A reporter interviewed a woman who had just watched the recent lunar eclipse. She said "If this isn't proof of god then I don't know what is." It's the old "see the trees" argument. Can't imagine a different cause so give the credit to an invisible mastermind in the sky.
@@michaelcrawford3796 One cannot say there is no god or gods. One can say that the "evidence" provided to support the assertion of the existence of a god or gods does not hold to up any credible standards.
Because they have been indoctrinated since childhood to just have faith. Theists are known to struggle with things like evidence, burden of proof, difference between knowing and believing... They're told not to put stock in proof, evidence and even scrutiny. As a former Catholic (Mormon influenced as well) , long time Atheist I still remember how it goes in church and Sunday school. Religion relies exclusively on allegories, personal testimonies and some emotional manipulation because religion has ZERO explanatory power. It's all fantastic claims for the purpose of controlling and fleecing the flock. Always has been. The good news is, Religion is on the decline in the U. S. Across all major denominations, atm there is a lot of migration between them because of the Poltical climate but church attendence overall continues to drop..... Because more and more people are discovering they can and are living moral and spiritual lives without Religion and the god beliefs.
A theist is, by definition, one who believes without proof. Despite this, dozens of callers a week to this show and many others call in with 'proof'. If you claim you're a theist - you've abandoned proof, shouldn't be using proof, and shouldn't be trusted by those who rely on proof. You can't have it both ways. Do you have proof? Or are you a theist?
@@segue2ant395 While I don't want to argue your point, because you are correct, remember that a lot of them actually think they have proof! They have been indoctrinated from birth to consider the bronze-age desert goat-herders guide to life as actual history.
Paul needed someone in his D&D games to tell him to decide on a deity or just not play a f**king Cleric. He sounds like the sort of dice-chucker that is INSUFFERABLE to have in one's group.
Yea, it's a part of how so many try to define their god into existence. They pick technically arbitrary attributes they want their god to have, then claim that's what/who god is. And like in this call, they come into issues with trying to show how they know these attributes actually apply to their god.
Street preachers are miserable people if they need everyone to repent to ridiculous sins made up by Religion. If anything, the church is the one that needs to repent what with all its demons and skeletons in its closets. In the end, Religion is the one that will be judged for the controlling manipulative scam that it is.
I could buy the idea of an omnipotent god that doesn't give a shit about us, but I don't see any evidence for one, or a need to posit the existence of one. Ditto the other omni-characteristics. Start combining the characteristis and that just makes the super being even more unlikely, unnecessary, and non-evidential.
Omnipotence is a prerequisite for a god? That raises a whole bunch of problems with several theologies in general. However, beyond that, defining something by its attributes is not really defining it at all. The underlying problem is they can not define what `God` actually is. Only what it can do, and what it is claimed to have done. That's not a definition of what it actually is. Not that I'm ignostic anyway, but these attempts to define something without parallel, substance, or any tether to reality is just mental masturbation.
to have claim of what it has done , you need evidence , the claims of what god has done in his books is using the claim to justify the claim. God has not done anything , and gods have no evidence outside the minds of simpletons.
The D&D example is one I use when theists try to prove their god. They make up a game with rules in their head and say "see, my God exists!" Yes, but only within your silly little game, not reality, just like magic in D&D.
Exactly. These religious believers probably believe anything their told lol we're a retarded species by nature automatically somehow. They would probably believe in chronicles of narnia iz real and be on da 🧊❄️ side of da gawd lord. For real 🔴⚛️⚔️✝️☪️🟣. Megatron is LORD
And this is really how so many philosophical arguments theists have for the existence of their god, actually play out when given any thought outside of already believing. So many of their arguments about proving the existence of their god is based on assuming and presupposing a god has to exist.
I can 100% guarantee that the caller, "Paul", will NOT present evidence of ANY kind....definitely not empirical demonstrable evidence supported by objectively verifiable facts, the best kind, OR philosophical....sufficient to substantiate his assertions/claims of the existence of a deity or deities in our shared reality🫠
I've always thought omnipotent god is a silly position to hold as it leaves their god open to to much liability. But they're cornered because without it, god is fallible and you can't have that.
Caller claims he has evaluated many different models of god, and through arduous examination, determined that the true god happens to be the same omnipotent most popular in his community. Funny how often that happens.
Isn’t Deism a type of theism? Also, this just came to mind: if something is omnipotent, wouldn’t omniscience and omnipresence fall under the omnipotence umbrella? If something is all powerful, it should be able to know everything and be everywhere right?
Dude, firstly, how would you ever falsify an omnipotent being? An omnipotent being could hide itself from all discovery, without fail. Also, definitions are descriptive - you must find the thing before defining it. Using any proposed properties is how you would form your hypothesis, however, that still leaves you with the problem of falsification. Sorry, but you're universes away from convincing anyone for good reason.
