Which Created Atoms: Their precision and function. The narrow tolerances of 20+ enission spectral lines of the simplest atom, Hydrogen cannot arise from a random collection of particles. For Life On Earth: IThe "information-specified construction of nanomachines and nanostructures which function as complex systems" all act as if each has a goal or a purpose to acheive, as part of the systems in living organisms. Dawkins says science ptoves DNA holds/stores digital information, and the systems created from this information are unrelated to the chemical nature of what holds the information, in that the genetic code is arbitrary. Different assignments of codon to a.a. were the base sequences still correct, would have no effect on the production of that protein ( provided...) The dncoding is base 64, unidirectional and only on 1 strand. And, the mechanisms for copying that DNA is utterly unique in the LUCA for bacteriacea and archaea. Summing it up, the sciencr of statistics proves a Superintelligence created life on Earth, twice. And, caterpillar to moth is also impossible from random genes with random turning on and off sequences. How am I doing in proving a God?
Alex- are you looking for a God which must match your criteria for your God's existence? Or, are you open to One so far beyond your ability to conceive, that it cannot be pinned down by the either/or propositions the laws of logic demand?
My childhood dog had to be put down a few days ago and honestly it's been really hard on me. My family isnt religious, my mom didnt even keep her ashes, and whenever I'm back home it's felt like theres a hole in my heart and house that will never be filled. The idea of her spirit sticking around with us brings me a lot of comfort, even if it's just coping. I've never been religious myself either, and in practice I'm not, but it makes me feel better about it. It makes me a lot more sympathetic to religious folks.
This is why I wish I could go back to being religious, it's so comforting to know that something or someone invisible exists out there and can protect you and your close ones unconditionally. Sorry for your loss.
Thank you for presenting a good outlook of both sides for each idea. Having a complete argument and rebuttal is so refreshing, and presents the amount of grey area between belief and skepticism.
I admire your ability to genuinely analyze views that are different from yours to better understand the bigger picture Unfortunately I cant do this due to a strong bias, but I recognize this and try to avoid it as much as possible Keep up the good work 👐
You’re very well spoken, do you memorize everything or does it just come naturally from all the reading and writing? Great video brother keep making progress!
22:07 an example of this is how in Islam, it is said that God is not in need of your hunger or thirst, pointing towards how the point of fasting in Ramadan is not about staying hungry or thirsty but also about staying away from bad deeds and putting yourself in the shoes of the needy. so Islam teaches self control and sympathy through the fasts of Ramadan
Ah thank you! It was a deliberate choice. I am not sure whether I would ever feel confident enough to say that God had been "debunked". Though perhaps that is just wishful thinking on my part - I am a very reluctant atheist.
I love this analysis, as a christian myself my reason for being one is simply faith and fear of the unknown. I hope in the future the truth will be made more clear in my life.
Yep , and any other religious person could say the same about his belief. With faith alone all the fairy tales are true , and when it comes to religions since they are mutually exclusive , either one is true or all of them are false.
All religions are both very true and very false. I am a Christian simply because that's what my local society is. Where I find their beliefs in the myths silly, I find their spiritually more highly evolved than the average man. Within my church, I find truly good people I can't find elsewhere. I like good, moral people. Therefore, I socialize within a church.
@@michaelanderson8911Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the light brother. "None shall come to the Father except THROUGH me, he who rejects me rejects he who sent me"
Thank you very much. I really enjoyed your episode about Robert Sapolsky. Maybe you could create an episode about the distribution of opinions and their diversity of democracy? What I mean is the relationship between opinions and polarization. For instance, the idea that "if you're not with us, then you're with them," where "them" also claim, "if you're not with us, then you're with those." It creates a dichotomy where no third option seems to exist. Or the use of concept X as a panacea. It is so often employed by different parties to accuse each other. Something like this topic would be really interesting to watch!
Usually challenge a view is a pre-requisite for arriving at the truth, but it's only an instrumental goal, just like how knowing the truth about something is an instrumental goal to a terminal goal (like curing cancer or seeing the amount of suffering in the world drop to a hundredth of the current amount)
Ideas must be able to clash and defend themselves from other ideas in order to arrive closer to the truth. I dont know where you got that naive idea from.
@@bekeludesta2225 ideas are like mind visuses. some may even eat others. it's, like, meant to be brutal. If that leads to truth is debatable though. As someone with an indirect realistic view on things, i can only say, that we aim at approximating to what is real or true. What we say we know or what is triue, is all just at worse an educated guess and at best an equivalent thing (in opposition to the actual thing). Also, fallibilism. We arent the most reliable beings, we have flawed senses, flawed attention, flawed memories, flawed interpretations, etc. It's all just a big WIP project to arrive at what could be referred to as true or real for the time being.
2 + 2 might not equal 4 under a finite field. To give you an intuitive example, imagine that we're tracking the position of a hand on a clock, but instead of 12 marks, the clock only has 3. Once the hand reaches the 2 mark, we add 2 marks to its count. Where will the hand end up? The hand will end up at 1. Under these circumstances, 2 + 2 = 1.
...highlighting the point that 2 + 2 = 4 makes sense as long as we agree on what 2 means and what 4 means and the basis for the numerical system. In other words, a neat little tool that is useful in limited settings and only really exists in our imagination
@@josemjerez2140 Sure, but I think this example shows more. What you're saying is that we can swap definitions of numbers around, if I understand you correctly. But what I'm saying is that with the same definitions for the number 2, we can still have a different outcome. In other words, we can redefine the "+" operation.
@@peezieforestem5078 yeah I missed that we also need to define "+" (and even "=" if you think about it) but it's still the same point, models are handy but intentionally reductive (otherwise they would serve no purpose)
@@josemjerez2140 Agreed. As a person who got into the math because it was rigid and very right/wrong, I had my world shattered when I realized we can define arbitrary mathematics, and that there can never be consistency in any formal system... But, in the end, I'm glad that it helped me get out of my inflexible mindset.
@@ecta9604yeah but we would cobsider ingrown toenails bad, so their existence wouldn't be good. However, exsitence of a good, lovijg and powerful being at least seems good.
I grew up in a Christian household. Never could understand how anyone could believe in that stuff. My biggest question as a kid was always "tf was god even doing before he made everything then? Like.. before angels and earth, and the universe? What was god doing? And for how long? Does god have a creation point? If he always existed, then tf was he doing before the universe?" Science won my interests as a child and religion just looked silly.
God exists above time, so he didn’t spend time waiting around, everything to him happens at once. Time is the 4th dimension, and God is above all forms of dimensionality, God would look at time similar to how we would look at a line drawn on paper. We see it all at once. But for a being that exists solely on such a line they would only see directly forwards and directly backwards to the,
@@batataooo6937 You can’t exist outside of time and interact within it. That’s a contradiction. Our reality cannot have existing contradictions. Married bachelors don’t exist and never will.
The category that best matches what you're describing is often called Empirical Agnosticism or sometimes Agnostic Empiricism. This stance emphasizes a scientific, evidence-based approach to the question of God's existence without committing to belief or disbelief. Here's a breakdown of the key aspects: Empirical Agnosticism (Agnostic Empiricism) Neutral Stance: It neither accepts nor rejects the existence of God. It remains open to the possibility but requires clear, empirical evidence before making any conclusion. Focus on Evidence: This position relies on scientific methods-observable, testable, and repeatable evidence-to determine what is true. No Belief or Faith: It does not engage in belief or faith-based approaches. It only considers verifiable facts. Skeptical and Open-Minded: Empirical agnostics are skeptical of claims that lack evidence but are open to changing their view if new, substantial evidence is presented. Why This Category Fits Your Description No Belief Required: Unlike theists or atheists, empirical agnosticism doesn’t operate on belief. Instead, it asks, “What does the evidence show?” Scientific Methodology: It aligns closely with a scientific viewpoint, emphasizing that claims about reality-whether they involve God or not-must be supported by empirical data. Suspension of Judgment: It holds a neutral position until there is concrete, objective evidence to support or refute the existence of a deity. Open to New Evidence: If credible and testable evidence for God were to be discovered, empirical agnostics would be willing to revise their position. Key Characteristics of Empirical Agnosticism Testability: Any claims about God must be testable in principle. If evidence for God's existence were measurable or observable, an empirical agnostic would consider it. Falsifiability: A claim about God's existence should be structured so that it could, in theory, be proven false if evidence contradicts it. Neutrality: It avoids making assumptions about the existence or non-existence of God, prioritizing evidence over preconceptions. Intellectual Honesty: Acknowledges the limits of current knowledge and does not make absolute statements without solid backing. Related Philosophical Approaches Skepticism: Similar to empirical agnosticism, skepticism values doubt and requires evidence before accepting any claim. However, skepticism can be broader and apply to many areas beyond just the existence of God. Methodological Naturalism: This is a principle in science that investigates the world using natural causes and explanations, without invoking the supernatural unless the evidence points that way. Philosophical Naturalism: While often associated with atheism, it shares a focus on understanding the universe based on observable facts and natural laws. It does not necessarily deny the possibility of God but asks for sufficient evidence. Scientific Realism: The idea that the world should be understood based on scientific discovery and empirical evidence. It avoids metaphysical assumptions and relies on data and research. Key Idea in Simple Terms Empirical agnosticism is about waiting for evidence. It does not assume anything is true or false without evidence. It’s not about faith or disbelief-it's about an open-ended curiosity and reliance on facts, evidence, and logic. If a conclusive, empirical demonstration of God's existence (or non-existence) were possible, someone with this mindset would be ready to accept it, regardless of what the conclusion might be. Until then, they remain open to all possibilities.
Empirical Agnosticism, while intellectually rigorous and scientifically oriented, is not without its criticisms. Here are some of the most common critiques and challenges associated with this stance: 1. Demand for Evidence May Be Unrealistic Criticism: The requirement for empirical, testable evidence for God's existence might be seen as setting an impossible standard. Many argue that if a deity exists, especially one that is transcendent, such a being might not be bound by the physical laws and limitations that allow for empirical observation. Counterpoint: Supporters argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without evidence, it is difficult to differentiate between genuine claims and imaginative or misleading ideas. 2. Limits of the Scientific Method Criticism: The scientific method is inherently limited to studying the natural world, which operates within physical and observable laws. If God exists beyond the natural, then empirical methods might not be suitable tools to determine God's existence. Counterpoint: Empirical agnostics argue that if God interacts with the physical world in any detectable way, then these interactions should, in theory, leave observable traces. They maintain that if no such traces are found, it is reasonable to withhold belief. 3. The Issue of Falsifiability Criticism: Some argue that the concept of God is not falsifiable, meaning there’s no way to disprove God’s existence if the definition is too vague or malleable. If the evidence for or against God's existence is inherently unfalsifiable, then waiting for proof might be a futile endeavor. Counterpoint: Supporters contend that the burden of proof rests on those making a claim (theists), and until there is clear evidence to support the claim, empirical agnosticism is a responsible and rational stance. 4. Potential Bias Against Metaphysical Claims Criticism: Empirical agnosticism might be seen as biased toward materialism and naturalism, ignoring or dismissing metaphysical claims that cannot be empirically tested. Critics argue that this view excludes subjective or non-empirical forms of knowledge that many find meaningful, such as personal religious experiences. Counterpoint: Advocates argue that while metaphysical claims are valid in philosophical discussions, they cannot be verified objectively. They stress that science and reason should be the primary tools for understanding reality. 5. Indifference to the Spiritual and Ethical Dimensions Criticism: By focusing solely on empirical evidence, this position might overlook the personal, spiritual, and moral aspects of religion. Some critics suggest that empirical agnosticism might be emotionally or spiritually sterile, ignoring the subjective value that belief can provide. Counterpoint: Supporters argue that knowledge should be distinct from emotional or spiritual fulfillment. They maintain that people can live meaningful lives guided by ethics, reason, and compassion without making unverified metaphysical commitments. 6. Paralysis of Analysis (Infinite Skepticism) Criticism: Empirical agnosticism might lead to a kind of paralysis, where no decision or action is taken because of the constant demand for perfect evidence. Critics argue that some level of belief or assumption is necessary for daily life and practical decision-making. Counterpoint: Empirical agnostics respond that their skepticism applies mainly to significant existential or metaphysical claims, not everyday practical decisions. They advocate for a cautious approach, rather than hastily committing to unfounded beliefs. 7. Lack of Practical Engagement Criticism: This position may be seen as overly intellectual, failing to engage with religious practices or communities. Some critics suggest that empirical agnosticism lacks the communal, ritualistic, and cultural dimensions that many find valuable in religious traditions. Counterpoint: Supporters emphasize that knowledge about reality should not depend on tradition or community involvement but on what can be known, tested, and proven. 8. The Infinite Regress Problem Criticism: Critics argue that demanding empirical evidence for God could lead to an infinite regress, where any proof for God's existence requires another layer of proof for the proof's validity, potentially making it impossible to ever reach a satisfactory conclusion. Counterpoint: Proponents of empirical agnosticism suggest that this problem exists for many areas of inquiry and is not unique to the question of God. They argue for setting reasonable standards of evidence based on context. 9. Potential Alienation from Theistic and Atheistic Communities Criticism: By taking a neutral stance, empirical agnostics can be isolated from both theistic and atheistic communities. They may be seen as indecisive or "fence-sitting," neither committing to a belief in God nor rejecting it outright. Counterpoint: Empirical agnostics value intellectual honesty over communal alignment, prioritizing the search for truth over social belonging. 10. The Problem of "Evidence Threshold" Criticism: What constitutes "sufficient" evidence for God? Critics point out that empirical agnosticism can struggle with the subjective nature of what counts as convincing evidence. What one person considers valid evidence, another might dismiss. Counterpoint: Empirical agnostics argue that a consensus can be built using objective criteria similar to those used in science: reproducibility, predictability, and explanatory power. 11. Meaning and Morality Without God Criticism: Empirical agnosticism faces the challenge of deriving meaning and morality without a divine source. Critics argue that without belief in God, moral and existential questions might lack a firm foundation. Counterpoint: Empirical agnostics often rely on secular moral systems, such as humanism or ethical naturalism, which propose that meaning and morality can be based on human experience, empathy, and reason rather than divine command. Summary of Criticisms Empirical agnosticism is seen as a rational and evidence-based stance, but it faces challenges related to the limits of evidence, the potential exclusion of metaphysical knowledge, and a perceived lack of engagement with religious or spiritual life. Despite these criticisms, supporters maintain that it represents a responsible and cautious approach to one of humanity’s most profound questions-whether or not God exists-by demanding that any answers be grounded in objective evidence.
People confuse Christianity. A Christian is someone who has the Holy Spirit in them, they have chosen to follow Christ. It’s a choice. Being born in a Christian family and going to church isn’t what a Christian is. You choose to be a Christian, you are not born a Christian. You make a conscious choice for whatever reason it may be to accept Christ. I think to many say they are a Christian simply because they grew up in a Christian household. They never actively made that choice.
@@shreenybeany1751 More loving than they were before Everyone still has faults, people still mess up and do wrong. But the bible claims that you will see someone's work as evidence of their faith. Their actions will change in response to how God has changed them
might be, but that tosses the coin over to the workings of the holy spirit. What exactly does it feel like or does it enable one to do, while having the connection to it, which cannot be done or felt without that connection? As i was a christian i often confused feelings like confidence, pride, serenity, comfort or a pleasent surprise as being such feelings and acts of friendship, kindness or joy as causes by the holy spirit. And as an atheist, i saw how i sorted things into what did belong to god and what not, which felt increasingly wrong to do, as i read up on non-dualistic religions and psychology. Examples like villians being teachers instead of wicked criminals, criminals being the sum of their environments rather than purposefully wicked, and that personality itself albeit being categorizable, leaving the impression of being fixed, has no real part, as the buddha put it "there's no self", much like language, in which words were invented for practical use, identifications were invented for practical use as well and can only ever be a temporary placeholder for a set of past experiences or memories. So i ultimately adopted some indirect realism as my philosophical stance. All the things we say there are, aren't the things themselves, but a temporary placeholder of what we have experiences, expressed through language as a temporary placeholder for our experiences and remembered as such, in an incomplete yet fallible manner for later use and reflections, such as thoughts and daydreams. I hope that summarizes my view and questioning about stuff there. And way of thinking, which are also just observations, hence placeholders. And sorry for the long text, i've adhd and i kinda forgot the question i've read inbetween the lines.
I am watching this as a christian, and to be really honest. I still be after this. i find it interesting how opinions can differ and viewpoints of such controversy are still talked about. This strenghtend my faith. Enjoy your day.
@@roddydelipsa1769 Faith does require a fair amount of evidence, and the rest is trust, so I wouldn't say "little to none." Atheists tend to confuse what Christians mean by faith quite often by missing that part. Furthermore, reason can't function without faith, so no philosopher or atheist is free from it. The difference is that atheists put their faith in secular evidence, theists in theist evidence.
