God works in mysterious ways but only when apologists have no good arguments, otherwise God works in completely understandable ways, disregard the fact that different denominations disagree on the arguments and on when God is mysterious or not.
Yeah, weird how these guys can totally understand what God wants and thinks when it comes to hating certain minorities, or giving them money, or which of the thousands of denominations of Christianity is the "correct" one, but when someone points out something about their mythology that doesn't make sense, all of a sudden he's totally inscrutable!
"my god is totally mysterious, but *_I_* know exactly what he thinks and you *_must_* follow everything I say, regardless of how contradictory or evil it sounds!" This is why I reject theism.
@@chameleonx9253 Believe it or not, they don’t get it from God. They get it from you people. The whole Cain drama is a big showcase of mankind being a complete joke because they still went after him after he was old or dead to “avenge Abel” by going after Lamech. Nothing changed.
I used that on an old friend back in the 70’s when he went through a born again phase. He stop over for a visit and another crack a saving my soul, when he went to sit in a chair I said you can’t sit there Jack is sitting there. He had that wtf look on his face as I explained Jack is my invisible friend that I call in to listen to and evaluate supernatural claims. He said that’s offensive belittling his beliefs, to which I answered good then you do understand. Took a minute to process but that ended the evangelizing.
A coworker who is an atheist took me to a private spot at work and asked me to pray for her terminally ill mother. I said No. I said, I'm not gonna do that just because you know what I believe and who I believe. She said, you're not very Christ-like, and I said, would you rather I was like you ?
Dark, a little background. I used to be federal civil service. My favorite job I ever had was working in the Base Library. (I was in the Air Force for 4 years doing computer maintenance) At the end, when I retired (either that or be fired) I was working medical records. My job was copying. I am physically not very fast. Also, I like to have the time to think things through. They wanted me to copy 10 records per day. My speed was generally 3 to 7 records per day. Keep in mind, more records means more paperwork, and a legal request doubles the paperwork. So I was copying from 3,000 to 7,000 pages of medical records per day, even at my "slow" pace. I don't believe my equipment was capable of the maximum they were asking. Now, that wasn't the only reason, there were 2 others, or I might have been able to keep going for another year or two. Now, 3,000 pages was about 7 requests. 3 request was the 6,000 page number. Just to give you some idea of the stress I was under on that job. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I can't remove staples from printed records, even not counting the speed of my equipment, to keep up with the required pace. The reason I know my page counts is, I kept logs. Every start time, stop time, page counts scanned, breaks taken. Give me library work any day. Medical records was a nightmare. I once mentioned to my doctor's office medical records section how much I was copying, and they were flabbergasted. If you read this, thanks for listening.
Thank you for sharing this! It is a good reminder that everyone has a different background! It is so cool to see people of all stripes come together on my content.
@@darkofalltrades There is a lot more - of course - to my background and how I became an atheist. There is also a limit to how many thousand words people are willing to read, and some don't believe a word that I say. Such is life.
@@TheSkyGuy77 Plus, if Christians have "faith," and atheists have MORE faith, then what exactly would you call someone who has LESS faith than a Christian? Or NO faith, for that matter. And if "faith" is a virtue, wouldn't this argument then imply that atheists are more virtuous than Christians, who have LESS faith?
I use that idea a lot! If faith is a good thing, then if the theist thinks atheist have more faith then it is more of a good thing. If it isn't a good thing, then having it as a theist is still bad, right? The theist puts themselves in a no-win position.
Note that basically his answers boil down to "that does not disprove God". Since his God is specifically defined such as to be unfalsifiable, he presented no actual answers. It makes at least as much sense to answer "God recreates the universe every nanosecond, so there is no actual evil or suffering, just the appearance of such"
It is a video about debunking atheist arguments. "This doesn't disprove God" is the standard for this. If someone made a theistic argument and you believe it doesn't work, then you need only show it doesn't prove God. (I am using "prove" here in the sense of "showing sufficient evidence to affirm the proposition")
@flaminghell9572 you do realize that the atheist "arguments" here are simply refutations of Theistic arguments that supposedly "prove" God, or arguments that refute specific Theistic definitions of God, right? They basically show that the evidence isn't there for God, or, as in the case of the problem of evil, that a specific definition of God is inconsistent (an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator God cannot exist - take away either omnipotent or omnibenevolent away and the problem of evil no longer holds). These are not Atheist arguments, but atheist rebuttals of Theistic arguments or positions. Theist: here is my argument to prove God. Atheist: this argument fails because X (and/or Y or Z...). Theist: that doesn't disprove God. (Because the Theist moved the Goalpost, invoked an unknowable, or other lame excuse to make God unfalsifiable, rather than address the actual problem with the argument). Theist: this is the definition of God. Atheist: this definition fails because A (and/or B or C...). Theist: that doesn't disprove God. (Because the Theist moved the Goalpost, invoked an unknowable, or other lame excuse to make God unfalsifiable, rather than address the actual problem with the definition). Claiming that an Atheist rebuttal is an argument is part of the dodging that Theists do. As is reversing the burden of proof - the Atheist claim is "I don't believe that God exists", the Theist claim is "My God exists". Theists try to twist the Atheist position to "I believe that no God exists" - trying to turn a statement about belief into a statement about existence. This is helped by certain philophical rules that you can only assert existence or nonexistence - under these rules, the opposite of "I have seen a black swan, so black swans exist" is not "I have not seen a black swan, so I am not sure of their existence", but "i have not seen a black swan, so Black swans do not exist", and the opposite of "I believe X" is "I believe NOT-X", as opposed to "I don't believe X". This shows a problem with naive applications of Boolean Logic - inverting a combined truth statement, one must negate the combination, not either of the sub assertions. It also shows a problem with any Philosophy that requires all assertions to be positive claims - in these Philosophies, you cannot assert uncertainty. If B is belief and G is existence of God, here are possible results (parentheses for grouping, - for NOT) 1. (BG) I believe God exists 2. -(BG) I don't believe God exists 3. (B-G) I believe God does not exist 4. -(B-G) I don't believe God doesn't exist The proper inversion of 1 is 2, but some Philosophies only accept 1 and 3 as valid assertions.
@@flaminghell9572 Yeah, that's the problem my guy, any argument can be "refuted" by saying it doesn't disprove/prove God exists. The problem is that you CAN'T prove or disprove God exists, you can only give evidence as to why it's likely or unlikely. This guy then comes and dismisses any arguments by saying "it doesn't disprove God tho". It's intellectually dishonest and adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
The problem of evil isn’t a challenge for or against arguments for the existence of god - it’s a reasonable argument that utterly destroys the possibility that god is entirely good or eliminates the possibility that god is omnipotent (if god exists at all)
It doesn't destroy anything. There is no such as "evil" in Christianity in a sense of ontological existence. Christianity is not dualistic. What we call "evil" is willful movement away from God and nothing more. "The problem of evil" type of argument is always coming from an appeal to emotions. How are you as an atheist judging what is "good" or "bad". What is your point of reference to lay such judgement?
@@thelobsterking1055 Well I think using the ideals or morals that Christians believe they should follow from the Bible is the point of reference people use a lot of the time. The problem of evil is based on god telling people not to do something that he does, has done or commands people to do at times. There are other ideas added into this thought process, like god creating children with life altering or life ending diseases. If you/we can't understand why God would do such a thing, how do you truly know you/we can understand god on anything then?
