The problem with most philosophical works aimed at proving God exists is that, at most, they prove a creative force or intelligence. However, they failed to bridge that entity with the god of any particular religion, particularly Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Whether it is the apologetic works of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anslem, or more modern Christian philosophers like Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Alvin Plantinga, they can't seem to fill the chasm between the intelligent vague being they are attempting to prove and the *SPECIFIC* God they want us to believe in. When I was an atheist, I found these arguments to be wholly insufficient. I became a believer, not because of their sophisticated polemic. I became a believer because of how empty my life was without belief.
Very true, but to someone who doesn't believe there is a maker, we must first show them there is a maker in the first place. Funny enough, the best argument that I heard to prove the Abrahamic God was from a Muslim trying to disprove the Trinity. He said something along the lines of if there was multiple gods, there would most likely not be order in the universe and the similarities between order on earth and order in the universe. Mainly because multiple gods with individual consciousness would disagree on a lot of things like we humans do. So if there was a sun god and a lightning god, they could disagree with each other at any point and it would collapse the whole universe. It didn't hold in disproving the Trinity for me because it's not three gods (which a lot of Muslims tend to believe).
I think the best and most efficient way to prove which God exists (this is not trying to convert anybody, be atheist into theist or a non-Christian theist into a Christian), is how that god is close to being a failure (or even some cases an abomination) or the spiritual elevation of the God of that religion, for example, the Gods that usually require human sacrifice, specially of children are demons, and I won't budge on this, then there is gods who are usually reprobates, they were usually good leaders in military or beautiful persons, but had a lot of problems, then, there is the normal gods(usually leaders of stablity), then there is sage gods, usually sages, priests or virtuous philosophers or the best leadership of a nation(be a tribe, country, city, etc) then, there is the gods who were close to a total virtuous life, and they had ways to back up the way they live, and Jesus of Nazareth excels in this last category, where other ultravirtuous persons would be similiar and conclude in the same way, usually they didn't claim to be a god in their contexts if you read their stories, Jesus did, the proof about Jesus claiming to be a God is the behaviour of the apostles, the writings of the earliest of earliest of Church Fathers who usually were direct disciples of the 12 apostles, the way they lived their lifes compared to Jesus Christ, the fact that they died in horible ways imaginable(be the earliest church fathers or the apostles), and the logical and philosophical ways they behave, not only, God is not contingent to the limitations of this world, so, questions like saying "if he created something heavier than him" doesn't work because it is trying to put an incontigent into a contigent, not only, but usually followers of a cult leader are usually disloyal and violent towards the autority, even when it favours it, my objective is not converting, debating, fighting, or calling anybody ignorant, so, I will not debate this with anybody and you are free to not accept this claim I'm making, I'll listen to arguments against what I've said only if you are catholic and you are trying to correct my point of view based on church fathers, scholastics, documents of the church and catholic theologians/priests(and please, if you are doing this, post the source of your claim), I'm just showing my point
It’s all the same God just various different understanding of the nature of God. Is the the Christian triune God or the nature that Islam understands and even within Christian denominations there are differences much more nuanced than Judaism or Islam But those nuanced differences exist. So they are not arguing over whether God exists in reality they are arguing over the nature of God
@@catholicguy1073 that's what I believe is happening between the three Abrahamic religions. Some people believe we aren't worshipping the same God the Muslims do, but how do we know we aren't, but are simply looking at him from two different perspectives. Something I think about a lot.
The evidence is so clear, there is so much reasoneble to believe in an intelligent creator than a random explosion caused by nothing, come on think logical here!
It is intuitive to think that everything has a cause because we never see anything not have a cause. Well, you are right. This argument only makes sense with that intuitive presupposition. But that is a very high and impractical level of scepticism that you need to have to reject this presupposition. You don't live with that much skepticism. Let me give you an example: Your girlfriend/boyfriend tells you in a very romantic moment: "I love you". What would you do? Would you reject their statement? Because you can not and will never absolutely know if they truly love you in that moment. You can't know their hormones for sure. You don't even have a very good definition of love. But still you would believe them. It is intuitive to believe them because all the evidence of their behaviour points towsrds love. And for the cosmological argument all evidence of the observable universe points towards being caused. Therefore everything has a cause that is outside of itself. Therefore the universe has a cause.
@SamoaVsEverybody814 That is totally irrelevant for the discussion as by the cosmological argument you only establish a very open image of god. The cosmological argument only shows that there is a god. How he behaves and what his goals are is another story but in the first place no one asks about what humans can conceive or not. It is irrelevant for this argument to work.
I've seen a watchmaker in action. Your god has never provably made a watch or a blade of grass. I can prove my claim with evidence? You, got a feeling.
Well, of course you have because a watchmaker is a human making a watch in our world. If there were tiny beings and galaxies being created by the same watchmaker insidethat watch, chances are the tiny beings wouldn't be able to physically find their maker in their world. The evidence of their maker is themselves and their world.
@@Squidwardsangryfacethat was not a good analogy. Sorry. But speculation such as. "If there were tiny beings inside the watch". Brings the discussion to a halt. And it certainly doesn't add to the watchmaker argument. That just adds a worse argument/premise. To an already poor argument/premise.
@@vladtheemailer3223 I don't think you understand anything I said if that's what you got from my explanation. My explanation is demonstrating a creator outside his creation. For example, the characters of Harry Potter do not know JK Rowling exists, since she is not physically present in their world. What is present in these characters' world is her intellect and creativity, and without her these characters wouldn't exist.
Scientifically thinking people know this, as world is full of evidence for God. On the other hand, no proof is enough for fervent atheists. This has been admitted by famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins and others.
That's why the ontological argument fails. A god that has convinced everyone it exists would be greater than a god that has not. No such god has done so, therefore it doesn't exist and contradicts the argument.
@@psilynt1 I like your thought process here, but it depends on what you mean by term greater. From a human's perspective I can imagine that a "greater" god would have to prove itself, but from a god's perspective, wouldn't the greater god be one who didn't have to prove itself and people choose to worship without evidence?
@@goobyboxxton8526 I suppose. Could use the same argument with number of worshippers. Greatest god is the god worshipped by all people. Not all people worship, therefore God is not the greatest. One could argue the God that exists and is worshipped by the fewest is 'greater', but that'd be the God that nobody worships.
@@psilynt1 Thank you, yes, that's exactly what I was trying to elucidate. Without an agreed upon meaning of the word "greater" then any logical conclusion drawn using that word cannot be evaluated.
@@SquidwardsangryfaceActually evolutionary theory doesn’t hold humans came from monkeys but that the two came from a common ancestor. There is strong evidence for theistic evolution.
@@Squidwardsangryface Well, that's an oversimplified and inaccurate view of evolution, or "natural selection". In fact, the Catholic Church accepts evolution. The "first cause" is understood to be God.
@@bman5257Humans literally are monkeys according to monophyletic classification. All classifications are ultimately nominal though, since in reality every organism differs from every other one. Monophyletic classification exists for the convenience of humans.
@@jaegercat6702 that's not what was said at all. A god who exists outside of space and time. And is not measurable by any means. Is the same thing as a god that doesn't exist. Addendum: it's not that we can't see god. It's that there's no method to demonstrate that a god exists. We can't see air. But we can measure it. You can't do this with a god. Science can neither prove. Nor disprove the existence of a god.
Universe wasnt created because there is no previous instance to be possible without time. So we can exclude God based on this crucial fact. No matter the argument, the time is the answer. Without time nothing is created. We live inside time. You can measure what happens within a time, but time itself cant be measured because we are inside it.
Has time always existed As far as I am aware, we aren't sure. Also ,does time exist, if so, existence is possible without time. Also, if I freeze time, would things exist. Probably. Existence is possible without time.
@@IanRice-Lindseth existence is temporal. What does it mean to exist for 0 seconds? Please list literally anything that existed without time.....I'll "WAIT"....!!!
1) Demonstrate that your intuitions of causality extend beyond space and before time, and that there is a "beyond and before spacetime" in which for things to exist. 2) For the ontological argument to even start to make any sense, there has to be an absolutely objective definition of "greatness", down to exacting detail. Otherwise the greatest thing to me is different than your greatest thing and now we have billions of necessarily existing gods roaming the heretofore undemonstrated "beyond and before spacetime" 3) Saying "many people agree that X is true" is not equal to saying "X is true" . Morality is subjective in the same way favorite foods are, just to a different degree. If you polled many cultures and found that children ages 5 to 10 most preferred frozen treats as dessert, would that make frozen treats the objectively correct dessert choice? No, it just means humans are similar, and so act similarly. In the same way, wanting to increase wellbeing is just popular because we and our societies are similar. It doesn't mean it's the absolute and objectively correct choice for what we ought to care about. (That said, once a goal is chosen, moral facts can be found. If I want to maximize wellbeing, I ought not unalive people for fun, for example. I think it's this part that makes people think morality is objective. It's not, it only is once you agree on goals. I could go on with other objections to this, but I'm trying (and failing) to be brief) 4) First, before this argument can even get off the ground, demonstrate that the universal constants are able to change. Bonus points if you can quantify their ranges, gradations, relationships, and probability distributions. But so far, we don't even know that they could be different than what they are. You don't just get that for free. Bonus quibbles cuz I can't shut up: 7:10 You don't see objects acting in patterns *towards ends*, you see objects acting in patterns *and assume there's an end they're acting towards*. In reality, they're being pushed forward by prior events, not pulled towards future ones desired by some designer. Your car didn't start because you wanted to get to work, it started because you turned the key. In the conclusion, you saying you need faith to accept these arguments is tantamount to saying the arguments are worthless. Your side is gonna believe what they believe because they think they have a relationship with a god, not because of these hobbled arguments. And my side isn't gonna be convinced by these hobbled arguments to believe in a god. So what's their point? What value do they add to anything?
Dude! I'm sure the spam detecting bot would have silenced me for a message that long. I'm sure glad you are here to make all those important quibbles :)
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I wish I was more brief, I saw a guy a lil lower down say everything I did, in better wording, and in like 1/3 the text. I'm just such a chatterbox and it's a problem lol
What is the cause of the God? 1. God made of what materials 2. Why God created the universe 3. What are duties and responsibilities of the God 4. What is the relationship between God and us 5. Why God created human And many more questions I have.
The usual = Can't explain how it is... so there MUST be a god. Also, how convenient that said god is the one you were born into. Nothing more than the God of the Gaps and the Argument from Ignorance. So much for "Proof god exists".
I like the ontological argument best. A god that has convinced me that he exists is greater than a god that has not done so, therefore the god that has convinced me he exists must exist, but no such god has done so, therefore this argument fails.
"If God, y me atheist?" A being that is greater than anything that can be concieved is also infinitely patient, therefore he has no rush to convince you of his existence. It might happen tomorrow, or in the afterlife, it's up to you.
Point One) OK Something came first. Prove it was a god, then prove it is your god and then prove you have understood your god correctly. Point Two) By your own admission this is NOT a proof of god's existence, but one of how a god must be IF a god exists at all. This "proof", therefore, is not a proof of a god's existance. Point Three) Even if morality is something given to us by an external force, you have failed to prove that force is a god.However, you are wrong to say we are not taught morals. Of course, we are taught them. Have you not heard of bad parenting? It happens when parents don't teach the moral code to their kids. In truth, we have the same morals as others, because we benefit from them morals in the same way as others do. As tribes, nations and communities, we have all come to the same conclusions about what is best for us morally. It's a theory, anyway. For you to say our morals have ONLY come from god you would have to do two things: Prove a god exists (still waiting for that) and that my theory cannot be true. Point Four) The puddle argument! I need say nothing more. A whole life of belief gone with one YT comment!
Personally, the way to prove God's existence I like the most is the cosmological one - the other ones are, for me, too difficult to prove, although they're possibly true. So, I'll only answer the point 1). First, notice this principle: if we have a chain of things or events, the first element by definition must depend on an element which is external to the series and exists. If there is, for example, a row of dominoes and every domino is knocked over by the previous one, the first domino cannot be knocked over by another domino, but by an element that is external to the domino chain. If it's true, it's obvious that the chain of the things caused by other things must depend on a substance which caused itself, because this first element must exist and not be part of the chain of the things caused by others. So, we now have proved the cosmological necessity of the existence of something which causes itself. This substance also caused other things (the chain of substances caused by others); but its only necessity is to cause itself. So, if it doesn't have to cause other things but causes them, this substance is free to cause them or not. So, it's not something, it's someone who trascends what is caused by others and has free will. So this is why I think theism is rational and necessary. I could continue explaining you why, in my opinion, the most rational thing to believe is Catholicism, but I think you wanna discuss my argomentation
@@truthdrome looks like the OP doesn't wanna discuss your argomentation. But they already granted your first cause, so most of your argument is redundant. Rather, they asked for proof that the first cause is a god, and specifically the God worshipped by Catholics. You smuggle in the element of personhood by a mere sleight of language where you assert, "It's not something, it's someone who..." You have offered no evidence whatsoever that this first cause has the characteristics of a person, far less a "god." And no evidence whatsoever that this thing is the God of Catholicism.
@@shinywarm6906 I've already offered an argumentation for the personhood of this first cause: ontologically, this cause is free to cause other things or not to cause them; so, if it's free, it's not something, but someone. If you fino fallacies in this very argumentation, tell me. So, he's someone free to cause and not to cause: but being the first cause, the only substance that must exist, he doesn't cause the world by modificating something else (in this case, we would have 2 first causes, and also the other first cause would be personal, and so on); so, he creates the world ex nihilo; therefore, he's a god. Yes, I belief that this god is the one of the Catholic Church: this is an only act of faith, but we could discuss, if you want, the plausibility of this act
@@truthdrome thanks. Your criteria for "personhood" seem rather nebulous. Clearly, you don't see the development of a rock crystal as involving a "choice", so the creation of a novel entity in itself cannot be sufficient justification. You further assert that the First Cause makes this "choice" "freely". But you offer no justification for this assertion at all. In what way is invoking a supernatural "person" who "choses" to cause the universe different to the way that, prior to meteorology, people might believe that weather is caused by the choices of a "personal" weather god, who, at time T2 "freely" "decides" they want to cause a thunderstorm? By contrast, what we can observe or extrapolate from physics gives us other options that do not require gratuitous assertions about magical persons. For example, it appears that some events at quantum level seem to occur at random and spontaeneously. This might imply the space-time continuum comes into existence (alongside the law of causation itself) spontaeneously at T2 (there is no T1). Alternatively, other models hypothesise an eternal cosmos - like Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclical Cosmology. Here, infinite iterations are caused by nothing but the result of continuing expansion. Again, no mysterious "person" is required.
@@shinywarm6906 1. I'm not able to cpmpletely define "personhood", but I know that personhood necessarily implies freedom. So, if a thing is free, is a person. 2. What we mean when we say something exists, is that has some effects. Now, if the First Cause exists, it generates itself by definition. So, if the First Cause exists, it is its own effect. And, if it's its own effect, it doesn't have the necessity to cause something else. Therefore, the Universe is contingent for the First Cause. So, the Universe could not be created by this Cause, but it is. Therefore, the First Cause is free, and is personal. After that, you say that some phenomema at quantum level seem to occur spontaneously, so this could disprove the divine origine of the Universe. But this cannot be applied to the Universe, because physics is about the material things that exist, while even a not divinely created Universe trascends this field of study
Two things are abundantly clear: • There is no good evidence fore the existence of a god or gods. • There are no non-fallacious arguments for the existence of a god or gods. Also, you can't argue something into existence.
