Does God Exist? | Spectrum Street Epistemology
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 июл 2024
- Peter Boghossian presented the claim “God exists” to a gentleman in Regent’s Park, London. The ensuing conversation examines the reasoning behind his responses. Peter asks the young man to consider God’s existence compared to other unseen entities, competing origin theories, and religious testimony. The value of personal feelings and experience is considered, revealing the level of evidence this participant requires to change his mind.
Chapters
0:00 Intro
0:25 Exercise begins
3:30 What it would take to change lines
7:55 Weighing possible explanations for existence
10:50 Testimony for belief in God
13:45 What line would Peter be on?
⸺SUPPORT MY WORK⸺
Newsletter | boghossian.substack.com/
Donate | www.nationalprogressalliance....
⸺LINKS⸺
Podcast: "Conversations with Peter Boghossian": pod.link/1650150225
Website | peterboghossian.com/
National Progress Alliance | www.nationalprogressalliance....
Resignation Letter | peterboghossian.com/my-resign...
⸺BOOKS⸺
“How To Have Impossible Conversations” | www.amazon.com/dp/0738285323/...
“A Manual For Creating Atheists” | www.amazon.com/Manual-Creatin...
⸺SOCIAL MEDIA⸺
Twitter | / peterboghossian
Instagram | / peter.boghossian
TikTok | / peterboghossian
All Socials | linktr.ee/peterboghossian
__________
#peterboghossian #religion #christianity
Watch this one next with Pastor Paul VanderKlay: ruclips.net/video/pCn8wqlED5Q/видео.htmlsi=kwWOuaNsouWaguMq
Hi Peter, I have an idea for a question that I'd like to see you discuss (independent of the question of whether God actually exists or not), and that question is: Does a functional society need God/religion?
Virtually every human society that has ever existed has developed some theory of religion. That must happen for a reason, so what do you suppose that reason is?
What’s “god”?
If we were made in an alien Petri dish then whatever made us is god no?
If the universe is a simulation then is the operator god?
definitions are very handy upfront in these discussions - it saves a lot of time.
what do you mean by a god ??
deism ?? who cares if there is or not - it doesn't affect us in any way.
theism ?? an interventionist creator of the universe. and it communicates with us through a book. and not all those other books - this book !
come on, utter nonsense
You seriously confused me with this clip, I enjoyed your usual clips but I assumed you are a religious "nut" like most conservative well known speakers who lose all their rationality when it comes to their favorite deity.
Now, knowing you are not makes me question my well established prejudices again, I've done you wrong (well it's a thought crime anyway).
This is very telling of the atheistic mindset, as seen in comments, that their motivations is rooted in desire to be antagonistic and nihilistic. You think, and want to believe, that believers are stupid, dumb, for not believing in the nonsense of nothing to something and eternal universe that somehow despite thermodynamic laws preceeded nothing. As it stands, atheistic naturalism, have no concept, foundation, grounds, or basis, for truth, logic, or morality. In truth, atheists really have no argument at all to make, you cannot claim anyone to be wrong or right, good or bad, moral or immoral, true or false, correct or incorrect. That is their view, when attempting to argue, to say anythg at all, they borrow/steal from views, that they are fundamentally opposed to. Logic, truth, morality, has knowing inherent, but according to atheism, one can never know anything, or be certain about anything, no absolutes, it's all just relativistic opinionated feelings, until some other relativistic opinionated feelings comes along. While attempting to oppose what is called woke ideologies, your standpoint or view as an atheist, ultimately is self defeating, as you have nothing to stand on by which to claim any leftist to be wrong, or right, in any regard or capacity. For, all you're really doing, is arguing opinions and emotions, never an argument, as you've no standard basis or foundation that is objective. Inherent knowing of morality is irrelevant, as view is what one argues from, not personal experiences, opinions, or emotions.
@francis, History shows, that humanity needs a moral guidance system, aka religion. Without, with no objective standard, there is chaos, discord, and destruction, as old soviet proved when attempting removal of religion, then having to revert back, to keep having a somewhat functional stable society. With no religion, crime increased drastically, so society does indeed need religion. Where there is socialism or communism, people want out, escape, but flock to countries founded upon Judeo-Christian values, such as free speech. As Bible is pushed out, wrongthink enters, people are arrested for saying or thinking the wrong things, secular society which is atheistic truly is wonderful. And no it cant be claimed against Christianity, love God with all your heart mind and soul, love your neighbor, and your enemies also. Which is complete opposite of atheistic society. Being created by God (eternal infinite immovable mover omniscient omnipotent all-powerful all-knowing), then there is value, inrinsic worth, but if all just random chaotic fluke stardut pondscum, then nothing matters and no one have any value whatsoever.
@ransa How do you understand God? Do you hold to false atheistic notions and ideas about God, that neither you nor believers hold to as true for God? God is not created, but uncreated, having no origin, always having existed. Not a physical being, but non-physical immaterial spiritual being, God is Spirit. What is physical, cannot be eternal, therefore your aliens can in no regard be called or referred to as gods. Universe simulation is just another excuse to try and circumvent problem of good and evil, why there is something rather than nothing, why we see so much order and consistency, for why there is so much information. Let me help you, if operator have origin, a beginning, that operator is not God. The question of who created God, is a nonsensical one, that no one claiming to be intelligent intellectual, should never even ask. Who created God, would be God, by definition God is uncreated, having no origin, nothing that is created, having origin, can be called God/god/gods.
