This is Trent's "I need a break so I'll rebut something easy" video. Given the several hour long videos he's been doing recently, this is totally understandable. Thanks Trent.
The catholic god of child rape isn't the real god. 330,000 little boys in France were raped by 3,000 catholic pedophile priests, and it barely made the news, because people EXPECT that from catholics. Jesus said child rape was UNFORGIVABLE (Matt 18:6-14), and everyone who supported it will get eternal damnation. That means every catholic. THe catholic god of child rape is satan himself.
Ha! That may be one reason. However, I do want to engage more atheism topics and, surprisingly, when you search "God does not exist" on RUclips this is the third video that comes up.
@YAJUN YUAN Hilarious. The guy in this video belongs to the Catholic Church of child rape, which worships the Catholic pedophile god. This is the perfect place to comment on exactly that point. If you don't understand, then this class is too advanced for you.
Why do you think you can trust your memory or other minds exist? “Uh.. just cause… my memory and gut says so…”. People often don’t realize the implicit faith based assumptions they implicitly accept on a daily basis.
@@williamwalker-y9u Right I can't no for sure that am I not a cow, but at some point everything we believe boils down to philosophical seemings. It just seems to be the case that I am a cow and until presented with a strong defeater I am going to operate under the belief that I am indeed not a cow. It just seems to be the case that the sun is hot and that 1 != 2 and I am going to go with that.
@@therick363 "nothing" isn't a credible choice. Tbf, neither are most of mankind's concepts of god. This is what brings people of intellectual integrity and good faith to the arguments for classical theism, and the task of understanding those arguments is poorly served with one-liners and slogans.
@@brianfarley926The classic arguments like nature being proof of god? Nature must not be very good proof since there are millions of gods all with vastly different characteristics & personalities. Some cultures even see nature as a sort of god in an of itself. I’d assume that a supreme deity who wanted everyone to worship it who be a little more clear. Heck! Christians can’t even agree on what the Bible means, not do they agree on justification, Baptism, if salvation is able to be lost, etc. Even worse, every denomination claims to have the correct interpretation.
@@briceidycierramarrujosmith4563 None of those assertions you put forth shows God doesn’t exist. We can know through reason that God does exist whether everyone agrees on whether it’s the Abrahamic God of the 3 major religions and disputes over Bible interpretation also doesn’t invalide whether God exists or not. The major religions are the Abrahamic religions and they all profess to worship the same God, the creator of life. Jews, Christian’s and Muslims. And yes nature does point to the existence of God you live in an intelligible Universe bound By laws of nature that sprang from non existence into existence. The Universe has been fine tuned to accept life, and not just life but intelligent life (humans) who were placed above the animals of this earth in intelligence as well Doctrinal issues and issues of interpretation of the Bible is a human problem, so once again it doesn’t invalide whether God exists or not. Specifically I would say the evidence clearly leans in the Christian faith to Catholicism but it’s a different discussion on whether God exists or he doesn’t. For example Christianity can be false but it would not then prove God doesn’t exist it would disprove the God of Christian understanding exists.
I recently discovered that Juan Maldacena (probably the the best theoretical physicist of his generation, according to his peers) is a practicing Roman Catholic. These people who pretend as if being sufficiently intelligent and simply employing "logic" will lead you not to believe in God drive me crazy. The entire idea of "smart"=atheism is demonstrably false and does a lot of harm in the world (especially for young people).
It seems like the bell curve meme. On the lower bound you have the more low IQ faithful people who may say “just have faith” as an answer to everything, then you have the median IQ being atheist/agnostic, somewhat smarter, then you have the upper bound high IQ extremely intelligent people being devout theists.
@@killianmiller6107 Francis Bacon was right, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." To your point as well, it doesn't seem like Maldacena talks about Faith or Religion much. I just saw an interview he did with the American Institute of Physics where he simply said, "Yes, I am still a Church goer" and left it at that.
@@therick363 Bacon and most people would agree with you about understanding leading to unbelief in "gods." He was referring to God. Also, beware of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Of course. That's just how antireligious and militant atheistic polemics and propaganda work my dude. As long as they believe it to be true (even if it is shown to be false) they just keep the polemics alive within their echochambers which will radicalize other people to become themselves antireligious polemicst and militant atheistic propagandist. Isn't socio-psychology fun? Its a breeding space for a whole interesting study of sociolpsychology concernd with groupthink and the like.
This guy is the physical embodiment of the Reddit atheist who said, "Today I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing, but because I am enlightened. I am euphoric of my intelligence."
I was for a long time. Originally was an atheist because of the problem of suffering but also later used to love the arguments like this. Ironically it was an atheist Aristotelian philosopher who actually primed me to philosophically accepting God.
@@eduardogardin879 right. Also, it is as irrational to believe in the scientific explanation of what was going on in the first moments after the big bang as it is to believe in miracles. Nearly all laws of physics were apparently inapplicable! How scientific is that? But ok, that doesn't mean I deny that explanation as credible.
People need to stop saying "you can't prove a negative". I actually believed that at one point, but then I started studying logic, and it turns out, you can prove a negative. We prove negatives all the time. You can't construct a valid argument on two negative premises, but one of your premises can be a negative premise and your argument still be sound. Atheists love to claim they're on the side of "logic" and reason, but they keep repeating illogical claims like this.
@@Nimish204 This is nonsensical. I don't think think there's a way I could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that we're not in the matrix, but that's an epistemological problem. It doesn't show that you can't prove a negative. We prove negatives all the time, and in formal logic, sound arguments can have one negative premise in them.
@@Nimish204 being unable to prove *a* negative, doesn't mean you can't prove negatives in general. You'd have to give a logical reason why you can't prove negatives, not just give random examples of negatives we can't prove.
You can prove a negative. However, the Christian God is constantly moved into places where we cannot test its properties. For example, if I say I have an undetectable dragon in my garage, you cannot prove me wrong. But if I say you can see it with your eyes, then you can easily come and see that I am wrong, thus proving the negative. The issue is Christians create no lose situations l. For example, the Bible says God will answer prayers, but when we perform tests on, say, if prayer can heat up a glass of water, Christians are quick to say that it won't work because you can't test God. The very Bible itself says you should not test him. So yeah, give me a falsifiable claim about your God, and then we can talk about falsifying him.
A negative must be interpreted as "not falsifiable". E.g. a premise like "I do not have six fingers on my left hand" is falsifiable, because I have five fingers. But still, it is stated as a negative premise. A statement like "There is a teapot turning around Saturn" is not falsifiable - although it is stated as a positive premise. Just like a teapot is small, can only be located somewhere in a vast area and is constantly moving, God is moving all the time as well. Nowadays theists claim He is "beyond space and time". Theists claim He exists - which requires positive proof. Just show the God. Therefore, the "burden of proof" lies with theists. A negative proof makes it not falsifiable, because you can't observe anything "beyond space and time". Read up on your Russell, Popper and Wittgenstein, pal.
Great episode! Quick and to-the-point! Love it when there are smaller episodes like these. They help me have more time at the end of the day. Thanks, Trent!
The narrator has a very cartoonish view of not only classical theism, but, polytheistic pagan practices from classical antiquity as well. This is a common overgeneralization by many skeptics and non skeptics alike and it sprouts from a complete lack of historical knowledge and ignorance. The numerous polytheistic practices that we find in classical antiquity were far more complex than they are given credit for. There was much more to Thor and Zeus than a hammer and lightning bolts, the sky to Horus or Sun to Ra. Ancient practitioners of these traditions in antiquity, whether it be Norse, Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Slavic etc., didn't stumble and shutter everytime they heard thunder crack the sky. Many naturalistic occurrences came to be associated with the "gods", yes, these associations didn't incapsulate or contain the "gods". Science did not come along and dismantle belief in these ancient pantheons, Christianity did. Pagan reconstruction movements worldwide are seeing a large resurgence and science doesn't seem to be a hindrance. Naturalistic science came well after the widespread abandonment of pagan practices so as to why people even attempt to make that assumption is simply unfounded from a historical perspective. It's just a common strawman used against pagan beliefs in an attempt to belittle and deconstruct them. It's easier to knockdown a simplified version of your adversary than it is the real thing. Christ is King.
Anyone ever experience things like “evolution of the gaps” arguments, like trying to explain aspects of humanity by speculating on the way we think hunter gatherers lived, without evidence they actually lived that way?
Mega real. "Religion is just a psychological coping mechanism we've evolved to rationalize our own superstitions and mortality." Except there's no evidence whatsoever that religious belief positively correlates with mental disorder, neuroticism or anything else
@@michaelchadwell4980 I think I have heard of it! Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it say that consciousness is a byproduct of an ape getting stoned or something?
@@single_spaghetto Yeah, from I what I know, it hypothesizes that a group higher-evolved primates (like chimps, for example) tripped on psychedelics over a period of time and were able to have a series of transcendent experiences that triggered the development of the human-level consciousness. Obviously it's more complicated like that, but that's the gist of it.
Crazy to think when I was I kid I would have been somewhat persuaded by the narrator's argument. Now as an adult know better arguments in Philosophy for God, his arguments do seem like low hanging fruit.
@@stefanmilicevic5322 it’s crazy how you can only realize your own stupidity insights even though as teenagers we really couldn’t help but think we were wiser then we were
@@tomasrocha6139 sadly, it isn't. There are many "devout" atheists. Atheism, is, sadly, a worldview that people adhere to, at least some atheists do, and I was one of them. Nothing oxymoronic going on here. As in, I did what many internet keyboard warrior atheists do, I argued with theists, I mocked them, actively went into "fellowship"(😂) with other atheists, etc. I mean, in hindsight, if I truly merely "lacked belief" I wouldn't have done those things. And, honestly, neither would you do what you are doing now. I mean, come on, wasting your single finite life to come onto a theist RUclips channel to argue with a former atheist about semantics? Why even bother.
90 percent of his "arguement" was most "gods and/or miracles" aren't real so there is no real God or miracles. 10 years ago I made have been hit with doubt but thank God for RCIA and the renaissance of Christian apologetics.