@@roddydelipsa1769 so why are there philosophers doing philosophy about the existence of God? Isn't the 5 ways a group of philosophical arguments? .... There are people who believe in God with poor arguments and atheists who have poor arguments and don't believe because it sounds ridiculous and both are wrong
@@jonny6manthere's no physical evidence, if there's no physical evidence it didn't happen... There's no physical evidence of Socrates'arguments therefore Socrates never gave philosophical arguments...but hold on why do we take Plato's testimony as a reason for the existence of Socrates arguments? Isn't that the same reason christians take credibility from the disciples?... I guess by the evidence you were asking you meant physical evidence but that's not the only evidence that exists... So you can argue about Hercules, first you have to prove the existence as a historical figure and then you can discuss what he did but with Jesus even the atheist can't deny the existence of a historical figure because he did exist
@User-uz4rw no one said that you don't take precautions because you think the bad things are impossible. The point made in the video is that if you take precautions, you believe the bad thing will happen. Try improving your listening and reading comprehension.
28:38 go learn what "absolutely certain" means... "you accept the possibility" meaming not absolutely certain... "regardless of belief" then thats not your complete belief is it now?
A thing to note: all of these arguments imply the Christian god in them. However, the farthest you get with this argumentation is deism, and that a higher being exists. It's then an entire other complicated hoop jumping to prove that 1 particular, specific religion is true as opposed to all of them being true
Yup, most of them somehow don't realize that even if creator of the universe was discovered today, it wouldn't make any current religion any more valid...
@@alfrozz countless of logical contradictions and inconsistencies that render it impossible from the very core On top of it, countless of claims about supernatural magic that needs much more evidence than "someone said so" to be even considered to be taken at least somewhat seriously
@milansvancara well, my self witnessing severals spiritual, let's say god easier my journey. But, what about the Quran verse that state " we sent down iron, for humankind benefit". not long ago we just discovered iron not from earth and it's happening in millions years ago by asteroids from distance stars. How I see it's like "finally human knowledge catch up with divine revelation" before that is still remain mystery. I want to know other views on that matter, 🤔. Sorry for English anyway.
@@alfrozzi believe your point is: the Quran knew things about the universe before humanity did, and the correct predictions demonstrates that Allah granted divine revelation to its’ writers. of course, to grant the revelations, he must exist. this is a logical argument, but i would dispute the premises of your argument, if you will entertain me! 1. your example-that iron is sent to Earth-is something that may meant to be interpreted in a looser, more figurative manner (like a sunrise not literally meaning the sun moves, as we know it is stationary!) 2. if the Quran correctly predicted this, then it would merely demonstrate foreknowledge, which could come from Allah, but could also come from another source. regardless, i hope this gives you something to think on! i hope this isn’t offensive from me, but jazakum Allah khayran ealaa juhudikum fi talab aleilmi!
exactly i would try to paint from referance but after a while i would find myself with a video playing on my laptop instead of the referance and i would just be listening to that video while painting without understanding or remembering what was happening in the video
4:15 “God” is just the male pronoun for a deity. Saying the word “god” implies a perfect being ignores a lot of mythology about gods doing genuinely awful stuff in many different religions. It’s also like saying “goddess” implies nature which is not at all culturally or historically correct
23:33 The Pragmatic argument isn’t ushered to independently compel belief in religion. It simply makes the point that Christianity even as a lie offers a better prospect for human flourishing than Atheism could in truth. This puts Atheism in a Lose - Lose position as a basis for Humanism which is inherently pragmatic in its pursuits.
@ Secular societies are the moral equivalent of adult children who live rent free in their parents basement. Accepting all the benefits of Chrístianity while denying the associated responsibilities necessary to maintain their production.
@@Salem1000-xf2fb This is apparent in the geographical settings of these secular societies all situated in historically Christian nations and in their incessant promotion of Christianities long held values and rights. Secularism can be rightly understood as Lapsed Christianity as there is no historical precedent for it existing on its own merit as it could not have created the nations it perches in nor can it maintain them.
@@Salem1000-xf2fb This is self evident in the m0ral failings of seċularízed humanity over the past 100 years leading to tragíc and unprecedented levels of human vìo|ence, sůffėríng and depression in addition to the dėath of community, family and personal identity in society.
3:04 I have one for you! In Zermelo Fraenkel set theory, the number 2 (ordinal number) represents the following set of 2 elements: {∅, {∅}} (∅ notates the empty set, i.e. {}) The union of sets is often referred to as addition. It then follows that 2+2=2, since the union of identical sets remains the same.
One major issue with religions is that all of the religions we have today are extremely young and I don’t know why we’d expect them to have gotten things right, considering their..very mixed…track record. Archeologists tend to think we’ve been messing around with organized religion for maybe 10,000 years, and the eldest religious movements with clear ripples reaching our shores are maybe around 6,000 years old. Humans have been around in anatomically modern form for about 250-300,000 years, and in behaviorally modern form for maybe 65,000 years. Based on the fossil record, hominid species seem to last (on average) about 800,000 years. If we compare that 800,000 year average-hominid-species-span to an 80-year individual human lifetime, our species at this moment comes into focus as a young adult who just started thinking seriously about religion a few weeks/months ago. Why on earth would we expect to have gotten it right in the short time we’ve been doing it? We’ve gotta be a bit humble here imo - religions that claim to have a monopoly on absolute truth or to be descended from an infallible founder figure or to be especially well-suited to human nature should be treated with serious skepticism.
While I realize this is oversimplifying it on my end, I do think there's likely an overlap of the agricultural revolution and settled society and the development of organized religions. We know within neuroscience that there's a part of us always scanning for what we should do next to ensure our survival. For history before that it was pretty obvious. Hunt food, fix shelter, make lots of babies. When most of our needs were somewhat taken care of, and our brain scans for "what now?" it leads to that feeling or existential dread as our brain doesn't know what to provide us with dopamine towards. While there have always been thinkers and rituals, it seems likely it would be more necessary once society collectively had a lot more free time to sit around contemplating why the moon rises the way it does or when the sun goes at night, and needing to come up with Gods and rituals to alleviate this new anxiety.
I think Christianity does not fail at this in the way you might have previously considered. The Christian calender has a marked change between BC and AD. It consider the birth of Jesus of Nazareth so monumentally significant that it warrants marking every year to come after. Christianity doesn't claim to be true because some people came across the truth. The claim is that God himself revealed the truth by becoming himself a human. Christianity has a starting date, despite many other religions not. It is 2000 years old because God came down from heaven 2000 years ago. I don't think I explained that very well, but hopefully you get my point
@@Pedantasure, I think I understand what you’re saying. But all in all I don’t see a meaningful difference between people saying they came across the truth because God came down to earth and told them and any other religious claim on absolute truth. In both instances we have people telling us they’ve got the ultimate things all figured out because of their privileged access to x or y truth, which (considering our place in time and our immaturity as a species, both in terms of age and in terms of behavior) is the thing I’m skeptical of at the end of the day.
You believe in the religion of man. Have you ever considered that maybe the earth is not billions of years old and that humans have not been around for hundreds of thousands of years.
@@knightofwangernumb2998 young earth creationists are the most cringe, have to believe the devil went around planting dinosaur bones to justify a theory that goes against all evidence we have. This is a matter of believing in what can be proven versus arbitrarily believing an old book.
To start off am Previously a Christian now Athiest, but really more a Complicated ist lol. The devision for me is not only in believing in God or not, but of in-between knowledge and believe themselves, between Subject and Object. Believe as you wish, as long as you have knowledge to back it up. (And grant others the existential freedom and respect to believe and be other wise)
@@YuelSea-sw2rpthis is a no true scotman fallacy. “no *true* believer could ever become atheist!” just defines away anyone inconvenient to your worldview from consideration. please just actually engage with those willing to discuss instead of asserting that you know that person’s history with their faith better than themselves. it will earn you a lot more good will, and will lead to more productive conversations.
Here are a few extra classes of argument I've encountered: Argument from False Humility: "I may be a simple man but I know my grandaddy weren't no rock!" Argument from NO U: "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist." Argument from Projected Opportunism: "You don't want to believe in God because you fear accountability." Argument from Self Importance: "I, for one, choose to believe in a higher power." Argument from Incuriousity: "If God didn't exist, what could have been responsible for all this?"
Doxastic logic is crazy. Reading the wikipedia article. If a person believes their belief in a proposition implies the truth of that proposition, then they're an inconsistent reasoner. This makes sense. Because believing one's belief in a proposition makes it true is false for a statement which is truly false. Thus one can't believe that one's belief in a proposition implies the truth of that proposition if one wants to believe only statements that are true. Otherwise, one is certainly inconsistent. It feels like my mind is thinking in circles.
A pragmatic guide? Pragmatic: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations. Let’s imagine a reality-based scenario wherein a prosecutor, then a grand jury, then a judge is asked to allow this argument in front of a jury: Defendant X, the sect-specific god-type, is guilty of existing. - Where are the arguments which would make it through this process and, subsequently, not encounter countless sustained objections from defense counsel? There aren’t any. - Where is the supporting evidence which would make it through this process and, subsequently, be allowed by the court? There isn’t any. - Where are the ‘expert witnesses’ which a court / a judge would allow to testify? There aren’t any. What is the difference between what someone will argue in a casual setting, philosophy class or on social media as opposed to a courtroom? Someone in the courtroom is going to say, “Alright, prove it.” What they are not going to do is let the opposing side Shift the Burden of Proof. Note: Many attorneys first study either Philosophy or Political Science prior to going to law school. It’s during law school they learn when not to answer and what arguments not to make.
@@Ir0nFrog “Litigation as religion then.” - No. Litigation of a claim via system with standards for arguments, evidence and witnesses. “Courts are the ultimate truth.” - No. Courts are venues whereby they adjudicate a claim via a system with standards for arguments, evidence and witnesses. To add: In a court, the claims that a sect-specific god-type is guilty of existing (let’s call that Claim One) and subsequently created the universe (let’s call that Claim Two) is not a religious claim. These are claims about facts of reality. Courts are venues where philosophers are held to a much higher / stricter standard and where one side must establish a ‘foundation’ and the other side is not going to allow the Shifting of the Burden of Proof. Courts are venues where various texts - the Bible, Quran and Bhagavad Gita - are not ‘evidence,’ logical syllogisms are not arguments, opinions of dead philosophers are not referenced, and theologians - William Lane Craig or Frank Turek - are not ‘expert witnesses.’ In the end, what’s suggested in university-level philosophy classes, in churches or on social media is going to be quickly shut down in a court. Knowing why will help in developing good arguments.
I believe in what you can call "God." I don't believe in it because I thought about it really hard and considered the arguments for and against, etc. I believe in "God" because I have experienced it firsthand. I can't explain the causes or reasons for "God's" existence, all I can do is make guesses. The belief comes first, then reasoning follows. You will never reason your way to "God," it must be experienced.
That is exactly what makes the existence of god(s) so dubious; the fact that the only remotely sensible arguments in favour are unfalsifiable, a synonym of wrong in academic circles.
Yes this is an old and famous rebuttal, the original example is a perfect island. Others have done things like a perfect pizza, or a realicorn- a unicorn that is real by definition.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 a perfect pizza is everyone’s favourite flavour, and everyone can eat some of it. (And it must exist or one that exists would be greater, you know the deal.) Doesn’t sound like God to me, unless God has pepperoni on him.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 sure, in the way that both are claimed to be perfect. But if one were to say that just like a perfect god must exist a perfect world, squirrel, cup, etc. must also exist, some people may take issue with comparing a perfect god to a perfect anything else.
@@peterchestnut4566 Well, I don't think a world, cup, or squirrel are truly themselves anymore when you maximize their attributes. To elaborate, squirrels are small to medium-sized rodents that are native to the Americas, Eurasia, and Africa, if they survive their vulnerable early years, they can live up to 6 years in the wild. Squirrels by definition are contingent, material, and limited beings, if you remove those features by positing a greatest conceivable thing then it's no longer a "squirrel" even though you can call it a squirrel.
This video is honestly quite helpful. Although i think it would be nice to see videos that argue against religion that base on other religions and not just Christianity. Many people only base things on Christian beliefs. But i understand that many people would use Christianity in arguments since that's what many people are more familiar with. Anyway, your channel's really good and i hope it'll continue to grow!
I am religious. Used to be atheist, hell anti-theist. And I literally have a “Philosophy and Religion” seminar in an hour. This’ll be fun. I’ll insist God is real. Edit: I reckon I’ll edit the comment as I watch. Giving my take. Edit 2: A Priori, debating the definitions and axioms is fun. I would say you can define God in a way that is objectively true, such as if you were a Pantheist and called existence God. I find myself getting into pseudo-logical debates about this because it’s that murky area. It’s not my preferable approach to proving God. But it’s got some merits. And I disagree with all A Priori arguments against God; because it’s a non-believer setting the boundaries of what a believer is believing. Edit 3: from experience, you can prove something objectively only for yourself. I would say this can be valid if you get a notable fraction of people to agree they had such experiences. Presuming this fraction is considered rational. I disagree with the “laws of physics are perfect” thought. Because the puddle takes the shape of the crack in the road. - though the widespread desire for a God is a stronger argument. Even if again you take a pantheistic view of it (if you can’t tell, I find this the easiest way to explain it. Pantheistic) then you can simply say we, as intelligent/rational beings, require that respect/interconnectedness of the universe/God. Thus, God is an emergent property of existence. Edit 4: I outright dislike the pragmatist approach, it’s just nonsensical to the way I live my life. Though this kinda bleeds into what I just previously said. That desire possibly inherent to people, the interconnectedness of the universe. I feel like it resorts to simple Dogma. You can have it theological or ideological, if you make a common code essential, that’s enough. Edit 5: I disagree with this transcendental thing too. You can, again, make a Pantheistic theology with this. But it simply isn’t my grounds for beliefs. I think it can have validity. It’s a different conception of god I believe, sort of going back to the definition of God. - you can call Logic and Existence as God. Not a god with anything like a human will though.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198it was a good video. Not sure if I called it helpful (I’m not going to be using it for its purpose of defeating religious arguments). But I liked it. Good work.
@@arianeguima3633 it might be silly to say, but THE God. I got into faith through essentially a form of Perennialism. All religions sharing a common core, a common truth about reality. From there I’ve moved to be a Panetheist. God is all existence but even more. But of all the interpretations, I believe I’m closest to Orthodox Christianity. I’d sum it up as a weird from of Orthodoxy which is, ironically, unorthodox, definitely heretical. Got a good dose of Jung, Psychedelics and Perennialism in it.
The transcendental argument for God based on epistemology is circular. The first premise claims that we are able to obtain true and rational information about the universe, it says that this is because the universe is rational, and that therefore a rational Universe implies a rational God. But the correctness of the first premise is based on the correctness of the final premise, in other words if you don't start out by assuming that a rational God exists, you cannot arrive at our ability to apprehend true and rational things about the universe or make an appeal to the universe itself being rational. The theist is in exactly the same position as the atheist in having to circularly justify reason and rationality
@Mazinphilosophy The circularity is present for scientific philosophy too - it is why they are not reliable points for grounding theistic or atheistic arguments.
I am an atheist. But I am curious how one could respond to the rebuttal that am abductive argument for God based on the idea that humans frequently exercise moral decisions that are not conducive to a flourishing society. Like saving a predator from harm or taking care of the infirm. I can definitely see an argument for why looking after the old is not as counter intuitive as one might think. But as a mostly materialist, i do struggle to appeal to materialism when it comes to explaining why humans have a drive to look after mentally disabled and terminal ill strangers. I fully believe its the right thing to do. But I can't see a satisfactory explanation why it benefits us from an evolutionary point of view.
I believe it's as simple as we make stealing and murder illegal because we can't survive in a society where its rampant, we take care of the sick or old because if it happens to us we'd want to be taken care of too. There's also cultural pressures of self sacrifice and being a good person that vary across cultures that would also inspire those behaviours as a means to fit in and belong in that society which are also materialistic needs
The explanation is quite easy. A lot of empathy evolved around you being perceived as valuable and good member of the group who is desired to be around by most. Therefore byproducts like taking care of elderly and disabled developed. Everyone wants to have someone who takes care of these people in their group, they may become elderly or disabled one day too
@Pyrrhonian I think this is a reductive way of looking at moral values. if moral decisions are results of some sort of super ego' created to live in a society, and if society is created in order to meet our survival needs, then why there are instances of people making moral decisions that endangers their survival? in other words, if survival is the final cause ( telos ) then how come the efficient cause acts against the final cause? how, let's say a fire fighter, sacrifices their life in order to save a family if the real mover of their actions is their need to survive? to me, there seems to be more than just our material needs in matters of love and sacrifice, same can be true for our other moral decisions, we simply cannot assume that they are being made for selfish reasons.
@@ary8956 I know you were not talking to me, but the evolutionary mover is survival of the species, not survival of an individual (your soldier example). Some animals eating their partner after fertilization is a good (but extreme) example of that. Also, literally everything everyone willingly does is done for selfish reasons. It's only that selfish reasons of some people are viewed as positive and some as negative. For example: When I die to save my child, I did it for purely selfish reasons, because without it I would have to live with consequences and pain of not saving my child, which is not something I would want and would be able to live with. Even when you are choosing between two option that are bad for you, you always choose the one that is better for you in the end. Of course, a thief robbing someone VS someone giving money to charity - seems like a selfish vs selfless act, while in reality both of those people did what they perceived as having the most personal gain from (regardless if it's material gain or gain in a form of fulfillment.