Most versions of Abrahamic religions DO advocate murder and theft, just not against the in-group. God orders it against outsiders because it’s not murder or theft if it’s against outsiders. Secular morality usually says theft or murder is not allowed because it harms another person, regardless of who that person is.
@@justice8718 I didn’t say anyone was peaceful. The fictional occupants of the land of Israel were warlords with their own remarkably similar religions that allowed them to kill and enslave outsiders also. So were the medieval Europeans and Arabs.
Yep. That's religious morality for you. Everything is okay if you do it to the people I don't like. But if you do it to the people I like, you better make sure I told you to do it first!
@@soyevquirsefron990 Would you little bugs stop lying every time your little tongue is caught? Seriously, it’s annoying when Abraham and Joseph (Genesis), Moses (rest of the Torah), Daniel, Elijah, and the New Testament were either made at the Nation’s beginning or were around and heavily preserved for literally thousands of years, mysteriously far better than any nation that controlled the entire world.
I find it rather bold at the very least to say "gods ways are so incomprehensible or confusing" and then basically state that "but WE have it figured all out, now adopt our morals. I dig how you're more complimentary towards the apologist.
It always pisses me off when apologists write off the problem of evil as "suffering can bring about learning," etc. No. There are children who are tortured, raped and killed. They are given NO free will, whereas ALL the free will is given to the perpetrators (who GOD KNOWS are perpetrators). If you, as a parent, said, "I sent my 4 year old child to stay with a guy I knew was a pedophile and a serial killer, but it's okay, because they'll learn something from suffering like that," everyone on the planet would recognize that you are the worst possible parent and definitely not a loving one. But when God, with all the resources and all the knowledge, does the equivalent to many children, they somehow think that's okay. No, it's not. Either their God is a monster, or not all-powerful, or does not exist. Non-existence is the best explanation.
A couple things: 1. Free will is a totally inadequate answer for a ton of reasons, not the least of which is that he can't even prove we HAVE free will, so he's using a baseless assertion to support a baseless assertion. There's also the fact that in his holy book, his God violates free will on a regular basis, and gives zero indication that he values human choices. Quite the contrary, he seems quite intent on DENYING us as much choice as he can. 2. His answer to the argument for religious diversity also conspicuously ignores the issue of why we should believe HIS mythology over anyone else's. If he's accepting that humans are fallible and can be wrong about the divine, what makes him think that HE isn't the one who's wrong? 3. It's not an apologist video if it doesn't include that stupid strawman about atheists thinking the universe came from nothing, is it? 🙄 And of course, the totally oblivious and idiotic Turek quote that unwittingly relies on the notion that "faith" is a bad thing.
I find the free will aspect fascinating since the free will allows for the choice to commit evil but not the free will to have no evil committed upon you. Seems causing evil gets far greater favor from Yahweh than not having evil happen.
Regarding free will: It is logically impossible to have free will under an omniscient and omnipotent god. Such a system would be by definition deterministic with the god as the sole cause.
@@Jcs57 Another aspect in which the free will answer fails is that having the WILL to commit evil doesn't necessitate the ABILITY to do evil. There are a great many things that this god (if it exists) chose to make it impossible for us to do, despite having the desire to do so (like fly, turn invisible, summon pixies, shoot fireballs, etc). If it doesn't constitute a violation of free will to forbid us from doing these things, how would it suddenly violate free will for God to not permit us to commit evil acts, despite having a desire to do so. Especially considering, according to the New Testament, simply having the DESIRE to sin is sufficient to damn someone to hell, even if they don't actually do anything.
they would have to choose. either an all knowing God exists, or free will exists, or free will exists without God. but they cannot exist at the same time
@@theflyingdutchguy9870 Technically, it's not omniscience in itself that precludes us having free will. It's having that omniscient being also be responsible for the initial conditions of every decision that has ever and will ever happen. Hypothetically, if you had some random person with absolute perfect foresight, but whom was totally powerless to do anything about the things it foresaw, we could still be considered to have free will. It's the combination of omniscience and sovereignty that causes the problem. God not only is supposed to know exactly what we're going to do, but he is also the one who ostensibly planned it out, set that plan into motion, and routinely acts to ensure things go according to that plan. And because he's omnipotent, that plan necessarily cannot fail, which means we are not free to do anything other than what this God has intended that we do.
The free will argument falls short in another two ways: 1) Stopping someone from acting doesn't remove their will to take the action. Free will is not violated by restraining a would be murderer 2) The Bible never says we have free will or that God won't violate it. In fact, quite the opposite. The most famous example being God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart.
Exactly. By the logic of the free will argument, we should get rid of the police force. The other thing that makes no sense about it is that god doesn’t even have to kill the would he murderer, he could just come down and explain to them with his divine wisdom why what they are doing is wrong. But instead he wants us to read a book that is often written in language that is open to interpretation and doesn’t justify the things it tells its leaders to believe. The other thing is, he could just grant us an innate understanding of right and wrong. I had a Christian try and tell me that this violated free will, even though giving someone an understanding of something doesn’t violate free will.
superstition - noun 1a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition 2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary Merriam-Webster
22:25 Another problem not addressed with divine silence/hiddenness is the problem of cursed silence/hiddenness. If God is silent/hidden to preserve our free will then why is Satan silent/hidden? Surely Satan is not concerned with our free will..
Exactly arguments alone don't prove much of anything. Especially in this case because without the evidence backing up a lot of their premises like the main premise they presuppose of god existing, their arguments have no backing. It's just philosophical thoughts based on unproven concepts.
@@aralornwolf3140well actual philosophical debates usually aren't concerned with whether some being exists in reality and what effects it has on reality. Philosophy is more concerned with questions like "what is knowledge?" "What does it mean to exist?" And of the concepts and principles of logic and other such things. What theists seem to be trying to do is use pure arguments and philosophy to try and claim something in external reality actually exists (god) without providing any supporting empirical evidence.
@@mwperk02, "What theists seem to be trying to do is use pure arguments and philosophy to try and claim something in external reality actually exists (god) without providing any supporting empirical evidence." And they are supported by Philosophy Departments world over as they don't gaf about proving even their _own_ positions in reality. They just _argue_ and ignore the departments that actually _benefit_ society.
This amateur apologist shoots his entire set of arguments in the foot when he says: "evolution is just a theory." This betrays an insuperable and irrational bias that poisons all his other points, despite their attempt at fairness.
Yea, to me it shows they'll misrepresent anything to uphold their beliefs. So since they're poisoning the well with dishonesty on something as simple as what a scientific theory is, why should I trust they will be able to present honest ideas about anything else?
Theists always run screaming to vague philosophical deism when asked to prove their theism. It’s proof of failure which leads to aggressive defense of their intentional ignorance.
@heiyuall One tactic I have had fun with was GRANTING DEISM, and then asking them to get to their god. Tons of fun. For some reason they always fail. The point of that is that it forces them to put down falsifiable criteria. Then, it gets falsified. Works every time.