Apologetics are great! They allowed me to come back to the Faith when I was a skeptic for many years! It made me realize that the arguments against Catholicism and God that I had found so convincing were much weaker than I thought and showed me that Religion can and does incorporate reason. May God bless you, my friend!
I have studied apologetics for half a year now. Arguments for God, Counter arguments and theology. This was one of the first rebuttals I‘ve watched and I was like what could you possibly say about that? Now watching again, it seems just like a really silly video. Thank God for people like you Trent who explain it, it really doesn‘t take much time to know enough to know how to rebut these videos and comments alike. God bless you all!
@@xking21 no because this world is cursed. God originally made us perfect but then we rebelled with our free will and that separation lead to death. It’s man fault. God is more powerful than anything else, don’t mock him
I totally agree that rebutting this awful thinking is important because it is the kind of narrative that appeals to a lot of people who have never thought seriously about these things. Clearly it is viral because a lot of kids are watching it. Thank you Trent!
GOD SAID I ELLECT WHO I WANT AND NOT BECAUSE YOUR GOOD OR BAD. EVEN IF YOUR A TRUE FALLOWING OPOSTLE I DON'T ELLECT UNLESS I WANT. Sounds pretty dammed evil made.THE SCRIPTURES OF (ROMULUS) Was made 200 YEARS before the Scriptures of the Gosples? Scriptures of Romulus wrote 2 baby Brothers drifting in a basket down the river and later suckling on a wolf dogs tits. sound familiar??? The finished and latest Scriptures of BABY MOSES DRIFTING DOWN THE RIVER IN A BASKET CAPTURED BY A WOMAN of the King of Rome. I TRIED TO IGNORE IT BUT COULDN'T BE SO GULLIBLE TO KEEP IGNORING THE TRUTH OF INVENTION. Why so Many Harvard and Oxford Students who are becoming ministers Honestly after Reading studying these Holy Books become instant atheist. Don't Dare become Honest in truth or Become Shuned Discomunicated by the Evil of the Invention to Control the Masses of Humans. I BEG FOR A LOVING CREATOR AND FAIL DAILY? and Hate the cruel nature that brought us in to this cruel world of evil destruction mixed with a trick of love and promises that never prevailed and continues to fool us. Who truly is the ANTICHRIST in words that God proves it doesn't really Exist but the Actually Evil of the Christian trying their Hardest to Keep a Psichopathic Slave driven Condoned Genocidle God Alive are the True Antichrist antihumanist war makers and the same God believers who took Down the TOWERS Murdering 4000 People who were innocently doing their daily work and even TRUE CHRISTIAN FALLOWERS WHO GOD LET GENOCIDE MURDER THEN AND IF REAL ALIVE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS GENOCIDE IN 2001. GOD STILL TODAY CONDONES IT BUT ITS ACTUALLY NATURES CRUELTY ? Who doesn't know how to make a Perfect Human Body by so many miss makings like the eating tube right next to the breathing tube so people can choke to death on their food trying to breath. Mans texticles on the out side of the body indangered of being castrated. NATURE OR CREATOR OF NATURE IS CRUEL IN THE END. A-MEN Creator of Honest Love please come quickly we truly beg .
I find it very ironic, telling and sad that as he's going on about God's non existence, he's displaying His handiwork; the sky, rolling clouds, the sun, mountains like where Moses received the commandments-which we have "proof" of as well-....Poor man has scales over his eyes. Thank you for sharing but yes it is low hanging and depressing in a way.
Hello, Trent! Can you make a rebuttal video on John Corvino's "What's morally wrong with homosexuality"? I am pretty sure that he took the Bible out of context
*”Those who have a problem when a man with a penis identifies as a woman are strangely silent when a man thinks of his anus as a vagina."* - Joseph Sciambra, Christian author who had lived the same-sex lifestyle and took part in hardcore porn in San Francisco during the 1990s
When people refer to the flying spaghetti monster like it’s new or something, I just kind of roll my eyes nowadays. C’mon, guys, the early 2000s called; they want their tired out memes back.
@@lorddio4280 exactly the irony of these religious people saying that the spaghetti monster is outdated when they’re still following a book made 2000 years ago 😂😂
The idea he said about those gods that had to do with natural phenomena died off because we explained the phenomena is ridiculous. He has to know that's not why people stopped worshipping those gods
@@thehumblepotatoreborn9313 they were converted to other religions, usually Christianity or Islam. Cause we still have people who worship elemental-type gods like that
Two comments: 1: Naturally explainable events do not have to be an either/or when a supernatural cause is involved. For example, a patient cured in a diagnosed terminal cancer remission can be explained by the application of medical science in chemotherapy. But that does not "prove" that it was the medical science that was solely or even primarily responsible for the cure, when prayer was also involved. 2: Not all evidence for God involves the physical sciences. For example, someone may love their pet dog. The dog may even sense that the owner loves it. However, it does not necessarily follow that the dog's owner owes the dog an explanation for every expression of that love. The dog may dislike veterinary visits, yet that is an expression of the owner's love. The dog may enjoy the food and water he is given, but that does not mean that the owner needs to explain to the dog where the food and water comes from, how it is made or the economics of paying for this care. The dog is not owed an explanation, nor could he understand, even if an explanation were given. How much more does the God who created man love us, than we love a dog whom we merely own. The sin of pride assumes that we are owed an explanation and that we have the capacity to understand it, even if it were given.
Sad or funny, but the greatest irony is how those type of individuals would swear they are the smartest, most logical being ever conceived, yet their comprehension levels are juvenile at best. Pray for them, they desperately need help [both spiritual and psychological].
Its a classical example of the Dunning-Kruger effect: "is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge." from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
@@therick363definitely does, sadly, the people on atheism who do this(90% of internet atheists) get so much more publicity and are touted as "intellectually superior", when in reality, they have all the philosophical understanding of a potato(i.e. only able to scream, "FALLACY", at shit that isn't even a fallacy)
Also, saying we don't believe in pagan gods is sort of a false assumption. We don't believe in them in the sense of thinking they are the one true God and putting our faith in them. I don't think we can say with any real certainty that they don't exist though. We believe in spiritual powers and they seemed to have a very powerful impact in the ancient world.
I know St. Justin Martyr believed the pagan gods were indeed real, and I think a lot of other Church fathers thought so as well. The catch is that they were fallen angels (demons) who led humans into worshipping them. So we would say these were just created spiritual beings, obviously infinitely less powerful than God, indeed created by God before they fell from gracew.
Hi Trent! While you were on break for Christmas, I came across a video called "How Cognitive Dissonance Explains Christianity" by Matthew Harke. I commented my own initial rebuttal thoughts, but I was hoping you or someone else with a decent following in Christian apologetics might be able to make a rebuttal video.
He says think critically of your God but most atheists would never even think for a second that there could be a God, therefore they are not critical of their beliefs.
That may be true. However, many atheists (like myself right now) are very unsure and skeptical about their own beliefs, which is why they are so involved in the topic of the existence or non-existence of God.
This is why New Atheism is not the new wave of logic and reasoning: it's a cult. "Yous needs to thinks critically cause I says so. And I says so cause Richawd Doawkins says so. Yous cannot awgues with me, aw else yous a dumb person cause yous not of our New Atheism movement." They indoctrinate people and then get defensive when THEY'RE questioned, and start hurling insults at you because you questioned their way of thinking. Their religion, if you really want to make them pissed.
Trent, you express yourself so well with examples. I enjoy listening to you on these. He seems to have a lot of questions and doesn't really offer answers.
Fantastic episode. All the bilge that guy was spewing sounds just like every modern or recent atheist who thinks they worship science and that science has all the answers. I wish each time he committed a logical fallacy you had identified the fallacy because he committed about ten of them at least.
The whole point of science is that it DOESN'T have all the answers. It teaches us to be skeptical. Not to go ahead and just flat-out believe made-up stuff.
It's funny that in the same moment he is saying that negatives can't be proven, he begs the question about a negative (gods are not real) by asserting without evidence that all the gods he named are manmade.
That's because of the null state. In order for our universe to be logically coherent, we must assume things don't exist until they can be proven to exist. This is best expresses in Russell's Teapot analogy. To be fair, all *religions* are manmade
@@HodgePodgeVids1 Jesus didn't start a new religion, he was Jewish participating in a Jewish prophecy. His followers changed practices to suit their needs and thus multiple Christianities were born.
When another atheist is trying to logically or even scientifically prove the absence of God, asking "Who created God?", I am glad that there is wisdom among us to really think about it, but not just agree with them or simply reject their opinion.
A co-worker asked me that, and then I told them about how if this one god created another god, it will just be a line of gods creating gods creating gods and we will not be in the universe (or multiverse) we are in. But God is infinite: He needs not a creator the same way we need one. That means God never had a beginning, and He will never have an end.
4:08 it is scientific and there is ample proof. Order and complexity does not arise without intelligence. Yes God is outside the universe and we cannot measure Him but the universe itself is proof
@Marty From Nebraska ask them to explain why religion exists without denigrating believers in some way (i.e. "some people need a crutch", "lack of education" or "not smart enough")
@@newglof9558 Religion likely started when humans obtained the evolutionary intelligence point to realize how miserable they were. A miserably cold human wished for a warm day, _Viola'_ the beginning of religion!
@@danaharper9708 Is that a statement about a metaphysical and objective reality? If yes; how do you justify such a statement when you're making the logical presuposition and fallacy that any product of evolution can tell you anything about the truth?
Or, as I like to put it, there is virtually no difference between a virgin and an OF model. The virgin just refuses only .000000001% of the male population more. They're practically twins.
The problem of the materialistic-atheistic view is that is not self explanatory. You can apply a materialistic view to the earth physical phenomenons, but that does not examine WHY it occurs and why that way and not other. Only examines the mechanism through it occurs.
@@manfredvonmanfred199 Santa Clause is a symbolic spirit of charity who pours out the Christmas spirit which inhabits and guides the body mind and soul of the present giver and joyful participants towards Christmas joy and merriness
I used to enjoy debating these people, but as I've gotten older I've gotten tired of it because despite their claims of being logical, the vast majority tend to shut down the second the logic starts heading to a conclusion they dislike. They will bite some pretty big bullets such as denying the principle of sufficient reason just to get away from anything that even shows God might be a reasonable explanation.