@@ary8956 not selfish reasons but it's always going to be easily rationalized to survival. Protecting your child or your community that you're a part of is a part of our survival instinct because the survival of the species is ultimately more important than the survival of the individual. Those who strap bombs to themselves believe they are furthering their in-group beliefs and will live on with God in the afterlife. There is some neurological evidence for this too. The production of dopamine which is not just the reward chemical but the chemical that gets us to get up and move in the first place triggers on survival based activities. At the lowest level we can say eating produces dopamine because it helps us survive. Next, sharing our food with someone we love would produce it for strengthening our bonds with others. After you can be a hunter who provides food for your whole village, that improves your standing in the village which boosts your survival and you're feeding them which again further enhances the survival of the community, so that would produce a lot of dopamine. Come up with a new farming technique that helps every village produce more food and feed the hungry and now your position in the community and what you've provided for others is massive and now borders on purpose. Like Maslow's hierarchy of needs we've moved from the mundane to the profound but survival was the driver of each step.
He’s handsome sure, alas, I think what’s more attractive is his depth of knowledge, and the urgency to acquire more, as there are frequent uploads on different topics.
Aquinas argument is actually based on experience. First he makes an observation through experience (causation exist because I can see it) and THEN he develops a few metaphysic concepts and uses infinite recursion to make god not existing absurd and nonsensical. His arguments are a priori but it is not true that they have zero experience based grounding
I love how he always looks incredibly annoyed in the thumbnails, but that makes him even more believable and serious since annoyed people are obviously incredibly smart 🤣😅
One seeks knowledge, the other seeks peace and rest. One claims objective superiority, the other claims practical superiority. One tries to create for a purpose, the other discovers a purpose. Strangely enough both claim with certitude to be free
The beauty of these "challenges" is that the same lines of logic can be applied to atheist arguments to bring us right back to square one-agnosticism. I'll probably set aside time to look into atheistic worldviews that aren't inherently materialistic, but that's about all that I've derived from this video that is truly novel in my books (besides the fancy terms and etymology of couse).
Epistemology really should be everyone's introduction to philosophy. Ultimately most arguments for or against God differ in their approach to epistemology more than anything else, and as a result, its important to be aware of the methodoly it uses to "know" or "not know"
I usually don't bother arguing against the existance of any such deity. I would much rather read the bible and call them hypocrites due to being inconsistent in their beliefs (like, for instance, being rich and donating nothing to charity while also saying that their kids should respect them even when mistreated, or claiming homosexuality is sinful) while citing a few passages of Matthew (like 7:1-5 on why they should care, or Jesus saying LYNaYLY is the most important commandment) or other law (like forgiving debts to compatriots every 7 years or not wearing tatoos). I find it's much more productive to attack their behavior within the system rather than making them doubt the validity of the system. Also dodges persecution complex and makes it so you don't friendly fire good and godly ppl. But I am an Atheist and I was not convinced by the evidence. Wonderful video, dude.
@@Some_odd_guy I am a bit lost with the analogy. Are the dead ends fundamentalists? What is the exit? Is this some sort of Koan? I semi-regularly have religious debates on good faith, but don't try to convert the good ones (they are low priority) and the bad ones don't often let themselves be convinced otherwise. You can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into unless they trust you. And these dudes don't. Much harder than helping someone with non-chemical depression, in my experience.
1) rich christians dont donate to the poor. RESPONSE) christians are statistically the most charitavle subdemographic 9n the planet 2)christians sometimes misstreat kids RESPONSE) prolly not as bad as most other groups, they try (your argument here is crap) 3) homosexuality is a sin but christians should allow it without argument because of one of Gods ten commandments RESPONSE) LYNaYLY I dont think means what you think it means, and you dont understand trauma and sexual perversion apparently... we have studies on it. (ironically you have better ammo acknowledging homosexuality is a sin, so you can argue the sexual perversions in certain churches is the problem causing homo christians... CATHOLICS)
I'm sorry to be that guy, but you should properly specify what god you're speaking of, god is kinda vague. I get that it's the Abrahamic god, but in videos like yours it seems important to be precise. Anyway, absolutely love your work, keep it up💪🏽
You clarify the topics extensively,it really helps me a lot in solving certain conflicts. Thanks a lot! Just a genuine request , would you please crop up a video on Giovanni pico della Mirandola's "Oration on the dignity of man" and how it's inextricably related to renaissance humanism and other various philosophical ideas... I'll be very grateful
I am not a Christian, i do not ascribe to any religion. I don't think any is right or wrong. I see God in the pure joy of a child. I feel God in nature. He cannot be My God or our God. God to me is the intelligence that is alive in everything alive. Trees, insects, humans,animals,oceans, space etc .The sacredness of creation,is the reason I am not an Atheist
A very reasonable answer I use to agree with this sentiment. not taking away from your point or arguing with you .But in my opinion nature and life as whole is valuable and beautiful without the need of an outside thing like god to justify it or make it amazing I feel like god does not let appreciate individual things it makes always want more .and not see the majesty in the mundane world
Ignostics put forward this incoherent definition of God, that is "defining" God in so many different forms that we simply cannot even start to begin to start talking about it since we haven't been able to start how to think what it is in the first place.
There is no argument against God. God exists as a necessary reality. However, there is an argument to be made whether or not this God is self aware / conscious. But that’s a different topic. But God exists
It's not as simple as that though because even the word God is loaded and carries pre-existing meanings for people. It's more accurate and unbiased to say something like, there's a reason that something exists rather than nothing. God implies singular being, while it could be an algorithm, an AI, or a giant space horse.
22:04 But the average person is dealing with these desires in the name of god. It isn't really a skill unless you believe it's an allegory to teach you the skill. Because when they face such desires elsewhere, they succumb to it. How many christians do you know that don't watch porn? don't sin? aren't selfish in the slightest? and so on.
For this Christmas, O Lord, I merely want two things: 1) i want atheists to at least understand the arguments for God before they argue against them; and 2) i want theists to at least understand the arguments for God before they argue with them. Can I get an 'amen' oh yeah and i guess peace on earth and goodwill yadda yadda whatevs
@@Siyaiscelestial I do not think theists (who are not seminarians or w/e) often have the strongest understanding of the underpinnings of why they believe what they believe. I find it extraordinarily frustrating.
But with those kinds of arguments I wouldn’t even wanna argue with. Furthermore I’d like to raise the question why such a master creator would care about humans specifically and the way they live, love, etc. . Wouldn’t you think if god was this infallible creator she wouldn’t care at all???
I find these conversations so funny. Humanity discussing a being that would be beyond space and time in an attempt to make it make sense to them based on the knowledge they have. There are still so many mysteries still on planet earth let alone all of existence. Whether someone believes or not the conversation is pretty funny imo.
People throw around terms like "beyond time and space" so easily. Have you considered what that means or implies? It's an utterly nonsensical statement. It's like saying something exists beyond existence and doesn't ever occur.
I believe that he created his precursors, like the volcano god from which he took his name, and created thousands more to explain the world and transmit the values necessary for society down the generations. Our evolutionary psychology is made for it. I don't think they are the most effective way of doing either at this point, but keeping the virtuous ones and reeducating the bigots seems like a decent play
Going further with this logic - you were created because your parents were lonely. No love, just two lonely people met and created another lonely individual.
@DavidSmith-cr7mb No and yes, respectively. Even if it was a forest with no animals or bugs, the plants would be influenced by that impact, the tremor could be measured way off in the distance, and the air woulf vibrate as always. Next time, try using qualia instead of sound
2 + 2 = 4 because those are the symbols for the Arabic numeral system in which 2 is a set of objects, describing an object and an object being combined(+) into a singular set with another set of an object and an object; which results(=) in a set of an object, an object, an object and an object.
Criticizing Kant's argument, Ayer noted that mathemathical statements are derived deductively purely from axioms and need not rely on sens experience. We don't really take into consideration real objects when we do math, just axioms, pure ideas
Belief is irrelevant and pointless I don't "believe" in my conscious awareness, I am just it. Same with God, that's why God says "I am" and that's why we are offspring of God because "we are" as well. Its not a matter of "belief", its simply what we are. No amount of reasoning and rationalization is going to change what we are, we just are.
For us to prove God doesn't exsist we would need to become God. The search for the God of the gaps, we would need to find a purely random result- God's hand immanent. To claim God does or doesn't exsist is to stop searching for God, and implies we know everything ergo being all knowing and thusly God.
@@sosomadman The existence of God cannot be questioned or reasoned about without first considering the premise that God exists. The idea that God does not exist originates from the concept of God's existence. So we have to become God like you mentioned.
funny thing is, youre easier the have your mind changed because you can say WHATEVER to someone whos not arguing back. dont let someone intelligent near you, they may make you think too hard and suddenly you dont have the words to keep your old mind.
I really hate that most “proofs” for gods are just saying things no one can prove true. Like the one stating humans have free will, god gave us free will therefore god exists. I’m sorry, why would humans having free will prove anything? So stoopid. I knew god was bullish when I was 4. How could god create I perfect creation if it’s not perfect now? Idk how other people hear that and are like… yeah that makes sense
Greetings, dear. May I have some of your attention if possible? I would appreciate it. I have questions for you. Why do you think we can't prove our claims? Has someone in your life before raised an argument, then got confused once asked? Or is there a specific situation you have lived through? You may even question free will itself. I have answers for you, my dear friend. To answer the basic, definition-based question of "What is free will exactly?" it is the power to decide what you will do in a certain situation. However, your decision isn't always correct nor right, as it is said in 1 Corinthians 10:23: "I have the right to do anything," you say-but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything," you say-but not everything is constructive. What point am I making here? It is that we sinned. We had the free will to choose God-to choose goodness, generosity, honor, love, hope-but we did not. Humanity, over and over again, has used and broken God's heart with sin. Thus, with the very first sin, we were cursed along with the Earth. As it is written in Genesis 3:17-19, God cursed the Earth. It is in a cursed state because of the weight of our sins: yours, mine, and many other people's sins. We humans have seriously f_cked up as we strayed from God. God created a perfect world, as Genesis chapter one describes. In the very beginning, before humanity fell, we lived in a perfect world. Everything is going to be restored, as it is said in Revelation 21:1. This is all possible because Jesus paid for our sins on the cross with his own life. His life, which held infinite worth. Can you imagine that? We were prisoners and slaves to sin, yet he freed us from everlasting judgment and death itself because he loved us that dearly. Free is multi-faced of course. Science have a say in, too. For instance, neuroscience research, like the work of Benjamin Libet, found something fascinating: our brains show activity signaling a choice before we even consciously decide. It might make one think, “Are my decisions really mine?” But consider this: does knowing the mechanics of your brain diminish the meaning of your choices? When you see the gears of a clock, does that make the time it tells any less real? Moreover, psychologists remind us that the environments we grow up in shape us more than we might like to admit. Our upbringing, culture, and even biology create a frame where our decisions play out. But that doesn’t mean we’re puppets. Instead, it shows the grace in every moment we can still choose something better, despite the weight of the world on us. From a philosophical perspective, people have debated for centuries whether free will is real. Some argue everything is determined-like dominoes falling after the first push. Others suggest that even if the dominoes fall, how you lean into them is still your choice. And then there are those who say our choices are entirely free, independent of all those dominoes. Each view has merit, but here’s the deeper question: does believing in free will help us live better? If it leads to hope, to responsibility, to growth-then perhaps its truth is found in its impact. Faith adds another layer. Free will, as the Bible frames it, is a gift, not a burden. It’s what allows love to exist. Without choice, how can love be real? That’s why 1 Corinthians 10:23 resonates so much. Yes, you are free-but your freedom isn’t about doing anything you please. It’s about doing what brings life, what builds up, what heals. When Adam and Eve chose disobedience, they misused this gift. Genesis 3:17-19 shows us the cost of that misuse-the curse on the Earth itself. But Jesus came to restore us, to show us how our choices could align with God’s love again. Isn’t it incredible? A God who lets us stray, but still offers a path back. To be honest with you, I am greatly saddened by your comment. You see, in my eyes, my Lord and my Savior died for you. He died a humiliating and painful death for your sake. He knew you before you were born and created a perfect plan for you. He loves you as much as he loved every single person on this Earth. Jesus loves you. That’s why he died, even though we did not deserve his sacrifice. I struggled with lust myself. I have stolen and ruined lives. But I am in the process of being saved, and I was saved on the day he died for my sins. I deserve nothing but to burn in hell as I cry out his name in despair and get tortured until...until forever. I fully deserve any amount of pain and suffering that may come my way as I have sinned against the person that loved and loves me the most in this whole wide universe. The person and creator who loved me enough to die for me. And there is no greater love than that, my dear friend. I won’t call you to believe in every word I say to you. However, I would like to guide you towards the person who loves you and wants to save you the most. The person who can and will save you when your time here is done-if you let him. And I would encourage you and everyone to trust in him. For he knows you, has the best of intentions, loves you- and will be there for you for all eternity if you let him in your heart, my dear friend.
Those who are blinded my darkness shall see the light of hope and life if they turn to it. The people in darkness may hate light- but it is the way. Jesus is the way and the only way, sister. Please. Let my words be a guide to the light.
@형석성소 "To answer the basic, definition-based question of "What is free will exactly?" it is the power to decide what you will do in a certain situation. However, your decision isn't always correct nor right, as it is said in 1 Corinthians 10:23:" Why would we take anything written in the Bible seriously, since you haven't demonstrated that it's not just a mythology book like all the others? Therefore, your definition of free will is just 'I want it to be true therefore it must be true!'. ""I have the right to do anything," you say-but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything," you say-but not everything is constructive." So what? The subject of the question is whether or not we have free will, not the limits of it. In fact, if it has limits, it just proves that we don't have it. "What point am I making here? It is that we sinned. We had the free will to choose God-to choose goodness, generosity, honor, love, hope-but we did not. Humanity, over and over again, has used and broken God's heart with sin. Thus, with the very first sin, we were cursed along with the Earth. As it is written in Genesis 3:17-19, God cursed the Earth. It is in a cursed state because of the weight of our sins: yours, mine, and many other people's sins. We humans have seriously f_cked up as we strayed from God." That's your story. But does it stand up to rationality? (No.) If it does, then how about you demonstrate it with evidence? Not what you want to be true, not what many people believed in in the past, but evidence? "God created a perfect world, as Genesis chapter one describes. In the very beginning, before humanity fell, we lived in a perfect world. Everything is going to be restored, as it is said in Revelation 21:1. This is all possible because Jesus paid for our sins on the cross with his own life. His life, which held infinite worth. Can you imagine that? We were prisoners and slaves to sin, yet he freed us from everlasting judgment and death itself because he loved us that dearly. Free is multi-faced of course." Prove to us that your book isn't a mythology book and nothing more, and only then we will take anything written in it seriously. Would you take me seriously if I bring verses of the book of Peter Pan as serious arguments in serious debates? No, not until I can demonstrate that the book of Peter Pan is true without saying 'well the book said so!'. Why can't you do the same? Is it so hard to prove something that you think is true? If it were, it wouldn't be hard, right? "Science have a say in, too. For instance, neuroscience research, like the work of Benjamin Libet, found something fascinating: our brains show activity signaling a choice before we even consciously decide. It might make one think, “Are my decisions really mine?” But consider this: does knowing the mechanics of your brain diminish the meaning of your choices? When you see the gears of a clock, does that make the time it tells any less real?" That's an argument against the existence of free will, not in favor of it. "Moreover, psychologists remind us that the environments we grow up in shape us more than we might like to admit. Our upbringing, culture, and even biology create a frame where our decisions play out. But that doesn’t mean we’re puppets. Instead, it shows the grace in every moment we can still choose something better, despite the weight of the world on us." So if you're born in an echo chamber where everyone follows blindly the ideas that fairies and unicorns exist, you will grow up believing in it too even though it's irrational and definitely not backed up by science. Sounds like religion. "From a philosophical perspective, people have debated for centuries whether free will is real. Some argue everything is determined-like dominoes falling after the first push. Others suggest that even if the dominoes fall, how you lean into them is still your choice. And then there are those who say our choices are entirely free, independent of all those dominoes. Each view has merit, but here’s the deeper question: does believing in free will help us live better? If it leads to hope, to responsibility, to growth-then perhaps its truth is found in its impact." So in other words, 'I want it to be true, therefore I will start with the presupposition that it's true and work my way to the conclusion I really like while ignoring all the evidence going against it!' except the truth doesn't care about feelings. Too bad you can't figure it out, since you really want to believe. "Faith adds another layer. Free will, as the Bible frames it, is a gift, not a burden. It’s what allows love to exist. Without choice, how can love be real? That’s why 1 Corinthians 10:23 resonates so much. Yes, you are free-but your freedom isn’t about doing anything you please. It’s about doing what brings life, what builds up, what heals. When Adam and Eve chose disobedience, they misused this gift. Genesis 3:17-19 shows us the cost of that misuse-the curse on the Earth itself. But Jesus came to restore us, to show us how our choices could align with God’s love again. Isn’t it incredible? A God who lets us stray, but still offers a path back." Well that's simple, love isn't real. Just like science, infinity, or even your God, it's only ideas and concepts. I didn't bother to read the verses, since you can't demonstrate the base source is rational, try that first. "To be honest with you, I am greatly saddened by your comment. You see, in my eyes, my Lord and my Savior died for you. He died a humiliating and painful death for your sake. He knew you before you were born and created a perfect plan for you. He loves you as much as he loved every single person on this Earth. Jesus loves you. That’s why he died, even though we did not deserve his sacrifice." I could replace "he" with Peter Pan, Cinderella, Pinkie Pie, or any other fictional character, and the sentence will have the same meaning, which is to say no meaning at all, since you can't demonstrate "he" even existed in the first place. That's why we're not impressed with faith. If you tell me there's a cat in the room, I want you to bring me the cat so I can examine it and conclude that your claim is true. Not your beliefs about invisible intangible cats, but the cat itself. It's as simple. "I struggled with lust myself. I have stolen and ruined lives. But I am in the process of being saved, and I was saved on the day he died for my sins. I deserve nothing but to burn in hell as I cry out his name in despair and get tortured until...until forever. I fully deserve any amount of pain and suffering that may come my way as I have sinned against the person that loved and loves me the most in this whole wide universe. The person and creator who loved me enough to die for me. And there is no greater love than that, my dear friend." Yes you do. Too bad it won't happen though. "I won’t call you to believe in every word I say to you. However, I would like to guide you towards the person who loves you and wants to save you the most. The person who can and will save you when your time here is done-if you let him. And I would encourage you and everyone to trust in him. For he knows you, has the best of intentions, loves you- and will be there for you for all eternity if you let him in your heart, my dear friend." That's what we ask for. To guide us in your rational reasoning that led you to the rational conclusion that a God exists and that it's your God. So how do you "guide" us rationally, since we don't want claims or feelings, but EVIDENCE ?
