What makes Alex so unique is that he's not actively trying to stop people from being Christians, he just points the contradictions and flaws in the scriptures and questionable biblical ethics in the most British and respectful way possible. This allows for conversation instead of mud slinging. Just was watching Galaxy Quest. My favorite Rainn Wilson role by far!!
Some of us are compelled not to make people stop being Christians but to show them that they hold false beliefs. So, in a sense-at least in my case-it almost feels like a moral obligation. I mostly like Christianity as a way of life and as a culture, except when it causes harm-for instance, when people reify metaphors and adopt a supernatural mindset. But perhaps I should refrain from doing so except in cases where those holding these beliefs impose their prescriptions on my life. Otherwise, I could just live with the material advantage of knowing better and think, "If you don’t mind making foolish decisions from time to time, that’s your business." Religion freedom is best.
@@skeptcode I actually feel the same way, but in the opposite direction. I don’t try to force atheists to become Christians, but I do feel compelled to show them the flaws in their beliefs and how destructive atheism can be. In that sense, it feels like a moral obligation. I can appreciate aspects of atheism, like its emphasis on reason and skepticism, but I also see how it often leads to nihilism, moral relativism, and a lack of deeper meaning. Maybe I should only challenge it when atheists try to impose their worldview on others, but at the same time, I think it's worth exposing the dangers of rejecting God entirely. If you look at history, many secular regimes-like those under Mao, Stalin, and even Hitler-shared a disregard for human life, which was fueled by their rejection of absolute moral truths.
I feel I have a “moral obligation” to tell you both how fucking insufferable you both sound, talking about how you feel morally obligated to tell other people why they are wrong and you are right. No. You’re not morally obligated. You just want to look smart and righteous, respectively.
@@troymarks1657 How does one distinguish "deeper meaning" from stuff that people just like a lot and respond to positively? What if there is some such meaning that we didn't like, even hated, or were indifferent to? What then?
@@GrassiOutdoorAdventuresIt's closed if it doesn't take in energy from an external source. It's like when people put a tiny ecosystem inside a glass jar by putting some soil and water and plants and bugs inside it and seal it for years, and it still has life. But it's not truly a closed system, because you set the jar near a sunny window and it takes in sunlight for the plants to grow and warm the water to evaporate and condense on the sides. So it's not like the jar violates the third law.
don't you mean as an empiricist? everyone believes they honor science in some way, even superstitious people. so no one can really claim it as their own. even flat earthers practice science as best they can
@@GrassiOutdoorAdventures Imagine 2 cubes representing two closed universes. In both there is 2 × 10^30 kilograms of dust. But only in one there is gravity. Both universes will have the same increase in entropy as particles move about and mix. But what that physically looks like over time differs dramatically due to the hidden constant of G. In the box universe, the dust will clump together to form a system of orbital objects. It's a crude example, but I hope it gets my point across. As for everything decaying in front of us, I am not sure what you mean. The orbits are stable enough, extrasolar objects can enter our solar system in new stable orbits. Crystals grow, chemistry occurs on Earth and in space, the rock and water cycle continue to operate and shape the surface of the Earth, life replicates, crystals form.
It's such a truer than true title and statement... And that, by the Biblical conception and understanding of the Devil: The Devil has a role, delegated by God. He is an advocate for God's existence, by necessity for his own. We are ALL servants of God... which is literally becoming of: "the most powerful, conceivable being" he was asking about. I wish I could talk with Alex...
This conversation was essentially my favourite kind of atheist talking to my favourite kind of Christian. Just very respectful and interesting. This is why I studied this kind of stuff a bit in college
Not sure if you meant his demeanor resembles the type of Christian you like, or that he is the type of Christian you like. If you meant the latter, Rainn isn’t a Christian. He’s Baha’i.
Rain isn't a Christian. He's a Baháʼís. Im fed up of seeing this kid popping up talking cod philosophy everywhere. Put him up against David Bentley Hart. We'll never see this child and his annoying moustache darken the door of a podcast studio again.
Religions come with the idea of free will and getting to choose to belive or not. But either way if God is real, he managed to convince tens of billions of people.
I absolutely love hearing people (esp Alex) dismantle the teleological watchmakers argument. It's always funny seeing believers just shrug it off like their entire worldview wasn't just shattered. I think this is a defense mechanism for believers in which their mind won't let them understand it. For me, even though I've heard it 100 times it still gives be chills hearing that the watch didn't just arise out of nowhere, it evolved over billions of years.
It's not a very good analogy anyway because of the many design flaws, anomalies and compromises inherent in highly evolved organisms. The giraffe's laryngeal nerve is the classic example.
christians always make an imaginary claim for atheists thinking anything "sprang into existence from nothing" rather than acknowledging that we have no idea what came before the big bang. there could have been a trillion big bangs before the one we're living after, and there may be still a trillion more to come. we simply don't know, and it's ok to be honest about the fact that we don't know without making up a fantasy to explain it to ourselves and make ourselves feel better.
Genuinely, I still fail to see how it really breaks down the argument however. Even if you could trace back the hundreds of watches, you would eventually land on the sun dial, and then eventually on the concept of "keeping time" itself. Therefore, the concept of keeping time didn't just spurn from nothing. It was because the observable universe had systems in place that required time to be kept by an intelligent creature. The same could be said then for the seasons, biology, and "laws" that hold the universe together. Different seasons CAUSE different forms of life/environments to form. If organisms never adapted to their environment they would have never existed. However, even this requires one to realize that that adaptation must be intentional. Either consciously or subconsciously. Otherwise we'd all be dead. And nothing would exist because no one would be there to observe it.
@@ShockwaveMuncher I’m not sure what you meant in the second half but I’ll try to answer the first half! In this analogy, since a watch is referencing an organism, “keeping time” is equivalent to self-reproducing, since that is an organisms main function. I believe you’re saying that the first self reproducing RNA molecules had to have been designed by a creator because even THEY are too complex to have spontaneously emerged. I believe this is a completely different argument - since I’ve never heard a theist claim that maybe God designed nucleotides and set the conditions for them to form RNA and evolve into complex life - but even so, there are several experimental and theoretical examples of how basic molecules could have spontaneously developed into self replicating molecules, without the need for a creator. However, the teleological argument, as presented here by Rainn, isn’t even talking about that. It’s talking about how a complex life form like a human appears to have been designed due to its complexity - and this is the claim that is so elegantly dismantled by the theory of evolution by natural selection. Theoretically, we can trace this complex life form back down an evolutionary path to a simple RNA molecule and every step along the way, it gets more complex. I think it’s much harder to propose that an RNA molecule is so immensely complex that it could never exist without a creator. Sure it’s ingenious, but after only 100 years or so of studying it, we already have pretty promising theories and experiments as to how it could have formed in the early conditions of earth.
@@max_mittler Thanks for breaking that down for me. I still fail to see (and again this is why we love discourse) the logical application for life evolving in the first place. I understand the watch analogy being about how complex humans are and they required intelligent design and how that argument is flawed and beaten. My point was however, that the argument is not just about the watch itself but also is about what the watch represents. The reason the watch exists is because humans realized it was important to keep time, or really, to have a concept of time. Every action life does in the observable universe has a cause and effect. Usually relying upon a reason. There is a reason for action. I am sure Alex has argued against this in some way somewhere but my point is that the mere existence of humanity/consciousness implies that intelligence is not just random. An uneducated person does not just become educated one day by sitting around. They must deliberately/purposefully experience and discover life. The question isn’t just whether complexity can arise naturally, but why nature itself appears to be structured in a way that makes intelligence, order, and purpose possible. That, I think, is a question worth asking.
This really was a delightfully respectful and insightful conversation. As a Christian who also constantly marvels at the complexity of the universe, Rainn's watchmaker analogy really resonates with me. I think Alex's counterpoint about computer chips makes sense to some extent, but also if a person from 200 years ago asked how a computer was created and you responded "well it's just metal and some numbers", that really would not at all be telling them the true story of how computers came to exist. Yes, the material components matter, but perhaps even more important is the ingenuity of the field of computer science and the work of the brilliant people who figured it out. In the same way, even though I understand that all of existence is made of basic, non-supernatural atoms, that doesn't mean I can't intuit that there's the mind of an unfathomably wise being behind it too.
I think with Alex's argument the exact explanation you give for how a computer works is beside the point. If you really could sit down and explain from beginning to end how it works, along with showing examples, it's theoretically conceivable you'd be able to convince even someone from several hundred years ago. I think what Alex is saying is that it's possible for something to be entirely inconceivable to someone *given the information they currently have* yet that thing could still be true. My personal issue with the watchmaker analogy is that it seems to imply to me that anything that is sufficiently complex must have a creator. But if that's the case, then I have to conclude that whoever created the watch must have been created as well, since whoever created the watch must be even more complex than the watch itself. Following this train of thought, it seems to imply to me that the creater of the universe must have a creator as well, and that creator must have a creator, and so on. So even though it's entirely inconceivable to me how a universe can just exist without a creater, I find it just as inconceivable that a god can exist without a creator. I'm kind of forced to conclude that there's just something about existence and how things come to be that I just don't comprehend.
@oneoveronethirtyseven9161 thing's like this is why it's more plausible we live in an infinite cycle of simulations rather than a god or some alien Intelligence far beyond our capabilities created us which to some one hundreds of years ago could only be explained as being a god in their words. Or it was all random and chance but all these explanations sound much more grounded in reality than some magic guy that nobody can agree on but yet still burn in hell forever for not believing in. I think the smarter a being becomes the less they want to destroy and more they want to build. A race given millions of years to advance could become so smart all they do is create and maybe this race builds their own heaven for all species on all worlds through shear knowledge and technology. Just because god doesn't exist doesn't mean we can't still build a perfect reality given enough time.
@@oneoveronethirtyseven9161 that train of thoughts (creator has a creator and so on and on) must stop at a specific point necessarily. Necessarily because of the fact that we exist. An infinite regress is impossible because , if every event requires a prior cause, there would be no starting point, and the chain of events could never begin. imagine a set of cards standing one in front of the other. the last card would never fall if there wasn't a first card that fell and leaned on the second then the second fell on the third ect ect.. but the fact that the last card fell suggests the necessity of a first card that triggered all the cards to fall.
So what evidence is there that the universe couldn't just simply come into existence? I think the watchmaker argument is quite easy for me, atheist, to wrap my head around. I see amazing incredible complexity all around me completely outside of the scope of my understanding that I have no explanations for. I end that sentence with a full stop. You end that sentence with an explanation that because you don't know, it must be god and only God and also the Christian god. There are leaps and bounds there that I honestly don't understand. Why is it that Christians have the same observations as me, and yet they see clearly a sign pointing to god, and I just see what's in front of me. No sign. No evidence. No good arguments
This was a great listen. Definitely will be listening to more of Soul Boom. Wish I had an opportunity to sit down with these guys myself but a pleasure to get to hear them chat none the less. Take care, Alex & Rainn.
@@MaciejTrojak "Every beginning has a cause!" How are you so sure about that? How does god, then, not have a cause? "He's always been there", could just as well apply to our universe in some capacity. I'm an Agnostic Atheist and I don't completely rule out the possibility of there being a 'god(s)', but for someone to say they KNOW there is a god, and they know that god is aware of our existence, and cares about how our lives play out, and then to say you're aware of what this god requires from us... yeah.
@@cptlatham6126 Scientists agree that no particle in our universe is eternal. It couldn't just pop our out of nothing. Also time had a beginning so it had to be created by an entity outside of time. I am not saying I know that there is a God. And I encourage you to examine the life of Jesus and the fact that his disciples died for their faith in him in agony.
I feel the same way when I watch videos on quantum physics and the universe. I start watching the videos all focused and then a few minutes later I have no idea what they're talking about but it sounds interesting 😂
5:54 - I believe the quote was “chemistry became biology”. It’s actually much more difficult than that… Nothing became physics, physics became chemistry, chemistry became biology, and biology developed consciousness…
One thing I notice and keeps being exemplified here in Alex' and Rainn's thought process: we are all relying on the veracity of a witness that gives us information. In other words: we're all placing our trust ("believing") on someone. We decide on whom we allocate specific degrees of reliability. Whether it's scientists, mathematicians, authors, astronomers, a preacher, a stranger, a mother, a grandfather, a neighbor... and yourself. We all continuously choose who to believe. I heard the word "believe" in this conversation even from Alex, even as he speaks about evolution, natural selection, etc. And he's right. For the most part, we learned these things from teachers, scientists, authors, and, in very few cases - particularly on complex topics - our own experiences... and we decide to trust their/our testimony. We decide to embrace them as "truth". My observation is: we barely ever put much effort into testing these truth claims ourselves, specially what we are accustomed to give for granted, or things shared from someone we allocate a degree of authority to. Should we be more cautious on what "basic" things we believe, specially knowing that, at the end of the day, we're just believing someone else, or even ourselves? Everything is a witness testimony, whether from an outsider or from yourself. There are true witnesses, there are also deceiving witnesses. Choose carefully.
It is subtle, but the argument is ultimately circular because by definition, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” includes existence itself as a great-making property. So it amounts to saying “if something exists, then it exists.”
@ Not necessarily. Some statements have a one-way relationship, where 'If A, then B' is true, but 'If B, then A' is false, in which case the relationship between A and B is not circular but rather directional.
What value does it have? If the ultimate destiny of man and the universe is to expand so far that it becomes so cold it can’t sustain life, what’s the point, why be civil, why be just, why be anything because none of it matters.
@@lemnisgate8809to me personally, it has value in its scarcity. I think each of us only has one shot at this, and my feelings are pretty important to me at the time I am having them. I can extrapolate that others have a similar experience since we look and act similarly under similar conditions. So I want to have the best time I can while I'm here, and I assume others do, so it's in my best interest to treat others with civility and accomplish what I can while I'm here. As an analogy, If I had unlimited money I wouldn't be as careful with how I spend it, and if everyone had infinite money it wouldn't have any value. So far as I know I have one life, and so does everyone else, so I treat it as though it is valuable.
i have high doubts about non-nihilistic atheism, so to me, it doesn't have value according to atheism itself. Now, according to it's practicality, it's horrible in my opinion, and historically atheistic societies only did well because they let go of the toxic parts of religion, because now they will do worse throwing the baby with the bathwater (my prediction ... also USSR)
Seems to me an atheistic worldview has the most meaning and value. This one existence is all we have, there is no magic land waiting after death. So make this one count.
@@lemnisgate8809do you think it's possible for someone who is atheist to enjoy aspects of their life? Do you think they can feel human emotions like love and joy and happiness?
10:25 The "fine tuned constants" is like saying pi was fine tuned to create perfect circles. If we change pi by .0000001 point we get an ellipse. These constants are just the ratios of values. They aren't special. Plus, other configurations could lead to a universe more conducive to life. Seeing as how ours is 99.9999% a lethal radiation filled vacuum.
This is completely wrong. The value of pi is fixed based off the definition of circles and distance. The speed of light is a genuine example of one of these "fine tuned constants" which you can't define into existence to take on the value that it has. You can only measure it. There are dozens of independent physical constants (especially coming from the standard model) that just are what they are.
If Alex has this experience, it will be a relief and also a frustration for him to be on the other side of the debate hearing people, but not being able to really provide any proof to make anyone believe. It truly is an experience, but not one you’re forced into. First part of the experience is the vulnerability and honesty through it.