Appealing to "God has a plan" directly contradicts "God is almighty". An omnipotent being has no need for plans. There's no "necessary evil" since there cannot be a "necessary" anything for that being. It wants round squares? It's got round squares. Limiting it to "God can do all that's logically coherent" is the next step for many shifting the goalposts. That also fails as God can't do that, either. It's logically coherent for beings to do things God never could. So the next place they run to is "omnipotence is doing everything such a being can do"... so a rock qualifies by such a useless definition. So they're currently at "maximally great being" which is just blatant nonsense. God is the greatest being. In what way? Whatever way they can pretend he is great.
Yea, the problem with the idea of "god being able to do all that's logically coherent" is, how do they know what's logically coherent to a god? I feel like that's a caveat they ignore so it's easier to move the goalposts. Then a lot of the logic they use is based on granting them the premise of a god existing without proving that premise.
So, the guy argues that God only reveals himself to those who seek and have faith in him, yet god remains silent during anguish and despair even towards those who has already found him. "God works in mysterious ways" is just an excuse for the inexcusable because many theists believe that their prayers were answered even for the most mundane thing like passing an exam. It's like the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer and getting eff over.
How quickly do you think he would deny the personal experiences of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Bahai, Sikhs, Mormons, probably even Catholics, as delusions, demonic influences, or people misinterpreting these experiences which actually come from his religion. He claims to speak for all believers, but you know that;s just a cover for getting you to admit that only his beliefs are correct
If this god concept is the `prime-mover,` as in the origin of all existence, then absolutely nothing can exist that it didn't will to exist. Free will does not solve it. God supposedly has free will, and yet is said to be perfectly good. However, it can't create beings with freewill who are also perfectly good? Would it even be possible for `perfectly good` to create something that isn't perfectly good? The mere flaw of the creation, makes the claim of God being perfectly good problematic at best, if not flat out contradictory.
And the crazy thing about that is, the if is normally used to make their ideas seem logical. But if their god exists as they claim it does, our logic about reality wouldn't make sense, so logic itself would be pointless in a reality where anything could technically be logical if the god says so.
For the first one, I have my own theology. Step one: we define free will. To make sense, we use a Christian definition. So, it's assumed that men have the free will to choose between obeying God or not obeying God; between not sinning and sinning (that may seem like a weird way to word that, but it was deliberate); or - between Good and Evil. Step two: what do we need to make a decision between Good and Evil? We need the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And three: what did God not want us to have in Genesis? The Knowledge (Fruit) of Good and Evil. Therefore: God never wanted us to have Free Will! Yes, it's like a comic book retcon, but that's how I think about that apologetic.
It's not a retcon, it's a logical conclusion. In order to be a moral person, you need to know what morality _is._ This also includes knowing what _immorality_ is as well. The first humans, in the story, were no different than the amoral animals they were commanded to care for by the gods who created them to tend to their godly garden.
@@aralornwolf3140 the point is, if we define free will from choosing right and wrong (because it's what theists always jump to), God intended to make Humans not have free will by not having the option to choose from right and wrong, look at animals, do they have free will? If we define it as having the option to choose otherwise, they do have the option, to say "they take actions by instinct" is both wrong and meaningless, the choice is there, that's what matters, they can choose not to help their own, they can choose not to eat. To say they can't choose is to say we can't either because we also do not take actions randomly, which is why free will is not a thing to begin with, there's always a cause for the decisions we take, regardless of whether you think there's a cause or not. This is reason alone to say free will is not a thing, not like there's literally any proof it exists anyways. So it can't be about having the choice to do otherwise because then animals have free will, if you say they do opens up another door of f-ed up things in almost every religion and with the bible it's something that wouldn't make sense whatsoever. So it has to do with morals. And at this point it falls back into what Fenris said, if it's about choosing between evil and good, right and wrong, then God never wanted us to have free will because we had to go against his word to be able to choose between right and wrong. If you say God knew about this (which f-ing obviously he did if he's omniscient), then that brings a thousand other problems which I don't think I need to mention because it should be obvious.
I wish he would have addressed the question as to why Yahweh created anything in the first place, knowing that by creating he would make the cosmos less perfect by creating sin.
The simplest counter to that is that he did it so that he could get his rocks off watching people kill each other, then eventually get to throw the survivors into a lake of eternal fire for disobeying his commandments -- more entertainment. He gets to apply his own definition of perfect, remember, not necessarily the one the apologists proclaim: consider it a variation on Divine Command Theory.
I would note that the theist seems to be taking arguments against a *specified* god and then refuting them as arguments against a *generic* god concept. Sure, but they aren't offered as arguments against *all* god concepts. For instance: The problem of evil is specifically an argument against the *all good all powerful* god. It does nicely demonstrate a logical inconsistency with this concept. On the other hand, it does not argue against an *indifferent* or *evil* or *partially impotent* god. The lie they are falling back on here is to *pretend* that in recognizing that a generic god concept is till viable, that they can then insert in the *particular* god concept that is actually logically inconsistent.
Yep, I’ve seen so many Christians try and use an argument that support a generic creator and then say that the argument somehow proves the god they follow
@@Person-ip7iy yeah. Instead of shifting goalposts it is leaps from an argument one can justify to an argument one can not. A magician’s sleight of hand.
I have watched countless debates where the theist (a Christian or a Muslim) will try to argue for some kind of deist god, often to the detriment of the arguments for the god they actually believe in. It is facepalm-worthy.
So the divine hiddenness and divine silence arguments were technically addressed with, "if you believe in god real hard you could believe in god more". I don't know if it's truly possible to search for something "with all of your heart" you don't believe in, especially in the case of this god. He's not talking about just reading the bible and trying to understand theology more, because that's not really a necessity for believers to make their subjective claims about their experiences with god. He's talking about worshipping and following something you don't believe in.
I don’t have an atheist argument against something that’s never been demonstrated to exist, what would be the point? The claim is a bald assertion used to solve a presumption and explained through a litany of logical fallacies, how would you argue against nothing? 🙄
What is curious about each arguments that he claims does not proves that a god does not exist, at the same time does not prove that a god exists. This is not a problem for those that do not believe in the existence of a god, but for those that do believe in its existence. Any claim that has not been proven as true does not need to be proven as false. This is why videos like this one backfires on theist. Atheist don’t need to prove the no existence of a god. We are not the ones making a claim. Why is this so hard for theist to understand?
