@@糸攴鬼㐯衣豸麻-c3r To retreat to the term "creator" already suggests you know you don't have evidence of a god. If that's the case, why believe? (If you don't understand: I created this comment. I'm its creator. Am I a god? Were you a god creating yours? Well 100% of the creators we have evidence of _aren't gods._ 0% have been gods. So evidence of a creator wouldn't be a single step closer to a god.) Additionally overwhelming evidence proves evolution caused life's complexity. (A small start to the evidence can be found in the hundreds of scientific papers in the references of "evolution" on Wikipedia.) So I don't know if a non-intelligent process counts as a 'thing', but if it does that's our creator (the person/thing that caused something to exist).
@@majmage _To retreat to the term "creator" already suggests you know you don't have evidence of a god._ *That was intensely d-mb! Have you written it by urself?*
The basis of the arguments are "we don't know, therefore we know." That's like saying, "I don't know what it is so it must be aliens." You can't just hijack "I don't know".
So then it would take equal faith to believe either side, right? Whether you believe that God created it or that it came by chance over millions or billions of years.
@joshuasalazar4316 we know that it was slowly created over billions of years. We know the process. We know the what and how, what we don't know is why. And we may never know. Even if God revealed himself to one or two, there would be no way to differentiate him from others who are actually having a psychotic break. So anyone who declares absolutely yes or no, is a fool. Believe what you want but accept that it is exactly that, the belief you chose to soften the unknown.
@@bheemasena2383 perfect so since we both have “faith” in our own beliefs then you can’t use that argument against us because your beliefs require the same degree of faith as ours does.
*Simply beautiful, from Pascal, with love:* _There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy._
Present strong, logical evidence of a god. Until you can, non-belief is the rational position and any type of theism irrational. 1. The universe's beginning isn't logically evidence, because its cause is unknown (we don't have evidence of the origin) and that type of error is called "argument from ignorance". 2. If our universe appeared designed, that would indicate a designer. Well 100% of the designers we know of right now aren't gods, so we've still taken zero steps closer towards evidence of a god, right? Additionally as a game designer I'm telling you our universe doesn't appear designed! After all we can travel to and live in far less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003% of our universe (that's Earth's _volume_ relative to the universe; there might be way more to reality than our universe; additionally because it's volume and we can't live _inside the earth,_ the actual number is way smaller even if our universe _is_ everything; and then take another 2/3rds away because we can't live on the oceans). Compare that against actually designed universes, like Super Mario where he can travel and live in maybe 50% of his universe (he can't jump to the top of the screen, so we can't call it 100%,). See how different a designed universe is from ours? 3. Our capacity for thought was caused by evolution. So this is just outright misinformation on the video's part.
Just look into the heavens, look around you, there’s ur evidence. “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clear seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Creation proclaims the glory, majesty, power and Divine nature of the Creator ...”
@@masada2828 And what evidence do you base it on which would confirm "gods" connection to all that? Telling someone to look around, and expecting that to count as evidence it has anything with God is total foolishness.
@@enki354 You tell me how it isnt , the basis of todays science and how we have reached here is not just some but the revolutionising of whole science was Newton and Einstien, they gave a new base itself of thinking about the cosmos , the general relativity gives a new perspective of thinking itself . Einstien believed that there “Must” be a much more intellect and intelligent being who is the cause of this creation but he was bit struck when he found out that his rules dont apply to the quantum level and there is a total different game going on there . He then spent ( Einstien) he rest life in finding the unifying theory or the god theory that explains all . At best someone can be agnostic who is a humble in position who accepts that yes the human knowledge is finite and we dont know what we cant see , taste or perceive . Our science is based on our observations which means its limited to whatever our senses could provide us . Einstein knew that there is indeed a god but he didnt believed in a religion . You tell me someone even greater than him ? Some bullshit youtube commenter atheist ? 🤣🤣 Atheism is a spiritual problem , you dont believe in any religion but saying there is no god makes your entire science a ironic miracle . Be agnostic who are not egoistic .
@@enki354 You tell me how it isnt , the basis of todays science and how we have reached here is not just some but the revolutionising of whole science was Newton and Einstien, they gave a new base itself of thinking about the cosmos , the general relativity gives a new perspective of thinking itself . Einstien believed that there “Must” be a much more intellect and intelligent being who is the cause of this creation but he was bit struck when he found out that his rules dont apply to the quantum level and there is a total different game going on there . He then spent ( Einstien) he rest life in finding the unifying theory or the god theory that explains all . At best someone can be agnostic who is a humble in position who accepts that yes the human knowledge is finite and we dont know what we cant see , taste or perceive . Our science is based on our observations which means its limited to whatever our senses could provide us . Einstein knew that there is indeed a god but he didnt believed in a religion . You tell me someone even greater than him ? Some bullshit youtube commenter atheist ? 🤣🤣 Atheism is a spiritual problem , you dont believe in any religion but saying there is no god makes your entire science a ironic miracle . Be agnostic who are not egoistic .
Yup, "fine tuning" - floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes and meteorites, malaria and famine just to mention a few proofs of how "god" has "fine tuned" the universe.
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'... My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE... Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave. The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist. For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment. The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing. The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence. The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists. Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’. On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication. For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything. NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
@@TheLoveOfGod_Gen It's interesting that he presents three rational proofs. Presumably any one of them is enough to fool you. So why bother with the other two ?
If you saw a big and detailed sand sculpture on the beach, would you say that the wind was blowing just right and therefore able to form that sculpture. I would think your answer is no, so why belive the whole universe is just by chance?
@@samnewton3358I have experience of people building sand castles, I’ve built sand castles. So I would assume a sand castle was built by people, because of evidence of people,building sand castles. Everything we have come to understand has been a result of natural forces. Not once have we ever found an act of divine creation. These facts would seem to make naturalism the logical default for the things we don’t yet understand. At least until evidence for an act of divine creation is found. Got any?
Peter Atkins “Even if I stood at the foot of the cross and witnessed the resurrection first hand, I still would not believe I would only think that I’d gone mad.” “If the stars lined up in the sky and said ‘Peter, I am God, believe in me’ I would think that I was hallucinating.” “If I had died and been welcomed into heaven by st Peter himself I would think that I must be dreaming” “of the Bible turned out to be a hidden mathematical equation that explained every mystery of the universe I would conclude it was a forgery” Richard Dawkins “If the stars wrote out a message to me personally explaining that God existed I would think that it had been orchestrated by some sort of super advanced race of aliens that were trying to play a cosmic trick on me.” Sam Harris “I believe that if the 2020 election had been stolen and the government had conspired and abused their power to keep Trump out of office to eliminate an existential threat, then I think it’s justified… a younger version of myself viewed Christianity as an existential threat.” (Thus assumably any deception and abuse of power would be necessary in that case as well to stop it) Matt Dillahunty “If you were beheaded in front of everyone and I saw your decapitated corpse and then you came back and told me every detail of a private conversation you had with a person who is already dead, I still would not believe that anything supernatural had taken place.” Be honest and ask yourself, “is this is my attitude also?” ^^^ this is the true face of dogma. The only way out is to start being honest with yourself. It’s not a question of the evidence. It’s the question of your pride and humility. Consider it.
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Charles didn't ask for an explanation. He requested the provision of verifiable evidence. Even the dog will chase a stick when you wave it in front of him and throw it. I am an agnostic because I don't believe the mythology of the ancient Hebrews.
@@Simon.the.Likeable *Verifiable for...rtrds?They aren't able to verify anything. Evidence is...evident, it doesn't need to be verified, only rtrds think the opposite.*
Peter Atkins “Even if I stood at the foot of the cross and witnessed the resurrection first hand, I still would not believe I would only think that I’d gone mad.” “If the stars lined up in the sky and said ‘Peter, I am God, believe in me’ I would think that I was hallucinating.” “If I had died and been welcomed into heaven by st Peter himself I would think that I must be dreaming” “of the Bible turned out to be a hidden mathematical equation that explained every mystery of the universe I would conclude it was a forgery” Richard Dawkins “If the stars wrote out a message to me personally explaining that God existed I would think that it had been orchestrated by some sort of super advanced race of aliens that were trying to play a cosmic trick on me.” Sam Harris “I believe that if the 2020 election had been stolen and the government had conspired and abused their power to keep Trump out of office to eliminate an existential threat, then I think it’s justified… a younger version of myself viewed Christianity as an existential threat.” (Thus assumably any deception and abuse of power would be necessary in that case as well to stop it) Matt Dillahunty “If you were beheaded in front of everyone and I saw your decapitated corpse and then you came back and told me every detail of a private conversation you had with a person who is already dead, I still would not believe that anything supernatural had taken place.” Be honest and ask yourself, “is this is my attitude also?” ^^^ this is the true face of dogma. The only way out is to start being honest with yourself. It’s not a question of the evidence. It’s the question of your pride and humility. Consider it.
Wrong question. You're thinking of physical things which are deterministic, dichotomous (cause-and-effect) and continuity-based. God is none of these things. 😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Notice that the order of events leading up to the formation of Space, Light, Stars, the Sun ,Earth, Moon, Plants, animals and humans does not match the order in Genesis. Also, there is no God required for any of it.
@@糸攴鬼㐯衣豸麻-c3r That is simply nonsense. You are presenting a false dichotomy. The only 2 choices are NOT either accept a natural process that you cannot demonstrate or accept a magic sky wizard who loves blood and wants you to cut off your foreskin that you cannot demonstrate. 500 years ago, you would have argued that Zeus must exist unless you strongly believe that magic electricity can come from the sky by natural processes and that is childish. The time to believe something is after it has been demonstrated and not before. We understand alot about how order and intelligence arises from purely natural processes. We can observe both directly. No magic sky wizard necessary. You on the otherhand must "Stronly believe" that magic sky wizards can arise from nothing at all. Who is actually being childish?
even if one accepts a god/s, there are so many humans claiming rights over the god/s that it is just very confusing when anonymity is the preferred option ..amen
The complexity of the DNA and the fine tuning (not of the physical laws, but of the physical constants) is evidence of forethought, planning, and design. Maybe so, but you need to show the available body of facts and information indicating whether your belief or proposition is true and valid. If there are no facts, then it is just religion.
All of these arguments have been refuted and by neither addressing or even acknowledging the opposing arguments you are not really proving anything. Additionally, when you assert that not only does god exist but that he is the christian god you need to bring additional proof as many religions are in fact mutually exclusive. I may tune in for future videos but I sincerely hope you can make a better case on other topics.
This argument immediately smuggles its conclusion into its premises with 'Who designed the laws of physics?' This is loaded language which presupposes the answer you are pretending to reason to.
@@Thaddeuslovesmusic Scientific laws are mathematical descriptions of physical forces. Human laws are social regulations. It is not logical to equivocate the two things.
Apologetics isn't about truth, or about convincing skeptics. It's about convincing Christians who already believe and won't check that they have a solid rational foundation for their beliefs.
Questions (guys?)? How does there being a creator equal it being a designer? Why can't it be the creator of chaos? Also. How do these evidences prove there is only one god? Why can't there be two or three creators? Existence of the universe doesn't describe the nature of a creator (and if it is only one as opposed to hundreds). Design of the universe is god of the gaps and jumping to conclusions; and the last one is more "if it doesn't make sense therefore its false" is a logical fallacy. Are there genuinely other arguments for a creator's existence that haven't been used before?
*Q:* How does there being a creator equal it being a designer? *Answer from video above:* A non-conscious origin should not result in order but rather chaos. Order implies design. *Q:* Why can't it be the creator of chaos? *Answer:* Hypothetically, God could create something in chaos if he wanted to, but what we see in the actual reality we live in is the fine-tuned order necessary for life to emerge, which means your question doesn't apply to how things actually are. *Q:* Also. How do these evidences prove there is only one god? / Why can't there be two or three creators? *Answer:* This is a general argument for Theism, Not for a specific God or to answer how many gods there are. *Q:* Existence of the universe doesn't describe the nature of a creator. *Answer:* What you're saying oversimplifies the point being made By not adding the necessary nuance that justifies the implication. Since a nonconscious source should result in chaos rather than order, then it should result in the universe not existing or at least not being in a position conducive for the emergence of life. Just as mentioned in an earlier answer, such examples of fine tuned order suggests design. *Q:* Design of the universe is god of the gaps and jumping to conclusions *Answer:* On the contrary, To deny the implications of fine tuning necessary for their emergence of life In order to conclude or assume that chaos from a non-conscious source resulted in this outcome is "naturalism of the gaps". We should not expect fine tuning in order to come from chaos. *Q:* and the last one is more "if it doesn't make sense therefore its false" is a logical fallacy *Answer:* The rhetorical questions you're asking implies that it doesn't make sense to conclude it is one or multiple gods, Or that a creator doesn't necessarily imply a designer, And you're using these things to imply the conclusion should be dismissed, Which is an approach that your questions are taking that in some degree matches your criticism of the opposing view. However, To be more specific in clarifying what The argument is ultimately doing, It is arguing for what is most logical Or reasonable to conclude Based on where the implications lead, and that is what would justify the conclusion of the alternative being false. For example, we would not expect that out of chaos two meteors collide into each other and explode, and the metal from those meteors falls into the Earth's ozone and lands on the ground in such a precise way to where it builds a finetuned rocket ship Without consciousness. This is not rational to believe, but in principle, this is what is happening by presupposing a nonconscious source of chaos resulting in the emergence of life. That's not to say that it's impossible for this to happen, but it is to say that it isn't rational to believe, and that our experience in life informs us that conscious intelligence is Always the source behind Profoundly sophisticated or orderly fine tuned Outcomes.