That's fallacious logic, so 1000 years ago, there was no Pluto because there was no repeatable evidence of Pluto ? I'm Christian, i don't believe in repeatable evidence for God, because God is not provable with science, science is for the naturalistic parts of our universe only.
@ If they are turning 3 fish into 5,000, that’s changing the natural world that can be recorded and weighed. Let’s say the fish are 3lbs each. That’s 15,000 pounds of fish.
Not being able to conceive of how the universe is so complex does not then logically mean that there is a God. As Alex pointed out, 200 years ago a computer would have been inconceivable to people back then. That doesn't then mean that a computer, with all of its complexity, existing 200 years ago was created by God. The proposition that god exists is an extraordinary claim, that requires extraordinary evidence and not understanding how the universe came to be is not a form of evidence that even remotely supports the claim that god exists.
I agree with the first part not the second because is a new atheistic cliche argument "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence". This argument may or may not apply to scientific statements. "There is a God" is not one because science cannot prove/disprove it. Also, as a Christian, ex anti theist, "There is a God" is not a particularly extraordinary claim. You can't prove it, you can't disprove it, you have evidence (not proof) for it, evidence against it. It's very "wishy washy" in nature. I particularly started believing in a near death experience for example, now after studying some theology it makes sense, but i respect non theists that havent gone through the same
@@guykalkstein552The idea that God doesn’t exist is just as much, if not more of, a coping mechanism. Then you are not ultimately accountable to a higher moral reality. Your subjective mind becomes the last word.
I wish he further developed his favorite argument more. I also heard him talk about that it would take an experience for him to believe in God. I first heard him do this when he was talking with Francis Colin’s. His thought process on it what made me a fan of him because any other way of God does it through some complex argument you have to be educated is elitist. Totally feel that.
His argument is that the universe is too complex to arise on its own but “God”, the most complex entity that could exist, did so. Existence does not need purpose; living does- the need to continue living.
@@whateveryasaypal5022 That already assumes a need for creation (as in, something that wasn't ever going to happen without external intervention). The observational universe is just a modern system of what ancient humans determined god was. Something that always was and always will be. Ancient humans personified the universe as "God' in the same way we personify anything else that we see comparison/contrast in. Because of complex consciousness, humans will always see the world _as _*_they_*_ are_ and not _as it actually is_ .
@@whateveryasaypal5022 So are we establishing that the universe we live in, which is mind bogglingly complex, just exists for no reason and created itself from nothing? Either way something "complex" if you will must exist and have no explanation beyond that. The other option is the infinite chain of turtles or whatever if we play this phislosophical mind game.
@jimi02468 Why does it have to exist for any reason other than just existing? Creation can't exist without existence. It didn't create itself because there was nothing that could create before existence. Nobody knows what caused the big bang or if that was for sure even how the universe came into existence. These things are simply beyond human comprehension. It's not supposed to be understood by us, it's not supposed to make sense to us.
I know what you mean, that is essentially what he’s saying, but I don’t think it’s fair to dumb down his reasoning to such a simplistic explanation. I think it’s much more complex than that, and for the record I am an atheist so I don’t agree with his premise, but I think many theist like Rainn have been convinced through their experiences on an intellectual, emotional and spiritual level that something else is contributing to this underlying ethos. None of us know the answer to this question which is why pondering the possibility is so fascinating to me, but what is not fascinating to me is when I hear Christians attempt to justify and excuse the actions and the commands of the barbaric, genocidal maniac so called god of the bible.
@@Winston1585 I'm sure there is considerable nuance in Rainn's views, and I obviously could have been a bit more generous with how I described his reasoning, but essentially what I wrote is correct, at least as best I could tell from his comments in the interview.
That's Rainn's reason. There are many well-credentialed, reasonable, open-minded scientists who hold a variety of views regarding a supernatural agent interacting with our spacetime reality.
I have never understood the point of the who made the watch on a beach arguments. The easiest retort is who made the watchmaker because the watchmaker is even more complex than the watch itself. It is an endless loop of asking who made this complex thing?
The way I like to think about it is the Sherlock Holmes logic. Once you eliminate the impossible, what's left, no matter how unlikely must be true. So if it's impossible that the watch just appeared there by an accident, then is must have been made by someone even if it's aliens or whatnot.
Regarding the closing thought that it would be an experience that could cause someone to believe in God: It seems to me that the far more likely explanation would just be that one has suffered a psychotic break from reality. If "God" appeared to me and said, "I exist," I think I would call a doctor rather than a priest.
So great watching him mature over the years - and amazing to see somebody in the limelight since youth not let their ego take over. Hope he continues to stay humble and grounded in the years to come!
Not knowing a simple thing like that the sun lowers entropy locally shows an argument from ignorance fallacy, argument from complexity fallacy, and a god of the gaps by inserting god as the reason for complexity.
@ Saying I don’t know how things can be so complex so a God is the only thing that makes sense to me, shows he is being intentionally lazy and doesn’t actually care about how things work. Having his beliefs rooted in logical fallacies is the end of the discussion. Even after listening to how complexity arises in nature, he still brings up another fallacy.
Cool. You believe in a virgin birth of the universe which is debunked by science and the cosmological argument. We now know that space time and matter, i.e. the universe, has to have a creator, it can’t come from nothing. Yet believing an omnipotent God orchestrated the virgin birth of Mary is too outlandish of a concept for you silly atheists. Lol.
@@mycrazylife408 I never claimed the universe had a birth or that spacetime and matter came from nothing. Those are all strawman arguments. ruclips.net/user/shortsB1q610J1g1I?si=uR3ow8ce-flGvWK9
Greatest unicorn would not have this many discussions, and followers for this long. Big difference between something you made up from existence than something that exist that you can discover.
1. You're imagining a thing that exists in reality, meaning that existing in reality is a characteristic of that thing. But this characteristic is also something you're imagining, like all of the other characteristics of this object, it exists in your mind. Basically, you make the assesment that it is better to exist than to not exist, and you add the "it exists" label on this imaginary thing. But if you think it exists, it doesn't mean it actually exists in reality. What is written on the imaginary label doesn't have to be true. 2. I hate it when people say "it doesn't make sense" and what they actually mean is "it makes me uncomfortable". Life being meaningless doesn't violate any logical axiom or rule, of course it makes sense for life to be meaningless, or for God to not exist.
It is subtle, but the argument is ultimately circular because by definition, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” includes existence itself as a great-making property. So it amounts to saying “if something exists, then it exists.”
Enjoyed this podcast. The thing that sets Alex apart form other atheists/agnostics is that he's open-minded and genuine in his beliefs and is not shy from changing his positions. He doesn't argue simply for the sake of arguing. For your next episode on God and religion etc. you should consider inviting Mohammed Hijab on your channel. He's from the UK as well and had debates with Alex on this very subject. Or you could invite Daniel Haqiqatjou or Jake Brancatella. They're your fellow American compatriots and very good debaters as well. If you truly want to know the argument for the existence of God then these are your best options the Muslim community has to offer in my opinion.
and who made the swiss seashell maker and who made the makers maker? It's an infinite loop if all complexity must have an even more complex maker where does it end? It just ends with God? God no longer needs a maker? We just make an exception at that point?
Consider this argument: When you read, such as you are right now you are glimpsing my mind and the only reason you can glimpse my mind is because you have a mind. It takes a mind to to read and a mind to write. So you could infer that a mind ordered these words by the very nature of you being able to read them. Well the universe is written in mathematics and we can understand and read the universe like we read books thus if it takes minds to interpret the math the universe is written in it took a mind to "write" the math. Thus our minds prove the existence of a higher mind external to ourselves and that mind is the mind of God. I call this the reader writer argument, I will be making a video about it soon.
for anything to exist order is needed (in whatever capacity). no thing can exist without order. math is a symbolic interpretation of observation of such order. it is a language because we made it, not because some else made it
Having a prime mover does not equate to any God, let alone the Christian one. God doesn't have to be loving, knowing, living or anything of that sort I you go with this argument.
@@arturzathas499 Things can exist without order such as the random alpha radiation detectable by a geiger counter or an irrational number sequence like pi or e that pop up in natural phenomenon. The presence of randomness in an otherwise orderly universe begs the question why isn't everything equally random? No, the mathematics that governs the universe existed before we understood it or knew how to read or write it. It is beyond symbolism because it has actual physical meaning in the physical universe that is consistent and predictable. Because our symbolic language for math works in predicting the physical world that means it is equal to what is embedded in the physical world. The two could not be compatible if they were not equal. Engineers can't build a universe or human body from scratch even with our intelligence and math so to believe that non intelligence is more capable of doing so is unscientific and illogical.
@@gaoth88 Debating the character of God is different than debating the existence of God. But once you show there is a prime mover and that their is evidence of mind involved then the character question can be explored. This gets to the ontological argument and the three transcendentals. But the most powerful evidence for the Christian God is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Basically if Jesus really rose from the dead, that means the Bible is true and God is the God of the Bible.
There has to be an explanation for the existence of all things-such as: how did we come into existence, why do we exist, or how and why does everything exist, etc. The reality is that we do not know! We don’t have the answers to these questions, and for whatever reason, we cannot just admit that we do not know. Our inability to explain our existence does not give us the right to create a fictional, supernatural being and credit our existence to this imaginary being. Religion was created thousands of years ago by the same people who thought that the earth was flat, that the sun orbited the moon, and that slavery and human sacrifices was okay. There has to be an explanation for the existence of all things and we don’t know what it is.
Oh we know, some people don't want to accept it. Here it is .....Everything has always existed , What exists that didn't come from something that already existed
@@gravitheist5431The universe expands. The idea is that at some point it was condensed. If you want to take the argument that before time space did not exist 'before It's an interesting argument, but it doesn't prove it. Time and chance would hardly make beings as complex as us or animals.
@ I asked a question you didn't answer ...but ok it's easy . Everything has always existed , What exists, that didn't come from something that already existed ? Who or what created everything and from what ? If you can answer that I have a follow up question ...Who created that ? Ad infinitum Do you think nothing exists somewhere ? Why is there something rather than nothing ? Because there is no such thing as nothing, it doesn't exist
Also, it's pretty likely that ants will never understand the concept of the internet. The same logic could apply to us. We may not have the capacity to even fathom 1% of what the real explanation is
Rain is the type of Christian I have met my whole life that like to appear as if they are making a rational and open minded approach to the "god question". But in reality their mind has been made up for a long time and they are just trying to poke holes in the the obvious logical conclusions every non-believer naturally does. His sort THRIVES on interviewing someone much smarter than him, presenting the interview to his low-curiosity audience, and make it seem as if his questions and challenges to the Very Smart Guest are on equal footing, and therefore his previously held beliefs that he repeats on each episode have AS MUCH MERRIT as anything his guests say. Masterful gambit, sir, if it wasn't being done by religious leaders already all over the world, forever
Perhaps it is you who likes to appear as if you are making a rational and open minded argument, but in reality your mind has been made up for a long time...? Unless you care to posit an argument?
@@atlasfeynman1039 Argument being that god is so ridiculous that it should be dismissed on face value, spending any time delving into the writing of a book that even the believers dont know if they should take it literally or not, if they even decided to follow it is a waste when really we should be looking at worldviews that matter. The sheer amount of contradictions should always lead to you to revaluating what you believe and why and the only logically conclusion is not god - The fact that Alex can use a string of logic that requires nothing but many threads that end in some coherency is a lot better than falling on a magical deiety that has the defence of "its faith, its literally defined without evidence" or turning arguments against god into "yeah i got the same conclusion but it pointed me towards god" which shows rains obvious narrow mindedness. If rain was open minded, there is absolutely no logical or coherent way he could turn that into god considering all the other arguments and inconsistencies plaguing the book he wholeheartedly is ignorant towards.
@@jamesfrancese6091so he's still regurgitating what his parents told him, is that what you mean by raised? he's a grown man, should be able to make up his own mind, wtf do you mean by "raised"?
It's always just assumed that people like Alex are really missing out on something because he hasn't subscribed to the same ideology and world view of these people.. "what would it take for people like you to start thinking the same as people like me ?" Blows my mind
My favorite response to Anselm's ontological argument is that perfection is necessarily imaginary: not real. Whenever you imagine something perfect, the reality can't live up to it.
And also that than which exists in reality is better than one which does not. Perhaps incarnation is inherently imperfect, as you mention, which would seem to suggest that the notion of 'perfection' in Socratic Forms is perhaps the godlike aspect which may be unnatainable in reality, but which drives all meaning in art and striving towards that good.
my response to that argument would be: what a freaking leap of logic it is to say: "a perfect or highest being must exist.... therefore that being is the Abrahamic God." ...oh...really? Instead of... Allah? or Zeus? or.... yeah I feel like you could use a similar crappy argument to argue the existence of Barney the Dinosaur...
This is fantastic. Can I make a small nit picky request from a fellow editor? A less aggressive noise gate on the mics. Alex's gate is noticeably sucking all the life from the room every time he pauses. In these more intimate type conversations I actually don't mind a little bit of the room playing a party. Otherwise the pauses lose a little bit of their effect and feel almost sterile. Anyway, thank you for this. Subscribed.
@@onlyeveryone2253 Yeah that's often what they say which makes zero sense. How is it a violation of free will to just be shown the evidence that something is real? People can still choose not to worship the deity after they've been convinced that it exists.
I’m a believer but you know this is a great question that I’ve pondered before. One thing that made me think was, something Jordan Peterson said and I paraphrase. But it’s like, what does knowing God exists do for the unbeliever and believer? There is some kind of urge and mysteriousness that pushes the believer to pursue evidence, and believe in that which isn’t seen. For the unbeliever, I think the argument is like, even if God were to show himself, you’d still have the freedom to choose not to believe what you see which would make that futile. Again, idk the answer.. trying to know for myself as well but hope this opens up a thought vein at least. 🤙🏼
@@alohaslots The problem is that this argument would apply to everything. I have the freedom to not believe in gravity, it would just make me incredibly dumb.
@alohaslots so if God showed himself clearly in everyday life, like actually speaking clearly to everyone who prays and give novel and precise guidance. Non of the vague stuff where you are unsure if it's your mind coming up with it. Then I have the freedom to belive or not but I would be dumb and non-scientific if I did not believe.
I am a non-theist Baha’i and a monist (who also respects dualism). I see the spiritual and material worlds as a single, unified reality rather than separate realms. The physical world is like a mirror reflecting the spiritual world-what we experience here is an image of deeper, underlying truths. Just as you cannot reach into a mirror to touch the objects or light you see within it, we cannot physically grasp the spiritual reality. We see its signs reflected in the material world, much like how a mirror presents depth that isn’t truly accessible. The images appear real, but you cannot put your hand into the mirror to reach them. In the same way, the spiritual is a depth beyond direct physical interaction. Though we perceive its signs and recognize its presence (gnosis), we cannot touch it in the way we interact with the material world. Of course, this is just an analogy-not perfect or complete-but it helps illustrate how the spiritual and physical realities are one and the same. The physical world is not separate from the spiritual; rather, it is the manifestation of it.
To clarify, my perspective reframes the traditional theistic concept of a personal God by identifying the Manifestation of God as the only “personal” or “anthropomorphic” expression of the divine that humans can engage with. And for me, my view resolved the paradox of an unknowable yet worshipped God: If God is truly unknowable, then why do people pray, worship, and form relationships with “Him”? The Manifestation of God is the Direct point of connection. It is a rational and symbolic understanding of religion: Instead of requiring belief in a supernatural being, this perspective sees God as something that manifests through enlightened human figures, making divine connection accessible without requiring supernaturalism.