@hayden You say there is no affecting us either way, this is false, just by your wording and clear disdain alone, there is effect, already you are affected. You like almost every other atheist I see online, are misrepresenting and twisting what's written. Why do you hate God so? God does not need a book to communicate, you trying to misconstrue what's written, misrepresent what's written, in favor of constructing a strawman, is honestly pathetic, and narcissistic. God communicates by dreams, by thoughts, He is not reliant on The Bible alone to communicate. You say "who cares?", well, you very obviously do care. You generalize religion, ignorantly you think that Catholicism, Islam, and Christianity, are all the same, when fundamentally are vastly different. Your view which is atheistic naturalism, cannot answer problem of good and evil, nor morality, and neither where all the information came from. You like to think of religion, as wrong, but your view is atheistic naturalism, by which you cannot call anyone or anything, for right or wrong, true or false, good or bad, moral or immoral, correct or incorrect, by the view everything just is just nature without anything that is either inherently bad or good. And, by it, you're just a slave to random chemical signals in the brain. Your brain being a "product" of random chaotic chance, cannot be trusted, neither can your thoughts or conclusions based on said thoughts. What is utter nonsense, is atheism, and atheists somehow thinking they're intelligent intellectual, when such require knowledge which in their view is non-existent, it has no knowing, no knowledge, just more questions that never leads to a definite absolute final answer.
Honestly, the atheist position is moronic, foolish. Ultimately, you believe that nothing somehow created everything, knowing this to be illogical, you try to circumvent by trying to change definition for 'nothing'. What nothing means, is nothing, it is completely void of anything, that's what makes it nothing, if there is something it cant be called nothing. You believe universe to be eternal, always having existed, but thermodynamic laws stipulate that eternal matter is impossible, thus universe cant be eternal. And the "evolving" is dependent on information already being present, for any change to happen at all. The word "evolution" means not natural selection, speciation, or adaptation, what it actually means is gaining/adding of information, what natural selection/speciation/adaptation means is loss of information. Where something is lost, there cant be gaining or adding. You think of evolution as science, as if proven, when there is no observable evidence of this, no historical evidence. It has never been observed, repeated, or tested, and therefore cannot be called science. Evolution, is rather evolutionism, a religious ideology, where man makes himself god, you believe this religious ideology based on credulity, in truth it is truly you who have blind faith. DNA is information, a language, which could not have come from nothing by random chance. All this nihilistic edgelord denialism, is really quite childish. You're not really honestly wanting evidence, when testiony is given, you deny dismiss reject and ignore it, somehow being arbiters and authority on what is acceptable or valid evidence, when your atheistic naturalism view have nothing, no standard or basis by which to judge or measure anything by. If seeing angels, you would claim it hallucination, if stars moved to form words you'd just claim powerful aliens. In truth, majority of atheists online, have no want or desire for God, but rather a deep seated hatred for reason that with God, they are morally accountable and responsible for their actions, unable to escape justice and punishment for crimes. There is no need to escape God, you severely misunderstand if you think that's the case. Repent, believe, and trust, in God, which makes you saved which makes it so The Father sees Jesus when seeing you. Believers are saved, cause they are covered by Christ Jesus that died for our sins, and are changed as a result of being saved.
Peter was so proud of how the dude didn’t know he was an atheist from his questioning. lol
Europeans assume anyone with an American accent is violently religious, until they state for the record that they're aggressively atheistic.
What I like about Peter is that he asks challenging questions, but is always respectful and not trying to embarrass people.
That’s because it’s an accomplishment to be able to ask questions without any bias toward your own position and this showed he’s on the path to doing so
"If God exist, I want him to tell me himself. I don't want to hear it from anybody else - and in case you're wondering, that includes you,"
- Pat Condell -
Has one truly asked and sought? God is the source of your feelings and thoughts of true goodness and the pattern of order. Without God the world is a dark, nihilistic, relativistic hell.
@@janetoliver9561 the God delusion is the root cause of our problems, and you have ZERO evidence for the existence of God - any God.
Religion is pretending to know things you don't know. It's dishonest, and it's delusional.
If you need materialistic sense proof you live in the box. Not all things can be measured. Enjoy yourself!
@@janetoliver9561Any evidence for what your clames?
@@janetoliver9561This is a cop out. Anyone that doesn't get the same conclusion as you obviously misinterpreted feelings sent by the adversary. To the one that asks this, no Muslim, Atheist, or Jew ever sincerely sought, every other Christian denomination is misled...
The arrogance to think *your* feelings are 'correct' over all logic and possibilities and call into question everyone else's feelings...laughable.
I wonder...have *you* truly sought out god?
Peter did such a good job the young man thought he was getting him to move to the strongly agree side 🤣
Peter inducing a young man to think rather than answer reflexively. Wow.
I'd be very sympathetic to the guy still. While I think I could explain myself to a close friend pretty well why I no longer believe, I've had some practise in several situations, and if I'd be interviewed anywhere with camera and microphone, my effective IQ would drop below 70 and I wonder if I could mumble my age and name
This was so good! They are both very polite and both display intelligence. Bring on the "trans activists" and we have hate! Thank you Peter and thank you man #1
This was really enjoyable to watch! It's very encouraging to see honest, thoughtful and kind people like this man.
That was a really good one Peter, I liked that question at the end, I hope you will use that again in the future
I think the answer depends on what you mean by God. It's usually a vague concept - more vague than what a leprechaun is. I don't think there is a God as most people imagine it, but I think there is some sort of intelligence that permeates the universe and responds to us somewhat like a computer.
99.9% of the time god is identified as the creator of all things...is used to try to justify our existance as complex beings...is not such a misterious idea that needs a lot of thought and explaining TBH...
Having an idea of god that in not directly correlated with the notion of creation is quiet pointless...that is why almost nobody does that...
if you dont use god to justify your own existance, at that point would be the same simply not thinking about him...ignore that notion and just live your life...
