15:52 "If god does exit he probably wants us to worship him". That would make god a less than perfect being. If you imagine a perfect being you have to remove every "need", including the need of being worshipped. That would apply for the description of a space dictator.
That's a interesting point, God shouldn't need or want nothing cause desire and will are signs of a expectation of a possible self improvement, something only umperfect beings can do
@@Preulius I can argue the exact opposite, will and desire is the sign of a conscious being. If God didn't will or desire something, He would be non-conscious then. Furthermore, need and want are two very different things. Need is the requirement to sustain your existence whereas want is something to fulfil your desire. God does not "need" us to worship Him, He "wants" us to worship Him, just like He wants us to take care of ourselves and other creatures and live a fulfilling life.
@Nafisashafiullah for me is nonsense think god has a counciesness somehow close to us to "want" or "desire", for me even "wanting" is derived from a percieved "need" even not directly
@@Preulius so you are saying if a God were to exist, it would be mindless? A mindless existence is more sensible than an all-powerful being who wants good for all His creation? For us, yes because every one of our emotion is derived from a percieved need.
@@Nafisashafiullah The problem is trying to invent a "perfect" god and at the same time projecting a human being. We have needs and wants, that's an evolutionary trait that helped our species to constantly improve. Improving and being "perfect" don't make sense together.
Final consideration: Nice video. You are obviously very thoughtful about your beliefs, so you'll probably make the journey that most of us, ex theists, did. First you'll dismiss all the nonsense from the myths, then your god will get smaller and irrelevant, then you'll see it as the childish superstition that it is. Have a nice trip ;)
14:50 What are the odds? 100%. When you put sugar in water, what are the odds that you'll get sweet water? 100%. *After* something has happened, you know for a fact that it can happen, and that it *must* happen under certain conditions. If you already won the lottery and you trace back all the events that brought you there, you also know that after those series of events you *must* win the lottery, 100%. In other words, events in the future we don't know about are not really "random". The conditions and the events are unknown to us, but if we could calculate them in advance, we would know for sure how events would unfold. It's like the exapmle at the beginning, mixing water and sugar. Try and see all that happens as a very complicated series of chemical and physical reactions, that can only give a specific result.
3:40 Please don't conflate the well tested theory of evolution and the best guess hypothesis of the origin of life (also called abiogenesis). They are different things and different scientific inquiries.
Even if evolution was shown to be incorrect, it would not proof/disprove a god. When trying to make a case for the existence of a god, focus on the evidence for that existence. So far no evidence is presented that convinces me of a god. And I completely fail to see any basis to believe people who claim they personally know this god (or gods) and even know it's name and preferences of behaviour and characteristics. Still curious awaiting any evidence though, maybe add some in your next video
This video made me reflect on the relationship between naturalism, evolution, and the existence of God, particularly in light of an argument it develops. The claim is that naturalism and evolution are incompatible because, if our minds are purely products of evolutionary pressures, they would be tuned for survival rather than the pursuit of truth. This would make our beliefs, including belief in evolution, unreliable. While this argument raises an interesting point about the fallibility of human cognition, I believe it ultimately falters due to its logical leaps and misapplication of religious dogmatic thinking to a skeptical worldview. Evolutionary processes, while focused on survival, do not entirely preclude the development of cognitive capacities that allow us to approximate truth, especially since accurate perceptions often enhance survival. Moreover, this argument fails to undermine naturalism because modern science and philosophy have already addressed human cognitive limitations through robust epistemological frameworks. Thinkers like David Hume and Karl Popper laid the groundwork for a scientific method that is inherently skeptical and self-correcting, acknowledging that humans do not have direct access to absolute truths. This approach makes science a more trustworthy system for understanding the world because it doesn’t claim infallibility. Scientific knowledge evolves and improves through empirical testing, peer review, heuristic investigation and falsifiability, making it a practical response to the flaws in human