I’m an atheist, and I am completely unpersuaded by your arguments, which I’ve known for years…but you seem like a great guy! Someone it would be fun to have coffee with and talk philosophy for hours! You’re the perfect representative for Christianity. Well done.
Atheism is intellectual dead end, and rather childish. Its a faith based religion that can not prove its truth claim of there being no god. Life has never been shown to come from non-life. Even richard dawkins admittted atheism was illogical and then was laughed at for trying to describe nothing.
I concur, the arguments are weak, Brian is a civil and nice guy, though his arguments are nothing new. His desire to have his faith validated by science is kind of incoherent. If he is happy being a Christian and did not harm anyone, I would not mind him keeping his faith. It is up to him what he does with his life Eternal life......*laughing*.....I sure feel tempted to be always young and in pristine health. I bet I would enjoy it but I do not spend my years agonizing over things I will not have and I am suspicious that he mentions such big promises like eternal life, yet does not really say anything convincing to back it up but keeps jumping to different points.
I’m a Catholic and also felt like his argument was not the strongest. I do agree with his premise but he could have constructed his argument better. I believe in God because the universe follows an obvious intelligent design. There is order and natural laws that dictate reality. If everything was just one big happenstance there would be more observable absurdities that violated those laws. We know matter does not just create itself.
@@MountainsBreath this gives no proof of a specific god though. Especially not an omniscient, omnipotent, all loving god that influences our lives daily.
Comments from an atheist: First of all, you have found your beliefs rewarding and conforting. I get it. If you are convinced that someone is watching over you and all you have to do is follow the rules and everything will eventually be ok, then that will feel very comforting and might relieve a lot of stress and anxiety and will ultimately be beneficial regardless of whether or not it is true. I don't think it is a good idea to believe things based on how it makes you feel. I'm not saying you don't care if it is true but for me it is by far much more important that my beliefs are true or likely true. I think I'm being honest in my approach but the fact that whether or not something is true is almost exclusively what I use to judge whether I should believe something means I do not believe any gods exist. In fact I am convinced that no gods exist. Morals: Yes, even animals have a sense of fairness. It is an important tool for a social species and is thus an important part of our evolution. Treat other members of your society unfairly and they will ceace to cooperate and you are at a detrimental disadvantage. It might not be all that complicated. Laws change. That does not mean we got them wrong. AND no two people agree 100% on all moral standards. So there either is no universal objective moral OR it is hidden. Using the word "abuse" is poisoning the well. "Abuse" is a word to describe immoral treatment. The natural sciences can indeed tell us what ought happen regarding a desired outcome. I'm only half way through the video but I'll stop here and direct you to any presentation on secular morals. I think you are missing a point or two in understanding what morals are. Have an open mind and examine the flaws in your argmentation.
@@kolehollis5852 Lol well I have no reason to think existence was intended. Why is there something rather than nothing? Don't know. As I wrote, I can understand that it can feel comforting to believe that you exist as an intent by something but I find it more important that what I believe is likely true.
@@kolehollis5852 If someone needs proof or very hard logic, "why do you think we exist" doesnt provide either of those unfortunately. Whats your take on why we exist as it relates to proving specifically the existence of the Christian God?
I agree, I think this debate should always be in good faith because there really is nobody who's right , it's about showing why we view things our way which really isn't right or wrong because it's someone's perspective, I find it fascinating to hear somebody present their arguments of why they do or don't believe or aren't sure don't know . This is the debate that ought to be good natured and respectful .Im rooting for you, all the best
@@Trosvvo while you are right, I don’t think this was the intention of the video. He’s aware that he can’t prove gods existence in the same way you and I are unable to prove that he does not exist. It seems like this video was more of an instructional tool for those who have faith so that they have some grounds for an argument in support of their beliefs.
@@bygonesbegone oh I’m an atheist, I was just making the point that he seems to want to give other people some better arguments for their theistic positions. There’s plenty of refutations to his arguments in this video and it’s definitely not the best argument for god existence but🤷♂️
I definitely do not agree when you say “there really is nobody who’s right.” I don’t understand how you can confidently say this. Things are either true or not true and reality does not care about your opinion. There are rules in logic and reasoning and something is either logical or it isn’t.
For me the contingency or ontological arguments are the best and smoothest. Mostly because I've been helped by St. Thomas and St. Francis on the nature of God!
I think these are very good syllogisms, but I've never seen someone on the outside of belief in God respond very well to them. They always seem to act like I just did a magic trick or something and they have to try to figure out how it's fake. I think part of the problem is that, on the cosmological side, you're asking people to try to imagine the whole of reality and to accept premises about causes/contingency all leading to a source, and I think it's a little too big for most people that within that scale, they can imagine there's a gap that, even if they can't identify it, must somehow undermine it. The moral argument is something that descends to their level of experience because we can all understand situations in which we've insisted that things ought to be a certain way and they aren't. And it's within that struggle and that very personal experience that we glimpse the transcendent.
@@BrianHoldsworth _"I think these are very good syllogisms, but I've never seen someone on the outside of belief in God respond very well to them."_ - *As opposed to your argument which causes embarrassed laughter due to your lack of knowledge and facepalming?* The moral argument is an assertion that ignores everything we know about how morality develops and pretends that secular advances in morality were due to religion. Its based on both ignorance and dishonesty, nothing more. ... this is ignoring that the morality written in religious works, like the bible, is abhorrent and that the most religious people tend to behave with the least morality.
@@BrianHoldsworth And yet, when one monkey is given cucumber pieces as a reward for a task, and they see another monkey get grapes for the same task, the first monkey will get upset and angry. Almost like primates have an innate understanding of fairness. It's also an untenable argument to say morality is somehow tied to religion, because we do not have the same morality now that we did 1000 years ago. Nor do most religious people. The texts haven't changed, but morality has. So clearly the interpretation of those texts has changed. But why would interpretations change from within the church? Is the holy text, the most perfect book ever written, so inscrutable and obtuse it has taken many centuries of theological scrutiny to realise what god *actually* wanted to say? And only after this new revelation was come upon, did society get told they've been doing things wrong the whole time and need to change to save their souls? Or maybe the more plausible explanation is that the theologians, being multi-faceted humans with lives not solely confined to a religious bubble, were exposed to new thoughts and ideas from outside the church and then began viewing the scriptures through these new lenses... Also, does the fact that interpretations have changed mean that back when the church ruled slavery as moral, those faithful are now burning in hell because of a misinterpretation? Or is the modern interpretation wrong, and what morality is being taught is perverted and will lead to eternal damnation? Considering both cannot be true, slavery cannot be both moral and immoral, clearly there is a massive number of faithful who're burning in hell, because they were poorly guided. Do you trust Your interpretation enough to take that gamble?
@@DrBased First describe what you mean by "objective morality". If you mean it the way most apologists do, then no, objective morality doesn't appear to exist.
Half of the video was spent explaining the already well discussed problem of subjective morality, the other half non sequitur-ing into the argument that objective morality "proves" a higher spiritual existence. This has nothing to do with any gods and frankly was a waste of time... You didn't prove anything about God OR the nature of morality, only that good things are good and therefore there's a source of what makes good and bad. Very non sequitur I think
The fact that you are even asking for proof of God already implies that there IS a God. If you are a mere product of evolution and chemicals then your brain was already pre-wired to ask that question, your thoughts your feelings the questions you ask are all just product of evolution and chemical reactions. That means things like truth proof or reason are illusions in your mind. So for you to ask another person for proof about anything means you are contradicting your worldview or that you don’t really believe you are only a product of evolution and chemicals.