@@SortOfEggish that is not technically true. There is such a thing as hard atheism, which is the claim that there is no God. As opposed to soft atheism, which is simply the lack of belief in the claim that there is a God.
I think the greatest possible being must necessarily not exist since it would be a greater feat to perform any act while not existing. You might wonder how this is possible, and it isn't, but the greatest possible being should be able to do the impossible. The greatest possible being should be able to do the logically impossible. Can the greatest possible being create a rock so big it can't lift it? Yes. Is it powerful enough to lift that rock? Also, yes. You might say it's self-contradictory, but isn't it a greater feat to exist despite being self-contradictory? Yes. But wasn't I just arguing that the greatest possible being doesn't exist? Yes, but we just established that the greatest possible being is self-contradictory. You might say it's all nonsense, but wouldn't the nature of the greatest possible being be beyond human comprehension?
I understand where you come from, but omnipotency doesn't mean "being able to do the greatest feat", it means "being able to do the greatest feat that is possible to be done". Probably the greatest feat, in Christianity, in those terms, is the holy trinity. Clear contradiction in human terms (3 persons, each 100% God, but it's 1 God), but if Christ is God, then it's possible in divine terms. And the question about the rock thing is a classic one, the answer is both. God can do both, thus He chooses the outcome He prefers.
@newme1589 Maybe an omnipotent God can only do the greatest possible feat, but the greatest possible being can do the greatest impossible feat. If God cannot do the logically impossible, then he is not the greatest possible being.
4:55 We have found "watches on the beach". Look at the harmony of planets and their moons. Perfect synchronicity. Designed to such perfect efficiency you can literally set your watch to them. Not just the Moon. Every planet moon combination. However, there was no designer. Just gravity. Honeycombs. Not designed. Just gravity. So, there's a couple black swans.
How are planets and moons perfectly sync'd? They are in weird orbits, some planets have multiple, some planets have rings, some planets formed arnt even solid and yet have mass. Our moon takes 27 days to orbit us, other planets have their moons orbit in 3 days....like what is perfect or designed about any of this? What is perfect about the moon orbiting us in the first place? Just happens to be a cool night light. Whats efficient about them? Like youre just saying shit and expecting us to not say gravity is the answer because you refuse to understand that the force that pulls something to the middle isnt also able to be used to slingshot and move around the middle. Heres an experiment, get a yoyo or something heavy on the end of the string, now swing it around a bit, im sure youll get the gist.
9:50 It applies to an isolated system (not closed). Closed and isolated systems are different things. And the only isolated system in existence (that we know off) is the universe. So the thing about the second law of thermodynamics is that entropy in the universe in general is always increasing, even if on certain regions decreases for a short while.
7:43 here the only thing I’d say is if lowly humans can create the inexplicable power of computers in 75 years, why can’t the universe+billions of years create humans.
Interesting thought. I think that the Uncommon Knowledge episode critiquing Darwin answers or considers that very question. The answer is that there's apparently not enough time.
You just answered it yourself. Why didn't the earth's evolution evolve the minerals in rocks and dirt to communicate to each other as a cpu does? Why didn't animals build houses with electricity? A self-conscious intelligent mind created things as complex as a CPU and wires, just as a conscious intelligent mind created us.
I prefer Matt Dillahunty's answer which I will paraphrase. I don't know what it would take for me to believe in god but if god exists, "he" knows what it would take and hasn't provided me with whatever that is.
I don’t want to sound rude… but that sounds like you are wanting the answer to a question you refuse to ask. If you truly don’t know what would convince YOURSELF… maybe you should find out. Is it “providing a great moral explanation and standing” or “explaining the existence of information as a concept”?? or whatever it may be… find out. …maybe he already answered it and you haven’t been looking for the answer because you refuse to ask the question “what would convince me of God’s existence?” Hope that made sense to you.
@@brockelSprout It doesn't make any sense to me at all. If a god exists, why would I not already be convinced? The fact that I am not already convinced is evidence to me that there is no god that currently wants me to be convinced. I supposed that I would first have to be convinced that such a hypothesis was both necessary and sufficient. At present, I find that every such hypothesis that has been suggested to me is neither. That is, I find that no hypothetical god is necessary to explain the universe in which I find myself, and no hypothetical god is a sufficient explanation for the parts of that universe that I don't yet understand. Any answer to the question would also have to clearly and unequivocally define god and I don't find such a definition forthcoming either.
This is a bad faith argument though because you’re not actually engaging with the material in order to come to a conclusion, instead you’re asking that material to have already given you the conclusion without engaging with it.
You're getting close Alex. It's my belief that God can't be found by those who don't truly want Him. But will always be found by those truly searching for Him
Simplest and most accurate explanation is that mankind invented God(s) in our image in lieu of the scientific methodology to truly figure out reality. Now we're stuck dealing with the emotional fallout of thousands of years of dogma, incredulity, and cultural norms instead of education.
What I don't get is how people think that even if you do have some experience of the 'divine', that this brings with it some kind of contentment - it doesn't, it just points further to the mystery of existence. What is the divine, why did it exist in the first place, what's the point of living and dying, what's the point of whatever comes after it?? There is no solace on these mysteries, whether you have experienced what you perceive to be divinity, the limit point of spiritual seeking or whatever, it's no more revealing than the dust settling on a shelf.
Excellent point, but I don’t think that what Christ is claiming. What if… instead of going further into mystery… someone is offering you the solution. The solution to death, the solution to our miraculous existence, and the solution to everything in this world. God has no intention of confusing you forever. He wants a relationship. That seems like a goal worth pursuing. Certainly better than simply being complacent with knowing little.
@brockelSprout thanks for your comment... However, for me, I don't understand what a 'solution' is in the way you state it. Is a relationship with what you perceive to be the divine a solution? Why is it a solution and to what?
@@benscraftymusings The goal of the Gospel is to get one into a relationship with God, our creator and savior. I’m simply stating that the existence of God means that he WOULD be ABLE to answer the mystery of life and more. I’m not claiming to know the answer, (maybe it is as simple as relationships, that could be a strong argument). I am claiming that the existence of God CAN give answers and that he is most definitely worth pursuing. Does that make more sense?
I find the ‘beach watch’ argument self-defeating. The watch stands out as obviously designed- it’s distinct from the landscape it sits in. This is then extrapolated to all of creation. It’s now a watch on a beach of watches, next to a sea made of watches on a planet watch in a universe made of watches. It’s a category error that, if we started with finding a baby chicken on the beach, would have us imagine that squirrels hatch from eggs along with bananas, novels and buildings - all hatching. Or if we started with a grand oak tree would presume lions grew on trees, along with trout, potatoes and crockery.
Definitely! To a creationist the beach itself would be designed, therefore the watch shouldn't stand out. The fact that the watch is separate debunks the watchmaker analogy 😂
@@SimonSaysSimon By invoking entropy, the claim is life can't form because living things lower their own entropy (prevent decay). "That violates the second law! God must be what allows life to happen." But that misunderstands the 2nd law. Entropy in a region can go down so long as the environment that contains that region increases in entropy even more. Getting to the ice cube analogy. Water turning to ice requires the entropy of the water to decrease. And we can make it happen because the refrigerator that surrounds the ice cube increased entropy of the refrigerator's environment even more.
it's always fascinating when people bring up topics they know fk all about as an argument. it's like they're proud they have an argument from ignorance.
I'm an atheist and my life still has meaning. I'm still a loving father, raising kids, living the life I was granted by nature, as all those before and after me, moving the world along, a product of my time.
Me too. But he said ‘inherent’ meaning. For some reason I don’t get, theists feel there’s less value unless it comes from a god. Feels the opposite to me, if we find and create the meaning, it has more value.
@@emosam07 Ok, you are using a different definition of purpose/meaning then, I think. Yours still sounds like an agent ‘granting’ it, but instead of god, you say nature. Whereas I wouldn’t go there at all. Life just is, does what it does and we make of that what we will. No worries.
You're confusing number of arguments for number of people. Complementary lines of evidence is often considered suggestive, even if fragmentary and incremental, especially if they converge.
Well no, arguments within themselves dont have a bias therefore the fallacy doesnt track. An argument has no sway for personal reasons which side it goes to. If the answer to 3+3 is 6 and 500 people got £100 for saying 5 and then said 5, then yes that would be a fallacy because many arguments can be made for the fact they are objectively wrong, where as the argument falls on if it can be defended. If I have 500 arguments that are sound against your idea and you can not defend them at all, thats not a fallacy as only 1 of those would been enough to complete its purpose. The mere fact that there are more arguments that we can pull from just makes being a Christian and not understanding the arguments makes you ignorant beyond belief.
I think ad populum fallacy would be more so if you claim certainty that you’re right because majority hold that view. The amount of accumulated arguments could be considered an inductive or probabilistic argument where the number of arguments could make believing in God more likely when you consider them in totality but doesn’t prove God exists with 100% certainty.
@aid8137 is spot on. Many, if not all, fallacies are only fallacies when someone claims certainty. Tbh, everything is evidence to some degree and in some way.
Amazing that this Jesus character who supposed to be god in the christian case wrote nothing down and did not leave any of his possessions. It is as though he was fictional.
I personally have always hated the ontological argument and don't get how anyone can find it convincing; what says that the greatest being you can conceive also has to exist versus just being conceived to exist? Like most arguments for god, you have to sneak in a presupposition somewhere. We can agree that if you're thinking of a god and comparing their power, thinking up one and defining it as existing in reality would be greater than defining it as not. Unfortunatelu, this says nothing about the actual state of reality.
ironically, Anselm's argument as this atheist finds to be the most convincing argument is what one of the most celebrated christian thinkers Aquinas finds to be the weakest. he doesn't think it works at all. neither do i in fact I can imagine something greater than the christian god. he cures cancer in infants. taadaa! but wait! since this new miracle worker is now the new god in my mind yet some infants still have cancer, this ontological argument collapses on itself. poof!
It also just runs into contradition instantly. A christian trying to imagine the greatest being will imagine christian god, a buddhist the buddha, a muslim allah. If you assume that the conceptialization implies existence than unless you're a unitarian this runs into contraditcion because these divine characters have tabgibly contradictory attributes. If some says imagine the biggest number yoy can thing of and one person says 1,000,000 one person says googol, and one person says 9,704 the different answers imply there is no largest number in reality, which is true.
I actually think a God able to do everything described and also be able to be a contradiction and do it all without even existing is even greater. So if the argument is valid, it's proof God doesn't exist
Lol. Clearly you don’t know much. We have to presuppose everything on a foundational level to know anything. You would be surprised on how much we don’t actually know. God is by far the best explanation for the universe even if you don’t believe in a Christian God. I went from atheist to agnostic to deist to Christian. I came to Christianity logically. In the past 50-100 years we now know science tells us space time and matter i.e the universe can’t come from nothing it has to have a creator. You guys believe in a virgin birth of the universe yet the virgin birth of Mary which was orchestrated by an omnipotent God is too outlandish of a concept? Lol.
@mycrazylife408 Calling the origin of the universe a virgin birth tells me you were never once in your life an atheist. What logic did you use to reach Christianity? If it hinges on a presupposition, don't even bother replying.
This is still so disrespectful. How dare you talk about a world with no meaning to atheists. We have all of the same meaning that you do. You just want the extra meaning of being the center of the universe where you are a copy of god. It is pathetic and disgusting that you cannot live without that "meaning" As for the watch maker, (Alex, a reproducing watch... come on) that story is logically paradoxical on its face. "How do you know that the watch is designed?" You believe that everything is designed. You cannot tell the difference between designed and not designed because your definition is that there is no difference. Evolution is actually extremely easy. You need 3 components: replication, mutation, selection. Mutation and selection comes with an indifferent universe. All that's left is replication. Not easy, but definitely not impossible with plenty of space and time: billions of years and billions of light years. That's what it actually takes to "create" consciousness: billions of years of uncountable numbers of organisms. Not Thanos using the infinity stones to wish the Earth into place Since you're so willing to be so dishonest about atheism, why don't you tell me: what is the "meaning" to being created by an omnipotent being? Supposing you come across someone in dire need of help of some kind. In fact it is in God's plan for that person to receive help and you might be the one to fulfill that need. God doesn't force you to do it, you have free will. But if you don't, it isn't going to derail God's plan. That person will receive help somehow. Since your choice in that moment does not in any way change the outcome for that person, your choice is meaningless. God can do literally everything you can do and at no cost of any kind. In my world, I'm there and no one else is. My choosing to help that person is the difference between that person being suffering or being saved from suffering as a result. That's what meaning actually is: a difference in the world because of your existence. I do not believe for a second that you "tried atheism". Because your description of atheism is exactly what theists tell their children to scare them into not misbehaving
Bait used to be believable (I’m joking…kinda) But in all seriousness. You have some fine points I’d like to respond to. 1) What’s the issue with wanting to have a purpose to our existence? I personally would rather have a purpose than not, but I don’t want to disservice the take without fully understanding it. 2) the watch on the beach. I’ve seen a lot of people misinterpret this analogy. The sand on the beach is supposed to represent the universe BEFORE life, natural selection, and evolution. And the watch is supposed to represent the sudden appearance of Life, DNA, and information. How the HECK did it come into existence from the lifeless conditions of the universe ~15B years ago? It’s impossible… unless something is capable of bending the rules of creation. 3) How do you know that what you do doesn’t effect those around you? You say “they will receive help somehow,” but I’m really curious on how ANYONE would know that. It almost sounds like you think the existence of a God completely invalidates the concept of choice when he made us have free will. I really wanna see your full take on this. Mine is this: we don’t know the details of “God’s plan.” We know how it will end… but that’s about it. In the meantime, Christians have to act as Christ-like as possible to get other to join in the good times at the end. I hope this helped.
Since no religion ever has had their god show itself to exist apart from in the followers imaginations I will happily go about my life ignoring their claims and attempts to tap into my finances.
Because no one of us has ever seen or directly experienced god beyond what we conceptually formulate in our heads (imagination), there is no argument for god. Unless you have had DIRECT CONTACT WITH GOD, any inkling of “god” is here-say.
Part of what frustrates me about these arguments is precisely this, there are esoteric methods that claim to bring this kind of direct experience but intellectuals and religious believers both seem to shy away from deeply engaging with them. It would be a much more interesting discussion if both had pursued such experiences instead of just thinking about them.
you clearly haven't tried 20 milligrams of psilocybin mushrooms 😂 you meet the version of God that's the most compatible to your mental and spiritual development.Try them
When Rainn Wilson too quickly asks the entropy question and Alex explains that entropy can sometimes decrease because Earth is an isolated system, it reminds me of humanity as a whole I screwed because Rainn has an inquisitive mind that is higher than the average person’s.
@@theplanetruth I believe they're saying that it is scary as someone with such an open and understanding mind is still struggling with accepting a deterministic and natural/secular worldview (which I believe is essential for humanity to progress further) due to their misunderstanding of science and defaults to spirituality. Considering how woefully ignorant mass populations are towards science who are nowhere near as open and understanding as Rainn here is just feels damning for our progress as a world and species.
@@gamesbergin I don't know how to clearly articulate the sense of doom and dread I felt when someone as inquisitive as Rainn gave the watchmaker analogy. How is it that someone who has thought about this topic more than the average person is convinced by the watchmaker analogy? What does the average person know then? It seems almost nothing? The only miracle to me is that humanity has progressed as far as it has despite the average person being so clueless.
