We Finally Got The BEST Evidence For Theism! | Talk Heathen: Throwback
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Call the show on Sundays 1:00pm-2:00pm CDT: 1-512-991-9242
Don't like commercials? Become a patron & get ad-free episodes & more: / talkheathentome
► Find all of our links here: linktr.ee/athe...
The podcast may be found at:
tiny.cc/podcastph
Talk Heathen merch can be found at: tiny.cc/merchaca
Note: We request pronouns as part of the call screening process on our shows, and we display the pronouns our callers provide. If you see a caller with no pronouns indicated, this is because they chose not to provide us with any, and we respect that decision.
-------
WHAT IS TALK HEATHEN?
Talk Heathen is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared toward long-form and on-going dialogue with theists & atheists about religion, theism, & secularism. Talk Heathen is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
Talk Heathen is filmed in front of a live studio audience every week at the Freethought Library of the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is organized as a nonprofit educational corporation to develop & support the atheist community, to provide opportunities for socializing & friendship, to promote secular viewpoints, to encourage positive atheist culture, to defend the first amendment principle of government-religion separation, to oppose discrimination against atheists & to work with other organizations in pursuit of common goals.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
NOTES
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
/ talkheathen is the official channel of Talk Heathen. "Talk Heathen" is a trademark of the ACA.
Copyright © 2024 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
"I'd rather have a bad answer than no answer"
The linchpin of many people's faith
Yep. Caught that too. Super revealing.
"We Finally Got The BEST Evidence For Theism!"
Without even watching the video I'd bet £100 that the statement ain't true🤣🤣
He said it's the best they have. He never said it was good 😅
You lost. His evidence:
Nuh-hu god dun it Nuh-hu.
Just fallacy after fallacy
That's a bet you will always win on.
Hello did give the best available evidence 😂
A load of gibberish nonsense is the best theist have.
I have an invisible twin brother. He is always with me, but my parents don't believe in him.
My daughter had an invisible friend at the age 3.5-5. She grew up.
@@freddan6fly Well, now, I'm 85, and I still believe in my invisible twin.
I've got his joy, joy, joy, joy Down in my heeart!, All you need is Faith.
sounds like your parents just want to sin
/s
@@freddan6fly the daughter or the friend?
@@johnatkins3017 dang... imagine comparing your personal twin to your god, ooooof.
Same old, tired, worn out arguments.
You don't know why the universe exists.Therefore my god has a penis. Check mate atheists!
I thought ideas were either true or false. What does it mean for an idea to be “tired“ or “worn out“? Does that have anything to do with true and false? Do you only accept brand new ideas - whether or not they are true or false?
@@tpoy1274of course not. The age of an argument has nothing to do with it being true or false. What I was implying was that these arguments have been around for a long time. They didn't work then and they don't work now. I've been following this stuff for about 30 years. So I have heard the same arguments for god made again and again and they accomplish nothing new.
@@alanrosenthal6323 Got it. It might be better to point out the faults of the arguments themselves than to call them old. Sometimes old ideas fall out of fashion and then come back and persuade people again.
Yep.... Drives me crazzzeeee
Love how near the end he said he’d rather believe in some random shit than say idk
Once you invoke the "supernatural", you've automatically lost the argument, and all credibility.
He’s been on before. I believe his last name is Dover.
So this guy is... Ben Dover?
Bart Simpson, is that you?
I believe he has some bad luck when he tries the "thinking" thing.
Is that « Amanda Hugnkiss » ?
Believers never get the gumball analogy. Not one time, ever that I have seen.
Haven't gotten to that part of THIS video, but the hosts are absolutely terrible at bringing up analogy. Every time. Every episode. Every analogy.
They stumble over it before even being sure the caller knows what an analogy is.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” -- Richard Feynman
“Just because I don’t understand something, that doesn’t mean I’m willing to chalk it up to some fairy tale.” -- (TV Matt Murdoch/ Daredevil) (This is one of my all-time favorite quotes!)
Lol, Daredevil is catholic! How is that a line from a show delivered by a catholic character
I love that I have probably watched dozens of videos debunking each of the three "strong pillars" Ben mentioned.
At the point of the singularity, the laws of physics break down. That includes the laws of cause and effect.