@PitchBlack0000 My dear friend, Allow me to address you as such- It seems you have questions, perhaps doubts, about free will, about faith, and about the very essence of God. Your questions are not trivial, nor are they unwelcome; If you are willing to hear my voice, I would like to answer your arguments to the best of my abilities. When I speak of free will, I am not merely offering a convenient definition or quoting a sacred text without reason. Rather, I am pointing to something intrinsic to the human experience: the power to choose, the awareness of choice, and the moral responsibility that arises from it. The Bible, in 1 Corinthians 10:23, states: “I have the right to do anything,” you say-but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything,” you say-but not everything is constructive." You might ask- "Why take this verse seriously? Why view the Bible as more than mythology or fairy tales?" I hear your skepticism, and I respect it. It is a fair challenge, and I will address it with both heart and the evidence I know off, my friend. So- Why trust the Bible? The Bible is not a singular book as you may know, but a collection of texts written over 1,500 years by more than 40 authors from diverse backgrounds and years. Despite its diversity, it weaves a consistent narrative and humanity’s first hyperlinked book having 65000 cross references. Yes. 65000 cross references from 40 enterely different people through history. This is a confirmed fact mapped out. Name another book so detailed, foretelling and acknowledged like God's word. It is written that the men that wrote the Bible are eyewitnesses. This is not second-hand information nor a fairy tale like you would like to suggest. Archaeological evidence, too, repeatedly confirms the Bible’s historical claims. To give you an example of my claim:The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls affirmed the accuracy of Old Testament manuscripts, showing remarkable consistency with texts we use today. Or Cities such as Jericho and Nineveh, once thought mythical, have been unearthed with evidence aligning with biblical accounts. The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies written centuries before their fulfillment. Consider Isaiah 53, written over 700 years before Christ, describing in detail the suffering and purpose of Jesus’ crucifixion. No other text in antiquity offers such predictive precision. The prophecies are one thing, however- during the years, many challenged the Author's truthfulness and eyewitness as they have claimed and gone through tests to examine the written word's truthfulness. There can be found no lie as the authors would rather humiliate themselves by writing the truth than write a lie that may make them seen as an idol. After all- why would they write embarrassing things that have happened if it's a lie anyways? Why didn't they make themselves look good? Because they were more concerned about the truth than themselves. So- why is it important that they were honest? What does it matter? Because all the disciples except John, the martyrs of the book of Maccabees, Jeremiah,Zechariah- they have all died a brutal and painful death for their faith. Some were stoned to death, some crucified, burned to death- why would all those men die in such a way for a lie? If they, specially the followers of Jesus didn't experience all that, why would they go through all that suffering? It would be meaningless. All they had to do was deny Our Lord, Jesus then they would have been left alone- they would have been spared. They didn't. For a reason no other than it was the truth. Then- it raises another question. Does the Bible contain what the authors have actually written down thousands of years ago? Well- first, we have to look at the time gaps between when the author has written the passage and when the first copy of that was made. As people of that time period would hand-write exactly what was written down in the original documents.These hand-writen documents, copies and originals were called manuscripts. The smaller the time gaps between the copies and the originals, the more accuracy we may have on the information at hand. Caesar had 1000 years, Plato's tetralogies 1200 years- and the Bible had a time gap of 50 years of time after the life of Jesus.The first biography we have of Alexander The Great is for a 400 or so years after he had died, yet no man questions his existence, somehow. Yet, we have four biographies (the gospels) of Jesus within 50 years of his life, yet many people seem to have a problem with the Bible's statements and demand evidence that it isn't a fairy tale. With over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts and 24,000 ancient manuscripts overall, the Bible surpasses any other ancient document in textual preservation. If the Bible is a fairy tale book, then Julius Caesar is not even to be considered an unicorn. You may even throw out the History books you have on ancient times, too. The Bible’s teachings have profoundly shaped law, ethics, and human rights across centuries. It's influence extends far beyond mere mythology. Many philosophical debates on religion acknowledge that its teachings, even without belief, are of good value. 9 other non-christian materials within 150 years have mention of Jesus, too. The Bible is backed up by non-believers accounts, too. Within the time of Caesar, there are 10 materials mentioning him. So- even if you take the Bible out of it, Jesus's existence is something no one can deny. You argue that if free will has limits, it proves its nonexistence. Yet, even in science, the presence of limits does not negate reality. Consider gravity: its effects are observable and measurable, yet it does not render us incapable of jumping. Similarly, free will operates within a framework-one shaped by biology, culture, and morality-but it remains real. Neuroscience, such as Benjamin Libet’s experiments, shows brain activity preceding conscious awareness of decisions. Yet this does not abolish free will; rather, it highlights the complexity of human agency. Consciousness, unconscious processes, and decision-making are interconnected-a testament to the intricate design of our Creator. You challenge me to prove God’s existence rationally. While evidence abounds, faith transcends mere intellect. It engages the whole person-mind, heart, and soul. Faith is not blind but is trust in him. My dear friend, God is not a distant fairy-tale figure but the Creator who knows you intimately and loves you profoundly. He does not demand belief without question but invites you to explore, to wrestle with doubt, and to find Him not only in the pages of a book but in the quiet whispers of your heart, the beauty of creation, and the transformative power of grace. He loves and knows us. He knows of your doubts, your sins, your habits- he knows you and wants to have a relationship with you. He loves and forgives. Seek- and you will find. I love you, too. My dear friend. I do hope this could serve to you as evidence.
In Christianity people do good not because they have a reward or to gain favor, they do that good out of love, and that love is a choice, not a feeling. It’s the same act as someone who owns a pet they love, they choose to care for it, feed it, play with it, and simply care for it out of love, even though every state in America has a law against neglecting pets and treating them unfairly(sin) a pet owner isn’t caring for their pet to follow the law, they are caring for the pet out love and out of that love they fall in line with the law. Same for Christians who have accepted Christ and out of that choice fall in line with Gods law. Christians believe all things good come from God. It’s that act of choosing that is love.
No, personal reward is absolutely a part of why Christians do good. Not only is it the smug self satisfaction of doing a good deed, its also the promise of eternal paradise. Nobody does good deeds purely for the sake of doing good deeds. Even if its just the feel good brain juices flowing, good deeds are always done for personal benefit.
@ that is literally the opposite of the Gospel and Christianity. You have a flawed understanding of Christ and his word. An individual may fit what you’re saying, all are guilty of sin after all, but that’s not what the Gospel preaches. Personal benefit does not mean that others also do not benefit, I donate money to others because I genuinely want to help, and yes that makes me feel good about myself but to say that’s the sole reason, that it’s that black&white is not the truth.
@@yeetcannon5907the other guys right I'm afraid In Christianity there is no reward for doing good thing. Acceptance of Christ gives people salvation. If you truly do that, you're in - no matter your actions. If you don't do that, you're out - no matter your actions
Then why even have a transcendent realm called Heaven if the motive of a Christian is not to have a reward from doing good deeds but out of love? Theoretically, wouldn't this in turn make the Earth lean toward heaven which the Christians seek? The Taoist don't believe in a Heaven nor a Hell but they live in the moment in harmony with their community and the universe. They do kind things from the soul just like how you argue Christians do. I feel like the existence of heaven is unnecessary.
I'm still curious about your view for Lewis's argument that say: "There is always some unquenchable desire in every human being, and that should be trancendent a.k.a God" in general
One thing I've never understood about the atheists I've spoken with was their incessant need to evangelize for their faith. Everyone else must convert to atheism or be assumed inferior. Acting the same as the people they supposedly despise so much.
Because religion pushes laws that control people's lives. Atheism does no such thing. You're also falling for confirmation bias and not noticing your how much more theists do it than atheists. I come across jw or evangelists 3 or 4 times a week. My city has some people with signs out at all times. And in the 15 years I've lived here not a single atheist evangelist. Get real.
@@Pyrrhonian Oh, your city has to be the navel of the world, when you - without any confirmation bias of course - judge the rest of the world by it. In my city you could have been be jailed just by being actively religious not so long ago. Get real.
@@alena-qu9vjdon't care how it was before, the point is I've never heard of any city where atheists evangelize in the street. Meanwhile the groups outside my building are literally preying on university students telling them how wicked and sinful they are, many of whom are thousands of miles from home and away from their friends and family, stressed from the school day, and it pains me to know some will fall for it out of fear when their logic is most unavailable. When those preaching themselves believe out of fear and desperation, so why not spread it to others, right?
There’s a selection effect here because atheists that are not interested in proselytizing wouldn’t engage in such a conversation. Most atheists live silently about their beliefs on religion because most people don’t spend time talking about what they don’t believe. We tend to spend our time focusing on what we positively believe are true and worthwhile. My personal view is that most people are wrong about most things most of the time, so it’s not at all surprising that most people are incorrect about god. I feel no obligation to correct everyone’s misapprehension. I tolerate the religious because they’re allowed to be wrong. This stops when they try to legislate their beliefs.
@@chemquests Wrong. Give power to religious fanatic, he will misuse it. Give power to atheistic fanatic, he will misuse it precisely the same. Read something about the communist persecution of religion after the sowjet revolution.
The watch argument falls for one main reason with me. Since every subsequent layer of unfolding time is an increase in complexity (even the simple trajectory of two bodies having collided in space is built on simpler pre-collision circumstances) then a watch of some complexity has that value set atop the complexity of the human making it. And since humans are of the natural world, the resultant developments from them, imbued with any additional complexity, are just further examples of a complex natural world. A bird nest which exists due to the complexity of the bird and is complex itself is still natural. And tracing back, if complexity arises from simpler conditions, one would end up with ultimate simplicity rather than an infinitely complex deity.
Head to squarespace.com/unsolicitedadvice to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code UNSOLICITEDADVICE
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS
Support me on Patreon here (you lovely person): patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more (very occasional) philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
Watch your video now as always 😊
I'm very much still a beginner in terms of my understanding of philosophy, but I cannot explain the feeling when after you explained the ontological argument, I was like, "Then similarly a perfect coffee **must** exist?" and two minutes later you explain how a perfect sandwich must exist if the ontological argument were true. Man, now I feel like god. Thank you for your vids as always.
@seven.v5 But this response is quite poor. Something that could go out of existence is less perfect than something that is necessary, and must always exist. A "perfect coffee", would then imply a coffee that can't go out of existance, which would mean you couldn't even drink it, meaning it wouldn't be a perfect coffee. So there is a contradiction. In general any material thing, is a contingent thing, and can not therefore be perfect.
@@seven.v5 in general when it come to philosophy, you should be quite cautious if you think you've had some epiphany that completely destroys an argument. There is almost always a counter argument, so it's then your duty to look at the counter arguments and consider their worth.
To be honest, it’s not my favored response either (I also think both the perfect island and the perfect sandwich would be unable to consistently define, though personally not specifically because they are contingent but because they are just not the kind of objects that seem like they could be possessed of every possible perfection) - I much prefer the “existence is not a predicate” response from Kant. I felt like I ought to include the other response though just because it is so influential
I’m an engineering student taking an introductory philosophy course, we’re talking about God right now so this is perfect timing
Careful as a lot of attacks on religion are currently to supplant it with Marxist descendant religion. All faith based arguments are kind of bad, especially when reality directly contradicts them on predictions.
God, by definition, must be vastly smarter than humans, more powerful, make choices, at times,in ways humans cannot grasp, and exist forever.
A "true God" is uncreated, cannot be manipulated by humans.
To fit these criteria, no argument humans can make against (God) can be true, and no experiment can prove or disprove God.
The only thing atheist arguments can actually do is shòot down human conceptions about God.
Proof of there having been a Superintelligence Which Created Atoms:
Their precision and function. The narrow tolerances of 20+ enission spectral lines of the simplest atom, Hydrogen cannot arise from a random collection of particles.
For Life On Earth:
IThe "information-specified construction of nanomachines and nanostructures which function as complex systems" all act as if each has a goal or a purpose to acheive, as part of the systems in living organisms.
Dawkins says science ptoves DNA holds/stores digital information, and the systems created from this information are unrelated to the chemical nature of what holds the information, in that the genetic code is arbitrary. Different assignments of codon to a.a. were the base sequences still correct, would have no effect on the production of that protein ( provided...)
The dncoding is base 64, unidirectional and only on 1 strand.
And, the mechanisms for copying that DNA is utterly unique in the LUCA for bacteriacea and archaea.
Summing it up, the sciencr of statistics proves a Superintelligence created life on Earth, twice.
And, caterpillar to moth is also impossible from random genes with random turning on and off sequences.
How am I doing in proving a God?
Alex- are you looking for a God which must match your criteria for your God's existence?
Or, are you open to One so far beyond your ability to conceive, that it cannot be pinned down by the either/or propositions the laws of logic demand?
Makes sense. Gotta learn about the first engineer lol
Dude. Insane work, I can’t believe you can crank out such fantastic videos at such a frequent rate. Keep it up!
This video only convinced me that the perfect sandwich does exist.
And only one person ever gets to enjoy it.
But outsourcing faith doesn't. It comes from within, not from YT videos.
Of course. It's a BLT but with hollandaise instead of mayonnaise.
@@vitriolicAmaranthNo the perfect sandwich is a Cheddar Ploughman sandwich 😊
@@jashirei7581 Well only zero people get to never enjoy it. Many people may but we can never know if any have.
My childhood dog had to be put down a few days ago and honestly it's been really hard on me. My family isnt religious, my mom didnt even keep her ashes, and whenever I'm back home it's felt like theres a hole in my heart and house that will never be filled. The idea of her spirit sticking around with us brings me a lot of comfort, even if it's just coping. I've never been religious myself either, and in practice I'm not, but it makes me feel better about it. It makes me a lot more sympathetic to religious folks.
Why not keep her ashes if you needed them to be kept?
I'm sorry for your loss.
I'm sorry for your loss. Hope you recover well enough. Take care.
Let your dog rest in peace. I wish you and all of us all the best. 🙏❤
This is why I wish I could go back to being religious, it's so comforting to know that something or someone invisible exists out there and can protect you and your close ones unconditionally. Sorry for your loss.
Appreciate the humility of not claiming to "debunk" those type of argument but just to analyze them in their simplest form
Thank you for presenting a good outlook of both sides for each idea. Having a complete argument and rebuttal is so refreshing, and presents the amount of grey area between belief and skepticism.
I admire your ability to genuinely analyze views that are different from yours to better understand the bigger picture
Unfortunately I cant do this due to a strong bias, but I recognize this and try to avoid it as much as possible
Keep up the good work 👐
Why do you have such a strong bias? Is it personal?
@IronicPyronic yeah, kinda
As a Christian I must say you are my favorite atheist content creator on RUclips.
You are very modest, gentleman. Hope you continue making this kind of videos.
He’s telling people there is no morality and killing a human is no different than killing a bug.
No, thats just your bias talking @@JeremyMckay-b7k
I was literally just searching for this exact video. Thank you so much!
I like how these videos encourage my brain to think about deep topics. It's really hard to do that in the age of fast media.
I think the opposite is true. People are thirsty for depth in a modern and flat world.
You’re very well spoken, do you memorize everything or does it just come naturally from all the reading and writing? Great video brother keep making progress!
He reads a script ofc
22:07 an example of this is how in Islam, it is said that God is not in need of your hunger or thirst, pointing towards how the point of fasting in Ramadan is not about staying hungry or thirsty but also about staying away from bad deeds and putting yourself in the shoes of the needy. so Islam teaches self control and sympathy through the fasts of Ramadan
I appreciate how you said “challenge” and not “debunk”
Ah thank you! It was a deliberate choice. I am not sure whether I would ever feel confident enough to say that God had been "debunked". Though perhaps that is just wishful thinking on my part - I am a very reluctant atheist.