Thank you for producing this video. Unfortunately these arguments have been put to bed over and over and should not be convincing. It's still cool to hear how believed see things even if I don't find the claims convincing
Yes. There are countless books, videos, articles, lectures, debates, etc. which demonstrate that the four arguments covered in this video are not proof of the existence of a god. I wonder if Father Casey has paid any attention to them.
As a scientist and not necessarily a believer, I find these arguments very unhelpful. These arguments are not universally accepted by science, so you can't really call them proofs. Presenting them as proof is at best a mistake and at worst deeply misleading.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I don't think so. A proof has to be generally accepted by science to be a genuine proof. Otherwise, it's not a proof, it's just an opinion. To that, you can respond that you believe that it's a proof, or that my criteria for what constitutes a proof are different from yours, but I would find both those responses rather disappointing. If I hear the word proof, I don't want to discover sometime later that experts don't agree that it's a proof. In fact, I read a comment below that basically calls non-believers stubborn for not accepting these kinds of arguments and that's another illustration of why the word proof should not be used. It causes confusion, in this case leading to prejudices stemming from a false belief that these "proofs" are somehow absolute certainties. That's exactly why using these proofs is at best unhelpful and at worst disingenuous. That is, unless you add a disclaimer that these "proofs" are not generally accepted by science and should be taken with a bit of a grain of salt. As my own disclaimer: I don't want to lambast religion, I just criticise bad apologetics. My advice to any apologist would be to point out the benefits of religion to one's personal life and try to identify why lack of religion, or other religions, don't offer these values. Forget proof, focus on people's emotional needs. That's why I'm reconsidering religion after decades of agnosticism anyway.
@anthonyhulse1248 everything in the Bible is a logical fallacy by definition because they rely on the Bible to confirm the truth of the claim made. That's circular reasoning.
There is no need for a first cause, since the spacetime continuum is not an effect and cannot be caused since that would be a temporal affair which cannot happen since there was no time before spacetime. And Einstein made it pretty clear that motion in itself needs no cause since that is the whole point of the theory of relativity. Thus the cosmological argument is a non-starter. If you want to have something that existed throughout, then you can take the universe directly, since it existed at any point in time, since it is like I already said spacetime. The ontological argument falls also flat, since being able to imagine something better does not mean that this something better actually exists. And if I take it the other way around, that if your deity has the three omni properties that make it so perfect, how come then that the universe is then not also perfect reflecting that divine nature? Thus it is clear that if the universe has an origin in some entity, that entity is clearly no better than what it could make. For the moral argument there is the Euthyphro dilemma, and worse there is no reason to think that moral realism or divine command theory are even a proper description of morality. Since moral relativism and moral anti-realism are equally valid positions to hold. The theological argument is nonsense, since design is exactly the opposite from what we see. Design is elegance in simplicity not needless complexity. Furthermore that there is some order doesn't mean someone has to made these natural laws, for all we know there simply are no other options and thus all the proposed possibilities are just an illusion. The theological argument would be better if it would be impossible to exist and yet there would be life, and not just on our tiny planet, but everywhere and not relying on chemestry or energy but to be truly independent from any circumstances. Then you would have an argument that this would require some divine input. But as the world presents itself, the theological argument can be handwaved away as just a god of the gaps argument. All those arguments are debunked centuries if not millennia ago. And the "gift of faith" as you call it seems to be what actual rational people would call a conformation bias. Don't get me wrong, you can believe whatever you like, but it would have been if you would have also addressed the criticism those arguments have and why they are not considered proof, since a proof has actually be conclusive and cannot be founded just on faith. Also, I find it funny how the video basically dismisses all the followers of religions which also do not adhere to these silly arguments. Guess this is just another case of the typical Christian arrogance that look down on others as not having proper faith. And then they are surprised that so many people rejecting their message...
When I get into my car to drive to the mall I always fasten my seatbelt. Why? Because blunt force injury resulting from a sudden stoppage could kill me. Blood loss could kill me as well. I'm mortal, I'm incapable of shapeshifting and I'm incapable of flight. Contrast this with my natural enemy, the vampire. The vampire can do all the things I can not and the only way you can kill it is my driving a wooden stake through its heart. Why did God make vampires so powerful and humans so weak?
A god that exists in reality can potentially disappoint me by not complying with my wishes and desires. A god that exists only in my mind can never disappoint me, because I can mold it as I wish. Therefor a God that exists only in my mind is greater than a God that exists in actuality. Logically this proves that God exists only in the minds of believers. Wow, previously I simply was unconvinced by the arguments of theists, but now you've brought me to a place of having definite logical proof that God does not exist in actuality. Thank you for providing that.
With all due respect, this is a waste of breath, word salad, click bait. Of course there is no proof of god, and it doesn’t matter- That is the reason why religion is called faith.
Respectfully, I disagree, and I think it might be because you have misunderstood the point. Please, if you haven't, listen to the final paragraph of the video (which is always where the main point will be made.) In it I say that it's not so much about proving to non-believers beyond a doubt, but rather giving logic and coherence to those who already believe. The former is likely not worth our time, but the latter is imperative.
I assume you are intelligent @@BreakingInTheHabit so why your knowingly lie in this presentation ... each of your assertions is logically flawed. Eg, the watchmaker hypothesis. The eye is far more complex and refined than any watch. And we can observe that this has evolved independently 4 times, and amazingly devolved in two cases. But more this is a false correlation: while have millions of watches where we can identify the make there is not a solitary case, he argues of a twig having a designer, let alone a universe ... the exitance of watches cannot be used to infer that our universe has been created by an intelligent designer in the same way that a watch has. When I teach: I present leaners with a range of ideas including ones I don't like... be dead easy to include the retort. That would still not disprove a God. Regardless, folk have a human right to practice whatever faith they wish and raise their family as they choose. That is Enough!
'We don't know, therefore God.' has a name: The God of the Gaps. I'm sorry, but there are FAR too many other possibilities. Remember, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It is just as plausible that energy has simply always existed, regardless of its form.
DNA proves the existence of God. DNA is a super complex programming language made of an alphabet of 4 chemicals, A, C, G, and T. These are then translated into 64 3-letter code words called codons. A word of code, information, or instruction cannot write itself so who wrote DNA? God is the Programmer; DNA is the software instructions contained inside every seed of life that instructs it on what and how to become.
My dad was a mathematician. He used to say that you can't study mathematics without coming to an understanding that God exists. The basis of the universe is ordered from the start and at its heart is orderly. He used to say that numbers are the basis of everything and order is at the base of everything.
Nonsense. If your father was mathematician,he would never say anything close to that. .. maybe you meant to say "substitute math teacher at religious school",not an actual mathematician?
@@thinboxdictator6720why this harshness? You didnt even show a point, you just disrespected someone you dont know. Anyway, study some math, so maybe next time you wont behave so rudely. There are many papers talking about this topic, relating god and math. Maybe if you will ever be able to read something, you wont state nOsEnSe without any point apart from your rudeness. Byeeee
@@spaghettinoo I don't think I was harsh. if I told you that my father was a physicist and got proof of Illuminati faking globe earth,what would you say? btw saying there are "many papers" is making it sound like it's something legitimate,on level of actual mathematical proofs/conjectures .. meanwhile it's just some people trying to get to some specific conclusion ( instead of figuring it out and see where it goes ), which is ridiculous on it's face to everyone who at least partly understands the topic they try to base their argument on. this one might have been a bit harsh,previous one wasn't.
Sorry, but there are no proofs. Those are just justifications based on ones preconceived concepts. All religion is based on faith alone, if there is proof, there is no need for faith.
@skarpheinnsmundsson9741 That is NOT what I hear from Christians routinely. Many of them claim that by faith, this 'God' reveals itself to them. Have you not heard this before?
@@Theo_Skeptomai What you hear from Christians doesn't change the fact that belief without evidence cannot reveal anything to be true. It's just wishful thinking.
"Is There Proof God Exists? Yes" - Why do you need to lie in your title? Yes, in the absence of evidence, people turn to logic... however, logical arguments cannot prove anything in reality. Every one of the arguments he presents have been debunked many, many times over.
*Cosmological arguments* assert that God was the cause of X... they cannot demonstrate the validity of this assertion. It is made in total ignorance. It also engages in special pleading. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" don't know, could there be nothing? Can you show that God did anything? No? this is just an argument from ignorance, a god of the gaps argument. We don't know how/if something happened, so insert God and call it a day.
*Ontological,* God exists at least in our minds... yeah, not going to bother going into this one too deep. If it is convincing to you, you have my sympathy. Does the maximally great pizza exist? Isn't it possible to conceive of something that's even better every time we conceive of a similar thing? Does what you think routinely affect reality around you? No? then why think it does in regards to God?
*Teleological arguments...* I can't understand or am amazed by X... so God did it. Complete arguments from ignorance. Many also assert that, when 2 things share 1 trait (often complexity) they must share another (usually that they were created by intelligence)... this is silly. A horse and motorcycle share the trait of being ridden by people, does that mean that horses must use rubber tires or that motorcycles must eat grass? Of course not, so why think that, since both watches and cells are complex, they must share the trait of being designed?
FTI, no one asserts that things happen ONLY by chance. Basic fundamental forces of matter/energy put limits on chance and randomness, as do processes like natural selection. If you want to assert that God is just the fundamental forces of the universe that's on you, just know that if you do that you need to discard all the stuff that the bible says and stop capitalizing "god" when you write it. FYI 2. We don't assert that watches are created because they are complex, we do so because we have evidence of watches being created. We don't have that for God and the universe.
@@anisursamsung _Yes, order does require directing mind_ It really doesn't. Tip a pint of oil into a bucket of water. You will end up with an ordered separation of the two - for no other reason than the oil is less dense. Unless you think that god has a special team of angels assigned to doing it?
If as you say: "god is by his very nature Perfect", then we wouldn't exist. Honestly, take a step back and think about a Truly Perfect and Flawless being. It would want = Nothing. it would need = Nothing. Why? Because it is Perfect and Truly Flawless. Think about that. If that being were real, we would not exist. Why would such a being make us? Some say to have a "relationship" with us. So he did Lack something. If one lacks anything, it is not Perfect or Complete. Besides all that, going by what he himself called Flaws and Sin, the "god" of the bibles is FAR from Perfect and Flawless.
None of these arguments stands up to even a cursory analysis. You have to start by believing in god to consider these “proofs”. ( i.e. they’re really post-hoc rationalizations, not proofs).
Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist; but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout Christian. They often discussed their views concerning God, as their mutual interest in science drew them much together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving in proper order around this were small balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These bails were so geared together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony when turned by a crank. One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move with their relative speeds in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, "My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?" Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, "Nobody!" Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?" Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, "You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is." Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much larger system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a design and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"
Oh did the other scientist, who apparently has no name, turn to Newton and say "because I've seen mechanical toys being built by humans, have you seen a stellar body shop creating a sun in front of your eyes?"
@@WolfA4 I like that! My comment was a copy-and-paste from an article I read. I am pretty sure it was an allegory, because I could find no evidence of who this 'other scientist' was either. I agree more with your comments. It's always problematic for me when we (humans) resort to declaring something a 'miracle' merely because we lack the knowledge to understand. In centuries past, we would have declared it all 'sorcery' (such as the upcoming solar eclipse). It's OK to say 'We don't know ... yet.'
That's a silly story. Newton was mistaken, he was also one that believed he could turn lead into gold. He was mistaken about that too. Newton was Human and prone to making mistakes as we all are, he may have made less mistakes but he did make them.
Says it like Atheist's have not heard it all before, and debunked it ad nauseum. Theists, you really need to come up with something new, not the same old crap you have been using for thousands of years. As an Atheist, all this video does is make me yawn.
4:20 Catholic priest openly tells you he has no concept of empathy. In light of this admission I am shocked at the child abuse scandals associated with the Catholic church.
To be fair he's not a catholic priest, but a friar. Friars doesn't need seminary, they actually doesn't need to think jesus was god, or at the extreme even be theists. Look at them as if they are bhuddist monks that instead of bhudda have jesus as central figure, and want to live theyr lives in poverty and contemplation as he (allegedly) did. I've far more respect for friars than priests. Priests know the bible make no sense but have to lie about it, friars are free to care less.
My dear friend, in my quest to be a "good atheist" as per your definition I respectfully have to point out that the arguments of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas are merely logically unsound wordplay that no one should ever use and that your propagation of these bad arguments as if they had not been shown to be fallacious does not reflect well on your position at all.
And scarcely anyone is a Christian because of those "arguments". He even admits that they're mainly meant as rationalizations for already existing belief.
How marvelous that there is proof of a Magic Unicorn who created a septillion stars, designed the human brain, and has a Master Plan for our entire existence, in spite of being strangely unable to stop the wars, or feed the starving children in the 14 billion years since the universe began. Has this amazing proof been submitted to scholarly journals and scientific publications for peer review? Has the Nobel Prize been announced?
Religious apologists don´t understand what most words mean, it´s the way of the apologists to not know them and never ever learn and just continue to parrot the script.
The issue very surface level discussions of these arguments run into is that there have been counter points and further work done on all of these arguments which means presenting them in their most basic forms doesn't really cut the mustard. The cosmological argument requires you to swallow an entire Aristotelian metaphysics of causes, which you don't have to just accept and other theories of causation exist. Additionally, you could posit a non-intelligent "purely actual" force and get the same result. Kant neatly dealt with the Ontological argument by pointing out that "'being' is evidently not a real predicate" The Moral Argument presupposes there cannot be a natural explanation for social animals to develop certain behavioural patterns...which is question begging (or 'assuming the antecedent', for those more academically inclined), and incidentally the teleological argument makes the same mistake. Frankly, these are just not very strong arguments; which you'd come to expect given that these are being presented in essentially the same forms they were created in, with the oldest being around 1300 years old.
How do you like that tree and its beautiful green leaves? Those leaves aren't green. They're purple. Look up to the blue sky. It's not blue. It's purple. And the warm, yellow sun. It's not yellow, it purple. Why do you keep saying that everything's purple? Because everything's purple. How do you know that? Because that's what the Book of Purple says. You mean, because of this book, you don't even acknowledge other colors? Everything;'s purple.
Partially correct. When I was in seminary, my theology professor made the point that one person (actually, one being) who would be sure to score 100% in his class would be Satan. Head knowledge--in and of itself--does not lead to salvation. As Jesus said, He wants "circumcision of the heart": for us to repent of our sins and to love and serve Him and love and serve others in His name, through the guidance of God's Holy Spirit. For purposes of clarity, however--especially in this day and age of one-sided atheist propaganda and misportrayal of theism in general and Christianity in particular--these proofs of God's existence really need to be presented to counter the intellectual dishonesty in the way Christians are portrayed. Thanks very much to "Breaking In The Habit" for doing so!