"morality needs a moral-giver" yeah it's called mass consensus. we all agree that things tend to work better when people don't kill each other, when people don't have to fight and steal to survive. we all agree that truth is generally the best path to understanding and progress
@@JESUS--NEVER--tAPPED
- myths require mythologisers
- fan-fiction requires writers of fiction
- apologetics requires lying
- faith requires believing things you possibly cannot know are true
- morality requires not covering up abuse of little children
- religion requires snake-oil salesman ...
I understand why you might think this is "common sense" and indeed want to believe this points to a God. Let's examine each argument and see if there are other possible explanations:
1. **Paintings require a painter**: This is an analogy that applies to human-made objects. Paintings are created by humans, but this does not necessarily imply that everything in the universe requires a creator in the same way.
2. **Buildings require a builder**: Similar to the painting analogy, buildings are constructed by humans. Natural phenomena, however, can occur through processes that do not involve a conscious builder, such as geological formations.
3. **Design requires a designer**: The appearance of design in nature can be explained by natural processes like evolution by natural selection. Complex structures can arise without the need for an intelligent designer.
[Admittedly there are still some gaps in our knowledge, eg the precursor to DNA, but as this video points out, the honest answer
is "we don't know" not "this proves a magic working god exists"]
4. **Creation requires a creator**: The term "creation" implies a creator, but many atheists prefer to use terms like "formation" or "emergence" to describe natural processes. The origin of the universe can be explored through scientific theories such as the Big Bang, which do not necessarily require a creator.
5. **Life requires a life-giver**: Life can arise from non-life through natural processes, as suggested by abiogenesis. The exact mechanisms are still being studied, but the hypothesis does not require a supernatural life-giver.
6. **Consciousness requires someone who is conscious**: Consciousness can be seen as an emergent property of complex neural networks. It does not necessarily require a pre-existing conscious being to come into existence.
7. **Intelligence requires someone who is intelligent**: Intelligence can develop through evolutionary processes. Simple organisms can evolve into more complex ones with higher intelligence over time.
8. **Morality requires someone who is moral**: Morality can be understood as a social construct that evolves within societies. It does not require a moral being to dictate it; rather, it can emerge from the interactions and agreements among individuals.
9. **Emotion requires an emotional being**: Emotions can be explained through the study of psychology and neuroscience. They are responses to stimuli and do not necessarily require an external emotional being to exist.
10. **Sociability requires someone who is social**: Sociability can evolve as a beneficial trait in social animals, including humans. It does not require a pre-existing social being to instil sociability in others.
11. **Free will requires someone who has free will**: The concept of free will is debated in philosophy. Some argue that free will is an emergent property of complex decision-making processes in the brain, rather than something granted by an external being.
...compiled with help from ChatGPT, although these arguments are by no means invented by it, it's only summarising information from web sites it has been trained on. Note it is equally adept at giving apologist's replies to these arguments, viz:
1. **Paintings require a painter**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: The analogy of a painting requiring a painter is meant to illustrate the principle of causality. Just as a painting is evidence of a painter, the complexity and order in the universe suggest a purposeful creator. The universe's fine-tuning and the laws of nature point to an intelligent designer rather than random chance.
2. **Buildings require a builder**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: While natural phenomena can occur without human intervention, the intricate and precise conditions required for life and the universe's existence suggest a deliberate act of creation. The complexity and order observed in nature are more consistent with the work of a purposeful builder than with random, unguided processes.
3. **Design requires a designer**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: The argument from design posits that the complexity and functionality observed in biological systems are best explained by an intelligent designer. Evolutionary processes alone cannot account for the origin of information and the intricate interdependence of biological systems, which point to a purposeful design.
4. **Creation requires a creator**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: The Big Bang theory itself suggests a beginning to the universe, which implies a cause beyond the natural realm. The concept of a creator provides a coherent explanation for the origin of the universe, addressing the question of why there is something rather than nothing.
5. **Life requires a life-giver**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: Abiogenesis remains a hypothesis with significant gaps. The complexity of even the simplest life forms and the information encoded in DNA suggest an intelligent source. The idea of a life-giver aligns with the observation that life comes from life, rather than from non-life.
6. **Consciousness requires someone who is conscious**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: Consciousness is a profound mystery that materialistic explanations struggle to fully account for. The emergence of consciousness from non-conscious matter is highly improbable without an intelligent source. A conscious creator provides a plausible explanation for the existence of consciousness.