(actually like atheists, that dont feel the need to justify their existance using a superior being, do)
Oh...and I find funny that your notion of god is basically like the FORCE of Star Wars, BTW... :DD
@@dimercamparini Yeah, it's actually called Source by some people (close to Force 😀). I think it may be a different dimension where things manifest from and come into our existence. Maybe that dimension is what people think of as God. I don't know what it actually is but maybe it is where consciousness comes from, and consciousness or groups of them create things.
@@SuzannaKiraly Ok, got it (more or less)...I am kinda at the opposite of this view...but anyone is entitled to his own ideas as long as he doesnt try to force them into others...
@@dimercamparini What is your view exactly. I'm curious to know.
@@SuzannaKiraly Nothing particularly fancy...just that "supernatural" is not a thing...
(so no "manifestations"...and "consciousness" is just what our brain does after a certain point of reaching a certain structural complexity...it comes from inside of us, not from some external source, and is biologically driven)
Peter looks so happy when the guy says he'd be on the Agree side :)
I really enjoy the way you tease out someone's convictions with honest questions. Great interview.
Thank you
Nice work! I especially loved the ending.
That guy was cool, I really liked his reasoning. These conversations are great!
Great conversation 👍. Ty very much for the content. I love these videos.
Glad you like them!
"I am seeing if you have calibrated your belief to the reasons you have that belief." What a fantastic sentence.
Very interesting episode.
I love how reflective this guy is.
The rapport was good.
The questions were good.
His conversation partner is very receptive.
His conversation partner thought Peter was a theist so I think that indicates neutrality was achieved.
I challenge Peter to have more conversations like this.
This was a good one!
First time watcher. Very impressed. I'm not done with the video yet, but all the street epistemology channels I've watched in the past were done by atheists. They loved the God conversation but when they ran into an atheist their method broke down. They didn't know how to question their own belief system/worldview, which is telling. You on the other hand have been doing a very good job at it with your tape and questions.
I think this shows how irrational an atheist can be, by the way. Its not only theists that can be irrational. After you ask him what evidence would move him he said, "no evidence" and says it would take social or cultural relevance to do so.
Is it the purpose of science to answer metaphysical questions? If so, how so? Or is philosophy better suited?
Best one I have seen in a while. Keep it up, Peter!
personal experience is so easily misinterpreted, , so many people don't get that, ive noticed so many atheists get this point when it comes to religion, but when it comes to leftist culture, all of a sudden lived experience validates truth. Also nice to see at the end he gave his position on the question, i feel like that is something missing from these discussions.
Well said 🎯
Actually, in a general sense, "personal experience" is all what we have and the only thing that we can use to interpret our surroundings and the universe...because we are corpses with 5 senses and that is all we have to "interact" with everything that is not us...and give it a shape and a meaning...
(and here I am trying to convey a concept that is very different from the classical "lived experience" that WOKE ppl use to justify basically everything...I hope I was clear enough)
@@dimercamparini yeah from what I can gather you are saying all we have is our senses, so in classical sense, that’s all we have which I 100% agree with.
When referring to it in the woke sense it goes a step further it’s asking you to accept their interpretation of what their senses showed them, or in some cases what your own senses told you. This is also all too often asked to be done to determine greater, more broad truths about reality and society as a whole, without comparing that one persons subjective experience to the actual overall data.
@@unwokeatheist "yeah from what I can gather you are saying all we have is our senses, so in classical sense, that’s all we have which I 100% agree with."
Yep...exactly my point...good that you got it right cause it can be easily misinterpreted.
Also...object reality exist (outside of us)...personal experience dont "shape" that...
Our personal interpretations of the reality outside of us can absolutely be true or false (or a mix of that)...they are not all "valid" in the same way and have the same weight.
Ooo, I would've loved to be on this one!
Discussion about god, universe and existence seems so light after watching the conversations on gender.
The little head nod after the casual “small penis” comment.
That was a good one.
Good job Peter ! Any reason why this isn't titled Street Epistemology ? Do you consider this interaction was not SE ?
An oversight. Thanks.
Love the vids Peter
There’s a difference between saying there’s no evidence that he is aware of that there is a god and leaving the door open to the possibility that there could be but he’s not aware of it vs. believing that there absolutely is no god. Of course, there are those that have faith and don’t require evidence to believe absolutely that there is a god.
@drpeterboghossian I am also on the strongly disagree, but I am confused about the distinction between personal experience and evidence. If I discover compelling evidence for something, or I do experiments, or I do research… I am doing so within my personal experience. How can I determine what is real when everything I know is from personal experience?
As Gad Saad says, use Nomological networks of cumulative evidence. Don't just trust your own research blindly, but put it up for other people to test and compare results from as many different angles and situations as possible.
Or you can do what Chuang Tsu said, and just live the reality you find yourself in because there is no option to do otherwise.
@@Puzzlesocksthat still requires you to use your senses which are your own experience to interpret that data. There is no way around it. One could just say you’re hallucinating all these things you think you are seeing and feeling. That is why the point made above is a good one.
@@jordandthornburg You clearly didn't understand my answer. Either we are all sharing some degrees of hallucination, or we are all in the same hallucination. Neither one really makes a difference to how we interact, or our ability to interact with it.
Again as Chuang Tsu says, we have no choice but to live in the reality we find ourselves in. If you have a dream that you are a butterfly, you have no other choice but to believe that you actually are a butterfly because that is the reality which is happening to you. Anyone who has ever done any mind altering substance can tell you this, but it's a fallacy to pretend that your base cognitive state is some sort of stable ground. Your mood and thoughts can change from as little as how much and what variety of foods you're getting, the ambient noise and smell around you, the weather, and any manner of other things.
It's never so simple as coming to one solution, or one reality, or at least not to the simplified level most people think about it. Reality is not an unchanging thing that we examine, it's an evolving organism that we are a part of. In general it's better to be utilitarian in practice.