*Simply beautiful and motivational this one from Kelvin:* _The atheistic idea is so n-onsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Preachers prefer people who are not yet convinced that God exists. If everybody believed, they would have no more work to do. They need the money (Matthew 19:23)
Special pleading 101...Why can't a universe just create itself if god can create himself...'Look at the trees' ...That ain't gonna cut it.@@samnewton3358
@samnewton3358 I do believe that a God is possible, but there are so many things we don't understand about the universe it's not crazy to think there's some other explanation and regarding life it's not like we just popped up one day millions of years of evolution led up to this in that time frame complex beings like humans and animals can happen.
@@gangsta8514 Evolution doesn't make sense. How body parts, such as the eyeball, gradually come into existence by evolution? For millions of years creatures would have had incomplete eyeballs, and if that were the case, we would still see creatures with in-progress body parts today. A creature either has an eyeball or it doesn't. Even with evolution, life would still have to come from non-organic matter. DNA is very complex even in single-celled organisms. There is no possibility that could have made itself. Read the Bible and seriously consider that it may be God's word, and I think you'll realize that it is.
For those still skeptical of God, I recommend looking into Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU); it's a logico-mathematical proof that the systematization of reality can’t be less intelligent than its human subsystems (an audacious thing for primates on a space rock to have ever believed). For believers, I recommend reading it after revisiting John 1:1 and the Paraclete passages (John 14-16). Please pray for wisdom for all.
Not sure I understand. A machine created by an ultimate creator would be of the utmost simple design, having nothing that isn't necessary to its function. Our inability to grasp the universe doesn't seem to be one of intelligence, but rather one of context, where we exist within a system that we cannot contrast anything against. It's like having only one color that you can see, which is the same as being blind. Hyper-intelligent individuals are often outshined by the less intelligent due to the ability to see things without complications. That said, the true irony in my argument may be that I only know all these things intuitively because I am made in God's image and the true beauty of creation is that everything works the same, where just as we see with our eyes and hear with our ears using contrast, my lack of understanding of the argument at hand is simply because I've yet to hear another.
1/ Why would any rational person believe anything in the bible when it is a book of demonstrably vague, horror fiction? 2/ That would be like believing that Harry Potter and Sauron exist because they appear in many books about magic. 3/ The evil 'god' thing described by itself in the book it supposedly inspired about itself is a very evil character because it murders huge numbers of innocent babies and children because it has a hissy fit. 4/ Why would any rational person choose to worship a thing they cannot demonstrate ever existed, behaves exactly as if it doesn't exist and boasts about abusing children? That would be an absurd and fundamentally immoral thing to do.
Let's face one fact. What kind of God would let it's current representatives continue to do what they are doing to the world? Enslaving man with taxes and putting one group at war with the others?
Genesis 4:15 says if anyone touches Cain (son of Adam), God's vengeance will be sevenfold. Hamas killed 1400 Jews, IDF massacres 8000 Palestinians and get away with it. Proof God exists.
You have to remember that God stepped away when Adam And Eve were persuaded by the devil to sin and do exactly what God asked them not to..When that occurred God said I still love you and I'll always be here for you and the corrupt God they listened to (sAtAn) is to blame for all that's wrong in this world..not God..
@@RICATONI1964 I remember that that was written, but it seems a bit inconsistent with any reality I've ever experienced. In fact, it all seems like obvious manipulation by something that falls quite short of divinity.
Love how people misinterpret basic trigonometry applied to the movement of the sun, moon and stars as proof of devine design. Einstein also came up with a static model of the universe, then realized that was a mistake. So using him as an example is not the best idea. 😂🤣
Given the quantities that are attributed to God he should be the most obvious person that ever existed. The fact that this god manifest itself in the most vague ways possible is a huge problem that can’t be excused away. Its existence should never be an issue, whether or not you worship him is a totally separate matter.
I'd love to know what works of Einstein's contain the quotes mentioned, so I can obtain copies or visit a library. If I quote someone, I prefer to site my sources.
What were the quotes? Believers very often misunderstand or deliberately misconstrue his words, so could you tell me what you saw? I didn't watch the video.
I couldn't reference any of them. Very likely either cherry-picked out of context, or more likely just faked. Einstein, like Churchill and a few others, is a quote magnet. I can prove, with a citation, that he didn't think much of the whole "God" idea.
Of course, it doesn't make any difference what Einstein thought about gods, anyway. Theists just seem to think that quoting an "authority" - someone well-known for _something,_ if not for why they're quoting him - is convincing. I suppose it's because of how _they_ think? Or maybe it's just because they have nothing else, huh? If they had good *evidence* backing up their religious beliefs, they wouldn't need to do that.
@@Bill_Garthright Very true. Of course, if one has to go to all the endless effort they go through to prove the existence of a person, then the person is imaginary...one doesn't have to go through all that effort for any real person.
@@James-ll3jb His first proof: quantum field theory proves that the cosmos (which exists beyond space-time) is eternal, as time is a quality of space-time, and that's only four of the nine+ dimensions. To argue that every part of the cosmos must have begun to exist or been created is to invoke unjustified assumptions with no evidence. In other words, you have to assume a creator entity into existence. His second proof: there is literally no way to differentiate something that has been designed from something that only appears to have been designed. The unjustified assumptions required to arrive at a designer are that A) there was a point when nothing material existed, which isn't in evidence, B) something can exist wholly immaterially and independently of all material, which isn't in evidence, and C) anything can begin to exist, which isn't in evidence. His third proof is nothing but an argument from ignorance... "I can't think of any explanation why, therefore God!" and requires the same unjustified assumptions already mentioned. It's one thing to come up with an explanation that matches the evidence available, but theism doesn't match the evidence available at all. There's no evidence that something material can begin to exist from nothing material. There's no evidence that something immaterial can exist without any material. There's no evidence that any aspect of theism, specifically the biblical "God," exists outside of the believer's imagination and beliefs. There's no evidence that the cosmos is finite or had an ultimate beginning, as quantum field theory makes it quite clear that the quantum field surrounding all things (which is material) is not bound by time. At best, we're left with an unknown about why the observable universe (i.e. space-time) appeared in its current form approximately 14 billion years ago. These facts would have to change for theism to even be justifiably asserted as logically possible.
In a ‘pre-universe’ situation where time, space, matter, energy and virtual particles don't exist (or ‘exist’ in the latter case) and the laws of physics can’t apply because there’s nothing for them to apply to, a universe can just come into existence because there's nothing to stop it from doing so. Every law must also contain, by implication, a list of everything it prohibits, otherwise the law won’t work and will effectively be meaningless. For example, 'light in a vacuum travels at 186,000 miles per second' also includes the law that 'light in a vacuum does not travel at 185,999 miles per second' - and so on. Where laws of existence apply, they have to entail laws of non-existence in order to actually function. Where there are no laws of existence - in this case, before the creation of the universe - there can be no laws of non-existence. The creation of the universe was therefore spontaneous and probably inevitable. Boil this down to one simple rule, if you like: 'A thing will happen unless something exists that will prevent it from happening'. Then test this rule against any example you like.
Nothing new here. Just the same age old, tired argument that since science can't explain it, it must be God. Don't waste 20 minutes of your life watching this. I did it for you.
This videos is perfect for me, bc I want to learn how to spot logical fallacies. And I just want to let you know you use them, because probably you don't know yet. You used the personal incredulity fallacy really often, and kinda the appeal to authority fallacy (Albert Einstein). "If I don't know how something works, it must be false." That's what you're saying about the theories of the big bang. That's the so called fallacy of personal incredulity. I recommend on looking that up to understand why it's a fallacy. The theory of the existence of a god is nothing more than a theory, you can't proof it. But I also don't say that you're wrong. Even though what you're saying are only fallacies, your statement "god exist" *could* still be true. We can't know it
Khm, I do really appreciate the effort to point out the fallacies in the video, but! You have to make sure while you doing it, to keep up your credibility. A theory is basically a proven fact by indirect methods. The word for unproven ideas called 'Hypothesis'. Other than that, good points, stay critical against everything. The only way to reveal scammers!
@@dorkception2012 "A theory is basically a proven fact by indirect methods" No it absolutely is not. A theory is not a proven fact, and it has nothing to do with "indirect methods". A theory is never proven. That's the point of a theory. The reason theist need to use the word "proof" is that they can't understand degrees of evidence. Here are some examples of theories: - Einstein's Theory of Relativity - A ton of evidence, used for practical purposes, not proven - Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation - A ton of evidence, used up until it was disproven, explicitly disproven - String Theory - Not much evidence, not used for practical purposes, not proven - Creation Theory - No evidence, zero predictive power and therefore completely unusable, unfalsifiable but certainly not proven That includes the speculation that any mass-energy can be created at all when it never has been. Everything that we say to have been "created" was actually transformed from something else It also includes the theories that complexity, order, or structure requires design even though the most complex, ordered, and structured things we know of could not possibly be designed by any means ever actually seen And of course it includes the weird theory that the only alternatives to God involve rocks that think. I'm not sure where theists got that one but I think it's worth questioning both their judgment and motives for posing it as the dispositive scenario
You are drawing conclusions with a brain that is the result of randomness and unguided processes. Yet you "think" you can use logic to expose errors with such a brain. If you are the result of non guided randomness, then there is no way you can verify anything. Your brain is what you need to rely on to observe your surroundings, yet there is NO mechanism that allows you to know it is accurate in what you observe. You use words like "fallacy" and "logical", but they are just concepts that you invented by thinking that your brain is able to make some sensible use of them. I hate to break it down like this but, we are just a pattern of cellular material produced accidently and can not find any purpose for what we think or observe, because there is NONE. Welcome to an existence with no CREATOR.
@@markbirchall2060"Logic is because of God" why? "I don't know, but anything you'd use to verify that is automatically wrong because I read a book" A claim that was asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You claim, without evidence, that logic only exists because of a creator
@@markbirchall2060 I am afraid that making unsupported claims is useless for demonstrating anything is true. For that you need to provide at least some valid and verified evidence and facts but you have provided absolutely none.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but belief in God, there are no rational arguments, without contradiction. Stating a scientific fact doesn’t do it either. After Kant, no deductive and valid argument available without presupposing (introducing a premise) exists. This video is meant for people who are already believers or want (psychologically) to believe.
@@grawss It’s a well know fact that all arguments attempting to ‘prove’ God are all fallacious. It’s the requirement for believers to provide one. It can’t be done. You have to introduce a major premise that states god’s existence, but that premise is only a premise, i.e. not a fact. This is well known since Kant. People are free to believe, but it’s only a belief, not fact.
@@johnmaisonneuve9057 You have to introduce a premise to make any rational argument. In the case of flat-out stating He exists, that isn't an argument; it's a statement. Also, basing an argument on fact is fine, but it cannot be considered fact until the premise is proven to be true. The premise comes first, followed by an argument made upon it. Otherwise, the fallacy at work here is "begging the question."
Completely wrong God is the only thing you can prove. He is defined as the necessarily existing entity upon which all continentally existing items depend. If the universe was eternal then God would be the entire universe and we would be existing internally inside God like a bit of bacteria exists inside a human stomach. This view is pantheism, but all evidence in our universe points to it being created and contingent on a creator. Proof of God is the only thing you can prove everything else existence is pointed to by evidence. By the way when a human says he is atheist the only possible logically conclusion is that he believes himself to be God (a tree falling only makes a noise if he hears it) and the universe only exists because he created he creates his own morals and decides on what is good bad ring and wrong. Very convenient a few examples Hitler Stalin and all the rest of the worlds greatest killers decided murder wasn’t on the list of their 10 commandments.
He is saying God is unjust to condemn any person to hell before the modern science became available that made the level of precision in design known. I'm curious what year he thinks it became just for God to start sending people to hell.
Since near the beginning. Any sin can be forgiven but blasphemy against God is unforgivable. Hell is reserved for those who have sinned without repentance or did not accept our God.
why build such a massive expanse of galactic objects if it is entirely for a few humans who have not been here very long compared to the age of the earth.
Two problems with Douglas Adams quote. 1a. It is utilizing only one definition of faith for the sake of the narrative/rhetoric he desires to promote, which causes others to assume there's only one definition of faith through that rhetoric which influences their perception, causing them to see through that same inaccurate lens without Being just as critical of that saying as they would be in challenging belief in God, resulting in them using faith of their own without realizing it in believing him. 1b. It would not seem believable to take seriously the thought that the unbeliever doesn't know to some degree that there are different views and aspects of "faith", which would imply that the unbeliever is pushing the serious contemplation of the nature of "faith" out of his mind, and making a partnership with another person whom they subconsciously know isn't accurate, but are partnering with him anyway as a benefit in combining forces with him, and suppressing it in one's consciousness so that he doesn't realize he's doing that. 2. He's making (implying) a universal claim that is outside of his scope of knowledge, Which is the very definition of faith that he is using, To imply that there is no evidence for God whatsoever, which is a claim that he has a burden of proof for. Thus, it appears his own talking point becomes self-refuting to both himself and the person who uses his quote.