7. **Intelligence requires someone who is intelligent**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: The development of intelligence through evolutionary processes does not adequately explain the origin of intelligence itself. The presence of intelligence in the universe suggests an intelligent source. The complexity and purpose observed in intelligent beings point to a higher intelligence.
8. **Morality requires someone who is moral**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: Objective moral values and duties are best explained by the existence of a moral lawgiver. Without a transcendent source, morality becomes subjective and relative. The existence of universal moral principles suggests a moral being who grounds these values.
9. **Emotion requires an emotional being**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: Emotions are more than mere chemical reactions; they reflect deeper aspects of human experience and relationships. The existence of emotions points to an emotional being who created humans with the capacity for emotional experiences, reflecting the nature of the creator.
10. **Sociability requires someone who is social**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: The social nature of humans and other animals suggests a design for relationships and community. This sociability aligns with the idea of a social creator who values relationships and has instilled this trait in creation.
11. **Free will requires someone who has free will**:
- **Apologist's Reply**: The existence of free will is difficult to reconcile with a purely deterministic or materialistic worldview. Free will suggests a source beyond mere physical processes. A creator with free will provides a coherent explanation for the existence of human free will.
So basically you can believe what you like... although that doesn't make it true - although "confirmation bias" will probably convince you "you're right", whichever side of the fence you prefer.
@@JESUS--NEVER--tAPPED Most of your statements are incorrect. There's no evidence that life requires a life-giver, or that existence is symonymous with creation.
caller thinks is being scientific and logical but actually sounds like all the past bad naive apologists sprinkled generously with a dizzying torrent of presuppositions, scientific misunderstandings and just plain arrogant theistic ignorance.
Get the tittle trick! he has best evidence for theism and plenty of the dishonest chons around.🏴☠
He went straight from "best evidence" to "strongest pillars". From logic to nonsense in 30 seconds.
All the Christians that defend the deistic god, when they themselves believe in an active god who allegedly claims interaction with the world. I find it very dishonest.
Love Paulogia man's helped me so much an doesn't even know
"I have the greatest undeniable proof for my god!"
Presents zero proof! Every damn time!
..Do these people not comprehend what proof means? Is that the problem here?
They can’t gasp the difference between a claim and evidence.
"Aw Come on!" actually pleading.
Strong pillars haha. Guess what?! They crumbled..
People have morality because morality has survival value. From an evolutionary standpoint, immoral societies have negative survival pressure, and moral societies have positive survival pressure. There is natural selection pressure that favors moral society. Societies that lack empathy and compassion tend to fail, while societies with empathy and compassion tend to thrive. Over thousands of years, moral values become hard-wired into our consciousness, because moral societies thrive and reproduce at higher rates, and immoral societies disappear. (No religion required)
Most top theoretical physics don't think the BB was the absolute beginning of the universe. Some have some ideas or simply say they don't know what was before the BB. There is no reason to assume there was nothing before or outside the BB.
These guys have ONE ARGUMENT-
The argument from I FEEL IT IN MY HEART ❤️ (and you must read that in your mind using the most ridiculous Southern accent possible)
The same stupid arguments we hear all the time. I'd like to hear why he thinks god has a penis instead of avoiding the question by claiming its mockery, its a valid question.
The reason is simple, the God of the Bible is modelled on a tyrannical patriarch at the time of writing. The writers had nothing else to look to for an example when inventing their gods.
To get Mary pregnant?
@midiprog2266 Nah, that was the Holy spirit's doing. Maybe it used IVF.
A magical being who can do anything is always a sufficient explanation for anything. Unfortunately, that explanation has always been wrong, and it has arguably set genuine inquiry and human progress back centuries.
Who would make fun of Eric's hair? It's gorgeous!
Benjamin doesn’t know what logic is.
Even the whole literal universe is contingent on material energy states. The universe isn't even the hurdle they must leap over in order to show a requirement for a creator. Time can have a beginning AND and end and still be infinite in both directions, contingent on the presence of material energy. It could be a conformal cycle with a singularity at both ends. A universe with no electrons is no different than a universe with no time.
Just because you WANT an explanation for something doesn’t mean you have the right to MAKE ONE UP.
Not sure why people think that the correct answer for something they don’t know is “God did it”, when the only correct answer is “we don’t know”. It’s ok to not know something, but it’s not ok to assign a reason for something when you don’t know what it is.