@@Scott777 That might just be the dumbest thing I've ever read... we'll just ignore that you assumed I believe that "we're a product of evolution and chemicals" without even asking (TERRIBLE discourse etiquette) and get to the point. Asking for and expecting quantifiable evidence for a claim does not presuppose the existence of a God, simple as that. I could go on about the myriad other things you got horribly fractally wrong in your response but it all boils down to that. If you believe that any objective reality is contingent upon a God then you're out of your mind
@@angeloortiz2769 so you believe you are a product of evolution, chemicals and something else NOT material? Or are you saying you are a product of neither? Should I have said atoms or molecules quarks? It makes no difference. My original statement cannot be refuted regardless, you are asking for proof and truth and such things are only possible if they are rooted in an objective reality beyond the physical/material and not just from the electrical firings in our brains. Think carefully about what im saying to you.
@@angeloortiz2769 so you believe you are a product of evolution, chemicals and something else NOT material? Or are you saying you are a product of neither? Should I have said atoms or molecules quarks? It makes no difference. My original statement cannot be refuted regardless, you are asking for proof and truth and such things are only possible if they are rooted in an objective reality beyond the physical/material and not just from the electrical firings in our brains. Think carefully about what im saying to you.
There is nothing saying atheism doesn't promise hope, as an atheist, I have faith. Faith in myself. And to me, that is more credible than relying on something that is unknown and unpredictable. I have faith in my strength and my potential, after coming out of a 10 year abusive relationship. I can't trust anything but myself. Mental abuse against a child for ten years until the child snaps and has to leave is wrong, that is not a preference, as no therapist could argue that I needed my abuse, that I would have been worse off without being abused for 10 years. There is no right and wrong, but there is pain, and hurt. Nothing can justify my 10 years of pain.
brother, im sorry for your abuse, but if you just had faith in a living creator who wants to be in a relationship with you, you would be healed from your scars, i will pray for you no matter how much you oppose God
@@johannacostigan8649 if you claim this god has a relationship with you which denomination does he say is the right one? i don't believe you, you say god is personal but he never passes on ANY useful information, only stuff we already know or stuff that has no practical application. you get him to tell you how to get cold fusion working and i'll have some respect for you, so far though this "personal" god who is omnipresent 24/7 is flippin useless.
I think "God" is a manifestation of humans need to feel control to alleviate anxiety. It's a secret best friend, it's a hope for the future, it's someone having your back, it's something that gives you power in a group setting, it's something that explains away your inadequacies. It's a very effective tool psychologically. I say this as an atheist that respects the power of the mind. Regardless of how we equate that, We can't argue that it is indeed a very powerful form of self soothing. Some will need that more than others. That may even be dictated by circumstances. There's nothing to say that those who believe won't be crushed by an impossible reality and need that self soothing in the future or visa versa. I respect all views regardless
I think this is a very simplistic point of view, one that we all thought of when we were 15. Truth is there's actually good arguments for theism, the metaphysical impossibility of the infinite made the atheist arguments dig deeper into quantum physics and the fact that time can not exist at a quantum level is now presented as a way the universe could have had a beginning without an outside influence. Ofc this is assuming that minimum state of energy didn't require a cause which we don't know. Truth is both sides require a lot of faith, imo the atheist assumptions require a lot more of it though. May be ironic to some people since they have been led to believe faith is only a thing for believers.
@@jpg6113 Dear JPEG, I think you should stick to what you are good at, which is delivering pictures in a reliable format! Ha! I got you internet chum! Ha ha! Other than that good sir I say, good day!
@@jpg6113 I think the opening sentence of your comment is indicative enough of your intent and context for this conversation. So I have treated it as it is designed to be. With non chalant contempt and loose humour to accentuate the fact that you have taken a logical intelligent comment and equated it to simplistic and that of a 15 year old. Whether this is a self ego inflation strategy you are feeling the need to use as it's a bad day for you, or if you genuinely feel 15 year Olds have this insight then I challenge you to produce one as I've never come across them.
@@timm2824 Clearly we grew up in radically different environments. The reason why i said that is because a lot of my friends and i at that age said very similar stuff, we grew up in a very Catholic part of the world but our parents weren't religious. I can't fathom being in that age group and not "rebel" against authority and start arguing against Religion, this would be one of the first things everyone says when arguing against it.
It has it's flaws. Not really in it's premises but in that if someone holds to determinism, they will always get out of it. So in order to get this to work fully we have to give a free will argument. there is a video, Braxton Hunter vs Matt Dillahunty I would recommend Braxton Hunter is a baptist and Matt Dillahunty is an atheist and is one of the hosts in the program, The Atheist Experience
@@piotr1387 Oh I agree with you. I was just saying that's how they would "get out" of it. Plus they could always say, you were determined to think that. Really an unfalseifiable stance. Which is weird since most atheists only rely on science for truth and science can only show something is most likely true if it is falsifiable
@@piotr1387 Ugmmm. No you can talk about moral good without mentioning the existence of God. Just simply ask a group of atheists on what they think is moral and you'll notice most of them never mention God in their answers. Unless a believer were too enter the conversation. Plus God's nature could be argued as not good so no.
@@piotr1387 Ah. Ok hears something you might not have heard before. This quote from a guy I know sums it up best. "Morality is simply increase of happiness, wellbeing, health, while what's immoral damages it. This must be taken into account long term not short term," Taking drugs not in moderation is immoral. For the short term you get pleasure. In long term you get pain. As one example. Plus I think what the guy meant happiness isn't anything related to just pleasure. Plus you can scientifically measure pain and pleasure. So their is some objective basis to it. Lying is wrong, because it can ruin the happiness or well-being of others. Though that depends largely on the situation. Rape is wrong on all accounts, because it increases suffering in physical, mental, emotional states of a person. What's morally right is giving food to the poor or telling the truth, because it increase health, wellbeing, happiness of a person. Considering the straight forward practical nature of it I think it's a pretty good basis of objective morality.
@@piotr1387 "There are many problems with the definition of morality you quoted. Firstly it's still not objective, because it hinges on people's opinion." Not necessarily. We know when someone is in pain or in pleasure. We can scientifically measure pain or pleasure by looking at the pain or pleasure parts of the pain. Plus this is talking about real happiness not hedonistic pleasures. What food too eat in taste you provided as an example is hedonistic pleasure. Plus maximizing health is measurable. You can measure how healthy someone is. Think of it like this. Morality is more of a objective demonstrable guide for a prosperous society. A prosperous society. Is a society that has all the needs reflected in the maslow's hierarchy of needs. The hierarchy is physiological needs, safety and security, love and belonging, self-esteem, self-actualization. That is morality. A society that provides needs of the people and eliminates anything that takes those needs away. You can have a opinion that morality isn't good, but morality is just a measure of a prosperous society. Plus a objective foundation can give mixed results depending on how it used. What helps for one person is not helped for another person. Figuring out what a person needs is needed in order to provide the needs of the people. People need maslow's hierarchy of needs plus people need a functioning society. A functioning society is a cooperative society is in a state of happiness, good wellbeing and in good health. Therefore what's moral is reflected by that prosperous society. A society that constantly steals will stagnate since people's wellbeing well eventually stagnate from such choas. Abortions is iffy considering scientists and philosophers alike don't know enough about the whole biology related to the process of a fetus to a baby or the understanding of what makes a person a person to give any moral advice on this issue with absolute certainty. Their is many arguments on both sides on the issue so I cannot say since I have went back and forth on for or against abortion. So I decided to wait patiently until someone finally gives a decent answer to the abortion question. On the whole breakdown thing that can easily be answered depending on the philosophy and thought process of the person. If the mother is worried so much about the ethics of the fetus just don't abort if not do abort. That is IF we have a better understanding of what makes a person a person before we can give any moral advice on the issue. Morality is objective, but situational. It depends on the situation. You don't always tell the truth, because if you did what would happen when someone captured you? Are ya gonna tell your real name and where's your family if they asked? Of course not. Plus the goal is too maximize in the long term not short term. If I have too give a little pain to increase happiness long term than that's ok. Plus morality could be both objective and subjective. It's subjective in the sense that their is a multitude of ways to achieve it, but it's objective in the foundation of it. If your saying the foundation doesn't work with enough proof than I would agree with you.