In answering the question, it depends on how you define the word Exist.
Thank you Peter. As a recent convert from disagree line to strongly agree line you give me the chance to see myself as an atheist for my entire life. It is eye opening.
I know a good doctor 8:05|
I like this young man. Seems open minded and ready to think.
Likin the Hendrix esq outro music
Thank, Peter. I've been waiting for this one. Happy Hanukkah, Happy Advent & for the atheists a very Happy Winter Soltice!
we need a third angle on this issue... i mean we know light, heat, density, magnetism etc exists.. are we to believe taht only what our five senses detect constitutes the nature of existence? .. not taht i would know the answer..
Terrific!
Fantastic through to the very last question
Thank you!
I like this guy. Great video :)
Great work Peter. I hear tons of opinions with almost no facts, people need to listen twice as much as they talk.
6:52 ...And God spoke to us through the single quack of a passing Duck.
That was a goose.
[raging debate intensifies]
@@TailedFeature You say Mohammad, they say Allah?
I think if God has a sense of humour he'd be the guy who revved the supercar for everyone to hear and for Prof Boghossian to call him a small penis haver.
0:30 and you have actually Looked into This? Why does the word NO pop into my head?
Agnostic refers to knowledge. Atheism refers to belief. He doesn't believe in a god so he's an Atheist. EVERYONE is technically Agnostic because no one KNOWS if a god exists.
I know (theistic) God doesn’t exist. Some others do too. Ironically you just pretended to know something you didn't know.
That makes the term agnostic useless. Philosophically the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the term agnostic to point to someone who can not evaluate the proposition of God. The truth is, for most people they're either a believer or non-believer. Agnostics are a "special" set of non-believers who take the reason for their non-belief very serious and want to make it clear to people why they're so "special" in their non-belief. They bloviate more than needed on a topic that really doesn't matter much.
P.S. I'm agnostic if you can't tell.
@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy How do you know no theistic Gods exist?
They are separate things and not mutually exclusive. It's possible to be an agnostic atheist.
Agnosticism is not "not knowing whether god exists", it's believing that it's impossible to know. There are definitely people that believe it's possible to know and they do know in their own heads.
If a god manifested himself on Earth with some kind of avatar and proved he was a god, I would know he exists. So I'm not agnostic.
You just contradicted yourself 😂
Just started watching but I'm confused why 'we don't have the answers' would move anyone, who's being honest with themselves, towards one theory over another.... especially one that has 0 tangible evidence?
The whole time I was watching this, (particularly at the personal experience part) I wanted one of the questions to be something like:
"Could a synchronicity change your answer? - for example, if I said 'God has reached out to show me he exists' and as you were moving to strongly disagree a White Dove landed on your shoulder' would it move you on the answer to the 'does God exist' question?
"syncronicity"? You mean a coincidence?
@@dimercamparini only if you add "subjectively meaningful" in front of it
@@GrimGriz "subjectively meaningful"
Meaning that you can see and create in your brain an imaginary direct correlation between 2 random events happening at the same time, and that has some value for you?
@@dimercamparini quit pushing your faith in evidentiary requirements on people like a Jehovah's witness out of your fear of being wrong - you're just wasting everyone's time ;)
@@GrimGriz LOL...I am doing what???
Dude...stop using pompous language and word salad to try to appear smarter...speak like a normal being and maybe someone will take you seriously...YOU are actually wasting MY time here...
("white doves"...LOL...can you possibly be more "canonical iconic" than that?! And if it was a black spider jumping on the shoulder there instead, what super-uber-meaningful explanation would your brain have created for that "sincronicity"?) :DDDD
Personal experience is the only reliable guide, because even your thought about personal experience not being a reliable guide is your own personal experience of having that thought. Every scientific insight is someone's personal experience of having a scientific insight. There is nothing except for personal experience.
If you believe in objective evidence you are convinced by your personal experience of being convinced that objectivity is a crucial criterion.
The mystical experience entails the knowledge that it's true. When you have a mystical experience knowledge is an essential attribute of that experience. More even the very experience and the knowledge are the very same thing.
When you are convinced by an argument, you have the personal experience of being convinced. Someone else can be exposed to the same argument, yet lack the experience of being convinced. So it cannot be the argument itself that is in itself convincing. Something must happen within the experience when exposed to the argument.
"Personal experience is the only reliable guide, because even your thought about personal experience not being a reliable guide is your own personal experience of having that thought. Every scientific insight is someone's personal experience of having a scientific insight. There is nothing except for personal experience. "
I tend to generally agree with this...BUT that doesnt imply that objective reality dont exists outside of us...those 2 concepts are not mutually exclusive...objective reality and the universe exists in a certain way, independently of how we see, understand or explain it...they also still exist even if we suddenly disappear entirely.
Does a tree makes a sound when falling in a forest without humans there to hear it? Yes it does!
(is not a particularly clever conundrum)
That doesnt invalidate the concept that if a person is there instead, his experience of the tree falling is very PERSONAL...and can only be personal, actually...because our personal brain and senses is what we use to experience that moment.
We are missing someone in the agree side to balance the exercise
I feel like a just listened to an interview with Latka from the show Taxi.
There's an infinite number of definitions of God. This conversation should always start with defining the word God.
On the point of gods, don’t know which one. If you’ve got to ask if it exists? Then it does not.
1 I acknowledge religion doesn't need to define God.
2 I acknowledge we don't know if God exist.
3 I acknowledge humanity doesnt have access to the methods needed to "prove/disprove" God.
4 I acknowledge that reality may include what is unthinkable for humans.
5 I acknowledge that awarneness of #3 and 4 makes me humble, but not naive.
How can you say that you're open if you don't even know or have a clue about what would change your mind? Has he ever thought about it?