It’s nice that he’s thinking about it, but doesn’t get why his response is usually “this doesn’t prove that God does not exist.” The rebuttals were all very surface-level and don’t explore the fundamentals there to be found with dedicated critical thought. Here’s the truth: let’s say you’re a perfect, omnipotent creator God… before any creation at all. You know that your perfect, infallible creation will contain… literally everything you will ever condemn. You decide. in your perfect wisdom, that the perfect thing to do is to execute this plan you KNOW is in opposition to perfection and in favor of bringing about the condemnable.. EVERY condemnable thing that will EVER exist… by your OWN standard… without needing to create anything at all. This is the truth of your God concept. This God does not “allow” anything. This God knows. This God needlessly approves of every sin and tragedy… every way the world around us is. This fans out into most other arguments and rebuttals. Your God, who is generally understood to eternally torture everyone who doesn’t believe in Him… but wants all to come to Him… CREATED a universe wherein the FIRST LAW of Thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Yes, this makes a creator not only unnecessary and redundant… but antithetical to the most fundamental understanding of physics Remember… the LORD did this… in His perfect wisdom. He also created a world in which people who don’t believe in Him will always be a majority. If you think I’m falsely saying that atheists are a majority, it’s because you’re so filled with hubris that you ignore every religion you think is false. Every One True God created a world in which most people don’t believe in Him. No One True God is identical to as any other One True God, and ALL of them WANTED to create a world in which most people disbelieve. Your “objective evidence” for your alleged One True God and against every other alleged One True God is of precisely the same quality of “objective evidence” as the “objective evidence” which can presented by any believer in a different One True God FOR their alleged one True God and against every other alleged One True God.., including YOUR One True God. Do you want to know what quality ALL that “objective evidence” shares? It’s all subjective and not objective whatsoever. Remember… your One True God created a world in which people are BAD witnesses. We lie. We lie to ourselves. We convince ourselves of our lies. We can easily be mistaken. We don’t like to admit when we’re wrong. There’s a million ways for us to experience things that aren’t actually happening, from misreading our surroundings, trusting people who claim that things are happening. acquiescing to events, activities or rituals known to produce euphoric or extreme psychology states, using literal mind-altering drugs… to simply being susceptible to hallucinations or delusions through our own brain chemistry. THIS is not the creation of a perfect creator who wants us to believe in Him. Perfect beings don’t fuck up… and THIS WORLD is fucked up: Free will, if it even exists, changes NONE of this. Your One True God knew that free will would result in a fucked up creation.., and preferred a fucked up creation over a perfect creation… in His perfect wisdom.
25:32 Very strange line thinking of "If we can understand God, then God wouldn't be worthy of worship." I'm sorry, what? Why would understand something make it automatically not worth worshiping? If God's 'mysterious ways' were, in fact, reasonable and understandable would all believers suddenly stop worshiping? I don't think so... 28:20 I would like to know what those subjective value judgments are exactly.
There is only one "atheist argument": There is insufficient good evidence to warrant a belief in the existence of a god or gods. The "argument" can only be challenged by presenting good evidence for the existence of a god or gods -- something apologists (and theists in general) have continuously failed at for several thousand years.
Perhaps the Christian RUclipsr provides a good reason to believe in a god in another video of his, but it would have saved him so much time and effort. Christians don't even need to try to counter arguments against their particular deity if they just shared one good reason to believe in it.
Lemme remind people: there are approx 4k-10k different religions throughout the world.. Why is theirs the "right" one? Their religion derived from Zoroastrianism (technically Judaism but Judaism derived from Zoroastrianism).
The problem of evil depends on an agreement as to what evil is. If debaters don't agree on a definition, the problem of evil won't be an effective argument for any position.
The problem of evil is arguably an effective argument for a misotheist position - that is, a position that holds that a god exists, but that said god is cruel, vitriolic, spiteful, etc.; evil, as a shorthand.
@@malcolmdarke5299 I love that with Christian religion specifically God made everything and said wow great I did such good work I am gonna take a chill break then a couple thousand years later goes.... Ahh you know that Foreskin stuff ya that was a mistake gonna need you all to start cutting that off thanks, Cheers.
That can be one idea for the problem of evil, but it's really supposed to be an internal critique based on what the individual making the claim of god believes is evil or bad. Especially since they want to claim the things they think are evil or bad are objectively evil and/or bad. If their god does/did or commands something they have already admitted to being objectively wrong, they have a problem. A lot of them will just wave it off as god being able to do whatever it wants, or that we can't understand why God would do a thing they claim is objectively wrong. Which still means god does/did or commands things that they consider objectively wrong.
Over a hundred billion plus people in hell when all is said and done. Evil doesn’t benefit us , then why evil? If it doesn’t benefit God then why create it?😱
I can just as easily say Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe (leaf be upon her) provides free will.. And she hasn't hardened anyone's heart or anything of that nature..
I really wish apologists would stop say Evolution is just a theory. It is a fast track to demonstrating that they are massively undereducated on the science that they are attempting to pontificate on. That or dishonest of course, but I'd like to grant benefit of the doubt here. BTW. what is this "ultimate reality"? Some form of transcendent reality beyond our reach and understanding, doesn't sound demonstrable, or relevant.
AWNF fails to grasp that his holy book outright promises certain things which keep on failing to happen, which is relevant around 20-21 minutes in. If his god were real and did as Jesus said, no prayers for aid would go unfulfilled. You need to deny Jesus to make the religion fit reality.
This theist is doing so much better than Redeemed Zoomer. He seems to actually understand the arguments he is attempting to refute. Also, glad to give you my 0.666 cents.
I appreciate you! (Irrespective of the $0.666, but thank you for that) It is important for us to remember that the majority of the people on the other side of the argument are doing their best to be honest (apologists not included in that). I am sure this guy was putting forth what he honestly believes, and I can't fault him too hard for that.
@@darkofalltrades This is what got me out of my angry atheist phase was realizing (internalizing) that, up until recently, I was in agreement with them and I wasn't ignorant or wrong-headed then. I was doing the best I could with what I had, same as now.
I think people forget that when we were religious, we were doing our best to be as honest as we could. That should apply to most theists today as well (likely not the bigger apologists who are definitely in it, in no small part, for the money).
God works in mysterious ways but only when apologists have no good arguments, otherwise God works in completely understandable ways, disregard the fact that different denominations disagree on the arguments and on when God is mysterious or not.
God is more clear and honest than you are, so why do your mysterious ways of gaslighting matter?
Yeah, weird how these guys can totally understand what God wants and thinks when it comes to hating certain minorities, or giving them money, or which of the thousands of denominations of Christianity is the "correct" one, but when someone points out something about their mythology that doesn't make sense, all of a sudden he's totally inscrutable!
"my god is totally mysterious, but *_I_* know exactly what he thinks and you *_must_* follow everything I say, regardless of how contradictory or evil it sounds!"
This is why I reject theism.
@@chameleonx9253 Believe it or not, they don’t get it from God. They get it from you people. The whole Cain drama is a big showcase of mankind being a complete joke because they still went after him after he was old or dead to “avenge Abel” by going after Lamech.
Nothing changed.
@@TheSkyGuy77 God is honestly far less mysterious than whatever you believe you got your morals from.
The moment someone tells you their god is invisible and intangible you know they're bs'ing you.
I used that on an old friend back in the 70’s when he went through a born again phase. He stop over for a visit and another crack a saving my soul, when he went to sit in a chair I said you can’t sit there Jack is sitting there. He had that wtf look on his face as I explained Jack is my invisible friend that I call in to listen to and evaluate supernatural claims. He said that’s offensive belittling his beliefs, to which I answered good then you do understand. Took a minute to process but that ended the evangelizing.
A coworker who is an atheist took me to a private spot at work and asked me to pray for her terminally ill mother.
I said No.
I said, I'm not gonna do that just because you know what I believe and who I believe.
She said, you're not very Christ-like, and I said, would you rather I was like you ?
@@RandomStuff-i4ian atheist asked you to pray? Sure buddy. And a vegan asked you to eat a steak 😂
@@giannipiccioni8411
You weren't there, you don't know, I was there.
Stupid
@@giannipiccioni8411
Read my comment again.
Dark, a little background.