@@77Catguy that is so true ... I find it dead easy to bet Christians in Bible quiz. It is like they never read the sacred word of their own god. Pretty weird.
Obviously a god created everything because humans created the wristwatch and the building. This is the logic religious people use to prove their god created stuff.
After 9 minutes of word salad the answer is unequivocally no. Just the same tired arguments, strawmaning and circular reasoning that has been debunked countless times. There is no evidence and never will be.
It is an accurate, if not condensed, recanting of most of the a priori arguments for a god ever made. The fact that they are so weak is why atheism is such a strong position: atheism lives and dies on the inability of theists to prove their god(s), and the fact that even the best arguments are weak ones is ongoing demonstration that atheism is a belief that is more parsimonious with logical coherence than theism.
@@V0idFace There can be weaker and stronger arguments in favour of a proposition that is false. You said it yourself by saying these ones are weak, so I'm curious what stronger ones you've heard.
@V0idFace Sounds like you already had your mind made up before clicking on this video. Probably best to put this topic behind you and move on with your life. Stop wasting your own time.
@@bariumselenided5152 I might build a house to live in. God doesn't need a house. I might create a painting to sell and earn some money. God doesn't need money. I might create a sculpture to win an award and receive praise. God has no need of praise or awards. I might write a novel just to see how good I could make it. Anything God created would be perfect. I might write a song to seek stardom and the admiration of others. God doesn't need stardom or admiration. I might try to make others happy. Okay, why doesn't God make people happy?
@@bariumselenided5152 he created the heavens and the earth and saw that it was good. He created man in his image so that we may partake in the glory of his creation. We have mind; we have the capacity to create. And so, our relationship with our Lord is ever more apparent when we tend to our talents, and when we use our cognitive faculties to ponder about things. For those who are suffering, they can partake in Christ’s passion as to suffer with him and to know him better. God loves us all and his presence is always here - it is just felt less when we abandon him. He wants us to be holy so we can know him more and be his friend.
With all due respect. You do not have proof that god exists. His nature, being supernatural, has no evidence for it. If faith is not enough for you, you've got nothing. Why not take a look at what that means.
@@danielgalvez7953 I use to feel most Apologist held sincerely felt views that they wanted to shared. I merely had a passing interest in early church history - it is a fascinating topic. I had my father's old books as he was likewise interested. I honestly didn't look at such things deeply. During our long lock down I took a few online courses on the topic. Language is not a strong point so I found Greek and Hebrew hard. Regardless, I met some wonderful folk with excellent language skills. I certainly learnt much about Biblical texts had emerge, translated and developed. I also realised that Aplogiticist had study such to a high level in seminaries and university. They were not make mistakes - they seemed to be purposely misrepresenting texts, selectively citing texts and avoiding much. The sincerest ones seem to feel that there were things they might never know. Others stated things as facts that they clearly knew were not. They weren't stupid.
@@russellmiles2861 interesting. That isn't my experience, but perhaps I haven't looked into things as deeply as you. I'm a fan of a lot of apologetics, just not these arguments.
This video is only for believers. They, and you are not watching Dawkins or Hithens. I am not smart as they but will try. God is omnipresence, omnipotent, all knowing and good. So, why there are bad things in the world? Is he not able to stop bad things? Then he is not omnipotent and not god. Is he able to stop bad things but not willing? He is than not all good so there is no god. You may say that there is free will. OK. But, is there god's plan? If I can destroy god's plan he is not omnipotent, so there is no god. If he tells me go to hell I have free will and I do what I wish. I am going to heaven, no matter the god say. So, there is no god
Father Casey, your videos consistently bring me joy and help me in my spiritual journey. Even though I'm not Catholic, I'm now seriously exploring the priesthood in my own tradition (Orthodox Christian) thanks to your videos.
Lols. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. You presuppose god therefore everything afterwards is flawed as you just jam god in any old gap you can find.
Proof would be a compromise to faith. If everyone knew god was real, it would be just a matter of doing right and wrong as if you were following a law.
@@Finckelstein It's not about if people would do right or wrong if they knew god was real, it's about how if god was a proven fact it would make faith obsolete. Maybe my comment would've made more sense if you used some critical thinking.
@@ClassicCat Oh yes, the person who thinks "faith" is in any way desireable talks about critical thinking. Hilarious. Faith is beyond useless. If your god operates on it, your god is a pathetic little tyrant who wants to punish people for not being able to believe utter nonsense on nothing but baseless claims. The only reason you're trying to depict faith as something desireable is because your religion has not a single shred of evidence behind it. It's all feelings and fallacies. If you had evidence, you'd proclaim from the rooftops how foolish it is to believe on faith alone. Maybe you should've refrained from making such a ridiculous comment and used critical thinking instead.
I just got out of a philosophy of religion class where we were debating the existence of God, feeling frustrated - and this was the first thing I saw. Deo gratias!
I would have assumed that any proper philosophy course would have ripped these arguments to shreds... must have been heavily leaning towards belief in god bias.
If you thought that was a good argument for your god you need to turn around and go right back into that philosophy class! Such bad epistemology! What if it were a Muslim video? Or an atheist one? You would believe those? No. This is confirmation bias.
Dude, if arguments are centuries old and haven´t impressed anybody in the last 2000 years, you can be fairly sure about two things. First, you can be sure atheists have already heard them all, and second, it´s in no way impressing us. And here is why. Cosmological: NOBODY knows how our universe came into existence, and as long "NOBODY KNOWS" doesn´t mean "my god did that", you have no argument. And by the way, theists have screamed "my god did that" literally every single time we as a species haven´t known the answer to something, and when we later figured out an actual answer, what a surprise, it never was a god. Oh and no idea how a universe that´s dead and lethal to way over 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999...% should be evidence for an intelligent creator anyway. Ontological: Pure bullshit. You can´t talk a being into existence. Moral: Moral behavior is a well understood sideproduct of evolution. We evolved as an empathic species, so we understand that if we don´t like to get punched in the face, other´s also dislike that, so we don´t punch them, they don´t punch us and we can all live in peace. No idea how that should be evidence for a god, let alone a god who is a perfectly evil monster like this Christian dude. And I hope you all realize that even if all these bullshit arguments would somehow be valid, you would still be at 0% to demonstrate that this is all your god. Same goes for personal relationships, all members of all the many thousand religions worldwide have that, and that makes their gods as real as yours.
Two can play this game. Proof his god doesn't exist: 1. A perfect being could not produce anything that's not perfect 2. The world is far far far from perfect 3. Therefore a perfect being couldn't exist Oh no, the guy who dresses up in the favorite outfit of child diddlers. Please choose a more respectable costume of you wish to be taken seriously.
There are also miracles, events that don't make sense when observed scientifically but make sense when you look at them with faith. I am extremely impressed by what happened at Fatima in Portugal and this is a thing that strengthened my faith.
You have to prove that it was a work of divine intervention and nothing else. Which you can't. And miracle therefore god is a false correlation. It could be chance or simply something else. You can't prove otherwise.
One thing people tend to forget is that, by definition, you can't prove or disprove a miracle scientifically. Scientific inquiry requires repeatability, and since a miracle is defined as a conscious intervention by God into the natural order of things, it would be like trying to get someone to react to you the same way twice, who is already aware of you observing them. And to those who say that such and such thing can't happen, that's kinda the point. An analogy I like to use is that it's like using a cheat code in a video game. The regular rules are being suspended in this case, so of course things don't behave as they normally otherwise would in a testable environment. To be certain, it's a fine thing to still try to test these things and determine if they do happen to fit into the laws of physics (something the Church generally tries to do, with help of field experts, with any new claims of miracles), but to simply say that something can't happen on the basis that something doesn't normally happen can be itself fallacious, and is in its way a statement based on nothing but faith (albeit faith in the absolute order of the universe).
It's that a problem as well. St Thomas Aquinas hypothesis proposed demons, zombies, exorcism, levitation, ghosts and goblins. Be honest here; if Father Casey started talking about vampires and smiting folk dead with prayer - all part of Roman Catholics doctrine - you'd not consider him the most authoritative advice of the origins of the universe. Perhaps ask a physicist rather than a magician
It's amazing how many apologists have been presenting these same arguments (arguments, not proofs, by the way) for hundreds of years, completely ignorant of the fact that the fallacies they are built on have been pointed out and it's been shown that they don't actually point to their specific version of god. It's amazing that they keep making these arguments. Well, the reason is that they are convincing to two groups of people: people who already believe and are looking for ways to justify their already concluded beliefs, or people who desire to believe and have yet to develop critical thinking skills. Sadly for the apologist, they don't do anything to actually "prove" the god they are hoping to demonstrate.
"4:00 - If god is that which nothing greater can be thought, then god must be omnipresent, all loving, and sufficient." Say what now? I'm going to go with, no. Another thing, maybe stop mentioning " logic" in ANY argument for god, as there is NONE.
First 15 seconds you say there's no 'physical' evidence for God in the entire universe. Before we get to 30 seconds in, you've listed off several things you think are physical evidence, like scripture.
Based on all of your comments, made before even watching the whole video, it doesn't seem like you've approached this video at all with any sort of good faith or legitimate interest.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Hello! The arrogance combined with the terrible logic is what drove me away. I have discussions with people who use poor reasoning regularly, and am extremely patient... but not for the arrogant.
@@BreakingInTheHabit if you wanted a more hopeful approach fro me, you shouldn’t have started the video treating atheists as baffled naive empiricists, unfamiliar with the things you listed.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Those claims prove nothing. If there was even a single discovery showing a god was real, it would be bigger news than Covid-19 and REPORTED ON as such. If a discovery was made that actually showed the 'Christian God' was real, it would be huge, life changing news! Especially to the Billions of non-Christians! That one discovery would be the top story on every news outlet for months! Yet not a single discovery showing your god is real has been REPORTED ON. Zero. _How do you explain that?_
The third one. Teleological argument is my thought. That if you look at everything. As small and complex as an atom to heck where the planets are perfectly place with ours being perfectly placed to sustain life itself is proof.
I wonder if this is why a lot of folks like the idea of the multiverse so much, as it's an easy out. With that, one can simply reduce the argument down to the survivor fallacy. I.e., we just happen to live in the one universe, of many, where things worked out this way, where we can even ask the question in the first place. If we are only one of infinite universes, this outcome is simply a matter of inevitability. But if there really is only one universe, let's just say it's pretty weird!
@Descriptor413 Personally........ I leave the whole multi verse thing to DC and Marvel comic books lol. Mainly cause of how, it's like the whole cartoon bear thing of thinking one thing was/is another. The Mandella Effect where folks say (I feel at times jokingly) that we're in another universe.
@@Descriptor413 Even in a single universe, though, the vast number of planets, stars, galaxies etc. out there over the course of billions and billions of years would seem to provide many chances for life to develop.
@@BardicLiving Oh, for certain. But the teleological argument also applies to a number of physical constants which, if slightly different, would make complex life impossible throughout the universe. Naturally, that's still not a hard proof, as the particular configuration of the universe may simply be a foregone conclusion of its existence to begin with, but it's still interesting.
1:34 let's focus on your reasoning using God as our example. A = God. *"We know that if something, A, exists, it did not create itself, but was created by something else."* -- You've just said God was created. That's extremely clumsy of you, didn't you think about God at all when constructing this argument? Such an obvious counter-example. I think this is as far as I'm going to watch unless you can say something to fix this glaring problem. This is the point when most philosophers will give up on your list of arguments. And it's so early in the video. You should have left the bad arguments to the end
I believe you have gravely misunderstood what I said because I actually said the opposite of this. I recommend watching it again. The point is that all physical "things" have an origin. But if this is the case, and there was no God, the cause and effect of the universe would regress infinitely, for there would always be a previous cause. Which is why there must be an uncreated being that exists outside of time and space to act as the first cause.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Alright, I'll give it another chance. I am interested in the arguments against an infinite regress (and consider them all to fail).
@@BreakingInTheHabit I'm stopping at 3 minutes in because you are moving on to the ontological argument. I missed any argument against an infinite regress, did you just hint at that and leave it out?
For me, the biggest surprise newly coming to faith was the realisation that I did not need to prove to myself that God exists. It was the concept of there being no god was what made no sense.
Oh. That makes total sense. Now that I think about it, if I try to conceptualise the beginning of time I don't even know how time would be created. But for some reason a part of me doesn't want to believe in God for absolutely no reason
@@DoTheFlopp Good attitude. You should not simply believe in God. In fact you should not tell anyone that you believe in god unless circumstances apply. God is the Infinite. God is not the Good or the Evil. God exists Beyond, as it studied by Laws and Order and Change. Following God requires Active action not passive belief. It's about the Hero's Journey. Even the Atheist argument is still following God, since it is on the upwards.
This is the reason why I worship the Tooth Fairy. I do not need to prove to myself that the Tooth Fairy exists. It was the concept of there being no Tooth Fairy was what made no sense.
"... there's no way that all of this is the result of mere randomness." Correct. When you throw sodium and chloride together, you get table salt. Nothing random about it, it's just how the world works.
You are openly expressing and appreciating the sin of pride. Don't feel sorry for them, they've made their choice and it is entirely possible they are just as content (or moreso) than you without religion. Belief is not a necessary facet of the human experience, and neither is faith, they may enhance it for some people but for the most part, if a person is trying their best to be a good person, regardless of religion, they are a good person, and they will probably feel content with their lives. I, along with many other Christians, believe that's what God wanted when He free'd humanity: for people to be good of their own volition for the simple reason that it is right, not out of some cosmic threat that they might suffer if they aren't.
I feel bad for you. You have no hope and no purpise without a deity. Thats more sad. Some people can be happy, fullfilled and live great lives without believing in something that boils down to magic.
On the contrary, my life has been far better since I lost my belief. I no longer have people telling me I am sick so they can offer me a cure, for one. No more fear of death/hell either. No more forcing myself to believe lies. etc. Now, instead of pretending to have purpose, I need to create my own. Its great.
I‘m quite unhappy with this portrayal of „proofs“ for God, since all of these arguments have flaws that are known for centuries. The cosmological argument may point to a „first mover“ but that doesn’t necessitate God, just a first cause - and may it be energy or matter that has always been there. By calling the „first mover“ God you can’t deduct anything about Him. The ontological argument is so weak, I don’t see why you included it - Kant gave a good refute of this argument, it should be an interesting bit of the history of God proofs but not really taken seriously today. I find the moral argument according to Kant indeed a good one but it doesn’t necessitate God - it shows that it’s reasonable to treat God as something that exists because else you wouldn’t have any moral ground, but the fact that there is morality that is universal (and one could doubt that) may point to evolutionary benefits and not God. The teleological argument may suffer from our subjectivity - in our eyes the world may seem like it’s designed for us, but this doesn’t proof it‘s really designed. I would say there isn’t a proof of God because a proof necessarily needs to define and fix God and this is not possible by His very nature. While the philosophy of the Middle Ages was very interested in a proof for God, it’s almost irrelevant to modern theology. In short: these aren’t proofs and they certainly don’t necessitate the existence of God.