'Cause'/'effect', 'space', and 'time' become close to meaningless at the high energy levels and densities of the early universe (and any singularity, for that matter). To "intuit" anything about this point in existence as a layperson is a bit premature.
The fact that one uses terms like 'cause', beginning', and 'before' betrays their ignorance.
I guess it's simply meant to somehow fortify their forgone conclusion.
Universe may mortgages cause, please demonstrate that, fine tuned,inwhat way for whom, and finally morality,( law giver). Demonstrate that..slavery,genocide, misogyny, human sacrifice..no morality
Futurama shows that the universe expands then collapses and does another big bang and it’s an infinite loop, great episode and works without a god and we know the universe exists and it’s expanding
The wind is invisible…
I think that waiting until we figure out how to get outside of time and space and find a god is when we should believe one actually exists.
Call me crazy.
Starts with presumption backed by assertion his best argument is the typical worthless hokey nonsense that’s been trotted out time and time again.
If god + universe is a closed loop, is there something outside _that_ loop?
The citadel at the end of time, there were 2 seasons of Loki about it
question " Can you show me "nothing" because It seems if you say this is nothing you just made it something. Nothing does not exist that I know of.
It's so ridiculous that theists want to remove their God from the testability of science by claiming he's "supernatural" at the same time they insist he affects the physical realm, which if true, would provide physical evidence which simply doesn't exist. The ONLY way to remove a God from scientific scrutiny is to invent one that doesn't affect the physical realm, making it a powerless God.
Don't know why theists talk about "everything must have a cause" because that particular theory by definition would indicate God must have a creator as well. To simply stipulate God is eternal does not cut it and is a copout.
P.R.A.T.T. arguments.
People really are two timing 😜
Thousand? More like a Billion!
People plug God into the gaps because they started with God as a pre-supposition that was implanted in their youth. I think every one of these conversations should start by identifying that. Where were you born? Were your parents Christians? Did they take you to church and Sunday school as a child? If so, then your mind didn't approach questions about the universe with a clean slate. You started with a belief in God and are challenging atheists to dislodge it.
He who remains lives in the citadel at the end of time and keeps the sacred timeline in place, until Loki and Sylvie took him out and Loki became the god of stories, holding all timelines together, I read Marvel and watched Loki through the movies to the show
Awesome show
"We have to admit that we don't know when we don't know"
Except me i don't have to admit that cause I'd rather claim i do know than admit i know nothing about before the plank time. Why are they all so dishonest and willing to throw logic out the window?
No one ever asks these callers what caused God and calls out the special pleading for an eternal god.
you're joking, right? They've done so hundreds of times, that's why they rarely bother anymore. You're just going to get a glib special pleading which they refuse to admit. Yet again. The hosts rather go in directions where there's the potential viewers might learn something.
@@nagranoth_ you have to assume every viewer is a first time viewer.
Benjamin you have god, I have the Quantum background, which does predictions about the world that are testable? ps how narrow minded is god? & with all the universe he cares about this .00000000000000000000000000000000000000001% of it?
I already know it: GODDIDIT. Who can argue with facts like that.
The twin of WLG detected
did the causer have a cause? infinite loop thats the thing..lol
This guy was actually probably the best christian debater I've heard so far
Shut up! 😂
I agree. Not that is arguments were good, but he was able to have an actual conversation that didn't devolve into goal-shifting, ad-hominems, gish galloping, straw-manning, insults, etc. etc.
And he still had nothing
@@Glasschin2.0 lol yep exactly, just like all christians. Nothing but delusions.
Even when ‘stumped’ by the gum ball analogy the caller does not in fact give up. To save face to his congregation he just says ‘ I don’t agree with the analogy’ He then goes back to his flock and tells them ‘ I gave them all the evidence, but they just just would not listen ‘
"Could it be a god?" Yes. Was it a god? We don't know.
well, the answer to the first question is actually also 'we don't know'. To say yes, you'd have to be able to demonstrate gods can exist.
@@nagranoth_ I've always gone by the rule that ANYTHING is possible. Most of it is just highly improbable.
Theists accept that if a cause exists, therefore Xianity. Without ever connecting the dots.