Agreed! I've found many atheists are "militantly atheist" and typically have unresolved daddy issues- not to be rude, but truly. In reality, their allegiance is not to the truth at all, but to making themselves feel better and therefore makes having a genuine conversation with them impossible. If God doesn't exist you don't need to be so angry about it!
@@thelegit3172 That is still very vague. The reason why its vague because no one has shown any objective characteristics of any god. For example, is god a solid, gas or liquid? What is the atomic mass of this god? If this god thinks or talks, then it has to be a physical god, because we have only observed physical beings that can think and talk. Even a computer is made up of physical components.
Actually you never know what it means by infinity. It is not a number, it's a concept, which makes comparison a little meaningless, as they don't mean the same thing as comparing numbers There are actually small.infinity and bigger infinity, you can look up
@@khanht5 I know about smaller and bigger infinity. The same way infinity is a quantity that does not qualify as a number but we assume is extremely bigger than any number, is the same way God is causal to any creation. You cannot go back infinitely... the fundamental uncaused first cause is what we call God. If you have to ask "who created God" only indicates that you don't adhere to the paradigm in which we understand God's definition.
One thing that really opened my eyes about the whole "one less god" argument was Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. Polytheistic deities and the actual God are completely different categories. The former are pretty much part of creation, just more powerful and nebulous. None of them claim to be the First Cause, the Absolute, the Uncreated Creator (and if one does, then it is very distinct from the rest of that pantheon). And if we subscribe to Chesterton's interpretation of mythology (which I'm not sure if it's correct, but it sounds convincing), then most of these deities aren't even supposed to be "gods of the gaps". They aren't supposed to explain the natural phenomena away, they're supposed to make them more interesting. A form of fanciful make-believe for the sake of enriching everyday life. (there's also darker cults with human sacrifice and whatnot, those are definitely demons)
I’ve really wanted to read Chesterton but haven’t got to it yet. What would you recommend for a new reader of his books? For some background if that helps, I grew up Catholic but came back to the Faith very recently after being an atheist for several years.
@@cosmicnomad8575 I recommend starting as I did, with the three famous essay collections: - Heretics (criticism of late 19th/earlt 20th century writers and philosophers, some people love it, but imo it's not necessary to read and not as fun as the others, so you can skip it) - Orthodoxy (a follow-up to Heretics where Chesterton explains his personal philosophy that led him to Christianity) - The Everlasting Man (an original look at history of religion and history of salvation, and how Christianity is something completely different to all the pre-Christian religions)
The problem with "debunks" is that they don't necessarily demonstrate that the views of the debunker are any more credible. For example, if a proposition that the Moon was made of green cheese being debunked by a person who held that it was made of ice cream does not make either proposition realistic. The only way to truly debunk atheism would be to provide consistent and comprehensive evidence that God exists.
...and that's been done through philosophy over the centuries. Atheism as a trend is very new, all things considered. Theists don't see a need to reinvent the wheel, because MANY philosophers much more intelligent than most people today have ALREADY argued for the existence of God, and they thought that the existence of an uncaused beginning to the universe was common sense, because the belief that there ISN'T a God seemed so irrational that it wasn't even worth considering. The evidence is there. You just have to dig for the truth. And if someone isn't willing to dig for it, they do not deserve the revelation of truth itself, or the privilege of making claims or influencing others.
@@tobiasyoderthe image of that fedora tipping AHH guy looking with a smug face, who kinda looks like notch the creator of Minecraft? Yeah IK exactly what image your talking about lol
Let's pray for this man that Mr. Trent easily debated against. I hope that he soon finds these answers to his questions through the acts of God Almighty because of divine intervention.
The Narrator (N) presents the case that we can infer that if God is a reasonable belief then we should be able to write a "Nobel Prize-winning" Scientific paper "proving" the existence of God. Trying to come up with a description of this contrast, I infer a pattern that either X or Not-X is decidable. And that suggests to me we do not share a common understanding of what rigor is required for belief or reasonable conjecture. Along with this, I detect a colloquial form of the word "probable". But there definitely is a level of rigor of the formal use of the word "probable". I could go into it, but any objector is likely to say "That's not the level of rigor required for any use of the word "probable". However, I guarantee you that if you were to "write a prize-winning Scientific paper" and use the word "probable" as a functional brick of your "proof", you would have to define the condition C where you claimed that P(C) that equaled or that was greater than zero. So, what is the level of rigor required for this argument? Is it merely *okay* to construct a argument that enough fellow atheists would find unobjectionable, but to resist it, we require Nobel-winning papers? To "disprove" God we need to use whatever atheists can agree to, but to simply argue the case that not all god-extrapolations are equally meaningless simply by the distribution of claims to the counter. That god-believers who find no need for method or rigor should be simply numbered against other god-believers who can make finer distinctions regardless of a potential for a more competent argument is a sort of pre-emptive straw man. Meanwhile a colloquial meaning of the word "probable" when there is no suggestion of computation can reasonably be interpreted to mean a degree to which a claim disrupts what one take as the regular patterns of the world. Thus, I can see why N and Hume think "A is more likely than B" because that fits into their reductionist worldview. So, our platform seems to be that which an atheist is more likely to think. It should be unthinkable that if any non-god claim which does not support a evident Scientific paper it implies that all inferences and methodologies toward the resolution of that matter should in future be disqualified simply because there is a wide-distribution of disagreement and the terms have proved hard to forge. I don't find that a reasonable heuristic in the least.
It all depends on the level of analysis, Santa Claus does exist, if he didn't exist you wouldn't have a tree to put gifts under it on the first place, in "the mystical body of Santa" we are all his little workers, but he is the one existing on a higher ontological level that makes us pursue what we pursue on Christmas.
6:30. I don't think your court analogy really fits here, because it suggests that a murder HAD to have taken place. In your scenario, you would have to establish that both the murder took place AND that there is sufficient evidence that the defendant committed the murder. But the evidence that you have is that there is a missing person, no body, and claims that a particular person intently and purposely caused this death. Which is hearsay. There is a reason why these types of cases don't go to trial.
If something can't be measured it's either abstract or fictional. I can't measure your love for your kids, but I'm willing to accept your love for your kids exist because I understand how abstract ideas and emotions work. If God exists and isn't abstract, you simply need to explain how something that isn't abstract or fictional can't be measured.
Trent, i need to know, did Bob win the case? I can't believe you did not tell us by the end of the video if he was innocent like Mary and Frank or if he was the murderer
Critically? Or emotionally? Critical thinking leads to God, because He is that He is. Emotional thinking leads to blaming God for things humanity does. "Cartels trafficking drugs? God is responsible, not the cartel", sort of deal. Saying God is a genocidal tyrant is, again, pushing blame on Him, not humanity. And even so, He's a tyrant for punishing people? Yet He's a "good God" for saying yes to everything? That's not how any of that works. Would He still be God if we demanded Him for everything and He gave it to us? No, He would not.
I find the answers Trent gives to this "Low Hanging Fruit" unsatisfactory. Trent also makes many incorrect assumptions. Most people have not had a supernatural experience (99%?), the world we see around us is not what we would expect if an all-knowing, all-powerful creator exists (it's exactly the opposite). Atheists cannot prove there was no creator of the universe, and if you believe that there was a creator, and you call it God than that's fine. It's easy to prove that the Christian God does not exist though, including the one Trent believes is real, and I believe Trent has not rebutted that.
@@carnivalwholesale9809but you can’t ever prove anything, you can only debunk things. that’s scientific method 101 from a college level biology student
I think the point with a flying spaghetti monster is more about how we know what spaghetti is and we know it's properties so we know that it couldn't fly or be conscious or really anything else that is understood to define the spaghetti monster.
Trent saying “god revealed himself through Jesus Christ”, as if it was a fact, is deceitful at best because it comes from the book that is on trial here. Because that’s where his god comes from.
@@razoredge6130 I know. That’s the problem. The Bible is where you get your god. That’s like saying Harry Potter is real because of the Harry Potter series. Or spider man is real because it was written. You must look outside of what is on trial.
If god exist is either a fact or no fact, so how is it not a scientific question, but a philosophical question? There are scientist trying to prove gods existance.
@@razoredge6130 A VALID QUESTION: The biblical god Yahwe is supposed to have created the universe, the earth and the humans. We humans exist since 300k years and we have thousands of religious human testimonies from 100k - 6k years ago from hunting gods, fertility gods, venus gods, pantheons of hundreds of gods, etc but not a single testimony of a "one and only god" yahwe or Adam and Eve. How come that this god, that is supposed to have created us at the beginning, is first mentioned only 3500-5000 years ago?
@byletheisner5006 Dawkins considers himself as a "cultural Christian". He recently reasserted this label in responses to the rise of Islam and celebration of Ramadan instead of Easter.
@@tylere.8436 He likes living in a Christian Country, calling himself a "cultural Christian", yet he wants to destroy Christianity because of God? Kinda like a guy who likes milk, yet hates cows, and kills cows, but when he's told that he's doing something stupid, he responds with, "Oh, I can get milk at the grocery store."
The problem continues to be the number of religions and gods in the world brings tremendous confusion in people's minds. This inclination that human beings have to create gods for themselves and worship It has been going on since the time of Moses. God knew that human beings would have this inclination that He warns us about in the first commandment "I Am Your God: you shall not have strange gods before Me".The gods of other religions do not have any of their commandments, in fact they do not even have commandments. No other god has said what the true and only God says in 1:1 Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth " .
Oh my gosh! I haven't listened to this level of cringe in a while! The orinal vlogger reaches such a level of inanity and ignorance it boggles my mind!