Cry
I love this analysis, as a christian myself my reason for being one is simply faith and fear of the unknown. I hope in the future the truth will be made more clear in my life.
Yep , and any other religious person could say the same about his belief.
With faith alone all the fairy tales are true , and when it comes to religions since they are mutually exclusive , either one is true or all of them are false.
@@mornotafiwith faith alone all fairy tales are false as your personal experience says otherwise 😉
All religions are both very true and very false. I am a Christian simply because that's what my local society is. Where I find their beliefs in the myths silly, I find their spiritually more highly evolved than the average man. Within my church, I find truly good people I can't find elsewhere. I like good, moral people. Therefore, I socialize within a church.
You don't (truly) follow Jesus because you're scared of the unknown. You sound like a Luke warm Christian.
@@michaelanderson8911Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the light brother. "None shall come to the Father except THROUGH me, he who rejects me rejects he who sent me"
I was gonna argue, but then i realized it's utterly pointless
Insha’Allah, my friend, Insha’Allah
Thank you very much. I really enjoyed your episode about Robert Sapolsky. Maybe you could create an episode about the distribution of opinions and their diversity of democracy?
What I mean is the relationship between opinions and polarization. For instance, the idea that "if you're not with us, then you're with them," where "them" also claim, "if you're not with us, then you're with those." It creates a dichotomy where no third option seems to exist.
Or the use of concept X as a panacea. It is so often employed by different parties to accuse each other.
Something like this topic would be really interesting to watch!
Every coin has two sides. Unfortunately many people fail to see that every coin also has an edge.
"We so back " love my theology !
Personally my favourite argument is the grand design "fallacy"
The point in any argument is not to challenge views, it's arriving at the truth(for any side)!
Usually challenge a view is a pre-requisite for arriving at the truth, but it's only an instrumental goal, just like how knowing the truth about something is an instrumental goal to a terminal goal (like curing cancer or seeing the amount of suffering in the world drop to a hundredth of the current amount)
Ideas must be able to clash and defend themselves from other ideas in order to arrive closer to the truth. I dont know where you got that naive idea from.
@@bekeludesta2225 ideas are like mind visuses. some may even eat others. it's, like, meant to be brutal. If that leads to truth is debatable though. As someone with an indirect realistic view on things, i can only say, that we aim at approximating to what is real or true. What we say we know or what is triue, is all just at worse an educated guess and at best an equivalent thing (in opposition to the actual thing).
Also, fallibilism. We arent the most reliable beings, we have flawed senses, flawed attention, flawed memories, flawed interpretations, etc. It's all just a big WIP project to arrive at what could be referred to as true or real for the time being.
Some truths may simply be impossible to arrive at though. That’s why there are so many mutually exclusive metaphysical views.
@@yeetcannon5907 The point is still to arrive at truth, challenging views is just a means to an end. His idea is not naive in this sense.
2 + 2 might not equal 4 under a finite field.
To give you an intuitive example, imagine that we're tracking the position of a hand on a clock, but instead of 12 marks, the clock only has 3. Once the hand reaches the 2 mark, we add 2 marks to its count. Where will the hand end up? The hand will end up at 1. Under these circumstances, 2 + 2 = 1.
...highlighting the point that 2 + 2 = 4 makes sense as long as we agree on what 2 means and what 4 means and the basis for the numerical system. In other words, a neat little tool that is useful in limited settings and only really exists in our imagination
@@josemjerez2140 Sure, but I think this example shows more.
What you're saying is that we can swap definitions of numbers around, if I understand you correctly.
But what I'm saying is that with the same definitions for the number 2, we can still have a different outcome. In other words, we can redefine the "+" operation.
@@peezieforestem5078 yeah I missed that we also need to define "+" (and even "=" if you think about it) but it's still the same point, models are handy but intentionally reductive (otherwise they would serve no purpose)
@@josemjerez2140 Agreed. As a person who got into the math because it was rigid and very right/wrong, I had my world shattered when I realized we can define arbitrary mathematics, and that there can never be consistency in any formal system... But, in the end, I'm glad that it helped me get out of my inflexible mindset.
Why do we assume that something existing is more perfect that something that doesn't? Is purely existing objectively good?
Ingrown toenails that exist are better than ingrown toenails that don’t exist
@@ecta9604perfect example of existing doesn't mean it's good.
@@ecta9604yeah but we would cobsider ingrown toenails bad, so their existence wouldn't be good. However, exsitence of a good, lovijg and powerful being at least seems good.
no, some existences are the result of an undesired incident, or a malfunction.
@@kaktustustus1244
He's "loving" only in name
He's not actually loving and if he's sending people to hell
Then he's definitely not better existing..
your skills for talking are marvelous
I grew up in a Christian household.
Never could understand how anyone could believe in that stuff.
My biggest question as a kid was always "tf was god even doing before he made everything then? Like.. before angels and earth, and the universe? What was god doing? And for how long? Does god have a creation point? If he always existed, then tf was he doing before the universe?"
Science won my interests as a child and religion just looked silly.
God exists above time, so he didn’t spend time waiting around, everything to him happens at once. Time is the 4th dimension, and God is above all forms of dimensionality, God would look at time similar to how we would look at a line drawn on paper. We see it all at once. But for a being that exists solely on such a line they would only see directly forwards and directly backwards to the,
@@batataooo6937
You can’t exist outside of time and interact within it. That’s a contradiction. Our reality cannot have existing contradictions. Married bachelors don’t exist and never will.
The category that best matches what you're describing is often called Empirical Agnosticism or sometimes Agnostic Empiricism. This stance emphasizes a scientific, evidence-based approach to the question of God's existence without committing to belief or disbelief. Here's a breakdown of the key aspects:
Empirical Agnosticism (Agnostic Empiricism)
Neutral Stance: It neither accepts nor rejects the existence of God. It remains open to the possibility but requires clear, empirical evidence before making any conclusion.
Focus on Evidence: This position relies on scientific methods-observable, testable, and repeatable evidence-to determine what is true.
No Belief or Faith: It does not engage in belief or faith-based approaches. It only considers verifiable facts.
Skeptical and Open-Minded: Empirical agnostics are skeptical of claims that lack evidence but are open to changing their view if new, substantial evidence is presented.
Why This Category Fits Your Description
No Belief Required: Unlike theists or atheists, empirical agnosticism doesn’t operate on belief. Instead, it asks, “What does the evidence show?”
Scientific Methodology: It aligns closely with a scientific viewpoint, emphasizing that claims about reality-whether they involve God or not-must be supported by empirical data.
Suspension of Judgment: It holds a neutral position until there is concrete, objective evidence to support or refute the existence of a deity.
Open to New Evidence: If credible and testable evidence for God were to be discovered, empirical agnostics would be willing to revise their position.
Key Characteristics of Empirical Agnosticism
Testability: Any claims about God must be testable in principle. If evidence for God's existence were measurable or observable, an empirical agnostic would consider it.
Falsifiability: A claim about God's existence should be structured so that it could, in theory, be proven false if evidence contradicts it.
Neutrality: It avoids making assumptions about the existence or non-existence of God, prioritizing evidence over preconceptions.
Intellectual Honesty: Acknowledges the limits of current knowledge and does not make absolute statements without solid backing.
Related Philosophical Approaches
Skepticism: Similar to empirical agnosticism, skepticism values doubt and requires evidence before accepting any claim. However, skepticism can be broader and apply to many areas beyond just the existence of God.
Methodological Naturalism: This is a principle in science that investigates the world using natural causes and explanations, without invoking the supernatural unless the evidence points that way.
Philosophical Naturalism: While often associated with atheism, it shares a focus on understanding the universe based on observable facts and natural laws. It does not necessarily deny the possibility of God but asks for sufficient evidence.
Scientific Realism: The idea that the world should be understood based on scientific discovery and empirical evidence. It avoids metaphysical assumptions and relies on data and research.
Key Idea in Simple Terms
Empirical agnosticism is about waiting for evidence. It does not assume anything is true or false without evidence. It’s not about faith or disbelief-it's about an open-ended curiosity and reliance on facts, evidence, and logic.
If a conclusive, empirical demonstration of God's existence (or non-existence) were possible, someone with this mindset would be ready to accept it, regardless of what the conclusion might be. Until then, they remain open to all possibilities.
Empirical Agnosticism, while intellectually rigorous and scientifically oriented, is not without its criticisms. Here are some of the most common critiques and challenges associated with this stance:
1. Demand for Evidence May Be Unrealistic
Criticism: The requirement for empirical, testable evidence for God's existence might be seen as setting an impossible standard. Many argue that if a deity exists, especially one that is transcendent, such a being might not be bound by the physical laws and limitations that allow for empirical observation.
Counterpoint: Supporters argue that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Without evidence, it is difficult to differentiate between genuine claims and imaginative or misleading ideas.
2. Limits of the Scientific Method
Criticism: The scientific method is inherently limited to studying the natural world, which operates within physical and observable laws. If God exists beyond the natural, then empirical methods might not be suitable tools to determine God's existence.
Counterpoint: Empirical agnostics argue that if God interacts with the physical world in any detectable way, then these interactions should, in theory, leave observable traces. They maintain that if no such traces are found, it is reasonable to withhold belief.
3. The Issue of Falsifiability
Criticism: Some argue that the concept of God is not falsifiable, meaning there’s no way to disprove God’s existence if the definition is too vague or malleable. If the evidence for or against God's existence is inherently unfalsifiable, then waiting for proof might be a futile endeavor.
Counterpoint: Supporters contend that the burden of proof rests on those making a claim (theists), and until there is clear evidence to support the claim, empirical agnosticism is a responsible and rational stance.
4. Potential Bias Against Metaphysical Claims
Criticism: Empirical agnosticism might be seen as biased toward materialism and naturalism, ignoring or dismissing metaphysical claims that cannot be empirically tested. Critics argue that this view excludes subjective or non-empirical forms of knowledge that many find meaningful, such as personal religious experiences.
Counterpoint: Advocates argue that while metaphysical claims are valid in philosophical discussions, they cannot be verified objectively. They stress that science and reason should be the primary tools for understanding reality.
5. Indifference to the Spiritual and Ethical Dimensions
Criticism: By focusing solely on empirical evidence, this position might overlook the personal, spiritual, and moral aspects of religion. Some critics suggest that empirical agnosticism might be emotionally or spiritually sterile, ignoring the subjective value that belief can provide.
Counterpoint: Supporters argue that knowledge should be distinct from emotional or spiritual fulfillment. They maintain that people can live meaningful lives guided by ethics, reason, and compassion without making unverified metaphysical commitments.
6. Paralysis of Analysis (Infinite Skepticism)
Criticism: Empirical agnosticism might lead to a kind of paralysis, where no decision or action is taken because of the constant demand for perfect evidence. Critics argue that some level of belief or assumption is necessary for daily life and practical decision-making.
Counterpoint: Empirical agnostics respond that their skepticism applies mainly to significant existential or metaphysical claims, not everyday practical decisions. They advocate for a cautious approach, rather than hastily committing to unfounded beliefs.
7. Lack of Practical Engagement
Criticism: This position may be seen as overly intellectual, failing to engage with religious practices or communities. Some critics suggest that empirical agnosticism lacks the communal, ritualistic, and cultural dimensions that many find valuable in religious traditions.
Counterpoint: Supporters emphasize that knowledge about reality should not depend on tradition or community involvement but on what can be known, tested, and proven.
8. The Infinite Regress Problem
Criticism: Critics argue that demanding empirical evidence for God could lead to an infinite regress, where any proof for God's existence requires another layer of proof for the proof's validity, potentially making it impossible to ever reach a satisfactory conclusion.
Counterpoint: Proponents of empirical agnosticism suggest that this problem exists for many areas of inquiry and is not unique to the question of God. They argue for setting reasonable standards of evidence based on context.
9. Potential Alienation from Theistic and Atheistic Communities
Criticism: By taking a neutral stance, empirical agnostics can be isolated from both theistic and atheistic communities. They may be seen as indecisive or "fence-sitting," neither committing to a belief in God nor rejecting it outright.
Counterpoint: Empirical agnostics value intellectual honesty over communal alignment, prioritizing the search for truth over social belonging.
10. The Problem of "Evidence Threshold"
Criticism: What constitutes "sufficient" evidence for God? Critics point out that empirical agnosticism can struggle with the subjective nature of what counts as convincing evidence. What one person considers valid evidence, another might dismiss.
Counterpoint: Empirical agnostics argue that a consensus can be built using objective criteria similar to those used in science: reproducibility, predictability, and explanatory power.
11. Meaning and Morality Without God
Criticism: Empirical agnosticism faces the challenge of deriving meaning and morality without a divine source. Critics argue that without belief in God, moral and existential questions might lack a firm foundation.
Counterpoint: Empirical agnostics often rely on secular moral systems, such as humanism or ethical naturalism, which propose that meaning and morality can be based on human experience, empathy, and reason rather than divine command.
Summary of Criticisms
Empirical agnosticism is seen as a rational and evidence-based stance, but it faces challenges related to the limits of evidence, the potential exclusion of metaphysical knowledge, and a perceived lack of engagement with religious or spiritual life. Despite these criticisms, supporters maintain that it represents a responsible and cautious approach to one of humanity’s most profound questions-whether or not God exists-by demanding that any answers be grounded in objective evidence.
@@shailendradas1661are you an empirical agnostic?
@@DecemberDaydreamsIt's more like they know how to use AI.
This thread is BALLIN YOOO
@@jonny6manObviously no one has the time to sit down and type all that not even unemployment mfs
How someone can be that smart and attractive. God did a great job creating this guy
I see wat you dit here.
And a bad job on me. I'm ugly and dumb
@ Good for us we have the same right to exist as the other half
god isnt real
People confuse Christianity. A Christian is someone who has the Holy Spirit in them, they have chosen to follow Christ. It’s a choice. Being born in a Christian family and going to church isn’t what a Christian is. You choose to be a Christian, you are not born a Christian. You make a conscious choice for whatever reason it may be to accept Christ. I think to many say they are a Christian simply because they grew up in a Christian household. They never actively made that choice.
What does a Christian with the Holy Spirit in them look like versus someone who just claims to be Christian?
So pastors, priests, and apologists will reject donations from people you don't consider to be Christians?
Cut the no true scotsman. "They aren't REAL Christians"
@@shreenybeany1751
More loving than they were before
Everyone still has faults, people still mess up and do wrong. But the bible claims that you will see someone's work as evidence of their faith. Their actions will change in response to how God has changed them
might be, but that tosses the coin over to the workings of the holy spirit. What exactly does it feel like or does it enable one to do, while having the connection to it, which cannot be done or felt without that connection?
As i was a christian i often confused feelings like confidence, pride, serenity, comfort or a pleasent surprise as being such feelings and acts of friendship, kindness or joy as causes by the holy spirit.
And as an atheist, i saw how i sorted things into what did belong to god and what not, which felt increasingly wrong to do, as i read up on non-dualistic religions and psychology. Examples like villians being teachers instead of wicked criminals, criminals being the sum of their environments rather than purposefully wicked, and that personality itself albeit being categorizable, leaving the impression of being fixed, has no real part, as the buddha put it "there's no self", much like language, in which words were invented for practical use, identifications were invented for practical use as well and can only ever be a temporary placeholder for a set of past experiences or memories.
So i ultimately adopted some indirect realism as my philosophical stance. All the things we say there are, aren't the things themselves, but a temporary placeholder of what we have experiences, expressed through language as a temporary placeholder for our experiences and remembered as such, in an incomplete yet fallible manner for later use and reflections, such as thoughts and daydreams.
I hope that summarizes my view and questioning about stuff there. And way of thinking, which are also just observations, hence placeholders.
And sorry for the long text, i've adhd and i kinda forgot the question i've read inbetween the lines.
I am watching this as a christian, and to be really honest. I still be after this. i find it interesting how opinions can differ and viewpoints of such controversy are still talked about. This strenghtend my faith. Enjoy your day.
That´s the thing about faith, it requires little or no reason to function, so philosophy can´t deal with it.
@@roddydelipsa1769 Faith does require a fair amount of evidence, and the rest is trust, so I wouldn't say "little to none." Atheists tend to confuse what Christians mean by faith quite often by missing that part. Furthermore, reason can't function without faith, so no philosopher or atheist is free from it. The difference is that atheists put their faith in secular evidence, theists in theist evidence.
So why are you Christian? Do you see evidence for Jesus to have resurrected?
@@roddydelipsa1769 so why are there philosophers doing philosophy about the existence of God? Isn't the 5 ways a group of philosophical arguments? .... There are people who believe in God with poor arguments and atheists who have poor arguments and don't believe because it sounds ridiculous and both are wrong
@@jonny6manthere's no physical evidence, if there's no physical evidence it didn't happen... There's no physical evidence of Socrates'arguments therefore Socrates never gave philosophical arguments...but hold on why do we take Plato's testimony as a reason for the existence of Socrates arguments? Isn't that the same reason christians take credibility from the disciples?... I guess by the evidence you were asking you meant physical evidence but that's not the only evidence that exists... So you can argue about Hercules, first you have to prove the existence as a historical figure and then you can discuss what he did but with Jesus even the atheist can't deny the existence of a historical figure because he did exist
A video on materialism and idealism would be very useful for your viewers, I think.