perception. This contrasts sharply with religious claims, which often rest on unverifiable traditions and assertions of divine inspiration. For instance, doctrines about Jesus’s resurrection or Gospel authorship rely on ancient human perception, memory, and oral transmission-hardly reliable sources of absolute truth. This highlights a fundamental flaw in religious worldviews: they often claim certainty while bypassing the mechanisms of verification and falsifiability. God’s supposed actions or revelations remain inaccessible to empirical scrutiny, making religious truths effectively immune to critical evaluation. Additionaly, the bulk of religious experience nowadays relies on "I felt something different, I felt the Holy Spirit" all subjective, it could be a misspercpetion like hypnosis or magic. By comparison, a skeptical and agnostic approach-one that rejects claims of absolute certainty and prioritizes methodological rigor-is far more coherent and defensible. However, I also acknowledge that categorical atheism, if taken as an absolute truth or a dogma, encounters similar epistemological challenges. This is why I lean toward an agnostic and scientifically grounded worldview, one that embraces uncertainty and avoids the pitfalls of both religious dogmatism and rigid materialism I think the argument stated at the video would, in the end, reinforce a skeptical and agnostic world view, not religious
Let me give you a bit of constructive criticism: loose the high bpm music under the video, it tends to overstimulate and draws focus from what you are saying.
It's a fair question. Plantinga, being one of the most influential theistic Western philosopher alive, is kind of a polarising bloke in the field. I was quite taken by his Reformed Epistemology, which I thought was genius, even though I'm not sure I'm fully on board with it. He is recognised by scholars of all religious persuasions as a significant contributor to theistic philosophy, for what it's worth. Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment! 😊
Evolution is a fact irrelevant of a god or not! At best it can only be used to disprove certain god claims like creation/Adam and Eve or young earth etc.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
15:52 "If god does exit he probably wants us to worship him".
That would make god a less than perfect being.
If you imagine a perfect being you have to remove every "need", including the need of being worshipped.
That would apply for the description of a space dictator.
That's a interesting point, God shouldn't need or want nothing cause desire and will are signs of a expectation of a possible self improvement, something only umperfect beings can do
@@Preulius I can argue the exact opposite, will and desire is the sign of a conscious being. If God didn't will or desire something, He would be non-conscious then. Furthermore, need and want are two very different things. Need is the requirement to sustain your existence whereas want is something to fulfil your desire. God does not "need" us to worship Him, He "wants" us to worship Him, just like He wants us to take care of ourselves and other creatures and live a fulfilling life.
@Nafisashafiullah for me is nonsense think god has a counciesness somehow close to us to "want" or "desire", for me even "wanting" is derived from a percieved "need" even not directly
@@Preulius so you are saying if a God were to exist, it would be mindless? A mindless existence is more sensible than an all-powerful being who wants good for all His creation? For us, yes because every one of our emotion is derived from a percieved need.
@@Nafisashafiullah
The problem is trying to invent a "perfect" god and at the same time projecting a human being.
We have needs and wants, that's an evolutionary trait that helped our species to constantly improve.
Improving and being "perfect" don't make sense together.
Final consideration: Nice video.
You are obviously very thoughtful about your beliefs, so you'll probably make the journey that most of us, ex theists, did.
First you'll dismiss all the nonsense from the myths, then your god will get smaller and irrelevant, then you'll see it as the childish superstition that it is.
Have a nice trip ;)
14:50
What are the odds? 100%.
When you put sugar in water, what are the odds that you'll get sweet water? 100%.
*After* something has happened, you know for a fact that it can happen, and that it *must* happen under certain conditions.
If you already won the lottery and you trace back all the events that brought you there, you also know that after those series of events you *must* win the lottery, 100%.
In other words, events in the future we don't know about are not really "random".
The conditions and the events are unknown to us, but if we could calculate them in advance, we would know for sure how events would unfold.
It's like the exapmle at the beginning, mixing water and sugar.
Try and see all that happens as a very complicated series of chemical and physical reactions, that can only give a specific result.