@@EspadaKing777 Well I don’t understand how you can study theology and have a masters in divinity but when communicating theological concepts completely leave out important problems of the concepts you present - and I know he knows those problems, he makes other videos that show his theological expertise so I‘m disappointed. It would be way more honest to present these arguments, present the counter arguments and come to the conclusion that these arguments are indeed not definitive proofs.
In a season of great doubt, I used the Lord's name in vain and requested evidence of His existence. A few moments later, I heard what I believe to be angels singing. I'd never heard anything like it before and I've never heard anything like it since.@@vermontmike9800
@@OGmemegenerator i don’t think the proof I was given would pass the skeptical tests. But here goes. Many years ago, after questioning the existence of God and saying something to the effect of “I would believe if I had proof” in a heated argument with a Christian, I received a private revelation. I heard Angles sing. It was like nothing I had heard before or since. I can’t reproduce this miracle, I can only attest to it. I don’t think this will change your mind and don’t care to argue with you or anyone. And I have no interest in converting you-I don’t think evangelization of this kind works in the modern age. But I will never forget what I saw that day.
How did the fryer put it? The universe in teaming with life? The only life we know is in this little fly speck in the universe called earth. Where's this supposed other life he is speaking of? Not to mention he thinks according to is book of fables that the universe was spoken into existence. Magic. He believes it came about by.. . Magic. That's definitely very very unlikely. Nice try though. Stick with your Bible. You are out of your element Donny!
I wouldn't go so far as to call myself an atheists , but I am a non-believer. I love your videos and I wish to interact this one in a sincere good faith of sharing perspective so I am saying up front that the things I am about to say are not meant in any way to disprove God, or to devalue the faith of the faithful. You mention in the beginning of the video that atheists are confused as to how people can believe in god so I am just wanting to answer and expand on that. Firstly, a lot of atheists aren't confused at all as to the why or how people believe in God. I am certainly not and I can come up with fine reasons to justify such a belief. It makes me sad that so many atheists are just, ironically, 'holier than thou' about it. I don't think the belief is delusional and neither do my close friends who share my views. But acknowledging something is reasonably believable is not the same as adopting that belief yourself. Secondly, the first proof you offer about the origin of the universe is basically a god of the gaps argument. It's saying that God must be the answer because no other answer is readily available. But being the only conceivable answer to many does not mean it is the only possible one. Many like myself just believe that we can not and will not ever know the truth of the big bang or the origin of everything. Many people think it's impossible that the universe has simply existed forever, going through this cycle again and again on lengths of time well beyond our ability to comprehend. God does not even actually provide an answer to the question of where everything started, he just adds an extra step. Where did God start? Why do you not require an answer to that? Thirdly, morality is arguably an evolutionary trait. We have morals because a species that does not harm and destroy itself has one less enemy in the world. In the early days of human existence, stealing wasn't just deemed wrong because it hurt somebody, it was deemed wrong because it could mean death. It could mean food wasn't there when it was needed. It could mean a weapon wasn't where it was supposed to be if an attack came. Our modern day morals are built on those ancient pillars. A lot of theft today doesn't amount to much in threatening the survivability of the tribe of course, but it's still considered wrong because if it wasn't, we'd turn on each other. Fourthly, the teleological argument is.. well, it's god of the gaps again. It's saying that God must be the cause simply because no other answer is readily available, but even you say that it's highly improbably. Not impossible, but improbable. Improbably things happen all the time. Somebody has to win the lottery eventually after all. The chance that the world exists as it does today is inconceivably small, but here it is. "I have a hard time believing it" does not mean "It is impossible". You say there is no way that this is the result of randomness, but I have no idea why it can't be. You're arguing on the premise that the concept of beauty existed before beautiful things in our world did but why can it not be that the world exists as it is by chance, and we have just come to consider our favorite parts of it beautiful? The evolutionary sciences show well enough that order absolutely can come from chaos. The watchmaker argument falls apart entirely because the world is not a watch. There are evolutionary dead ends everywhere, vestigial body parts, useless things, the junk accumulated in a world that comes about through chance is easy to find. The watch maker does not put random gears in the watch that cause it to stop working before it should. They don't sprinkle dust into it or warp parts of it, but things like genetic anomalies pop up all the time. I really appreciate the ending message of your video, thank you for not painting people who are not convinced as simply being willfully ignorant or wanting *not* to believe. And again I wish to state that the things I have said here are not arguments against God or faith. Just my considered answers to your offered proofs, as a nonbeliever. For what it's worth, I would like to believe. I have tried to believe, but it just does not stick. I hear the way people describe the way their faith makes them feel. I've heard of moments of intense clarity and bam, the faith manifests in their hearts. But I have just never felt anything like that. When I try to engage with faith sincerely, I just feel nothing there. I'm getting older, and I'm terrified of death. I so dearly want to believe there is something waiting past my last breath. But trying to 'just believe in it' only ever feels like trying to build a house of cards, it collapses at the slightest nudge of self scrutiny. Still. Your videos bring me joy. I find them interesting, educational, and at times uplifting. What I wouldn't give to live in a world full of people so sincerely loving, sympathetic, and forgiving. Even when I don't agree with you, I enjoy listening to what you have to say, so thank you, and please keep it up.
If you call yourself a "non-believer" then by definition you are an "a" (lacking or without) "theist" (belief in a god or gods). I personally identify as an agnostic atheist, in that I don't claim to "know" that no god or gods exist, I just don't believe that they do, because no theist has ever come remotely close to providing sufficient evidence to justify a belief in their particular god or gods. I also wear my Pslam fourteen label with pride.
Thanks for sharing, but I wish to observe that referring to theistic arguments as being "god of the gaps" arguments rests on faith as well--specifically, that all religion does is offer explanations of "reality" that science will eventually refute, as in believing that tossing virgin women into volcanoes would appease "spirits" who won't get angry and cause an eruption. We all owe our gratitude to modern science for freeing us from vicious "gods" who demanded human sacrifice. But believing science covers the existence of all of reality misuses the brilliant tool itself by attaching it to a philosophical presumption that it can account for all of "reality." Even the most hardcore materialist has to recognize that the chances of electro-chemical forces--unguided by intelligence or purpose-- creating the universe would pencil out to about one in an astronomical number with hundreds of zeros--in other words, not a chance. To account for this materialists claim that there are countless "parallel universes" and we just happened to be in the one in conditions in which life--and eventually humanity--could form. No evidence for that, other than stubbornly clinging to materialist presumptions in the face of massive improbability. Actually consciousness itself is something that materialist science has never been able to adequately explain--especially when it comes to thought processes. Dawkins may assert that we are "meat computers" while ignoring that all computers need to be set up and programmed by an intelligent entity. Computers also do not have free will which itself is a stumbling block for deterministic materialists. If we are made through deterministic forces unguided by intelloigent will, all our thoughts and actions need to be guided by those forces and logically we shold not be able to escape those forces that made us. But without free will, everything we think and say and do lacks freedom, and all logical arguments are meaningless--we have no choice or free agency in coming up with our thoughts and no choice in how we respond to them. Obviously there are many thoughts, theories and nuances when it comes to discussing these issues and my answers are simplistic--but so is referring to theist thoughts and arguments as nothing but "god of the gaps" arguments.
@@77Catguy I suggest that you reread what you have written. You assert that theists are not making a "god of the gaps" argument and then you open your next paragraph with "... never been able to adequately explain" and promptly fill that gap with your god.
I am aware. I am an atheist by definition but the word has become very tangled in a specific kind of obnoxious personality that I like to distance myself from. I am an atheist, I just don't like to call myself one, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and reminds me of people I've known who are incapable of simply holding a belief (Or lack of one) without treating people who don't like they're idiots. @@downenout8705
Hello! And thank you for the civil and well thought response. I would like to first say that I don't think science does or will ever cover the existence of all reality. In fact I doubt it ever will. I am, frankly, comfortable enough to just not have an answer to the question of 'where did it come from', and my point was was more that God doesn't automatically become the only possible answer for lack of other options when one does delve into it. Perhaps it is God. Perhaps it is many Gods. Perhaps it is complete and other chaos that just happened to have created all that we know. A lack of one answer does not substantiate a different answer and to me, personally, it's not even a question that much needs an answer to begin with. I don't think all theist thoughts and arguments are 'god of the gaps' arguments, I was just replying to what the father specifically said. In the video he spells out that what there is to know just is not enough to prove god to some people without the light of faith. A light I myself have never felt, and have no way to explain, but I don't dismiss faith as being blind, unreasonable acceptance. My grandparents are very deeply religious people, and they're also some of the most reasonable people I've ever known. I'm sorry if I came across as trying to reduce faith into some form of ignorance, I truly am not. I just wanted to explain why what works as an answer for you, does not work for me. @@77Catguy
Have you ever asked yourself why George Lemaître warned the pope not to use the big bang model as a prove of creation? Also how do I get from this strange beeing "proven" by Casey to the God of the good old bible or the catholic church. There is a gap...
Question. If everything that exists must have been created by something else that exists, then who created GOD? God exists after all, so who created him?
There is also mathematical proof of God, by Kurt Goedel. However, such thoughts don't convince many people. I like Schleiermacher: "Religion is our feeling for the eternal"
Goedel's proof is actually Anselm's proof expressed in formal logic, the only difference being that Anselm is talking about the greatest being, while Goedel is talking about the greatest good. Both suffer from the lack of definition of what greatest being or greatest good mean.
Both Anselm and Goedel are ultimately begging the question. Anselm's argument, more properly expressed, would not look like this: [anselm's agrument for god] But rather like this: If a god exists, then [Anselm's rgument for god] He doesn't prove that god exists. He merely point out that IF a god exists, then his argument must be true.
"It's not that i don't understand you, it's that i don't believe you" - Rose Laylonde, Homestuck.
gotta say i was not expecting people to quote andrew hussie in the comments of a catholic friar
The problem with most philosophical works aimed at proving God exists is that, at most, they prove a creative force or intelligence. However, they failed to bridge that entity with the god of any particular religion, particularly Christianity, Judaism or Islam. Whether it is the apologetic works of St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Anslem, or more modern Christian philosophers like Dr. William Lane Craig and Dr. Alvin Plantinga, they can't seem to fill the chasm between the intelligent vague being they are attempting to prove and the *SPECIFIC* God they want us to believe in. When I was an atheist, I found these arguments to be wholly insufficient. I became a believer, not because of their sophisticated polemic. I became a believer because of how empty my life was without belief.
And that is the point! That search for "the missing something" that nothing in life can satisfy will always bring a person back to the truth of God.
Very true, but to someone who doesn't believe there is a maker, we must first show them there is a maker in the first place. Funny enough, the best argument that I heard to prove the Abrahamic God was from a Muslim trying to disprove the Trinity. He said something along the lines of if there was multiple gods, there would most likely not be order in the universe and the similarities between order on earth and order in the universe. Mainly because multiple gods with individual consciousness would disagree on a lot of things like we humans do. So if there was a sun god and a lightning god, they could disagree with each other at any point and it would collapse the whole universe. It didn't hold in disproving the Trinity for me because it's not three gods (which a lot of Muslims tend to believe).
I think the best and most efficient way to prove which God exists (this is not trying to convert anybody, be atheist into theist or a non-Christian theist into a Christian), is how that god is close to being a failure (or even some cases an abomination) or the spiritual elevation of the God of that religion, for example, the Gods that usually require human sacrifice, specially of children are demons, and I won't budge on this, then there is gods who are usually reprobates, they were usually good leaders in military or beautiful persons, but had a lot of problems, then, there is the normal gods(usually leaders of stablity), then there is sage gods, usually sages, priests or virtuous philosophers or the best leadership of a nation(be a tribe, country, city, etc) then, there is the gods who were close to a total virtuous life, and they had ways to back up the way they live, and Jesus of Nazareth excels in this last category, where other ultravirtuous persons would be similiar and conclude in the same way, usually they didn't claim to be a god in their contexts if you read their stories, Jesus did, the proof about Jesus claiming to be a God is the behaviour of the apostles, the writings of the earliest of earliest of Church Fathers who usually were direct disciples of the 12 apostles, the way they lived their lifes compared to Jesus Christ, the fact that they died in horible ways imaginable(be the earliest church fathers or the apostles), and the logical and philosophical ways they behave, not only, God is not contingent to the limitations of this world, so, questions like saying "if he created something heavier than him" doesn't work because it is trying to put an incontigent into a contigent, not only, but usually followers of a cult leader are usually disloyal and violent towards the autority, even when it favours it, my objective is not converting, debating, fighting, or calling anybody ignorant, so, I will not debate this with anybody and you are free to not accept this claim I'm making, I'll listen to arguments against what I've said only if you are catholic and you are trying to correct my point of view based on church fathers, scholastics, documents of the church and catholic theologians/priests(and please, if you are doing this, post the source of your claim), I'm just showing my point
It’s all the same God just various different understanding of the nature of God. Is the the Christian triune God or the nature that Islam understands and even within Christian denominations there are differences much more nuanced than Judaism or Islam
But those nuanced differences exist.
So they are not arguing over whether God exists in reality they are arguing over the nature of God
@@catholicguy1073 that's what I believe is happening between the three Abrahamic religions. Some people believe we aren't worshipping the same God the Muslims do, but how do we know we aren't, but are simply looking at him from two different perspectives. Something I think about a lot.
Same old tired, worn out and debunked arguments... and not one iota of proof.
The evidence is so clear, there is so much reasoneble to believe in an intelligent creator than a random explosion caused by nothing, come on think logical here!
Why must there be a first cause? Just because things we know have them doesn't mean everything must have one.
thats not logic..
depends which one.@SamoaVsEverybody814
It is intuitive to think that everything has a cause because we never see anything not have a cause. Well, you are right. This argument only makes sense with that intuitive presupposition. But that is a very high and impractical level of scepticism that you need to have to reject this presupposition. You don't live with that much skepticism. Let me give you an example: Your girlfriend/boyfriend tells you in a very romantic moment: "I love you". What would you do? Would you reject their statement? Because you can not and will never absolutely know if they truly love you in that moment. You can't know their hormones for sure. You don't even have a very good definition of love. But still you would believe them. It is intuitive to believe them because all the evidence of their behaviour points towsrds love. And for the cosmological argument all evidence of the observable universe points towards being caused. Therefore everything has a cause that is outside of itself. Therefore the universe has a cause.
@SamoaVsEverybody814 That is totally irrelevant for the discussion as by the cosmological argument you only establish a very open image of god. The cosmological argument only shows that there is a god. How he behaves and what his goals are is another story but in the first place no one asks about what humans can conceive or not. It is irrelevant for this argument to work.
Special pleading
I've seen a watchmaker in action. Your god has never provably made a watch or a blade of grass. I can prove my claim with evidence? You, got a feeling.
Well, of course you have because a watchmaker is a human making a watch in our world.
If there were tiny beings and galaxies being created by the same watchmaker insidethat watch, chances are the tiny beings wouldn't be able to physically find their maker in their world. The evidence of their maker is themselves and their world.