I used to be federal civil service. My favorite job I ever had was working in the Base Library. (I was in the Air Force for 4 years doing computer maintenance) At the end, when I retired (either that or be fired) I was working medical records. My job was copying. I am physically not very fast. Also, I like to have the time to think things through. They wanted me to copy 10 records per day. My speed was generally 3 to 7 records per day. Keep in mind, more records means more paperwork, and a legal request doubles the paperwork. So I was copying from 3,000 to 7,000 pages of medical records per day, even at my "slow" pace. I don't believe my equipment was capable of the maximum they were asking. Now, that wasn't the only reason, there were 2 others, or I might have been able to keep going for another year or two. Now, 3,000 pages was about 7 requests. 3 request was the 6,000 page number. Just to give you some idea of the stress I was under on that job. Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I can't remove staples from printed records, even not counting the speed of my equipment, to keep up with the required pace. The reason I know my page counts is, I kept logs. Every start time, stop time, page counts scanned, breaks taken. Give me library work any day. Medical records was a nightmare. I once mentioned to my doctor's office medical records section how much I was copying, and they were flabbergasted.
If you read this, thanks for listening.
Thank you for sharing this! It is a good reminder that everyone has a different background! It is so cool to see people of all stripes come together on my content.
@@darkofalltrades There is a lot more - of course - to my background and how I became an atheist. There is also a limit to how many thousand words people are willing to read, and some don't believe a word that I say. Such is life.
@@StarSong936,
You could always self-publish an autobiography...
""it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist""
I thought having ""faith"" is what theists considered a _good_ thing?
@@TheSkyGuy77 Plus, if Christians have "faith," and atheists have MORE faith, then what exactly would you call someone who has LESS faith than a Christian? Or NO faith, for that matter.
And if "faith" is a virtue, wouldn't this argument then imply that atheists are more virtuous than Christians, who have LESS faith?
I use that idea a lot! If faith is a good thing, then if the theist thinks atheist have more faith then it is more of a good thing.
If it isn't a good thing, then having it as a theist is still bad, right?
The theist puts themselves in a no-win position.
Note that basically his answers boil down to "that does not disprove God".
Since his God is specifically defined such as to be unfalsifiable, he presented no actual answers.
It makes at least as much sense to answer "God recreates the universe every nanosecond, so there is no actual evil or suffering, just the appearance of such"
“Doesn’t “necessarily” disprove god.” I wonder if he’s trying to convince his strawman atheists or himself…
The problem of evil alone completely disproves his god. No further arguments necessary.
It is a video about debunking atheist arguments. "This doesn't disprove God" is the standard for this.
If someone made a theistic argument and you believe it doesn't work, then you need only show it doesn't prove God.
(I am using "prove" here in the sense of "showing sufficient evidence to affirm the proposition")
@flaminghell9572 you do realize that the atheist "arguments" here are simply refutations of Theistic arguments that supposedly "prove" God, or arguments that refute specific Theistic definitions of God, right?
They basically show that the evidence isn't there for God, or, as in the case of the problem of evil, that a specific definition of God is inconsistent (an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator God cannot exist - take away either omnipotent or omnibenevolent away and the problem of evil no longer holds).
These are not Atheist arguments, but atheist rebuttals of Theistic arguments or positions.
Theist: here is my argument to prove God.
Atheist: this argument fails because X (and/or Y or Z...).
Theist: that doesn't disprove God. (Because the Theist moved the Goalpost, invoked an unknowable, or other lame excuse to make God unfalsifiable, rather than address the actual problem with the argument).
Theist: this is the definition of God.
Atheist: this definition fails because A (and/or B or C...).
Theist: that doesn't disprove God. (Because the Theist moved the Goalpost, invoked an unknowable, or other lame excuse to make God unfalsifiable, rather than address the actual problem with the definition).
Claiming that an Atheist rebuttal is an argument is part of the dodging that Theists do.
As is reversing the burden of proof - the Atheist claim is "I don't believe that God exists", the Theist claim is "My God exists". Theists try to twist the Atheist position to "I believe that no God exists" - trying to turn a statement about belief into a statement about existence. This is helped by certain philophical rules that you can only assert existence or nonexistence - under these rules, the opposite of "I have seen a black swan, so black swans exist" is not "I have not seen a black swan, so I am not sure of their existence", but "i have not seen a black swan, so Black swans do not exist", and the opposite of "I believe X" is "I believe NOT-X", as opposed to "I don't believe X". This shows a problem with naive applications of Boolean Logic - inverting a combined truth statement, one must negate the combination, not either of the sub assertions. It also shows a problem with any Philosophy that requires all assertions to be positive claims - in these Philosophies, you cannot assert uncertainty.
If B is belief and G is existence of God, here are possible results (parentheses for grouping, - for NOT)
1. (BG) I believe God exists
2. -(BG) I don't believe God exists
3. (B-G) I believe God does not exist
4. -(B-G) I don't believe God doesn't exist
The proper inversion of 1 is 2, but some Philosophies only accept 1 and 3 as valid assertions.
@@flaminghell9572 Yeah, that's the problem my guy, any argument can be "refuted" by saying it doesn't disprove/prove God exists.
The problem is that you CAN'T prove or disprove God exists, you can only give evidence as to why it's likely or unlikely. This guy then comes and dismisses any arguments by saying "it doesn't disprove God tho". It's intellectually dishonest and adds absolutely nothing to the conversation.
The problem of evil isn’t a challenge for or against arguments for the existence of god - it’s a reasonable argument that utterly destroys the possibility that god is entirely good or eliminates the possibility that god is omnipotent (if god exists at all)
It's not even an atheist argument to begin with. It's a religious argument against a certain type of god.
It doesn't destroy anything.
There is no such as "evil" in Christianity in a sense of ontological existence.
Christianity is not dualistic.
What we call "evil" is willful movement away from God and nothing more.
"The problem of evil" type of argument is always coming from an appeal to emotions. How are you as an atheist judging what is "good" or "bad". What is your point of reference to lay such judgement?
@@thelobsterking1055 That may be what your majesty calls evil, but not us lowly peasants and as such wholly irrelevant to the argument.
@@thelobsterking1055
Well I think using the ideals or morals that Christians believe they should follow from the Bible is the point of reference people use a lot of the time. The problem of evil is based on god telling people not to do something that he does, has done or commands people to do at times. There are other ideas added into this thought process, like god creating children with life altering or life ending diseases. If you/we can't understand why God would do such a thing, how do you truly know you/we can understand god on anything then?
Most versions of Abrahamic religions DO advocate murder and theft, just not against the in-group. God orders it against outsiders because it’s not murder or theft if it’s against outsiders.
Secular morality usually says theft or murder is not allowed because it harms another person, regardless of who that person is.
You mean the “peaceful” outsiders that kept on killing the Israeli kings whenever the said king spares them?
@@justice8718 I didn’t say anyone was peaceful. The fictional occupants of the land of Israel were warlords with their own remarkably similar religions that allowed them to kill and enslave outsiders also. So were the medieval Europeans and Arabs.
Yep. That's religious morality for you. Everything is okay if you do it to the people I don't like. But if you do it to the people I like, you better make sure I told you to do it first!