3:40 Please don't conflate the well tested theory of evolution and the best guess hypothesis of the origin of life (also called abiogenesis). They are different things and different scientific inquiries.
Even if evolution was shown to be incorrect, it would not proof/disprove a god. When trying to make a case for the existence of a god, focus on the evidence for that existence. So far no evidence is presented that convinces me of a god. And I completely fail to see any basis to believe people who claim they personally know this god (or gods) and even know it's name and preferences of behaviour and characteristics. Still curious awaiting any evidence though, maybe add some in your next video
great vid
Thanks mate!
great exploration of this issue.
This video made me reflect on the relationship between naturalism, evolution, and the existence of God, particularly in light of an argument it develops. The claim is that naturalism and evolution are incompatible because, if our minds are purely products of evolutionary pressures, they would be tuned for survival rather than the pursuit of truth. This would make our beliefs, including belief in evolution, unreliable. While this argument raises an interesting point about the fallibility of human cognition, I believe it ultimately falters due to its logical leaps and misapplication of religious dogmatic thinking to a skeptical worldview.
Evolutionary processes, while focused on survival, do not entirely preclude the development of cognitive capacities that allow us to approximate truth, especially since accurate perceptions often enhance survival. Moreover, this argument fails to undermine naturalism because modern science and philosophy have already addressed human cognitive limitations through robust epistemological frameworks. Thinkers like David Hume and Karl Popper laid the groundwork for a scientific method that is inherently skeptical and self-correcting, acknowledging that humans do not have direct access to absolute truths.
This approach makes science a more trustworthy system for understanding the world because it doesn’t claim infallibility. Scientific knowledge evolves and improves through empirical testing, peer review, heuristic investigation and falsifiability, making it a practical response to the flaws in human perception. This contrasts sharply with religious claims, which often rest on unverifiable traditions and assertions of divine inspiration. For instance, doctrines about Jesus’s resurrection or Gospel authorship rely on ancient human perception, memory, and oral transmission-hardly reliable sources of absolute truth.
This highlights a fundamental flaw in religious worldviews: they often claim certainty while bypassing the mechanisms of verification and falsifiability. God’s supposed actions or revelations remain inaccessible to empirical scrutiny, making religious truths effectively immune to critical evaluation. Additionaly, the bulk of religious experience nowadays relies on "I felt something different, I felt the Holy Spirit" all subjective, it could be a misspercpetion like hypnosis or magic. By comparison, a skeptical and agnostic approach-one that rejects claims of absolute certainty and prioritizes methodological rigor-is far more coherent and defensible.
However, I also acknowledge that categorical atheism, if taken as an absolute truth or a dogma, encounters similar epistemological challenges. This is why I lean toward an agnostic and scientifically grounded worldview, one that embraces uncertainty and avoids the pitfalls of both religious dogmatism and rigid materialism
I think the argument stated at the video would, in the end, reinforce a skeptical and agnostic world view, not religious
The Schrodinger's God, he exist's but also doesn't.
Let me give you a bit of constructive criticism: loose the high bpm music under the video, it tends to overstimulate and draws focus from what you are saying.
Thanks!
Why do people consider Plantinga to be of value? I've never heard anything from him that isn't better explained by his presupposed need for a god.
It's a fair question. Plantinga, being one of the most influential theistic Western philosopher alive, is kind of a polarising bloke in the field. I was quite taken by his Reformed Epistemology, which I thought was genius, even though I'm not sure I'm fully on board with it. He is recognised by scholars of all religious persuasions as a significant contributor to theistic philosophy, for what it's worth.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment! 😊
Him?
Evolution is a fact irrelevant of a god or not!
At best it can only be used to disprove certain god claims like creation/Adam and Eve or young earth etc.
Provide evidence of a god!
Very good essay
Can’t wait to watch your channel grow. (From an atheist 🫡)
Appreciate it, brother 💪