You could try and show that the very idea of omnipotence is contradictory or incoherent in some way. I’m not saying that you’d succeed, in fact I don’t think you would, but that might be one rout for falsifying an omnipotent being. Definitions can be prescriptive too. No matter how far and wide you search, you’re never going find a three-sided square. Deductive logic relies upon the prescriptive nature of definitions. An omnipotent being would be one that lacks any finite or contingent property. Therefore, you can infer its existence as the necessary explanation for everything else. You don’t have to find it first. It can be the conclusion of an investigation into how to explain everything else. I think you’re wrong that an omnipotent being could perfectly disguise its existence. Whatever attributes such a being might have that could be hidden, one that could not is its causal relation to the effects from which we reason to its necessary existence. That’s just one. There are others that also could not in principle be hidden.
@@tpoy1274 An omnipotent being could fool you into believing anything, including that you'd found a contradiction in a universe where you're actually just a brain-puppet on a string in a vat. I don't see how one could solve that with something that apparently has no measurable properties.
@@kevinfancher3512 An omnipotent being could not make contradictions intelligible. The recognition of the first principles of being, chief among them the principle of non-contradiction, is what the intellect essentially does. It cannot be deceived into doing the opposite of what it does essentially because then it would simply not exist. Descartes’s cogito ultimately depends upon the principle of non-contradiction, about which the evil God could not deceive him. So as long as a created intellect exists, it is going to recognize the principle of non-contradiction. With that the principle of identity and causation follows. So an omnipotent being could not perfectly hide all evidence of its existence. That would be ontologically impossible.
@@tpoy1274 I MIGHT take the time to read your response through carefully, but I have a sense about this so have to ask: Could you be wrong, and could an omnipotent being make you think you're right even if you're not? There are people alive today who cannot grasp logical concepts. What if everyone were like that? There are highly educated and respected people alive today who believe a spaceless, timeless, immaterial something or other created time, space, and the material universe, yet that is mind-numbingly stupid to me to believe without sufficient warrant, and is quite possibly insane. They also believe that everything was created . . . except for the thing that created everything. How does that make sense? Anyway, have a pleasant day.
@@tpoy1274 I know it can be difficult to admit you could be wrong, so I understand taking some time to get there. FYI, this is a safe space; we've all been there, we've got your back.
The 'creator of the universe' doesn't have to be 'all powerful' he just has to be someone/something with the power to create or start the universe! Chrsitians seem to love the watchmaker anology ..but does a watchmaker need to be 'all powerful'? NO He just needs the knoledge (power?) how to create a watch!
He seems to have spent many sleepless nights gathering various illogical and unproven bullet points, tried to weld them into a satisfactory (to him) story, to bring him satisfaction!
If gawd is omnipotent but won’t lift a finger to help children with cancer or stop wars, then I got no use for him. And it’s usually always a him-another reason to make me roll my eyes. Why would a deity have a sex or gender anyhow? It’s ludicrous.
Debunk omnipotence as a trait for any god: Can your god create a mountain so big, your god cannot move it? If yes, your god is no god. If no, your god is no god.
@@ianbraun271 Moving the goal posts is a specialty amongst apologists. They still need to define how powerful is "maximally powerful" as that is still an extraordinary claim and provide evidence to support the assertion, which they will fail to do.
@@rocketfingers-JSRI don't find switching from omnipotence to "maximally powerful" significant as a goalpost-moving, because it's just the difference between laymen saying things and someone a bit more familiar with philosophy saying things. Also "maximally powerful" has already been defined as "can do anything that is not logically paradoxical", so for instance a god wouldn't be able to create a married bachelor or a square circle. And as they are "maximal" and therefore no rock could be unliftable, they also cannot bring such a rock into existence. If A is A and B is distinctly not A, then B can never be A.
@@sugartoothYT When a deity is defined as omnipotent, it means that deity can do anything without exception. It is a significant switch from saying that deity has no limitations on their ability to then imposing limitations on said deity. Remember that apologists claim their deity can and does break every law of nature and physics when presenting their "miracles" as evidence. This is moving the goalposts for their deity's ability to justify why it cannot do everything.
@@rocketfingers-JSR and still: how is that any different from refining an argument? I used to say "no god exists", now I say "I lack a belief in every god I've been presented thus far". Am I guilty of moving the goalpost and therefore dishonest or have I just adopted a more effective stance?
Funny, but I thought things had to be found, examined, and described before a definition can be derived to apply to that type of thing. Gwad and the Gruntmaster 6000 are apparently exempted from this?