Science is itself based on faith . Indeed a blind faith , unless you count experience as a faith . There is absolute 0 proof that the laws of nature will continue to work like they do right now . Or the theories in science are based on faith itself . The very first guy had a blind faith that the universe could be comprehended , or A blind faith when one thought that other could understand him 😂 . Pose a proper argument , faith is no wrong but when its in your favour than no coping
Throughout history right up until the present, there are multiple gods and multiple iterations of these gods..Anonymity is the preferred option if a supernatural entity even exists.
Einstein had interesting views, like for example his opinion on Religion and Science ´´science without religion is lame religion without science is blind´´ or when he was questioned if he believed in God ´´Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things´´ i just simply love the way he thought of these topics, it´s nothing short but interesting to see his view of the concept and notion of God.
In a very strange way, to know God is to know evil and even experience evil directly and personally. It's a strange paradox, but you can't truly appreciate perfection and purity, without something to contrast it, This is why we have the symbolism of flawed human nature wrapped over an eternal spirit, and why we have light and darkness in mother nature to symbolize the conflict of our need to experience spiritual darkness and upon experiencing it, to than seek the Light of our Creator and Savior.
If we were designed, how come we use one pipe to breath and eat? Very poor design as far as I'm concerned and that's just one of many! Therefore no designer.
@@VaughanFallicksorry i was just larking - my mother was a compulsive self asphyxiator ! Hard candies, boiled sweets, never learned, always sucking them down, always gagging and gasping. Absolutely terrifying as children. It goes against all instinct to whack and squeeze your Ma hard enough to stimulate ejection !! "Hell's noodles, if you can't chew it, why not stuff it up your nose, it'd be safer...." etc, etc. Yes - esophagus goes to the stomach - and the trachea (windpipe) to the lungs. Unfortunately the pharynx, back of the throat cavity, does house both of the openings - the epiglottis ( flap of cartilage) is supposed to seal off the trachea when you swallow food/fluid - but my mother's apparently liked to play russian roulette.
Your comment seems to be a caricature that doesn't add the necessary nuance that the video above is communicating which justifies the implication of its conclusion.
When we see a car, why don’t we assume it was designed by a tailor? When we see a boat in a remote unoccupied location, why don’t we conclude an elephant may have built it? The fact is, we only attribute material things with known sources. Humans build boats, so a boat lying on the remote location may lead us to believe humans were there.. and similarly we know a car wasn’t made by tailors as we don’t see tailors making cars! Similarly when it comes to the universe, we don’t know of other universes whose designers we know, in which case we could conclude that our universe was made in a similar manner…there’s absolutely nothing to act as prior point of reference as to how and by who the universe emerged. If we want to call that “unknown “ source God, so be it.
But was it "made"? Are these questions even logical? What is north of the north pole? What was before the beginning? If I have a back pocket, does the universe have a back pocket?
Complexity is not an indication of design. That which is not designed will end up more complex for the intended purpose, like someone building a house with design may end up sending wiring to parts of the house where it is not used as the builder did not plan ahead and ended up with wasted wiring. This well matches the laryngeal nerve that communicates between the brain and larynx (in the throat) but first makes a meaningless trip down under the heart. Another sign of excess complexity is in sub-atomic particles where the nuclei of atoms made of protons and neutrons that are themselves composed of slightly different combinations of two kinds of smaller particles called quarks, yet there are 6 kinds of quarks with 4 of them being superfluous for creating matter and only last less than a billionth of a second. Also, what was god's purpose in inflation then just accelerating expansion of the universe rather than just having it expand at a rate that keeps it going which would happen even without the accelerating expansion? All of these indicate a universe that fell into place (or more out of place) rather than the product of design.
Thanks for doing this presentation. Thanks for showing God's existance. Now I have to deal my moral issues, values, and the possibility of relating to this God.
@@chikkipopno he did not, he made several fallacies, called them evidence #1 and then repeated the same bs calling it evidence #2 and then said if #1 and #2 are true #3 rational follows and thereby equals more evidence even though it was assertions he repeated from the first two lies.
Interesting you mention 13.8 billion years as the age of the universe - I read this book "13.8: The Quest to Find the True Age of the Universe and the Theory of Everything" which was interesting from a scientific point of view, but for me without the Bible (God's instruction book for man - written by the human instruments He used), there would be nothing to explain how everything came into existence. For me there are very fine ecosystems in which all the animals can function without which none could exist - everything has to work together - not only on the inside of all plants and animals but where they inhabit the planet as well. Thanks for your interesting video.
_"God's instruction book for man"_ *Evidence?* How about one piece of good evidence your god exists _at all,_ let alone that he wrote a book? _"there would be nothing to explain how everything came into existence."_ First of all, that's called an argument from ignorance. It's a known logical fallacy. Just because you don't know something, that doesn't mean you can make up anything you want. "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it" - not for _any_ god, let alone a particular one. Just because you don't know what the Sun is - or you don't believe what scientists say about the Sun - that doesn't mean it _has_ to be Jesus driving a golden chariot across the sky, right? See what I mean? You need *evidence* that your beliefs are actually true. Second, you have nothing to explain how "everything came into existence" even _with_ a god. After all, if a god exists, how did that god come into existence? Maybe it didn't? Maybe it always existed? Then "everything" doesn't _have_ to come in to existence, huh? So your own beliefs would make your question invalid. In both cases, you're just assuming what you _want_ to be true, instead of admitting that we simply don't know, yet. But we're learning more every day. And countless times throughout history, things once thought to be supernatural have been discovered to be perfectly natural after all. Never _once_ has that happened in reverse. _"For me there are very fine ecosystems in which all the animals can function without which none could exist - everything has to work together"_ Yes. And we know exactly how that happens. No magic required. If we _didn't_ know, that still wouldn't be evidence that a god exists - again, _any_ god, let alone a particular one. Gods aren't the default. As I said, if we don't know something, then we simply don't know it. If you think you_do_ know it, then let's see your evidence that your beliefs are actually true. Or were you just taught to believe this stuff as a child, and you really, really _want_ it to be true? Wishful-thinking is a strong force in religion.
@@Bill_Garthright Any change in the earth's oxygen ratio, where it is in relation to the sun, how animals can function within their bodies and their reproduction systems - is not all just coincidence - you can't just have a masterpiece painting without an artist.
@@mariabarnard4484 _"not all just coincidence"_ You're right. It's not. We evolved here. Indeed, the earth's oxygen was _created_ by living things. It has varied over time, and life evolved to adapt to those changes. We didn't evolve on Jupiter or Mercury because the conditions on those planets were not hospitable for life. We live on the only planet in this solar system where it is _possible_ for us to live naturally. It's not a coincidence _at all._ It's also not evidence of a god - _any_ god, let alone the particular one you were taught to believe as a child. Now, if we _did_ live on Jupiter or Mercury, or perhaps in the vacuum of space - somewhere it would be _impossible_ for us to survive without magic - then you might have an argument for magic. But we don't. _"you can't just have a masterpiece painting without an artist."_ So what? We're not talking about a painting. Anyway, how about one piece of good evidence that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one,* please, but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. Why is *one* too much to ask? Evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. So, do you have _anything_ distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? Again, why is *one* too much to ask?
@@Bill_Garthright I cannot persuade you if you don't want to be persuaded - the evidence is all around us and includes thinking, planning, artistic, emotional, constructive or even destructive human beings. All the best to you.
@@mariabarnard4484 So,... *nothing,* then? *Nothing* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? Even *one* piece of good evidence is too much to ask? Don't you see why *nothing* distinguishable from wishful-thinking isn't convincing to me? You _claim_ that "the evidence is all around us," but when I ask for just *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, you don't even _try._ You clearly _know_ you have nothing, huh? I mean, if you _thought_ you really did have something, you'd actually _try._ We both know that, don't we? But you're right about one thing. I don't want to be persuaded... if your beliefs aren't true. And there seems to be no reason to think that they _are_ true. I only want to be persuaded of the _truth._ You can keep your fantasies, no matter how much you like them. Of course, most people aren't like me, huh? They really, really want to believe... whatever fantasy they were taught to believe as a child. Raised Christian, it's almost always Christianity they want to be true. Raised Muslim, it's almost always Islam. Raised Jewish or Hindu or... well, you get the idea. And you all have apologists whose job it is to comfort existing believers. Christian apologists make Christians feel better. Muslim apologists make Muslims feel better. None of them persuade nonbelievers, because they have nothing distinguishable from wishful-thinking. But wishful-thinking is all existing believers _need,_ huh? I've never understood that. And I was raised Christian myself. But the truth _matters_ to me.
I acknowledge that the McRib is a complex, mysterious meat. I know it exists but I don’t care to understand how it came into existence when I eat it drunk at 2am. I want to know the creator, not the sandwich.
Where did God come from? He/she/it is, or was, a pretty complex enitity. Happened by blind chance? Existed eternally? What evidence is there for such an unlikely scenario? Why did this entity decide to create a universe? Boredom? Is there a purpose to life? What ultimate purpose could there be?
@@cirqueyeagerist5641 a) why would I waste my time? You're not interrested in the truth. b) Cope? Projecting much? c) Ah yes, the hubris of somebody with his head firmly up his rectum, dining on his own feces. Tell me, Skippy, how old am I so you feel the hubris right to call me "kid"?
@@cirqueyeagerist5641 Why waste my time? You have no interrest in truth or reality. And in regards to cope and kid, I'm not the one with an imaginary friend.
Your first "rational proof" is neither rational nor a proof, it's assertion and it took 15min to assert. I did not bother waiting for the other two. Very disappointing.
@@samnewton3358 Give what a try? It's already been confirmed. Evolution by natural processes is abundantly proven. How'd you manage to miss the news?! 😇
@@chikkipop I meant refute the existence of God because you said it's easy to refute. Even if evolution is true, which it's not, life still had to spontaneously appear from non-organic matter. Also, nature cannot be the designer. Nature is just the laws that explain how things behave in the universe. Life never spontaneously appears unless there's God. So evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
I think the numbers talk for themselves, while a lot of you can not see that. Worry not, the 'Bring Back RUclips Dislike' named little extension for Chrome, Firefox and Opera can help you out. SO here we go! Likes: 467 Dislikes: 583
Religious belief is epistemically indefensible, prioritizing unevidenced faith. False belief leads to bad decisions, e.g., when theists vote against progressive social policies because they believe their good fortune is due to their god's blessing, and the less fortunate are undeserving. It's clear to me that, on balance, and according to my values, religion does more harm than good in the world.
Albert Einstein, 1945 "I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.” "I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."
I don't know why people don't believe in our lord and Savior he helped me find what i didn't even know whati was looking for i love music and he helped me find libera such beautiful music unfortunately i still sin and feel terrible 😭
_"unfortunately i still sin and feel terrible"_ That's the whole point. Religion doesn't _just_ rely on wishful-thinking, although that's a big part of it. Most religions also use guilt. They teach you something is wrong - something natural and harmless, often enough - so that you'll feel guilty and keep crawling back to the church for forgiveness. Most of them also have a carrot _and_ a stick, of course - both of them conveniently promised for after you die, so no one can investigate their claims. Of course, none of this tends to work unless a person has been indoctrinated with that religion as a child. Raised Muslim, you're not going to fear the Christian Hell, but only the Muslim one. Raised Christian, you're not going to feel guilty for eating bacon. The one thing they _don't_ have is good evidence that their claims are actually true. Religious apologists always preach to the choir, because they know they won't be questioned. It's been my experience that they don't even want to _talk_ to nonbelievers, because we'll ask them for *evidence.*
I hope you grow out of your magic beliefs. They take advantage of people's emotional neediness and narcissism. *"Sin"* is such a silly idea. You have fallen for an ancient superstition that is designed to take advantage of weakness. It's an insult to your intelligence.
@@Bill_GarthrightHere's your evidence. Giants that they have in a Peru Smithsonian museum if you look it up which is in the Bible. The book of revelation which literally foretold everything that is happening in our world today. They found Noah's arc in turkey which is also in the Bible. Those so called extra terrestrials in the ufo's in the sky are actually fallen angels and they bible specifically says there will be signs in the sky to mislead people from the Bible. So there is evidence all around you you just don't want to accept it like most atheists do.
The question is can you prove your religion is the one true religion and all other religions are false? All religions has claimed to be the true religion. But none has proven so far. It's because all religions are man-made and wrong.
Authorship is in the architecture. At very least as an intelligence the substrate of all as a characteristic that is in us and all that is, was, and will be.