Taking precautions doesn't mean you believe something will happen. It just means you accept the possibility of the thing, regardless of belief.
Then you don’t truly believe it is impossible
@User-uz4rw no one said that you don't take precautions because you think the bad things are impossible. The point made in the video is that if you take precautions, you believe the bad thing will happen. Try improving your listening and reading comprehension.
28:38 go learn what "absolutely certain" means... "you accept the possibility" meaming not absolutely certain... "regardless of belief" then thats not your complete belief is it now?
18:01 This is less an argument for God’s existence and more an argument for the proliferation of religion
3:08 modular arithmatics. It’s like counting on a clock. In a clock, 1+1=4 but 11+2 = 1. You can have a system like this of any arbitrary length.
A thing to note: all of these arguments imply the Christian god in them. However, the farthest you get with this argumentation is deism, and that a higher being exists. It's then an entire other complicated hoop jumping to prove that 1 particular, specific religion is true as opposed to all of them being true
Yup, most of them somehow don't realize that even if creator of the universe was discovered today, it wouldn't make any current religion any more valid...
@@milansvancarahow ?? What make it invalid ?
@@alfrozz countless of logical contradictions and inconsistencies that render it impossible from the very core
On top of it, countless of claims about supernatural magic that needs much more evidence than "someone said so" to be even considered to be taken at least somewhat seriously
@milansvancara well, my self witnessing severals spiritual, let's say god easier my journey.
But, what about the Quran verse that state " we sent down iron, for humankind benefit". not long ago we just discovered iron not from earth and it's happening in millions years ago by asteroids from distance stars. How I see it's like "finally human knowledge catch up with divine revelation" before that is still remain mystery.
I want to know other views on that matter, 🤔. Sorry for English anyway.
@@alfrozzi believe your point is: the Quran knew things about the universe before humanity did, and the correct predictions demonstrates that Allah granted divine revelation to its’ writers. of course, to grant the revelations, he must exist.
this is a logical argument, but i would dispute the premises of your argument, if you will entertain me!
1. your example-that iron is sent to Earth-is something that may meant to be interpreted in a looser, more figurative manner (like a sunrise not literally meaning the sun moves, as we know it is stationary!)
2. if the Quran correctly predicted this, then it would merely demonstrate foreknowledge, which could come from Allah, but could also come from another source.
regardless, i hope this gives you something to think on! i hope this isn’t offensive from me, but jazakum Allah khayran ealaa juhudikum fi talab aleilmi!
i just like hearing people yap while i paint, very high quality yap
Take notes Bro these is helpful
exactly i would try to paint from referance but after a while i would find myself with a video playing on my laptop instead of the referance and i would just be listening to that video while painting without understanding or remembering what was happening in the video
To suggest that we only get truth from science is not a statement of science.
It is a statement from the religion of Scientism.
Totally believe every person uses every person in their life to get material wealth but, people have always done that.
Amazing analysis bro
4:15 “God” is just the male pronoun for a deity. Saying the word “god” implies a perfect being ignores a lot of mythology about gods doing genuinely awful stuff in many different religions. It’s also like saying “goddess” implies nature which is not at all culturally or historically correct
23:33 The Pragmatic argument isn’t ushered to independently compel belief in religion. It simply makes the point that Christianity even as a lie offers a better prospect for human flourishing than Atheism could in truth. This puts Atheism in a Lose - Lose position as a basis for Humanism which is inherently pragmatic in its pursuits.
This has already been proven false many times over in secular societies.
@ Secular societies are the moral equivalent of adult children who live rent free in their parents basement. Accepting all the benefits of Chrístianity while denying the associated responsibilities necessary to maintain their production.
@@Salem1000-xf2fb This is apparent in the geographical settings of these secular societies all situated in historically Christian nations and in their incessant promotion of Christianities long held values and rights. Secularism can be rightly understood as Lapsed Christianity as there is no historical precedent for it existing on its own merit as it could not have created the nations it perches in nor can it maintain them.
@@Salem1000-xf2fb This is self evident in the m0ral failings of seċularízed humanity over the past 100 years leading to tragíc and unprecedented levels of human vìo|ence, sůffėríng and depression in addition to the dėath of community, family and personal identity in society.
What was your take on his counter argument to that point
Ooh really looking forward to watching this one!!
Hey! would you consider making a video about the god of Spinoza and Pantheism? I'd love to hear your input :)
Seconded!
3:04 I have one for you!
In Zermelo Fraenkel set theory, the number 2 (ordinal number) represents the following set of 2 elements: {∅, {∅}}
(∅ notates the empty set, i.e. {})
The union of sets is often referred to as addition. It then follows that 2+2=2, since the union of identical sets remains the same.
Hey, wouldn’t that equate to 0 ?
@fatimaikhlaq2146 The ordinal zero is the empty set: ∅.
For any set A, the union A∪A equals A.
2≠0, therefore: 2+2 = 2∪2 = 2 ≠ 0
Great Video! Im Christian and love content like this because it helps strengthen my faith.
May I ask you some questions about your belief?
@ of course
Great video as always!
One major issue with religions is that all of the religions we have today are extremely young and I don’t know why we’d expect them to have gotten things right, considering their..very mixed…track record.
Archeologists tend to think we’ve been messing around with organized religion for maybe 10,000 years, and the eldest religious movements with clear ripples reaching our shores are maybe around 6,000 years old. Humans have been around in anatomically modern form for about 250-300,000 years, and in behaviorally modern form for maybe 65,000 years. Based on the fossil record, hominid species seem to last (on average) about 800,000 years.
If we compare that 800,000 year average-hominid-species-span to an 80-year individual human lifetime, our species at this moment comes into focus as a young adult who just started thinking seriously about religion a few weeks/months ago. Why on earth would we expect to have gotten it right in the short time we’ve been doing it?
We’ve gotta be a bit humble here imo - religions that claim to have a monopoly on absolute truth or to be descended from an infallible founder figure or to be especially well-suited to human nature should be treated with serious skepticism.
While I realize this is oversimplifying it on my end, I do think there's likely an overlap of the agricultural revolution and settled society and the development of organized religions. We know within neuroscience that there's a part of us always scanning for what we should do next to ensure our survival. For history before that it was pretty obvious. Hunt food, fix shelter, make lots of babies. When most of our needs were somewhat taken care of, and our brain scans for "what now?" it leads to that feeling or existential dread as our brain doesn't know what to provide us with dopamine towards. While there have always been thinkers and rituals, it seems likely it would be more necessary once society collectively had a lot more free time to sit around contemplating why the moon rises the way it does or when the sun goes at night, and needing to come up with Gods and rituals to alleviate this new anxiety.
I think Christianity does not fail at this in the way you might have previously considered.
The Christian calender has a marked change between BC and AD. It consider the birth of Jesus of Nazareth so monumentally significant that it warrants marking every year to come after.
Christianity doesn't claim to be true because some people came across the truth. The claim is that God himself revealed the truth by becoming himself a human.
Christianity has a starting date, despite many other religions not. It is 2000 years old because God came down from heaven 2000 years ago.
I don't think I explained that very well, but hopefully you get my point
@@Pedantasure, I think I understand what you’re saying. But all in all I don’t see a meaningful difference between people saying they came across the truth because God came down to earth and told them and any other religious claim on absolute truth.
In both instances we have people telling us they’ve got the ultimate things all figured out because of their privileged access to x or y truth, which (considering our place in time and our immaturity as a species, both in terms of age and in terms of behavior) is the thing I’m skeptical of at the end of the day.
You believe in the religion of man. Have you ever considered that maybe the earth is not billions of years old and that humans have not been around for hundreds of thousands of years.
@@knightofwangernumb2998 young earth creationists are the most cringe, have to believe the devil went around planting dinosaur bones to justify a theory that goes against all evidence we have. This is a matter of believing in what can be proven versus arbitrarily believing an old book.
To start off am Previously a Christian now Athiest, but really more a Complicated ist lol.
The devision for me is not only in believing in God or not, but of in-between knowledge and believe themselves, between Subject and Object.
Believe as you wish, as long as you have knowledge to back it up. (And grant others the existential freedom and respect to believe and be other wise)
@@YuelSea-sw2rpthis is a no true scotman fallacy. “no *true* believer could ever become atheist!” just defines away anyone inconvenient to your worldview from consideration.
please just actually engage with those willing to discuss instead of asserting that you know that person’s history with their faith better than themselves. it will earn you a lot more good will, and will lead to more productive conversations.
Thx bro people keep arguing abt it in my school
Here are a few extra classes of argument I've encountered:
Argument from False Humility: "I may be a simple man but I know my grandaddy weren't no rock!"
Argument from NO U: "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist."
Argument from Projected Opportunism: "You don't want to believe in God because you fear accountability."
Argument from Self Importance: "I, for one, choose to believe in a higher power."
Argument from Incuriousity: "If God didn't exist, what could have been responsible for all this?"
Doxastic logic is crazy. Reading the wikipedia article.
If a person believes their belief in a proposition implies the truth of that proposition, then they're an inconsistent reasoner.
This makes sense. Because believing one's belief in a proposition makes it true is false for a statement which is truly false. Thus one can't believe that one's belief in a proposition implies the truth of that proposition if one wants to believe only statements that are true. Otherwise, one is certainly inconsistent.
It feels like my mind is thinking in circles.
I learned how to be patient by following step by step instructions in the Chilton Guide on how to replace a starter on a 1976 Westfalia bus.
A pragmatic guide?
Pragmatic: dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.
Let’s imagine a reality-based scenario wherein a prosecutor, then a grand jury, then a judge is asked to allow this argument in front of a jury: Defendant X, the sect-specific god-type, is guilty of existing.
- Where are the arguments which would make it through this process and, subsequently, not encounter countless sustained objections from defense counsel? There aren’t any.
- Where is the supporting evidence which would make it through this process and, subsequently, be allowed by the court? There isn’t any.
- Where are the ‘expert witnesses’ which a court / a judge would allow to testify? There aren’t any.
What is the difference between what someone will argue in a casual setting, philosophy class or on social media as opposed to a courtroom? Someone in the courtroom is going to say, “Alright, prove it.” What they are not going to do is let the opposing side Shift the Burden of Proof.
Note: Many attorneys first study either Philosophy or Political Science prior to going to law school. It’s during law school they learn when not to answer and what arguments not to make.
Litigation as religion then. Courts are the ultimate truth.
@@Ir0nFrog “Litigation as religion then.”
- No. Litigation of a claim via system with standards for arguments, evidence and witnesses.
“Courts are the ultimate truth.”
- No. Courts are venues whereby they adjudicate a claim via a system with standards for arguments, evidence and witnesses.
To add: In a court, the claims that a sect-specific god-type is guilty of existing (let’s call that Claim One) and subsequently created the universe (let’s call that Claim Two) is not a religious claim. These are claims about facts of reality.
Courts are venues where philosophers are held to a much higher / stricter standard and where one side must establish a ‘foundation’ and the other side is not going to allow the Shifting of the Burden of Proof. Courts are venues where various texts - the Bible, Quran and Bhagavad Gita - are not ‘evidence,’ logical syllogisms are not arguments, opinions of dead philosophers are not referenced, and theologians - William Lane Craig or Frank Turek - are not ‘expert witnesses.’
In the end, what’s suggested in university-level philosophy classes, in churches or on social media is going to be quickly shut down in a court. Knowing why will help in developing good arguments.
Holy yappington of yapping thats a lot of yap
Defining god into existence always makes me shake my head. It's ridiculous.
I believe in what you can call "God." I don't believe in it because I thought about it really hard and considered the arguments for and against, etc. I believe in "God" because I have experienced it firsthand. I can't explain the causes or reasons for "God's" existence, all I can do is make guesses. The belief comes first, then reasoning follows. You will never reason your way to "God," it must be experienced.
That is exactly what makes the existence of god(s) so dubious; the fact that the only remotely sensible arguments in favour are unfalsifiable, a synonym of wrong in academic circles.
Schizophrenia
@@orange5591 Dismissing people you disagree with as insane is intellectually lazy
I would love a more detailed breakdown of the different transcendental arguments
With the ontological argument it sounds like one can invent something give it a similar definition then it would have to exist just like a god.
In that case, I think we'd be talking about the exact same thing, but calling it something else.
Yes this is an old and famous rebuttal, the original example is a perfect island. Others have done things like a perfect pizza, or a realicorn- a unicorn that is real by definition.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 a perfect pizza is everyone’s favourite flavour, and everyone can eat some of it. (And it must exist or one that exists would be greater, you know the deal.)
Doesn’t sound like God to me, unless God has pepperoni on him.
@@theintelligentmilkjug944 sure, in the way that both are claimed to be perfect. But if one were to say that just like a perfect god must exist a perfect world, squirrel, cup, etc. must also exist, some people may take issue with comparing a perfect god to a perfect anything else.
@@peterchestnut4566 Well, I don't think a world, cup, or squirrel are truly themselves anymore when you maximize their attributes. To elaborate, squirrels are small to medium-sized rodents that are native to the Americas, Eurasia, and Africa, if they survive their vulnerable early years, they can live up to 6 years in the wild. Squirrels by definition are contingent, material, and limited beings, if you remove those features by positing a greatest conceivable thing then it's no longer a "squirrel" even though you can call it a squirrel.
Wish this video existed 6 years ago so I could show my A-Level philosophy teacher :) she'd love how well-researched and clearly conveyed it is.
I’m muslim but I love these videos, they actually help me with my RE A level
This video is honestly quite helpful. Although i think it would be nice to see videos that argue against religion that base on other religions and not just Christianity. Many people only base things on Christian beliefs. But i understand that many people would use Christianity in arguments since that's what many people are more familiar with.
Anyway, your channel's really good and i hope it'll continue to grow!
I am religious. Used to be atheist, hell anti-theist. And I literally have a “Philosophy and Religion” seminar in an hour.
This’ll be fun. I’ll insist God is real.
Edit: I reckon I’ll edit the comment as I watch. Giving my take.
Edit 2: A Priori, debating the definitions and axioms is fun. I would say you can define God in a way that is objectively true, such as if you were a Pantheist and called existence God. I find myself getting into pseudo-logical debates about this because it’s that murky area.
It’s not my preferable approach to proving God. But it’s got some merits. And I disagree with all A Priori arguments against God; because it’s a non-believer setting the boundaries of what a believer is believing.
Edit 3: from experience, you can prove something objectively only for yourself. I would say this can be valid if you get a notable fraction of people to agree they had such experiences. Presuming this fraction is considered rational.
I disagree with the “laws of physics are perfect” thought. Because the puddle takes the shape of the crack in the road. - though the widespread desire for a God is a stronger argument. Even if again you take a pantheistic view of it (if you can’t tell, I find this the easiest way to explain it. Pantheistic) then you can simply say we, as intelligent/rational beings, require that respect/interconnectedness of the universe/God. Thus, God is an emergent property of existence.
Edit 4: I outright dislike the pragmatist approach, it’s just nonsensical to the way I live my life.
Though this kinda bleeds into what I just previously said. That desire possibly inherent to people, the interconnectedness of the universe.
I feel like it resorts to simple Dogma. You can have it theological or ideological, if you make a common code essential, that’s enough.
Edit 5: I disagree with this transcendental thing too. You can, again, make a Pantheistic theology with this. But it simply isn’t my grounds for beliefs.
I think it can have validity. It’s a different conception of god I believe, sort of going back to the definition of God. - you can call Logic and Existence as God. Not a god with anything like a human will though.
Ah wonderful! I hope it is helpful
@@unsolicitedadvice9198it was a good video. Not sure if I called it helpful (I’m not going to be using it for its purpose of defeating religious arguments). But I liked it. Good work.
which god do you believe? im just curious
@@arianeguima3633 it might be silly to say, but THE God.
I got into faith through essentially a form of Perennialism. All religions sharing a common core, a common truth about reality.
From there I’ve moved to be a Panetheist. God is all existence but even more. But of all the interpretations, I believe I’m closest to Orthodox Christianity.
I’d sum it up as a weird from of Orthodoxy which is, ironically, unorthodox, definitely heretical. Got a good dose of Jung, Psychedelics and Perennialism in it.
@ it is a bit silly eheheh but do you believe in the bible? i think its interesting your point of view
19:43 so even when you say subscribe in an unrelated context from RUclips itself, the button still glows
reddit is going to love this
You really should start releasing this on spotify aswell i mean it would be fun listening to your content on go aswell
As a Christian, the transcendental argument for God on the basis of epistemology is my favourite.
By the way, that means I obviously disagree with your claim that knowledge can exist if atheism were true.
The transcendental argument for God based on epistemology is circular. The first premise claims that we are able to obtain true and rational information about the universe, it says that this is because the universe is rational, and that therefore a rational Universe implies a rational God. But the correctness of the first premise is based on the correctness of the final premise, in other words if you don't start out by assuming that a rational God exists, you cannot arrive at our ability to apprehend true and rational things about the universe or make an appeal to the universe itself being rational. The theist is in exactly the same position as the atheist in having to circularly justify reason and rationality
@Mazinphilosophy The circularity is present for scientific philosophy too - it is why they are not reliable points for grounding theistic or atheistic arguments.