Ok. Let’s settle this. For Christians, God is the Almighty, Creator of everything that exists in the Universe and maybe other Universes we don’t know about. God created Demons, Angels, pain, suffering, joy, love, hate, freedom and detention. He sends people to Hell for Eternity. He punishes the unfaithful and sinners. So why do Christians need to convince non believers that their God exists since everything that we are is God’s creation ? The only reason religions and their Churches want to convince us and convert us is to impose their beliefs as social rules implemented by policies and laws. That all. It’s not spiritual at all. It’s plain control.
I’m at 6:23 and he still hasn’t made a real argument, let alone given any evidence, even though in the beginning he says he has evidence and proof for a god 😣
1.15. My position is there could be a creator deity that's never made its presence known to people, ie deism. Going from deism to a version of theism is a leap like jumping across the Grand Canyon. I expect he's going to attempt to jump across the Grand Canyon 🙄 BTW I'm neither a deist nor a theist. I don't call myself an atheist because I don't need a label for the lack of something. I just say I'm not religious which is taken here 🇬🇧 as having no god beliefs. I'm actually in 🏴
Every intellect caught up by God cuts off simultaneously both the energy of the passions and the uncouth jostle of thoughts. In addition to this it also puts an end to the licentious misuse of the senses. For the passions, brought triumphantly into subjection by the higher forms of contemplation, are destroyed by the sublime vision of nature.
The hosts have the patience of Job. "How do we figure out which one is true?" My answer, "How do you know ANY of them are true?" Saying that god is omnipotent is not the same as proving it with evidence. Paul even tried to pre-empt any objections by mentioning Hitchens. Paul himself sees the flaw in his argument but seems helpless to abandon it.
He didn't say anything. There were a lot of words, anf he didn't say anything with them. He kept quoting other people as though an appeal to authority counts as an opinion or argument.
I always expect the conversation to end when the caller is asked to define their god. How they cannot have considered all the other gods, their characteristics, and then see the futility of their task? It is the first problem for them to solve. Yet they never address this simple, obvious defeater.
Genuinely funny call, the guy REALLY thought he has something AMAZING & original no one had ever thought of before............ ...errr.....no ....yet another word salad attempt to define his magical being into existence.😂
God Is Omnipotent? So, can he create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it? If yes, he's not Omnipotent, if no, then he is not Omnipotent. Cunclusion, your god is not real.
Pretty much - "I want to believe in a God, nor let us stitch together a god definition and property set that enables this god resp. makes it undisprovable". It seems that he is anyhow pretty aware of the giant flaws of god concepts. I cannot imagine that when he stays honest he can come to ANY reasonable god model.
D&D shares some of the same creatures as the Bible. Both mention demons, unicorns, cockatrices, devils, dragons. Of course, once Mind Flayers show up, I’m out of there.
"Honestly to be of service to theism the God established must be a person. To be intelligible, having regard to the historical developments of religion, the God proved must be a person. The relation demanded by religion between God and man must be of a personal character. No man can love an abstraction; he might as reasonably fall in love with a triangle... The God of religion must be a person, and it is precisely that, as a controlling force of the universe, in which modern thought finds it more and more difficult to believe, and which modern science decisively rejects. And in rejecting this the death blow is given to those religious ideas, which however disguised find their origin in the fear-stricken ignorance of the primitive savage." - Chapman Cohen, Theism or Atheism, pg. 19
Plus the omnipotence doesn't really avoid all the other gods, because polytheistic pantheons are just as omnipotent as the singular entity that the monotheists worship. It's just the power is distributed across multiple entities. Not that any of them can be proven any more than the monotheistic god.
While I don't agree with his points, allow me to help Paul with an important answer: Why is omnipotence necessary for his deistic argument from the start? Because if the being being posited is omnipotent, than this being can be any other thing necessary to be a deistic entity due to that ability.
Proving deism would not "take atheism off the table." The Earth has been demonstrated to be roughly spherical, but there are people who don't believe that!
@BruceCarroll I'm dismissing them completely, based on the overwhelming evidence that we have for the shape of the earth, unless they show any evidence for their delusions.
Hopefully this is my last comment: Paul, please stop interrupting. This is the hosts’ show. They have to interrupt to get things going along but also, they’re allowed to because it’s their show. If you do it once or twice, okay, but constantly doing it is just disrespectful. It’s saying, I don’t give AF what you have to say.
It's interesting that your caller brought up Dungeons and Dragons and gods without mentioning the most powerful 'beings' in the universe - The Dungeon Masters. In-game, we're omnipotent, omniscient, and usually quite benevolent, and we're so powerful that we don't even have stats. However, while we still must abide by certain rules about about reality, we are still able to bend it to our wills to tell a good story or to keep the game moving. Perhaps the biggest failure of the 'God proof' is shown by the virtues of reality itself, i.e, if something doesn't conform or abide by the natural laws of reality then it's impossible, and doesn't exist. In the D&D universe, the supernatural and magic are easily provable - semantic word salads or spurious arguments dressed with fancy words aren't needed. If you scream at the clouds or the earth long enough one of the gods (or demons) will eventually answer, and anyone can perform miracles like Jesus, if they have the time and money to learn the spells. Theists in our world claim that proof for the supernatural is obvious but they're yet to provide anything at all.