Even though it cannot speak we know that a cat loves its owner by showing affection for its owner who loves and feeds it regularly. In a similar way we can deduce that God exists as he shows his love for us by having purposefully and generally created all things for our sustenance and enjoyment. A dog is indifferent to a sunset whereas it arouses beautiful feelings in human beings. The main purpose of the mind behind the creation seems to aim and cater for our wellbeing; it seems like it has us in his mind. He gives us the sun, the rain and seeds to grow in their season; it doesn't rain methane or pebbles on earth for only a cruel being would do such a thing. It's evident that God did not intend for Mars to be a suitable habitation for men. The documented history of the intervention and interaction of God in the lives of the Israelites is a living testimony to the existence of God who chose to step into his creation at a point in time. First, he delivered his people from bondage in Egypt and then led and guided them in the wilderness for forty years where he provided food and water for them every day in the barren desert. He gave them the Saturday Sabbath which the Jews keep to this day. Eventually he led them into Canaan where they still dwell today as he had given the land to them as a perpetual inheritance and no wonder they are not letting it go!
@johnnotrealname8168 Christians and other theists arguments consists of “you can’t prove the existence of an entity that has no evidence of existing”. We can prove dinosaurs existed because of what they left behind. Or mammoths because of what they left behind. There’s no evidence to conclude that there is a god.
@johnnotrealname8168 Christians and other theists arguments consists of “you can’t prove the existence of an entity that has no evidence of existing”. We can prove dinosaurs existed because of what they left behind. Or mammoths because of what they left behind. There’s no evidence to conclude that there is a god.
1.) If Witchraft is true, does that automatically mean the Judeo-Christian God is real? 2.) Is it true that witchcraft, black magic/white magic,occult supernatural abilities,spiritism, the effects of withcraft, witchbook spells working are just mind/brain powers? Like something in Quantum Mechanics or just has NOT been yet discovered by science 3.) If you are a Christian and someone does a witchraft on you, and it DIDNT affected you. Does that automatocally mean that the Judeo-Christian God is real? Or its just an psychological thing or brain power? 4.) Is brain/mind power scientific? 5.) Can the human mind do great things? Like if you think that theres something bad thats going to happen at someone and you really believed that its really going to happen at them and it did happen is that even possible by human mind or brain power? 6.) Is it scientifically true that when you have a brain/mind power anything and everything is possible? 7.) Is it possible for science to ressurect the dead people?
2:00 I think Trent misunderstands the statement. Yes, you can prove a statement leads to a contradiction and thus, its negative is true. But you can't prove a negative. For example, we can't prove Santa Claus does not exist because he might exist but isn't performing his duties. Long story short, it might exist but we just haven't found it yet.
@@VicecrackVoldermort because I know what is defined as my backyard, if I can go to my backyard, and there is no squirrel, then there is no squirrel in the backyard...
I find his incredibly condescending and snarky attitude towards theists very irritating. Let's however move onto his ''arguments''. He strawmans theism to such an extent that I thought he had made a parody video but sadly a lot of atheist internet apologetics today demonstrates a complete ignorance and lack of understanding of basic arguments for God's existence and philosophy of religion literature more generally. Obviously when theists talk about God, we speak of God as being the Ceator of everything. If God were one of these deities he mentions in the video, Thor for example, he would have a body, and his being would have a mixture of potency and act, of form and matter. His material parts would occupy different places. He would not be simple. He would not be _God_ . He could not in principle be the ultmitate explanation for why anything exists at _all_
It would be interesting to compare Catholic theontology with Orthodox apophaticism. In Orthodoxy we don't usually debate whether God exists, because God obviously doesn't exist. God transcends existence to an infinite degree.
@Ploofles wrote: "I once got kicked out of the library for putting a bible in the fiction section." Reality is much simpler. At the beginning people told each other that extraterrestrials used a simple, invisible technical device, called Generator Of Dimensions (GOD) to create our universe! They knew well that nothing from this earth could have created this earth and nothing from this universe could have created this universe. But then, over time, this device mistakenly became a god in a prozess what is known as Model Autophagy Disorder (MAD). Now all people believe that this device, used by the aliens to create universes, is a god and worship this device. This can definitely be described as crazy. 🤪
This is Trent's "I need a break so I'll rebut something easy" video. Given the several hour long videos he's been doing recently, this is totally understandable.
Thanks Trent.
The catholic god of child rape isn't the real god.
330,000 little boys in France were raped by 3,000 catholic pedophile priests, and it barely made the news, because people EXPECT that from catholics.
Jesus said child rape was UNFORGIVABLE (Matt 18:6-14), and everyone who supported it will get eternal damnation. That means every catholic.
THe catholic god of child rape is satan himself.
Ha! That may be one reason. However, I do want to engage more atheism topics and, surprisingly, when you search "God does not exist" on RUclips this is the third video that comes up.
@YAJUN YUAN
Hilarious.
The guy in this video belongs to the Catholic Church of child rape, which worships the Catholic pedophile god.
This is the perfect place to comment on exactly that point.
If you don't understand, then this class is too advanced for you.
I see you around on other comment sections now and then. True warrior poet.
@A W some have called me a silver tongued devil, others just call me a fundie.
I appreciate the recognition
"Ask yourself, what's more likely" oh no, here comes hand waving.
*proceeds to make assumption based on faith that their intuition holds despite not being based on anything*
Why do you think you can trust your memory or other minds exist? “Uh.. just cause… my memory and gut says so…”. People often don’t realize the implicit faith based assumptions they implicitly accept on a daily basis.
Nice seeing you here
@@williamwalker-y9u Right I can't no for sure that am I not a cow, but at some point everything we believe boils down to philosophical seemings. It just seems to be the case that I am a cow and until presented with a strong defeater I am going to operate under the belief that I am indeed not a cow. It just seems to be the case that the sun is hot and that 1 != 2 and I am going to go with that.
@@williamwalker-y9u go read some Descartes :)
"What created God?"
That's not low-hanging fruit. Those are potatoes.
I think you'll find those are rocks. Vaguely potato-ish rocks in size and shape, but still rocks.
Besides it takes a lot more faith to believe that Nothing Blew up and Became Everything. Only a God could do this
@@eduardogardin879 but which god. There are thousands of them
@@eduardogardin879 why is the only two choices nothing or god?
@@therick363 "nothing" isn't a credible choice. Tbf, neither are most of mankind's concepts of god. This is what brings people of intellectual integrity and good faith to the arguments for classical theism, and the task of understanding those arguments is poorly served with one-liners and slogans.
I noticed the atheist didn’t actually engage any of the classic argument for the existence of God. He merely dismissed them.
That’s because he’s unable to. Not intellectually capable even though he comes off as an expert 😂
@@brianfarley926 That's what the British accent does.
@@hanntonn2 That's not a British accent, he's foreign.
@@brianfarley926The classic arguments like nature being proof of god? Nature must not be very good proof since there are millions of gods all with vastly different characteristics & personalities. Some cultures even see nature as a sort of god in an of itself. I’d assume that a supreme deity who wanted everyone to worship it who be a little more clear. Heck! Christians can’t even agree on what the Bible means, not do they agree on justification, Baptism, if salvation is able to be lost, etc. Even worse, every denomination claims to have the correct interpretation.
@@briceidycierramarrujosmith4563 None of those assertions you put forth shows God doesn’t exist.
We can know through reason that God does exist whether everyone agrees on whether it’s the Abrahamic God of the 3 major religions and disputes over Bible interpretation also doesn’t invalide whether God exists or not.
The major religions are the Abrahamic religions and they all profess to worship the same God, the creator of life. Jews, Christian’s and Muslims.
And yes nature does point to the existence of God you live in an intelligible Universe bound
By laws of nature that sprang from non existence into existence. The Universe has been fine tuned to accept life, and not just life but intelligent life (humans) who were placed above the animals of this earth in intelligence as well
Doctrinal issues and issues of interpretation of the Bible is a human problem, so once again it doesn’t invalide whether God exists or not. Specifically I would say the evidence clearly leans in the Christian faith to Catholicism but it’s a different discussion on whether God exists or he doesn’t. For example Christianity can be false but it would not then prove God doesn’t exist it would disprove the God of Christian understanding exists.
I recently discovered that Juan Maldacena (probably the the best theoretical physicist of his generation, according to his peers) is a practicing Roman Catholic. These people who pretend as if being sufficiently intelligent and simply employing "logic" will lead you not to believe in God drive me crazy. The entire idea of "smart"=atheism is demonstrably false and does a lot of harm in the world (especially for young people).
It seems like the bell curve meme. On the lower bound you have the more low IQ faithful people who may say “just have faith” as an answer to everything, then you have the median IQ being atheist/agnostic, somewhat smarter, then you have the upper bound high IQ extremely intelligent people being devout theists.
@@killianmiller6107 Francis Bacon was right, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
To your point as well, it doesn't seem like Maldacena talks about Faith or Religion much. I just saw an interview he did with the American Institute of Physics where he simply said, "Yes, I am still a Church goer" and left it at that.
@@Epiousios18 I disagree with bacon. The more I learn and understand the less I see any gods
@@therick363 Bacon and most people would agree with you about understanding leading to unbelief in "gods." He was referring to God.
Also, beware of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Of course. That's just how antireligious and militant atheistic polemics and propaganda work my dude. As long as they believe it to be true (even if it is shown to be false) they just keep the polemics alive within their echochambers which will radicalize other people to become themselves antireligious polemicst and militant atheistic propagandist. Isn't socio-psychology fun? Its a breeding space for a whole interesting study of sociolpsychology concernd with groupthink and the like.
This guy is the physical embodiment of the Reddit atheist who said, "Today I am euphoric. Not because of any phony god's blessing, but because I am enlightened. I am euphoric of my intelligence."
An absolute banger of a classic
a.a. lewis
@@savedbyChrist334It's okay that his quote is cringe, remember, he is not a professional quote-maker.
*Fedora effect*
"Can we have CosmicSkeptic?"
"We have CosmicSkeptic at home."
CosmicSkeptic at home:
Underated comment
🤣🤣🤣😂
I burst out laughing
This is the dollar general CosmicSkeptic
GreatValueSkeptic
Edgy teenagers and immature adults can be fooled by "low hanging fruit" so keep up the good work!