To think that the hole existence with its infinite complexity is made by chance for no reason except mindless materialism is the hight of illogicality. There's no reason for matter and matter has no reason, no mind. Something without mind can not beget mind. And something without reason can not beget reason let alone be begotten by it. By logic God is the most true and real entity. Humble yourselves. Soften your hearts. So may He lead you all in truth. God bless ❤
I listened to this entire tripe and see no proofs. Where are the proofs? All I hear being said is misleading questions, special pleading, twisted cherry picked statements, and gross exaggerations. Where are the proofs?
Your assumptions are that GOD is a created being , that is where the mistake is made , I understand it is hard to think outside time space and matter and that ther just might be something that always was and always will be . Besides believing that everything came from nothing randomly is the most silliest explanation ther ever could be , look up the chances of fulfilling just 8 and 30 prophecies in a lifetime and then remember Jesus fulfilled over 300 and before you say that's not true , do your homework because it is true and recorded
Wrong question. How did nothing become something so fine tuned that the existence of life is on a precipice of non existence yet still continuing in a manner that we can not only understand but can only be in awe of how well it all works together. It takes more miracles for this to be an act of chance than for there to be a God who created it
No, we don't _have_ to believe. In fact we shouldn't. We shouldn't until the first human actually discovers reasonable evidence of a god. (We haven't so far.)
If you wanna convince us that God exists, you will have to show us a body, period. Science has many flaws and doesnt give us absolute truths, but at least most of its content makes sense.
I watched this in order to have a laugh before retiring. I wasn't disappointed. It's laughable, and somewhat sad, that people find any of this rubbish credible.
No, it operates according to physical processes that are (for the most part) predictable...which we figured out by observation and experimentation, not by prayer and chanting. The fact that there are predictable processes and patterns is no evidence for a guiding mind...that requires separate and specific evidence...which neither Mr.Capo nor any other apologist nor any believer in any religion in all of human history has ever provided...nor ever will.
@@greglisk9408 1/ Maybe I just missed it but you have forgotten to tell me exactly what you are talking about. It seems that failure is because you don’t know. 2/ Empty assertions are not proof of anything unless you can provide at least some valid and verified evidence and facts for your claim and you have demonstrably provided none. 3/ It seems that you really don’t know what you are talking about 4/ Have you ever found out what last year’s winners of the Nobel prize for physics received their award for? You obviously haven’t. 5: Why would any rational person want to have anything to do with a documented fraud like the diamond encrusted guru?
@sandyago4735 Like how atheists like you argue the existence of our God "yaweh" or jehovah. But why don't argue the existence of Buddha or Hinduism its almost like you know there is a God but deep down won't admit it. Atheists always try to argue about God so much almost like they're coping for their sins and lifestyle. So no this "fairytale logic of belief" is a reality whether you want to believe it or not.
Musicians can compose--but we did not invent music. Paraphrasing the presenter, "If you blow up a bridge, you don't get a skyscraper. Explosions create chaos, not intelligent design." Much to contemplate here. Well done to the team and presenter.
No one is claiming an explosion created anything. Big bang was not an explosion. Every cause we have come to understand has been a result of natural forces. So, until you find evidence for an act of divine creation naturalism still the logical default.
Music is just vibrations in the air, are you aware of that? We do invented the concept of music, but that is simply waves through a medium, that happens to please us and give good feelings. Nothing supernatural about anything in this world, only to those who knows nothing about it. Just like the person who made the video.
You are missing out. Haven’t read the new study that found the explosion resulting from the collision of two neutron stars produces complex elements. Complex design accomplished by an explosion. Keep up, you are embarrassing yourself. Much for you to contemplate, right?
@@rickdelatour5355 The formation of heavy elements is NOT complex design. Nuclear fusion of heavier elements only needs close proximity to overcome the Coulomb barrier between nuclei, and very high temperatures, both which occur in these collisions. So, not complex or difficult at all, and completely unlike complex life. In fact, utterly predictable based on the physical and chemical laws of our universe. The fusion of heavy elements in stars in no way disproves the hypothesis of God.
@@wprandall2452 If anyone had proven a god's existence it would be world changing news. The discoverer would be world famous and very rich and would be cited by everyone. So how come they don't?
![Kumamoto Masters Japan 2024 | Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] vs. Akane Yamaguchi (JPN) [2] | F](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EIjZybhsWqA/mqdefault.jpg)
Faith is not needed. An appearance would do it.
Still waiting after thousands of years.
You must be old.
*To quote a random guy:* _If BILLIONS of complex living creations don't prove a Creator, you will live and d-ie a damned f-ool_
Faith is needed. Because an appearance is something you'd never believe. Even Dawkins says that for him it is not proof enough.😅
@@糸攴鬼㐯衣豸麻-c3r To retreat to the term "creator" already suggests you know you don't have evidence of a god. If that's the case, why believe? (If you don't understand: I created this comment. I'm its creator. Am I a god? Were you a god creating yours? Well 100% of the creators we have evidence of _aren't gods._ 0% have been gods. So evidence of a creator wouldn't be a single step closer to a god.)
Additionally overwhelming evidence proves evolution caused life's complexity. (A small start to the evidence can be found in the hundreds of scientific papers in the references of "evolution" on Wikipedia.) So I don't know if a non-intelligent process counts as a 'thing', but if it does that's our creator (the person/thing that caused something to exist).
@@majmage _To retreat to the term "creator" already suggests you know you don't have evidence of a god._
*That was intensely d-mb! Have you written it by urself?*
The basis of the arguments are "we don't know, therefore we know." That's like saying, "I don't know what it is so it must be aliens."
You can't just hijack "I don't know".
gotta love god of the gaps
So then it would take equal faith to believe either side, right? Whether you believe that God created it or that it came by chance over millions or billions of years.
@joshuasalazar4316 we know that it was slowly created over billions of years. We know the process.
We know the what and how, what we don't know is why. And we may never know. Even if God revealed himself to one or two, there would be no way to differentiate him from others who are actually having a psychotic break.
So anyone who declares absolutely yes or no, is a fool. Believe what you want but accept that it is exactly that, the belief you chose to soften the unknown.
@@bheemasena2383 perfect so since we both have “faith” in our own beliefs then you can’t use that argument against us because your beliefs require the same degree of faith as ours does.
@joshuasalazar4316 why are you saying we? You have a belief. I do not. I just went through this.
*Simply beautiful, from Pascal, with love:* _There are only three types of people; those who have found God and serve him; those who have not found God and seek him, and those who live not seeking, or finding him. The first are rational and happy; the second unhappy and rational, and the third foolish and unhappy._
Profound. Deep. Pretentious. Bullshit platitude.
After experiencing growing up in Evangelicalism, I'm here to tell you that at 66 years old, there is NO GOD. It's all a lie.
@@stonemaze9925Why? Let me guess: Because you know you are stuck in the third group....and are ashamed.
Present strong, logical evidence of a god. Until you can, non-belief is the rational position and any type of theism irrational.
1. The universe's beginning isn't logically evidence, because its cause is unknown (we don't have evidence of the origin) and that type of error is called "argument from ignorance".
2. If our universe appeared designed, that would indicate a designer. Well 100% of the designers we know of right now aren't gods, so we've still taken zero steps closer towards evidence of a god, right? Additionally as a game designer I'm telling you our universe doesn't appear designed! After all we can travel to and live in far less than 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000003% of our universe (that's Earth's _volume_ relative to the universe; there might be way more to reality than our universe; additionally because it's volume and we can't live _inside the earth,_ the actual number is way smaller even if our universe _is_ everything; and then take another 2/3rds away because we can't live on the oceans). Compare that against actually designed universes, like Super Mario where he can travel and live in maybe 50% of his universe (he can't jump to the top of the screen, so we can't call it 100%,). See how different a designed universe is from ours?
3. Our capacity for thought was caused by evolution. So this is just outright misinformation on the video's part.
not backup up by facts I'm afraid. The happiest countries in the world tend to be the least religious
I came here for the evidence of gods existence. All i got was someone sharing why they BELIEVE god exists.
Just look into the heavens, look around you, there’s ur evidence.
“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clear seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” Creation proclaims the glory, majesty, power and Divine nature of the Creator ...”
@@masada2828 And what evidence do you base it on which would confirm "gods" connection to all that? Telling someone to look around, and expecting that to count as evidence it has anything with God is total foolishness.
@@masada2828 that proves budda exists
@@masada2828I believe, glory to God, he is our creator.
U didn't watched video with open mind
*Simply beautiful one from Newton, with much love:* _a-theism is so s-enseless and o-dious to mankind_ 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
His opinion not a fact.
@@enki354 But from a very highly knowledged guy who knew more of science then any atheist has ever contributed 😂🤣
@@cirqueyeagerist5641 Who is this guy and what does he know? And how do you know said person contributed to science more than any atheist?
@@enki354 You tell me how it isnt , the basis of todays science and how we have reached here is not just some but the revolutionising of whole science was Newton and Einstien, they gave a new base itself of thinking about the cosmos , the general relativity gives a new perspective of thinking itself . Einstien believed that there “Must” be a much more intellect and intelligent being who is the cause of this creation but he was bit struck when he found out that his rules dont apply to the quantum level and there is a total different game going on there . He then spent ( Einstien) he rest life in finding the unifying theory or the god theory that explains all . At best someone can be agnostic who is a humble in position who accepts that yes the human knowledge is finite and we dont know what we cant see , taste or perceive . Our science is based on our observations which means its limited to whatever our senses could provide us . Einstein knew that there is indeed a god but he didnt believed in a religion . You tell me someone even greater than him ? Some bullshit youtube commenter atheist ? 🤣🤣
Atheism is a spiritual problem , you dont believe in any religion but saying there is no god makes your entire science a ironic miracle . Be agnostic who are not egoistic .
@@enki354 You tell me how it isnt , the basis of todays science and how we have reached here is not just some but the revolutionising of whole science was Newton and Einstien, they gave a new base itself of thinking about the cosmos , the general relativity gives a new perspective of thinking itself . Einstien believed that there “Must” be a much more intellect and intelligent being who is the cause of this creation but he was bit struck when he found out that his rules dont apply to the quantum level and there is a total different game going on there . He then spent ( Einstien) he rest life in finding the unifying theory or the god theory that explains all . At best someone can be agnostic who is a humble in position who accepts that yes the human knowledge is finite and we dont know what we cant see , taste or perceive . Our science is based on our observations which means its limited to whatever our senses could provide us . Einstein knew that there is indeed a god but he didnt believed in a religion . You tell me someone even greater than him ? Some bullshit youtube commenter atheist ? 🤣🤣
Atheism is a spiritual problem , you dont believe in any religion but saying there is no god makes your entire science a ironic miracle . Be agnostic who are not egoistic .
Yup, "fine tuning" - floods, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, tornadoes, hurricanes and meteorites, malaria and famine just to mention a few proofs of how "god" has "fine tuned" the universe.
Who was the first Adam..a homo sapien, a homo erectus or a astralopithcus ?
A segment from 'Saved by the Light of the Buddha Within'...
My new understandings of what many call 'God -The Holy Spirit' - resulting from some of the extraordinary ongoing after-effects relating to my NDE...
Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what some scientists are now referring to as the unified field of consciousnesses. In other words, it’s the essence of all existence and non-existence - the ultimate creative force behind planets, stars, nebulae, people, animals, trees, fish, birds, and all phenomena, manifest or latent. All matter and intelligence are simply waves or ripples manifesting to and from this core source. Consciousness (enlightenment) is itself the actual creator of everything that exists now, ever existed in the past, or will exist in the future - right down to the minutest particles of dust - each being an individual ripple or wave.
The big difference between chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo and most other conventional prayers is that instead of depending on a ‘middleman’ to connect us to our state of inner enlightenment, we’re able to do it ourselves. That’s because chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo allows us to tap directly into our enlightened state by way of this self-produced sound vibration. ‘Who or What Is God?’ If we compare the concept of God being a separate entity that is forever watching down on us, to the teachings of Nichiren, it makes more sense to me that the true omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of what most people perceive to be God, is the fantastic state of enlightenment that exists within each of us. Some say that God is an entity that’s beyond physical matter - I think that the vast amount of information continuously being conveyed via electromagnetic waves in today’s world gives us proof of how an invisible state of God could indeed exist.
For example, it’s now widely known that specific data relayed by way of electromagnetic waves has the potential to help bring about extraordinary and powerful effects - including an instant global awareness of something or a mass emotional reaction. It’s also common knowledge that these invisible waves can easily be used to detonate a bomb or to enable NASA to control the movements of a robot as far away as the Moon or Mars - none of which is possible without a receiver to decode the information that’s being transmitted. Without the receiver, the data would remain impotent. In a very similar way, we need to have our own ‘receiver’ switched on so that we can activate a clear and precise understanding of our own life, all other life and what everything else in existence is.
Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day helps us to achieve this because it allows us to reach the core of our enlightenment and keep it switched on. That’s because Myoho-Renge-Kyo represents the identity of what scientists now refer to as the unified field of consciousnesses. To break it down - Myoho represents the Law of manifestation and latency (Nature) and consists of two alternating states. For example, the state of Myo is where everything in life that’s not obvious to us exists - including our stored memories when we’re not thinking about them - our hidden potential and inner emotions whenever they’re dormant - our desires, our fears, our wisdom, happiness, karma - and more importantly, our enlightenment.