So far its like picking your favourite super hero, well all the best ones can fly so im picking flight as a necessary thing. Maybe god isn't omnipotent, just because an omnipotent one could beat him up doesnt make it true. Also after all this effort, doesnt seen tonhave entertained that maybe its none of them.
Gosh, let the man speak! I am an agnostic/atheist myself, but if there is an argument to be made to prove ANY god, I would like to hear it! It seems very much that you are actively trying to block and destroy this conversation just because there might be something down the road which you could not counter immediately. But this is NOT how one can come to some truth!
Why would you ladies let this man speak about omnipotency of a diety when he first have to prove that such a diety exists. I dont undestand the construction of this conversation. Why let him make 1 step for free?
This is an utter waste of time. You asked the caller to define his god and you wasted 10 minutes asking him why instead of focusing on whatever point he wanted to make. There wasn't even an argument here, you tell him to get deeper, but you wouldn't even let him offer his argument. You wouldn't let him get out of the definitional stage. That's just intellectually dishonest.
"Proof and/or evidence" always turns out to be neither when it comes to religion.
A reporter interviewed a woman who had just watched the recent lunar eclipse. She said "If this isn't proof of god then I don't know what is." It's the old "see the trees" argument. Can't imagine a different cause so give the credit to an invisible mastermind in the sky.
@@rationalist8805 "Mastermind" is an awfully bold and heavily misleading attribute to assign to an intellectually inept deity.
The real problem is its not real and there is no evidence?
@@michaelcrawford3796 One cannot say there is no god or gods. One can say that the "evidence" provided to support the assertion of the existence of a god or gods does not hold to up any credible standards.
@@rocketfingers-JSR OK we'll just say that but there is a reason no evidence has ever been seen?
Hell is being stuck talking to Paul at a party you can't leave, forever.
Exactly
I’m starting to think that religious people don’t know what proof is.
Because they have been indoctrinated since childhood to just have faith.
Theists are known to struggle with things like evidence, burden of proof, difference between knowing and believing...
They're told not to put stock in proof, evidence and even scrutiny.
As a former Catholic (Mormon influenced as well) , long time Atheist
I still remember how it goes in church and Sunday school.
Religion relies exclusively on allegories, personal testimonies and some emotional manipulation because religion has ZERO explanatory power. It's all fantastic claims for the purpose of controlling and fleecing the flock. Always has been.
The good news is, Religion is on the decline in the U. S. Across all major denominations, atm there is a lot of migration between them because of the Poltical climate but church attendence overall continues to drop.....
Because more and more people are discovering they can and are living moral and spiritual lives without Religion and the god beliefs.
@@AdmiralBison To me it sounds like they have been indoctrinate into thinking that faith trumps evidence and proofs.
A theist is, by definition, one who believes without proof. Despite this, dozens of callers a week to this show and many others call in with 'proof'.
If you claim you're a theist - you've abandoned proof, shouldn't be using proof, and shouldn't be trusted by those who rely on proof.
You can't have it both ways. Do you have proof? Or are you a theist?
@@segue2ant395 While I don't want to argue your point, because you are correct, remember that a lot of them actually think they have proof!
They have been indoctrinated from birth to consider the bronze-age desert goat-herders guide to life as actual history.
@@AdmiralBison✝️🤖🤖🤖🤖🤖
Long winded waste of time
You just described religion
Paul needed someone in his D&D games to tell him to decide on a deity or just not play a f**king Cleric. He sounds like the sort of dice-chucker that is INSUFFERABLE to have in one's group.
Why am I not surprised?!!!
yes, I found myself trying to decipher the picture in Katy's background.
@@kellyrestiaux9846 80s DnD proto-nerd here and I appreciate your comment.
wake me up when he gets to the point
Narrator: He didn't.
I hope you had a good restful sleep since it’d be undisturbed
@@AbsurdlyGeekythank you, Morgan Freeman.
“Which god ?” Is a question, not an argument. You have to know which god someone is asserting, before you use an appropriate argument.
My sense is Paul is slowly arriving at the philosophical God by examining what attributes are essential for a worship-worthy deity.
Yea, it's a part of how so many try to define their god into existence. They pick technically arbitrary attributes they want their god to have, then claim that's what/who god is. And like in this call, they come into issues with trying to show how they know these attributes actually apply to their god.
I've heard street preachers admit they don't care if ppl r happy as long as they repent
Street preachers are miserable people if they need everyone to repent to ridiculous sins made up by Religion.