Its actually pretty simple. Things that are good promote happiness, healthiness and well being and come at no negative consequence to another. Things that are bad do not promote happiness, healthiness or well being or come at a negative consequence to others. It is linked to our will to survive as a species. We do things to promote survival rather than harm it. There is no god required.
The creation and maintenance of the universe needing a creator is my best argument. Moral standards are part of the harmonious way of the universe. We can upset them but they always come back into their own balance. Like throwing a pebble into a pond where the natural state is for a calm surface, the pond will eventually return to that state.
Yes, it's as though moral laws directly parallel the physical laws of the universe. But while matter of the universe is forced to obey the laws of physics, beings with freewill can choose whether or not to follow the moral law. However, if the moral law is not obeyed, it is the same result as if physical laws were not obeyed: existence would break down into chaos. Of course, God's laws also contain corrective measures (God's laws of justice) for any individual who disobeys the moral law, thus setting things back on course.
That might be a good reason but what gets me is that which gods holy book has the right set of morals? If there is an intelligent creator then that creator defines what morality is. Unless there are more than one intelligent creators and everyone’s path to heaven leads to salvation, we might fall victim to a false god. Another thing than makes me doubt an INTELLIGENT creator(s) is from the mass extinctions of the world. I think if the creator was intelligent, mass extinctions wouldn’t be necessary
I personally consider myself an atheist, but I wanted to thank you for showing respect and not falling into argument like lots of other RUclipsr. So thank you
On a number line of positive and negative numbers God is zero, niether existing or existing, No argument can define a being that exists in all states at once defined by a false argument with the expectation of a sum of true or false when both states are true and false at the same time. You can not truly measure Zero by itself or God. Because even in a pure vaccume space is still being created from nothing so you truly can not measure down to Zero and reach nothing. at the same time you can never be rid of something because something will always be there. You can not imagine non existence because darkness is something no matter how long you imagine it. If you haven't heard the Hidden Gospal of John I highly recommend it.
@@Lok783 dude, a theistic argument propagated on the cosmic unintelligibility of a supposed supernatural entity is no good at all. You can’t seriously expect anyone to believe in your cause when your argument is that it’s impossible to understand the main entity of said cause. At that point you are just asking people to base their entire lives on unsubstantiated here say. This is not even getting into the fact that a supposedly good god would have absolutely no reason to make himself so incredibly inaccessible. You might as well just have said Source: “trust me bro”
Looking forward to this one! I have never needed proof that God exists because I've always KNOWN that God exists. I am lucky that I have never doubted His existence or needed to prove to myself that He exists. For me, just looking at the little toe of my newborn babies (this is back in the 1980s) and how perfect those tiny toes were was a demonstration of the glory of God's creation. It moved me! How can anyone look at that tiny perfection and not believe in God is beyond my comprehension!
What would proving God mean? We believe God is a person. What would it mean for us to prove a person? For example, I see a photo of John, but it doesn't mean much to me because I don't know him. John from the photo is just a generic face to me, lost to me among thousand of everyday people I see on the street but don't meet them. Only when I get to know John, that photo stops being irrelevant. Even with people, proving means little to is, getting to know a person makes a difference. Much more so with God, with Christ.
With respect, you won’t convince anyone with that argument because it’s arbitrarily and inconsistent. If you are willing to believe massive life-altering doctrines that affect every action you take, and every thought you think, WITHOUT any evidence other than physical beauty, then you’d be far too easily convinced of anything.
Excellent and very valuable testimony, especially in these dark days we’re living in our beloved Church. Thank you Brian for sharing your amazing and realistic faith. Our Lord must be very proud of you for being light and salt to all of us. 😇May God keep blessing you and your family every single day. 🙏🙏🙏
Arguments ain't evidence. That said - I can precisely say the same about my atheism. It has given me great joy, hope purpose, and meaning. (and as I say that - you hear secular ambient music playing and my tone changes with sincere honesty) And If I had used this as my FAVORITE argument for my disbelieve in your god it would be a terrible argument, and I won't use it. Look at it with honesty.
Firstly, that wasn't my argument. Secondly, what is your evidence that "arguments ain't evidence." If you hold such a strict standard of evidence for others, then why don't you hold yourself to it with every assertion that you make?
@@BrianHoldsworth Arguments for God aren't evidence for God. If you claim an argument for something is evidence for something, then why don't you hold yourself to it with every argument made for something you disagree with?
@@BrianHoldsworth DEMONSTRATE god, all you people have is talk, talk, talk and it's nonsense talk too, this "personal" god never gives you any practical information, apparently even HE doesn't know which denomination is the correct one, even though he is "personal" and you say he talks to you daily. talking does nothing, drag this god onto your show, then i'll be impressed, but as god is a figment of your sorry imagination that will NEVER happen. really until you have some way to show that god isn't pure fantasy you ought to keep your nonsense stories to yourself, this massive spreading of lies about existence ought not be tolerated.
Actually when I became a Christian there were many strongholds in my life that disappeared immediately. I stopped drinking, smoking, etc. without even a struggle. This alone would constitute compelling evidence for Christianity.
Yes, the most compelling evidence for any one individual is to have direct and personal experience with God and/or the spiritual. Of course, this usually doesn't satisfy the skeptics who have not experienced such things themselves.
@@EndTimesHarvest And the fact that believers from more than 1 religion are talking about that kind of experience make me very skeptical about it being a "Real" divine experience
@@chanseyinthehood8415 while we are rapidly moving towards two sides God's - satans at this point in time God is working inspite of doctrinal differences and is bringing all believers of honest heart towards one Accord... So Him working with people who have a different understanding is to be expected. I know he has definitely delivered myself and many I know from a darkness none of us could escape from... And I praise Him for the freedom from slavery...
Ultimately the best argument for God's existence (i.e. the truth) is subjective. It is the one that brings the person to the foot of the Holy Cross of Jesus in repentance. For me it was living in sin and achieving everything I ever wanted and stil having that nagging question: are you satisfied? To which I could only ever answer no. It did me no good to gain the whole world but forfeit my soul. I was restless until I found my rest in Christ
@Scott Seufert You missed the point of my post. Let's see if I can explain it for a remedial reader Let's assume you love your mother. Is your reason(s) for loving your mother subjective (i.e. yours alone)? Does that make it anecdotal? Yes...but it isn't a fallacy because love is relational, it is personal. It is the same with God because God is love. I'll say it another way: if you think you only need an argument for proof of God's existence (such as those in the Summa or any other), you are still very far from God. The demons believe and tremble, but they don't love God.
@@illumoportetcresceremeaute887, writes _"It is the same with God because God is love."_ Nothing can _be love,_ love isn't a thing. Love is a description we give to an emotion we experience.