I was for a long time. Originally was an atheist because of the problem of suffering but also later used to love the arguments like this. Ironically it was an atheist Aristotelian philosopher who actually primed me to philosophically accepting God.
Yes, father, these teenagers are being taught this stuff along with other evil ideologies in public schools and even private schools.
I don’t think that people who are interested in atheist videos would also listen to your rebuttal
Another problem is that the narrator can’t show how the universe came into being since nothing can be created from nothing in the natural world
@@eduardogardin879 right. Also, it is as irrational to believe in the scientific explanation of what was going on in the first moments after the big bang as it is to believe in miracles. Nearly all laws of physics were apparently inapplicable! How scientific is that? But ok, that doesn't mean I deny that explanation as credible.
People need to stop saying "you can't prove a negative". I actually believed that at one point, but then I started studying logic, and it turns out, you can prove a negative. We prove negatives all the time. You can't construct a valid argument on two negative premises, but one of your premises can be a negative premise and your argument still be sound. Atheists love to claim they're on the side of "logic" and reason, but they keep repeating illogical claims like this.
Prove that we are not in the matrix.
@@Nimish204 This is nonsensical. I don't think think there's a way I could prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that we're not in the matrix, but that's an epistemological problem. It doesn't show that you can't prove a negative. We prove negatives all the time, and in formal logic, sound arguments can have one negative premise in them.
@@Nimish204 being unable to prove *a* negative, doesn't mean you can't prove negatives in general.
You'd have to give a logical reason why you can't prove negatives, not just give random examples of negatives we can't prove.
You can prove a negative. However, the Christian God is constantly moved into places where we cannot test its properties.
For example, if I say I have an undetectable dragon in my garage, you cannot prove me wrong. But if I say you can see it with your eyes, then you can easily come and see that I am wrong, thus proving the negative.
The issue is Christians create no lose situations l. For example, the Bible says God will answer prayers, but when we perform tests on, say, if prayer can heat up a glass of water, Christians are quick to say that it won't work because you can't test God. The very Bible itself says you should not test him.
So yeah, give me a falsifiable claim about your God, and then we can talk about falsifying him.
A negative must be interpreted as "not falsifiable". E.g. a premise like "I do not have six fingers on my left hand" is falsifiable, because I have five fingers. But still, it is stated as a negative premise. A statement like "There is a teapot turning around Saturn" is not falsifiable - although it is stated as a positive premise.
Just like a teapot is small, can only be located somewhere in a vast area and is constantly moving, God is moving all the time as well. Nowadays theists claim He is "beyond space and time". Theists claim He exists - which requires positive proof. Just show the God. Therefore, the "burden of proof" lies with theists. A negative proof makes it not falsifiable, because you can't observe anything "beyond space and time".
Read up on your Russell, Popper and Wittgenstein, pal.
3:50 The condescending sarcasm mixes so well with the misspelling on this screen
“Recieve” the Nobel Peace “Price”.
That’s next-level!
@@macmedic892 next to the bottom of the barrel level
God not only exists, but has a sense of humor.
It was not condescending
@@richardgeraghty-slevin4979 It was
Great episode! Quick and to-the-point! Love it when there are smaller episodes like these. They help me have more time at the end of the day. Thanks, Trent!
In the process of my conversion, and your videos have been very helpful. Thank you
The narrator has a very cartoonish view of not only classical theism, but, polytheistic pagan practices from classical antiquity as well. This is a common overgeneralization by many skeptics and non skeptics alike and it sprouts from a complete lack of historical knowledge and ignorance. The numerous polytheistic practices that we find in classical antiquity were far more complex than they are given credit for. There was much more to Thor and Zeus than a hammer and lightning bolts, the sky to Horus or Sun to Ra. Ancient practitioners of these traditions in antiquity, whether it be Norse, Egyptian, Roman, Greek, Slavic etc., didn't stumble and shutter everytime they heard thunder crack the sky. Many naturalistic occurrences came to be associated with the "gods", yes, these associations didn't incapsulate or contain the "gods". Science did not come along and dismantle belief in these ancient pantheons, Christianity did. Pagan reconstruction movements worldwide are seeing a large resurgence and science doesn't seem to be a hindrance. Naturalistic science came well after the widespread abandonment of pagan practices so as to why people even attempt to make that assumption is simply unfounded from a historical perspective. It's just a common strawman used against pagan beliefs in an attempt to belittle and deconstruct them. It's easier to knockdown a simplified version of your adversary than it is the real thing. Christ is King.
Anyone ever experience things like “evolution of the gaps” arguments, like trying to explain aspects of humanity by speculating on the way we think hunter gatherers lived, without evidence they actually lived that way?
The most egregious example of this is “Stoned Ape Theory”
Mega real.
"Religion is just a psychological coping mechanism we've evolved to rationalize our own superstitions and mortality."
Except there's no evidence whatsoever that religious belief positively correlates with mental disorder, neuroticism or anything else
@@michaelchadwell4980 I think I have heard of it! Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it say that consciousness is a byproduct of an ape getting stoned or something?
@@single_spaghetto Yeah, from I what I know, it hypothesizes that a group higher-evolved primates (like chimps, for example) tripped on psychedelics over a period of time and were able to have a series of transcendent experiences that triggered the development of the human-level consciousness. Obviously it's more complicated like that, but that's the gist of it.
Maybe because science has been filling those gaps and Never Have those gaps been the Catholic God
"What created God?"
"What triggered the big bang?"
And we Christians Catholics claim big bang
And who created the Big Bang argument?
The universe just is. Now what’s your argument
@@christopher7725 so the universe is sentient?
@@jabodetabek1337 no
My guy put up five headed dragon from yugioh in his hypothetical about a five headed dragon. Finally someone is giving five headed dragon some love.
Crazy to think when I was I kid I would have been somewhat persuaded by the narrator's argument. Now as an adult know better arguments in Philosophy for God, his arguments do seem like low hanging fruit.
You are not alone with that bud. As the saying goes, you mature with age. You recognize the bad from the good,
@@stefanmilicevic5322 it’s crazy how you can only realize your own stupidity insights even though as teenagers we really couldn’t help but think we were wiser then we were
Amen to this. When I was a younger teen, I was a devout atheist. Looking back, I was soooooooo stupid.
@@kazumakiryu157A devout atheist is an oxymoron
@@tomasrocha6139 sadly, it isn't. There are many "devout" atheists. Atheism, is, sadly, a worldview that people adhere to, at least some atheists do, and I was one of them. Nothing oxymoronic going on here. As in, I did what many internet keyboard warrior atheists do, I argued with theists, I mocked them, actively went into "fellowship"(😂) with other atheists, etc. I mean, in hindsight, if I truly merely "lacked belief" I wouldn't have done those things. And, honestly, neither would you do what you are doing now. I mean, come on, wasting your single finite life to come onto a theist RUclips channel to argue with a former atheist about semantics? Why even bother.
90 percent of his "arguement" was most "gods and/or miracles" aren't real so there is no real God or miracles. 10 years ago I made have been hit with doubt but thank God for RCIA and the renaissance of Christian apologetics.
Apologetics are great! They allowed me to come back to the Faith when I was a skeptic for many years! It made me realize that the arguments against Catholicism and God that I had found so convincing were much weaker than I thought and showed me that Religion can and does incorporate reason. May God bless you, my friend!
I have studied apologetics for half a year now. Arguments for God, Counter arguments and theology. This was one of the first rebuttals I‘ve watched and I was like what could you possibly say about that? Now watching again, it seems just like a really silly video. Thank God for people like you Trent who explain it, it really doesn‘t take much time to know enough to know how to rebut these videos and comments alike. God bless you all!
Thank you for watching!!
You think that he done a good job 😂. You need to watch more videos.
Sitting here with chronic back pain thinking about how I could have offended the god of all chairs. 😢
Good one buddy. But don't worry, the only one you offended was your own back lol
Irish mithology is tuff
Funny joke lol. But if you are real pain, pray and maybe even go to a hospital or smth.
He didn’t give you your back pain
@@xking21 no because this world is cursed. God originally made us perfect but then we rebelled with our free will and that separation lead to death. It’s man fault. God is more powerful than anything else, don’t mock him
Please make more of these! I find general videos like these more helpful than niche topics although both are important of course
You mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist?! Say it ain't so Trent. Say it ain't so!
Weezer reference?
Ramen!
NOOOOOO!
Good grief, who dug up this relic from 2008?
Ikr🤣 Either that or or he’s muffled his mic with Cheeto dust!
I used to love Trent until I found out he's a Santa denier.
Santa Claus exist. He slapped the heretic Arius' hands
And know he is the North Pole@@darnit1944
He probably meant the Americanized mythos of Santa Claus; he's not denying Saint Nicolas, who Santa Claus is based on.
@@tylere.8436 It's a joke. You missed the joke
@@darnit1944 What's the punchline? Conspiracy theorist?
I like how Trent monetizes atheists to further evangelization
Amen! I'm not exactly an evangelist Christian but I agree with Trent on a lot of things and seeing him debunk these atheists is amazing! :D
@@keagaming9837Trent is Catholic
I'm offended that the narrator's voice sounds infinitely wiser than the middle school arguments it's spouting 😂
Lemme guess: you're American?😂 No offence but Americans often seem to think European accents sound smarter
As a middle schooler I am offended lol
I totally agree that rebutting this awful thinking is important because it is the kind of narrative that appeals to a lot of people who have never thought seriously about these things. Clearly it is viral because a lot of kids are watching it. Thank you Trent!
It certainly appeals to me. Please let me know how, quote, "I have never thought seriously about these things"
But Trent Horn is wrong though.
GOD SAID I ELLECT WHO I WANT AND NOT BECAUSE YOUR GOOD OR BAD. EVEN IF YOUR A TRUE FALLOWING OPOSTLE I DON'T ELLECT UNLESS I WANT. Sounds pretty dammed evil made.THE SCRIPTURES OF (ROMULUS) Was made 200 YEARS before the Scriptures of the Gosples?