@@soyevquirsefron990 Would you little bugs stop lying every time your little tongue is caught? Seriously, it’s annoying when Abraham and Joseph (Genesis), Moses (rest of the Torah), Daniel, Elijah, and the New Testament were either made at the Nation’s beginning or were around and heavily preserved for literally thousands of years, mysteriously far better than any nation that controlled the entire world.
@@justice8718
I would LOVE to know what nation you think has ruled the entire world.
I find it rather bold at the very least to say "gods ways are so incomprehensible or confusing" and then basically state that "but WE have it figured all out, now adopt our morals.
I dig how you're more complimentary towards the apologist.
It always pisses me off when apologists write off the problem of evil as "suffering can bring about learning," etc. No. There are children who are tortured, raped and killed. They are given NO free will, whereas ALL the free will is given to the perpetrators (who GOD KNOWS are perpetrators). If you, as a parent, said, "I sent my 4 year old child to stay with a guy I knew was a pedophile and a serial killer, but it's okay, because they'll learn something from suffering like that," everyone on the planet would recognize that you are the worst possible parent and definitely not a loving one. But when God, with all the resources and all the knowledge, does the equivalent to many children, they somehow think that's okay. No, it's not. Either their God is a monster, or not all-powerful, or does not exist. Non-existence is the best explanation.
A couple things:
1. Free will is a totally inadequate answer for a ton of reasons, not the least of which is that he can't even prove we HAVE free will, so he's using a baseless assertion to support a baseless assertion.
There's also the fact that in his holy book, his God violates free will on a regular basis, and gives zero indication that he values human choices. Quite the contrary, he seems quite intent on DENYING us as much choice as he can.
2. His answer to the argument for religious diversity also conspicuously ignores the issue of why we should believe HIS mythology over anyone else's. If he's accepting that humans are fallible and can be wrong about the divine, what makes him think that HE isn't the one who's wrong?
3. It's not an apologist video if it doesn't include that stupid strawman about atheists thinking the universe came from nothing, is it? 🙄
And of course, the totally oblivious and idiotic Turek quote that unwittingly relies on the notion that "faith" is a bad thing.
I find the free will aspect fascinating since the free will allows for the choice to commit evil but not the free will to have no evil committed upon you. Seems causing evil gets far greater favor from Yahweh than not having evil happen.
Regarding free will: It is logically impossible to have free will under an omniscient and omnipotent god. Such a system would be by definition deterministic with the god as the sole cause.
@@Jcs57 Another aspect in which the free will answer fails is that having the WILL to commit evil doesn't necessitate the ABILITY to do evil.
There are a great many things that this god (if it exists) chose to make it impossible for us to do, despite having the desire to do so (like fly, turn invisible, summon pixies, shoot fireballs, etc).
If it doesn't constitute a violation of free will to forbid us from doing these things, how would it suddenly violate free will for God to not permit us to commit evil acts, despite having a desire to do so.
Especially considering, according to the New Testament, simply having the DESIRE to sin is sufficient to damn someone to hell, even if they don't actually do anything.
they would have to choose. either an all knowing God exists, or free will exists, or free will exists without God. but they cannot exist at the same time
@@theflyingdutchguy9870 Technically, it's not omniscience in itself that precludes us having free will. It's having that omniscient being also be responsible for the initial conditions of every decision that has ever and will ever happen.
Hypothetically, if you had some random person with absolute perfect foresight, but whom was totally powerless to do anything about the things it foresaw, we could still be considered to have free will.
It's the combination of omniscience and sovereignty that causes the problem. God not only is supposed to know exactly what we're going to do, but he is also the one who ostensibly planned it out, set that plan into motion, and routinely acts to ensure things go according to that plan.
And because he's omnipotent, that plan necessarily cannot fail, which means we are not free to do anything other than what this God has intended that we do.
The free will argument falls short in another two ways:
1) Stopping someone from acting doesn't remove their will to take the action. Free will is not violated by restraining a would be murderer
2) The Bible never says we have free will or that God won't violate it. In fact, quite the opposite. The most famous example being God "hardening" Pharaoh's heart.
Exactly. By the logic of the free will argument, we should get rid of the police force. The other thing that makes no sense about it is that god doesn’t even have to kill the would he murderer, he could just come down and explain to them with his divine wisdom why what they are doing is wrong. But instead he wants us to read a book that is often written in language that is open to interpretation and doesn’t justify the things it tells its leaders to believe. The other thing is, he could just grant us an innate understanding of right and wrong. I had a Christian try and tell me that this violated free will, even though giving someone an understanding of something doesn’t violate free will.
Excellent points!
superstition - noun
1a: a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b: an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary
Merriam-Webster
Religion - noun
_See superstition._
😄
@@pansepot1490 Great add. TY
Shorter original video: "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I'm right!"
I love that Darks cloak is held up by an adorable smiley face
Not a lot of people see that! ^_^
22:25 Another problem not addressed with divine silence/hiddenness is the problem of cursed silence/hiddenness. If God is silent/hidden to preserve our free will then why is Satan silent/hidden? Surely Satan is not concerned with our free will..
I love this! Flipping the script a bit is a lot of fun!
Free will isn't even a thing according to the Bible. So they can't even use that.
Arguments are utterly pointless. Theists cannot provide evidence of their god whatever one they pick
Glad I’m not the only one that thinks arguing against nothing is just a mental exercise in futility.
@@Jcs57,
Yet... it's a pretty lucrative occupation once you get a Phd. in Philosophy.
Exactly arguments alone don't prove much of anything. Especially in this case because without the evidence backing up a lot of their premises like the main premise they presuppose of god existing, their arguments have no backing. It's just philosophical thoughts based on unproven concepts.
@@aralornwolf3140well actual philosophical debates usually aren't concerned with whether some being exists in reality and what effects it has on reality. Philosophy is more concerned with questions like "what is knowledge?" "What does it mean to exist?" And of the concepts and principles of logic and other such things.
What theists seem to be trying to do is use pure arguments and philosophy to try and claim something in external reality actually exists (god) without providing any supporting empirical evidence.
@@mwperk02,
"What theists seem to be trying to do is use pure arguments and philosophy to try and claim something in external reality actually exists (god) without providing any supporting empirical evidence."
And they are supported by Philosophy Departments world over as they don't gaf about proving even their _own_ positions in reality. They just _argue_ and ignore the departments that actually _benefit_ society.
“God” is a category not an individual name. It’s like a person named “Human.” You will always still have to prove YOUR god.
This amateur apologist shoots his entire set of arguments in the foot when he says: "evolution is just a theory." This betrays an insuperable and irrational bias that poisons all his other points, despite their attempt at fairness.
Whenever someone says “it’s just a theory” they show that they have no understanding of science.
Yea, to me it shows they'll misrepresent anything to uphold their beliefs. So since they're poisoning the well with dishonesty on something as simple as what a scientific theory is, why should I trust they will be able to present honest ideas about anything else?
Theists always run screaming to vague philosophical deism when asked to prove their theism. It’s proof of failure which leads to aggressive defense of their intentional ignorance.
@heiyuall One tactic I have had fun with was GRANTING DEISM, and then asking them to get to their god. Tons of fun. For some reason they always fail.
The point of that is that it forces them to put down falsifiable criteria. Then, it gets falsified.