@@fred_derf Your definition of love is irrelevant. It is not the Christian definition of love. When we say love, we mean: willing the good of the other over the self. This is pure will, not one iota of emotion. God is love because God is pure good will. God always wills the good of His creatures even to the point of humiliation and death on the cross.
The music in the background is a manipulation tactic called emotion over intellect. It’s meant to encode emotion within us to override our critical thinking skills.
@@africanhistory the words matter, but if you ever watched a movie then you can tell that music makes the scene have more gravity. Whether it’s sad, romantic, wholesome, or action packed.
god has disgusting morals and christians do too, if you say god has the right to kill everyone on the planet with no trial, no representation, no jury of peers, over an unspecified crime (what was EVERYONE on the planet dong wrong?) and ONE sentence, to burn (after being drowned) then you are a sick person and you need to re-evaluate where your allegiances lie - with god or with your fellows. doesn't "i was only following god's orders" sound familiar??
This video does not prove anything related to God's existence. It only depicts what is necessary for humanity to thrive as a species. My moral compass developed from my understanding that my life will suffer greatly if I do not respect and care for the beings around me...including all the species in this vast eco system that is earth. Not just egocentric humans.
I asked myself, If everything PHYSICAL Originated by Chance like most Scientist say, over Billions of years random Particle and atom forned matter mass dust elements gas Stars Galaxies ECT. Eventually forming Intelligent creatures, what would Enable these intelligent beings to make thousands of non random thought and decisions leading to purposefully Events Every day . Shouldn't it take at least a billion years for each thoughtful decision to be made?
@@evalsoftserver Why do you call it "chance"? Are chemistry, energy, and physics not organizing principles? Or is this simply inflammatory language meant to undermine confidence in a scientific explanations?
@@evalsoftserver, writes _" If everything PHYSICAL Originated by Chance like most Scientist say"_ That's not what most scientists say, that's not even what most cosmologists say. Instead of listening to apologists spout strawman arguments about what scientists say, why not talk to actual scientists?
I am happy you reached that conclusion. But your logic doesn’t necessarily follow. Another person could reach the exact opposite conclusion, that their life is better served hurting others for one’s own benefit and because the lack of any moral ontic referent they would not be wrong. Because at the end of the day, within your paradigm, nothing ever really matters. As the atheist Richerd Dawkins correctly stated, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” Therefore, though you may get some subjective satisfaction from your personal choice, according to your world view, you are only feeling the sensation of chemicals being released in your brain that again is ultimately meaningless. It doesn’t take a genius to realize this position is untenable and does not align to how we live. The majority of sane individuals live life in a way that reflects and points towards an objective moral standard. We talk of love, Justice, and forgiveness. We denounce genocide and other wrongs not in pragmatic terms but as real objective evil. The only way to cast such denunciations is to stand on the firm ground of objective morals. And the only way to have objective morals grounds is to have an objective moral law giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove in the first place. Difficult and inconsistent position in my view. I encourage you to take your morals seriously and reflect on the world you wish to see. A world with real moral choices and consequences and not mere preferences or tastes. One where we can meaningfully denounce evils and strive towards real Good. I recommend C.S.Lewis’s writing as they helped me greatly and encourage you to reconsider your stance. A loving moral God wishes to reconnect with you. He gave his life for you and me and experienced suffering just like on when he was tortured and crucified. Your comment shows your good heart. Unite it to the universal heart of God. I pray for you brother.
The TAG , or Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence, is not only THE BEST argument for God’s existence, it is also the argument which the Bible itself instructs us to utilize in order to defend our certainty. And yes, it is certainty. “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise.” - Proverbs 26:4-5. Basically , we force the non-believer to account for logic, and the transcendental , immaterial realities of life and the universe. They are irrefutable, and once I fully understood it, all doubt immediately went out the window. The atheist / non-believer / doubter MUST account for logic. He cannot get around it, he cannot dodge it, he cannot skirt the issue, because he has knowledge, and he uses it ever second of ever day of his life. It MUST be accounted for, because if it were not, no knowledge can or would exist, ever, across the board, about anything. The moral / ethical question is encapsulated within this argument - b/c if morality were truly relative, “we” (the universe) would have to individuate - to infinity (if it were truly true). This individuation would never allow for any knowledge; no knowledge, much less morality. BUT, there is morality , and there is knowledge, thus, it must be accounted for and grounded in something - and this something is what we call God. The only other move the atheist / non-believer has left at this point is to plead solipsism, but it too is proven ad absurdism via the laws of logic as well. And thus, he has hit rock bottom, and his worldview is proven false. For a very good (the best) debate on this method of argumentation, watch Jay Dyer vs. Matt Dillahunty, but please watch on Jay Dyer’s RUclips channel, b/c Matt D has edited his version of the video to make him appear superior. He is not. Jay Dyer , although a little rough around the edges, understands and articulates the TAG better than anyone I’ve ever seen before. His debate with Dillahunty is an absolute slaughter. Matt D had no idea what he got himself into in that one. It’s great for entertainment value, but also for getting a true and clear understanding of the TAG.
Good idea, the Bible says to believe the Bible so to see if the Bible is truth, you just need to read the Bible and believe the bible. For a minute I thought you might be a little bias.
even religists will say TAG is dumb. you can make a TAG about anything: the source of all intelligibility is actually the quantum field, i cannot be wrong about this as the quantum field doesn't have a mind and therefore cannot deceive me, it permeates the universe, so information goes direct to my brain via the wave function of the universe, and you are misinterpreting this as god as you are an irrational theist, you know i'm right, and you are suppressing the truth cos all you want is the comfort of heaven.
TAG falls flat at the first sentence, you need revelation to know that it's really god doing the revelation - how do you get revelation BEFORE you have revelation - you banana.
tjump has made ALL the TAG debaters look dumb, cos it is dumb. it's basically acting like a child and ignoring anything any reasonable person says. it's great for atheism though, cos only intelligent people can see how dumb it is. you get to keep all the idiots.
Grew up in the faith, had an incredibly pious mother, and know the Gospel... However, when challenged to dive into the Bible, it actually brought me out of my faith. So much didn't make sense in the book, and the metaphorical sweater started unraveling. I jumped onto this video because I'm desperate for a good argument for God... Unfortunately, all these were basic, flawed, and could be easily argued against. The argument that our laws are based around morals only shows that humans are moral creatures that seek order, not that there was a divine creator. In fact, I morally disagree with the God of the Bible quire a bit, so... That argument proves nothing to me. The argument of what does happen and what should happen again bases itself off of the fact that Humans cannot morally judge themselves. When in fact, time and time again, we can. We as beings, understand there is an intrinsic right and an intrinsic wrong. Does an action harm another? Wrong. Does an action help another? Right. We understand that as children... God did not need to tell us that. Just grabbing onto two of his explanations... Not trying to even start a fight. In fact, I'd love for someone to swoop in with a logical and intelligent answer. Feeling "lost" barely touches on whats going through my head, and so I pose these questions in hope for salvation and a good answer.
