This is one of the most illogical arguments for God's existence. Using concepts that humans likely created, initially for the purposes of survival, doesn't presuppose God. "If morality exists, then God exists." I believe you're saying that if morality is objective then God exists. Which I don't think that would even in and of itself necessarily be true definitively. But you don't provide reasoning that logically indicates that objective morality exists. "If these laws of logic exist with no personal maker then we wouldn't exist." Probably true, in a roundabout way that doesn't support your claim. It would seem that we (humans) personally created the laws of logic and morality, so if those concepts weren't concepts we currently think about, we wouldn't exist, at least not in the same state. But this statement doesn't indicate that we were created by a God. To me, it looks like this is just a rebranded cosmological argument saying that stuff exists so God exists because for the stuff to be here something had to make it be here. Why? Well, because we wouldn't be here otherwise. How do you know? Well, this video has barely any depth so I don't know. It seems like you'd have to already have a method of explaining how logic is objective, outside of God, for your main argument to make sense in and of itself. I believe, the reason we can know about things is because we have brains more capable of complex thought than other animals, so we came up with concepts and can use our brains to use the concepts to collect data and whatnot. We can presume rather than presuppose that mathematics is functionally logical, presupposing logic. You don't have to presuppose mathematics or anything like that as long as you presuppose logic. It is an issue for us to have to presuppose logic? Why? We'd have to presuppose, and use it if this argument were to be logically sound to come to the conclusion that God exists because of it. So it would seem you're saying presuppose God, that way you don't have to presuppose logic. But I don't see why presupposing God would obfuscate the need to presuppose logic, if you were to decide to use logic. Correct me if I'm wrong but this all seems like you are using God to explain why we should use logic, but trying to use logic to convince us why we should believe in God to have a reason to use logic. It's ultimately circular. With this understanding the argument is outside the realm of logical reasoning and simply rhetorical. One of the worst arguments for God's existence?
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
At 3:30 I should have said "Humans are the ones who have a moral aversion to it."
God is the source of all being,
Anything exists,
Therefore God exists.
Also, yes, the TAG is my favorite, but what's above, at this point is enough.
The universe is the source of all being
Anything exists
Therefore the universe exists
@@andSaved No, the universe is not the source of anything. It's a thing, it doesn't have a will.
@@masscreationbroadcasts why must something be conscious to be a source of something?
@ Cosmological Argument. If the stuff just is, it means it was actualized by something else.
@@masscreationbroadcasts so this just becomes a cosmological argument rather than an epistemological one
This is one of the most illogical arguments for God's existence. Using concepts that humans likely created, initially for the purposes of survival, doesn't presuppose God.
"If morality exists, then God exists." I believe you're saying that if morality is objective then God exists. Which I don't think that would even in and of itself necessarily be true definitively. But you don't provide reasoning that logically indicates that objective morality exists.
"If these laws of logic exist with no personal maker then we wouldn't exist." Probably true, in a roundabout way that doesn't support your claim. It would seem that we (humans) personally created the laws of logic and morality, so if those concepts weren't concepts we currently think about, we wouldn't exist, at least not in the same state. But this statement doesn't indicate that we were created by a God.
To me, it looks like this is just a rebranded cosmological argument saying that stuff exists so God exists because for the stuff to be here something had to make it be here. Why? Well, because we wouldn't be here otherwise. How do you know? Well, this video has barely any depth so I don't know. It seems like you'd have to already have a method of explaining how logic is objective, outside of God, for your main argument to make sense in and of itself.
I believe, the reason we can know about things is because we have brains more capable of complex thought than other animals, so we came up with concepts and can use our brains to use the concepts to collect data and whatnot. We can presume rather than presuppose that mathematics is functionally logical, presupposing logic. You don't have to presuppose mathematics or anything like that as long as you presuppose logic.
It is an issue for us to have to presuppose logic? Why? We'd have to presuppose, and use it if this argument were to be logically sound to come to the conclusion that God exists because of it. So it would seem you're saying presuppose God, that way you don't have to presuppose logic. But I don't see why presupposing God would obfuscate the need to presuppose logic, if you were to decide to use logic. Correct me if I'm wrong but this all seems like you are using God to explain why we should use logic, but trying to use logic to convince us why we should believe in God to have a reason to use logic. It's ultimately circular. With this understanding the argument is outside the realm of logical reasoning and simply rhetorical. One of the worst arguments for God's existence?
Perfectly well said
you're wrong.
@SuperSaiyanScandinavian Well, there were some assumptions made I suppose. I have corrected everything to be perfectly uncertain.
@@SuperSaiyanScandinavian Ok! You’re certainly welcome to your opinion ;)
@@MasonJarTapWater not my opinion. There is no objective truth according to that guy, so it's my subjective truth.