Because at least they have a theory which is always better than not having one. Idk is for wussies. lol
No one knows why the universe was created. No one knows why we're here. Etc. People should appreciate it regardless without pointing to something we don't know. How hard is it for a religious person to say the words "I don't know." 😂
Ah, yes, atheism is wrong because it doesn't propose anything and I'm right because at least I have an answer, aka the Argument from Arrogance and Cowardice.
It was the best evidence for Theism!! It was also complete and utter nonsense proving nothing, so yeah…🤷♀️
He’s arguing for deism supposedly but uses He which makes it personal and gendered. This is theism . And Christian . He’s being disingenuous.
The Bible teaches that every human has a conscience which has been placed there by God. It is the sense of right and wrong that we all have. The Bible contains God's standard for right and wrong, but even those who have never even heard of the Bible still know the difference.
Deuteronomy 21:10-13 That's your standard of right and wrong?
Our "conscience" is derived from our social instincts that we evolved as social animals. specifically, it relates to our ability to feel empathy for other agents we see as similar to ourselves. Literally all social animals display some degree of empathy. This is an absolutely critical component for a species to cooperate in a social manner. Humans are not unique in this. If morality was somehow absolute and instilled into us by a creator, you would expect us all to have an identical sense of morality. Since it is actually an evolved trait, we see variations from person to person and society to society.
If by standards for morality you mean murder, genocide, slavery and misogyny, then sure, the Bible is a great source.
The Bible also teaches that bats are birds and that a zombie Jewish carpenter was his own dad.
I wouldn't look to the Bible for anything regarding truth.
Why Would their knowing the difference mean the knowledge came from god? And conscience is placed there by society.
The best evidence or the only evidence these guys will accept is most likely something written or God himself correct, and if I said either proof would give us the chills, but what if we followed scripture and do literal where today we assume is other than, so if scripture says the way is by going through something than what do you think that would mean, studying, no, it means from one side to the other so how do we go through It and what is It if you have to eat It and what would we call It, a feeling, an experience those who know would call It God, the crooks would call it Jesus.
Repent of your sins, believe in Jesus Christ for salvation and become a new person in this life. Luke 24:47, John 3:16, John 3:3 KJV
Salvation from what?
Ezekiel 23:20
Ah yes the crap kings crappy version of the bible that he specificslly had made in order to live an even crappier life
Why should I believe in Jesus and why should I care what the Bible says?
Same old blah, blah, blah…..
Spoiler Alert: The caller had nothing. Anyone surprised?
He has the best evidence for being a theist !🤔 TROLL ALERT
The caller had nothing new, that's for sure, just the same tired old fallacies.
But I thought it was interesting how he prefaced them by confessing that, in his mind (and, he thinks, in the minds of most theists) it's not the weight of any one argument but the COMBINED EFFECT.
To me, the combined effect of a bunch of bad arguments is one comprehensively bad argument. This is the case on all matters, and I suspect that most theists would generally agree - EXCEPT for their special case involving the existence of their very particular god. So that's itself a Special Pleading fallacy.
More deeply, I think theists almost without exception start with the conclusion that they want to reach, and try to develop rationalizations for it. Variously this can be called Begging the Question, Cherry Picking, Appeal to Emotion, or Circular Reasoning. But whichever, it's not how people disinterestedly investigate the world around them.
He had some speculation, science denial and gobbledygook, that is not nothing.
REMOVE THIS COMMENT, You Ruined The Video For Me 😭
Nop
"We don't know" are the 3 most important words in science.
and may never know when it comes to the most fundamental questions of existence.
However what we _do_ _know_ is that the Bible is nothing more than fan-fiction and the Earth ain't flat.
Also in honesty in humility
I would say, make it 4 words. "we don't know...yet"
That and “I don’t believe you”
Also « lets examine the evidence »
Here's why the gumball analogy is fucking hilarious:
Believer says that they know that the number is even. The non believe says that they don't know if it's odd or even and there only way to know for sure is to count them. The believer says that it is unreasonable to do so and how dare the non believer suggest something so blasphemous as to count the gumballs.
After much back and forth, the believer finally agrees and they get to counting. When it becomes apparent that the number is actually odd, the believer will accuse the non believer of miscounting, hiding a gumball or will try to come up with some excuse as to why the number is actually even and that any attempt to persuade them otherwise is a waste of time as they'll stay Evenians despite all evidence to the contrary.
the believer then beheads the nonbeliever and says "now we're even!"