As a Christian; I appreciate Alex's very high intelligence because it challenges the truth of the Bible to the highest level. Yet if a very high intelligent atheist is refuted; it proves more the existence of God than a low intelligent atheist being refuted. I understand so well Alex's logical points of why for him God doesn't exist; but base on my experienced, no one can understand the Bible using logic alone. I respect him as am atheist though because he's the most kind and respectable atheist, calm and respectful even in debates.
@stevensteven3417 Well it depends to the objective definition of subjective personal experience. Do you know the objective definition of subjective personal experience?
Hallelujah!!!! Your channel has been a big part of my transformation, God is good.l had a $47,000 loan from the bank for my son's(Oscar) brain surgery.i am now debt free after l invested $8,000 and got my payment of $30,500 each month.God bless ms Christine Elizabeth lerma
It is simply the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US amd abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
i hoped for more from Rainn, but invoking the watchmaker's argument and an ignorant understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that he has NEVER evaluated his arguments in any serious way. no interest in this channel.
What he didnt mention was the 1st law of thermodynamics where energy cannot be “created nor destroyed” so clearly when we die our energy carries on to something else
About thinking of the "greatest conceivable being", it reminded me about the way Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:12. "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known." If we assume this is the God that exists, even though Paul says that he knows God, he also assumes that he only knows part of Him. This example shows that Paul (or any human) would be limited on his knowledge of this being, almost as if we all were completely separated in a way that unless this God would reveal himself fully, we could never comprehend this existence. God should be able to surpass a limited human mind, making this exercise not very meaningful. I believe the greatest being would by definition not be conceivable (to us).
When I think of the greatest conceivable being I think of myself. Now I'm not saying I am God, but I think it would be close minded to eliminate that possibility.
then what's the point in thinking about it in the first place? And what exactly are some good reasons for assuming any of this to be true? "greatest conceivable being" sounds like a super highly relative and subjective concept built super shaky assumptions. what is the greatest conceivable being for you might be entirely different for another person.
5:16 Insecurities about purpose and meaning? What if there was no why to the universe? That should be freeing. That would mean we make those things ourselves. The universe gifted us existence and we gift it back meaning and purpose.
There would have to be some underlying archetypal reality from which the meaning we assume comes from. If the meaning we assume solely originates from our mind then it's not real.
Comprehensible or interactive reality can't appear from nothing. That would imply absolutely anything is possible, which inherently is utterly contradictory.
I disagree, all meaning comes from our mind and that's okay. It doesn't make it more valuable to have our own created meaning just because that meaning isn't validated by a God. Let's say we really exist forever in heaven. We would still need to create meaningful existence in that final state and it would (in my opinion) be no different than finding meaningful existence in this life
@@nathanfife2890 No, that's not ok for intelligent, free-will, moral agents. Maybe for animals though. If meaning only exists in your imagination then it's no more real than your run-of-the-mill spaghetti monster
@@nathanfife2890 It would be ok, however, if all reality exists within the mind of one ultimate mind. Then, this mind's idea of meaning would be as real as anything else because everything would be his ideas
@@Okabe_Rintaro_technically science is working off of assumed theory using data we've determined works in specific functions. We find out things about science every year that have to be reworked, or ends up being correct about one aspect, but only correlation to the results. Science still asks for one miracle, that's the creation of everything. That's something we don't know. We say the big bang, but what a human decides is what caused that. Everything else can be separated, because science observes the perceived real world, while religion questions and tries to explain spiritually. If a God, especially one in the Bible did cause this big bang, what's to stop the two from coexisting. They'd have to at that point. If you believe otherwise, then the conversation isn't even relevant. Life is what is now for us.
@ while science is indeed powerful in proving claims about the physical world, it operates within a limited scope-it deals with observable phenomena and natural laws. Arguments for God, on the other hand, often pertain to questions beyond the reach of empirical science
2:27 "It's my favourite because it sounds a bit stupid" I was under the impression he was actually answering the question about the most convincing argument for god until he said this. I didn't realise he was actually heading in the opposite direction. This is why the British and Americans drive on opposite sides of the road.
Why does “existence is greater than non-existence” only apply to gods? Special pleading. (Of course, for an existing thing to be greater than an only imagined thing, it would have to exist and not merely be imagined. Circular reasoning.)
@ If we grant for the sake of argument that all possible worlds exist, we still need to show that a god is possible in order that it might possibly exist in at least one of those worlds. (A world would have to exist that is in itself outside any world, and undetectable by/from any world, including itself.) As an aside, the number of possible worlds (actually universes) is infinite (given that the degree of potential difference of every characteristic is infinite) so if all possible universes do exist, no more can begin or end (the number must remain constant at infinity). This means all possible universes are eternal, and it is not possible for there to be a finite universe that would require creation. The infinite multiverse is not only much more likely than a god, but it makes a god entirely pointless.
@@charleshinkley6 The misunderstanding is that your concept of God is Abrahamically charged, whereas God is primarily defined here as a mere necessary being. The set of all possibles needs an explanation, and that explanation cannot be a "possible", because then the set of all possibles is not the set of all possibles. The explanation of this set cannot be impossible, so it follows that it must be necessary. That's it, simply a necessary being, now whether it's omnipotent or whatever other bullshit theists are cooking up is another question. I agree that the actual number of possible worlds is infinite, but by world I don't necessarily mean an external world, I have to go back on my proposition here, having expressed myself badly. I simply mean all possible worlds without contradiction. I have no objection to the rest, since I believe that the universe is eternal, simply that there is the necessity of a necessary being or thing (if the word being gives you migraines).
what Alex is missing is that intelligent minds created the computer. It didn't come about randomly, from out of nowhere, just like I don't believe the universe could have come about without an intelligent mind behind it. The metals have to be arranged a certain type of way for the computer to function, and the universe had also to be arranged a certain type of way for it to allow life to exist.
He's not missing anything. It's a basic argument and it's just the Watchmaker analogy which Dawkins wrote an entire book about. A computer is not a biological entity capable of evolving. Where do all new diseases come from? Do they evolve or is god creating them? Why is god creating new diseases but can't do anything else? You might as well be saying tornadoes can't just exist so god must be blowing them into existence. They exist because there's a scientific reason they happen. If the universe needs a creator then so does god. By your own logic God cannot exist without a designer too as he would be by definition far more intelligent than humans.
@ science has already proven to us that there has to be an uncaused cause; some people believe it's the universe, I just find it more believable that it's God, cause it doesn't make sense for something to come from nothing, but the definition of God is that He is eternal, He does not have a beginning, He is the uncaused cause of everything
@@ceciliapereira3058 if the universe is eternal, it seems likely that reality just… is. This is what reality is. following occam‘s razor, it seems more likely that the universe is the eternal thing that has always existed.
The reason you assume the watch was made is because you know watches are made. Now imagine finding a thing on a beach that defies explanation or comprehension. Is it natural or was it built? It’s a little harder to answer that one.
if it has the characteristics of a fine tuned object , we first investigate whether animals or humans invented or are capable of inventing it , if not then it is from god.
_"It's a meaningless panacea to invent a god that can do anything & be anything ... It serves as an answer for every question & as an explanation for nothing."_ [Matt Dillahunty]
I really really dislike the ontological argument and kind of cant stand listening to Alex talk about it as if its valid. But that being said I really respect his ability to appreciate arguments he doesn't agree with himself.
It just bothers you in a subjective sense, or you have some valid counter-argument to the logic presented by the ontological argument? If it's just a feeling, well oh well we all have feelings and fair enough, but if you've got something to offer against the actual argument it'd be fascinating to hear.
@@DanielBrough-b7h For the specific version of the ontological argument Alex uses in this video (I think the other versions fall apart way easier), I would probably lean towards just subjectively disliking it. I'm not sure I have some tremendously satisfying explanation for why it isn't true, other than that I just intuitively disagree. Though I think one good argument to put forth would be if the mere ability to conceive of the greatest conceivable being means that being must exist because unless they exist they can't be perfectly great. Then the same must be said for the worst conceivable being because no being would be satisfyingly the worst conceivable being unless it was existed in real life. Which in of itself does not debunk anything, but I think when you consider how could this perfect being coexist with this imperfect being in the way that the perfectly great being isn't perfectly great if he is apparently not great enough to stop the worst being being the perfectly worst. Not to mention the ability to conceive of something simply does not make it reality. I can conceive of a perfectly great group of entities. Does this man their must be many perfect gods?
Before anyone could possibly consider that "God or god" term, owing to it being about the most ambiguous word in all of language, it is required that the proponent of the term offer a specific intended definition and use of the ambiguous term, and that is the scientific method 101 to define the key terms so everyone is on the same page. Otherwise, it's a Who's on first routine.
At the end of the Gospel of Matthew, Christ was with the eleven disciples and was about to give the great comission. Matthew said that some of them still doubted. That kind of brutal honesty speaks to the reality of that moment. As does John noting that 153 fish were caught when they saw the risen Christ on the beach at the Sea of Galilee. Such a specific number!
@@johnhenrysguitar if open, then why does everything in the earth experience entropy? And in large measure because of the very source of energy that you are saying negates it. once something is created it starts to deteriorate and decay. including people, watches, paintings etc...
@@murdog5253 the earth as a whole is an open system. That doesn't mean things inside the earth don't experience entropy. All it means is the sum total of entropy isn't necessarily increasing when looking at the earth as a whole due to the low entropy energy we get from the sun. Eventually the sun will burn out and no longer radiate out low entropy energy to things but while it does there will be temporary pockets of lower entropy spaces (like the earth as a whole)
The Book of Mormon coupled with the words of prophets align with evidences wherein we can know of their truthfulness. Some may find this laughable, but there's actually abundant evidences that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's true and living church on the earth today. Life is the experiential condition to being gifted with opportunity to grow through a probationary state. Some have said that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a 'way of life' where it has been also proposed that capacity for an eternal family through living what we're taught in The Family; A Proclamation to the World is the *reason* for life. . . .
Surprised Alex brought this up as his favorite. Maybe it's not because it's a good argument (it's ridiculous) but because it's so amusingly ridiculous? After all (a) we can imagine things that don't exist, and (b) "greatness" doesn't mean existence. In fact the unicorn example is perfect: * a greatest conceivable unicorn exists, but generally only in minds * rhinoceros exist, and are sort of technically unicorns. And so they're the greatest conceivable, *EXISTING* unicorns in that sense. * and that's why I say "generally only in minds", because we can think of someone who really loves rhinos who genuinely thinks they're the greatest conceivable unicorn Basically it's a thought exercise that's about *appealing ideas* (ideas we'd personally, subjectively consider "great"), but *not existence.*
What makes Alex so unique is that he's not actively trying to stop people from being Christians, he just points the contradictions and flaws in the scriptures and questionable biblical ethics in the most British and respectful way possible. This allows for conversation instead of mud slinging. Just was watching Galaxy Quest. My favorite Rainn Wilson role by far!!
Some of us are compelled not to make people stop being Christians but to show them that they hold false beliefs. So, in a sense-at least in my case-it almost feels like a moral obligation. I mostly like Christianity as a way of life and as a culture, except when it causes harm-for instance, when people reify metaphors and adopt a supernatural mindset. But perhaps I should refrain from doing so except in cases where those holding these beliefs impose their prescriptions on my life. Otherwise, I could just live with the material advantage of knowing better and think, "If you don’t mind making foolish decisions from time to time, that’s your business." Religion freedom is best.
@@skeptcode I actually feel the same way, but in the opposite direction. I don’t try to force atheists to become Christians, but I do feel compelled to show them the flaws in their beliefs and how destructive atheism can be. In that sense, it feels like a moral obligation. I can appreciate aspects of atheism, like its emphasis on reason and skepticism, but I also see how it often leads to nihilism, moral relativism, and a lack of deeper meaning. Maybe I should only challenge it when atheists try to impose their worldview on others, but at the same time, I think it's worth exposing the dangers of rejecting God entirely. If you look at history, many secular regimes-like those under Mao, Stalin, and even Hitler-shared a disregard for human life, which was fueled by their rejection of absolute moral truths.
I feel I have a “moral obligation” to tell you both how fucking insufferable you both sound, talking about how you feel morally obligated to tell other people why they are wrong and you are right.
No. You’re not morally obligated. You just want to look smart and righteous, respectively.
Keep either view in mind for thoughts and conclusions when addressing them personally.
@@troymarks1657
How does one distinguish "deeper meaning" from stuff that people just like a lot and respond to positively? What if there is some such meaning that we didn't like, even hated, or were indifferent to? What then?
As a scientist, seeing Alex properly explain the second law of thermodynamics to Rainn made me very happy
Well at some point our system is closed? But even if our system is not closed don’t we observe that everything we see is running down or decaying ?
@@GrassiOutdoorAdventuresIt's closed if it doesn't take in energy from an external source.
It's like when people put a tiny ecosystem inside a glass jar by putting some soil and water and plants and bugs inside it and seal it for years, and it still has life. But it's not truly a closed system, because you set the jar near a sunny window and it takes in sunlight for the plants to grow and warm the water to evaporate and condense on the sides. So it's not like the jar violates the third law.
As a science lover, I second this
don't you mean as an empiricist? everyone believes they honor science in some way, even superstitious people. so no one can really claim it as their own. even flat earthers practice science as best they can
@@GrassiOutdoorAdventures Imagine 2 cubes representing two closed universes. In both there is 2 × 10^30 kilograms of dust. But only in one there is gravity. Both universes will have the same increase in entropy as particles move about and mix. But what that physically looks like over time differs dramatically due to the hidden constant of G. In the box universe, the dust will clump together to form a system of orbital objects.
It's a crude example, but I hope it gets my point across.
As for everything decaying in front of us, I am not sure what you mean. The orbits are stable enough, extrasolar objects can enter our solar system in new stable orbits. Crystals grow, chemistry occurs on Earth and in space, the rock and water cycle continue to operate and shape the surface of the Earth, life replicates, crystals form.
I love the oxymoron title: “Devil’s advocate for God”
Banger title
It's such a truer than true title and statement... And that, by the Biblical conception and understanding of the Devil: The Devil has a role, delegated by God. He is an advocate for God's existence, by necessity for his own.
We are ALL servants of God... which is literally becoming of: "the most powerful, conceivable being" he was asking about.
I wish I could talk with Alex...
@@TheJRay12 thank god you can't
@@susugam3004 How come?
This conversation was essentially my favourite kind of atheist talking to my favourite kind of Christian. Just very respectful and interesting. This is why I studied this kind of stuff a bit in college
Not sure if you meant his demeanor resembles the type of Christian you like, or that he is the type of Christian you like. If you meant the latter, Rainn isn’t a Christian. He’s Baha’i.
Rain isn't a Christian. He's a Baháʼís. Im fed up of seeing this kid popping up talking cod philosophy everywhere.
Put him up against David Bentley Hart. We'll never see this child and his annoying moustache darken the door of a podcast studio again.
Alex could have just quoted Matt Dillahunty there at the end, who said: "I would expect God to know how to convince me he's real."
How arrogant. Un-calculable levels of hubris to even consider this position.
Religions come with the idea of free will and getting to choose to belive or not. But either way if God is real, he managed to convince tens of billions of people.
@@dpclerks09 It seems infinitely more arrogant to not even consider a given position.
@@peezieforestem5078It’s an anti-position, so it doesn’t get the same respect.