The other state, ho, is where everything in Life exists whenever it becomes evident to us, such as when a thought pops up from within our memory - whenever we experience or express our emotions - or whenever a good or bad cause manifests as an effect from our karma. When anything becomes apparent, it merely means that it’s come out of the state of Myo (dormancy/latency) and into a state of ho (manifestation). It’s the difference between consciousness and unconsciousness, being awake or asleep, or knowing and not knowing.
The second law - Renge - Ren meaning cause and ge meaning effect, governs and controls the functions of Myoho - these two laws of Myoho and Renge, not only function together simultaneously but also underlies all spiritual and physical existence.
The final and third part of the tri-combination - Kyo, is the Law that allows Myoho to integrate with Renge - or vice versa. It’s the great, invisible thread of energy that fuses and connects all Life and matter - as well as the past, present and future. It’s also sometimes termed the Universal Law of Communication - perhaps it could even be compared with the string theory that many scientists now suspect exists.
Just as the cells in our body, our thoughts, feelings and everything else is continually fluctuating within us - all that exists in the world around us and beyond is also in a constant state of flux - constantly controlled by these three fundamental laws. In fact, more things are going back and forth between the two states of Myo and ho in a single moment than it would ever be possible to calculate or describe. And it doesn’t matter how big or small, famous or trivial anything or anyone may appear to be, everything that’s ever existed in the past, exists now or will exist in the future, exists only because of the workings of the Laws ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ - the basis of the four fundamental forces, and if they didn’t function, neither we nor anything else could go on existing. That’s because all forms of existence, including the seasons, day, night, birth, death and so on, are moving forward in an ongoing flow of continuation - rhythmically reverting back and forth between the two fundamental states of Myo and ho in absolute accordance with Renge - and by way of Kyo. Even stars are dying and being reborn under the workings of what the combination ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’ represents. Nam, or Namu - which mean the same thing, are vibrational passwords or keys that allow us to reach deep into our life and fuse with or become one with ‘Myoho-Renge-Kyo’.
On a more personal level, nothing ever happens by chance or coincidence, it’s the causes that we’ve made in our past, or are presently making, that determine how these laws function uniquely in each of our lives - as well as the environment from moment to moment. By facing east, in harmony with the direction that the Earth is spinning, and chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo for a minimum of, let’s say, ten minutes daily to start with, any of us can experience actual proof of its positive effects in our lives - even if it only makes us feel good on the inside, there will be a definite positive effect. That’s because we’re able to pierce through the thickest layers of our karma and activate our inherent Buddha Nature (our enlightened state). By so doing, we’re then able to bring forth the wisdom and good fortune that we need to challenge, overcome and change our adverse circumstances - turn them into positive ones - or manifest and gain even greater fulfilment in our daily lives from our accumulated good karma. This also allows us to bring forth the wisdom that can free us from the ignorance and stupidity that’s preventing us from accepting and being proud of the person that we indeed are - regardless of our race, colour, gender or sexuality. We’re also able to see and understand our circumstances and the environment far more clearly, as well as attract and connect with any needed external beneficial forces and situations. As I’ve already mentioned, everything is subject to the law of Cause and Effect - the ‘actual-proof-strength’ resulting from chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo always depends on our determination, sincerity and dedication.
For example, the levels of difference could be compared to making a sound on a piano, creating a melody, producing a great song, and so on. Something else that’s very important to always respect and acknowledge is that the Law (or if you prefer God) is in everyone and everything.
NB: There are frightening and disturbing sounds, and there are tranquil and relaxing sounds. It’s the emotional result of any noise or sound that can trigger off a mood or even instantly change one. When chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo each day, we are producing a sound vibration that’s the password to our true inner-self - this soon becomes apparent when you start reassessing your views on various things - such as your fears and desires etc. The best way to get the desired result when chanting is not to view things conventionally - rather than reaching out to an external source, we need to reach into our own lives and bring our needs and desires to fruition from within - including the good fortune and strength to achieve any help that we may need. Chanting Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo also reaches out externally and draws us towards, or draws towards us, what we need to make us happy from our environment. For example, it helps us to be in the right place at the right time - to make better choices and decisions and so forth. We need to think of it as a seed within us that we’re watering and bringing sunshine to for it to grow, blossom and bring forth fruit or flowers. It’s also important to understand that everything we need in life, including the answer to every question and the potential to achieve every dream, already exists within us.
As we all know, the sky doesn't fall down.
Therefore there must be a superior being holding it up.
We call him Atlas. Proof that Atlas exists !
Fallacious reasoning. Whereas, the reasoning in this video is based on logic and observable facts.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@TheLoveOfGod_Gen
It's interesting that he presents three rational proofs.
Presumably any one of them is enough to fool you.
So why bother with the other two ?
@@tedgrant2 You've become an expert in Logical Fallacies... at least in their use. Perhaps *_not_* in recognizing that fact.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@TheLoveOfGod_Gen
Which does not answer my question.
if you are right, why are your ideas banned from all scientific textbooks used in schools ,universities and colleges.
Two arguments from incredulity and the watchmaker argument. Not exactly compelling stuff.
If you saw a big and detailed sand sculpture on the beach, would you say that the wind was blowing just right and therefore able to form that sculpture. I would think your answer is no, so why belive the whole universe is just by chance?
What would compell you and how could you know it?
@@samnewton3358I have experience of people building sand castles, I’ve built sand castles. So I would assume a sand castle was built by people, because of evidence of people,building sand castles.
Everything we have come to understand has been a result of natural forces. Not once have we ever found an act of divine creation.
These facts would seem to make naturalism the logical default for the things we don’t yet understand. At least until evidence for an act of divine creation is found. Got any?
read.the.bible.@@rickdelatour5355
Peter Atkins
“Even if I stood at the foot of the cross and witnessed the resurrection first hand, I still would not believe I would only think that I’d gone mad.” “If the stars lined up in the sky and said ‘Peter, I am God, believe in me’ I would think that I was hallucinating.” “If I had died and been welcomed into heaven by st Peter himself I would think that I must be dreaming” “of the Bible turned out to be a hidden mathematical equation that explained every mystery of the universe I would conclude it was a forgery”
Richard Dawkins
“If the stars wrote out a message to me personally explaining that God existed I would think that it had been orchestrated by some sort of super advanced race of aliens that were trying to play a cosmic trick on me.”
Sam Harris
“I believe that if the 2020 election had been stolen and the government had conspired and abused their power to keep Trump out of office to eliminate an existential threat, then I think it’s justified… a younger version of myself viewed Christianity as an existential threat.” (Thus assumably any deception and abuse of power would be necessary in that case as well to stop it)
Matt Dillahunty
“If you were beheaded in front of everyone and I saw your decapitated corpse and then you came back and told me every detail of a private conversation you had with a person who is already dead, I still would not believe that anything supernatural had taken place.”
Be honest and ask yourself, “is this is my attitude also?” ^^^ this is the true face of dogma. The only way out is to start being honest with yourself. It’s not a question of the evidence. It’s the question of your pride and humility. Consider it.
You've made a case for a creator being. Now, provide the verifiable evidence your particularly creator being is the correct one.
*Why? It's like explaining it to a dog.*
You want a piece of hair or blood sample or something?
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Charles didn't ask for an explanation. He requested the provision of verifiable evidence. Even the dog will chase a stick when you wave it in front of him and throw it. I am an agnostic because I don't believe the mythology of the ancient Hebrews.
@@gl2461 It would be far more concrete than word salad. If you are unable to provide the verification Charles seeks, we are back at square one.
@@Simon.the.Likeable *Verifiable for...rtrds?They aren't able to verify anything. Evidence is...evident, it doesn't need to be verified, only rtrds think the opposite.*
The amount of sophism in this video is through the roof, all the way up with god
Peter Atkins
“Even if I stood at the foot of the cross and witnessed the resurrection first hand, I still would not believe I would only think that I’d gone mad.” “If the stars lined up in the sky and said ‘Peter, I am God, believe in me’ I would think that I was hallucinating.” “If I had died and been welcomed into heaven by st Peter himself I would think that I must be dreaming” “of the Bible turned out to be a hidden mathematical equation that explained every mystery of the universe I would conclude it was a forgery”
Richard Dawkins
“If the stars wrote out a message to me personally explaining that God existed I would think that it had been orchestrated by some sort of super advanced race of aliens that were trying to play a cosmic trick on me.”
Sam Harris
“I believe that if the 2020 election had been stolen and the government had conspired and abused their power to keep Trump out of office to eliminate an existential threat, then I think it’s justified… a younger version of myself viewed Christianity as an existential threat.” (Thus assumably any deception and abuse of power would be necessary in that case as well to stop it)
Matt Dillahunty
“If you were beheaded in front of everyone and I saw your decapitated corpse and then you came back and told me every detail of a private conversation you had with a person who is already dead, I still would not believe that anything supernatural had taken place.”
Be honest and ask yourself, “is this is my attitude also?” ^^^ this is the true face of dogma. The only way out is to start being honest with yourself. It’s not a question of the evidence. It’s the question of your pride and humility. Consider it.
Who or what designed god ?
He doesn’t know , He forgot forever ago
😂
If a Creator created God, than God is not the Creator, its just infinite 😂
Wrong question god is uncreated
Wrong question. You're thinking of physical things which are deterministic, dichotomous (cause-and-effect) and continuity-based. God is none of these things.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Notice that the order of events leading up to the formation of Space, Light, Stars, the Sun ,Earth, Moon, Plants, animals and humans does not match the order in Genesis. Also, there is no God required for any of it.
Rewatch the video and pay attention to the beginning regarding “gap theory” maybe what your missing is there, you just didn’t pay attention.
*Only if you strongly believe that natural processes can ever lead to order and intelligence. But that's childish.*
@@糸攴鬼㐯衣豸麻-c3r That is simply nonsense. You are presenting a false dichotomy. The only 2 choices are NOT either accept a natural process that you cannot demonstrate or accept a magic sky wizard who loves blood and wants you to cut off your foreskin that you cannot demonstrate. 500 years ago, you would have argued that Zeus must exist unless you strongly believe that magic electricity can come from the sky by natural processes and that is childish. The time to believe something is after it has been demonstrated and not before. We understand alot about how order and intelligence arises from purely natural processes. We can observe both directly. No magic sky wizard necessary. You on the otherhand must "Stronly believe" that magic sky wizards can arise from nothing at all. Who is actually being childish?
even if one accepts a god/s, there are so many humans claiming rights over the god/s that it is just very confusing when anonymity is the preferred option ..amen
*Simply beautiful one from Einstein:* _the f-anatical a-theists are like s-laves_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
How so?
The complexity of the DNA and the fine tuning (not of the physical laws, but of the physical constants) is evidence of forethought, planning, and design. Maybe so, but you need to show the available body of facts and information indicating whether your belief or proposition is true and valid. If there are no facts, then it is just religion.
Fruits with seeds and seeds in seeds for life blows my mind
Nice poetry, but proves nothing!
Likewise may you flourish and prosper !
@@stonemaze9925 *However, seeds and plants are enough to d-emolish Aronra's doctrine. So actually it proves a lot.*
Aronra HAS no doctrine. Atheism is NOT a doctrine. @@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703
All of these arguments have been refuted and by neither addressing or even acknowledging the opposing arguments you are not really proving anything. Additionally, when you assert that not only does god exist but that he is the christian god you need to bring additional proof as many religions are in fact mutually exclusive. I may tune in for future videos but I sincerely hope you can make a better case on other topics.
This argument immediately smuggles its conclusion into its premises with 'Who designed the laws of physics?' This is loaded language which presupposes the answer you are pretending to reason to.
Then why is there a law?
It’s logical to assume when there’s a law there’s a law maker
And when theirs an Apple means Adam and Eve?@@Thaddeuslovesmusic
@@Thaddeuslovesmusic Scientific laws are mathematical descriptions of physical forces. Human laws are social regulations. It is not logical to equivocate the two things.
@@trafficjon400 what are you even saying
Apologetics isn't about truth, or about convincing skeptics.
It's about convincing Christians who already believe and won't check that they have a solid rational foundation for their beliefs.
Im glad I watched this video. I now believe in a god...
PRAISE ODIN !.....
UT OHHH! Did I pick the wrong god ? I was supposed to say Jeeeesus.
A fellow pagan. What’s up?
Questions (guys?)? How does there being a creator equal it being a designer? Why can't it be the creator of chaos? Also. How do these evidences prove there is only one god? Why can't there be two or three creators? Existence of the universe doesn't describe the nature of a creator (and if it is only one as opposed to hundreds). Design of the universe is god of the gaps and jumping to conclusions; and the last one is more "if it doesn't make sense therefore its false" is a logical fallacy. Are there genuinely other arguments for a creator's existence that haven't been used before?
*Q:* How does there being a creator equal it being a designer?
*Answer from video above:* A non-conscious origin should not result in order but rather chaos. Order implies design.
*Q:* Why can't it be the creator of chaos?
*Answer:* Hypothetically, God could create something in chaos if he wanted to, but what we see in the actual reality we live in is the fine-tuned order necessary for life to emerge, which means your question doesn't apply to how things actually are.