@@Squidwardsangryfacethat was not a good analogy. Sorry. But speculation such as. "If there were tiny beings inside the watch". Brings the discussion to a halt. And it certainly doesn't add to the watchmaker argument. That just adds a worse argument/premise. To an already poor argument/premise.
@@rationald6799 how is it bad? It literally paints the picture for creator being outside his creation.
@Squidwardsangryface It's an "if." In the here and now, we can demonstrate that watches and their makers exist.
@@vladtheemailer3223 I don't think you understand anything I said if that's what you got from my explanation.
My explanation is demonstrating a creator outside his creation. For example, the characters of Harry Potter do not know JK Rowling exists, since she is not physically present in their world. What is present in these characters' world is her intellect and creativity, and without her these characters wouldn't exist.
Oh nice another "everything is so complex and beautiful and we have empathy theres your proof that god must exist" video
I like PZ Meyers approach to explaining the "god explains why things exist" argument: he just repeats the word "complexity" over and over.
You didn't watch it, did you?
If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence
Scientifically thinking people know this, as world is full of evidence for God. On the other hand, no proof is enough for fervent atheists. This has been admitted by famous atheists like Richard Dawkins, Peter Atkins and others.
That's why the ontological argument fails. A god that has convinced everyone it exists would be greater than a god that has not. No such god has done so, therefore it doesn't exist and contradicts the argument.
@@psilynt1 I like your thought process here, but it depends on what you mean by term greater. From a human's perspective I can imagine that a "greater" god would have to prove itself, but from a god's perspective, wouldn't the greater god be one who didn't have to prove itself and people choose to worship without evidence?
@@goobyboxxton8526 I suppose. Could use the same argument with number of worshippers. Greatest god is the god worshipped by all people. Not all people worship, therefore God is not the greatest.
One could argue the God that exists and is worshipped by the fewest is 'greater', but that'd be the God that nobody worships.
@@psilynt1 Thank you, yes, that's exactly what I was trying to elucidate. Without an agreed upon meaning of the word "greater" then any logical conclusion drawn using that word cannot be evaluated.
The sad thing is. No matter what we say, prove, show. Most people won't listen and they will keep their beliefs and say that its just a coincidence
Yep! But Will be willing to believe humans came from monkeys. 🤷♀️
@@SquidwardsangryfaceActually evolutionary theory doesn’t hold humans came from monkeys but that the two came from a common ancestor. There is strong evidence for theistic evolution.
@@Squidwardsangryface Well, that's an oversimplified and inaccurate view of evolution, or "natural selection". In fact, the Catholic Church accepts evolution. The "first cause" is understood to be God.
Faith has always been necessary and faith is tricky.
@@bman5257Humans literally are monkeys according to monophyletic classification. All classifications are ultimately nominal though, since in reality every organism differs from every other one. Monophyletic classification exists for the convenience of humans.
If it is not observable it is indistinguishable from something that does not exist.
Yes exactly. A god that exists outside of time and space. And cannot be measured in any known way. Is the same thing as a god that doesn't exist.
If there is a God, he has no need or want to prove himself to you, it's the other way around.
@@lukesutton4135 you just made up that.
Did…did you just actually say “if I don’t know about it, it must not exist” in fancier words?
@@jaegercat6702 that's not what was said at all. A god who exists outside of space and time. And is not measurable by any means. Is the same thing as a god that doesn't exist.
Addendum: it's not that we can't see god. It's that there's no method to demonstrate that a god exists. We can't see air. But we can measure it. You can't do this with a god. Science can neither prove. Nor disprove the existence of a god.
Around the literally billions of people used to think the world was flat too. So what?
That's actually false, there has never been as many flat earthers as there are today
Also, many atheists believe men can get pregnant
yep, argumentum ad populum.
Universe wasnt created because there is no previous instance to be possible without time. So we can exclude God based on this crucial fact. No matter the argument, the time is the answer. Without time nothing is created. We live inside time. You can measure what happens within a time, but time itself cant be measured because we are inside it.
Has time always existed
As far as I am aware, we aren't sure.
Also ,does time exist, if so, existence is possible without time. Also, if I freeze time, would things exist. Probably. Existence is possible without time.
@@IanRice-Lindseth existence is temporal. What does it mean to exist for 0 seconds? Please list literally anything that existed without time.....I'll "WAIT"....!!!
1) Demonstrate that your intuitions of causality extend beyond space and before time, and that there is a "beyond and before spacetime" in which for things to exist.
2) For the ontological argument to even start to make any sense, there has to be an absolutely objective definition of "greatness", down to exacting detail. Otherwise the greatest thing to me is different than your greatest thing and now we have billions of necessarily existing gods roaming the heretofore undemonstrated "beyond and before spacetime"
3) Saying "many people agree that X is true" is not equal to saying "X is true" . Morality is subjective in the same way favorite foods are, just to a different degree. If you polled many cultures and found that children ages 5 to 10 most preferred frozen treats as dessert, would that make frozen treats the objectively correct dessert choice? No, it just means humans are similar, and so act similarly. In the same way, wanting to increase wellbeing is just popular because we and our societies are similar. It doesn't mean it's the absolute and objectively correct choice for what we ought to care about.
(That said, once a goal is chosen, moral facts can be found. If I want to maximize wellbeing, I ought not unalive people for fun, for example. I think it's this part that makes people think morality is objective. It's not, it only is once you agree on goals.
I could go on with other objections to this, but I'm trying (and failing) to be brief)
4) First, before this argument can even get off the ground, demonstrate that the universal constants are able to change. Bonus points if you can quantify their ranges, gradations, relationships, and probability distributions. But so far, we don't even know that they could be different than what they are. You don't just get that for free.
Bonus quibbles cuz I can't shut up:
7:10 You don't see objects acting in patterns *towards ends*, you see objects acting in patterns *and assume there's an end they're acting towards*. In reality, they're being pushed forward by prior events, not pulled towards future ones desired by some designer. Your car didn't start because you wanted to get to work, it started because you turned the key.
In the conclusion, you saying you need faith to accept these arguments is tantamount to saying the arguments are worthless. Your side is gonna believe what they believe because they think they have a relationship with a god, not because of these hobbled arguments. And my side isn't gonna be convinced by these hobbled arguments to believe in a god. So what's their point? What value do they add to anything?
Dude! I'm sure the spam detecting bot would have silenced me for a message that long. I'm sure glad you are here to make all those important quibbles :)
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I wish I was more brief, I saw a guy a lil lower down say everything I did, in better wording, and in like 1/3 the text. I'm just such a chatterbox and it's a problem lol
What is the cause of the God?
1. God made of what materials
2. Why God created the universe
3. What are duties and responsibilities of the God
4. What is the relationship between God and us
5. Why God created human
And many more questions I have.
There is no proof of God.
All of your answers can be found in the Bible…
The usual = Can't explain how it is... so there MUST be a god. Also, how convenient that said god is the one you were born into.
Nothing more than the God of the Gaps and the Argument from Ignorance. So much for "Proof god exists".
God is in your head, till you die. Then it stops. Its an illusion.
I'm glad he isn't in my head ☺
I like the ontological argument best. A god that has convinced me that he exists is greater than a god that has not done so, therefore the god that has convinced me he exists must exist, but no such god has done so, therefore this argument fails.
"If God, y me atheist?"
A being that is greater than anything that can be concieved is also infinitely patient, therefore he has no rush to convince you of his existence. It might happen tomorrow, or in the afterlife, it's up to you.
Point One) OK Something came first. Prove it was a god, then prove it is your god and then prove you have understood your god correctly.
Point Two) By your own admission this is NOT a proof of god's existence, but one of how a god must be IF a god exists at all. This "proof", therefore, is not a proof of a god's existance.
Point Three) Even if morality is something given to us by an external force, you have failed to prove that force is a god.However, you are wrong to say we are not taught morals. Of course, we are taught them. Have you not heard of bad parenting? It happens when parents don't teach the moral code to their kids. In truth, we have the same morals as others, because we benefit from them morals in the same way as others do. As tribes, nations and communities, we have all come to the same conclusions about what is best for us morally. It's a theory, anyway. For you to say our morals have ONLY come from god you would have to do two things: Prove a god exists (still waiting for that) and that my theory cannot be true.
Point Four) The puddle argument! I need say nothing more.
A whole life of belief gone with one YT comment!
Personally, the way to prove God's existence I like the most is the cosmological one - the other ones are, for me, too difficult to prove, although they're possibly true.
So, I'll only answer the point 1). First, notice this principle: if we have a chain of things or events, the first element by definition must depend on an element which is external to the series and exists. If there is, for example, a row of dominoes and every domino is knocked over by the previous one, the first domino cannot be knocked over by another domino, but by an element that is external to the domino chain.
If it's true, it's obvious that the chain of the things caused by other things must depend on a substance which caused itself, because this first element must exist and not be part of the chain of the things caused by others.
So, we now have proved the cosmological necessity of the existence of something which causes itself. This substance also caused other things (the chain of substances caused by others); but its only necessity is to cause itself. So, if it doesn't have to cause other things but causes them, this substance is free to cause them or not. So, it's not something, it's someone who trascends what is caused by others and has free will.
So this is why I think theism is rational and necessary. I could continue explaining you why, in my opinion, the most rational thing to believe is Catholicism, but I think you wanna discuss my argomentation
@@truthdrome looks like the OP doesn't wanna discuss your argomentation. But they already granted your first cause, so most of your argument is redundant. Rather, they asked for proof that the first cause is a god, and specifically the God worshipped by Catholics. You smuggle in the element of personhood by a mere sleight of language where you assert, "It's not something, it's someone who..." You have offered no evidence whatsoever that this first cause has the characteristics of a person, far less a "god." And no evidence whatsoever that this thing is the God of Catholicism.
@@shinywarm6906 I've already offered an argumentation for the personhood of this first cause: ontologically, this cause is free to cause other things or not to cause them; so, if it's free, it's not something, but someone. If you fino fallacies in this very argumentation, tell me.
So, he's someone free to cause and not to cause: but being the first cause, the only substance that must exist, he doesn't cause the world by modificating something else (in this case, we would have 2 first causes, and also the other first cause would be personal, and so on); so, he creates the world ex nihilo; therefore, he's a god.
Yes, I belief that this god is the one of the Catholic Church: this is an only act of faith, but we could discuss, if you want, the plausibility of this act
@@truthdrome thanks. Your criteria for "personhood" seem rather nebulous. Clearly, you don't see the development of a rock crystal as involving a "choice", so the creation of a novel entity in itself cannot be sufficient justification. You further assert that the First Cause makes this "choice" "freely". But you offer no justification for this assertion at all. In what way is invoking a supernatural "person" who "choses" to cause the universe different to the way that, prior to meteorology, people might believe that weather is caused by the choices of a "personal" weather god, who, at time T2 "freely" "decides" they want to cause a thunderstorm?
By contrast, what we can observe or extrapolate from physics gives us other options that do not require gratuitous assertions about magical persons. For example, it appears that some events at quantum level seem to occur at random and spontaeneously. This might imply the space-time continuum comes into existence (alongside the law of causation itself) spontaeneously at T2 (there is no T1). Alternatively, other models hypothesise an eternal cosmos - like Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclical Cosmology. Here, infinite iterations are caused by nothing but the result of continuing expansion. Again, no mysterious "person" is required.
@@shinywarm6906 1. I'm not able to cpmpletely define "personhood", but I know that personhood necessarily implies freedom. So, if a thing is free, is a person.
2. What we mean when we say something exists, is that has some effects.
Now, if the First Cause exists, it generates itself by definition. So, if the First Cause exists, it is its own effect. And, if it's its own effect, it doesn't have the necessity to cause something else. Therefore, the Universe is contingent for the First Cause.
So, the Universe could not be created by this Cause, but it is. Therefore, the First Cause is free, and is personal.
After that, you say that some phenomema at quantum level seem to occur spontaneously, so this could disprove the divine origine of the Universe. But this cannot be applied to the Universe, because physics is about the material things that exist, while even a not divinely created Universe trascends this field of study
Two things are abundantly clear:
• There is no good evidence fore the existence of a god or gods.
• There are no non-fallacious arguments for the existence of a god or gods. Also, you can't argue something into existence.
Thank you for producing this video. Unfortunately these arguments have been put to bed over and over and should not be convincing. It's still cool to hear how believed see things even if I don't find the claims convincing
Yes. There are countless books, videos, articles, lectures, debates, etc. which demonstrate that the four arguments covered in this video are not proof of the existence of a god. I wonder if Father Casey has paid any attention to them.
@@tonyd3433 Better to asume ignorance than malice.
@@tonyd3433 well he failed to pay attention to any of the child abuse cases within his church
@@Zanta100, I don’t think you’ve watched all his videos.
As a scientist and not necessarily a believer, I find these arguments very unhelpful. These arguments are not universally accepted by science, so you can't really call them proofs. Presenting them as proof is at best a mistake and at worst deeply misleading.
I think you might be conflating scientific proofs with philosophical proofs. They operate differently.
@@BreakingInTheHabit I don't think so. A proof has to be generally accepted by science to be a genuine proof. Otherwise, it's not a proof, it's just an opinion.
To that, you can respond that you believe that it's a proof, or that my criteria for what constitutes a proof are different from yours, but I would find both those responses rather disappointing.
If I hear the word proof, I don't want to discover sometime later that experts don't agree that it's a proof.
In fact, I read a comment below that basically calls non-believers stubborn for not accepting these kinds of arguments and that's another illustration of why the word proof should not be used. It causes confusion, in this case leading to prejudices stemming from a false belief that these "proofs" are somehow absolute certainties. That's exactly why using these proofs is at best unhelpful and at worst disingenuous. That is, unless you add a disclaimer that these "proofs" are not generally accepted by science and should be taken with a bit of a grain of salt.
As my own disclaimer: I don't want to lambast religion, I just criticise bad apologetics.
My advice to any apologist would be to point out the benefits of religion to one's personal life and try to identify why lack of religion, or other religions, don't offer these values. Forget proof, focus on people's emotional needs. That's why I'm reconsidering religion after decades of agnosticism anyway.
@@diedertspijkerboerTry Jainism or a wide variety of religions. Abrahamic religions ARE good but there are more.
@@BreakingInTheHabitPhilosophical proofs are not "proofs". They are only conjectures at best
Scientific concensus is not universally right about everything, things like geocentrism, floguistus and queer theory are proof of that.
A lot of special pleading, question begging, circular reasoning, non sequiturs and unsubstantiated claims.
Yup. If you remove all logical fallacies everything falls apart.
Go on then. List them.
@anthonyhulse1248 everything in the Bible is a logical fallacy by definition because they rely on the Bible to confirm the truth of the claim made. That's circular reasoning.
@@travisgarrison8777Catholics don’t believe in ‘sola scriptura’ so there’s no fallacy here for us.
@@travisgarrison8777Have you ever read the bible lol idk what preachers your listening to that keep repeating stuff.
Not knowing what happened before the beginning of your or our understanding isn't proof of God. This is insane.