If anything, the church is the one that needs to repent what with all its demons and skeletons in its closets.
In the end, Religion is the one that will be judged for the controlling manipulative scam that it is.
I miss Katy on the show.
Yeah, I love her accent. So relaxing.
She’s featured on another similar channel often.
HIS name is Colin.
HE is a man.
god's failed to persuade atheists of his existence, meaning he hasn't been able to do so, hence: he ain't not so omnipotent
@@RafalLabuda777I like to say he’s omni-incompetent, always going about things in the dumbest way possible.
If gawd waz ever real then we wouldn't be in da ultimate gamble war like transformers lol i mean really. 🟣✝️☪️⚔️⚛️🔴
Well, Paul failed...surprising?
no.
it was expected therefore Paul met expectations, so he's got that going for him.
I could buy the idea of an omnipotent god that doesn't give a shit about us, but I don't see any evidence for one, or a need to posit the existence of one.
Ditto the other omni-characteristics.
Start combining the characteristis and that just makes the super being even more unlikely, unnecessary, and non-evidential.
Omnipotence is a prerequisite for a god? That raises a whole bunch of problems with several theologies in general. However, beyond that, defining something by its attributes is not really defining it at all. The underlying problem is they can not define what `God` actually is. Only what it can do, and what it is claimed to have done. That's not a definition of what it actually is. Not that I'm ignostic anyway, but these attempts to define something without parallel, substance, or any tether to reality is just mental masturbation.
to have claim of what it has done , you need evidence , the claims of what god has done in his books is using the claim to justify the claim.
God has not done anything , and gods have no evidence outside the minds of simpletons.
The D&D example is one I use when theists try to prove their god. They make up a game with rules in their head and say "see, my God exists!" Yes, but only within your silly little game, not reality, just like magic in D&D.
Exactly. These religious believers probably believe anything their told lol we're a retarded species by nature automatically somehow. They would probably believe in chronicles of narnia iz real and be on da 🧊❄️ side of da gawd lord. For real 🔴⚛️⚔️✝️☪️🟣. Megatron is LORD
I think I sat next to Paul in Intro to Philosophy.
My condolences.
How easily these people would be convicted in a court of law.
The judge would just have to follow their logic.
Terrifying.
"I have proof and/or evidence"
And or? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
And as usual, it turned to neither proof nor evidence.
Your "definitional stage" strongly resembles a load of smoke and snow.
And this is really how so many philosophical arguments theists have for the existence of their god, actually play out when given any thought outside of already believing. So many of their arguments about proving the existence of their god is based on assuming and presupposing a god has to exist.
I can feel dear Christopher Hitchens shouting from his grave at being referred to as Chris.
I can 100% guarantee that the caller, "Paul", will NOT present evidence of ANY kind....definitely not empirical demonstrable evidence supported by objectively verifiable facts, the best kind, OR philosophical....sufficient to substantiate his assertions/claims of the existence of a deity or deities in our shared reality🫠
I think you're being unreasonable. Just because every theist ever does that doesn't mean that this one won't be exactly teh same
Oh, wait,....
You're better at prophecy than they are
I've always thought omnipotent god is a silly position to hold as it leaves their god open to to much liability.
But they're cornered because without it, god is fallible and you can't have that.
Caller claims he has evaluated many different models of god, and through arduous examination, determined that the true god happens to be the same omnipotent most popular in his community. Funny how often that happens.
This guy is definitely Assistant to the Associate Regional Sales Manager.
Isn’t Deism a type of theism? Also, this just came to mind: if something is omnipotent, wouldn’t omniscience and omnipresence fall under the omnipotence umbrella? If something is all powerful, it should be able to know everything and be everywhere right?
This is the old WLC trick. He doesn't understand that you need to start all over again when you switch the gods you are arguing for.
Just realize that the people arguing for their religion in the comments of social media are the same people who call into these types of shows.
Dude, firstly, how would you ever falsify an omnipotent being? An omnipotent being could hide itself from all discovery, without fail. Also, definitions are descriptive - you must find the thing before defining it. Using any proposed properties is how you would form your hypothesis, however, that still leaves you with the problem of falsification. Sorry, but you're universes away from convincing anyone for good reason.
You could try and show that the very idea of omnipotence is contradictory or incoherent in some way. I’m not saying that you’d succeed, in fact I don’t think you would, but that might be one rout for falsifying an omnipotent being.
Definitions can be prescriptive too. No matter how far and wide you search, you’re never going find a three-sided square. Deductive logic relies upon the prescriptive nature of definitions.
An omnipotent being would be one that lacks any finite or contingent property. Therefore, you can infer its existence as the necessary explanation for everything else. You don’t have to find it first. It can be the conclusion of an investigation into how to explain everything else.