He should have started neutral and stayed there if he's going to give that answer.
He states so confidently that there is NO evidence but I wonder if he could give one argument that believers give for the existence of God. That would have been a great question for Peter to ask for the exercise.
Every god claim has never been demonstrated
@@TrevorIsCommenting *_Every god claim has never been demonstrated_*
Your statement still begs the same question...
@@Uch123456 what question? That’s not a question lol.
@@TrevorIsCommenting *_what question? That's not a question lol._*
The question being, "I wonder if he could give one argument that believers give for the existence of God".
@@Uch123456 oh duh lol. I could give many…I’ve listened to them for 20 years or more since I was a little boy. I’d be surprised if an atheist couldn’t give one. Most of them I’ve heard are based on things like an argument from ignorance. For example, people just can’t understand how the world possibly could’ve been created naturally and believe it’s impossible, and somehow believe that justifies a belief in god.
Give one and I guarantee it’s an unfounded argument
What do you mean by god?
Which God?
Perhaps you should have started by defining what is meant by 'God' before launching into the question.
There are many different definitions.
The problem is using the word "created". That leads to who created the creator discussion
Not bad. If Peter keeps going at this rate he will be a qualified trial lawyer soon enough
More questions.
What do you think created the earth, all the universe, and beyond? If your answer is The Big Bang, Blackhole, or any other scientific theory; then what created those? You can call that creator anything you want, if you feel uncomfortable using the word God. And just because a creator of all things has no proof of existing in the realm of this world, does not mean it isn't the creator of all things.
And the question still stands: if you say that all the other things MUST be "created", WHY this so called "creator" should not have something before him who created him too? WHY IS HE THE ONLY EXCEPTION to the absolute rule (everything complex must be created, cant come from chaos at random) you just stated as a fact (and used to deduce the existance of god)?
And on the opposite spectrum of reasoning...if you say that nobody created god (he is an always existing entity that doesnt have a creator)...WHY is impossible that OTHER things that are not god, cant have "no creator" for themselves, like him...if 1 exception exists, why cant exist 2...3...10 other exceptions to your "rule of creation"?
And also...derived from this notion of possible multiple exceptions to the rule...WHY god must be only 1 unique entity, and cant possibly exist 2...3...10...1000 "gods"?
(I am not talking about angels or other celestial beings here...but litterally other GODS, similar and at the same lvl of power of the god you worship)
@@dimercamparini I don't think you fully comprehended my question. Please read it again, and several times if you have to.
@@IamN... I think you are just deflecting with a useless reply without actual content cause you have no counter arguments and any reasonable answers to the 3 precise and direct questions I just posed to you.
Your position is perfectly clear and I have seen it 1 million times...not original in the slightest: "everything must have a cause, but there is just 1 cause that have no cause and is primal" (Tommaso D'Aquino style)...that's why I can craft not 1 but 3 counter arguments in like 3 seconds...
Now YOU try again maybe...
@@dimercamparini If you are looking for an argument, go to the nearest mirror.
@@IamN... OK dude...can your posts be less meaningful and more useless? You trying to beat some kind of record here?! :DDDD
(if I go to a mirror the only thing I see is a very evolved animal due to billions of years of refinements, starting from other much simpler animals and lifeforms...no sign of any "god" there...and BTW that in the mirror is a very evolved animal that is cutting through your BS as if they were BUTTER...)
At least there are some smart and rational people out there.
Getting people to define evidence before they say there’s no evidence for god would be helpful
Would you say the same thing if we're talking about evidence for leprechauns?
Can you define evidence?
@@Apistevistyes evidence is proof or scientific fact that can't be denied weather u believe it or not...
Science is more than a collection of facts and flat earthers exist, therefore you can deny them.@@mjjsjd1786
@@richarddoan9172yes. Testimony is evidence and it has to be weighed.
He has no idea what he believes.
He knows what he doesn’t believe, but he doesn’t know why he doesn’t believe it.
At the 8:00 mark, there's a loud, off-camera sound of a vehicle engine loudly revving, which interrupts the scene between Peter and this fellow. Instead of maybe saying something like "That really irritates me" or "I really hate that kind of distracting noise", Peter says "small penis" in response. Why? Like, why let that bother you?
Because every now and then Peter lets his true self be seen. He's neither a very intelligent nor likable man once you start scratching the surface.
It was just like.. a joke, man.
I have the same reaction. People who just *have* to make others notice them are often unsure of themselves or feel they would otherwise go unnoticed in the world and they just can’t handle that.
They’re usually male so it’s amusing - and possibly close to reality - to see their insecurity as a lack of sexual confidence (I’m a woman who finds such males pathetic)
Don’t get too hung up on it, though, mate.
You should both be neutral. I haven't heard evidence, and I heard your arguments. I don't care if hän exists. I'm interested in definitions for god and religion
Always pointless without first asking "What do you mean by 'god'?".
I have to admit, I'm a little surprised that Peter said he would be standing on the strongly disagree.
Look at his history and old lectures. Before fighting "wokeism", he was fighting traditional religion
Why did that surprise you?..
Yea that’s a dumbass position. Thinking the complexity of the universe and its conscious inhabitants came from a spontaneous combustion of matter. It’s absurd.
@@jmart1393 what complexity of the universe are you referring to when you say that?..
@@jmart1393Tell me more about talking animals, giants, Noah's Ark and that dude that lived to be like 900!
Thanks!
Thank you!
Is there objective truth?
Yes...objective reality exist, so whatever describes accurately that reality can be defined as objective truth...