*Q:* Also. How do these evidences prove there is only one god? / Why can't there be two or three creators?
*Answer:* This is a general argument for Theism, Not for a specific God or to answer how many gods there are.
*Q:* Existence of the universe doesn't describe the nature of a creator.
*Answer:* What you're saying oversimplifies the point being made By not adding the necessary nuance that justifies the implication. Since a nonconscious source should result in chaos rather than order, then it should result in the universe not existing or at least not being in a position conducive for the emergence of life. Just as mentioned in an earlier answer, such examples of fine tuned order suggests design.
*Q:* Design of the universe is god of the gaps and jumping to conclusions
*Answer:* On the contrary, To deny the implications of fine tuning necessary for their emergence of life In order to conclude or assume that chaos from a non-conscious source resulted in this outcome is "naturalism of the gaps". We should not expect fine tuning in order to come from chaos.
*Q:* and the last one is more "if it doesn't make sense therefore its false" is a logical fallacy
*Answer:* The rhetorical questions you're asking implies that it doesn't make sense to conclude it is one or multiple gods, Or that a creator doesn't necessarily imply a designer, And you're using these things to imply the conclusion should be dismissed, Which is an approach that your questions are taking that in some degree matches your criticism of the opposing view. However, To be more specific in clarifying what The argument is ultimately doing, It is arguing for what is most logical Or reasonable to conclude Based on where the implications lead, and that is what would justify the conclusion of the alternative being false.
For example, we would not expect that out of chaos two meteors collide into each other and explode, and the metal from those meteors falls into the Earth's ozone and lands on the ground in such a precise way to where it builds a finetuned rocket ship Without consciousness. This is not rational to believe, but in principle, this is what is happening by presupposing a nonconscious source of chaos resulting in the emergence of life. That's not to say that it's impossible for this to happen, but it is to say that it isn't rational to believe, and that our experience in life informs us that conscious intelligence is Always the source behind Profoundly sophisticated or orderly fine tuned Outcomes.
@@Bi0Dr01d Thank you for answering. I'll definitely get back to this.
@@PatientPerspective *When? And what about ur god of the gaps which you call "nature"?*
@@atheism-themoststupidrelig5703 Confused. I said god of the gaps is a logical fallacy not nature.
@@PatientPerspective *Really? This is what you actually said:* _Design of the universe is god of the gaps and jumping to conclusions_
*Simply beautiful and motivational this one from Kelvin:* _The atheistic idea is so n-onsensical that I do not see how I can put it in words._ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I feel sorry for you
If he can't put it in words he's not going to convince others.
You're an idiot.
Preachers prefer people who are not yet convinced that God exists.
If everybody believed, they would have no more work to do.
They need the money (Matthew 19:23)
These type of videos never prove anything at the end of the day all god has to do is show himself
The time is coming, he will.
He has shown himself. Your very existence is proof of his existence. Or look at the sky at night. Do you really believe that it's all by chance?
Special pleading 101...Why can't a universe just create itself if god can create himself...'Look at the trees' ...That ain't gonna cut it.@@samnewton3358
@samnewton3358 I do believe that a God is possible, but there are so many things we don't understand about the universe it's not crazy to think there's some other explanation and regarding life it's not like we just popped up one day millions of years of evolution led up to this in that time frame complex beings like humans and animals can happen.
@@gangsta8514 Evolution doesn't make sense. How body parts, such as the eyeball, gradually come into existence by evolution? For millions of years creatures would have had incomplete eyeballs, and if that were the case, we would still see creatures with in-progress body parts today. A creature either has an eyeball or it doesn't. Even with evolution, life would still have to come from non-organic matter. DNA is very complex even in single-celled organisms. There is no possibility that could have made itself. Read the Bible and seriously consider that it may be God's word, and I think you'll realize that it is.
Show me something that has been rationalized into existence.
For those still skeptical of God, I recommend looking into Chris Langan's Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU); it's a logico-mathematical proof that the systematization of reality can’t be less intelligent than its human subsystems (an audacious thing for primates on a space rock to have ever believed). For believers, I recommend reading it after revisiting John 1:1 and the Paraclete passages (John 14-16). Please pray for wisdom for all.
Not sure I understand. A machine created by an ultimate creator would be of the utmost simple design, having nothing that isn't necessary to its function. Our inability to grasp the universe doesn't seem to be one of intelligence, but rather one of context, where we exist within a system that we cannot contrast anything against. It's like having only one color that you can see, which is the same as being blind. Hyper-intelligent individuals are often outshined by the less intelligent due to the ability to see things without complications.
That said, the true irony in my argument may be that I only know all these things intuitively because I am made in God's image and the true beauty of creation is that everything works the same, where just as we see with our eyes and hear with our ears using contrast, my lack of understanding of the argument at hand is simply because I've yet to hear another.
@@grawss ruclips.net/video/mwgepVI98Hs/видео.html
@@grawss I just tried to post a link, but I'm not sure if youtube's having it. Go to your search bar and type: CTMU in 5 questions
1/ Why would any rational person believe anything in the bible when it is a book of demonstrably vague, horror fiction?
2/ That would be like believing that Harry Potter and Sauron exist because they appear in many books about magic.
3/ The evil 'god' thing described by itself in the book it supposedly inspired about itself is a very evil character because it murders huge numbers of innocent babies and children because it has a hissy fit.
4/ Why would any rational person choose to worship a thing they cannot demonstrate ever existed, behaves exactly as if it doesn't exist and boasts about abusing children? That would be an absurd and fundamentally immoral thing to do.
I agreed u ....
Let's face one fact. What kind of God would let it's current representatives continue to do what they are doing to the world? Enslaving man with taxes and putting one group at war with the others?
Genesis 4:15 says if anyone touches Cain (son of Adam), God's vengeance will be sevenfold. Hamas killed 1400 Jews, IDF massacres 8000 Palestinians and get away with it. Proof God exists.
The same God that is freeing religious organization to not pay taxes.
You have to remember that God stepped away when Adam And Eve were persuaded by the devil to sin and do exactly what God asked them not to..When that occurred God said I still love you and I'll always be here for you and the corrupt God they listened to (sAtAn) is to blame for all that's wrong in this world..not God..
@@RICATONI1964 Ah yes, the weak god theory. Nice one
@@RICATONI1964 I remember that that was written, but it seems a bit inconsistent with any reality I've ever experienced. In fact, it all seems like obvious manipulation by something that falls quite short of divinity.
Love how people misinterpret basic trigonometry applied to the movement of the sun, moon and stars as proof of devine design. Einstein also came up with a static model of the universe, then realized that was a mistake. So using him as an example is not the best idea. 😂🤣
Trigonometric application doesn't entail an argumrntvfor a static universe, yoyo😅
Given the quantities that are attributed to God he should be the most obvious person that ever existed. The fact that this god manifest itself in the most vague ways possible is a huge problem that can’t be excused away. Its existence should never be an issue, whether or not you worship him is a totally separate matter.
So no actual proof.
the mind of an atheist is a barren place
I'd love to know what works of Einstein's contain the quotes mentioned, so I can obtain copies or visit a library. If I quote someone, I prefer to site my sources.
What were the quotes? Believers very often misunderstand or deliberately misconstrue his words, so could you tell me what you saw? I didn't watch the video.
I couldn't reference any of them. Very likely either cherry-picked out of context, or more likely just faked. Einstein, like Churchill and a few others, is a quote magnet. I can prove, with a citation, that he didn't think much of the whole "God" idea.
Of course, it doesn't make any difference what Einstein thought about gods, anyway. Theists just seem to think that quoting an "authority" - someone well-known for _something,_ if not for why they're quoting him - is convincing. I suppose it's because of how _they_ think? Or maybe it's just because they have nothing else, huh?
If they had good *evidence* backing up their religious beliefs, they wouldn't need to do that.
@@Bill_Garthright Nailed it!
@@Bill_Garthright Very true. Of course, if one has to go to all the endless effort they go through to prove the existence of a person, then the person is imaginary...one doesn't have to go through all that effort for any real person.
What are the three rational proofs?
Love, Hope, and Truth.
@@vshah1010Don’t you mean love hope and blind faith (believing in something without evidence)
@@vshah1010 Logical truth !
This will never convince a rational person sorry
@Lifehopeandtruth If I make a response video carefully demonstrating how every one of your arguments is irrational, will you watch it?
It's up on my channel, only 2 minutes long.
@@MathewSteeleAtheologyShow us. What's the argument.
@@James-ll3jb
His first proof: quantum field theory proves that the cosmos (which exists beyond space-time) is eternal, as time is a quality of space-time, and that's only four of the nine+ dimensions. To argue that every part of the cosmos must have begun to exist or been created is to invoke unjustified assumptions with no evidence. In other words, you have to assume a creator entity into existence.
His second proof: there is literally no way to differentiate something that has been designed from something that only appears to have been designed. The unjustified assumptions required to arrive at a designer are that A) there was a point when nothing material existed, which isn't in evidence, B) something can exist wholly immaterially and independently of all material, which isn't in evidence, and C) anything can begin to exist, which isn't in evidence.
His third proof is nothing but an argument from ignorance... "I can't think of any explanation why, therefore God!" and requires the same unjustified assumptions already mentioned.
It's one thing to come up with an explanation that matches the evidence available, but theism doesn't match the evidence available at all.
There's no evidence that something material can begin to exist from nothing material.
There's no evidence that something immaterial can exist without any material.
There's no evidence that any aspect of theism, specifically the biblical "God," exists outside of the believer's imagination and beliefs.
There's no evidence that the cosmos is finite or had an ultimate beginning, as quantum field theory makes it quite clear that the quantum field surrounding all things (which is material) is not bound by time. At best, we're left with an unknown about why the observable universe (i.e. space-time) appeared in its current form approximately 14 billion years ago.
These facts would have to change for theism to even be justifiably asserted as logically possible.
@@James-ll3jb I replied to this but the comment seems to have disappeared.
@@MathewSteeleAtheology Huh. Well, try again i guess!
In a ‘pre-universe’ situation where time, space, matter, energy and virtual particles don't exist (or ‘exist’ in the latter case) and the laws of physics can’t apply because there’s nothing for them to apply to, a universe can just come into existence because there's nothing to stop it from doing so. Every law must also contain, by implication, a list of everything it prohibits, otherwise the law won’t work and will effectively be meaningless. For example, 'light in a vacuum travels at 186,000 miles per second' also includes the law that 'light in a vacuum does not travel at 185,999 miles per second' - and so on. Where laws of existence apply, they have to entail laws of non-existence in order to actually function. Where there are no laws of existence - in this case, before the creation of the universe - there can be no laws of non-existence. The creation of the universe was therefore spontaneous and probably inevitable. Boil this down to one simple rule, if you like: 'A thing will happen unless something exists that will prevent it from happening'. Then test this rule against any example you like.
“Logically, if the universe has a beginning, it had to have a beginner.” Miss me with that watchmaker crap
thats a very bad compression of the actual argument please either pose an argument or keep coping
Nothing new here. Just the same age old, tired argument that since science can't explain it, it must be God. Don't waste 20 minutes of your life watching this. I did it for you.
This videos is perfect for me, bc I want to learn how to spot logical fallacies. And I just want to let you know you use them, because probably you don't know yet.
You used the personal incredulity fallacy really often, and kinda the appeal to authority fallacy (Albert Einstein).
"If I don't know how something works, it must be false." That's what you're saying about the theories of the big bang. That's the so called fallacy of personal incredulity. I recommend on looking that up to understand why it's a fallacy.
The theory of the existence of a god is nothing more than a theory, you can't proof it. But I also don't say that you're wrong. Even though what you're saying are only fallacies, your statement "god exist" *could* still be true. We can't know it
Khm, I do really appreciate the effort to point out the fallacies in the video, but!
You have to make sure while you doing it, to keep up your credibility.
A theory is basically a proven fact by indirect methods. The word for unproven ideas called 'Hypothesis'.
Other than that, good points, stay critical against everything. The only way to reveal scammers!
@@dorkception2012 "A theory is basically a proven fact by indirect methods"
No it absolutely is not. A theory is not a proven fact, and it has nothing to do with "indirect methods". A theory is never proven. That's the point of a theory. The reason theist need to use the word "proof" is that they can't understand degrees of evidence.
Here are some examples of theories:
- Einstein's Theory of Relativity - A ton of evidence, used for practical purposes, not proven
- Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation - A ton of evidence, used up until it was disproven, explicitly disproven
- String Theory - Not much evidence, not used for practical purposes, not proven
- Creation Theory - No evidence, zero predictive power and therefore completely unusable, unfalsifiable but certainly not proven
That includes the speculation that any mass-energy can be created at all when it never has been. Everything that we say to have been "created" was actually transformed from something else
It also includes the theories that complexity, order, or structure requires design even though the most complex, ordered, and structured things we know of could not possibly be designed by any means ever actually seen
And of course it includes the weird theory that the only alternatives to God involve rocks that think. I'm not sure where theists got that one but I think it's worth questioning both their judgment and motives for posing it as the dispositive scenario
You are drawing conclusions with a brain that is the result of randomness and unguided processes. Yet you "think" you can use logic to expose errors with such a brain. If you are the result of non guided randomness, then there is no way you can verify anything. Your brain is what you need to rely on to observe your surroundings, yet there is NO mechanism that allows you to know it is accurate in what you observe. You use words like "fallacy" and "logical", but they are just concepts that you invented by thinking that your brain is able to make some sensible use of them. I hate to break it down like this but, we are just a pattern of cellular material produced accidently and can not find any purpose for what we think or observe, because there is NONE. Welcome to an existence with no CREATOR.