I think you’re wrong that an omnipotent being could perfectly disguise its existence. Whatever attributes such a being might have that could be hidden, one that could not is its causal relation to the effects from which we reason to its necessary existence. That’s just one. There are others that also could not in principle be hidden.
@@tpoy1274 An omnipotent being could fool you into believing anything, including that you'd found a contradiction in a universe where you're actually just a brain-puppet on a string in a vat. I don't see how one could solve that with something that apparently has no measurable properties.
@@kevinfancher3512 An omnipotent being could not make contradictions intelligible. The recognition of the first principles of being, chief among them the principle of non-contradiction, is what the intellect essentially does. It cannot be deceived into doing the opposite of what it does essentially because then it would simply not exist.
Descartes’s cogito ultimately depends upon the principle of non-contradiction, about which the evil God could not deceive him.
So as long as a created intellect exists, it is going to recognize the principle of non-contradiction. With that the principle of identity and causation follows.
So an omnipotent being could not perfectly hide all evidence of its existence. That would be ontologically impossible.
@@tpoy1274 I MIGHT take the time to read your response through carefully, but I have a sense about this so have to ask: Could you be wrong, and could an omnipotent being make you think you're right even if you're not? There are people alive today who cannot grasp logical concepts. What if everyone were like that? There are highly educated and respected people alive today who believe a spaceless, timeless, immaterial something or other created time, space, and the material universe, yet that is mind-numbingly stupid to me to believe without sufficient warrant, and is quite possibly insane. They also believe that everything was created . . . except for the thing that created everything. How does that make sense?
Anyway, have a pleasant day.
@@tpoy1274 I know it can be difficult to admit you could be wrong, so I understand taking some time to get there. FYI, this is a safe space; we've all been there, we've got your back.
The 'creator of the universe' doesn't have to be 'all powerful' he just has to be someone/something with the power to create or start the universe!
Chrsitians seem to love the watchmaker anology ..but does a watchmaker need to be 'all powerful'? NO
He just needs the knoledge (power?) how to create a watch!
Paul wins 2 Nobel prizes ( physic + peace ). Congratulations!
Ah. The pointlessness of defining which attributes, to something you can't even demonstrate exists in the first place.
He seems to have spent many sleepless nights gathering various illogical and unproven bullet points, tried to weld them into a satisfactory (to him) story, to bring him satisfaction!
If you can't convince them with reason, baffle them with bullshit!
If gawd is omnipotent but won’t lift a finger to help children with cancer or stop wars, then I got no use for him. And it’s usually always a him-another reason to make me roll my eyes. Why would a deity have a sex or gender anyhow? It’s ludicrous.
SPOILER ALERT;
There is no proof and no evidence!!
Does this guy have anything beyond preamble?
Debunk omnipotence as a trait for any god:
Can your god create a mountain so big, your god cannot move it? If yes, your god is no god. If no, your god is no god.
Then they just claim "Maximally Powerful"
@@ianbraun271 Moving the goal posts is a specialty amongst apologists. They still need to define how powerful is "maximally powerful" as that is still an extraordinary claim and provide evidence to support the assertion, which they will fail to do.
@@rocketfingers-JSRI don't find switching from omnipotence to "maximally powerful" significant as a goalpost-moving, because it's just the difference between laymen saying things and someone a bit more familiar with philosophy saying things.
Also "maximally powerful" has already been defined as "can do anything that is not logically paradoxical", so for instance a god wouldn't be able to create a married bachelor or a square circle. And as they are "maximal" and therefore no rock could be unliftable, they also cannot bring such a rock into existence. If A is A and B is distinctly not A, then B can never be A.
@@sugartoothYT When a deity is defined as omnipotent, it means that deity can do anything without exception. It is a significant switch from saying that deity has no limitations on their ability to then imposing limitations on said deity. Remember that apologists claim their deity can and does break every law of nature and physics when presenting their "miracles" as evidence. This is moving the goalposts for their deity's ability to justify why it cannot do everything.
@@rocketfingers-JSR and still: how is that any different from refining an argument? I used to say "no god exists", now I say "I lack a belief in every god I've been presented thus far". Am I guilty of moving the goalpost and therefore dishonest or have I just adopted a more effective stance?
If a caller claims to have proof or evidence, why ask the hosts 'where do YOU want to start?'
The moment they said Texas you know it was gonna be bad
Funny, but I thought things had to be found, examined, and described before a definition can be derived to apply to that type of thing. Gwad and the Gruntmaster 6000 are apparently exempted from this?
Ok. Let’s settle this. For Christians, God is the Almighty, Creator of everything that exists in the Universe and maybe other Universes we don’t know about. God created Demons, Angels, pain, suffering, joy, love, hate, freedom and detention. He sends people to Hell for Eternity.