@@dpclerks09if asking God to do his job correctly is too much for you then you might not be ready for these conversations
I absolutely love hearing people (esp Alex) dismantle the teleological watchmakers argument. It's always funny seeing believers just shrug it off like their entire worldview wasn't just shattered. I think this is a defense mechanism for believers in which their mind won't let them understand it. For me, even though I've heard it 100 times it still gives be chills hearing that the watch didn't just arise out of nowhere, it evolved over billions of years.
It's not a very good analogy anyway because of the many design flaws, anomalies and compromises inherent in highly evolved organisms. The giraffe's laryngeal nerve is the classic example.
christians always make an imaginary claim for atheists thinking anything "sprang into existence from nothing" rather than acknowledging that we have no idea what came before the big bang. there could have been a trillion big bangs before the one we're living after, and there may be still a trillion more to come. we simply don't know, and it's ok to be honest about the fact that we don't know without making up a fantasy to explain it to ourselves and make ourselves feel better.
Genuinely, I still fail to see how it really breaks down the argument however. Even if you could trace back the hundreds of watches, you would eventually land on the sun dial, and then eventually on the concept of "keeping time" itself. Therefore, the concept of keeping time didn't just spurn from nothing. It was because the observable universe had systems in place that required time to be kept by an intelligent creature. The same could be said then for the seasons, biology, and "laws" that hold the universe together. Different seasons CAUSE different forms of life/environments to form. If organisms never adapted to their environment they would have never existed. However, even this requires one to realize that that adaptation must be intentional. Either consciously or subconsciously. Otherwise we'd all be dead. And nothing would exist because no one would be there to observe it.
@@ShockwaveMuncher I’m not sure what you meant in the second half but I’ll try to answer the first half! In this analogy, since a watch is referencing an organism, “keeping time” is equivalent to self-reproducing, since that is an organisms main function. I believe you’re saying that the first self reproducing RNA molecules had to have been designed by a creator because even THEY are too complex to have spontaneously emerged. I believe this is a completely different argument - since I’ve never heard a theist claim that maybe God designed nucleotides and set the conditions for them to form RNA and evolve into complex life - but even so, there are several experimental and theoretical examples of how basic molecules could have spontaneously developed into self replicating molecules, without the need for a creator. However, the teleological argument, as presented here by Rainn, isn’t even talking about that. It’s talking about how a complex life form like a human appears to have been designed due to its complexity - and this is the claim that is so elegantly dismantled by the theory of evolution by natural selection. Theoretically, we can trace this complex life form back down an evolutionary path to a simple RNA molecule and every step along the way, it gets more complex. I think it’s much harder to propose that an RNA molecule is so immensely complex that it could never exist without a creator. Sure it’s ingenious, but after only 100 years or so of studying it, we already have pretty promising theories and experiments as to how it could have formed in the early conditions of earth.
@@max_mittler Thanks for breaking that down for me. I still fail to see (and again this is why we love discourse) the logical application for life evolving in the first place. I understand the watch analogy being about how complex humans are and they required intelligent design and how that argument is flawed and beaten. My point was however, that the argument is not just about the watch itself but also is about what the watch represents. The reason the watch exists is because humans realized it was important to keep time, or really, to have a concept of time. Every action life does in the observable universe has a cause and effect. Usually relying upon a reason. There is a reason for action. I am sure Alex has argued against this in some way somewhere but my point is that the mere existence of humanity/consciousness implies that intelligence is not just random. An uneducated person does not just become educated one day by sitting around. They must deliberately/purposefully experience and discover life. The question isn’t just whether complexity can arise naturally, but why nature itself appears to be structured in a way that makes intelligence, order, and purpose possible. That, I think, is a question worth asking.
This really was a delightfully respectful and insightful conversation. As a Christian who also constantly marvels at the complexity of the universe, Rainn's watchmaker analogy really resonates with me.
I think Alex's counterpoint about computer chips makes sense to some extent, but also if a person from 200 years ago asked how a computer was created and you responded "well it's just metal and some numbers", that really would not at all be telling them the true story of how computers came to exist. Yes, the material components matter, but perhaps even more important is the ingenuity of the field of computer science and the work of the brilliant people who figured it out.
In the same way, even though I understand that all of existence is made of basic, non-supernatural atoms, that doesn't mean I can't intuit that there's the mind of an unfathomably wise being behind it too.
I think with Alex's argument the exact explanation you give for how a computer works is beside the point. If you really could sit down and explain from beginning to end how it works, along with showing examples, it's theoretically conceivable you'd be able to convince even someone from several hundred years ago. I think what Alex is saying is that it's possible for something to be entirely inconceivable to someone *given the information they currently have* yet that thing could still be true.
My personal issue with the watchmaker analogy is that it seems to imply to me that anything that is sufficiently complex must have a creator. But if that's the case, then I have to conclude that whoever created the watch must have been created as well, since whoever created the watch must be even more complex than the watch itself. Following this train of thought, it seems to imply to me that the creater of the universe must have a creator as well, and that creator must have a creator, and so on.
So even though it's entirely inconceivable to me how a universe can just exist without a creater, I find it just as inconceivable that a god can exist without a creator. I'm kind of forced to conclude that there's just something about existence and how things come to be that I just don't comprehend.
@oneoveronethirtyseven9161 thing's like this is why it's more plausible we live in an infinite cycle of simulations rather than a god or some alien Intelligence far beyond our capabilities created us which to some one hundreds of years ago could only be explained as being a god in their words. Or it was all random and chance but all these explanations sound much more grounded in reality than some magic guy that nobody can agree on but yet still burn in hell forever for not believing in. I think the smarter a being becomes the less they want to destroy and more they want to build. A race given millions of years to advance could become so smart all they do is create and maybe this race builds their own heaven for all species on all worlds through shear knowledge and technology. Just because god doesn't exist doesn't mean we can't still build a perfect reality given enough time.
Your content is very top tier S rank.
@@oneoveronethirtyseven9161 that train of thoughts (creator has a creator and so on and on) must stop at a specific point necessarily.
Necessarily because of the fact that we exist. An infinite regress is impossible because , if every event requires a prior cause, there would be no starting point, and the chain of events could never begin.
imagine a set of cards standing one in front of the other. the last card would never fall if there wasn't a first card that fell and leaned on the second then the second fell on the third ect ect.. but the fact that the last card fell suggests the necessity of a first card that triggered all the cards to fall.
So what evidence is there that the universe couldn't just simply come into existence? I think the watchmaker argument is quite easy for me, atheist, to wrap my head around. I see amazing incredible complexity all around me completely outside of the scope of my understanding that I have no explanations for. I end that sentence with a full stop. You end that sentence with an explanation that because you don't know, it must be god and only God and also the Christian god. There are leaps and bounds there that I honestly don't understand. Why is it that Christians have the same observations as me, and yet they see clearly a sign pointing to god, and I just see what's in front of me. No sign. No evidence. No good arguments
This was a great listen. Definitely will be listening to more of Soul Boom. Wish I had an opportunity to sit down with these guys myself but a pleasure to get to hear them chat none the less. Take care, Alex & Rainn.
Atheist here. I appreciate Rainn having him.
everything that has a beginning has a cause. Just like the universe which is as we know not eternal
@@MaciejTrojak How original
@@MaciejTrojak "Every beginning has a cause!" How are you so sure about that? How does god, then, not have a cause? "He's always been there", could just as well apply to our universe in some capacity. I'm an Agnostic Atheist and I don't completely rule out the possibility of there being a 'god(s)', but for someone to say they KNOW there is a god, and they know that god is aware of our existence, and cares about how our lives play out, and then to say you're aware of what this god requires from us... yeah.
@@cptlatham6126 Scientists agree that no particle in our universe is eternal. It couldn't just pop our out of nothing. Also time had a beginning so it had to be created by an entity outside of time. I am not saying I know that there is a God. And I encourage you to examine the life of Jesus and the fact that his disciples died for their faith in him in agony.
@@cptlatham6126 have you ever said "Hello"? Have you ever worn socks? Have you ever eaten pizza? That's not very original either, is it?
I didn't understand the conversation but it sounded great.
I feel the same way when I watch videos on quantum physics and the universe. I start watching the videos all focused and then a few minutes later I have no idea what they're talking about but it sounds interesting 😂
I think I understood it all which ironically means I probably didn’t lol
I think I understood and I personally think I really did understand it but who knows
5:54 - I believe the quote was “chemistry became biology”. It’s actually much more difficult than that… Nothing became physics, physics became chemistry, chemistry became biology, and biology developed consciousness…
One thing I notice and keeps being exemplified here in Alex' and Rainn's thought process: we are all relying on the veracity of a witness that gives us information. In other words: we're all placing our trust ("believing") on someone. We decide on whom we allocate specific degrees of reliability. Whether it's scientists, mathematicians, authors, astronomers, a preacher, a stranger, a mother, a grandfather, a neighbor... and yourself. We all continuously choose who to believe. I heard the word "believe" in this conversation even from Alex, even as he speaks about evolution, natural selection, etc. And he's right. For the most part, we learned these things from teachers, scientists, authors, and, in very few cases - particularly on complex topics - our own experiences... and we decide to trust their/our testimony. We decide to embrace them as "truth". My observation is: we barely ever put much effort into testing these truth claims ourselves, specially what we are accustomed to give for granted, or things shared from someone we allocate a degree of authority to. Should we be more cautious on what "basic" things we believe, specially knowing that, at the end of the day, we're just believing someone else, or even ourselves? Everything is a witness testimony, whether from an outsider or from yourself. There are true witnesses, there are also deceiving witnesses. Choose carefully.
It is subtle, but the argument is ultimately circular because by definition, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” includes existence itself as a great-making property. So it amounts to saying “if something exists, then it exists.”
If you can think it, then it exists. Sounds too much like Parmenides to me.
All arguments are ultimately circular is you question the premises hard enough.
@ Not necessarily. Some statements have a one-way relationship, where 'If A, then B' is true, but 'If B, then A' is false, in which case the relationship between A and B is not circular but rather directional.
that was great! God meets us where we're at! amen brother!
I’m double fan boying out right now! I’m a long time follower of Alex’s channel and a huge Office fan.
I am more of the stance that: If life was meaningless you would have never found out it was meaningless to begin with.
Always found it odd when people claim that an atheist worldview has no meaning or value.
What value does it have? If the ultimate destiny of man and the universe is to expand so far that it becomes so cold it can’t sustain life, what’s the point, why be civil, why be just, why be anything because none of it matters.
@@lemnisgate8809to me personally, it has value in its scarcity.
I think each of us only has one shot at this, and my feelings are pretty important to me at the time I am having them. I can extrapolate that others have a similar experience since we look and act similarly under similar conditions. So I want to have the best time I can while I'm here, and I assume others do, so it's in my best interest to treat others with civility and accomplish what I can while I'm here.
As an analogy, If I had unlimited money I wouldn't be as careful with how I spend it, and if everyone had infinite money it wouldn't have any value. So far as I know I have one life, and so does everyone else, so I treat it as though it is valuable.
i have high doubts about non-nihilistic atheism, so to me, it doesn't have value according to atheism itself.
Now, according to it's practicality, it's horrible in my opinion, and historically atheistic societies only did well because they let go of the toxic parts of religion, because now they will do worse throwing the baby with the bathwater (my prediction ... also USSR)
Seems to me an atheistic worldview has the most meaning and value. This one existence is all we have, there is no magic land waiting after death. So make this one count.
@@lemnisgate8809do you think it's possible for someone who is atheist to enjoy aspects of their life? Do you think they can feel human emotions like love and joy and happiness?
The monkeys on a typewriter thing was hilarious. He said “that’s cute” 😂😂😂
If watches evolved, why do we still have sun dials?
That's a checkmate if I've ever seen one! Hahaha.
Because watches didn't evolve.
@@kk-rp6yw They did though. We're just the sexual reproductive mechanism.
@@emmanuel1337 because they have a common ancestor
😂😂 brilliant
Keep up the great work you two 🖤
10:25 The "fine tuned constants" is like saying pi was fine tuned to create perfect circles. If we change pi by .0000001 point we get an ellipse. These constants are just the ratios of values. They aren't special. Plus, other configurations could lead to a universe more conducive to life. Seeing as how ours is 99.9999% a lethal radiation filled vacuum.
Yes, they are descriptive not prescriptive. Calling them "laws" doesn't help
This is completely wrong. The value of pi is fixed based off the definition of circles and distance. The speed of light is a genuine example of one of these "fine tuned constants" which you can't define into existence to take on the value that it has. You can only measure it. There are dozens of independent physical constants (especially coming from the standard model) that just are what they are.
@@Untoldanimationsthis is true
Then you havent understood the fine tuning argument
@@Untoldanimations bro thats literally what he is saying.
If Alex has this experience, it will be a relief and also a frustration for him to be on the other side of the debate hearing people, but not being able to really provide any proof to make anyone believe. It truly is an experience, but not one you’re forced into. First part of the experience is the vulnerability and honesty through it.
There's a reason there's no demonstrated repeatable evidence of a deity or the supernatural in general. We live in a natural universe
That's fallacious logic, so 1000 years ago, there was no Pluto because there was no repeatable evidence of Pluto ?
I'm Christian, i don't believe in repeatable evidence for God, because God is not provable with science, science is for the naturalistic parts of our universe only.
There are supernatural claims of that deity interacting with reality inside of space and time.
If they're supernatural of course they can't be recorded naturally
@ If they are turning 3 fish into 5,000, that’s changing the natural world that can be recorded and weighed. Let’s say the fish are 3lbs each. That’s 15,000 pounds of fish.
@@rolan.rhow convenient 😂
I wonder what’s more frightening when contemplating god’s existence. That he does, or that he doesn’t. If it’s the latter, this explains a lot.
Not being able to conceive of how the universe is so complex does not then logically mean that there is a God. As Alex pointed out, 200 years ago a computer would have been inconceivable to people back then. That doesn't then mean that a computer, with all of its complexity, existing 200 years ago was created by God. The proposition that god exists is an extraordinary claim, that requires extraordinary evidence and not understanding how the universe came to be is not a form of evidence that even remotely supports the claim that god exists.
I agree with the first part not the second because is a new atheistic cliche argument "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence".
This argument may or may not apply to scientific statements. "There is a God" is not one because science cannot prove/disprove it.
Also, as a Christian, ex anti theist, "There is a God" is not a particularly extraordinary claim. You can't prove it, you can't disprove it, you have evidence (not proof) for it, evidence against it. It's very "wishy washy" in nature.
I particularly started believing in a near death experience for example, now after studying some theology it makes sense, but i respect non theists that havent gone through the same
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
i suspect it's mostly a coping mechanism rather than an intellectual pursuit
And yet a computer which is far less complex than the universe can never be naturally made without a designer…
@@guykalkstein552The idea that God doesn’t exist is just as much, if not more of, a coping mechanism. Then you are not ultimately accountable to a higher moral reality. Your subjective mind becomes the last word.
I wish he further developed his favorite argument more. I also heard him talk about that it would take an experience for him to believe in God. I first heard him do this when he was talking with Francis Colin’s. His thought process on it what made me a fan of him because any other way of God does it through some complex argument you have to be educated is elitist. Totally feel that.
His argument is that the universe is too complex to arise on its own but “God”, the most complex entity that could exist, did so. Existence does not need purpose; living does- the need to continue living.
Yeah the age old argument, what created god then? And then what created the creator of god?