Works every time.
Appealing to "God has a plan" directly contradicts "God is almighty". An omnipotent being has no need for plans. There's no "necessary evil" since there cannot be a "necessary" anything for that being. It wants round squares? It's got round squares.
Limiting it to "God can do all that's logically coherent" is the next step for many shifting the goalposts. That also fails as God can't do that, either. It's logically coherent for beings to do things God never could.
So the next place they run to is "omnipotence is doing everything such a being can do"... so a rock qualifies by such a useless definition.
So they're currently at "maximally great being" which is just blatant nonsense. God is the greatest being. In what way? Whatever way they can pretend he is great.
Yea, the problem with the idea of "god being able to do all that's logically coherent" is, how do they know what's logically coherent to a god? I feel like that's a caveat they ignore so it's easier to move the goalposts. Then a lot of the logic they use is based on granting them the premise of a god existing without proving that premise.
So, the guy argues that God only reveals himself to those who seek and have faith in him, yet god remains silent during anguish and despair even towards those who has already found him. "God works in mysterious ways" is just an excuse for the inexcusable because many theists believe that their prayers were answered even for the most mundane thing like passing an exam. It's like the rich gets richer and the poor gets poorer and getting eff over.
You will note that he speaks of "many religions say" but all his images are of Christian experiences.
@michaelnewsham1412 Good eye! Yes, I noticed that because he is a Christian of some stripe. ^_^
How quickly do you think he would deny the personal experiences of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Bahai, Sikhs, Mormons, probably even Catholics, as delusions, demonic influences, or people misinterpreting these experiences which actually come from his religion. He claims to speak for all believers, but you know that;s just a cover for getting you to admit that only his beliefs are correct
If this god concept is the `prime-mover,` as in the origin of all existence, then absolutely nothing can exist that it didn't will to exist. Free will does not solve it. God supposedly has free will, and yet is said to be perfectly good. However, it can't create beings with freewill who are also perfectly good? Would it even be possible for `perfectly good` to create something that isn't perfectly good? The mere flaw of the creation, makes the claim of God being perfectly good problematic at best, if not flat out contradictory.
All i hear is "If". IF, the most heavy lifting word the theists have.
And the crazy thing about that is, the if is normally used to make their ideas seem logical. But if their god exists as they claim it does, our logic about reality wouldn't make sense, so logic itself would be pointless in a reality where anything could technically be logical if the god says so.
For the first one, I have my own theology.
Step one: we define free will. To make sense, we use a Christian definition. So, it's assumed that men have the free will to choose between obeying God or not obeying God; between not sinning and sinning (that may seem like a weird way to word that, but it was deliberate); or - between Good and Evil.
Step two: what do we need to make a decision between Good and Evil? We need the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
And three: what did God not want us to have in Genesis? The Knowledge (Fruit) of Good and Evil.
Therefore: God never wanted us to have Free Will!
Yes, it's like a comic book retcon, but that's how I think about that apologetic.
It's not a retcon, it's a logical conclusion. In order to be a moral person, you need to know what morality _is._ This also includes knowing what _immorality_ is as well. The first humans, in the story, were no different than the amoral animals they were commanded to care for by the gods who created them to tend to their godly garden.
@@aralornwolf3140 the point is, if we define free will from choosing right and wrong (because it's what theists always jump to), God intended to make Humans not have free will by not having the option to choose from right and wrong, look at animals, do they have free will? If we define it as having the option to choose otherwise, they do have the option, to say "they take actions by instinct" is both wrong and meaningless, the choice is there, that's what matters, they can choose not to help their own, they can choose not to eat.
To say they can't choose is to say we can't either because we also do not take actions randomly, which is why free will is not a thing to begin with, there's always a cause for the decisions we take, regardless of whether you think there's a cause or not. This is reason alone to say free will is not a thing, not like there's literally any proof it exists anyways.
So it can't be about having the choice to do otherwise because then animals have free will, if you say they do opens up another door of f-ed up things in almost every religion and with the bible it's something that wouldn't make sense whatsoever.
So it has to do with morals. And at this point it falls back into what Fenris said, if it's about choosing between evil and good, right and wrong, then God never wanted us to have free will because we had to go against his word to be able to choose between right and wrong. If you say God knew about this (which f-ing obviously he did if he's omniscient), then that brings a thousand other problems which I don't think I need to mention because it should be obvious.
He had to make up sh-t to justify made up sh-t.
I wish he would have addressed the question as to why Yahweh created anything in the first place, knowing that by creating he would make the cosmos less perfect by creating sin.
The simplest counter to that is that he did it so that he could get his rocks off watching people kill each other, then eventually get to throw the survivors into a lake of eternal fire for disobeying his commandments -- more entertainment. He gets to apply his own definition of perfect, remember, not necessarily the one the apologists proclaim: consider it a variation on Divine Command Theory.
@@RichWoods23,
That tracks with some theists claims that since god created us, he can do whatever he wants with us.
@@aralornwolf3140 Exactly.
I would note that the theist seems to be taking arguments against a *specified* god and then refuting them as arguments against a *generic* god concept. Sure, but they aren't offered as arguments against *all* god concepts.
For instance: The problem of evil is specifically an argument against the *all good all powerful* god. It does nicely demonstrate a logical inconsistency with this concept. On the other hand, it does not argue against an *indifferent* or *evil* or *partially impotent* god. The lie they are falling back on here is to *pretend* that in recognizing that a generic god concept is till viable, that they can then insert in the *particular* god concept that is actually logically inconsistent.
Yep, I’ve seen so many Christians try and use an argument that support a generic creator and then say that the argument somehow proves the god they follow
@@Person-ip7iy yeah. Instead of shifting goalposts it is leaps from an argument one can justify to an argument one can not. A magician’s sleight of hand.
I have watched countless debates where the theist (a Christian or a Muslim) will try to argue for some kind of deist god, often to the detriment of the arguments for the god they actually believe in. It is facepalm-worthy.
So the divine hiddenness and divine silence arguments were technically addressed with, "if you believe in god real hard you could believe in god more". I don't know if it's truly possible to search for something "with all of your heart" you don't believe in, especially in the case of this god. He's not talking about just reading the bible and trying to understand theology more, because that's not really a necessity for believers to make their subjective claims about their experiences with god. He's talking about worshipping and following something you don't believe in.
There is no evidence that he does exist the complete lack of evidence is the evidence in this case. It's a not guilty by way of nonexistence.
I don’t have an atheist argument against something that’s never been demonstrated to exist, what would be the point? The claim is a bald assertion used to solve a presumption and explained through a litany of logical fallacies, how would you argue against nothing? 🙄
So, you believe something comes from nothing!
Checkmate Fellow Atheist!
@@Jcs57 just because something _may_ exist doesn't mean we should act like it does.
What is curious about each arguments that he claims does not proves that a god does not exist, at the same time does not prove that a god exists.
This is not a problem for those that do not believe in the existence of a god, but for those that do believe in its existence. Any claim that has not been proven as true does not need to be proven as false. This is why videos like this one backfires on theist. Atheist don’t need to prove the no existence of a god. We are not the ones making a claim. Why is this so hard for theist to understand?