Hmmm... okay, so I don't think you can prove god from a scientific perspective because what the goal of science kind of is/became is to give an explanation of the phenomena of the universe and the world without god. So I feel like attempting to prove god from that perspective will always be fruitless. One way I feel we can prove God is through logic which is the basis of what science is based off. Everything created has a creator this is something we can all generally agree on hopefully. If you found a robot in the middle of a desert planet you would be able to logically say that due to the fact a robot is here people likely use to live here because the robot can't make itself. Science today has told us with some confidence that the universe had a beginning and they even have an approximate age for it. Which is 14 or something billion years old. judging from the fact the universe was created and things don't create themselves we can conclude something made the universe. We would also be able to conclude the thing that made the universe is an intelligent being due to the sheer complexity and order the created things show. We would also be able to deduce that the intelligent designer has the ability or power to make what it wants what's happen judging form the fact it created everything as we know it. The reason why there can't be a creator of the creator is simple it would cause a infinite regression paradox and that would entail that it could never get to the creation of the universe. Basically, if you were in an infinite line to check out a book you would never check out the book, hopefully, I said that in a way that makes sense. Also, I'm not a Christian, but I have looked into the bible and I found many contradictions so I definitely don't think Christianity is the right religion. And continuing to use logic I feel you can eliminate most religions without even reading their scriptures. Like Buddhism(or whatever the one where they worship idols is called) doesn't make sense because how could something that a human-made be the creator of humans it's illogical. Christians believe that Jesus died for their sins but if he was god and god was all-powerful why would God need to die for their sins. Also, How can Jesus a human be a god. I don't know what their definition of god is but if it can die it probably isn't god.
ohh yea I forgot to mention I'm a Muslim just in case you were wondering. Saying this I assume you have many or some questions about Islam and I think if you watch these part of these two videos hopefully your questions will get answered. 1. ruclips.net/video/XuyxicbhwQg/видео.html 2. ruclips.net/video/ZfYlpjlHxGY/видео.html
@@myguy4691 There are a lot of Phenomena that defy logic. Especially in the realm of sub atomic and galactic. Logic is just a human brain function, somehow flawed and sometimes easy to manipulate, as it is demonstrable within every cult and religion. Relying purely on logic for deduction without proper data leads to catastrophy. Same goes to senses and intuition, which are easy to be mislead. Especially vision and feelings are highly inaccurate and not always correspond with reality. Neuroscience shows that even our memories of color, places and names might be highly inaccurate and changes everytime we remember them. If there is a god, and is interacting through messiahs with the rest of the world, it is extremly and inefficent, flawed and childish way to do it. Especially if you always chose the empty desert to spread your word. If there is a god and it is out of our realm, thus not interact with us, it is pointless to speculate since there is no way to prove either way. Therefore, for all who claim the first option, I refuse. All claim the second option, move on, there is nothing to be had here. If you really have to try really hard with brain gymnastics, word salads, fallacies, set-ups and misrepresentations to prove your god is the right one, you definetly prove with that act that there is none.
I’m going to respond to your points as best as I can. In response to you falling out of your faith diving into the Bible, here’s what I have to say. In the Bible God revealed Himself to the people or Israel that doesn’t happen in the ways that the Bible describes. However, even with people back then seeing those miracles happen. Some still didn’t have faith. Adam, Abraham, and St. Thomas doubted God at first. Peter betrayed Jesus 3x due to a lack of belief. Judas betrayed Christ but wasn’t forgiven because Judas couldn’t bring himself to repent for what he did. All that aside, this begs the question: where is your faith in the first place? It takes two to tengo. The Bible is Gods word to all of us. He is revealing the at to us so it is our job to believe. We have free will and we can choose not to believe it, but The Bible and Christianity is not truth then why would it be revealed to us for our salvation? In response to your second point. You state that humans are able to know what is right and wrong without God. Yes with our intellect, us humans can only come so far to know what is right and wrong. How could we know premarital sex is wrong without God/Bible? How could we know that abusing alcohol is wrong? How could we know having pride when committing sin is deadly without God? We simply can’t. Yeah there may be signs that certain actions are wrong based on the natural consequences that occur afterwards, but God is there in the Bible to confirm what is objectively right and wrong. I hope this helps. And I’m happy that you want salvation and want to be with God and you are looking for more reasons to believe. God doesn’t ask us to be perfect he asks you to try. And this indicated your effort for believing in God. Hope you’re well.
The Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and literally thousands of other religions embrace these same "compelling facts" he presented...yet they're ALL different. All I know is that when I need courage, or motivation, or relief from grief, it's still there for me despite my lack of faith. Plus, I've made effort to spend more quality time with loved ones(and donate a kidney to one)in part due to my inability to believe in an eternal family reunion, thus improving my earthly experience. I focus on what I've gained, not lost, when my critical thinking matured to a level that isn't conducive with gullibility and confirmation bias required for adherence to religious doctrines.
I definitely agree! The moral law argument is very compelling, especially when you consider how many philosophical traditions it can reach and challenge. The first five chapters of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity go in depth into this argument, so I would highly recommend that book to anyone who wants to ponder this argument more.
Who said it feels good to believe? I just find the argument to be intellectually compelling. If that’s not a good enough reason to believe something, I don’t know what is.
@@kulturkriget the argument still has to prove what mechanisms god used to make morals objective, why some people are immoral, and we subjective morality exists
The fact that people have to use (flawed) arguments for god instead of just proving him with evidence is very telling. An all powerful being who loves you, but just can't interact with you in any demonstrable way always seemed kinda useless to me?
Morality comes from social group dynamics. For a social group it is better to have some moral code(x) to prosper. It helps preserve resources and improves survival. Morality is natural and evolves with complexity of a society.
"Consider that every human civilizations that we have record for..." The key phrase here is "that we have record for". This points to survivorship bias. What if "morality" that you're referring to is simply a social contract necessary for the society and civilization to exist for a reasonable period of time to create said records? May be a society that doesn't value the right to life or property is too violent and dies out? Would a feral human have the same "moral" compass one from a civilized society?
It's not even necessarily a matter of "dying out" vs "surviving". It could also simply be about whether they kept written records or not. If they didn't keep records, there's a much higher chance of us knowing nothing about them.
Allow me to elaborate what I mean, as I realize what i said sounded weird. All i was saying is that it makes since that a civilization would survive, if they created a means to order.
Not to mention the cultures that did keep records, just oral ones, and when missionaries arrived, they (for some reason or another) caused those records to go missing forever... Loads of African history has been lost like this, either not preserved because it wasn't deemed important, or willfully destroyed in a cultural genocide. Much like a certain nation is doing to its minority muslim population...
@@ianedwards4227 I think you cannot have a civilization without order. That is heavily implied in the word "civilization" itself. A civilization of anarchy is a contradiction. If the society you live in has wildly differing rules and customs every day, it becomes far too stressful to live in and the "civilization" never goes anywhere. It's nothing more than a momentary gathering of people.
Nothing stated necessitates that fixed moral laws actually exist. We can build a social contract around shared preferences and our own sense of empathy and the common good.
Exactly. That's what we humans are *already* doing. I'm not sure how Brian takes the *giant* epistemic leap from "we have moral intuitions" to "God put them there." God is most certainly *not* the best explanation. We have not ruled out all the other explanations. I would suggest to Brian H to interview a cultural anthropologist and a neuroscientist on the topic of why humans have evolved to have taboos, moral intuitions and, essentially, cultures.
BTS I was thinking of the Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith, basically stating we’re social animals and we pick up our morality from society and our sense of ourselves. I understand the desire to have these things fixed as immutable laws, but it’s just not true. Under the right circumstances, we can even have societies that permit murder and other terrible things. The only reason things get better is because we posses empathy in a high enough degree or are advocating for ourselves, not because of a moral law. Things can also get better ‘accidentally’ and then we just come up with some post hoc explanation too. Also, I always find it interesting that Christians are trying to ground things in objective laws when Jesus, asked on the very same question, tells people to treat others the way you want to be treated. Sounds like he was comfortable basing morality in people’s individual preferences. You don’t need a big brain to figure this one out.