He punishes the unfaithful and sinners. So why do Christians need to convince non believers that their God exists since everything that we are is God’s creation ? The only reason religions and their Churches want to convince us and convert us is to impose their beliefs as social rules implemented by policies and laws. That all. It’s not spiritual at all. It’s plain control.
At the start he uses quotes from people way smarter then he, which is ok but I do not believe anyone ever will quote Paul
0:44 before he starts...lie after lie and/or false assumption after false assumption
I’m at 6:23 and he still hasn’t made a real argument, let alone given any evidence, even though in the beginning he says he has evidence and proof for a god 😣
Paul: Where do we start?
Paul: Starts with a straw man about Atheism!
a deistic god that does to interact is exactly like a one that does not exist. so how can you make that jump
1.15. My position is there could be a creator deity that's never made its presence known to people, ie deism. Going from deism to a version of theism is a leap like jumping across the Grand Canyon. I expect he's going to attempt to jump across the Grand Canyon 🙄
BTW I'm neither a deist nor a theist. I don't call myself an atheist because I don't need a label for the lack of something. I just say I'm not religious which is taken here 🇬🇧 as having no god beliefs. I'm actually in 🏴
'Atheist' is precisely a label for the lack of belief in a great invisible Sky-Daddy. I can see why the term would be problematic in the USA, though.
He's not here anymore so I'll say it for him. His name is Christopher. Or Hitch. Not Chris.
Theists arrive holding an empty sack and twist themselves into pretzels.
Every intellect caught up by God cuts off simultaneously both the energy of the passions and the uncouth jostle of thoughts. In addition to this it also puts an end to the licentious misuse of the senses. For the passions, brought triumphantly into subjection by the higher forms of contemplation, are destroyed by the sublime vision of nature.
The hosts have the patience of Job.
"How do we figure out which one is true?" My answer, "How do you know ANY of them are true?" Saying that god is omnipotent is not the same as proving it with evidence. Paul even tried to pre-empt any objections by mentioning Hitchens. Paul himself sees the flaw in his argument but seems helpless to abandon it.
He didn't say anything. There were a lot of words, anf he didn't say anything with them. He kept quoting other people as though an appeal to authority counts as an opinion or argument.
I spoke to a wiccan that claims EARTH is GOD so there is that which fails to prove out to be a GOD.
Introduce them to Tieria Erde.
@@Nocturnalux oh wow
@@scamchan Yeah.
Died for us, twice, too.
These theists are ridiculous
Why is it so hard to understand feelings are not facts or proof?
I always expect the conversation to end when the caller is asked to define their god. How they cannot have considered all the other gods, their characteristics, and then see the futility of their task? It is the first problem for them to solve. Yet they never address this simple, obvious defeater.
Nicely done!
Blah... blah.... blah... this is why I don't waste my time with believers....
Same. Religious decepticons . Beyond education 🟣☪️✝️⚔️⚛️🔴
Why is paul so afraid of revealing which god he's showing evidence for?
I love the answer by religious people, because the bible says so. Thays why i believe it. Ugh
Waffle Waffle Waffle. "What am i trying to prove here?" Dude says it himself. He's lost in the weeds.
Genuinely funny call, the guy REALLY thought he has something AMAZING & original no one had ever thought of before............ ...errr.....no ....yet another word salad attempt to define his magical being into existence.😂
It's Christopher Hitchens NOT Chris!
God Is Omnipotent? So, can he create a rock so heavy even he can't lift it? If yes, he's not Omnipotent, if no, then he is not Omnipotent.
Cunclusion, your god is not real.
Isn't this just post hoc?
Pretty much - "I want to believe in a God, nor let us stitch together a god definition and property set that enables this god resp. makes it undisprovable".
It seems that he is anyhow pretty aware of the giant flaws of god concepts. I cannot imagine that when he stays honest he can come to ANY reasonable god model.
I read a DnD manual. 😂
D&D shares some of the same creatures as the Bible. Both mention demons, unicorns, cockatrices, devils, dragons. Of course, once Mind Flayers show up, I’m out of there.
@@MST3Kfan1 sure. It's a fun diversion. I don't see how it's of any use to proving religion's veracity. I think this guy just likes DnD.
THROW BACK!!
"Honestly to be of service to theism the God established must be a person. To be intelligible, having regard to the historical developments of religion, the God proved must be a person. The relation demanded by religion between God and man must be of a personal character. No man can love an abstraction; he might as reasonably fall in love with a triangle... The God of religion must be a person, and it is precisely that, as a controlling force of the universe, in which modern thought finds it more and more difficult to believe, and which modern science decisively rejects. And in rejecting this the death blow is given to those religious ideas, which however disguised find their origin in the fear-stricken ignorance of the primitive savage." - Chapman Cohen, Theism or Atheism, pg. 19
If you accept every premise I oropose here, you have to also accept every conclusion. It can't be other way 😅😂🤣
Plus the omnipotence doesn't really avoid all the other gods, because polytheistic pantheons are just as omnipotent as the singular entity that the monotheists worship.