Scriptures of Romulus wrote 2 baby Brothers drifting in a basket down the river and later suckling on a wolf dogs tits. sound familiar??? The finished and latest Scriptures of BABY MOSES DRIFTING DOWN THE RIVER IN A BASKET CAPTURED BY A WOMAN of the King of Rome. I TRIED TO IGNORE IT BUT COULDN'T BE SO GULLIBLE TO KEEP IGNORING THE TRUTH OF INVENTION. Why so Many Harvard and Oxford Students who are becoming ministers Honestly after Reading studying these Holy Books become instant atheist. Don't Dare become Honest in truth or Become Shuned Discomunicated by the Evil of the Invention to Control the Masses of Humans. I BEG FOR A LOVING CREATOR AND FAIL DAILY? and Hate the cruel nature that brought us in to this cruel world of evil destruction mixed
with a trick of love and promises that never prevailed and continues to fool us. Who truly is the ANTICHRIST in words that God proves it doesn't really Exist but the Actually Evil of the Christian trying their Hardest to Keep a Psichopathic Slave driven Condoned Genocidle God Alive are the True Antichrist antihumanist war makers and the same God believers who took Down the TOWERS Murdering 4000 People who were innocently doing their daily work and even TRUE CHRISTIAN FALLOWERS WHO GOD LET GENOCIDE MURDER THEN AND IF REAL ALIVE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS GENOCIDE IN 2001. GOD STILL TODAY CONDONES IT BUT ITS ACTUALLY NATURES CRUELTY ? Who doesn't know how to make a Perfect Human Body by so many miss makings like the eating tube right next to the breathing tube so people can choke to death on their food trying to breath. Mans texticles on the out side of the body indangered of being castrated. NATURE OR CREATOR OF NATURE IS CRUEL IN THE END. A-MEN Creator of Honest Love please come quickly we truly beg .
are you really that stupid to think that atheists haven't thought about these things ? get a clue !!
@userJohnSmith well faith is garbage epistemology and there isn't a God because no one has proven the existence of any
I find it very ironic, telling and sad that as he's going on about God's non existence, he's displaying His handiwork; the sky, rolling clouds, the sun, mountains like where Moses received the commandments-which we have "proof" of as well-....Poor man has scales over his eyes. Thank you for sharing but yes it is low hanging and depressing in a way.
*
Hello, Trent! Can you make a rebuttal video on John Corvino's "What's morally wrong with homosexuality"? I am pretty sure that he took the Bible out of context
☝️🙂
💯
*”Those who have a problem when a man with a penis identifies as a woman are strangely silent when a man thinks of his anus as a vagina."*
- Joseph Sciambra,
Christian author who had lived the same-sex lifestyle and took part in hardcore porn in San Francisco during the 1990s
@@Wired4Life2 obviously he has issues
@@brianfarley926 Scandalized to the point of recently leaving Catholicism for Eastern Orthodoxy. :(
If Cosmic Sceptic and Rationality Rules could have a baby together, the kid’s voice would sound like that guy.
Based on the arguments I’d say he’s probably their 13 year old son who’s going through his edgy phase
wow, what year is it? my calendar doesn't go back to 2011 youtube...
This video is literally a time macine
When people refer to the flying spaghetti monster like it’s new or something, I just kind of roll my eyes nowadays. C’mon, guys, the early 2000s called; they want their tired out memes back.
Religion in and of itself is an old meme so I don't see the problem.
Atheism is an old meme @@lorddio4280
@@lorddio4280 exactly the irony of these religious people saying that the spaghetti monster is outdated when they’re still following a book made 2000 years ago 😂😂
The idea he said about those gods that had to do with natural phenomena died off because we explained the phenomena is ridiculous. He has to know that's not why people stopped worshipping those gods
Why did they actually stop. Seriously
@@thehumblepotatoreborn9313 they were converted to other religions, usually Christianity or Islam. Cause we still have people who worship elemental-type gods like that
Makes since cuz it's kinda stupid to belive that every aliment us some sort of god and not just, an elament
Two comments: 1: Naturally explainable events do not have to be an either/or when a supernatural cause is involved. For example, a patient cured in a diagnosed terminal cancer remission can be explained by the application of medical science in chemotherapy. But that does not "prove" that it was the medical science that was solely or even primarily responsible for the cure, when prayer was also involved. 2: Not all evidence for God involves the physical sciences. For example, someone may love their pet dog. The dog may even sense that the owner loves it. However, it does not necessarily follow that the dog's owner owes the dog an explanation for every expression of that love. The dog may dislike veterinary visits, yet that is an expression of the owner's love. The dog may enjoy the food and water he is given, but that does not mean that the owner needs to explain to the dog where the food and water comes from, how it is made or the economics of paying for this care. The dog is not owed an explanation, nor could he understand, even if an explanation were given. How much more does the God who created man love us, than we love a dog whom we merely own. The sin of pride assumes that we are owed an explanation and that we have the capacity to understand it, even if it were given.
Such a beautiful comment. I so love how you explained it in such a way showing that GOD is loving.
Sad or funny, but the greatest irony is how those type of individuals would swear they are the smartest, most logical being ever conceived, yet their comprehension levels are juvenile at best. Pray for them, they desperately need help [both spiritual and psychological].
That goes both ways I’d say.
Its a classical example of the Dunning-Kruger effect: "is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge." from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
@@therick363very true! We should all just try to go to truth and always doubt ourselves!
@@陈用大why the hell would you doubt yourself for a god ? that's pathetic .
@@therick363definitely does, sadly, the people on atheism who do this(90% of internet atheists) get so much more publicity and are touted as "intellectually superior", when in reality, they have all the philosophical understanding of a potato(i.e. only able to scream, "FALLACY", at shit that isn't even a fallacy)
Also, saying we don't believe in pagan gods is sort of a false assumption. We don't believe in them in the sense of thinking they are the one true God and putting our faith in them. I don't think we can say with any real certainty that they don't exist though. We believe in spiritual powers and they seemed to have a very powerful impact in the ancient world.
I know St. Justin Martyr believed the pagan gods were indeed real, and I think a lot of other Church fathers thought so as well. The catch is that they were fallen angels (demons) who led humans into worshipping them. So we would say these were just created spiritual beings, obviously infinitely less powerful than God, indeed created by God before they fell from gracew.
That’s an interesting point
Seems this guy just loaded up on the God Delusion and made this video.
The pseudo-intellectualism caused by that book has been a disaster for humanity.
Well, it Is a delusion..
@@godofthegaps6741 How so?
@@godofthegaps6741 you’re just going to leave it at that without actually saying anything?
@@garymanz3403 What else would you expect from these sorts of people?
Hi Trent! While you were on break for Christmas, I came across a video called "How Cognitive Dissonance Explains Christianity" by Matthew Harke. I commented my own initial rebuttal thoughts, but I was hoping you or someone else with a decent following in Christian apologetics might be able to make a rebuttal video.
He says think critically of your God but most atheists would never even think for a second that there could be a God, therefore they are not critical of their beliefs.
That may be true. However, many atheists (like myself right now) are very unsure and skeptical about their own beliefs, which is why they are so involved in the topic of the existence or non-existence of God.
This is why New Atheism is not the new wave of logic and reasoning: it's a cult. "Yous needs to thinks critically cause I says so. And I says so cause Richawd Doawkins says so. Yous cannot awgues with me, aw else yous a dumb person cause yous not of our New Atheism movement." They indoctrinate people and then get defensive when THEY'RE questioned, and start hurling insults at you because you questioned their way of thinking. Their religion, if you really want to make them pissed.
I agree with both of you.
Trent, you express yourself so well with examples. I enjoy listening to you on these. He seems to have a lot of questions and doesn't really offer answers.
Fantastic episode. All the bilge that guy was spewing sounds just like every modern or recent atheist who thinks they worship science and that science has all the answers. I wish each time he committed a logical fallacy you had identified the fallacy because he committed about ten of them at least.
The whole point of science is that it DOESN'T have all the answers. It teaches us to be skeptical. Not to go ahead and just flat-out believe made-up stuff.
Just about everything Alex says is a logical fallacy.
It's funny that in the same moment he is saying that negatives can't be proven, he begs the question about a negative (gods are not real) by asserting without evidence that all the gods he named are manmade.
That's because of the null state. In order for our universe to be logically coherent, we must assume things don't exist until they can be proven to exist. This is best expresses in Russell's Teapot analogy. To be fair, all *religions* are manmade
@@trentlytle7289 Christ was a God-Man so you’re kinda right
@@HodgePodgeVids1 Jesus didn't start a new religion, he was Jewish participating in a Jewish prophecy. His followers changed practices to suit their needs and thus multiple Christianities were born.
without evidence ? as if you have evidence for your god .
@@cliftongaither6642we actually do though. But... You would just like to dismiss anything I would say, so just ignore me. You'll find out one day.
When another atheist is trying to logically or even scientifically prove the absence of God, asking "Who created God?", I am glad that there is wisdom among us to really think about it, but not just agree with them or simply reject their opinion.
A co-worker asked me that, and then I told them about how if this one god created another god, it will just be a line of gods creating gods creating gods and we will not be in the universe (or multiverse) we are in. But God is infinite: He needs not a creator the same way we need one. That means God never had a beginning, and He will never have an end.
4:08 it is scientific and there is ample proof. Order and complexity does not arise without intelligence. Yes God is outside the universe and we cannot measure Him but the universe itself is proof
Waiting for the average internet atheists to show up and start strawmanning literally everything and using red herrings...
@@martyfromnebraska1045 the paradox of freethought: all atheists sound exactly the same
@Marty From Nebraska ask them to explain why religion exists without denigrating believers in some way (i.e. "some people need a crutch", "lack of education" or "not smart enough")
@@newglof9558 Religion likely started when humans obtained the evolutionary intelligence point to realize how miserable they were. A miserably cold human wished for a warm day, _Viola'_ the beginning of religion!
@@danaharper9708 why does it persist?
Remember, no explanations denigrating believers.
@@danaharper9708 Is that a statement about a metaphysical and objective reality? If yes; how do you justify such a statement when you're making the logical presuposition and fallacy that any product of evolution can tell you anything about the truth?