At first I was thinking: we first need to establish at least a definition of God, as there are so many ways to perceive Him. In minute 5 this happened, so that was good. 11:43 It's funny that he says earlier on that he's open and he admits here that if something happened to him he could be on the other side, but then he says he doesn't 'believe' that will happen to him or has happened to anyone. It's very contradictive. Also, if you don't 'believe' that can happen to you or anyone, you close yourself off from ever experiencing such a thing, because you don't allow that to enter your field of awareness. You need to open yourself up to that as a bare minimum and then explore it and attune to it. God will respect and conform to your decision to not seek and connect to Him.
When I was exploring with an open mind and ended up at some particular information and finally watched a lecture on RUclips, I saw the parallels in all religions and it had me pondering the concept of God. When I finally admitted to myself that it could be likely that God existed, He met me halfway and gave me an undeniable energetic and spiritual awakening. You can get there through intellect, but the ultimate proof comes in your personal inner experience.
So if I were this young man, I would never rule out personal experience, because God can find us in All ways, because God IS the All.
Can we start with a clear definition of god.
Clearly there is a creative power in the universe, but what is it?
Clearly?
@@The1Waiter-gk4szwho created the laws of physics and matter? Do laws create themselves?
P1) That which started the universe is God
P2) Something started the universe
C) God exists
Cool. Now we have deism or pantheism not theism.
@The1Waiter-gk4sz brother you wouldn't even have a lightning bolt if matter and the laws of physics were there. So you think nothing created everything? And that somehow all the matter of the entire universe started off as a condensed point, smaller than a dot on a paper, and that material came from nothing and exploded into intelligent design? Do explosions in a metal shop create cars?
@@The1Waiter-gk4sz Can't be 'physics' (Time-space and matter/energy). This all BEGAN to exist in the finite past. Physics cannot be it's own cause.
Please do more god interviews.
I’d like to see him do this to someone of faith. And not someone insane but your run of the mill Christian.
The run of the mill Christian would just spit out a bunch of dogmas or personal, unprovable, beliefs...is not that (as a person of FAITH) you can do much else...is the essence of any religion...
@@dimercamparini other than insults do you have an intelligent point to make? What is the real reason you wont accept Christ, what sins in this world are you hanging on to?
@@Francis0316 Stupidest thing ever BTW...
Why should I "accept Christ", and not Mohammad (and Allah) for example?
Just because I was born in the western part of our planet and not in the east? :DDD
YOU yourself would have a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT set of ideas and beliefs if you were accidentally born on another part of the Earth...
Talking about "malleability of weak minds" eh?! "Oh well...I'll just go along with whatever ppl around me think more frequently...the most commonly accepted ideology"... :DDDD
8:03 🤣🤣🤣🥰
😂
If he gets where you would stand wrong, that shows you aren't being narrow minded. But it would be even better if he had no opinion on it at all. If you are seen to be opposing someone, they might be less inclined to honestly engage.
Around 12:00 and forward. If the IL doesn’t know if a personal experience would be related to God or not, then his “personal experience” of saying there is no evidence for God is meaningless. To claim there is no evidence requires one to know what the evidence would look like.
I shall inform God that all the skeptics on here demand that he provide them with proof of His existence forthwith. Said proof shall be repeatable, and be measurable with currently available scientific apparatus.🤣🤣
God is the way
God bless all
Why not label this as Street Epistemology? This is definitely Street Epistemology.
An oversight. Thanks
Which god?
That's always the first question to ask when asked that question.
@@HanLong-oz3cs And the answer is always "any god currently known to man." I'm not going to say there isn't possibly SOME god out there, but if there is, no holy book has described it.
@@blossom357 I understand. I just like to ask the asker that question, because they're often operating from the assumption that the specific god they believe in is the one, and that it should be obvious, and that I already know which one they mean. I've found it most often the case when talking with Christians.
@@blossom357 Lol and the answer is always " there is no god it can't exist and is unknowable"
The god question will always come up if you believe there was a beginning , everything has always been made from stuff that already existed , The law of conservation of energy : Energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another.
@@The1Waiter-gk4sz I usually have to ask, "Which Jesus?". Now we're getting down to who we're dealing with here.😄
I really liked this guy.
Do we at least agree on the religion issue?
You sound based on this... tell me we agree here...
@@malirk Unlike you I believe in observable and measurable reality.
@@MCP_Blackout You're an atheist?
@@malirk You still here? :DDDDD
(dude that channel doesnt moderate itself...GO!)
@@dimercamparini ad ad hominem attacks show you have no real argument and you lost already. Take the Lords yolk, it is lighter.
This poor human he obviously has a degree this generally relates to the temperature his brain was exsposed to !!!
Higher education does this 🙏
GOD BLESS us all
Knowing it is not possible to prove a negative (x doesn’t exist), 100% certainty is not logical or scientific. So you look at witnesses, evidence, or proofs, like documentation such as ,books like the multiple religious books. It is more likely than less likely. Of course, once you have children, it is very clear the creation of life is a miracle. It can be partially explained but we know very little about most scientific things. There is not a single thing we completely understand.
The "multiple religious books" (of multiple religions, and also inside the same religion) are all CONTRADICTING one another and are hardly considerable as "documentation"...more like ancient science-fiction, that someone took litterally and spread among other gullable peers of him...
"it's more likely than less likely" is YOUR assesment...and I am sorry to say that is completely backwards in respect to actual logic, basic statistic and common sense.
Anything is certainly possible...same as is HIGHLY probable that most of the things our brain imagine, are NOT actual things existing in real life...never were and never will be...