It's just the power is distributed across multiple entities. Not that any of them can be proven any more than the monotheistic god.
45 seconds in and you can tell he has nothing
While I don't agree with his points, allow me to help Paul with an important answer: Why is omnipotence necessary for his deistic argument from the start? Because if the being being posited is omnipotent, than this being can be any other thing necessary to be a deistic entity due to that ability.
Sorry, Paul, but you cannot define God into existence.
This caller said nothing. Waste of air.
How could he demonstrate omnipotence? If that were possible, I think we'd all know about it already.
Omg I’m in the first 3 minutes and this guy’s evidence is just rambling
ah, with the Thor example he almost admitted why he picked omnipotent; it's because you can't falcify omnipotence.
"picking" the god that is EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE and has all the stats maxed out: 10 out of 10, is worse than arbitrary... It's lazy and impotent.
My god goes up to 11!
Proving deism would not "take atheism off the table." The Earth has been demonstrated to be roughly spherical, but there are people who don't believe that!
True, but the shape of the earth is off the table to anyone relevant. It would be the same if we somehow proved a magic man exists.
@@GoodBrotherGrimm So, you're just dismissing Flat Earthers rather than engaging them?
@BruceCarroll I'm dismissing them completely, based on the overwhelming evidence that we have for the shape of the earth, unless they show any evidence for their delusions.
Hopefully this is my last comment: Paul, please stop interrupting. This is the hosts’ show. They have to interrupt to get things going along but also, they’re allowed to because it’s their show. If you do it once or twice, okay, but constantly doing it is just disrespectful. It’s saying, I don’t give AF what you have to say.
Vauge deism is the last refuge of a failed theism.
15 mins of bull
What a waste of time...is this really what occupies Paul's brain..?
It's interesting that your caller brought up Dungeons and Dragons and gods without mentioning the most powerful 'beings' in the universe - The Dungeon Masters. In-game, we're omnipotent, omniscient, and usually quite benevolent, and we're so powerful that we don't even have stats. However, while we still must abide by certain rules about about reality, we are still able to bend it to our wills to tell a good story or to keep the game moving. Perhaps the biggest failure of the 'God proof' is shown by the virtues of reality itself, i.e, if something doesn't conform or abide by the natural laws of reality then it's impossible, and doesn't exist. In the D&D universe, the supernatural and magic are easily provable - semantic word salads or spurious arguments dressed with fancy words aren't needed. If you scream at the clouds or the earth long enough one of the gods (or demons) will eventually answer, and anyone can perform miracles like Jesus, if they have the time and money to learn the spells. Theists in our world claim that proof for the supernatural is obvious but they're yet to provide anything at all.
All I'm hearing is blah, blah blah.
1:46 a xtian saying evidence is needed??? Oh the irony....
Should we believe u its like if u imagine in a unicorn with wings and santa Claus flying in the sky 🤨
I'm an atheist, I swear to God lol
So far its like picking your favourite super hero, well all the best ones can fly so im picking flight as a necessary thing. Maybe god isn't omnipotent, just because an omnipotent one could beat him up doesnt make it true. Also after all this effort, doesnt seen tonhave entertained that maybe its none of them.
Proof then fones a talk show instead of getting his evidence accepted & getting ppl to believe
Was he trying to prove there's only one God or that a god is possible?
Blah, blah, blah. I bet Paul thinks he sounds intelligent. Zero proof as usual.
Proof, or spoof? Maybe they aren't hearing properly.
Yawn ...
Borrrrrrrring
Knows a lot of big words but doesn’t make a lick of sense.
Um, if there was a god, they wouldn't be so impossible to find or prove. Humans are weird.
This is like whack-a-mole. 😂
Gosh, let the man speak! I am an agnostic/atheist myself, but if there is an argument to be made to prove ANY god, I would like to hear it! It seems very much that you are actively trying to block and destroy this conversation just because there might be something down the road which you could not counter immediately. But this is NOT how one can come to some truth!
Once DEISM is proved then aTHEISM is disproved?
Why would you ladies let this man speak about omnipotency of a diety when he first have to prove that such a diety exists. I dont undestand the construction of this conversation. Why let him make 1 step for free?
This is an utter waste of time. You asked the caller to define his god and you wasted 10 minutes asking him why instead of focusing on whatever point he wanted to make. There wasn't even an argument here, you tell him to get deeper, but you wouldn't even let him offer his argument.
You wouldn't let him get out of the definitional stage. That's just intellectually dishonest.