@@whateveryasaypal5022 That already assumes a need for creation (as in, something that wasn't ever going to happen without external intervention). The observational universe is just a modern system of what ancient humans determined god was. Something that always was and always will be. Ancient humans personified the universe as "God' in the same way we personify anything else that we see comparison/contrast in. Because of complex consciousness, humans will always see the world _as _*_they_*_ are_ and not _as it actually is_ .
Yes. It’s a solid question to a silly assertion
@@whateveryasaypal5022 So are we establishing that the universe we live in, which is mind bogglingly complex, just exists for no reason and created itself from nothing? Either way something "complex" if you will must exist and have no explanation beyond that. The other option is the infinite chain of turtles or whatever if we play this phislosophical mind game.
@jimi02468 Why does it have to exist for any reason other than just existing? Creation can't exist without existence. It didn't create itself because there was nothing that could create before existence. Nobody knows what caused the big bang or if that was for sure even how the universe came into existence. These things are simply beyond human comprehension. It's not supposed to be understood by us, it's not supposed to make sense to us.
I like that he said it's his favorite because it sounds a bit stupid.....
That made me smile
Rainn's reason for accepting a God essentially comes down to, "I don't understand science" and "I'd prefer ther was a God", therefore God"
I know what you mean, that is essentially what he’s saying, but I don’t think it’s fair to dumb down his reasoning to such a simplistic explanation. I think it’s much more complex than that, and for the record I am an atheist so I don’t agree with his premise, but I think many theist like Rainn have been convinced through their experiences on an intellectual, emotional and spiritual level that something else is contributing to this underlying ethos. None of us know the answer to this question which is why pondering the possibility is so fascinating to me, but what is not fascinating to me is when I hear Christians attempt to justify and excuse the actions and the commands of the barbaric, genocidal maniac so called god of the bible.
@@Winston1585 I'm sure there is considerable nuance in Rainn's views, and I obviously could have been a bit more generous with how I described his reasoning, but essentially what I wrote is correct, at least as best I could tell from his comments in the interview.
That's Rainn's reason. There are many well-credentialed, reasonable, open-minded scientists who hold a variety of views regarding a supernatural agent interacting with our spacetime reality.
I don’t think science can explain everything
@@Sebastianx115 No educated person has, in the history of humanity, ever asserted that "science can explain everything".
So ... strawman.
As an atheist, I genuinely enjoyed this conversation.
I have never understood the point of the who made the watch on a beach arguments. The easiest retort is who made the watchmaker because the watchmaker is even more complex than the watch itself. It is an endless loop of asking who made this complex thing?
The way I like to think about it is the Sherlock Holmes logic. Once you eliminate the impossible, what's left, no matter how unlikely must be true. So if it's impossible that the watch just appeared there by an accident, then is must have been made by someone even if it's aliens or whatnot.
Regarding the closing thought that it would be an experience that could cause someone to believe in God: It seems to me that the far more likely explanation would just be that one has suffered a psychotic break from reality. If "God" appeared to me and said, "I exist," I think I would call a doctor rather than a priest.
The best version of Alex right here ladies and gents 🎉🎉
So great watching him mature over the years - and amazing to see somebody in the limelight since youth not let their ego take over. Hope he continues to stay humble and grounded in the years to come!
RUclips: Rainn Wilson has a podcast.
Me: Oh, hell yeah.
Not knowing a simple thing like that the sun lowers entropy locally shows an argument from ignorance fallacy, argument from complexity fallacy, and a god of the gaps by inserting god as the reason for complexity.
Good point. Now try arguing your point without name dropping fallacies as if that’s the end of discussion
@ Saying I don’t know how things can be so complex so a God is the only thing that makes sense to me, shows he is being intentionally lazy and doesn’t actually care about how things work. Having his beliefs rooted in logical fallacies is the end of the discussion. Even after listening to how complexity arises in nature, he still brings up another fallacy.
Cool. You believe in a virgin birth of the universe which is debunked by science and the cosmological argument. We now know that space time and matter, i.e. the universe, has to have a creator, it can’t come from nothing.
Yet believing an omnipotent God orchestrated the virgin birth of Mary is too outlandish of a concept for you silly atheists. Lol.
@@mycrazylife408 I never claimed the universe had a birth or that spacetime and matter came from nothing. Those are all strawman arguments. ruclips.net/user/shortsB1q610J1g1I?si=uR3ow8ce-flGvWK9
@mycrazylife408 the universe may be eternal.
Greatest unicorn would not have this many discussions, and followers for this long. Big difference between something you made up from existence than something that exist that you can discover.
1. You're imagining a thing that exists in reality, meaning that existing in reality is a characteristic of that thing. But this characteristic is also something you're imagining, like all of the other characteristics of this object, it exists in your mind. Basically, you make the assesment that it is better to exist than to not exist, and you add the "it exists" label on this imaginary thing. But if you think it exists, it doesn't mean it actually exists in reality. What is written on the imaginary label doesn't have to be true.
2. I hate it when people say "it doesn't make sense" and what they actually mean is "it makes me uncomfortable". Life being meaningless doesn't violate any logical axiom or rule, of course it makes sense for life to be meaningless, or for God to not exist.
So to you, what's the difference between imagining a real island that doesn't exist and imagining an imaginary island that doesn't exist?
It is subtle, but the argument is ultimately circular because by definition, “that than which nothing greater can be conceived” includes existence itself as a great-making property. So it amounts to saying “if something exists, then it exists.”
Enjoyed this podcast. The thing that sets Alex apart form other atheists/agnostics is that he's open-minded and genuine in his beliefs and is not shy from changing his positions. He doesn't argue simply for the sake of arguing. For your next episode on God and religion etc. you should consider inviting Mohammed Hijab on your channel. He's from the UK as well and had debates with Alex on this very subject. Or you could invite Daniel Haqiqatjou or Jake Brancatella. They're your fellow American compatriots and very good debaters as well. If you truly want to know the argument for the existence of God then these are your best options the Muslim community has to offer in my opinion.
The same beach "he found the Swiss watch" on has sea shells on it. The "Swiss seashell maker" must have made those as well.
That's kind of the point
and who made the swiss seashell maker and who made the makers maker? It's an infinite loop if all complexity must have an even more complex maker where does it end? It just ends with God? God no longer needs a maker? We just make an exception at that point?
@@EhtaZUGGE Yes.
@@eugenehertz5791and why is that?
@@EhtaZUGGEthe point of God being the end is that he is by definition not created. If he is created, then he is not God.
Consider this argument:
When you read, such as you are right now you are glimpsing my mind and the only reason you can glimpse my mind is because you have a mind. It takes a mind to to read and a mind to write. So you could infer that a mind ordered these words by the very nature of you being able to read them. Well the universe is written in mathematics and we can understand and read the universe like we read books thus if it takes minds to interpret the math the universe is written in it took a mind to "write" the math. Thus our minds prove the existence of a higher mind external to ourselves and that mind is the mind of God. I call this the reader writer argument, I will be making a video about it soon.
for anything to exist order is needed (in whatever capacity). no thing can exist without order. math is a symbolic interpretation of observation of such order. it is a language because we made it, not because some else made it
Having a prime mover does not equate to any God, let alone the Christian one.
God doesn't have to be loving, knowing, living or anything of that sort I you go with this argument.
@@arturzathas499 Things can exist without order such as the random alpha radiation detectable by a geiger counter or an irrational number sequence like pi or e that pop up in natural phenomenon. The presence of randomness in an otherwise orderly universe begs the question why isn't everything equally random?
No, the mathematics that governs the universe existed before we understood it or knew how to read or write it. It is beyond symbolism because it has actual physical meaning in the physical universe that is consistent and predictable. Because our symbolic language for math works in predicting the physical world that means it is equal to what is embedded in the physical world. The two could not be compatible if they were not equal. Engineers can't build a universe or human body from scratch even with our intelligence and math so to believe that non intelligence is more capable of doing so is unscientific and illogical.
@@gaoth88 Debating the character of God is different than debating the existence of God. But once you show there is a prime mover and that their is evidence of mind involved then the character question can be explored. This gets to the ontological argument and the three transcendentals. But the most powerful evidence for the Christian God is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Basically if Jesus really rose from the dead, that means the Bible is true and God is the God of the Bible.
There has to be an explanation for the existence of all things-such as: how did we come into existence, why do we exist, or how and why does everything exist, etc.
The reality is that we do not know! We don’t have the answers to these questions, and for whatever reason, we cannot just admit that we do not know. Our inability to explain our existence does not give us the right to create a fictional, supernatural being and credit our existence to this imaginary being.
Religion was created thousands of years ago by the same people who thought that the earth was flat, that the sun orbited the moon, and that slavery and human sacrifices was okay.
There has to be an explanation for the existence of all things and we don’t know what it is.
Oh we know, some people don't want to accept it. Here it is .....Everything has always existed , What exists that didn't come from something that already existed
Prove it. @@gravitheist5431
@@gravitheist5431The universe expands. The idea is that at some point it was condensed. If you want to take the argument that before time space did not exist 'before It's an interesting argument, but it doesn't prove it. Time and chance would hardly make beings as complex as us or animals.
@ I asked a question you didn't answer ...but ok it's easy .
Everything has always existed , What exists, that didn't come from something that already existed ?
Who or what created everything and from what ?
If you can answer that I have a follow up question ...Who created that ? Ad infinitum
Do you think nothing exists somewhere ?
Why is there something rather than nothing ? Because there is no such thing as nothing, it doesn't exist
Also, it's pretty likely that ants will never understand the concept of the internet. The same logic could apply to us. We may not have the capacity to even fathom 1% of what the real explanation is
Rain is the type of Christian I have met my whole life that like to appear as if they are making a rational and open minded approach to the "god question". But in reality their mind has been made up for a long time and they are just trying to poke holes in the the obvious logical conclusions every non-believer naturally does.
His sort THRIVES on interviewing someone much smarter than him, presenting the interview to his low-curiosity audience, and make it seem as if his questions and challenges to the Very Smart Guest are on equal footing, and therefore his previously held beliefs that he repeats on each episode have AS MUCH MERRIT as anything his guests say.
Masterful gambit, sir, if it wasn't being done by religious leaders already all over the world, forever
Perhaps it is you who likes to appear as if you are making a rational and open minded argument, but in reality your mind has been made up for a long time...?
Unless you care to posit an argument?
@@atlasfeynman1039 Argument being that god is so ridiculous that it should be dismissed on face value, spending any time delving into the writing of a book that even the believers dont know if they should take it literally or not, if they even decided to follow it is a waste when really we should be looking at worldviews that matter.
The sheer amount of contradictions should always lead to you to revaluating what you believe and why and the only logically conclusion is not god - The fact that Alex can use a string of logic that requires nothing but many threads that end in some coherency is a lot better than falling on a magical deiety that has the defence of "its faith, its literally defined without evidence" or turning arguments against god into "yeah i got the same conclusion but it pointed me towards god" which shows rains obvious narrow mindedness. If rain was open minded, there is absolutely no logical or coherent way he could turn that into god considering all the other arguments and inconsistencies plaguing the book he wholeheartedly is ignorant towards.
Side note but he’s actually not Christian - of the Baha’i faith, and raised as such
@@jamesfrancese6091so he's still regurgitating what his parents told him, is that what you mean by raised? he's a grown man, should be able to make up his own mind, wtf do you mean by "raised"?
It's always just assumed that people like Alex are really missing out on something because he hasn't subscribed to the same ideology and world view of these people.. "what would it take for people like you to start thinking the same as people like me ?" Blows my mind
My favorite response to Anselm's ontological argument is that perfection is necessarily imaginary: not real. Whenever you imagine something perfect, the reality can't live up to it.
And also that than which exists in reality is better than one which does not. Perhaps incarnation is inherently imperfect, as you mention, which would seem to suggest that the notion of 'perfection' in Socratic Forms is perhaps the godlike aspect which may be unnatainable in reality, but which drives all meaning in art and striving towards that good.
my response to that argument would be: what a freaking leap of logic it is to say: "a perfect or highest being must exist.... therefore that being is the Abrahamic God." ...oh...really? Instead of... Allah? or Zeus? or.... yeah I feel like you could use a similar crappy argument to argue the existence of Barney the Dinosaur...
@Bronco541 there are a lot of flaws with Anselm, yes. Chiefly the fact that existence is not an attribute: it's a prerequisite for having attributes.
@@unicyclist97 Also there’s the difficulty of who decides what “perfect” is.
Perfection is also relative and so are so called greatness making properties
Alex is really communicable and would desire to speak with him some day.
I closed my eyes and thought of the greatest conceivable being and there it was, clear in my minds eye - a big eagle with a machine gun!
It must have had the American flag also?
@@jimi02468 yes it was dripping with oil and children’s clothing
@@jimi02468 it was dripping with oil and blood
This is fantastic. Can I make a small nit picky request from a fellow editor?
A less aggressive noise gate on the mics. Alex's gate is noticeably sucking all the life from the room every time he pauses. In these more intimate type conversations I actually don't mind a little bit of the room playing a party. Otherwise the pauses lose a little bit of their effect and feel almost sterile.
Anyway, thank you for this. Subscribed.
It was bothering me a bit as well
@@HiSpeedz Same
Why does a god make it so hard to believe in them?
The answer to every question like this always "iT would gO against our fReE wIlL"
@@onlyeveryone2253 Yeah that's often what they say which makes zero sense. How is it a violation of free will to just be shown the evidence that something is real? People can still choose not to worship the deity after they've been convinced that it exists.
I’m a believer but you know this is a great question that I’ve pondered before.
One thing that made me think was, something Jordan Peterson said and I paraphrase. But it’s like, what does knowing God exists do for the unbeliever and believer?
There is some kind of urge and mysteriousness that pushes the believer to pursue evidence, and believe in that which isn’t seen.
For the unbeliever, I think the argument is like, even if God were to show himself, you’d still have the freedom to choose not to believe what you see which would make that futile.
Again, idk the answer.. trying to know for myself as well but hope this opens up a thought vein at least. 🤙🏼
@@alohaslots The problem is that this argument would apply to everything. I have the freedom to not believe in gravity, it would just make me incredibly dumb.
@alohaslots so if God showed himself clearly in everyday life, like actually speaking clearly to everyone who prays and give novel and precise guidance. Non of the vague stuff where you are unsure if it's your mind coming up with it. Then I have the freedom to belive or not but I would be dumb and non-scientific if I did not believe.
I am a non-theist Baha’i and a monist (who also respects dualism). I see the spiritual and material worlds as a single, unified reality rather than separate realms. The physical world is like a mirror reflecting the spiritual world-what we experience here is an image of deeper, underlying truths.
Just as you cannot reach into a mirror to touch the objects or light you see within it, we cannot physically grasp the spiritual reality. We see its signs reflected in the material world, much like how a mirror presents depth that isn’t truly accessible. The images appear real, but you cannot put your hand into the mirror to reach them.
In the same way, the spiritual is a depth beyond direct physical interaction. Though we perceive its signs and recognize its presence (gnosis), we cannot touch it in the way we interact with the material world.
Of course, this is just an analogy-not perfect or complete-but it helps illustrate how the spiritual and physical realities are one and the same. The physical world is not separate from the spiritual; rather, it is the manifestation of it.
To clarify, my perspective reframes the traditional theistic concept of a personal God by identifying the Manifestation of God as the only “personal” or “anthropomorphic” expression of the divine that humans can engage with.
And for me, my view resolved the paradox of an unknowable yet worshipped God: If God is truly unknowable, then why do people pray, worship, and form relationships with “Him”? The Manifestation of God is the Direct point of connection.