There is no need for a first cause, since the spacetime continuum is not an effect and cannot be caused since that would be a temporal affair which cannot happen since there was no time before spacetime. And Einstein made it pretty clear that motion in itself needs no cause since that is the whole point of the theory of relativity. Thus the cosmological argument is a non-starter. If you want to have something that existed throughout, then you can take the universe directly, since it existed at any point in time, since it is like I already said spacetime.
The ontological argument falls also flat, since being able to imagine something better does not mean that this something better actually exists. And if I take it the other way around, that if your deity has the three omni properties that make it so perfect, how come then that the universe is then not also perfect reflecting that divine nature? Thus it is clear that if the universe has an origin in some entity, that entity is clearly no better than what it could make.
For the moral argument there is the Euthyphro dilemma, and worse there is no reason to think that moral realism or divine command theory are even a proper description of morality. Since moral relativism and moral anti-realism are equally valid positions to hold.
The theological argument is nonsense, since design is exactly the opposite from what we see. Design is elegance in simplicity not needless complexity. Furthermore that there is some order doesn't mean someone has to made these natural laws, for all we know there simply are no other options and thus all the proposed possibilities are just an illusion. The theological argument would be better if it would be impossible to exist and yet there would be life, and not just on our tiny planet, but everywhere and not relying on chemestry or energy but to be truly independent from any circumstances. Then you would have an argument that this would require some divine input. But as the world presents itself, the theological argument can be handwaved away as just a god of the gaps argument.
All those arguments are debunked centuries if not millennia ago. And the "gift of faith" as you call it seems to be what actual rational people would call a conformation bias. Don't get me wrong, you can believe whatever you like, but it would have been if you would have also addressed the criticism those arguments have and why they are not considered proof, since a proof has actually be conclusive and cannot be founded just on faith. Also, I find it funny how the video basically dismisses all the followers of religions which also do not adhere to these silly arguments. Guess this is just another case of the typical Christian arrogance that look down on others as not having proper faith. And then they are surprised that so many people rejecting their message...
👏excellent response! 🙏
When I get into my car to drive to the mall I always fasten my seatbelt. Why? Because blunt force injury resulting from a sudden stoppage could kill me. Blood loss could kill me as well. I'm mortal, I'm incapable of shapeshifting and I'm incapable of flight.
Contrast this with my natural enemy, the vampire. The vampire can do all the things I can not and the only way you can kill it is my driving a wooden stake through its heart. Why did God make vampires so powerful and humans so weak?
A god that exists in reality can potentially disappoint me by not complying with my wishes and desires. A god that exists only in my mind can never disappoint me, because I can mold it as I wish.
Therefor a God that exists only in my mind is greater than a God that exists in actuality. Logically this proves that God exists only in the minds of believers.
Wow, previously I simply was unconvinced by the arguments of theists, but now you've brought me to a place of having definite logical proof that God does not exist in actuality. Thank you for providing that.
With all due respect, this is a waste of breath, word salad, click bait. Of course there is no proof of god, and it doesn’t matter- That is the reason why religion is called faith.
The religious no longer have faith. They have received too much truth.
Respectfully, I disagree, and I think it might be because you have misunderstood the point. Please, if you haven't, listen to the final paragraph of the video (which is always where the main point will be made.) In it I say that it's not so much about proving to non-believers beyond a doubt, but rather giving logic and coherence to those who already believe. The former is likely not worth our time, but the latter is imperative.
@@BreakingInTheHabit What you said was your opinion. Keep that in mind.
I assume you are intelligent @@BreakingInTheHabit so why your knowingly lie in this presentation ... each of your assertions is logically flawed. Eg, the watchmaker hypothesis. The eye is far more complex and refined than any watch. And we can observe that this has evolved independently 4 times, and amazingly devolved in two cases. But more this is a false correlation: while have millions of watches where we can identify the make there is not a solitary case, he argues of a twig having a designer, let alone a universe ... the exitance of watches cannot be used to infer that our universe has been created by an intelligent designer in the same way that a watch has.
When I teach: I present leaners with a range of ideas including ones I don't like... be dead easy to include the retort. That would still not disprove a God.
Regardless, folk have a human right to practice whatever faith they wish and raise their family as they choose.
That is Enough!
@@russellmiles2861 He couldn't include any retorts, he started the video saying atheists aren't even aware of any of this stuff.
No god that is impressed by people who wear silly robes could possibly exist…Neither does one that collects prepuces of infants..
'We don't know, therefore God.' has a name: The God of the Gaps. I'm sorry, but there are FAR too many other possibilities. Remember, energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It is just as plausible that energy has simply always existed, regardless of its form.
I was also hoping to see an argument against the possibility of an infinite regress, but it was only hinted at :(
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I love the idea that entire universes could exist all around and within us, receding infinitely inward as well as outward.
DNA proves the existence of God. DNA is a super complex programming language made of an alphabet of 4 chemicals, A, C, G, and T. These are then translated into 64 3-letter code words called codons. A word of code, information, or instruction cannot write itself so who wrote DNA? God is the Programmer; DNA is the software instructions contained inside every seed of life that instructs it on what and how to become.
My dad was a mathematician. He used to say that you can't study mathematics without coming to an understanding that God exists. The basis of the universe is ordered from the start and at its heart is orderly. He used to say that numbers are the basis of everything and order is at the base of everything.
That's what Pythagoras said. Heraclitus worked from language, and reached the same conclusion.
Nonsense.
If your father was mathematician,he would never say anything close to that.
.. maybe you meant to say "substitute math teacher at religious school",not an actual mathematician?
@@thinboxdictator6720why this harshness? You didnt even show a point, you just disrespected someone you dont know. Anyway, study some math, so maybe next time you wont behave so rudely. There are many papers talking about this topic, relating god and math. Maybe if you will ever be able to read something, you wont state nOsEnSe without any point apart from your rudeness. Byeeee
Speacial pleading.
@@spaghettinoo I don't think I was harsh.
if I told you that my father was a physicist and got proof of Illuminati faking globe earth,what would you say?
btw saying there are "many papers" is making it sound like it's something legitimate,on level of actual mathematical proofs/conjectures .. meanwhile it's just some people trying to get to some specific conclusion ( instead of figuring it out and see where it goes ), which is ridiculous on it's face to everyone who at least partly understands the topic they try to base their argument on.
this one might have been a bit harsh,previous one wasn't.
Sorry, but there are no proofs. Those are just justifications based on ones preconceived concepts. All religion is based on faith alone, if there is proof, there is no need for faith.
Is there _anything_ that faith alone can NOT reveal to be true?
@@Theo_Skeptomai Faith alone cannot reveal anything to be true, why would you ask such a silly question?
@skarpheinnsmundsson9741 That is NOT what I hear from Christians routinely. Many of them claim that by faith, this 'God' reveals itself to them. Have you not heard this before?
@@Theo_Skeptomai What you hear from Christians doesn't change the fact that belief without evidence cannot reveal anything to be true.
It's just wishful thinking.
@@wallflower9856 Exactly!
"Is There Proof God Exists? Yes"
- Why do you need to lie in your title?
Yes, in the absence of evidence, people turn to logic... however, logical arguments cannot prove anything in reality. Every one of the arguments he presents have been debunked many, many times over.
*Cosmological arguments* assert that God was the cause of X... they cannot demonstrate the validity of this assertion. It is made in total ignorance. It also engages in special pleading.
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" don't know, could there be nothing? Can you show that God did anything? No? this is just an argument from ignorance, a god of the gaps argument. We don't know how/if something happened, so insert God and call it a day.
*Ontological,* God exists at least in our minds... yeah, not going to bother going into this one too deep. If it is convincing to you, you have my sympathy. Does the maximally great pizza exist? Isn't it possible to conceive of something that's even better every time we conceive of a similar thing? Does what you think routinely affect reality around you? No? then why think it does in regards to God?
*Teleological arguments...* I can't understand or am amazed by X... so God did it. Complete arguments from ignorance. Many also assert that, when 2 things share 1 trait (often complexity) they must share another (usually that they were created by intelligence)... this is silly. A horse and motorcycle share the trait of being ridden by people, does that mean that horses must use rubber tires or that motorcycles must eat grass? Of course not, so why think that, since both watches and cells are complex, they must share the trait of being designed?
FTI, no one asserts that things happen ONLY by chance. Basic fundamental forces of matter/energy put limits on chance and randomness, as do processes like natural selection. If you want to assert that God is just the fundamental forces of the universe that's on you, just know that if you do that you need to discard all the stuff that the bible says and stop capitalizing "god" when you write it.
FYI 2. We don't assert that watches are created because they are complex, we do so because we have evidence of watches being created. We don't have that for God and the universe.
by logical arguments you mean broken arguments full of logical fallacies and scientific misunderstandings.
Which scientific misunderstandings?
@@mig5l Everything.
The odds of an watch coming to existence by randomness... This is the most simplest proof and most powerful proof of god's existence
Oh dear oh dear, the old watchmaker "argument"? Who says the universe operates on pure randomness? Order doesn;t require a directing mind.
@@richardgregory3684 Yes, order does require directing mind. Default position of world is Randomness keeps increasing.
@@anisursamsung _Yes, order does require directing mind_
It really doesn't. Tip a pint of oil into a bucket of water. You will end up with an ordered separation of the two - for no other reason than the oil is less dense. Unless you think that god has a special team of angels assigned to doing it?
@@richardgregory3684 Yes. The example you just gave is the concept of entropy. Which is actually randomness.
This is so funny to watch bro is speed running logical fallacies 😂😂😂
Making such a short video is imprudent. The arguments he describes are far too complex and nuanced to be explained in 2 minutes.
'Evidence' is universal. There's no such thing as 'Catholic evidence'.
Using terrible, debunked arguments doesn't proved god. It just shows theists like you still have nothing.
When you stop using models that were shown wrong even before Newton, then you might start getting somewhere.
Until then, it's total gibberish.
So, in summary: these aren't convincing, or logically coherent arguments. They are just crutches to reinforce your confirmation bias.
Exactly
If as you say: "god is by his very nature Perfect", then we wouldn't exist.
Honestly, take a step back and think about a Truly Perfect and Flawless being. It would want = Nothing. it would need = Nothing. Why? Because it is Perfect and Truly Flawless. Think about that.
If that being were real, we would not exist. Why would such a being make us? Some say to have a "relationship" with us. So he did Lack something. If one lacks anything, it is not Perfect or Complete.
Besides all that, going by what he himself called Flaws and Sin, the "god" of the bibles is FAR from Perfect and Flawless.
None of these arguments stands up to even a cursory analysis. You have to start by believing in god to consider these “proofs”. ( i.e. they’re really post-hoc rationalizations, not proofs).
Once again the ONLY proof you have is I am telling you !
Strange as it may seem its as dishonest, ignorant and delusional as before
If there was such an obvious & evident god don't you think there would be obvious & evident evidence?
Sir Isaac Newton had a friend who, like himself, was a great scientist; but he was an infidel, while Newton was a devout Christian. They often discussed their views concerning God, as their mutual interest in science drew them much together. Newton had a skillful mechanic make him a replica of our solar system in miniature. In the center was a large gilded ball representing the sun, and revolving in proper order around this were small balls fixed on the ends of arms of varying lengths, representing Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. These bails were so geared together by cogs and belts as to move in perfect harmony when turned by a crank.
One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, his infidel friend stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move with their relative speeds in their orbits. Standing off a few feet he exclaimed,
"My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?"
Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, "Nobody!"
Quickly turning to Newton, the infidel said, "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?"
Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonished infidel replied with some heat, "You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I'd like to know who he is."
Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend's shoulder. "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much larger system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a design and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?"
Love it!
Oh did the other scientist, who apparently has no name, turn to Newton and say "because I've seen mechanical toys being built by humans, have you seen a stellar body shop creating a sun in front of your eyes?"
@@WolfA4 I like that! My comment was a copy-and-paste from an article I read. I am pretty sure it was an allegory, because I could find no evidence of who this 'other scientist' was either. I agree more with your comments. It's always problematic for me when we (humans) resort to declaring something a 'miracle' merely because we lack the knowledge to understand. In centuries past, we would have declared it all 'sorcery' (such as the upcoming solar eclipse). It's OK to say 'We don't know ... yet.'
That's a silly story.
Newton was mistaken, he was also one that believed he could turn lead into gold. He was mistaken about that too.
Newton was Human and prone to making mistakes as we all are, he may have made less mistakes but he did make them.
Says it like Atheist's have not heard it all before, and debunked it ad nauseum. Theists, you really need to come up with something new, not the same old crap you have been using for thousands of years. As an Atheist, all this video does is make me yawn.
This is right up there with “Look at the trees!“
4:20 Catholic priest openly tells you he has no concept of empathy.
In light of this admission I am shocked at the child abuse scandals associated with the Catholic church.
To be fair he's not a catholic priest, but a friar. Friars doesn't need seminary, they actually doesn't need to think jesus was god, or at the extreme even be theists. Look at them as if they are bhuddist monks that instead of bhudda have jesus as central figure, and want to live theyr lives in poverty and contemplation as he (allegedly) did. I've far more respect for friars than priests. Priests know the bible make no sense but have to lie about it, friars are free to care less.
He didn't say that at all
What you call proof, and what I call proof, are diametrically opposed.
because the apologist relies on word games to confuse the concept of a "proof" with an "argument" and hopes you don't notice.
What do you call proof? Because the ontological argument is logically sound.
God is exactly a Santa Claus character.
Except there are evidence for Santa Clause.
The gifts.
@@freddan6fly
The Tooth Fairy: money replacing a baby tooth.
There is nothing about the first cause theory that points to the cause being sentient, let alone omnipotent and omniscient, let alone good & loving
My dear friend, in my quest to be a "good atheist" as per your definition I respectfully have to point out that the arguments of Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas are merely logically unsound wordplay that no one should ever use and that your propagation of these bad arguments as if they had not been shown to be fallacious does not reflect well on your position at all.
Video Summary: Poor arguments and fallacies, leading up to, "You've got to have faith."
These "arguments" shouldn't convince anybody.
And scarcely anyone is a Christian because of those "arguments". He even admits that they're mainly meant as rationalizations for already existing belief.
True
And yet they do convince way more intellectually gifted people than you. Kurt Gödel for example...
How marvelous that there is proof of a Magic Unicorn who created a septillion stars, designed the human brain, and has a Master Plan for our entire existence, in spite of being strangely unable to stop the wars, or feed the starving children in the 14 billion years since the universe began. Has this amazing proof been submitted to scholarly journals and scientific publications for peer review? Has the Nobel Prize been announced?
You don't understand what the word "proof" means, my dude.
In philosophy a proof is a rational procedure aimed at establishing valid knowledge.
Religious apologists don´t understand what most words mean, it´s the way of the apologists to not know them and never ever learn and just continue to parrot the script.
@@skarpheinnsmundsson9741 I'd say they purposefully redefine words to fit their narrative and make liberal use of equivocation.
Nobody knows what causes lightning ⚡🌩️
So there must be a god.
Zeus.
The issue very surface level discussions of these arguments run into is that there have been counter points and further work done on all of these arguments which means presenting them in their most basic forms doesn't really cut the mustard.