@Mazinphilosophy No, you cannot make knowledge/truth claims if theism is true. God could be lying to you the entire tine.
@Mazinphilosophy why not
I am an atheist. But I am curious how one could respond to the rebuttal that am abductive argument for God based on the idea that humans frequently exercise moral decisions that are not conducive to a flourishing society. Like saving a predator from harm or taking care of the infirm. I can definitely see an argument for why looking after the old is not as counter intuitive as one might think. But as a mostly materialist, i do struggle to appeal to materialism when it comes to explaining why humans have a drive to look after mentally disabled and terminal ill strangers. I fully believe its the right thing to do. But I can't see a satisfactory explanation why it benefits us from an evolutionary point of view.
I believe it's as simple as we make stealing and murder illegal because we can't survive in a society where its rampant, we take care of the sick or old because if it happens to us we'd want to be taken care of too. There's also cultural pressures of self sacrifice and being a good person that vary across cultures that would also inspire those behaviours as a means to fit in and belong in that society which are also materialistic needs
The explanation is quite easy. A lot of empathy evolved around you being perceived as valuable and good member of the group who is desired to be around by most. Therefore byproducts like taking care of elderly and disabled developed. Everyone wants to have someone who takes care of these people in their group, they may become elderly or disabled one day too
@Pyrrhonian I think this is a reductive way of looking at moral values.
if moral decisions are results of some sort of super ego' created to live in a society, and if society is created in order to meet our survival needs, then why there are instances of people making moral decisions that endangers their survival?
in other words, if survival is the final cause ( telos ) then how come the efficient cause acts against the final cause? how, let's say a fire fighter, sacrifices their life in order to save a family if the real mover of their actions is their need to survive?
to me, there seems to be more than just our material needs in matters of love and sacrifice, same can be true for our other moral decisions, we simply cannot assume that they are being made for selfish reasons.
@@ary8956 I know you were not talking to me, but the evolutionary mover is survival of the species, not survival of an individual (your soldier example). Some animals eating their partner after fertilization is a good (but extreme) example of that.
Also, literally everything everyone willingly does is done for selfish reasons. It's only that selfish reasons of some people are viewed as positive and some as negative.
For example: When I die to save my child, I did it for purely selfish reasons, because without it I would have to live with consequences and pain of not saving my child, which is not something I would want and would be able to live with. Even when you are choosing between two option that are bad for you, you always choose the one that is better for you in the end.
Of course, a thief robbing someone VS someone giving money to charity - seems like a selfish vs selfless act, while in reality both of those people did what they perceived as having the most personal gain from (regardless if it's material gain or gain in a form of fulfillment.
@@ary8956 not selfish reasons but it's always going to be easily rationalized to survival. Protecting your child or your community that you're a part of is a part of our survival instinct because the survival of the species is ultimately more important than the survival of the individual. Those who strap bombs to themselves believe they are furthering their in-group beliefs and will live on with God in the afterlife. There is some neurological evidence for this too. The production of dopamine which is not just the reward chemical but the chemical that gets us to get up and move in the first place triggers on survival based activities. At the lowest level we can say eating produces dopamine because it helps us survive. Next, sharing our food with someone we love would produce it for strengthening our bonds with others. After you can be a hunter who provides food for your whole village, that improves your standing in the village which boosts your survival and you're feeding them which again further enhances the survival of the community, so that would produce a lot of dopamine. Come up with a new farming technique that helps every village produce more food and feed the hungry and now your position in the community and what you've provided for others is massive and now borders on purpose. Like Maslow's hierarchy of needs we've moved from the mundane to the profound but survival was the driver of each step.
Who is this Penn badgley ahh gorgeous elfin prince and why has he materialised in my algorithm (thank you🙏🏼)?
He’s handsome sure, alas, I think what’s more attractive is his depth of knowledge, and the urgency to acquire more, as there are frequent uploads on different topics.
Aquinas argument is actually based on experience. First he makes an observation through experience (causation exist because I can see it) and THEN he develops a few metaphysic concepts and uses infinite recursion to make god not existing absurd and nonsensical. His arguments are a priori but it is not true that they have zero experience based grounding
I love how he always looks incredibly annoyed in the thumbnails, but that makes him even more believable and serious since annoyed people are obviously incredibly smart 🤣😅
Hit the nail on the head with this one. He ALWAYS looks incredibly pissed off in his thumbnails 😂
This wasn’t 12 hours long like Majesty of Reason, but it is certainly still good
One seeks knowledge, the other seeks peace and rest.
One claims objective superiority, the other claims practical superiority.
One tries to create for a purpose, the other discovers a purpose.
Strangely enough both claim with certitude to be free
this is really well said.
But in the third one, both are the same. Maybe check again?
The beauty of these "challenges" is that the same lines of logic can be applied to atheist arguments to bring us right back to square one-agnosticism.
I'll probably set aside time to look into atheistic worldviews that aren't inherently materialistic, but that's about all that I've derived from this video that is truly novel in my books (besides the fancy terms and etymology of couse).
Epistemology really should be everyone's introduction to philosophy. Ultimately most arguments for or against God differ in their approach to epistemology more than anything else, and as a result, its important to be aware of the methodoly it uses to "know" or "not know"
I'd say semantics should be everyone's introduction to theological philosophy, since the vast majority of these concepts are just word-bending
@@milansvancara That's true
3:02 an exception is when we work on Modular Arithmetic, where 2+2=0 is possible
I usually don't bother arguing against the existance of any such deity. I would much rather read the bible and call them hypocrites due to being inconsistent in their beliefs (like, for instance, being rich and donating nothing to charity while also saying that their kids should respect them even when mistreated, or claiming homosexuality is sinful) while citing a few passages of Matthew (like 7:1-5 on why they should care, or Jesus saying LYNaYLY is the most important commandment) or other law (like forgiving debts to compatriots every 7 years or not wearing tatoos). I find it's much more productive to attack their behavior within the system rather than making them doubt the validity of the system. Also dodges persecution complex and makes it so you don't friendly fire good and godly ppl. But I am an Atheist and I was not convinced by the evidence. Wonderful video, dude.
You went into the maze, encountered dead end few times and concluded that there is no exit.
@@Some_odd_guy I am a bit lost with the analogy. Are the dead ends fundamentalists? What is the exit? Is this some sort of Koan? I semi-regularly have religious debates on good faith, but don't try to convert the good ones (they are low priority) and the bad ones don't often let themselves be convinced otherwise. You can't reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into unless they trust you. And these dudes don't. Much harder than helping someone with non-chemical depression, in my experience.
1) rich christians dont donate to the poor.
RESPONSE) christians are statistically the most charitavle subdemographic 9n the planet
2)christians sometimes misstreat kids
RESPONSE) prolly not as bad as most other groups, they try (your argument here is crap)
3) homosexuality is a sin but christians should allow it without argument because of one of Gods ten commandments
RESPONSE) LYNaYLY I dont think means what you think it means, and you dont understand trauma and sexual perversion apparently... we have studies on it. (ironically you have better ammo acknowledging homosexuality is a sin, so you can argue the sexual perversions in certain churches is the problem causing homo christians... CATHOLICS)
I reasonably deboonked all of your arg7ments "from the bible" without even specifically having to open it.
youre talkin out your butt dude.
@DavidSmith-cr7mb too bad all our comments are getting censored. I would love to discuss it. Have a good day.
I came here to "spot" types of evidence for the existence of God so that I could better argue against them in the nets. Thank God I found this video.
bro i read this shit 4 times you make no fucking sense bro what are you talking about
@@lerpog4509he might be stewpit
I'm sorry to be that guy, but you should properly specify what god you're speaking of, god is kinda vague.
I get that it's the Abrahamic god, but in videos like yours it seems important to be precise.
Anyway, absolutely love your work, keep it up💪🏽
It wasn't that vague if you knew what he meant
He is referring to the Christian God
@evelynbanksmystiqal yeah, that's the abrahamic god. Duh
@@JustMe-999a The Christian God is under the category of Abrahamic gods in religions. Other gods fall under that category
@evelynbanksmystiqal there's only one abrahamic god.
Lol. So an a priori argument is basically: "Trust me bro" 😂
Thank the stars I refreshed my RUclips when I did! Your vids are so good!!!!🎉
Ah thank you! That is very kind
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 your very welcome 😁
You clarify the topics extensively,it really helps me a lot in solving certain conflicts. Thanks a lot! Just a genuine request , would you please crop up a video on Giovanni pico della Mirandola's "Oration on the dignity of man" and how it's inextricably related to renaissance humanism and other various philosophical ideas... I'll be very grateful
I am not a Christian, i do not ascribe to any religion. I don't think any is right or wrong. I see God in the pure joy of a child. I feel God in nature. He cannot be My God or our God. God to me is the intelligence that is alive in everything alive. Trees, insects, humans,animals,oceans, space etc .The sacredness of creation,is the reason I am not an Atheist
It seems you are probably a pantheist.
@@PhilosophiceRetardari agree
A very reasonable answer I use to agree with this sentiment. not taking away from your point or arguing with you .But in my opinion nature and life as whole is valuable and beautiful without the need of an outside thing like god to justify it or make it amazing I feel like god does not let appreciate individual things it makes always want more .and not see the majesty in the mundane world
You dont need God to explain things that are beautiful, and God isnt responsible for every beautiful thing in the world.
Ignostics put forward this incoherent definition of God, that is "defining" God in so many different forms that we simply cannot even start to begin to start talking about it since we haven't been able to start how to think what it is in the first place.
It's more practical to ask if souls exist that survive death. Ultimate truths are unknowable.
There is no argument against God. God exists as a necessary reality. However, there is an argument to be made whether or not this God is self aware / conscious. But that’s a different topic. But God exists
It's not as simple as that though because even the word God is loaded and carries pre-existing meanings for people. It's more accurate and unbiased to say something like, there's a reason that something exists rather than nothing. God implies singular being, while it could be an algorithm, an AI, or a giant space horse.
You can't just say it's a necessary reality, you have to demonstrate that.
I reject the notion outright
22:04 But the average person is dealing with these desires in the name of god. It isn't really a skill unless you believe it's an allegory to teach you the skill. Because when they face such desires elsewhere, they succumb to it. How many christians do you know that don't watch porn? don't sin? aren't selfish in the slightest? and so on.
For this Christmas, O Lord, I merely want two things:
1) i want atheists to at least understand the arguments for God before they argue against them;
and
2) i want theists to at least understand the arguments for God before they argue with them.
Can I get an 'amen'
oh yeah and i guess peace on earth and goodwill yadda yadda whatevs
Amen
Amen
But the second one should be arguments against God, not the same with atheists
@@Siyaiscelestial I do not think theists (who are not seminarians or w/e) often have the strongest understanding of the underpinnings of why they believe what they believe. I find it extraordinarily frustrating.
LOUDER FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK ‼️‼️‼️
@@RickJaeger I concur.
But with those kinds of arguments I wouldn’t even wanna argue with. Furthermore I’d like to raise the question why such a master creator would care about humans specifically and the way they live, love, etc. . Wouldn’t you think if god was this infallible creator she wouldn’t care at all???
I find these conversations so funny. Humanity discussing a being that would be beyond space and time in an attempt to make it make sense to them based on the knowledge they have. There are still so many mysteries still on planet earth let alone all of existence. Whether someone believes or not the conversation is pretty funny imo.
People throw around terms like "beyond time and space" so easily.
Have you considered what that means or implies? It's an utterly nonsensical statement.
It's like saying something exists beyond existence and doesn't ever occur.
you’re awesome! love your philosophical videos and insights. binge watching your videos 😊
Did God create man when he felt lonely or did man create God when they felt lonely ?
I believe that he created his precursors, like the volcano god from which he took his name, and created thousands more to explain the world and transmit the values necessary for society down the generations. Our evolutionary psychology is made for it. I don't think they are the most effective way of doing either at this point, but keeping the virtuous ones and reeducating the bigots seems like a decent play
Going further with this logic - you were created because your parents were lonely. No love, just two lonely people met and created another lonely individual.
God created man becauze he must. the maker needed a watcher.
if a tree falls in the woods and there is noone to see it, does it still make a sound?
@DavidSmith-cr7mb No and yes, respectively. Even if it was a forest with no animals or bugs, the plants would be influenced by that impact, the tremor could be measured way off in the distance, and the air woulf vibrate as always. Next time, try using qualia instead of sound
Clever phrase, but God doesn't feel loneliness. He has no deficiencies of any kind, nor limits.
2 + 2 = 4 because those are the symbols for the Arabic numeral system in which 2 is a set of objects, describing an object and an object being combined(+) into a singular set with another set of an object and an object; which results(=) in a set of an object, an object, an object and an object.
Criticizing Kant's argument, Ayer noted that mathemathical statements are derived deductively purely from axioms and need not rely on sens experience.
We don't really take into consideration real objects when we do math, just axioms, pure ideas
Belief is irrelevant and pointless
I don't "believe" in my conscious awareness, I am just it. Same with God, that's why God says "I am" and that's why we are offspring of God because "we are" as well.
Its not a matter of "belief", its simply what we are. No amount of reasoning and rationalization is going to change what we are, we just are.
This is called begging the question
@@Pyrrhonian I am not trying to convince you of anything. You think what you want. I am just communicating how I think
@@MarceloSeravalli yes, and that's the fallacy you're applying. No need to resolve fallacious reasoning.
@@Pyrrhonian what?... sure you are right, you "won the debate", now go and be happy
@@MarceloSeravalli if you were unconcerned you would not have posted in the first place, you clearly felt some desire to assert your perspective
I love your work.
For us to prove God doesn't exsist we would need to become God.
The search for the God of the gaps, we would need to find a purely random result- God's hand immanent.
To claim God does or doesn't exsist is to stop searching for God, and implies we know everything ergo being all knowing and thusly God.
@@sosomadman The existence of God cannot be questioned or reasoned about without first considering the premise that God exists. The idea that God does not exist originates from the concept of God's existence. So we have to become God like you mentioned.
I hope you have a wonderful day, too.
Honestly my best of winning in a religious argument is silence
Do it exactly like god, basically? Cunning
funny thing is, youre easier the have your mind changed because you can say WHATEVER to someone whos not arguing back. dont let someone intelligent near you, they may make you think too hard and suddenly you dont have the words to keep your old mind.
Literally, I answered most of the theses about God related to religions except for the God of the unity of being, the God of Spinoza.
I really hate that most “proofs” for gods are just saying things no one can prove true. Like the one stating humans have free will, god gave us free will therefore god exists. I’m sorry, why would humans having free will prove anything? So stoopid. I knew god was bullish when I was 4. How could god create I perfect creation if it’s not perfect now? Idk how other people hear that and are like… yeah that makes sense
that's not even proof, that's claims made by the stupids to make sure their sea of stupidity doesn't go down the drain.
Greetings, dear.
May I have some of your attention if possible? I would appreciate it. I have questions for you. Why do you think we can't prove our claims? Has someone in your life before raised an argument, then got confused once asked? Or is there a specific situation you have lived through? You may even question free will itself. I have answers for you, my dear friend.
To answer the basic, definition-based question of "What is free will exactly?" it is the power to decide what you will do in a certain situation. However, your decision isn't always correct nor right, as it is said in 1 Corinthians 10:23:
"I have the right to do anything," you say-but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything," you say-but not everything is constructive.
What point am I making here? It is that we sinned. We had the free will to choose God-to choose goodness, generosity, honor, love, hope-but we did not. Humanity, over and over again, has used and broken God's heart with sin. Thus, with the very first sin, we were cursed along with the Earth. As it is written in Genesis 3:17-19, God cursed the Earth. It is in a cursed state because of the weight of our sins: yours, mine, and many other people's sins. We humans have seriously f_cked up as we strayed from God.
God created a perfect world, as Genesis chapter one describes. In the very beginning, before humanity fell, we lived in a perfect world. Everything is going to be restored, as it is said in Revelation 21:1. This is all possible because Jesus paid for our sins on the cross with his own life. His life, which held infinite worth. Can you imagine that? We were prisoners and slaves to sin, yet he freed us from everlasting judgment and death itself because he loved us that dearly. Free is multi-faced of course. Science have a say in, too. For instance, neuroscience research, like the work of Benjamin Libet, found something fascinating: our brains show activity signaling a choice before we even consciously decide. It might make one think, “Are my decisions really mine?” But consider this: does knowing the mechanics of your brain diminish the meaning of your choices? When you see the gears of a clock, does that make the time it tells any less real?
Moreover, psychologists remind us that the environments we grow up in shape us more than we might like to admit. Our upbringing, culture, and even biology create a frame where our decisions play out. But that doesn’t mean we’re puppets. Instead, it shows the grace in every moment we can still choose something better, despite the weight of the world on us.
From a philosophical perspective, people have debated for centuries whether free will is real. Some argue everything is determined-like dominoes falling after the first push. Others suggest that even if the dominoes fall, how you lean into them is still your choice. And then there are those who say our choices are entirely free, independent of all those dominoes. Each view has merit, but here’s the deeper question: does believing in free will help us live better? If it leads to hope, to responsibility, to growth-then perhaps its truth is found in its impact.