It is a rational and symbolic understanding of religion: Instead of requiring belief in a supernatural being, this perspective sees God as something that manifests through enlightened human figures, making divine connection accessible without requiring supernaturalism.
“It doesn’t make sense to me”.
Who says it has to? Who said the universe has to make sense to any of us?
Is this a concession that atheism doesn’t make sense?
Theism doesn't either. 'A wizard did it' is no explanation at all, it only creates more mystery.
@@ZLcomedickings Atheism is not a belief system, it's the doubt of yours
@@SortOfEggish that is not technically true. There is such a thing as hard atheism, which is the claim that there is no God. As opposed to soft atheism, which is simply the lack of belief in the claim that there is a God.
@@ZLcomedickingsThings literally don't have to make sense. You're outright choosing to miss the point
The best argument for God I've ever seen is the look in the eyes of an animal that knows it is going to die.
I think the greatest possible being must necessarily not exist since it would be a greater feat to perform any act while not existing. You might wonder how this is possible, and it isn't, but the greatest possible being should be able to do the impossible. The greatest possible being should be able to do the logically impossible. Can the greatest possible being create a rock so big it can't lift it? Yes. Is it powerful enough to lift that rock? Also, yes. You might say it's self-contradictory, but isn't it a greater feat to exist despite being self-contradictory? Yes. But wasn't I just arguing that the greatest possible being doesn't exist? Yes, but we just established that the greatest possible being is self-contradictory. You might say it's all nonsense, but wouldn't the nature of the greatest possible being be beyond human comprehension?
I understand where you come from, but omnipotency doesn't mean "being able to do the greatest feat", it means "being able to do the greatest feat that is possible to be done".
Probably the greatest feat, in Christianity, in those terms, is the holy trinity. Clear contradiction in human terms (3 persons, each 100% God, but it's 1 God), but if Christ is God, then it's possible in divine terms.
And the question about the rock thing is a classic one, the answer is both. God can do both, thus He chooses the outcome He prefers.
@newme1589 Maybe an omnipotent God can only do the greatest possible feat, but the greatest possible being can do the greatest impossible feat. If God cannot do the logically impossible, then he is not the greatest possible being.
How convenient
4:55 We have found "watches on the beach". Look at the harmony of planets and their moons. Perfect synchronicity. Designed to such perfect efficiency you can literally set your watch to them. Not just the Moon. Every planet moon combination. However, there was no designer. Just gravity. Honeycombs. Not designed. Just gravity. So, there's a couple black swans.
How are planets and moons perfectly sync'd? They are in weird orbits, some planets have multiple, some planets have rings, some planets formed arnt even solid and yet have mass. Our moon takes 27 days to orbit us, other planets have their moons orbit in 3 days....like what is perfect or designed about any of this? What is perfect about the moon orbiting us in the first place? Just happens to be a cool night light. Whats efficient about them? Like youre just saying shit and expecting us to not say gravity is the answer because you refuse to understand that the force that pulls something to the middle isnt also able to be used to slingshot and move around the middle.
Heres an experiment, get a yoyo or something heavy on the end of the string, now swing it around a bit, im sure youll get the gist.
9:50
It applies to an isolated system (not closed). Closed and isolated systems are different things. And the only isolated system in existence (that we know off) is the universe. So the thing about the second law of thermodynamics is that entropy in the universe in general is always increasing, even if on certain regions decreases for a short while.
7:43 here the only thing I’d say is if lowly humans can create the inexplicable power of computers in 75 years, why can’t the universe+billions of years create humans.
Interesting thought. I think that the Uncommon Knowledge episode critiquing Darwin answers or considers that very question.
The answer is that there's apparently not enough time.
You just answered it yourself. Why didn't the earth's evolution evolve the minerals in rocks and dirt to communicate to each other as a cpu does? Why didn't animals build houses with electricity? A self-conscious intelligent mind created things as complex as a CPU and wires, just as a conscious intelligent mind created us.
Yes!!! I love these two talking.
I prefer Matt Dillahunty's answer which I will paraphrase. I don't know what it would take for me to believe in god but if god exists, "he" knows what it would take and hasn't provided me with whatever that is.
I don’t want to sound rude… but that sounds like you are wanting the answer to a question you refuse to ask.
If you truly don’t know what would convince YOURSELF… maybe you should find out.
Is it “providing a great moral explanation and standing” or “explaining the existence of information as a concept”?? or whatever it may be… find out.
…maybe he already answered it and you haven’t been looking for the answer because you refuse to ask the question “what would convince me of God’s existence?”
Hope that made sense to you.
@@brockelSprout It doesn't make any sense to me at all. If a god exists, why would I not already be convinced? The fact that I am not already convinced is evidence to me that there is no god that currently wants me to be convinced.
I supposed that I would first have to be convinced that such a hypothesis was both necessary and sufficient. At present, I find that every such hypothesis that has been suggested to me is neither. That is, I find that no hypothetical god is necessary to explain the universe in which I find myself, and no hypothetical god is a sufficient explanation for the parts of that universe that I don't yet understand. Any answer to the question would also have to clearly and unequivocally define god and I don't find such a definition forthcoming either.
God won't force you to trust in Him. God gives everyone enough grace to go to Heaven. People are free to obey our Creator or be prideful.
@@MrMZaccone knock and the door shall be opened, etc. if you aren't asking the question in good faith, are you really knocking?
This is a bad faith argument though because you’re not actually engaging with the material in order to come to a conclusion, instead you’re asking that material to have already given you the conclusion without engaging with it.
There are so many holes on the ontological argument it's strange Alex brought that up
You're getting close Alex. It's my belief that God can't be found by those who don't truly want Him. But will always be found by those truly searching for Him
The work is never ending...
Simplest and most accurate explanation is that mankind invented God(s) in our image in lieu of the scientific methodology to truly figure out reality. Now we're stuck dealing with the emotional fallout of thousands of years of dogma, incredulity, and cultural norms instead of education.
What I don't get is how people think that even if you do have some experience of the 'divine', that this brings with it some kind of contentment - it doesn't, it just points further to the mystery of existence. What is the divine, why did it exist in the first place, what's the point of living and dying, what's the point of whatever comes after it?? There is no solace on these mysteries, whether you have experienced what you perceive to be divinity, the limit point of spiritual seeking or whatever, it's no more revealing than the dust settling on a shelf.
Excellent point, but I don’t think that what Christ is claiming.
What if… instead of going further into mystery… someone is offering you the solution.
The solution to death, the solution to our miraculous existence, and the solution to everything in this world.
God has no intention of confusing you forever. He wants a relationship.
That seems like a goal worth pursuing. Certainly better than simply being complacent with knowing little.
@brockelSprout thanks for your comment... However, for me, I don't understand what a 'solution' is in the way you state it. Is a relationship with what you perceive to be the divine a solution? Why is it a solution and to what?
@@benscraftymusings The goal of the Gospel is to get one into a relationship with God, our creator and savior.
I’m simply stating that the existence of God means that he WOULD be ABLE to answer the mystery of life and more.
I’m not claiming to know the answer, (maybe it is as simple as relationships, that could be a strong argument).
I am claiming that the existence of God CAN give answers and that he is most definitely worth pursuing.
Does that make more sense?
@@brockelSprout yes it does, thank you.
I find the ‘beach watch’ argument self-defeating. The watch stands out as obviously designed- it’s distinct from the landscape it sits in. This is then extrapolated to all of creation. It’s now a watch on a beach of watches, next to a sea made of watches on a planet watch in a universe made of watches.
It’s a category error that, if we started with finding a baby chicken on the beach, would have us imagine that squirrels hatch from eggs along with bananas, novels and buildings - all hatching. Or if we started with a grand oak tree would presume lions grew on trees, along with trout, potatoes and crockery.
Definitely! To a creationist the beach itself would be designed, therefore the watch shouldn't stand out.
The fact that the watch is separate debunks the watchmaker analogy 😂
The "best" arguments only make sense if you don't think about them too deeply
Nothing you said disproved the watch wasn't designed is your issue. All you did was point out, duh it's designed because look it's a watch on a beach.
A universe made of watches, you say? Seems it would demand a Great Watchmaker!
@@kingdavid8178 I can't understand the point you're trying to make. Could you explain again please?
At around 10:00 when the "but but entropy" objection is raised, my standard response is: "how can we make ice cubes from water despite the 2nd law?"
What do you mean?
@@SimonSaysSimon By invoking entropy, the claim is life can't form because living things lower their own entropy (prevent decay). "That violates the second law! God must be what allows life to happen." But that misunderstands the 2nd law. Entropy in a region can go down so long as the environment that contains that region increases in entropy even more.
Getting to the ice cube analogy. Water turning to ice requires the entropy of the water to decrease. And we can make it happen because the refrigerator that surrounds the ice cube increased entropy of the refrigerator's environment even more.
@ ok now i get what you meant
it's always fascinating when people bring up topics they know fk all about as an argument. it's like they're proud they have an argument from ignorance.
I'm an atheist and my life still has meaning. I'm still a loving father, raising kids, living the life I was granted by nature, as all those before and after me, moving the world along, a product of my time.
Me too. But he said ‘inherent’ meaning. For some reason I don’t get, theists feel there’s less value unless it comes from a god. Feels the opposite to me, if we find and create the meaning, it has more value.
@markoshun nature gives us our inherant purpose though imo. Propagate and spread lol like everything.
@@emosam07 Ok, you are using a different definition of purpose/meaning then, I think. Yours still sounds like an agent ‘granting’ it, but instead of god, you say nature. Whereas I wouldn’t go there at all. Life just is, does what it does and we make of that what we will. No worries.
@markoshun i thin that's what I mean though, by nature. Just, life itself. Doin life stuff.
@ So we agree? Uh oh, we probably just broke the internet.. 😀
The amount of arguments literally cannot be an argument for God. Thats just the ad populum fallacy changed slightly.
You're confusing number of arguments for number of people. Complementary lines of evidence is often considered suggestive, even if fragmentary and incremental, especially if they converge.
Well no, arguments within themselves dont have a bias therefore the fallacy doesnt track. An argument has no sway for personal reasons which side it goes to. If the answer to 3+3 is 6 and 500 people got £100 for saying 5 and then said 5, then yes that would be a fallacy because many arguments can be made for the fact they are objectively wrong, where as the argument falls on if it can be defended.
If I have 500 arguments that are sound against your idea and you can not defend them at all, thats not a fallacy as only 1 of those would been enough to complete its purpose. The mere fact that there are more arguments that we can pull from just makes being a Christian and not understanding the arguments makes you ignorant beyond belief.
I think ad populum fallacy would be more so if you claim certainty that you’re right because majority hold that view. The amount of accumulated arguments could be considered an inductive or probabilistic argument where the number of arguments could make believing in God more likely when you consider them in totality but doesn’t prove God exists with 100% certainty.
@aid8137 is spot on. Many, if not all, fallacies are only fallacies when someone claims certainty. Tbh, everything is evidence to some degree and in some way.
Amazing that this Jesus character who supposed to be god in the christian case wrote nothing down and did not leave any of his possessions. It is as though he was fictional.
I personally have always hated the ontological argument and don't get how anyone can find it convincing; what says that the greatest being you can conceive also has to exist versus just being conceived to exist? Like most arguments for god, you have to sneak in a presupposition somewhere. We can agree that if you're thinking of a god and comparing their power, thinking up one and defining it as existing in reality would be greater than defining it as not. Unfortunatelu, this says nothing about the actual state of reality.
ironically, Anselm's argument as this atheist finds to be the most convincing argument is what one of the most celebrated christian thinkers Aquinas finds to be the weakest. he doesn't think it works at all. neither do i
in fact I can imagine something greater than the christian god. he cures cancer in infants. taadaa! but wait! since this new miracle worker is now the new god in my mind yet some infants still have cancer, this ontological argument collapses on itself. poof!
It also just runs into contradition instantly. A christian trying to imagine the greatest being will imagine christian god, a buddhist the buddha, a muslim allah. If you assume that the conceptialization implies existence than unless you're a unitarian this runs into contraditcion because these divine characters have tabgibly contradictory attributes. If some says imagine the biggest number yoy can thing of and one person says 1,000,000 one person says googol, and one person says 9,704 the different answers imply there is no largest number in reality, which is true.
I actually think a God able to do everything described and also be able to be a contradiction and do it all without even existing is even greater. So if the argument is valid, it's proof God doesn't exist
Lol. Clearly you don’t know much. We have to presuppose everything on a foundational level to know anything. You would be surprised on how much we don’t actually know. God is by far the best explanation for the universe even if you don’t believe in a Christian God. I went from atheist to agnostic to deist to Christian. I came to Christianity logically.
In the past 50-100 years we now know science tells us space time and matter i.e the universe can’t come from nothing it has to have a creator. You guys believe in a virgin birth of the universe yet the virgin birth of Mary which was orchestrated by an omnipotent God is too outlandish of a concept? Lol.
@mycrazylife408 Calling the origin of the universe a virgin birth tells me you were never once in your life an atheist.
What logic did you use to reach Christianity? If it hinges on a presupposition, don't even bother replying.
This was a very remarkable video
An even greater God is one that can do everything you are conceiving of, but is also able to break contradiction and do it without even existing
How do you do things without existing?
@josef2012 Exactly. Imagine how powerful a God is that can do this. Truly miraculous
The computer analogy is amazing how can metals do all those stunnig things until you remember great minds were behind the arrangements of those metals
This is still so disrespectful. How dare you talk about a world with no meaning to atheists. We have all of the same meaning that you do. You just want the extra meaning of being the center of the universe where you are a copy of god. It is pathetic and disgusting that you cannot live without that "meaning"
As for the watch maker, (Alex, a reproducing watch... come on) that story is logically paradoxical on its face. "How do you know that the watch is designed?" You believe that everything is designed. You cannot tell the difference between designed and not designed because your definition is that there is no difference.
Evolution is actually extremely easy. You need 3 components: replication, mutation, selection. Mutation and selection comes with an indifferent universe. All that's left is replication. Not easy, but definitely not impossible with plenty of space and time: billions of years and billions of light years. That's what it actually takes to "create" consciousness: billions of years of uncountable numbers of organisms. Not Thanos using the infinity stones to wish the Earth into place
Since you're so willing to be so dishonest about atheism, why don't you tell me: what is the "meaning" to being created by an omnipotent being? Supposing you come across someone in dire need of help of some kind. In fact it is in God's plan for that person to receive help and you might be the one to fulfill that need. God doesn't force you to do it, you have free will. But if you don't, it isn't going to derail God's plan. That person will receive help somehow.
Since your choice in that moment does not in any way change the outcome for that person, your choice is meaningless. God can do literally everything you can do and at no cost of any kind. In my world, I'm there and no one else is. My choosing to help that person is the difference between that person being suffering or being saved from suffering as a result. That's what meaning actually is: a difference in the world because of your existence.
I do not believe for a second that you "tried atheism". Because your description of atheism is exactly what theists tell their children to scare them into not misbehaving
Chill reddit graduate.
You need abiogenisis
Bait used to be believable (I’m joking…kinda)
But in all seriousness. You have some fine points I’d like to respond to.
1)
What’s the issue with wanting to have a purpose to our existence? I personally would rather have a purpose than not, but I don’t want to disservice the take without fully understanding it.
2) the watch on the beach.
I’ve seen a lot of people misinterpret this analogy.