(the things that we can imagine are INFINITE...the actual, existing, things in the universe are FINITE and a very small subset of all the possible imaginary things...is basic statistic and logic...and a smart person should deem "non existant" a thing, UNLESS proven the opposite...is a basic "principle of prudence" and common sense)
Understandably, he's "hedging his bets" because no one can say there is no god. You cannot prove a negative. As such, we are all agnostic in that none of us has knowledge of a god. "Gnostic" means knowledge. When such a word is preceded by "a", it takes on the opposite meaning (atypical, asymmetrical, etc.). He is also an atheist in that he doesn't believe in god. "Theism" is a belief in something and therefore "a" theism is not believing in something.
Theory three would be that God created all those other universes too.
It's funny how things that doesn't exist (God for example) shape our whole culture, history and thinking.
Paradox
Prove it
You're wrong.
@@Josiahministries Prove what?
@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy Wrong in what?
@@kunsagigyula8091 firstly prove that God doesn't exist.
Does Peter Boghossian exist? Aquinas wants to know. ;-)
No. He does not.
If someone asks you if you *believe* in a god, there are only 3 responses: yes, no or; define what you mean by a "god". Saying that you're agnostic is answering the question: "Do you *know* if there is a god?"
If there exists one gnostic theist, God must exist.
If there exists one gnostic atheist, God must not exist.
It's impossible for a gnostic atheist and gnostic theist to exist in the world via the law of non-contradiction.
@@malirk It's about the claim, not the ultimate validity of that claim. Since both gnostic theists and gnostic atheists, exist, the law of non-contradiction is not relevant.
It would be relevant if a single individual claimed that god both exists and does not exist at the same time.
@@PianoDentist So knowledge is just a claim?
@@malirk No, knowledge itself isn't just a claim, its a statement of facts, in the epistemic tradition. But gnostic and agnostic are claims about the persons position on whether they think they have knowledge.
This episode could have ended at 0:37 seconds for me
"we are the universe" was certainly in interesting claim.
There is no verifiable evidence that confirms the existence of God.
If that evidence would actually exist all the world would convert immediately to the religion of that "proven god"...obviously that never happened so far...for a reason...
There is no verifiable evidence that God doesn't exist either!
@@davidjanbaz7728 And there it is…no offence, but that is a childish, uneducated response. I’m actually embarrassed for you for saying that. It doesn’t work that way and you know it.
How do I know that you know it?
It’s because…. you have no evidence, otherwise you and every other person that has used that circular argument would have presented the evidence and you would all be screaming it from the rooftops. The rooftops are silent my friend.
The truth is that, all believers in God have is faith, unfortunately faith in one’s beliefs is evidence of nothing.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Sure, but usually when trying to decide if a thing exist or does not exist, in absense of any proof in either cases, a "prudent" person" should lean towards the NON existance option...
Does a very tiny blue person with a hat and a cigar playing chess with himself exist at the center of the planet Mars?...
COULD BE (you cant absolutely prove that it doesnt unless you go there and watch...and EVEN if you could go there someone could just say "oh well...it just moved...you missed him for 5 minutes! Now he is on Venus!")...but I dont think so...sorry...
You cant prove a negative and this line of reasoning is very silly...every time it's used...
That true for leprechauns too. And unicorns. And the celestial teapot.
The presently inconceivable is not propositional.
That's the problem with how religion is being viewed nowadays. There's a set of practices, psychological technologies, which are many times more valuable. John Vervaeke has a lot of material on this subject.
@the11382 yes. I agree.
"Small penis". Took the words (and penis) right out of my mouth.
There can be no materialist evidence for God. The "Final Boss" explanation is you might be crazy and/or hallucinating everything.
But this presupposes that the materialist philosophy is correct. And the "Final Boss" explanation applies to all of the perceived universe. So it's not a very convincing position if you have even 1% doubt that the universe is just a "place for things".
At some times, he sounds like he should be on neutral... but at other times he sounds like he should be on strongly disagree. I'm not sure I like this format of only 1 contestant.
'The entity that created the universe' makes no sense as a definition. Why do everyone mess this up? The universe could be the result of a big bang bomb in a inter-multi-something-verse war where no one noticed or cared we popped up. This is pretty far from the god people are praying to, or the one with heaven, or really anything most people associate with a god.
Give me proof of the multiverse then
The point is we would know nothing about the entity that created the universe. Calling it god assigns it associations that are not justified.@@Josiahministries
@zimpoooooo I think there can be logical inferences we can make about God from the intelligent design shown and from the big bang. The big bang shows that time, space, and matter started. That means the entity before it was timeless (or outside of time), matter-less, and intelligent and powerful. A good video about it is here ruclips.net/video/ApVEMbyeL14/видео.htmlsi=x2xLPeIe5AXO8vY5
Plus, Christian apologists often confuse monotheism with their specific biblical Yahweh. If a concept of such a being lacks essential elements of Christianity, there's no reason to call it Christian. Universals shouldn't be confused with particulars either.
Tolerance isn't actually proof, though. If you have rules, you have to be intolerant of some things. And the Judeo-Christian God has rules.
Ppl need to separate god of deism and god of theism. Those are very different questions. God of religion for me is mega steroids strong disagree but god of deism im neutral. The origin of the universe could be conscious or mindless, it could go either way. But a personal god, no way in hell
The experience of any OTHER person can never be trusted, on whether there's a god. As Paine said:
“Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.”
One's own experience can never rationally prove there's a god, because it could be madness, or other misinterpretation.
No rational theist can deny that there are people in asylums who have personal experiences that are not real. No religious experience can rule that out.
young man didn't knew that old man is using tricks to produce a conclusion. Young man should go like you can define what is easter bunny but who defines god? two random people can describe easter bunny are first bunny i.e. big ears, rabbits,etc but there is no clear definition of god on those random people.
Evidence that supports the hypothesis of the existence of God would be:
There is something rather than nothing.
The unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics.
Morality
The big bang.
The fine tuning of the physical constants.