@@markbirchall2060"Logic is because of God" why? "I don't know, but anything you'd use to verify that is automatically wrong because I read a book"
A claim that was asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You claim, without evidence, that logic only exists because of a creator
@@markbirchall2060 I am afraid that making unsupported claims is useless for demonstrating anything is true. For that you need to provide at least some valid and verified evidence and facts but you have provided absolutely none.
Prayer is just Talking to yourself.
Prayer DEMONSTRABLE DEBUNKED.
Sorry to rain on your parade, but belief in God, there are no rational arguments, without contradiction. Stating a scientific fact doesn’t do it either. After Kant, no deductive and valid argument available without presupposing (introducing a premise) exists. This video is meant for people who are already believers or want (psychologically) to believe.
An argument without a premise isn't a rational argument.
@@grawss It’s a well know fact that all arguments attempting to ‘prove’ God are all fallacious. It’s the requirement for believers to provide one. It can’t be done. You have to introduce a major premise that states god’s existence, but that premise is only a premise, i.e. not a fact. This is well known since Kant. People are free to believe, but it’s only a belief, not fact.
@@johnmaisonneuve9057 You have to introduce a premise to make any rational argument. In the case of flat-out stating He exists, that isn't an argument; it's a statement.
Also, basing an argument on fact is fine, but it cannot be considered fact until the premise is proven to be true. The premise comes first, followed by an argument made upon it. Otherwise, the fallacy at work here is "begging the question."
Completely wrong God is the only thing you can prove. He is defined as the necessarily existing entity upon which all continentally existing items depend. If the universe was eternal then God would be the entire universe and we would be existing internally inside God like a bit of bacteria exists inside a human stomach. This view is pantheism, but all evidence in our universe points to it being created and contingent on a creator. Proof of God is the only thing you can prove everything else existence is pointed to by evidence. By the way when a human says he is atheist the only possible logically conclusion is that he believes himself to be God (a tree falling only makes a noise if he hears it) and the universe only exists because he created he creates his own morals and decides on what is good bad ring and wrong. Very convenient a few examples Hitler Stalin and all the rest of the worlds greatest killers decided murder wasn’t on the list of their 10 commandments.
He is saying God is unjust to condemn any person to hell before the modern science became available that made the level of precision in design known. I'm curious what year he thinks it became just for God to start sending people to hell.
Since near the beginning. Any sin can be forgiven but blasphemy against God is unforgivable. Hell is reserved for those who have sinned without repentance or did not accept our God.
"the universe exists therefore god exists" is the worst argument i ever heard. Thanks for wasting my time
Yep, nothing existed then everything existed? Oops, now you're wasting *my* time.
Why can an omniscient all-knowing god, if he exists, not prove himself, simply, undeniably and easily understood even by the dumbest human?
Well where is this guy then?
why build such a massive expanse of galactic objects if it is entirely for a few humans who have not been here very long compared to the age of the earth.
Proof defies faith, and without faith God ceases to exist. QED. Douglas Adams.
Two problems with Douglas Adams quote.
1a. It is utilizing only one definition of faith for the sake of the narrative/rhetoric he desires to promote, which causes others to assume there's only one definition of faith through that rhetoric which influences their perception, causing them to see through that same inaccurate lens without Being just as critical of that saying as they would be in challenging belief in God, resulting in them using faith of their own without realizing it in believing him.
1b. It would not seem believable to take seriously the thought that the unbeliever doesn't know to some degree that there are different views and aspects of "faith", which would imply that the unbeliever is pushing the serious contemplation of the nature of "faith" out of his mind, and making a partnership with another person whom they subconsciously know isn't accurate, but are partnering with him anyway as a benefit in combining forces with him, and suppressing it in one's consciousness so that he doesn't realize he's doing that.
2. He's making (implying) a universal claim that is outside of his scope of knowledge, Which is the very definition of faith that he is using, To imply that there is no evidence for God whatsoever, which is a claim that he has a burden of proof for.
Thus, it appears his own talking point becomes self-refuting to both himself and the person who uses his quote.
Science is itself based on faith . Indeed a blind faith , unless you count experience as a faith . There is absolute 0 proof that the laws of nature will continue to work like they do right now . Or the theories in science are based on faith itself . The very first guy had a blind faith that the universe could be comprehended , or A blind faith when one thought that other could understand him 😂 . Pose a proper argument , faith is no wrong but when its in your favour than no coping
Throughout history right up until the present, there are multiple gods and multiple iterations of these gods..Anonymity is the preferred option if a supernatural entity even exists.
"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses"
-Albert Einstein
Ignorance might be more involved in this matter Einstein? if Slavery didn't weaken the People.
God of the gaps . Misrepresents Einstein’s views . He is so dishonest. Apologist just begging the question .
He is so scientifically illiterate.
Einstein had interesting views, like for example his opinion on Religion and Science ´´science without religion is lame religion without science is blind´´
or when he was questioned if he believed in God
´´Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things´´
i just simply love the way he thought of these topics, it´s nothing short but interesting to see his view of the concept and notion of God.
It only serves to destroy the credibility of your work when deleting challenging comments.
This video is SO UNDERRATED. thank you for your mind and helping my journey down this path
I am tempted to become a Christian.
But Jesus recommended resisting temptation.
So I don't know what to do now.
LOL, that's a good one Ted!
Remember me? We had a bunch of discussions on the ATX channel last year.
@@dorkception2012
Yep. I have fond memories of our interactions.
I'm glad to know you are still alive.
@@tedgrant2 LOL, I am glad you are well also!
@@dorkception2012
By the way, were you conscious during the age of the dinosaurs 🦖🦕?
@@tedgrant2 Not that I know of... My ancestors were probably, those ratlike little mammals!
What a load of BS. This is not proof.
In a very strange way, to know God is to know evil and even experience evil directly and personally. It's a strange paradox, but you can't truly appreciate perfection and purity,
without something to contrast it, This is why we have the symbolism of flawed human nature wrapped over an eternal spirit, and why we have light and darkness in mother nature
to symbolize the conflict of our need to experience spiritual darkness and upon experiencing it, to than seek the Light of our Creator and Savior.
Stay in school, kids.
In spite of this video
Stay in church too
4:00 lack of knowledge and personal incredulity are proof of nothing other than you do not know the answer..amen
If we were designed, how come we use one pipe to breath and eat?
Very poor design as far as I'm concerned and that's just one of many!
Therefore no designer.
You're eating with your nose ?
@@allislove9890 No with my mouth but air and food goes down one tube (esophagus) to the lungs and stomach???
@@VaughanFallicksorry i was just larking - my mother was a compulsive self asphyxiator !
Hard candies, boiled sweets, never learned, always sucking them down, always gagging and gasping. Absolutely terrifying as children.
It goes against all instinct to whack and squeeze your Ma hard enough to stimulate ejection !!
"Hell's noodles, if you can't chew it, why not stuff it up your nose, it'd be safer...." etc, etc.
Yes - esophagus goes to the stomach - and the trachea (windpipe) to the lungs.
Unfortunately the pharynx, back of the throat cavity, does house both of the openings - the epiglottis ( flap of cartilage) is supposed to seal off the trachea when you swallow food/fluid - but my mother's apparently liked to play russian roulette.
by proof you mean bad arguments.
I believe in the Big Bang , God said it and bang , we exist !
haha this sounds almost cynical and sarcastic.
Your comment seems to be a caricature that doesn't add the necessary nuance that the video above is communicating which justifies the implication of its conclusion.
*There is no rational reason or excuse to believe that God doesn't exist.*
You are trying to reverse the burden of proof.
Thank you! You made an interesting and convincing argument for the existence of a designer/creator.
You were either already a believer or you are easily "convinced".
When we see a car, why don’t we assume it was designed by a tailor? When we see a boat in a remote unoccupied location, why don’t we conclude an elephant may have built it? The fact is, we only attribute material things with known sources. Humans build boats, so a boat lying on the remote location may lead us to believe humans were there.. and similarly we know a car wasn’t made by tailors as we don’t see tailors making cars! Similarly when it comes to the universe, we don’t know of other universes whose designers we know, in which case we could conclude that our universe was made in a similar manner…there’s absolutely nothing to act as prior point of reference as to how and by who the universe emerged. If we want to call that “unknown “ source God, so be it.
But was it "made"? Are these questions even logical? What is north of the north pole?
What was before the beginning? If I have a back pocket, does the universe have a back pocket?
Great job! I loved this presentation!
Complexity is not an indication of design. That which is not designed will end up more complex for the intended purpose, like someone building a house with design may end up sending wiring to parts of the house where it is not used as the builder did not plan ahead and ended up with wasted wiring. This well matches the laryngeal nerve that communicates between the brain and larynx (in the throat) but first makes a meaningless trip down under the heart. Another sign of excess complexity is in sub-atomic particles where the nuclei of atoms made of protons and neutrons that are themselves composed of slightly different combinations of two kinds of smaller particles called quarks, yet there are 6 kinds of quarks with 4 of them being superfluous for creating matter and only last less than a billionth of a second. Also, what was god's purpose in inflation then just accelerating expansion of the universe rather than just having it expand at a rate that keeps it going which would happen even without the accelerating expansion? All of these indicate a universe that fell into place (or more out of place) rather than the product of design.
Thanks for doing this presentation. Thanks for showing God's existance. Now I have to deal my moral issues, values, and the possibility of relating to this God.
three rational proofs ? sounds like the videos is trying a bunch of rational proofs. Creation must be a factor some place in this video.
I haven't watched. How did he show the existence of a god?
@@chikkipopno he did not, he made several fallacies, called them evidence #1 and then repeated the same bs calling it evidence #2 and then said if #1 and #2 are true #3 rational follows and thereby equals more evidence even though it was assertions he repeated from the first two lies.
@@danielessex2162 So typical of these guys! Just what I expected.
@@chikkipop yeah but they will still swear it is evidence.
If order is caused by a designer, who caused disorder and abnormalities existing in nature and in the universe, eg. blackhole?
Interesting you mention 13.8 billion years as the age of the universe - I read this book "13.8: The Quest to Find the True Age of the Universe and the Theory of Everything" which was interesting from a scientific point of view, but for me without the Bible (God's instruction book for man - written by the human instruments He used), there would be nothing to explain how everything came into existence. For me there are very fine ecosystems in which all the animals can function without which none could exist - everything has to work together - not only on the inside of all plants and animals but where they inhabit the planet as well. Thanks for your interesting video.
_"God's instruction book for man"_
*Evidence?* How about one piece of good evidence your god exists _at all,_ let alone that he wrote a book?
_"there would be nothing to explain how everything came into existence."_
First of all, that's called an argument from ignorance. It's a known logical fallacy. Just because you don't know something, that doesn't mean you can make up anything you want. "I don't know" doesn't mean "God done it" - not for _any_ god, let alone a particular one.
Just because you don't know what the Sun is - or you don't believe what scientists say about the Sun - that doesn't mean it _has_ to be Jesus driving a golden chariot across the sky, right? See what I mean? You need *evidence* that your beliefs are actually true.
Second, you have nothing to explain how "everything came into existence" even _with_ a god. After all, if a god exists, how did that god come into existence? Maybe it didn't? Maybe it always existed? Then "everything" doesn't _have_ to come in to existence, huh? So your own beliefs would make your question invalid.
In both cases, you're just assuming what you _want_ to be true, instead of admitting that we simply don't know, yet. But we're learning more every day. And countless times throughout history, things once thought to be supernatural have been discovered to be perfectly natural after all. Never _once_ has that happened in reverse.
_"For me there are very fine ecosystems in which all the animals can function without which none could exist - everything has to work together"_
Yes. And we know exactly how that happens. No magic required.
If we _didn't_ know, that still wouldn't be evidence that a god exists - again, _any_ god, let alone a particular one. Gods aren't the default. As I said, if we don't know something, then we simply don't know it. If you think you_do_ know it, then let's see your evidence that your beliefs are actually true.
Or were you just taught to believe this stuff as a child, and you really, really _want_ it to be true? Wishful-thinking is a strong force in religion.
@@Bill_Garthright Any change in the earth's oxygen ratio, where it is in relation to the sun, how animals can function within their bodies and their reproduction systems - is not all just coincidence - you can't just have a masterpiece painting without an artist.
@@mariabarnard4484
_"not all just coincidence"_
You're right. It's not. We evolved here. Indeed, the earth's oxygen was _created_ by living things. It has varied over time, and life evolved to adapt to those changes.