Of course santa clauuse exists..he punched arius for heresy
Arianism: the heresy that says God created Jesus, which denies what Jesus said, which is the He and the Father are One.
“Easy work for you brother Trent. “ 🙏 God bless you.
Or, as I like to put it, there is virtually no difference between a virgin and an OF model. The virgin just refuses only .000000001% of the male population more. They're practically twins.
The problem of the materialistic-atheistic view is that is not self explanatory. You can apply a materialistic view to the earth physical phenomenons, but that does not examine WHY it occurs and why that way and not other. Only examines the mechanism through it occurs.
I don't know if God exists or not but what I do know is that the Christian God doesn't exist
2:05 Hold on… WHAT? No Santa??? What kind of maniac is this?
Dear Santa deniers, if santa isnt real, why does my present CLEARLY say it was from SANTA!
@@manfredvonmanfred199 Exactly!! Internal documentary evidence clearly points to Santa
@@manfredvonmanfred199
Santa Clause is a symbolic spirit of charity who pours out the Christmas spirit which inhabits and guides the body mind and soul of the present giver and joyful participants towards Christmas joy and merriness
I used to enjoy debating these people, but as I've gotten older I've gotten tired of it because despite their claims of being logical, the vast majority tend to shut down the second the logic starts heading to a conclusion they dislike. They will bite some pretty big bullets such as denying the principle of sufficient reason just to get away from anything that even shows God might be a reasonable explanation.
Agreed! I've found many atheists are "militantly atheist" and typically have unresolved daddy issues- not to be rude, but truly. In reality, their allegiance is not to the truth at all, but to making themselves feel better and therefore makes having a genuine conversation with them impossible. If God doesn't exist you don't need to be so angry about it!
What conclusions does the logic start heading to?
@@Catholicsquirrel I’ve found many theists don’t want to learn about what atheists think or why and choose to act like they are all the same.
Here's a like Trent for doing a another good job.
I would be interested to see you make a rebuttal to TheraminTrees. Similarly low-hanging fruit, but widely shared to me by atheist friends of mine.
I feel bad for him. Watched a video by him explaining narcissism which was fantastic, but absolutely showed he had a rough childhood with his mother.
I believe he already has done at least one rebuttal to TheraminTrees.
asking "what created God?" is like asking "who voted the people to vote?"
God was created by man just like all fictional characters were created by man.
@@UCVOmXnVB724jCE5iNclWhat if there is a god that is totally unrelated to any of our religions?
@@thelegit3172 You need to first define your god.
@@UCVOmXnVB724jCE5iNcl Simply a god that created our universe.
@@thelegit3172 That is still very vague. The reason why its vague because no one has shown any objective characteristics of any god. For example, is god a solid, gas or liquid? What is the atomic mass of this god? If this god thinks or talks, then it has to be a physical god, because we have only observed physical beings that can think and talk. Even a computer is made up of physical components.
"Who created God" is the mathematical equivalent of "what number is bigger than infinity"
Actually you never know what it means by infinity. It is not a number, it's a concept, which makes comparison a little meaningless, as they don't mean the same thing as comparing numbers
There are actually small.infinity and bigger infinity, you can look up
@@khanht5 I know about smaller and bigger infinity. The same way infinity is a quantity that does not qualify as a number but we assume is extremely bigger than any number, is the same way God is causal to any creation. You cannot go back infinitely... the fundamental uncaused first cause is what we call God. If you have to ask "who created God" only indicates that you don't adhere to the paradigm in which we understand God's definition.
One thing that really opened my eyes about the whole "one less god" argument was Chesterton's The Everlasting Man. Polytheistic deities and the actual God are completely different categories. The former are pretty much part of creation, just more powerful and nebulous. None of them claim to be the First Cause, the Absolute, the Uncreated Creator (and if one does, then it is very distinct from the rest of that pantheon).
And if we subscribe to Chesterton's interpretation of mythology (which I'm not sure if it's correct, but it sounds convincing), then most of these deities aren't even supposed to be "gods of the gaps". They aren't supposed to explain the natural phenomena away, they're supposed to make them more interesting. A form of fanciful make-believe for the sake of enriching everyday life. (there's also darker cults with human sacrifice and whatnot, those are definitely demons)
I’ve really wanted to read Chesterton but haven’t got to it yet. What would you recommend for a new reader of his books? For some background if that helps, I grew up Catholic but came back to the Faith very recently after being an atheist for several years.
@@cosmicnomad8575 I recommend starting as I did, with the three famous essay collections:
- Heretics (criticism of late 19th/earlt 20th century writers and philosophers, some people love it, but imo it's not necessary to read and not as fun as the others, so you can skip it)
- Orthodoxy (a follow-up to Heretics where Chesterton explains his personal philosophy that led him to Christianity)
- The Everlasting Man (an original look at history of religion and history of salvation, and how Christianity is something completely different to all the pre-Christian religions)
Pray for our country to put things in order… my dad always said - God, family, country then everything else will fall into place!!!
The problem with "debunks" is that they don't necessarily demonstrate that the views of the debunker are any more credible. For example, if a proposition that the Moon was made of green cheese being debunked by a person who held that it was made of ice cream does not make either proposition realistic. The only way to truly debunk atheism would be to provide consistent and comprehensive evidence that God exists.
...and that's been done through philosophy over the centuries. Atheism as a trend is very new, all things considered. Theists don't see a need to reinvent the wheel, because MANY philosophers much more intelligent than most people today have ALREADY argued for the existence of God, and they thought that the existence of an uncaused beginning to the universe was common sense, because the belief that there ISN'T a God seemed so irrational that it wasn't even worth considering.
The evidence is there. You just have to dig for the truth. And if someone isn't willing to dig for it, they do not deserve the revelation of truth itself, or the privilege of making claims or influencing others.
2:02 Santa Clause DOES exist. He is based on a completely real greek priest, st. Nicholas.
“Based on”
Santa still doesn’t exist.
There is no North Pole Toy factory, no flying reindeer, no flying, sleigh…
thanks for what you do Trent 👍
That video smells like fedoras and cheeto dust
Wish you could add photos to RUclips comments. You know *exactly* which photo I’m thinking of
@@tobiasyoderthe image of that fedora tipping AHH guy looking with a smug face, who kinda looks like notch the creator of Minecraft? Yeah IK exactly what image your talking about lol
Let's pray for this man that Mr. Trent easily debated against. I hope that he soon finds these answers to his questions through the acts of God Almighty because of divine intervention.
When someone does the spagghetti monster argument i lose my faith, in that we are actually the peak of intelligence on earth that is
SANTA ISNT REAL??!!😢
the spaghetti monster is a tentacular subtle demonic enity generated by the octahedron
His argument is essentially "I don't believe in God and I think I am smart so trust me, bro." 😂
Same argument with religious folks. “You can’t prove that there isn’t a god”
There is no proof of any god. Life isn’t proof of god’s existence.
The Narrator (N) presents the case that we can infer that if God is a reasonable belief then we should be able to write a "Nobel Prize-winning" Scientific paper "proving" the existence of God.
Trying to come up with a description of this contrast, I infer a pattern that either X or Not-X is decidable. And that suggests to me we do not share a common understanding of what rigor is required for belief or reasonable conjecture.
Along with this, I detect a colloquial form of the word "probable". But there definitely is a level of rigor of the formal use of the word "probable". I could go into it, but any objector is likely to say "That's not the level of rigor required for any use of the word "probable". However, I guarantee you that if you were to "write a prize-winning Scientific paper" and use the word "probable" as a functional brick of your "proof", you would have to define the condition C where you claimed that P(C) that equaled or that was greater than zero.
So, what is the level of rigor required for this argument? Is it merely *okay* to construct a argument that enough fellow atheists would find unobjectionable, but to resist it, we require Nobel-winning papers? To "disprove" God we need to use whatever atheists can agree to, but to simply argue the case that not all god-extrapolations are equally meaningless simply by the distribution of claims to the counter.
That god-believers who find no need for method or rigor should be simply numbered against other god-believers who can make finer distinctions regardless of a potential for a more competent argument is a sort of pre-emptive straw man.
Meanwhile a colloquial meaning of the word "probable" when there is no suggestion of computation can reasonably be interpreted to mean a degree to which a claim disrupts what one take as the regular patterns of the world. Thus, I can see why N and Hume think "A is more likely than B" because that fits into their reductionist worldview. So, our platform seems to be that which an atheist is more likely to think.
It should be unthinkable that if any non-god claim which does not support a evident Scientific paper it implies that all inferences and methodologies toward the resolution of that matter should in future be disqualified simply because there is a wide-distribution of disagreement and the terms have proved hard to forge. I don't find that a reasonable heuristic in the least.
That video is embarrassing. What makes it worse is the narrator’s condescending Attitude
He said that the religious rain stuff was proven wrong but we’re the Greeks not just converted to Christianity?
Thanks for this great video.
The thumbnail is genuinely hilarious in every way possible
It all depends on the level of analysis, Santa Claus does exist, if he didn't exist you wouldn't have a tree to put gifts under it on the first place, in "the mystical body of Santa" we are all his little workers, but he is the one existing on a higher ontological level that makes us pursue what we pursue on Christmas.
Santa Claus does exist because it wasn't my parents who slapped Arius at the Council of Nicea.
Simple as.
@@ZenexTheZealous I thought it was a punch?
Beautiful
4:30 and he's also confused on why you get a Peace Nobel Prize. You can't get a Peace Nobel Prize for a *scientific* article.
19:25 I could not help but to laugh out loud at this part
It’s so ironic because he’s getting at the impossibility of an infinite casual chain which is actually just about the most classic argument for God
Causal*
6:30. I don't think your court analogy really fits here, because it suggests that a murder HAD to have taken place.
In your scenario, you would have to establish that both the murder took place AND that there is sufficient evidence that the defendant committed the murder. But the evidence that you have is that there is a missing person, no body, and claims that a particular person intently and purposely caused this death. Which is hearsay.
There is a reason why these types of cases don't go to trial.