The cosmological argument requires you to swallow an entire Aristotelian metaphysics of causes, which you don't have to just accept and other theories of causation exist. Additionally, you could posit a non-intelligent "purely actual" force and get the same result.
Kant neatly dealt with the Ontological argument by pointing out that "'being' is evidently not a real predicate"
The Moral Argument presupposes there cannot be a natural explanation for social animals to develop certain behavioural patterns...which is question begging (or 'assuming the antecedent', for those more academically inclined), and incidentally the teleological argument makes the same mistake.
Frankly, these are just not very strong arguments; which you'd come to expect given that these are being presented in essentially the same forms they were created in, with the oldest being around 1300 years old.
I imagine this suits folk with superficial level commitment to the Faith.
How do you like that tree and its beautiful green leaves?
Those leaves aren't green. They're purple.
Look up to the blue sky.
It's not blue. It's purple.
And the warm, yellow sun.
It's not yellow, it purple.
Why do you keep saying that everything's purple?
Because everything's purple.
How do you know that?
Because that's what the Book of Purple says.
You mean, because of this book, you don't even acknowledge other colors?
Everything;'s purple.
You need not sort the proofs for god in four categories. One is sufficient. It´s label: Failed.
A great saying I heard is
“ God is not a mind issue, it’s a heart issue”
Partially correct. When I was in seminary, my theology professor made the point that one person (actually, one being) who would be sure to score 100% in his class would be Satan. Head knowledge--in and of itself--does not lead to salvation. As Jesus said, He wants "circumcision of the heart": for us to repent of our sins and to love and serve Him and love and serve others in His name, through the guidance of God's Holy Spirit.
For purposes of clarity, however--especially in this day and age of one-sided atheist propaganda and misportrayal of theism in general and Christianity in particular--these proofs of God's existence really need to be presented to counter the intellectual dishonesty in the way Christians are portrayed. Thanks very much to "Breaking In The Habit" for doing so!
Yep.
Someone who does not want to believe in God at the end of the day will do everything they can to get around doing so
@@77Catguy that is so true ... I find it dead easy to bet Christians in Bible quiz. It is like they never read the sacred word of their own god. Pretty weird.
So don't think just believe?Hmm I can see a bit of a problem with that
@@stephanhirons3454 Nope, Catholics love solving and thinking about everything
That’s why we have funded so many universities
all of these arguments have long been debunked so well and so diversely and clearly that it's surprising to see a simple rehash
Obviously a god created everything because humans created the wristwatch and the building.
This is the logic religious people use to prove their god created stuff.
After 9 minutes of word salad the answer is unequivocally no.
Just the same tired arguments, strawmaning and circular reasoning that has been debunked countless times.
There is no evidence and never will be.
This is one of the worst, weakest collections of arguments for a god I’ve ever seen. Genuinely.
It is an accurate, if not condensed, recanting of most of the a priori arguments for a god ever made. The fact that they are so weak is why atheism is such a strong position: atheism lives and dies on the inability of theists to prove their god(s), and the fact that even the best arguments are weak ones is ongoing demonstration that atheism is a belief that is more parsimonious with logical coherence than theism.
@V0idFace What are some of the stronger ones you've heard?
@@darkdrow66 that’s like asking “what is the best flavor of sh*t you’ve had?”
@@V0idFace There can be weaker and stronger arguments in favour of a proposition that is false. You said it yourself by saying these ones are weak, so I'm curious what stronger ones you've heard.
@V0idFace Sounds like you already had your mind made up before clicking on this video. Probably best to put this topic behind you and move on with your life. Stop wasting your own time.
God allowed us to be conscious beings with souls to realise God exists this is what makes us unique of all the life forms on the planet .
How do you know ,did God tell you
Why would an all knowing, all powerful and all good God have any need or desire to create? What would be the point?
Because he is all good
Boredom
Please bump if "because he is all good" gets explained. I also don't understand
@@bariumselenided5152
I might build a house to live in.
God doesn't need a house.
I might create a painting to sell and earn some money.
God doesn't need money.
I might create a sculpture to win an award and receive praise.
God has no need of praise or awards.
I might write a novel just to see how good I could make it.
Anything God created would be perfect.
I might write a song to seek stardom and the admiration of others.
God doesn't need stardom or admiration.
I might try to make others happy.
Okay, why doesn't God make people happy?
@@bariumselenided5152 he created the heavens and the earth and saw that it was good. He created man in his image so that we may partake in the glory of his creation. We have mind; we have the capacity to create. And so, our relationship with our Lord is ever more apparent when we tend to our talents, and when we use our cognitive faculties to ponder about things. For those who are suffering, they can partake in Christ’s passion as to suffer with him and to know him better. God loves us all and his presence is always here - it is just felt less when we abandon him. He wants us to be holy so we can know him more and be his friend.
Wow. Viced Rhino and Sir Sic in the same day. You probably haven't taken a reaming like that since you were an altar boy.
What an underrated comment:)
Ther is absolutely zero proof of the bible gods existence, but overwhelmingly evidence for his nonexistence.
With all due respect. You do not have proof that god exists. His nature, being supernatural, has no evidence for it. If faith is not enough for you, you've got nothing. Why not take a look at what that means.
we live on a planet where feeling creatures eat eachother. no god.
I dont think these arguments work. Their premises aren't all correct.
Apologist feel is moral to lie in defense of Faith.
@russellmiles2861 I don't think most apologists lie. I think those that make these arguments think they are sound. I just disagree.
@@danielgalvez7953 I use to feel most Apologist held sincerely felt views that they wanted to shared. I merely had a passing interest in early church history - it is a fascinating topic. I had my father's old books as he was likewise interested. I honestly didn't look at such things deeply.
During our long lock down I took a few online courses on the topic. Language is not a strong point so I found Greek and Hebrew hard.
Regardless, I met some wonderful folk with excellent language skills. I certainly learnt much about Biblical texts had emerge, translated and developed. I also realised that Aplogiticist had study such to a high level in seminaries and university. They were not make mistakes - they seemed to be purposely misrepresenting texts, selectively citing texts and avoiding much. The sincerest ones seem to feel that there were things they might never know. Others stated things as facts that they clearly knew were not. They weren't stupid.
@@russellmiles2861 interesting. That isn't my experience, but perhaps I haven't looked into things as deeply as you. I'm a fan of a lot of apologetics, just not these arguments.
This video is only for believers. They, and you are not watching Dawkins or Hithens. I am not smart as they but will try.
God is omnipresence, omnipotent, all knowing and good. So, why there are bad things in the world? Is he not able to stop bad things? Then he is not omnipotent and not god. Is he able to stop bad things but not willing? He is than not all good so there is no god.
You may say that there is free will. OK. But, is there god's plan? If I can destroy god's plan he is not omnipotent, so there is no god. If he tells me go to hell I have free will and I do what I wish. I am going to heaven, no matter the god say. So, there is no god
Father Casey, your videos consistently bring me joy and help me in my spiritual journey. Even though I'm not Catholic, I'm now seriously exploring the priesthood in my own tradition (Orthodox Christian) thanks to your videos.
Lols. Just because you say something doesn't make it true. You presuppose god therefore everything afterwards is flawed as you just jam god in any old gap you can find.
Proof would be a compromise to faith. If everyone knew god was real, it would be just a matter of doing right and wrong as if you were following a law.
And yet people break the law all the time. Funny how even that argument fails spectacularily under the tiniest bit of critical thinking.
@@Finckelstein It's not about if people would do right or wrong if they knew god was real, it's about how if god was a proven fact it would make faith obsolete. Maybe my comment would've made more sense if you used some critical thinking.
@@ClassicCat Oh yes, the person who thinks "faith" is in any way desireable talks about critical thinking. Hilarious.
Faith is beyond useless. If your god operates on it, your god is a pathetic little tyrant who wants to punish people for not being able to believe utter nonsense on nothing but baseless claims.
The only reason you're trying to depict faith as something desireable is because your religion has not a single shred of evidence behind it. It's all feelings and fallacies. If you had evidence, you'd proclaim from the rooftops how foolish it is to believe on faith alone.
Maybe you should've refrained from making such a ridiculous comment and used critical thinking instead.
Fr. Casey’s proof “so many rainbow flags nowadays”.
I just got out of a philosophy of religion class where we were debating the existence of God, feeling frustrated - and this was the first thing I saw. Deo gratias!
You're telling me that stuff like "cosmological argument" here,was not mentioned and explained to your satisfaction as an example of bad reasoning?
@@thinboxdictator6720 hope they didn't pay to much for that class XD
I would have assumed that any proper philosophy course would have ripped these arguments to shreds... must have been heavily leaning towards belief in god bias.
@@timeshark8727 well no they might remain pretty netural about such things.
If you thought that was a good argument for your god you need to turn around and go right back into that philosophy class! Such bad epistemology! What if it were a Muslim video? Or an atheist one? You would believe those? No. This is confirmation bias.
Dude, if arguments are centuries old and haven´t impressed anybody in the last 2000 years, you can be fairly sure about two things. First, you can be sure atheists have already heard them all, and second, it´s in no way impressing us. And here is why.
Cosmological: NOBODY knows how our universe came into existence, and as long "NOBODY KNOWS" doesn´t mean "my god did that", you have no argument. And by the way, theists have screamed "my god did that" literally every single time we as a species haven´t known the answer to something, and when we later figured out an actual answer, what a surprise, it never was a god.
Oh and no idea how a universe that´s dead and lethal to way over 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999...% should be evidence for an intelligent creator anyway.
Ontological: Pure bullshit. You can´t talk a being into existence.
Moral: Moral behavior is a well understood sideproduct of evolution. We evolved as an empathic species, so we understand that if we don´t like to get punched in the face, other´s also dislike that, so we don´t punch them, they don´t punch us and we can all live in peace. No idea how that should be evidence for a god, let alone a god who is a perfectly evil monster like this Christian dude.
And I hope you all realize that even if all these bullshit arguments would somehow be valid, you would still be at 0% to demonstrate that this is all your god.
Same goes for personal relationships, all members of all the many thousand religions worldwide have that, and that makes their gods as real as yours.
Great answer. I do find it interesting that he spews this nonsense but never responds to comments. Kind of cowardly for a man of God.
Two can play this game.
Proof his god doesn't exist:
1. A perfect being could not produce anything that's not perfect
2. The world is far far far from perfect
3. Therefore a perfect being couldn't exist
Oh no, the guy who dresses up in the favorite outfit of child diddlers. Please choose a more respectable costume of you wish to be taken seriously.
Perfect respone. Please, allow me to use it in my debates.
These are your best shots? Time to hand the robes in.
There are also miracles, events that don't make sense when observed scientifically but make sense when you look at them with faith. I am extremely impressed by what happened at Fatima in Portugal and this is a thing that strengthened my faith.
You have to prove that it was a work of divine intervention and nothing else. Which you can't. And miracle therefore god is a false correlation. It could be chance or simply something else. You can't prove otherwise.
One thing people tend to forget is that, by definition, you can't prove or disprove a miracle scientifically. Scientific inquiry requires repeatability, and since a miracle is defined as a conscious intervention by God into the natural order of things, it would be like trying to get someone to react to you the same way twice, who is already aware of you observing them.
And to those who say that such and such thing can't happen, that's kinda the point. An analogy I like to use is that it's like using a cheat code in a video game. The regular rules are being suspended in this case, so of course things don't behave as they normally otherwise would in a testable environment.
To be certain, it's a fine thing to still try to test these things and determine if they do happen to fit into the laws of physics (something the Church generally tries to do, with help of field experts, with any new claims of miracles), but to simply say that something can't happen on the basis that something doesn't normally happen can be itself fallacious, and is in its way a statement based on nothing but faith (albeit faith in the absolute order of the universe).
It's that a problem as well. St Thomas Aquinas hypothesis proposed demons, zombies, exorcism, levitation, ghosts and goblins.
Be honest here; if Father Casey started talking about vampires and smiting folk dead with prayer - all part of Roman Catholics doctrine - you'd not consider him the most authoritative advice of the origins of the universe. Perhaps ask a physicist rather than a magician
@@russellmiles2861 Oh another fun fact about St Thomas! He was an anti Semite. He hated Jewws!
Atheists: take Pascal's wager. What have you got to lose?
It's amazing how many apologists have been presenting these same arguments (arguments, not proofs, by the way) for hundreds of years, completely ignorant of the fact that the fallacies they are built on have been pointed out and it's been shown that they don't actually point to their specific version of god. It's amazing that they keep making these arguments. Well, the reason is that they are convincing to two groups of people: people who already believe and are looking for ways to justify their already concluded beliefs, or people who desire to believe and have yet to develop critical thinking skills. Sadly for the apologist, they don't do anything to actually "prove" the god they are hoping to demonstrate.
"4:00 - If god is that which nothing greater can be thought, then god must be omnipresent, all loving, and sufficient." Say what now? I'm going to go with, no. Another thing, maybe stop mentioning " logic" in ANY argument for god, as there is NONE.
Every single day I become more grateful that I left Catholicism for Atheism
Believe you made a mistake and you will regret it...
@@dessieeditss nah
First 15 seconds you say there's no 'physical' evidence for God in the entire universe. Before we get to 30 seconds in, you've listed off several things you think are physical evidence, like scripture.
Based on all of your comments, made before even watching the whole video, it doesn't seem like you've approached this video at all with any sort of good faith or legitimate interest.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Hello! The arrogance combined with the terrible logic is what drove me away. I have discussions with people who use poor reasoning regularly, and am extremely patient... but not for the arrogant.
@@BreakingInTheHabit if you wanted a more hopeful approach fro me, you shouldn’t have started the video treating atheists as baffled naive empiricists, unfamiliar with the things you listed.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Those claims prove nothing.
If there was even a single discovery showing a god was real, it would be bigger news than Covid-19 and REPORTED ON as such.
If a discovery was made that actually showed the 'Christian God' was real, it would be huge, life changing news! Especially to the Billions of non-Christians! That one discovery would be the top story on every news outlet for months!
Yet not a single discovery showing your god is real has been REPORTED ON. Zero.
_How do you explain that?_
The third one. Teleological argument is my thought. That if you look at everything. As small and complex as an atom to heck where the planets are perfectly place with ours being perfectly placed to sustain life itself is proof.
I wonder if this is why a lot of folks like the idea of the multiverse so much, as it's an easy out. With that, one can simply reduce the argument down to the survivor fallacy. I.e., we just happen to live in the one universe, of many, where things worked out this way, where we can even ask the question in the first place. If we are only one of infinite universes, this outcome is simply a matter of inevitability. But if there really is only one universe, let's just say it's pretty weird!
@Descriptor413 Personally........ I leave the whole multi verse thing to DC and Marvel comic books lol. Mainly cause of how, it's like the whole cartoon bear thing of thinking one thing was/is another. The Mandella Effect where folks say (I feel at times jokingly) that we're in another universe.
Another logically flawed hypothesis
@@Descriptor413 Even in a single universe, though, the vast number of planets, stars, galaxies etc. out there over the course of billions and billions of years would seem to provide many chances for life to develop.