The gumballs made themselves odd to test your faith that they're actually even.
"We can't just break the One Holy Jar open and count them, you doubtless fool! Are you crazy! To the pyre with you filth!"
"GOD manifest himself in different ways", it doesn't matter if are even or odd, either way is GOD will." =)
this is great 👍
Special pleading
"I would rather have something than nothing"
Translation: instead of saying I don't know, I would rather just make something up so that I can pretend to know something I actually don't
... and so I can pretend I have a big invisible daddy who tucks me in to bed at night and tells me I'm not going to die. 🙄
Right at the beginning he spoke about the morality that faith brings. So why is the murder rate significantly (up to 30 times) higher than here in some European countries where there are hardly any believers?
Because _some incoherent rambling with many difficult words_
@@freddan6fly
Atheism! final answer!
Crime is actually down in my European country overall, violent crime appears a lot higher because it's reported and logged separately and differently now and we hear of crimes from all over instead of just local.
The most violent crimes are committed by the religious hence the Christian population in jails is higher than the outside world population per proportion.
Faith brings delusion and it's the faithful that are the terrorist.
Benjamin from Florida, none of those are compelling!
This fellow's introduction to what he wants to present is akin to a Gish gallop. First is evidence for design, then morality, then....faith!!
Some gobbledygook as well.
If that’s the best evidence for theism, it’s little wonder that christianity is in such rapid decline.
I have never heard a theist win an argument.
I have to correct you. If you listen to Christian RUclips videos you will find that they are right 100% of the time.
Sarcasm, obviously 😅
@@alanrosenthal6323 Only when they provide evidence that is not equally valid for the invisible pink unicorn in my garage.
@@freddan6flyI'll bet my pink unicorn can beat your pink uniform
Good people, please let's not fight.
We all know deep down MY pink unicorn is the strongest. He told me so in a dream. Surely that's compelling evidence. How can you prove he DIDN'T tell me so in a dream? Checkmate 😂😂😂
@@alanrosenthal6323 Please, I drank wine when checking what you wrote. If my keybooooooooooard don't survive you own me a new keybrd.
Got to love the nervous laughter from the caller when he realizes his arguments are pretty weak, and the hosts are betting aside his attempts with very little mental effort. Apologists not thinking things through seems to be a feature and not a bug.
They always have to invoke imaginary supernatural explanations, because they have no real, valid ones.
But they claim they are valid ones even when challenged.
If you claim that God and the supernatural are not subject to science, all you need to do is present some sort of methodology for determining truth claims about the supernatural that is reliable as science is for determining truth claims about the natural world.
Remember:
After all these years this is the best evidence for theism😂
i'll go one better
perhaps 20 years before all this Atheist Experience and all that started, i actually did this myself,
Not on the internet but talking to people in public.
i would welcome anyone that wanted to talk to me and convince me and i was listening with an open mind.
and then you have the internet and all this religious debate
AND HERE IS WHAT I HAVE OBSERVED
THE CONCLUSIONS THAT I CAME TO ARE THE EXACT SAME THAT THESE HOSTS COME TO
THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE CHRISTIANS MAKE ARE THE SAME SET OF ARGUMENTS THAT I'M HEARING HERE
it never changes.
We are at the point where every video will now continue to be the same basic thing over and over.
it's not even about proving whether they are wrong anymore
IT'S MORE ABOUT.... THEY HAVE FACILITATED A PLATFORM FOR US TO MAKE MONEY ON THEIR IGNORANCE
and... that's fine. Hey, it pays the bills
This guy's reasons are 'because I can't think of something better'. Pathetic.
We got the best evidence for theism ? no kidding and yes theist exist is a pain in the ass.
Firstly, the modern interpretation is so far off what used to be believed it is like comparing Q from Star Trek or perhaps Dr. Manhattan to Gilgamesh. The God by whatever name was a very physical being and a product of its time. This energy metaphysical supernatural being is a very different creature entirely and raises new questions and conflicts. The old version has its quirks easily rationalized as a us being created in HIS image. The new one brings so much to mind li!e why is gender a factor, why are they more emotional than a Spanish soap opera when as described lacks the biology that creates emotion such as glands and such, and on and on. Theists have made a new God for a modernized time, but it doesn't fit Bronze and Iron Age beliefs and scriptures.
its best evidence for people theism bully gullibles. they no longer have evidence for the God anymore! oh gee's thats horrible.😮💨
Theists derive some perceived benefit from their beliefs which do NOT require them to be demonstrably true, however their perceived benefit is proportional to their level of acceptance of those beliefs.