It’s nice that he’s thinking about it, but doesn’t get why his response is usually “this doesn’t prove that God does not exist.” The rebuttals were all very surface-level and don’t explore the fundamentals there to be found with dedicated critical thought.
Here’s the truth: let’s say you’re a perfect, omnipotent creator God… before any creation at all. You know that your perfect, infallible creation will contain… literally everything you will ever condemn. You decide. in your perfect wisdom, that the perfect thing to do is to execute this plan you KNOW is in opposition to perfection and in favor of bringing about the condemnable.. EVERY condemnable thing that will EVER exist… by your OWN standard… without needing to create anything at all.
This is the truth of your God concept. This God does not “allow” anything. This God knows. This God needlessly approves of every sin and tragedy… every way the world around us is.
This fans out into most other arguments and rebuttals. Your God, who is generally understood to eternally torture everyone who doesn’t believe in Him… but wants all to come to Him… CREATED a universe wherein the FIRST LAW of Thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Yes, this makes a creator not only unnecessary and redundant… but antithetical to the most fundamental understanding of physics
Remember… the LORD did this… in His perfect wisdom.
He also created a world in which people who don’t believe in Him will always be a majority. If you think I’m falsely saying that atheists are a majority, it’s because you’re so filled with hubris that you ignore every religion you think is false. Every One True God created a world in which most people don’t believe in Him. No One True God is identical to as any other One True God, and ALL of them WANTED to create a world in which most people disbelieve.
Your “objective evidence” for your alleged One True God and against every other alleged One True God is of precisely the same quality of “objective evidence” as the “objective evidence” which can presented by any believer in a different One True God FOR their alleged one True God and against every other alleged One True God.., including YOUR One True God. Do you want to know what quality ALL that “objective evidence” shares? It’s all subjective and not objective whatsoever.
Remember… your One True God created a world in which people are BAD witnesses. We lie. We lie to ourselves. We convince ourselves of our lies. We can easily be mistaken. We don’t like to admit when we’re wrong. There’s a million ways for us to experience things that aren’t actually happening, from misreading our surroundings, trusting people who claim that things are happening. acquiescing to events, activities or rituals known to produce euphoric or extreme psychology states, using literal mind-altering drugs… to simply being susceptible to hallucinations or delusions through our own brain chemistry.
THIS is not the creation of a perfect creator who wants us to believe in Him. Perfect beings don’t fuck up… and THIS WORLD is fucked up:
Free will, if it even exists, changes NONE of this. Your One True God knew that free will would result in a fucked up creation.., and preferred a fucked up creation over a perfect creation… in His perfect wisdom.
25:32 Very strange line thinking of "If we can understand God, then God wouldn't be worthy of worship." I'm sorry, what? Why would understand something make it automatically not worth worshiping? If God's 'mysterious ways' were, in fact, reasonable and understandable would all believers suddenly stop worshiping? I don't think so...
28:20 I would like to know what those subjective value judgments are exactly.
2:43 - Therefore God is not all-powerful. God cannot accomplish all His goals without causing suffering.
There is only one "atheist argument": There is insufficient good evidence to warrant a belief in the existence of a god or gods. The "argument" can only be challenged by presenting good evidence for the existence of a god or gods -- something apologists (and theists in general) have continuously failed at for several thousand years.
Perhaps the Christian RUclipsr provides a good reason to believe in a god in another video of his, but it would have saved him so much time and effort. Christians don't even need to try to counter arguments against their particular deity if they just shared one good reason to believe in it.
If good was truly good we would live in a world like ngnl
The book 'Not One God' shows how the major religions have vastly different views. Similarity in behaviors is better explained by science.
Lemme remind people: there are approx 4k-10k different religions throughout the world..
Why is theirs the "right" one?
Their religion derived from Zoroastrianism (technically Judaism but Judaism derived from Zoroastrianism).
The problem of evil depends on an agreement as to what evil is. If debaters don't agree on a definition, the problem of evil won't be an effective argument for any position.
The problem of evil is arguably an effective argument for a misotheist position - that is, a position that holds that a god exists, but that said god is cruel, vitriolic, spiteful, etc.; evil, as a shorthand.
@@malcolmdarke5299 It's so funny how even if we went by Gods, benevolent Gods are the least likely to exist.
@@malcolmdarke5299 I love that with Christian religion specifically God made everything and said wow great I did such good work I am gonna take a chill break then a couple thousand years later goes.... Ahh you know that Foreskin stuff ya that was a mistake gonna need you all to start cutting that off thanks, Cheers.
That can be one idea for the problem of evil, but it's really supposed to be an internal critique based on what the individual making the claim of god believes is evil or bad. Especially since they want to claim the things they think are evil or bad are objectively evil and/or bad. If their god does/did or commands something they have already admitted to being objectively wrong, they have a problem. A lot of them will just wave it off as god being able to do whatever it wants, or that we can't understand why God would do a thing they claim is objectively wrong. Which still means god does/did or commands things that they consider objectively wrong.
Over a hundred billion plus people in hell when all is said and done.
Evil doesn’t benefit us , then why evil? If it doesn’t benefit God then why create it?😱
I can just as easily say Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe (leaf be upon her) provides free will..
And she hasn't hardened anyone's heart or anything of that nature..
I really wish apologists would stop say Evolution is just a theory.
It is a fast track to demonstrating that they are massively undereducated on the science that they are attempting to pontificate on.
That or dishonest of course, but I'd like to grant benefit of the doubt here.
BTW. what is this "ultimate reality"?
Some form of transcendent reality beyond our reach and understanding, doesn't sound demonstrable, or relevant.
Yeah.. the Pharoah had "free will" right?
That's why their god "hardened" Pharoah's heart, right??
2:20 - therefore, there is no free will in Heaven
There is no such thing as free will
I've got a feeling this apologist is disingenuous and lying. It's true. I'm right. Q.E.D.
The explanations theists give for evil are "inadequate and unconvincing".
OK atheists it's your turn. Explain evil.
Which God is the question because no question will say it’s Yahweh the god of the Christians doesn’t have a name
Haven't seen it yet, but I bet it's redeemed zoomer. Posting bets now.
Edit: damn I was wrong
And... to my dismay you edited your bet so I couldn't win anything. 😢
Atheism is NOT a world view... wtf...
AWNF fails to grasp that his holy book outright promises certain things which keep on failing to happen, which is relevant around 20-21 minutes in. If his god were real and did as Jesus said, no prayers for aid would go unfulfilled.
You need to deny Jesus to make the religion fit reality.
Divine bullshitness
This theist is doing so much better than Redeemed Zoomer. He seems to actually understand the arguments he is attempting to refute.
Also, glad to give you my 0.666 cents.
I appreciate you! (Irrespective of the $0.666, but thank you for that)
It is important for us to remember that the majority of the people on the other side of the argument are doing their best to be honest (apologists not included in that). I am sure this guy was putting forth what he honestly believes, and I can't fault him too hard for that.
@@darkofalltrades This is what got me out of my angry atheist phase was realizing (internalizing) that, up until recently, I was in agreement with them and I wasn't ignorant or wrong-headed then. I was doing the best I could with what I had, same as now.
I think people forget that when we were religious, we were doing our best to be as honest as we could. That should apply to most theists today as well (likely not the bigger apologists who are definitely in it, in no small part, for the money).