We didn't evolve on Jupiter or Mercury because the conditions on those planets were not hospitable for life. We live on the only planet in this solar system where it is _possible_ for us to live naturally. It's not a coincidence _at all._
It's also not evidence of a god - _any_ god, let alone the particular one you were taught to believe as a child. Now, if we _did_ live on Jupiter or Mercury, or perhaps in the vacuum of space - somewhere it would be _impossible_ for us to survive without magic - then you might have an argument for magic. But we don't.
_"you can't just have a masterpiece painting without an artist."_
So what? We're not talking about a painting.
Anyway, how about one piece of good evidence that your god is real, rather than just imaginary? Just *one,* please, but specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself. Why is *one* too much to ask?
Evidence is how we distinguish reality from delusion and wishful-thinking. So, do you have _anything_ distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? Again, why is *one* too much to ask?
@@Bill_Garthright I cannot persuade you if you don't want to be persuaded - the evidence is all around us and includes thinking, planning, artistic, emotional, constructive or even destructive human beings. All the best to you.
@@mariabarnard4484
So,... *nothing,* then? *Nothing* distinguishable from wishful-thinking backing up your religious beliefs? Even *one* piece of good evidence is too much to ask? Don't you see why *nothing* distinguishable from wishful-thinking isn't convincing to me?
You _claim_ that "the evidence is all around us," but when I ask for just *one* piece of good evidence, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself, you don't even _try._ You clearly _know_ you have nothing, huh? I mean, if you _thought_ you really did have something, you'd actually _try._ We both know that, don't we?
But you're right about one thing. I don't want to be persuaded... if your beliefs aren't true. And there seems to be no reason to think that they _are_ true. I only want to be persuaded of the _truth._ You can keep your fantasies, no matter how much you like them.
Of course, most people aren't like me, huh? They really, really want to believe... whatever fantasy they were taught to believe as a child. Raised Christian, it's almost always Christianity they want to be true. Raised Muslim, it's almost always Islam. Raised Jewish or Hindu or... well, you get the idea.
And you all have apologists whose job it is to comfort existing believers. Christian apologists make Christians feel better. Muslim apologists make Muslims feel better. None of them persuade nonbelievers, because they have nothing distinguishable from wishful-thinking. But wishful-thinking is all existing believers _need,_ huh?
I've never understood that. And I was raised Christian myself. But the truth _matters_ to me.
And which of these proofs explain substitutionary atonement?
I acknowledge that the McRib is a complex, mysterious meat. I know it exists but I don’t care to understand how it came into existence when I eat it drunk at 2am. I want to know the creator, not the sandwich.
Mind. _Blown._ 🤯
😜
Where did God come from? He/she/it is, or was, a pretty complex enitity. Happened by blind chance? Existed eternally? What evidence is there for such an unlikely scenario?
Why did this entity decide to create a universe? Boredom?
Is there a purpose to life? What ultimate purpose could there be?
Awwwww, look at the grifters lie
lie ? please mark where dont run or cope kid
@@cirqueyeagerist5641 a) why would I waste my time? You're not interrested in the truth.
b) Cope? Projecting much?
c) Ah yes, the hubris of somebody with his head firmly up his rectum, dining on his own feces. Tell me, Skippy, how old am I so you feel the hubris right to call me "kid"?
@@cirqueyeagerist5641 Why waste my time? You have no interrest in truth or reality.
And in regards to cope and kid, I'm not the one with an imaginary friend.
Your first "rational proof" is neither rational nor a proof, it's assertion and it took 15min to assert. I did not bother waiting for the other two. Very disappointing.
"Creation requires a creator and design requires a designer." As a designer, I see the logic behind that statement as being irrefutable.
It's easy to refute , unless you understand the power of nature to be the designer.
Wrong, creation and design does not in fact require either. I have seen beauty in design come from randomized events.
@chikkipop If it's easy to refute then why don't you give that a try?
@@samnewton3358 Give what a try? It's already been confirmed. Evolution by natural processes is abundantly proven. How'd you manage to miss the news?! 😇
@@chikkipop I meant refute the existence of God because you said it's easy to refute. Even if evolution is true, which it's not, life still had to spontaneously appear from non-organic matter. Also, nature cannot be the designer. Nature is just the laws that explain how things behave in the universe. Life never spontaneously appears unless there's God. So evolution has nothing to do with whether or not God exists.
I think the numbers talk for themselves, while a lot of you can not see that. Worry not, the 'Bring Back RUclips Dislike' named little extension for Chrome, Firefox and Opera can help you out.
SO here we go!
Likes: 467
Dislikes: 583
I always knew God existed. It's called faith.
It's called faith because no one really knows. It's just a belief and that is why you are called a believer.
22:36 You seem angry. Why?
Stupidity is frustrating. With all due respect
@@sued7 there is nothing in their comment for you to conclude they are angry, just your bias that atheists are angry at your god.
Religious belief is epistemically indefensible, prioritizing unevidenced faith. False belief leads to bad decisions, e.g., when theists vote against progressive social policies because they believe their good fortune is due to their god's blessing, and the less fortunate are undeserving. It's clear to me that, on balance, and according to my values, religion does more harm than good in the world.
Albert Einstein, 1945
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.”
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature."
*Very beautiful one from Einstein:* _the f-anatical a-theists are like s-laves_ 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
*Quoting Einstein:* _I am NOT an atheist_
I don't know why people don't believe in our lord and Savior he helped me find what i didn't even know whati was looking for i love music and he helped me find libera such beautiful music unfortunately i still sin and feel terrible 😭
Believe everything you read?
_"unfortunately i still sin and feel terrible"_
That's the whole point. Religion doesn't _just_ rely on wishful-thinking, although that's a big part of it. Most religions also use guilt. They teach you something is wrong - something natural and harmless, often enough - so that you'll feel guilty and keep crawling back to the church for forgiveness.
Most of them also have a carrot _and_ a stick, of course - both of them conveniently promised for after you die, so no one can investigate their claims. Of course, none of this tends to work unless a person has been indoctrinated with that religion as a child. Raised Muslim, you're not going to fear the Christian Hell, but only the Muslim one. Raised Christian, you're not going to feel guilty for eating bacon.
The one thing they _don't_ have is good evidence that their claims are actually true. Religious apologists always preach to the choir, because they know they won't be questioned. It's been my experience that they don't even want to _talk_ to nonbelievers, because we'll ask them for *evidence.*
I hope you grow out of your magic beliefs. They take advantage of people's emotional neediness and narcissism. *"Sin"* is such a silly idea. You have fallen for an ancient superstition that is designed to take advantage of weakness. It's an insult to your intelligence.
@@Bill_GarthrightHere's your evidence. Giants that they have in a Peru Smithsonian museum if you look it up which is in the Bible. The book of revelation which literally foretold everything that is happening in our world today. They found Noah's arc in turkey which is also in the Bible. Those so called extra terrestrials in the ufo's in the sky are actually fallen angels and they bible specifically says there will be signs in the sky to mislead people from the Bible. So there is evidence all around you you just don't want to accept it like most atheists do.
The question is can you prove your religion is the one true religion and all other religions are false? All religions has claimed to be the true religion. But none has proven so far. It's because all religions are man-made and wrong.
Authorship is in the architecture. At very least as an intelligence the substrate of all as a characteristic that is in us and all that is, was, and will be.
To think that the hole existence with its infinite complexity is made by chance for no reason except mindless materialism is the hight of illogicality. There's no reason for matter and matter has no reason, no mind. Something without mind can not beget mind. And something without reason can not beget reason let alone be begotten by it. By logic God is the most true and real entity. Humble yourselves. Soften your hearts. So may He lead you all in truth. God bless ❤
Excellent and thought provoking points.
"There are things that I can't imagine having any explanation other than a God did it therfore there is a God" - that's pretty much it.
I have evidenced the existence of God in my life. I am thankful that eventually everyone will.
Please tell us all exactly what that evidence consists of because you forgot to do so.
Evidence of which God ? I mean, there are thousands of religions so it's not obvious which one you mean.
I listened to this entire tripe and see no proofs.
Where are the proofs?
All I hear being said is misleading questions, special pleading, twisted cherry picked statements, and gross exaggerations.
Where are the proofs?
Who created God? Human
Wouldn't doubt it
Exactly. If only time travel is a thing. We would be exposing the world's biggest scams
Agree 100%
Your assumptions are that GOD is a created being , that is where the mistake is made , I understand it is hard to think outside time space and matter and that ther just might be something that always was and always will be . Besides believing that everything came from nothing randomly is the most silliest explanation ther ever could be , look up the chances of fulfilling just 8 and 30 prophecies in a lifetime and then remember Jesus fulfilled over 300 and before you say that's not true , do your homework because it is true and recorded
Wrong question. How did nothing become something so fine tuned that the existence of life is on a precipice of non existence yet still continuing in a manner that we can not only understand but can only be in awe of how well it all works together. It takes more miracles for this to be an act of chance than for there to be a God who created it
Oh, and that last statement was satire, for all those wishing to jump in and refute my arguments.
This is an argument. Not proof. Also the expansion was limited by gravity. This is just special pleading. Bullshit.
Where did gravity come from?
Duhhhh God did it
@@kc5ham Where did God come from?
@@luckyizzac He created himself
Then why can't the universe create itself?? Why is a God necessary?
@@georgepetrou501 that's what I'm saying
We have to believe. Jesus teaches us that we must believe with all our heart and soul and that we are saved by faith through faith.
Sorry. Faith through grace. The grace of Christ is evident and eternal.
No, we don't _have_ to believe. In fact we shouldn't. We shouldn't until the first human actually discovers reasonable evidence of a god. (We haven't so far.)
Sorry but we don't *have to:*
As far as we know it's all made up
Exceptional and rationale presentation. Thank you.
If you wanna convince us that God exists, you will have to show us a body, period.
Science has many flaws and doesnt give us absolute truths, but at least most of its content makes sense.
I watched this in order to have a laugh before retiring. I wasn't disappointed. It's laughable, and somewhat sad, that people find any of this rubbish credible.
The universe does not operate randomely.
No, it operates according to physical processes that are (for the most part) predictable...which we figured out by observation and experimentation, not by prayer and chanting. The fact that there are predictable processes and patterns is no evidence for a guiding mind...that requires separate and specific evidence...which neither Mr.Capo nor any other apologist nor any believer in any religion in all of human history has ever provided...nor ever will.
So, you’ve never heard of quantum mechanics then?
@@niblick616 So you have heard of quantum physics and don't understand anything about it then! Go read a book and stop listening to Deepok Chopra!
@@niblick616 Yes I have...what about it?
@@greglisk9408
1/ Maybe I just missed it but you have forgotten to tell me exactly what you are talking about. It seems that failure is because you don’t know.
2/ Empty assertions are not proof of anything unless you can provide at least some valid and verified evidence and facts for your claim and you have demonstrably provided none.
3/ It seems that you really don’t know what you are talking about
4/ Have you ever found out what last year’s winners of the Nobel prize for physics received their award for? You obviously haven’t.
5: Why would any rational person want to have anything to do with a documented fraud like the diamond encrusted guru?
Once again, an excellent video explaining fundamental truths.
Bogus fairytale logic
@sandyago4735 Like how atheists like you argue the existence of our God "yaweh" or jehovah. But why don't argue the existence of Buddha or Hinduism its almost like you know there is a God but deep down won't admit it. Atheists always try to argue about God so much almost like they're coping for their sins and lifestyle. So no this "fairytale logic of belief" is a reality whether you want to believe it or not.
You just assume!!!
Excellent points. Thanks so much!
The issue is that design doesn’t happen overnight. Life evolves and adapts.
Musicians can compose--but we did not invent music. Paraphrasing the presenter, "If you blow up a bridge, you don't get a skyscraper. Explosions create chaos, not intelligent design." Much to contemplate here. Well done to the team and presenter.
No one is claiming an explosion created anything. Big bang was not an explosion.
Every cause we have come to understand has been a result of natural forces.
So, until you find evidence for an act of divine creation naturalism still the logical default.
I totally agree!
Music is just vibrations in the air, are you aware of that? We do invented the concept of music, but that is simply waves through a medium, that happens to please us and give good feelings. Nothing supernatural about anything in this world, only to those who knows nothing about it. Just like the person who made the video.
You are missing out. Haven’t read the new study that found the explosion resulting from the collision of two neutron stars produces complex elements. Complex design accomplished by an explosion. Keep up, you are embarrassing yourself. Much for you to contemplate, right?
@@rickdelatour5355 The formation of heavy elements is NOT complex design. Nuclear fusion of heavier elements only needs close proximity to overcome the Coulomb barrier between nuclei, and very high temperatures, both which occur in these collisions. So, not complex or difficult at all, and completely unlike complex life. In fact, utterly predictable based on the physical and chemical laws of our universe. The fusion of heavy elements in stars in no way disproves the hypothesis of God.
Why do all theists fail in their burden of proof regarding the supposed existence of their supposed god(s)
They don''t.
@@wprandall2452 Name one who has met their burden of proof?
@@MichaelMeridius It's right below you under the title '11 proofs of God'.
@@wprandall2452 If anyone had proven a god's existence it would be world changing news. The discoverer would be world famous and very rich and would be cited by everyone. So how come they don't?
@@wprandall2452 Where are these '11 proofs of god,' name them?