Functional information in DNA that opposes entropy.
"There is something rather than nothing. "
I am not even engaging with the others...have no time now...but THIS is the STUPIDEST ARGUMENT EVER! :DDDDD
Is completely FALSE (from whatever angle you watch it).
There are actually a INFINITE amount of things that we can imagine and DONT exist...but there is only a FINITE (a lot, obviously, but still finite) amount of things actually existing in physical reality...so is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what that ridiculous phrase assumes!
The correct sentence would be "is actually most probable than a thing dont exist, rather than it exist"
This is why any common sense principle of prudence (and logic) would dictate that in absence of some facts that demonstrate that a thing exist, you should assume that it doesnt exist (because statistically is far less probable that is exist than that it doesnt)...is really BASIC logic and common sense...
@@dimercampariniThe statement "There's something rather than nothing" is often pondered in philosophical discussions. While some may interpret it as evidence for a creator or God, others argue that it doesn't necessarily point to a specific deity and could be explained by natural processes or unknown factors. It's a complex topic with diverse perspectives, and interpretations often depend on individual beliefs and philosophical frameworks.
The cause of the Big Bang, which is the origin of everything, is a topic of intense scientific inquiry and speculation. Currently, our understanding breaks down at the actual moment of the Big Bang, and the laws of physics as we know them may not apply. Some theories propose that quantum fluctuations or cosmic inflation triggered the event, but these ideas are still subjects of ongoing research and debate within the scientific community. The ultimate cause of the Big Bang remains one of the profound mysteries in cosmology. However it is logical to conclude since spacetime and all of the laws that govern did not exist prior to the big bang that something outside of space-time and its laws caused it.
@@dimercampariniIt's crucial to clarify that there isn't an experiment that can definitively prove that reductionistic causality is the only way to understand all phenomena. Reductionism is a valuable approach in many scientific contexts, but it's not universally applicable to every complex system, especially the origin of everything.
Experiments are designed to test specific hypotheses and investigate particular aspects of phenomena. While reductionistic experiments can provide valuable insights into the components and mechanisms of a system, they do not necessarily establish that reductionism is the sole or exclusive approach for understanding all phenomena.
The limitations of reductionism become apparent in complex systems with emergent properties, where the interactions of components give rise to behaviors that cannot be fully understood by examining isolated parts. Holistic approaches and systems thinking are often necessary to complement reductionistic methods in these cases.
In essence, science employs diverse methodologies, and the choice between reductionism and other approaches depends on the nature of the phenomenon being studied. The scientific community recognizes the value of both reductionistic and holistic perspectives in advancing our understanding of the natural world.
I never said my bullet points were proof for the hypothesis that a God exists, rather that it's evidence that supports it. You may feel that evidence supports other hypotheses.
Science does not aim to "prove" things in an absolute or final sense. Instead, it seeks to provide the best currently available explanations based on empirical evidence and observations. Scientific theories and hypotheses are continually subject to testing, refinement, or potential revision in light of new data.
In the scientific method, hypotheses are formulated and tested through experiments and observations. If the evidence consistently supports a hypothesis, it may be accepted as a scientific theory. However, this acceptance is provisional, and scientific knowledge is always open to modification or rejection based on further investigation.
In summary, science provides the best explanations for phenomena based on current evidence, but it doesn't claim absolute proof. Scientific understanding evolves as new evidence emerges and as theories are refined or replaced.
@@CaptainPhilosophical "The statement "There's something rather than nothing" is often pondered in philosophical discussions"
Yeah...maybe in stupid and pointless philosophical discussions about the "sx of angels", because is complete nonsense...and I just gave you a perfectly clear and logic explanation of why it's that that even a 3yo can understand and agree with...and I dont see in any of your wall of txt a debunking of what I just said...You just preferred to talk about something else nobody was actually talking about...good job Captain! :DDD
Want me to try to tackle some of your other points with my "3yo proof logic not adapt for very high philosophical circular jerking off sessions"?
"morality" is another very funny point for example... :DDDD
@@dimercamparini
The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a profound one that has puzzled philosophers for centuries. It's considered one of the most fundamental questions in metaphysics, delving into the very nature of existence and being. Here's a breakdown of some key contributors and their arguments:
Leibniz: He argued for a "principle of sufficient reason," stating that everything must have a reason for its existence. He concluded that there must be a necessary being (God) responsible for all other existence.
Aquinas: His "Cosmological Argument" proposes that an infinite regression of causes is impossible, therefore there must be a first cause, often identified as God, to initiate the chain of existence.
Heidegger: He viewed "nothingness" as the ground of being, arguing that the question itself presupposes the existence of something to compare it to. He focused on questioning how existence manifests itself.
Sartre: He rejected the idea of a first cause and emphasized human freedom and responsibility in creating meaning in an absurd universe. However, The Big Bang, thr source of matter, time, and space requires a non-material, timeless cause not located in space.
Wittgenstein: He argued that the question itself might be nonsensical, using language constructs that don't apply to the concept of "nothingness."
Cosmological Argument: Posits a first cause for the universe's existence, often interpreted as a deity.
Ontological Argument: Argues that the concept of a perfect being (God) implies its actual existence.
Anthropic Argument: Suggests the universe must be fine-tuned for life to exist, implying a deliberate design or selection process.
Philosophical Nihilism: Denies the existence of intrinsic meaning or purpose, proposing that "nothingness" is the truest state.
Important Note: These are just a few examples, and the field of metaphysics is vast with diverse perspectives. There's no single, universally accepted answer to this question, and the debate continues within philosophy and other disciplines like physics and cosmology. Your quick willingness to ignore the history and implications of this question and go straight into ad hominem lines of offense says alot about your personality. You have exposed your shadow and ignorance to the world.