@@BardicLiving Oh, for certain. But the teleological argument also applies to a number of physical constants which, if slightly different, would make complex life impossible throughout the universe.
Naturally, that's still not a hard proof, as the particular configuration of the universe may simply be a foregone conclusion of its existence to begin with, but it's still interesting.
1:34 let's focus on your reasoning using God as our example. A = God.
*"We know that if something, A, exists, it did not create itself, but was created by something else."*
-- You've just said God was created. That's extremely clumsy of you, didn't you think about God at all when constructing this argument? Such an obvious counter-example.
I think this is as far as I'm going to watch unless you can say something to fix this glaring problem.
This is the point when most philosophers will give up on your list of arguments. And it's so early in the video. You should have left the bad arguments to the end
I believe you have gravely misunderstood what I said because I actually said the opposite of this. I recommend watching it again.
The point is that all physical "things" have an origin. But if this is the case, and there was no God, the cause and effect of the universe would regress infinitely, for there would always be a previous cause. Which is why there must be an uncreated being that exists outside of time and space to act as the first cause.
@@BreakingInTheHabit Alright, I'll give it another chance. I am interested in the arguments against an infinite regress (and consider them all to fail).
@@BreakingInTheHabit I'm stopping at 3 minutes in because you are moving on to the ontological argument.
I missed any argument against an infinite regress, did you just hint at that and leave it out?
For me, the biggest surprise newly coming to faith was the realisation that I did not need to prove to myself that God exists. It was the concept of there being no god was what made no sense.
Oh. That makes total sense. Now that I think about it, if I try to conceptualise the beginning of time I don't even know how time would be created.
But for some reason a part of me doesn't want to believe in God for absolutely no reason
@@DoTheFlopp Good attitude. You should not simply believe in God. In fact you should not tell anyone that you believe in god unless circumstances apply. God is the Infinite. God is not the Good or the Evil. God exists Beyond, as it studied by Laws and Order and Change. Following God requires Active action not passive belief. It's about the Hero's Journey. Even the Atheist argument is still following God, since it is on the upwards.
In order for a creation to manifest, the previous occuring event deducting further indication must preserve its manipulative gusto.
This is the reason why I worship the Tooth Fairy. I do not need to prove to myself that the Tooth Fairy exists. It was the concept of there being no Tooth Fairy was what made no sense.
"... there's no way that all of this is the result of mere randomness."
Correct. When you throw sodium and chloride together, you get table salt. Nothing random about it, it's just how the world works.
The greatest gift my mother gave me was making sure I was baptized. I feel sorry for people who have no faith, what an empty life to live.
You are openly expressing and appreciating the sin of pride. Don't feel sorry for them, they've made their choice and it is entirely possible they are just as content (or moreso) than you without religion. Belief is not a necessary facet of the human experience, and neither is faith, they may enhance it for some people but for the most part, if a person is trying their best to be a good person, regardless of religion, they are a good person, and they will probably feel content with their lives. I, along with many other Christians, believe that's what God wanted when He free'd humanity: for people to be good of their own volition for the simple reason that it is right, not out of some cosmic threat that they might suffer if they aren't.
I feel bad for you. You have no hope and no purpise without a deity. Thats more sad. Some people can be happy, fullfilled and live great lives without believing in something that boils down to magic.
Yes, my life is very empty ...but the price I must pay to avoid eternity with a bunch of no it all Aplogiticist.
you're living the same life you're just delusional
On the contrary, my life has been far better since I lost my belief. I no longer have people telling me I am sick so they can offer me a cure, for one. No more fear of death/hell either. No more forcing myself to believe lies. etc.
Now, instead of pretending to have purpose, I need to create my own. Its great.
I‘m quite unhappy with this portrayal of „proofs“ for God, since all of these arguments have flaws that are known for centuries. The cosmological argument may point to a „first mover“ but that doesn’t necessitate God, just a first cause - and may it be energy or matter that has always been there. By calling the „first mover“ God you can’t deduct anything about Him. The ontological argument is so weak, I don’t see why you included it - Kant gave a good refute of this argument, it should be an interesting bit of the history of God proofs but not really taken seriously today. I find the moral argument according to Kant indeed a good one but it doesn’t necessitate God - it shows that it’s reasonable to treat God as something that exists because else you wouldn’t have any moral ground, but the fact that there is morality that is universal (and one could doubt that) may point to evolutionary benefits and not God. The teleological argument may suffer from our subjectivity - in our eyes the world may seem like it’s designed for us, but this doesn’t proof it‘s really designed.
I would say there isn’t a proof of God because a proof necessarily needs to define and fix God and this is not possible by His very nature. While the philosophy of the Middle Ages was very interested in a proof for God, it’s almost irrelevant to modern theology. In short: these aren’t proofs and they certainly don’t necessitate the existence of God.
wow I'm glad to find at least one other person in this comment section who has actually done some Philosophy! xD 100% correct.
@@EspadaKing777 Well I don’t understand how you can study theology and have a masters in divinity but when communicating theological concepts completely leave out important problems of the concepts you present - and I know he knows those problems, he makes other videos that show his theological expertise so I‘m disappointed. It would be way more honest to present these arguments, present the counter arguments and come to the conclusion that these arguments are indeed not definitive proofs.
I’ve been blessed with proof. Praying for all those who need it too.
Ok, I’ll ask. What’s your proof?
In a season of great doubt, I used the Lord's name in vain and requested evidence of His existence. A few moments later, I heard what I believe to be angels singing. I'd never heard anything like it before and I've never heard anything like it since.@@vermontmike9800
Can you elaborate on this proof for all of us non-believers?
Are you going to tell us what this "proof" is?
@@OGmemegenerator i don’t think the proof I was given would pass the skeptical tests. But here goes. Many years ago, after questioning the existence of God and saying something to the effect of “I would believe if I had proof” in a heated argument with a Christian, I received a private revelation. I heard Angles sing. It was like nothing I had heard before or since.
I can’t reproduce this miracle, I can only attest to it. I don’t think this will change your mind and don’t care to argue with you or anyone. And I have no interest in converting you-I don’t think evangelization of this kind works in the modern age. But I will never forget what I saw that day.
How did the fryer put it? The universe in teaming with life? The only life we know is in this little fly speck in the universe called earth. Where's this supposed other life he is speaking of?
Not to mention he thinks according to is book of fables that the universe was spoken into existence. Magic. He believes it came about by.. . Magic. That's definitely very very unlikely. Nice try though. Stick with your Bible. You are out of your element Donny!
Me and my cat are atheists. My dog is a confused theist cuz he thinks I'm a god. No reasoning with him, so me and my cat just pity him 😞
you forgot the transcendental argument and the mathematical argument
LOl, what´s that? And which god gets any more real by that?
I wouldn't go so far as to call myself an atheists , but I am a non-believer. I love your videos and I wish to interact this one in a sincere good faith of sharing perspective so I am saying up front that the things I am about to say are not meant in any way to disprove God, or to devalue the faith of the faithful. You mention in the beginning of the video that atheists are confused as to how people can believe in god so I am just wanting to answer and expand on that.
Firstly, a lot of atheists aren't confused at all as to the why or how people believe in God. I am certainly not and I can come up with fine reasons to justify such a belief. It makes me sad that so many atheists are just, ironically, 'holier than thou' about it. I don't think the belief is delusional and neither do my close friends who share my views. But acknowledging something is reasonably believable is not the same as adopting that belief yourself.
Secondly, the first proof you offer about the origin of the universe is basically a god of the gaps argument. It's saying that God must be the answer because no other answer is readily available. But being the only conceivable answer to many does not mean it is the only possible one. Many like myself just believe that we can not and will not ever know the truth of the big bang or the origin of everything. Many people think it's impossible that the universe has simply existed forever, going through this cycle again and again on lengths of time well beyond our ability to comprehend. God does not even actually provide an answer to the question of where everything started, he just adds an extra step. Where did God start? Why do you not require an answer to that?
Thirdly, morality is arguably an evolutionary trait. We have morals because a species that does not harm and destroy itself has one less enemy in the world. In the early days of human existence, stealing wasn't just deemed wrong because it hurt somebody, it was deemed wrong because it could mean death. It could mean food wasn't there when it was needed. It could mean a weapon wasn't where it was supposed to be if an attack came. Our modern day morals are built on those ancient pillars. A lot of theft today doesn't amount to much in threatening the survivability of the tribe of course, but it's still considered wrong because if it wasn't, we'd turn on each other.
Fourthly, the teleological argument is.. well, it's god of the gaps again. It's saying that God must be the cause simply because no other answer is readily available, but even you say that it's highly improbably. Not impossible, but improbable. Improbably things happen all the time. Somebody has to win the lottery eventually after all. The chance that the world exists as it does today is inconceivably small, but here it is. "I have a hard time believing it" does not mean "It is impossible". You say there is no way that this is the result of randomness, but I have no idea why it can't be. You're arguing on the premise that the concept of beauty existed before beautiful things in our world did but why can it not be that the world exists as it is by chance, and we have just come to consider our favorite parts of it beautiful? The evolutionary sciences show well enough that order absolutely can come from chaos. The watchmaker argument falls apart entirely because the world is not a watch. There are evolutionary dead ends everywhere, vestigial body parts, useless things, the junk accumulated in a world that comes about through chance is easy to find. The watch maker does not put random gears in the watch that cause it to stop working before it should. They don't sprinkle dust into it or warp parts of it, but things like genetic anomalies pop up all the time.
I really appreciate the ending message of your video, thank you for not painting people who are not convinced as simply being willfully ignorant or wanting *not* to believe. And again I wish to state that the things I have said here are not arguments against God or faith. Just my considered answers to your offered proofs, as a nonbeliever.
For what it's worth, I would like to believe. I have tried to believe, but it just does not stick. I hear the way people describe the way their faith makes them feel. I've heard of moments of intense clarity and bam, the faith manifests in their hearts. But I have just never felt anything like that. When I try to engage with faith sincerely, I just feel nothing there. I'm getting older, and I'm terrified of death. I so dearly want to believe there is something waiting past my last breath. But trying to 'just believe in it' only ever feels like trying to build a house of cards, it collapses at the slightest nudge of self scrutiny.
Still. Your videos bring me joy. I find them interesting, educational, and at times uplifting. What I wouldn't give to live in a world full of people so sincerely loving, sympathetic, and forgiving. Even when I don't agree with you, I enjoy listening to what you have to say, so thank you, and please keep it up.
If you call yourself a "non-believer" then by definition you are an "a" (lacking or without) "theist" (belief in a god or gods).
I personally identify as an agnostic atheist, in that I don't claim to "know" that no god or gods exist, I just don't believe that they do, because no theist has ever come remotely close to providing sufficient evidence to justify a belief in their particular god or gods.
I also wear my Pslam fourteen label with pride.
Thanks for sharing, but I wish to observe that referring to theistic arguments as being "god of the gaps" arguments rests on faith as well--specifically, that all religion does is offer explanations of "reality" that science will eventually refute, as in believing that tossing virgin women into volcanoes would appease "spirits" who won't get angry and cause an eruption. We all owe our gratitude to modern science for freeing us from vicious "gods" who demanded human sacrifice.
But believing science covers the existence of all of reality misuses the brilliant tool itself by attaching it to a philosophical presumption that it can account for all of "reality." Even the most hardcore materialist has to recognize that the chances of electro-chemical forces--unguided by intelligence or purpose-- creating the universe would pencil out to about one in an astronomical number with hundreds of zeros--in other words, not a chance. To account for this materialists claim that there are countless "parallel universes" and we just happened to be in the one in conditions in which life--and eventually humanity--could form. No evidence for that, other than stubbornly clinging to materialist presumptions in the face of massive improbability.
Actually consciousness itself is something that materialist science has never been able to adequately explain--especially when it comes to thought processes. Dawkins may assert that we are "meat computers" while ignoring that all computers need to be set up and programmed by an intelligent entity. Computers also do not have free will which itself is a stumbling block for deterministic materialists. If we are made through deterministic forces unguided by intelloigent will, all our thoughts and actions need to be guided by those forces and logically we shold not be able to escape those forces that made us. But without free will, everything we think and say and do lacks freedom, and all logical arguments are meaningless--we have no choice or free agency in coming up with our thoughts and no choice in how we respond to them.
Obviously there are many thoughts, theories and nuances when it comes to discussing these issues and my answers are simplistic--but so is referring to theist thoughts and arguments as nothing but "god of the gaps" arguments.
@@77Catguy I suggest that you reread what you have written.
You assert that theists are not making a "god of the gaps" argument and then you open your next paragraph with "... never been able to adequately explain" and promptly fill that gap with your god.
I am aware. I am an atheist by definition but the word has become very tangled in a specific kind of obnoxious personality that I like to distance myself from. I am an atheist, I just don't like to call myself one, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and reminds me of people I've known who are incapable of simply holding a belief (Or lack of one) without treating people who don't like they're idiots. @@downenout8705
Hello! And thank you for the civil and well thought response. I would like to first say that I don't think science does or will ever cover the existence of all reality. In fact I doubt it ever will. I am, frankly, comfortable enough to just not have an answer to the question of 'where did it come from', and my point was was more that God doesn't automatically become the only possible answer for lack of other options when one does delve into it. Perhaps it is God. Perhaps it is many Gods. Perhaps it is complete and other chaos that just happened to have created all that we know. A lack of one answer does not substantiate a different answer and to me, personally, it's not even a question that much needs an answer to begin with. I don't think all theist thoughts and arguments are 'god of the gaps' arguments, I was just replying to what the father specifically said. In the video he spells out that what there is to know just is not enough to prove god to some people without the light of faith. A light I myself have never felt, and have no way to explain, but I don't dismiss faith as being blind, unreasonable acceptance. My grandparents are very deeply religious people, and they're also some of the most reasonable people I've ever known. I'm sorry if I came across as trying to reduce faith into some form of ignorance, I truly am not. I just wanted to explain why what works as an answer for you, does not work for me. @@77Catguy
Have you ever asked yourself why George Lemaître warned the pope not to use the big bang model as a prove of creation? Also how do I get from this strange beeing "proven" by Casey to the God of the good old bible or the catholic church. There is a gap...
God of the gaps ...
Question. If everything that exists must have been created by something else that exists, then who created GOD? God exists after all, so who created him?
Some primitive deluded tribesman.
There is also mathematical proof of God, by Kurt Goedel. However, such thoughts don't convince many people. I like Schleiermacher: "Religion is our feeling for the eternal"
Goedel's proof is actually Anselm's proof expressed in formal logic, the only difference being that Anselm is talking about the greatest being, while Goedel is talking about the greatest good. Both suffer from the lack of definition of what greatest being or greatest good mean.
@@piotr.ziolo. Yes, it s not easy to grasp the Eternal
Both Anselm and Goedel are ultimately begging the question. Anselm's argument, more properly expressed, would not look like this:
[anselm's agrument for god]
But rather like this:
If a god exists, then [Anselm's rgument for god]
He doesn't prove that god exists. He merely point out that IF a god exists, then his argument must be true.