Sure, you can make all kinds of arguments about social contracts, natural selection, social development, etc. The problem with these arguments is that they eliminate right and wrong as a real catagory. Murder is no longer wrong, for instance, it's merely unpreferable, disadvantageous, undesirable, or disavowed for the time being.
Jonathan Stensberg Why is that a problem exactly? I honestly think the bigger problem isn’t getting people to recognize ‘murder’ as ‘objectively’ wrong, but to get people to recognize the highly disadvantageous and troubling ways people are already being killed every day that we can’t seem to agree on including: drone strikes, domestic violence, crimes of passion, abortion and forced sterilization, economic sanctions and disinformation around infections disease that leads to unnecessary death. It just seems like every time someone talks about this, they’re talking about some hypothetical crime of passion or hate that they aren’t going to commit anyway. We are currently nearing a period of some very serious political violence in the US. That violence is held back by our social contract and mutual bonds, not by some abstract idea of what is ‘objectively wrong’. Nothing about acts people call ‘objectively wrong’ keeps people from committing them when given the right rhetorical cover and social / material circumstances.
@@jonathanstensberg Lol no, murder is still wrong because of the social contracts and social development. How do you make the mental leap from "you say you should treat people how you want to be treated" to " but that means murder isnt wrong"? Sure you can make all kinds of arguements about spiritual accountability from God etc. The problem is your reasoning eliminates right and wrong as a real category. Murder is no longer wrong, for instance, its merely not what God wants or how you end up in hell, for the time being. Goodness is no longer right, its merely what God wants or how to go to heaven. You're acting for you own benefit by being good because of Gods punishments and not acting wrong out of fear of them, not because you actually think they are right or wrong. You should try the mental exercise of applying your own arguements to your own beliefs and see if they still stand up.
I am not a Christian but I do believe in God, and I appreciate the energy that you bring to your videos. it's one of honesty and open-heartedness. Thank you for creating this content :)
Rubizel Murgatroyd The world reflects the God you believe in ,assuming you believe He is the Creator. Every living creature is part of a trinity, mother, father and offspring. None of us live independently, we are in a trinity of love (hopefully love, not lust). His creation tells us that God is an eternal Trinity of Love and Life. Jesus reveals to us the Father,Son and Holy Spirit. Ofcourse this is beyond our understanding but then do we really think that we can comprehend God with our limited human intelligence. The human family is as close an understanding we can get of the Blessed Trinity . Blessings
@@larryluch8178 I believe that God is everything and we're basically God experiencing itself thorough many different eyes and forms. It's complicated lol. I have a long history of taking issue with lots of stuff in the bible, but watching Brian's videos has made me want to reexamine it (it's been 10 years so I might have a different perspective than I did in my early 20's.) To believe in a certain portrayal of God or to accept something as my holy book though, I'd have to believe that it is absolutely a portrayal of Good, and I haven't gotten to that point yet. This time around I have more support to help me understand the Bible though so we'll see.
Rubizel Murgatroyd Yes there are some wonderful Bible commentators on RUclips etc Speaking as a convinced Catholic l obviously believe the Catholic Church has the proper teachings on all things Biblical but l wish you every blessing on your journey of discovery and hopefully it brings you to a prayer life and receiving Jesus truly present in the Blessed Eucharist. Your first few sentences made me laugh, too obscure for me 😄😇💒
I am a former atheist. I was raised a Christian, and a very sincere one. I lost my faith in God for about 5 years. In that time, I emersed myself in atheist arguments. I actually didn't, and still don't, find the simple version of the moral argument that compelling. Because it is possible to have an objective moral ethic that is not finally based on any idea of a deity. Chess is a good analogy. The game itself is ultimately arbitrary. Nothing ultimately objectively true about it. However, if we both play, and we both agree on the goal of the game, then based on that goal, we can objectively evaluate a move as good or bad with respect to that goal. Life is the same way. Almost everyone agrees that human wellbeing is good, a goal of mortality as it were. Therefore, actions can be objectively judged as good or bad with respect to how they affect human well being. Having said all of that, I came to believe that morality is about much more than human wellbeing, though that is a key factor. There are forms of the moral argument that I do find compelling. I can't detail them here. But I would start with the fact that we all, as human beings, recognize that we, as individuals, are not as morally good as we could be. We know we fall short. If we recognize that, then what we are doing is intuiting some standard, some ultimate good. In my humble opinion, a good moral argument for God is along those lines. Why I believe in God. There are several very important reasons. But the final point is this. I can logic myself into or out of anything I want if I so desire and put forth the effort. Logic cannot finally reveal the truth. It can only reveal your options. Once you know your options, you must choose. I think you suggested this very thing. I believe in God because I choose to. And I choose to because it calls me to. I am compelled to believe. I responded to that call by choosing to trust that there is a God, and that He is good. I love logical argumentation. It is a necessary tool in defense of the faith. But the final point about faith is that one feels the calling and chooses to trust it as an act of the will. This was a major insight for me in my own life. But argument does facilitate personal insight. So we should attempt to persuade others.
The most logically superior proof of God’s existence is “The beginning and the end”. We have to admit that something came before is; all people. We are a result of something greater than us, despite what it is. Our concept of God has become too much. All things are set by whatever came first. If only the universe is the greatest of all things than that would be God because all things, including us are set by that. But if something existed before the universe, then that is greater. We ask the question “What created God?” But we would then have to ask what created that, and then that, and so on. But we’d then have to admit that something always was. Whatever that is, is God. All that we are came from something greater. Whatever came first will be after all things and is greater then all things and therefore is God.
Time and space is just our human experience, so I’m not sure it has to be related to ‘beginning and end’. Everything that goes beyond our comprehension will be called ‘God’ anyway, that’s true. It’s indeed a pretty logical way of thinking: we aren’t all knowing and never will be, therefor, to us, God will always be the explanation for things beyond our capabilities of understanding or experiencing. Just like a worm can’t see or hear, we probably miss an infinity amount of possible senses. We just have 5. To the worm vision and sound are Godlike sensations if he was able to detect a little bit of them.
No. In the believers mind god is not merely "something". Everyone thinks there's "something". Atheist believe there's "something". Believers believe there is SOMEONE.
It may be interesting for you to know that my life has also significantly gained in levels of happiness, purpose and drive since adopting a new way of thinking, which is non-belief in a deity. What this potentially points to (I believe) is that the main focus for human growth is purpose...not how someone came to it.
The greatest scientific and philosophical question is this: why is there something rather than nothing? To me, it only makes sense that there are two default states of existence: absolute nothingness and the infinite. Our universe is somewhere between nothingness and the infinite; our universe is finite in nature. It only makes sense that our finite universe came from something that was infinite in nature (what we call "God"). How could our finite reality come from nothing?
A universal code of moral behavior is explained by the fact that 1. humans everywhere are all the same species, and 2. that humans evolved to be extremely social and cooperating animals. It is therefore not surprising that humans everywhere have much the same set of moral expectations. All social mammals have basic rules of behavior that are enforced to some extent by others of the species. That is part of what being social is. The rules don't have to be perfect nor do the rules have to be perfectly enforced. The rules only need to succeed to the extent that it helps the species be viable. Good enough to pass on genes is good enough for evolution. Nothing including moral behavior has to work perfectly. I like the Jesus look you have going there.