Unfollowing. I could NEVER support a Santa Denier😔😔😔
If something can't be measured it's either abstract or fictional. I can't measure your love for your kids, but I'm willing to accept your love for your kids exist because I understand how abstract ideas and emotions work. If God exists and isn't abstract, you simply need to explain how something that isn't abstract or fictional can't be measured.
Trent, i need to know, did Bob win the case?
I can't believe you did not tell us by the end of the video if he was innocent like Mary and Frank or if he was the murderer
In the final analysis we just don't know, but at the very least he must've fired his lawyer
Excellent Trent ! Keep doing these !
The answer for who created God? “I AM that I AM”
He just is that He is.
Correct
The more critically I thought about god, I eventually found him at the bottom.
Critically? Or emotionally? Critical thinking leads to God, because He is that He is. Emotional thinking leads to blaming God for things humanity does. "Cartels trafficking drugs? God is responsible, not the cartel", sort of deal. Saying God is a genocidal tyrant is, again, pushing blame on Him, not humanity. And even so, He's a tyrant for punishing people? Yet He's a "good God" for saying yes to everything? That's not how any of that works. Would He still be God if we demanded Him for everything and He gave it to us? No, He would not.
Really admire Trent's patience and charity. I hear this and think about this narrator's reaction when he faces God.
Not really
Just here to say he spelled “receive” wrong therefore forfeited his argument
Such a low hanging fruit, it was a carrot 😆
I find the answers Trent gives to this "Low Hanging Fruit" unsatisfactory. Trent also makes many incorrect assumptions. Most people have not had a supernatural experience (99%?), the world we see around us is not what we would expect if an all-knowing, all-powerful creator exists (it's exactly the opposite). Atheists cannot prove there was no creator of the universe, and if you believe that there was a creator, and you call it God than that's fine. It's easy to prove that the Christian God does not exist though, including the one Trent believes is real, and I believe Trent has not rebutted that.
2:55 "certain things cant exist like the flying spaghetti monster". Well neither does the Catholic God that doesnt compoet to what we know in science
God gave us science to understand Him as the Creator, not a cop out to boost our own flawed humanity.
@@voltekthecyborg7898 Prove a God exist and that your version is the correct one
@@carnivalwholesale9809 I can prove it. But you'll reject it either way.
@@carnivalwholesale9809but you can’t ever prove anything, you can only debunk things. that’s scientific method 101 from a college level biology student
I think the point with a flying spaghetti monster is more about how we know what spaghetti is and we know it's properties so we know that it couldn't fly
or be conscious or really anything else that is understood to define the spaghetti monster.
Alex spelled recieve (sic) wrong in his presentation. Maybe they spell it differently in England?
Trent saying “god revealed himself through Jesus Christ”, as if it was a fact, is deceitful at best because it comes from the book that is on trial here. Because that’s where his god comes from.
It is a fact.
Like Jesus and the bible are the most persevered and documented piece of literature in ancient world.
@@razoredge6130 all you did was say “it’s a fact”. With no evidence to back it up…..cool story.
@@seanodowd4085 I put up the bible.
@@razoredge6130 I know. That’s the problem. The Bible is where you get your god. That’s like saying Harry Potter is real because of the Harry Potter series. Or spider man is real because it was written. You must look outside of what is on trial.
@@seanodowd4085 The bible contains direct eye witnesses of Jesus. Its like dismissing eye witnesses testimony in court.
If god exist is either a fact or no fact, so how is it not a scientific question, but a philosophical question?
There are scientist trying to prove gods existance.
Science can't explain the supernatural.
@@razoredge6130 A VALID QUESTION:
The biblical god Yahwe is supposed to have created the universe, the earth and the humans. We humans exist since 300k years and we have thousands of religious human testimonies from 100k - 6k years ago from hunting gods, fertility gods, venus gods, pantheons of hundreds of gods, etc but not a single testimony of a "one and only god" yahwe or Adam and Eve.
How come that this god, that is supposed to have created us at the beginning, is first mentioned only 3500-5000 years ago?
@@seekerhonest He doesn't have to be mentioned for him exist.
That is just a 'copy and paste' of Richard Dawkin's book.
I hope Dawkins puts a little more effort to this... these arguments are pitiful.
@@user-gs4oi1fm4l Dawkins is a very poor philosopher, exceptionally poor
@byletheisner5006 Dawkins considers himself as a "cultural Christian". He recently reasserted this label in responses to the rise of Islam and celebration of Ramadan instead of Easter.
@@tylere.8436 He likes living in a Christian Country, calling himself a "cultural Christian", yet he wants to destroy Christianity because of God? Kinda like a guy who likes milk, yet hates cows, and kills cows, but when he's told that he's doing something stupid, he responds with, "Oh, I can get milk at the grocery store."
The problem continues to be the number of religions and gods in the world brings tremendous confusion in people's minds. This inclination that human beings have to create gods for themselves and worship It has been going on since the time of Moses. God knew that human beings would have this inclination that He warns us about in the first commandment "I Am Your God: you shall not have strange gods before Me".The gods of other religions do not have any of their commandments, in fact they do not even have commandments. No other god has said what the true and only God says in 1:1 Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth " .
Oh my gosh! I haven't listened to this level of cringe in a while! The orinal vlogger reaches such a level of inanity and ignorance it boggles my mind!
Even though it cannot speak we know that a cat loves its owner by showing affection for its owner who loves and feeds it regularly. In a similar way we can deduce that God exists as he shows his love for us by having purposefully and generally created all things for our sustenance and enjoyment. A dog is indifferent to a sunset whereas it arouses beautiful feelings in human beings. The main purpose of the mind behind the creation seems to aim and cater for our wellbeing; it seems like it has us in his mind. He gives us the sun, the rain and seeds to grow in their season; it doesn't rain methane or pebbles on earth for only a cruel being would do such a thing.
It's evident that God did not intend for Mars to be a suitable habitation for men.
The documented history of the intervention and interaction of God in the lives of the Israelites is a living testimony to the existence of God who chose to step into his creation at a point in time. First, he delivered his people from bondage in Egypt and then led and guided them in the wilderness for forty years where he provided food and water for them every day in the barren desert. He gave them the Saturday Sabbath which the Jews keep to this day. Eventually he led them into Canaan where they still dwell today as he had given the land to them as a perpetual inheritance and no wonder they are not letting it go!
Only 27 minutes late and atheists really can have bad arguments.
Ironic.
@@dannyhernandez265 Not really. Christians can if that is your contention.
@johnnotrealname8168 Christians and other theists arguments consists of “you can’t prove the existence of an entity that has no evidence of existing”. We can prove dinosaurs existed because of what they left behind. Or mammoths because of what they left behind. There’s no evidence to conclude that there is a god.
@johnnotrealname8168 Christians and other theists arguments consists of “you can’t prove the existence of an entity that has no evidence of existing”. We can prove dinosaurs existed because of what they left behind. Or mammoths because of what they left behind. There’s no evidence to conclude that there is a god.
@johnnotrealname8168religious people have the same argument:
“You can’t prove that It doesn’t exist”
It’s redundant…
1.) If Witchraft is true, does that automatically mean the Judeo-Christian God is real?
2.) Is it true that witchcraft,
black magic/white magic,occult supernatural abilities,spiritism,
the effects of withcraft,
witchbook spells working are just mind/brain powers? Like something in Quantum Mechanics or just has NOT been yet discovered by science
3.) If you are a Christian and someone does a witchraft on you, and it DIDNT affected you. Does that automatocally mean that the Judeo-Christian God is real? Or its just an psychological thing or brain power?
4.) Is brain/mind power scientific?
5.) Can the human mind do great things? Like if you think that theres something bad thats going to happen at someone and you really believed that its really going to happen at them and it did happen is that even possible by human mind or brain power?
6.) Is it scientifically true that when you have a brain/mind power anything and everything is possible?
7.) Is it possible for science to ressurect the dead people?
2:00 I think Trent misunderstands the statement. Yes, you can prove a statement leads to a contradiction and thus, its negative is true. But you can't prove a negative. For example, we can't prove Santa Claus does not exist because he might exist but isn't performing his duties. Long story short, it might exist but we just haven't found it yet.
But Santa doing his duties is the proof of his existence. If he does exist, then he'd be doing his duties, OR he isn't actually Santa
@@philosopher-2007 Perhaps my example is not good enough. You can't prove there isn't a squirrel in your backyard for example.
@@VicecrackVoldermort except I can by going to my backyard and not seeing a squirrel...
@@philosopher-2007 How do you know it isn't hiding from you? You cannot confirm that something you cannot observe does not exist.
@@VicecrackVoldermort because I know what is defined as my backyard, if I can go to my backyard, and there is no squirrel, then there is no squirrel in the backyard...
1:40. Woah. Okay buddy. Being a Santa denier is a step too far for me.
I find his incredibly condescending and snarky attitude towards theists very irritating. Let's however move onto his ''arguments''. He strawmans theism to such an extent that I thought he had made a parody video but sadly a lot of atheist internet apologetics today demonstrates a complete ignorance and lack of understanding of basic arguments for God's existence and philosophy of religion literature more generally. Obviously when theists talk about God, we speak of God as being the Ceator of everything. If God were one of these deities he mentions in the video, Thor for example, he would have a body, and his being would have a mixture of potency and act, of form and matter. His material parts would occupy different places. He would not be simple. He would not be _God_ . He could not in principle be the ultmitate explanation for why anything exists at _all_
It would be interesting to compare Catholic theontology with Orthodox apophaticism. In Orthodoxy we don't usually debate whether God exists, because God obviously doesn't exist. God transcends existence to an infinite degree.
@Ploofles wrote: "I once got kicked out of the library for putting a bible
in the fiction section."
Reality is much simpler.
At the beginning people told each other that extraterrestrials
used a simple, invisible technical device, called Generator Of
Dimensions (GOD) to create our universe!
They knew well that nothing from this earth could have created this
earth and nothing from this universe could have created this universe.
But then, over time, this device mistakenly became a god in
a prozess what is known as Model Autophagy Disorder (MAD).
Now all people believe that this device, used by the aliens to
create universes, is a god and worship this device. This can
definitely be described as crazy.
🤪