"it seems to me", is not evidence. That is speculation with no evidence
even or odd? yes
Unfortunately, he is not prepared to say ‘I don’t know’ when he doesn’t know that his undescribed god thing ever existed.
The universe is balls: big balls, small balls, broken balls, protoballs, balls stuck together...
The best evidence for god when was when Tim Tebow threw for 316 yards and miraculously beat the Steelers
But then the next week he got clapped and never started a game again and proved there was no god
Where is Benjamin now?
I am a physicist and no scientist claims to know anything beyond a planck length after the singularity. We simply dont know and we dont know if there was a « before » or « another side ». Its the honest stance, pending further data.
Gods are magical. Mystical. Supernatural and paranormal. They speak incantations to cast spells. If one of them is "omnipotent" then it can create whatever magical spell it wants and can make it look "natural." I actually don't get why creationists don't just stick with that. Why do they need to say it can be described scientifically?
If you grant the logic of God being a cause then the same logic allows that God has a God etc...
Opinions are just that....c'mon!
This caller is a classical representation of how religion acts like a “brain virus,” sucking the intellect from people!
The one that I just can’t ever agree with in any way is the need for god for morality argument. It’s total nonsense and so easy to debunk that I am amazed it’s ever brought up.
Benjamin has no clue whatsoever what logical means. None. He seems to think it means you wish it were true.
Merely saying a thing is logical does not make it logical. Benny needs to go back to the drawing board and think more about what logic means
Saying the *g∅d* idea is logical to explain the origins of the cosmos, even with the enthusiasm of a used car salesman that Ben uses, doesn't make it so.
Oh yea, finally good evidence for a god, NOT!!!
Every time a new cause appears, a new Gawd is born.
so our universe is a pimple on gods' ass
I see the caller's cunning tactic here.....stay jolly so the atheists laughingly agree due to hysterical diversion!
That's how con men, liars, salesmen and politicians work as well.
9:51 When you ask the question "How do you know that?" the correct thing to do is stop talking and let them try to answer.
oh, you mean... exactly like they did?
The uncaused causer argument, again.
My default counter argument is that whatever traits they give to their god concept that allows it to be excepted from needing a cause, I can simply apply to the universe itself.
Personally, I'm a fan of the universe-belching unicorns from the eighth dimension hypothesis put forth by Professor Plink.
I wonder if anyone ever counted the gum balls…
I have a question. Is it true that mostly American religious people want to PROVE God exists and can’t stand doubt, whereas in Europe, where I live, most religious people just make the leap of faith as the philosopher Kierkegaard put it. They don’t care about prove. I do have to say in my country The Netherlands the majority, about 60%, of people is agnostic and in Dutch called ‘ietsisten’ and ‘ietsism’ that means something like: I don’t know if there is a God, but there maybe is ‘something’. ‘Iets’ in Dutch means ‘something’ They also don’t have a strong connection to an organized religion or go to church, and they are very comfortable with the answer: I don’t know for sure, but I like to believe it.
Keep in mind that you're seeing sections of theists. Not the whole group.
Theists notice "new" or "militant" atheists. iow atheists who speak up. Similarly you are noting the theists who choose to participate in apologetics. The "proving".
I'd contend that most theists just... do their religion. They have no or few doubts. They don't question. They accept a story or choose their own adventure. With whatever internal rationalization.
@@brucebaker810 oké, I understand, but my point is: when you hear or see a more or less famous theist or creationist in a debate, it’s often an American or I guess British one.
@@zeven341 l was responding to what you said. You didn't say apologists or religious leaders. You said most religious people. But described the behaviour of the much smaller subgroup that seeks to lead, represent, or evangelize.
@@brucebaker810 yeah, sure, I guess most religious people are not outspoken but that doesn’t mean that if there are a lot apologist’s and creationists in a country like the USA with about 85% of the people being religious my hypotheses is wrong. The big number of Christian RUclips channels, young earth believers, intelligent design believers, says something.
@@zeven341 It's an iceberg thing. Natural to judge from the visible part. Easy to forget the "quieter" underwater part.