So why is it okay for other social animals to kill their mate after mating or kill one of two twins or abandon young at birth? Why is it different for humans?
@@tana7256 Because humans are a different species. A rather unique thing about humans is that we can adapt our moral behavior to the living circumstances in which we find ourselves. A couple of examples: It was once okay to abandon young at birth when the group couldn't afford to feed another person. It was once okay to own people. More recently it was once okay to litter and still is in some cultures. Remember moral rules do not have to be perfect to be effective. The rules only have to support the existence of the group in which they are held. God was once okay with slavery, for example.
The 2 problems I've run across in response to Pascal's Wager (the idea that perhaps it's better to just live your life as if God exists, because what have you got to lose?) seem to be : 1. The assumption that a person could "fool" God by pretending to believe something in which they don't actually believe. A person can't be compelled to believe in unicorns anymore than they can be compelled to believe in God... so at the end of their life, if God is real... wouldn't He know that they were faking it? Wouldn't that person have lived a life contrary to their true beliefs? Would such a person be rewarded for simply paying lip service? 2. Giving "license" to other unsupported, possibly dangerous, ideas. In other words... If a person puts their faith in something for which there is poor (no) real evidence, and lives their life by acting upon those beliefs... can that person really criticize someone else for doing the same? And what if the other person's beliefs are proving to be down right harmful of detrimental to others? Can one person using the same "faith" criticize another for doing the same... and still have a leg to stand on? And in regard to the question of morality, and the idea that science/nature can give us an "is"... but never an "ought" - Sam Harris does a pretty good job of dispelling this myth in his book 'The Moral Landscape". I'm sure there are some youtube videos in which he lays it out much better than I can, but in short... it's a thought project. We have to try an imagine a barren landscape, which represents the worst most miserable suffering for all people. Everyone living there is tortured every minute of every day. Once we begin to make some scientific assessments as to what's causing the suffering, we can begin to make vertical moves "away" from that plane of existence. The moral answers would be found in addressing what helps us to make those moves away from such horrible living conditions for all people.
Sam Harris never addressed that issue properly. In reality, there is nothing in science telling us that suffering is bad or good. It doesn't tell what is bad and good are or even what we should do. There is nothing in science telling us that it is good to help others and bad to kill someone. There is virtually no grounding for morality in materialism.
@@aidan-ator7844 correct me if im wrong, but does that really disprove the abscence of a god? I mean you are only proving that there is no materialistic cause or ground for morality, not that a higher being exists to have given us our respect for human life.
Though we can conceive of colors that we cannot perceive or experience. You also have to define what you are referring to, and whether or not it is fundamental. If you are referring to the color spectrum, then all colors can exist since it is just a wavelength spectrum of light, and if it was an impossible spectrum as if that existed, it would still be conceivable. There isn't anything inconceivable, albeit it might not be fully understandable because it would just be an idea, but it would still be a conceivable idea if not conceivable by us. If you are referring to the perception, green is also the mixture of blue and yellow in most color theory, and so green implies blue (although you could say red instead of green, but color itself would be meaningless/not a useful concept unless there were at least two to differentiate from. So if all that existed were colored green, green wouldn't exist because color, as well as most everything, is defined by difference as much as similarity.) Also see- www.quora.com/Can-we-think-and-make-a-new-color-that-has-not-existed
@@TriDexterousTiger You don`t get the argument it seems. I said "IF" all that exists is green. So imagine ontologically all that exists is green, which is what materialists argue in regards to the material world. If that is true, then nothing outside of the material world should be conceivable. If all that exists is green, then no other colour should be conceivable. It`s possible to misrepresent this argument or misunderstand it, but it holds true. If all there is is green, and nothing else, then all that can be conceived of is green.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 If what you are saying is that assume only green exists and green is also the only color conceivable, yes I agree, green would be the only color that could be in any form. But in regards to reality and considering God, there isn’t anything that is unable to be conceived and is completely detached from us, while we might not be able to completely experience it, which was my point.
@@TriDexterousTiger To suggest that anything is conceivable outside of the physical world if the physical world is all that exists (as in the analogy) is a non sequitur. You have to follow the logical inference. God should be inconceivable if all that exists is the material world. It follows. Think about it.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 I agree. I wasn’t intentionally suggesting that the physical was all that is and if it seemed that, my mistake. I was just clarifying that concepts/things need opposites or differences, things similar but separate, to be of any importance so green couldn’t be the *only* color. Also I was saying that even if blue didn’t exist it would still be thinkable, which from the oc it appeared to me you weren’t when you actually were. My mistake. I thought you were arguing the opposite of what you apparently were.
The problem: One can argue that even in materialistic view of human being (no soul), men decided, from "egoistic", materialistic view, to AGREE between them to do good to each other, so that the individual will not get harm. For example, lionesses hunt in a group, together. The lioness does not have a soul, and still, with less intelligent mind - they AGREED to work together and not, lets say, eat each other. The moral code is like that - a sophisticated agreement between humans that invented by humans to better their lives. Better the live of the group, and better the live of the individual.
"to AGREE between them to do good to each other, so that the individual will not get harm." This presupposes what is good. The ability to judge what is good and what is not comes before the supposed agreement. Just because you can see lions doing something that you think is good, doesn't mean they are moral. It just means you are moral for being able to approve or disapprove of their actions. You have no evidence that they evaluated the potential actions to be good or not and then chose to do the good one because it is good.
@@BrianHoldsworth 1. I do not presuppose what is good. I wrote in the sentence you quoted me how I define "good": "so that the individual will not get harm". Sure, "how to not get harm" have many interpretations, and we (you and me and the rest of the world) could be descendants of the groups of people that CHOSE the best method of not harming each other. Groups of people, or animals, that chose less effective ways to work in a group - are all DEAD now. 2. About the lions example: They are not moral creatures. I wrote it explicitly: "(no soul)". Look again at what I wrote. The lions are example of clearly not a "moral agents" that are working together in a group and an observer can do mistake and relates morals to their actions. The lion groups that chose less effective ways to "not harm the group" or "work in a group" - are dead today. P.S. I'm not an English speaker - so sorry for butchering the language.
@@gest07 You aren't getting to the root of what morality is. You're just telling me what your fundamental moral precept is - not doing harm. That's not morality, that's just a rule contained within morality. Morality is the ability to judge right from wrong. It is the judgement, not the particular acts. It's the ability to look at potentials and pick the right one as an actual. You're just giving an example of a potential converted to actual. That's not getting to the root of what morality is. Furthermore, it's a bad moral precept because it requires you to know what is harmful without truly defining it. Does that mean never causing pain? Because some pain is actually very good for us. Exercise is painful, but good. Medical procedures are painful, but good. Making sacrifices for others is painful, but good. Removing abusive people from your life can be painful, but good. It's also a mere negative - as in what NOT to do. But true morality tells us what we should do (positive). Anything that doesn't rise to that requirement cannot be offered as a summary of all morality.