The sand on the beach is supposed to represent the universe BEFORE life, natural selection, and evolution. And the watch is supposed to represent the sudden appearance of Life, DNA, and information. How the HECK did it come into existence from the lifeless conditions of the universe ~15B years ago? It’s impossible… unless something is capable of bending the rules of creation.
3)
How do you know that what you do doesn’t effect those around you? You say “they will receive help somehow,” but I’m really curious on how ANYONE would know that. It almost sounds like you think the existence of a God completely invalidates the concept of choice when he made us have free will.
I really wanna see your full take on this. Mine is this: we don’t know the details of “God’s plan.” We know how it will end… but that’s about it. In the meantime, Christians have to act as Christ-like as possible to get other to join in the good times at the end.
I hope this helped.
Since no religion ever has had their god show itself to exist apart from in the followers imaginations I will happily go about my life ignoring their claims and attempts to tap into my finances.
so you don't believe anything unless you see it ?
Because no one of us has ever seen or directly experienced god beyond what we conceptually formulate in our heads (imagination), there is no argument for god. Unless you have had DIRECT CONTACT WITH GOD, any inkling of “god” is here-say.
Part of what frustrates me about these arguments is precisely this, there are esoteric methods that claim to bring this kind of direct experience but intellectuals and religious believers both seem to shy away from deeply engaging with them. It would be a much more interesting discussion if both had pursued such experiences instead of just thinking about them.
Prophets have.
@@Light-tc8xc How would you know?
you clearly haven't tried 20 milligrams of psilocybin mushrooms 😂 you meet the version of God that's the most compatible to your mental and spiritual development.Try them
A computer in it's simplest form is basically millions of tiny on/off switches. That's what the ones and zeros represent.
When Rainn Wilson too quickly asks the entropy question and Alex explains that entropy can sometimes decrease because Earth is an isolated system, it reminds me of humanity as a whole I screwed because Rainn has an inquisitive mind that is higher than the average person’s.
The last clause is confusing.
@@theplanetruthdude screwed the entirety of humanity
@@theplanetruth I believe they're saying that it is scary as someone with such an open and understanding mind is still struggling with accepting a deterministic and natural/secular worldview (which I believe is essential for humanity to progress further) due to their misunderstanding of science and defaults to spirituality. Considering how woefully ignorant mass populations are towards science who are nowhere near as open and understanding as Rainn here is just feels damning for our progress as a world and species.
@@gamesbergin I don't know how to clearly articulate the sense of doom and dread I felt when someone as inquisitive as Rainn gave the watchmaker analogy. How is it that someone who has thought about this topic more than the average person is convinced by the watchmaker analogy? What does the average person know then? It seems almost nothing? The only miracle to me is that humanity has progressed as far as it has despite the average person being so clueless.
As a Christian; I appreciate Alex's very high intelligence because it challenges the truth of the Bible to the highest level. Yet if a very high intelligent atheist is refuted; it proves more the existence of God than a low intelligent atheist being refuted.
I understand so well Alex's logical points of why for him God doesn't exist; but base on my experienced, no one can understand the Bible using logic alone. I respect him as am atheist though because he's the most kind and respectable atheist, calm and respectful even in debates.
He is like you, he needs some subjective personal experience, he says it at the end, it is all he would need to become a theist.
@stevensteven3417 Well it depends to the objective definition of subjective personal experience. Do you know the objective definition of subjective personal experience?
Hallelujah!!!! Your channel has been a big part of my transformation, God is good.l had a $47,000 loan from the bank for my son's(Oscar) brain surgery.i am now debt free after l invested $8,000 and got my payment of $30,500 each month.God bless ms Christine Elizabeth lerma
That's a major turn around. Praise be to Jesus our Lord. Hallelujah
But then, what do you do? How do you come about that in that period?
It is simply the digital market. That's been the secret to this wealth transfer. A lot of folks in the US amd abroad are getting so much from it, God has been good to my household Thank you Jesus
Big thanks to Mrs Christine Elizabeth lerma
Her top notch guidance and expertise on digital market changed the game for me
I appreciate the replication of the official U.S. presidential painting behind Rainn that hangs in the U.S. Capitol.
i hoped for more from Rainn, but invoking the watchmaker's argument and an ignorant understanding of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that he has NEVER evaluated his arguments in any serious way. no interest in this channel.
Those both really hit me too. How can you be seriously "trying" to be an atheist and bring those up like that?
What he didnt mention was the 1st law of thermodynamics where energy cannot be “created nor destroyed” so clearly when we die our energy carries on to something else
Yes. Physics, Biology and chemistry all accounts for that ‘something else’. No mysteries here Sir.
About thinking of the "greatest conceivable being", it reminded me about the way Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:12.
"For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known."
If we assume this is the God that exists, even though Paul says that he knows God, he also assumes that he only knows part of Him. This example shows that Paul (or any human) would be limited on his knowledge of this being, almost as if we all were completely separated in a way that unless this God would reveal himself fully, we could never comprehend this existence. God should be able to surpass a limited human mind, making this exercise not very meaningful. I believe the greatest being would by definition not be conceivable (to us).
When I think of the greatest conceivable being I think of myself. Now I'm not saying I am God, but I think it would be close minded to eliminate that possibility.
then what's the point in thinking about it in the first place? And what exactly are some good reasons for assuming any of this to be true? "greatest conceivable being" sounds like a super highly relative and subjective concept built super shaky assumptions. what is the greatest conceivable being for you might be entirely different for another person.
5:16 Insecurities about purpose and meaning? What if there was no why to the universe? That should be freeing. That would mean we make those things ourselves. The universe gifted us existence and we gift it back meaning and purpose.
There would have to be some underlying archetypal reality from which the meaning we assume comes from. If the meaning we assume solely originates from our mind then it's not real.
Comprehensible or interactive reality can't appear from nothing. That would imply absolutely anything is possible, which inherently is utterly contradictory.
I disagree, all meaning comes from our mind and that's okay.
It doesn't make it more valuable to have our own created meaning just because that meaning isn't validated by a God.
Let's say we really exist forever in heaven. We would still need to create meaningful existence in that final state and it would (in my opinion) be no different than finding meaningful existence in this life
@@nathanfife2890
No, that's not ok for intelligent, free-will, moral agents. Maybe for animals though. If meaning only exists in your imagination then it's no more real than your run-of-the-mill spaghetti monster
@@nathanfife2890
It would be ok, however, if all reality exists within the mind of one ultimate mind. Then, this mind's idea of meaning would be as real as anything else because everything would be his ideas
I want that unicorn 😂
God is a cop out. Just because something doesn't make sense or is hard to think about, doesn't implicitly mean there has to be a great.
You can make the same argument with science dude :D that's a blunder.
@@sedlak87god is cope but I can completely understand why people believe it.
But science proves its claims..@@sedlak87
@@Okabe_Rintaro_technically science is working off of assumed theory using data we've determined works in specific functions. We find out things about science every year that have to be reworked, or ends up being correct about one aspect, but only correlation to the results.
Science still asks for one miracle, that's the creation of everything. That's something we don't know. We say the big bang, but what a human decides is what caused that. Everything else can be separated, because science observes the perceived real world, while religion questions and tries to explain spiritually. If a God, especially one in the Bible did cause this big bang, what's to stop the two from coexisting. They'd have to at that point. If you believe otherwise, then the conversation isn't even relevant. Life is what is now for us.
@ while science is indeed powerful in proving claims about the physical world, it operates within a limited scope-it deals with observable phenomena and natural laws. Arguments for God, on the other hand, often pertain to questions beyond the reach of empirical science
The idea that the number of arguments for gods is a argument for gods is MAYBE the WORST argument fir God I've ever heard. And I've been around.
2:27 "It's my favourite because it sounds a bit stupid" I was under the impression he was actually answering the question about the most convincing argument for god until he said this. I didn't realise he was actually heading in the opposite direction. This is why the British and Americans drive on opposite sides of the road.
untrue. he finds it somewhat convincing but is skeptical that it is so simple
If it is possible for all of these things to exist, in an infinite universe how could they not exist?
Why does “existence is greater than non-existence” only apply to gods? Special pleading. (Of course, for an existing thing to be greater than an only imagined thing, it would have to exist and not merely be imagined. Circular reasoning.)
Nobody said it apply only to God. My guess is that all possible worlds exist.
@ Both people in the video agreed that it doesn’t apply to unicorns.
@ If we grant for the sake of argument that all possible worlds exist, we still need to show that a god is possible in order that it might possibly exist in at least one of those worlds. (A world would have to exist that is in itself outside any world, and undetectable by/from any world, including itself.)
As an aside, the number of possible worlds (actually universes) is infinite (given that the degree of potential difference of every characteristic is infinite) so if all possible universes do exist, no more can begin or end (the number must remain constant at infinity). This means all possible universes are eternal, and it is not possible for there to be a finite universe that would require creation. The infinite multiverse is not only much more likely than a god, but it makes a god entirely pointless.
@@charleshinkley6 The misunderstanding is that your concept of God is Abrahamically charged, whereas God is primarily defined here as a mere necessary being. The set of all possibles needs an explanation, and that explanation cannot be a "possible", because then the set of all possibles is not the set of all possibles. The explanation of this set cannot be impossible, so it follows that it must be necessary. That's it, simply a necessary being, now whether it's omnipotent or whatever other bullshit theists are cooking up is another question.
I agree that the actual number of possible worlds is infinite, but by world I don't necessarily mean an external world, I have to go back on my proposition here, having expressed myself badly. I simply mean all possible worlds without contradiction. I have no objection to the rest, since I believe that the universe is eternal, simply that there is the necessity of a necessary being or thing (if the word being gives you migraines).
what Alex is missing is that intelligent minds created the computer. It didn't come about randomly, from out of nowhere, just like I don't believe the universe could have come about without an intelligent mind behind it. The metals have to be arranged a certain type of way for the computer to function, and the universe had also to be arranged a certain type of way for it to allow life to exist.
But you’re just abstracting the problem another level higher, because what created the intelligent mind behind the universe?
He's not missing anything. It's a basic argument and it's just the Watchmaker analogy which Dawkins wrote an entire book about. A computer is not a biological entity capable of evolving. Where do all new diseases come from? Do they evolve or is god creating them? Why is god creating new diseases but can't do anything else? You might as well be saying tornadoes can't just exist so god must be blowing them into existence. They exist because there's a scientific reason they happen. If the universe needs a creator then so does god. By your own logic God cannot exist without a designer too as he would be by definition far more intelligent than humans.
@ science has already proven to us that there has to be an uncaused cause; some people believe it's the universe, I just find it more believable that it's God, cause it doesn't make sense for something to come from nothing, but the definition of God is that He is eternal, He does not have a beginning, He is the uncaused cause of everything
@@ceciliapereira3058 if the universe is eternal, it seems likely that reality just… is. This is what reality is. following occam‘s razor, it seems more likely that the universe is the eternal thing that has always existed.
@@ceciliapereira3058 by your own logic god cannot exist. He needs a creator too.
The reason you assume the watch was made is because you know watches are made. Now imagine finding a thing on a beach that defies explanation or comprehension. Is it natural or was it built? It’s a little harder to answer that one.
No it's not, he watchmaker argument is one of the absolute lowest tier of arguments, it's just completely dead.
if it has the characteristics of a fine tuned object , we first investigate whether animals or humans invented or are capable of inventing it , if not then it is from god.
_"It's a meaningless panacea to invent a god that can do anything & be anything ... It serves as an answer for every question & as an explanation for nothing."_ [Matt Dillahunty]
I really really dislike the ontological argument and kind of cant stand listening to Alex talk about it as if its valid. But that being said I really respect his ability to appreciate arguments he doesn't agree with himself.
It just bothers you in a subjective sense, or you have some valid counter-argument to the logic presented by the ontological argument? If it's just a feeling, well oh well we all have feelings and fair enough, but if you've got something to offer against the actual argument it'd be fascinating to hear.
@@DanielBrough-b7h For the specific version of the ontological argument Alex uses in this video (I think the other versions fall apart way easier), I would probably lean towards just subjectively disliking it. I'm not sure I have some tremendously satisfying explanation for why it isn't true, other than that I just intuitively disagree. Though I think one good argument to put forth would be if the mere ability to conceive of the greatest conceivable being means that being must exist because unless they exist they can't be perfectly great. Then the same must be said for the worst conceivable being because no being would be satisfyingly the worst conceivable being unless it was existed in real life. Which in of itself does not debunk anything, but I think when you consider how could this perfect being coexist with this imperfect being in the way that the perfectly great being isn't perfectly great if he is apparently not great enough to stop the worst being being the perfectly worst.
Not to mention the ability to conceive of something simply does not make it reality. I can conceive of a perfectly great group of entities. Does this man their must be many perfect gods?
Before anyone could possibly consider that "God or god" term, owing to it being about the most ambiguous word in all of language, it is required that the proponent of the term offer a specific intended definition and use of the ambiguous term, and that is the scientific method 101 to define the key terms so everyone is on the same page. Otherwise, it's a Who's on first routine.
Let's stick with the facts:
- there may or may not be a creator
- your religions is false (all religions are)
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
source ; trust me bro.
At the end of the Gospel of Matthew, Christ was with the eleven disciples and was about to give the great comission. Matthew said that some of them still doubted. That kind of brutal honesty speaks to the reality of that moment. As does John noting that 153 fish were caught when they saw the risen Christ on the beach at the Sea of Galilee. Such a specific number!
I was genuinely surprised someone as intelligent as Rainn didn’t know the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems.
can you name an open system for me so I can think through and understand your statement?
@@murdog5253the earth is an open system. It is constantly dissipating energy into space and receiving energy from the sun.
@@johnhenrysguitar if open, then why does everything in the earth experience entropy? And in large measure because of the very source of energy that you are saying negates it. once something is created it starts to deteriorate and decay. including people, watches, paintings etc...
@@murdog5253 the earth as a whole is an open system. That doesn't mean things inside the earth don't experience entropy. All it means is the sum total of entropy isn't necessarily increasing when looking at the earth as a whole due to the low entropy energy we get from the sun. Eventually the sun will burn out and no longer radiate out low entropy energy to things but while it does there will be temporary pockets of lower entropy spaces (like the earth as a whole)
@@johnhenrysguitar Is there anything on earth that doesn't face entropy?
The greater energy is energy itself
The Book of Mormon coupled with the words of prophets align with evidences wherein we can know of their truthfulness. Some may find this laughable, but there's actually abundant evidences that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's true and living church on the earth today. Life is the experiential condition to being gifted with opportunity to grow through a probationary state. Some have said that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a 'way of life' where it has been also proposed that capacity for an eternal family through living what we're taught in The Family; A Proclamation to the World is the *reason* for life. . . .
www.letterformywife.com/_files/ugd/7d420e_0bc538269e1546a4b3eeaff385b02643.pdf
Surprised Alex brought this up as his favorite. Maybe it's not because it's a good argument (it's ridiculous) but because it's so amusingly ridiculous?
After all (a) we can imagine things that don't exist, and (b) "greatness" doesn't mean existence.
In fact the unicorn example is perfect:
* a greatest conceivable unicorn exists, but generally only in minds
* rhinoceros exist, and are sort of technically unicorns. And so they're the greatest conceivable, *EXISTING* unicorns in that sense.
* and that's why I say "generally only in minds", because we can think of someone who really loves rhinos who genuinely thinks they're the greatest conceivable unicorn
Basically it's a thought exercise that's about *appealing ideas* (ideas we'd personally, subjectively consider "great"), but *not existence.*