Faith adds another layer. Free will, as the Bible frames it, is a gift, not a burden. It’s what allows love to exist. Without choice, how can love be real? That’s why 1 Corinthians 10:23 resonates so much. Yes, you are free-but your freedom isn’t about doing anything you please. It’s about doing what brings life, what builds up, what heals. When Adam and Eve chose disobedience, they misused this gift. Genesis 3:17-19 shows us the cost of that misuse-the curse on the Earth itself. But Jesus came to restore us, to show us how our choices could align with God’s love again. Isn’t it incredible? A God who lets us stray, but still offers a path back.
To be honest with you, I am greatly saddened by your comment. You see, in my eyes, my Lord and my Savior died for you. He died a humiliating and painful death for your sake. He knew you before you were born and created a perfect plan for you. He loves you as much as he loved every single person on this Earth. Jesus loves you. That’s why he died, even though we did not deserve his sacrifice.
I struggled with lust myself. I have stolen and ruined lives. But I am in the process of being saved, and I was saved on the day he died for my sins. I deserve nothing but to burn in hell as I cry out his name in despair and get tortured until...until forever. I fully deserve any amount of pain and suffering that may come my way as I have sinned against the person that loved and loves me the most in this whole wide universe. The person and creator who loved me enough to die for me. And there is no greater love than that, my dear friend.
I won’t call you to believe in every word I say to you. However, I would like to guide you towards the person who loves you and wants to save you the most. The person who can and will save you when your time here is done-if you let him. And I would encourage you and everyone to trust in him. For he knows you, has the best of intentions, loves you- and will be there for you for all eternity if you let him in your heart, my dear friend.
Those who are blinded my darkness shall see the light of hope and life if they turn to it. The people in darkness may hate light- but it is the way. Jesus is the way and the only way, sister. Please. Let my words be a guide to the light.
@형석성소 "To answer the basic, definition-based question of "What is free will exactly?" it is the power to decide what you will do in a certain situation. However, your decision isn't always correct nor right, as it is said in 1 Corinthians 10:23:"
Why would we take anything written in the Bible seriously, since you haven't demonstrated that it's not just a mythology book like all the others? Therefore, your definition of free will is just 'I want it to be true therefore it must be true!'.
""I have the right to do anything," you say-but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything," you say-but not everything is constructive."
So what? The subject of the question is whether or not we have free will, not the limits of it. In fact, if it has limits, it just proves that we don't have it.
"What point am I making here? It is that we sinned. We had the free will to choose God-to choose goodness, generosity, honor, love, hope-but we did not. Humanity, over and over again, has used and broken God's heart with sin. Thus, with the very first sin, we were cursed along with the Earth. As it is written in Genesis 3:17-19, God cursed the Earth. It is in a cursed state because of the weight of our sins: yours, mine, and many other people's sins. We humans have seriously f_cked up as we strayed from God."
That's your story. But does it stand up to rationality? (No.) If it does, then how about you demonstrate it with evidence? Not what you want to be true, not what many people believed in in the past, but evidence?
"God created a perfect world, as Genesis chapter one describes. In the very beginning, before humanity fell, we lived in a perfect world. Everything is going to be restored, as it is said in Revelation 21:1. This is all possible because Jesus paid for our sins on the cross with his own life. His life, which held infinite worth. Can you imagine that? We were prisoners and slaves to sin, yet he freed us from everlasting judgment and death itself because he loved us that dearly. Free is multi-faced of course."
Prove to us that your book isn't a mythology book and nothing more, and only then we will take anything written in it seriously. Would you take me seriously if I bring verses of the book of Peter Pan as serious arguments in serious debates? No, not until I can demonstrate that the book of Peter Pan is true without saying 'well the book said so!'. Why can't you do the same? Is it so hard to prove something that you think is true? If it were, it wouldn't be hard, right?
"Science have a say in, too. For instance, neuroscience research, like the work of Benjamin Libet, found something fascinating: our brains show activity signaling a choice before we even consciously decide. It might make one think, “Are my decisions really mine?” But consider this: does knowing the mechanics of your brain diminish the meaning of your choices? When you see the gears of a clock, does that make the time it tells any less real?"
That's an argument against the existence of free will, not in favor of it.
"Moreover, psychologists remind us that the environments we grow up in shape us more than we might like to admit. Our upbringing, culture, and even biology create a frame where our decisions play out. But that doesn’t mean we’re puppets. Instead, it shows the grace in every moment we can still choose something better, despite the weight of the world on us."
So if you're born in an echo chamber where everyone follows blindly the ideas that fairies and unicorns exist, you will grow up believing in it too even though it's irrational and definitely not backed up by science. Sounds like religion.
"From a philosophical perspective, people have debated for centuries whether free will is real. Some argue everything is determined-like dominoes falling after the first push. Others suggest that even if the dominoes fall, how you lean into them is still your choice. And then there are those who say our choices are entirely free, independent of all those dominoes. Each view has merit, but here’s the deeper question: does believing in free will help us live better? If it leads to hope, to responsibility, to growth-then perhaps its truth is found in its impact."
So in other words, 'I want it to be true, therefore I will start with the presupposition that it's true and work my way to the conclusion I really like while ignoring all the evidence going against it!' except the truth doesn't care about feelings. Too bad you can't figure it out, since you really want to believe.
"Faith adds another layer. Free will, as the Bible frames it, is a gift, not a burden. It’s what allows love to exist. Without choice, how can love be real? That’s why 1 Corinthians 10:23 resonates so much. Yes, you are free-but your freedom isn’t about doing anything you please. It’s about doing what brings life, what builds up, what heals. When Adam and Eve chose disobedience, they misused this gift. Genesis 3:17-19 shows us the cost of that misuse-the curse on the Earth itself. But Jesus came to restore us, to show us how our choices could align with God’s love again. Isn’t it incredible? A God who lets us stray, but still offers a path back."
Well that's simple, love isn't real. Just like science, infinity, or even your God, it's only ideas and concepts. I didn't bother to read the verses, since you can't demonstrate the base source is rational, try that first.
"To be honest with you, I am greatly saddened by your comment. You see, in my eyes, my Lord and my Savior died for you. He died a humiliating and painful death for your sake. He knew you before you were born and created a perfect plan for you. He loves you as much as he loved every single person on this Earth. Jesus loves you. That’s why he died, even though we did not deserve his sacrifice."
I could replace "he" with Peter Pan, Cinderella, Pinkie Pie, or any other fictional character, and the sentence will have the same meaning, which is to say no meaning at all, since you can't demonstrate "he" even existed in the first place. That's why we're not impressed with faith. If you tell me there's a cat in the room, I want you to bring me the cat so I can examine it and conclude that your claim is true. Not your beliefs about invisible intangible cats, but the cat itself. It's as simple.
"I struggled with lust myself. I have stolen and ruined lives. But I am in the process of being saved, and I was saved on the day he died for my sins. I deserve nothing but to burn in hell as I cry out his name in despair and get tortured until...until forever. I fully deserve any amount of pain and suffering that may come my way as I have sinned against the person that loved and loves me the most in this whole wide universe. The person and creator who loved me enough to die for me. And there is no greater love than that, my dear friend."
Yes you do. Too bad it won't happen though.
"I won’t call you to believe in every word I say to you. However, I would like to guide you towards the person who loves you and wants to save you the most. The person who can and will save you when your time here is done-if you let him. And I would encourage you and everyone to trust in him. For he knows you, has the best of intentions, loves you- and will be there for you for all eternity if you let him in your heart, my dear friend."
That's what we ask for. To guide us in your rational reasoning that led you to the rational conclusion that a God exists and that it's your God. So how do you "guide" us rationally, since we don't want claims or feelings, but EVIDENCE ?
@PitchBlack0000
My dear friend,
Allow me to address you as such- It seems you have questions, perhaps doubts, about free will, about faith, and about the very essence of God. Your questions are not trivial, nor are they unwelcome; If you are willing to hear my voice, I would like to answer your arguments to the best of my abilities. When I speak of free will, I am not merely offering a convenient definition or quoting a sacred text without reason. Rather, I am pointing to something intrinsic to the human experience: the power to choose, the awareness of choice, and the moral responsibility that arises from it. The Bible, in 1 Corinthians 10:23, states: “I have the right to do anything,” you say-but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything,” you say-but not everything is constructive." You might ask- "Why take this verse seriously? Why view the Bible as more than mythology or fairy tales?" I hear your skepticism, and I respect it. It is a fair challenge, and I will address it with both heart and the evidence I know off, my friend. So- Why trust the Bible? The Bible is not a singular book as you may know, but a collection of texts written over 1,500 years by more than 40 authors from diverse backgrounds and years. Despite its diversity, it weaves a consistent narrative and humanity’s first hyperlinked book having 65000 cross references. Yes. 65000 cross references from 40 enterely different people through history. This is a confirmed fact mapped out. Name another book so detailed, foretelling and acknowledged like God's word. It is written that the men that wrote the Bible are eyewitnesses. This is not second-hand information nor a fairy tale like you would like to suggest. Archaeological evidence, too, repeatedly confirms the Bible’s historical claims. To give you an example of my claim:The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls affirmed the accuracy of Old Testament manuscripts, showing remarkable consistency with texts we use today. Or Cities such as Jericho and Nineveh, once thought mythical, have been unearthed with evidence aligning with biblical accounts. The Bible contains hundreds of prophecies written centuries before their fulfillment. Consider Isaiah 53, written over 700 years before Christ, describing in detail the suffering and purpose of Jesus’ crucifixion. No other text in antiquity offers such predictive precision. The prophecies are one thing, however- during the years, many challenged the Author's truthfulness and eyewitness as they have claimed and gone through tests to examine the written word's truthfulness. There can be found no lie as the authors would rather humiliate themselves by writing the truth than write a lie that may make them seen as an idol. After all- why would they write embarrassing things that have happened if it's a lie anyways? Why didn't they make themselves look good? Because they were more concerned about the truth than themselves. So- why is it important that they were honest? What does it matter? Because all the disciples except John, the martyrs of the book of Maccabees, Jeremiah,Zechariah- they have all died a brutal and painful death for their faith. Some were stoned to death, some crucified, burned to death- why would all those men die in such a way for a lie? If they, specially the followers of Jesus didn't experience all that, why would they go through all that suffering? It would be meaningless. All they had to do was deny Our Lord, Jesus then they would have been left alone- they would have been spared. They didn't. For a reason no other than it was the truth. Then- it raises another question. Does the Bible contain what the authors have actually written down thousands of years ago? Well- first, we have to look at the time gaps between when the author has written the passage and when the first copy of that was made. As people of that time period would hand-write exactly what was written down in the original documents.These hand-writen documents, copies and originals were called manuscripts. The smaller the time gaps between the copies and the originals, the more accuracy we may have on the information at hand. Caesar had 1000 years, Plato's tetralogies 1200 years- and the Bible had a time gap of 50 years of time after the life of Jesus.The first biography we have of Alexander The Great is for a 400 or so years after he had died, yet no man questions his existence, somehow. Yet, we have four biographies (the gospels) of Jesus within 50 years of his life, yet many people seem to have a problem with the Bible's statements and demand evidence that it isn't a fairy tale. With over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts and 24,000 ancient manuscripts overall, the Bible surpasses any other ancient document in textual preservation. If the Bible is a fairy tale book, then Julius Caesar is not even to be considered an unicorn. You may even throw out the History books you have on ancient times, too. The Bible’s teachings have profoundly shaped law, ethics, and human rights across centuries. It's influence extends far beyond mere mythology. Many philosophical debates on religion acknowledge that its teachings, even without belief, are of good value. 9 other non-christian materials within 150 years have mention of Jesus, too. The Bible is backed up by non-believers accounts, too. Within the time of Caesar, there are 10 materials mentioning him. So- even if you take the Bible out of it, Jesus's existence is something no one can deny.
You argue that if free will has limits, it proves its nonexistence. Yet, even in science, the presence of limits does not negate reality. Consider gravity: its effects are observable and measurable, yet it does not render us incapable of jumping. Similarly, free will operates within a framework-one shaped by biology, culture, and morality-but it remains real. Neuroscience, such as Benjamin Libet’s experiments, shows brain activity preceding conscious awareness of decisions. Yet this does not abolish free will; rather, it highlights the complexity of human agency. Consciousness, unconscious processes, and decision-making are interconnected-a testament to the intricate design of our Creator.
You challenge me to prove God’s existence rationally. While evidence abounds, faith transcends mere intellect. It engages the whole person-mind, heart, and soul. Faith is not blind but is trust in him. My dear friend, God is not a distant fairy-tale figure but the Creator who knows you intimately and loves you profoundly. He does not demand belief without question but invites you to explore, to wrestle with doubt, and to find Him not only in the pages of a book but in the quiet whispers of your heart, the beauty of creation, and the transformative power of grace. He loves and knows us. He knows of your doubts, your sins, your habits- he knows you and wants to have a relationship with you. He loves and forgives. Seek- and you will find. I love you, too. My dear friend. I do hope this could serve to you as evidence.
Love your philosophical videos another good one thank you!😊
In Christianity people do good not because they have a reward or to gain favor, they do that good out of love, and that love is a choice, not a feeling.
It’s the same act as someone who owns a pet they love, they choose to care for it, feed it, play with it, and simply care for it out of love, even though every state in America has a law against neglecting pets and treating them unfairly(sin) a pet owner isn’t caring for their pet to follow the law, they are caring for the pet out love and out of that love they fall in line with the law.
Same for Christians who have accepted Christ and out of that choice fall in line with Gods law. Christians believe all things good come from God. It’s that act of choosing that is love.
No, personal reward is absolutely a part of why Christians do good. Not only is it the smug self satisfaction of doing a good deed, its also the promise of eternal paradise.
Nobody does good deeds purely for the sake of doing good deeds. Even if its just the feel good brain juices flowing, good deeds are always done for personal benefit.
@ that is literally the opposite of the Gospel and Christianity. You have a flawed understanding of Christ and his word. An individual may fit what you’re saying, all are guilty of sin after all, but that’s not what the Gospel preaches.
Personal benefit does not mean that others also do not benefit, I donate money to others because I genuinely want to help, and yes that makes me feel good about myself but to say that’s the sole reason, that it’s that black&white is not the truth.
@@Xeroxmyassiluv What are the other reasons?
@@yeetcannon5907the other guys right I'm afraid
In Christianity there is no reward for doing good thing. Acceptance of Christ gives people salvation. If you truly do that, you're in - no matter your actions. If you don't do that, you're out - no matter your actions
Then why even have a transcendent realm called Heaven if the motive of a Christian is not to have a reward from doing good deeds but out of love? Theoretically, wouldn't this in turn make the Earth lean toward heaven which the Christians seek?
The Taoist don't believe in a Heaven nor a Hell but they live in the moment in harmony with their community and the universe. They do kind things from the soul just like how you argue Christians do. I feel like the existence of heaven is unnecessary.
I'm still curious about your view for Lewis's argument that say: "There is always some unquenchable desire in every human being, and that should be trancendent a.k.a God" in general
One thing I've never understood about the atheists I've spoken with was their incessant need to evangelize for their faith. Everyone else must convert to atheism or be assumed inferior. Acting the same as the people they supposedly despise so much.
Because religion pushes laws that control people's lives. Atheism does no such thing. You're also falling for confirmation bias and not noticing your how much more theists do it than atheists. I come across jw or evangelists 3 or 4 times a week. My city has some people with signs out at all times. And in the 15 years I've lived here not a single atheist evangelist. Get real.
@@Pyrrhonian Oh, your city has to be the navel of the world, when you - without any confirmation bias of course - judge the rest of the world by it. In my city you could have been be jailed just by being actively religious not so long ago. Get real.
@@alena-qu9vjdon't care how it was before, the point is I've never heard of any city where atheists evangelize in the street. Meanwhile the groups outside my building are literally preying on university students telling them how wicked and sinful they are, many of whom are thousands of miles from home and away from their friends and family, stressed from the school day, and it pains me to know some will fall for it out of fear when their logic is most unavailable. When those preaching themselves believe out of fear and desperation, so why not spread it to others, right?
There’s a selection effect here because atheists that are not interested in proselytizing wouldn’t engage in such a conversation. Most atheists live silently about their beliefs on religion because most people don’t spend time talking about what they don’t believe. We tend to spend our time focusing on what we positively believe are true and worthwhile. My personal view is that most people are wrong about most things most of the time, so it’s not at all surprising that most people are incorrect about god. I feel no obligation to correct everyone’s misapprehension. I tolerate the religious because they’re allowed to be wrong. This stops when they try to legislate their beliefs.
@@chemquests Wrong. Give power to religious fanatic, he will misuse it. Give power to atheistic fanatic, he will misuse it precisely the same. Read something about the communist persecution of religion after the sowjet revolution.
The watch argument falls for one main reason with me.
Since every subsequent layer of unfolding time is an increase in complexity (even the simple trajectory of two bodies having collided in space is built on simpler pre-collision circumstances) then a watch of some complexity has that value set atop the complexity of the human making it. And since humans are of the natural world, the resultant developments from them, imbued with any additional complexity, are just further examples of a complex natural world.
A bird nest which exists due to the complexity of the bird and is complex itself is still natural.
And tracing back, if complexity arises from simpler conditions, one would end up with ultimate simplicity rather than an infinitely complex deity.