@@BrianHoldsworth 1. Atheist or Agnostic can claim that there is no "morality" as in "the ability to judge right from wrong". Instead, we can TRY to choose the action that we ASSESS (and sometimes we assess wrong) will do the least harm to us and others in our "group". Again, the "ability to judge from right from wrong" do not exist. It's an illusion that stem from the ability of our mind to do complex and sophisticated calculations and to assess facts of reality pretty good. We then pat ourselves on the back and say: We "possess" the power of KNOWING right from wrong. NO. Why? Because we make mistakes on moral judgment. Not always, but many times. Why? Because it's just an assessment. Not a divine power from above. 2. About what you said: "it requires you to know what is harmful without truly defining it." True, I didn't define what is "harmful". Why? because there is NO set rule, "carved in stone". So how we decide what is harmful? The same way less intelligent creatures are trying to survive and stay away from harming their body. We can see with our own eyes that unmoral animals work in a group, and protect each other, to some extent. So why we could not achieve that? 3. About the pain. I didn't claim it's all about pain. But, because you asked about pain, I myself think that pain could have been the base, the start of "trying to not harm yourself". I can theorize that more sophisticated decisions that involve others for example, can be the product of try and error, where the error is not causing harm to the "group" immediately. The groups or cultures that chose wrong by mistake - are no longer exist. We (all humans that live today) are descendants of the cultures that chose more right than wrong.
@@BrianHoldsworth If morality is the ability to judge right from wrong, then which morality is the correct view on right and wrong? What is "true morality"? Nobody has been able to definitively, objectively show anything to be the case on this.
And talking about love... You discuss love between a man and a woman. Love is a diverse and broad definition covering a wide range of human interaction, what about love for friends, your parents, love for your children, your pets, love between two men, two woman.
Hey! I really liked your video. But it made me wonder, animals have been proved that they have morality, studies have been made on chimpanzees, dogs and rats. So, if that is true, it means animals also have a soul. How can this be in your argument? I believe in god but how can I explain it! Wow
@@bryannajordan7814 the idea of a perfect/ loving/ all-powerful/ all-knowing being making imperfect creatures then punishing those creatures for being imperfect doesn't make any sense and I'm tired of pretending that it does. But thats only scratching the surface as to why
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
I used to be an atheist for similar reasons. I earned my undergraduate degree in psychology while believing most of this but I ran into a problem. Much of what the sciences holds to be true has never been observed including the existence of atoms themselves. Atoms are simply too minuscule to see even with a microscope. In the early 1900s Einstein had to convince the majority of the population through a scientific equation. The big bang theory was originally rejected by most scientists as a desperate attempt by Fr. Georges lemetre to put God into the natural sciences but he was able to convince almost everyone by way of the laws of physics and mathematics. The expansion between planets via the Hubble telescope among other observations wasn't recorded and measured until much later. In fact a few years ago it was thought that the sound waves from the big bang were finally observed but it turned out to not be true. This would have been a smoking gun of evidence but so far, no such evidence has been discovered. In the behavioral sciences there are a ton of things that lack good physical data.
@@famvids9627 I am a psychologist as well (MS, Experimental Psychology, Villanova). I also happen to have a theological degree (MDiv, Ecumenics, Princeton Theological Seminary). I would like to caution you, one scientist to another, that science, and indeed all knowledge is based on observation. And everything real, and in the capable employ of the scientific methodologies, is observable - including atoms, gravity, even quarks. Not only are all scientific specimens observable, they are measurably so. Remember, all scientific approach begins with an initial observation from which a scientist forms a stated testable null hypothesis, contrasts populations under variable conditions, performs an ANOVA based on measurable results, and renders a publically accessible conclusion.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I would agree that everything is based upon observations but not necessarily by us. We cannot possibly be experts in everything and we must have faith in the perspective and observations of others. Another place where it is not observed is horizontal gene transfer and other forms of evolution that are not observed in real-time but rather in the fragments that are discovered billions of years later. If I wasn't so busy at the moment I would go further down the rabbit hole but this will have to suffice for now.
This is a great argument for why we should follow a moral law as compared to subjective morality but not sure why this leads to proof of Gods Existence. Our moral code could be encoded in us as living beings just because it’s what our biology has led us to intrinsically believe as humans. That could be the result of the purpose of some greater creators purpose or it could just be how we evolved. This feels like a “God of the gaps” argument of using divine intervention as an explanation for something science hasn’t found a solution for. With all this being said I loved this video and think this is a fantastic perspective for living life so if this was the universal doctrine taught in religion I think we’d be making the world a better place for all.
Evolution is why we developed the moral codes we have, but who is to say that a a higher will did not have a hand in our evolution (through naturalistic means). I believe that God had a hand in our upbringing as a species, after all he's always had a *"plan".*
I'd say the answer as to why we do not blame natural phenomenon, is because we know we have no control over it. It does not mean people do not experience anger or resentment towards the situation. In fact, people often redirect that emotional distress and point fingers during the aftermath. People are biologically designed to want to survive, and we, intellectually know it is better for ourselves individually, if we operate within a whole. This means we co-operate by preventing harm towards ourselves, and also unto others. You do not harm people, because people might harm you. And we all want to feel safe. It is a unique result of mixing animalistic rudimental behavior, with self consciousness and collective oversight. We often condemn people who display aggression, because it makes us feel unsafe within that society. We do not want it to happen to ourselves or the people we care about. It is not some intrinsic urge to know what is right, in fact, this is proven by the fact that our capability for empathy seldom extends beyond our small circle of people we bond with. We are biological computers that compute that harming someone is not beneficial when thoughtlessly provoked. But we are all capable of violence under the right conditions. Also, socialization is a huge part of developing a sense of what we perceive as morals and values., which is nurtured by empathic individuals . The result of people that are taught by non empathically nurtured individuals, can be found in your local prison.
@PeakApex _" Labor shortages are abundant. Have you ever heard of "unemployment rates?""_ The point went over your head. _"What kinda of mental gymnastics is that? Science doesn't say "the world is random and so everything is random therefore everything that is stable should be unstable." You have constructed a strawman out of grass."_ The point DEFINITELY went over your head. Here's the question he's posing. Don't strawman the argument: *It is unreasonable to presume that a random evolutionary process would create the thinking faculties that far exceed the need to survive, thus any argumentation that relies on the intelligibility of the universe is severely undermined.* Even atheists accept this premise.
So many people can't believe because they have been blinded. The reason I believe is because I can see the truth (and also I have had my own personal experiences with God).
@@TheSpacePlaceYT Is it within my power to entirely counter that argument by saying I have experienced the lack of experiences with god. If you can take your own subjecitve truth, and present it universally objective, can I do the same and cancel it out. My point is that your arguement isn't a good one, because you can say that about really any otherworldly experiece. I have seen the truth that the greek pantheon exists, doesn't mean it does. If everyone experienced your truth thats a different story, but most people haven't.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT Referring to the last paragraph you write, it is not unreasonable to presume that random evolutionary process would create the thinking faculties that far exceed the need to survive. We have objective proof of the evolutionary process being random because of the variation of species that are all on a spectrum of capability and intellect, all rooting from a select few species that existed a long time ago. We just happen to be one of the species that got extremely lucky and we landed on the highest known point of most spectrums of intellect. It is reasonable to assume that variety will occur because its random, the outcome is RANDOM. Its absurd. It doesn't make much sense. I hope this accurately adresses your argument.
First fallacy happened when you used Pascal’s wager - “if Christianity is right atheists go to hell, if it’s wrong nothing happens” so it seems like you should choose the option that promises eternal life as you said in the video at 3:00 but this argument is flawed as it is a false dichotomy, there are infinite possible gods which will all have different requirements for getting into a heaven like idea. It is also an argument for ignorance, as it says if we don’t know that Christianity is true we should believe it anyway. So no, you shouldn’t believe in Christianity because of Pascal’s wager.
I didn't use Pascal's wager as an argument. This video is about the moral argument, but I start with an anecdote about my own experience. That isn't proposed as an argument. You are also straw-manning Pascal for he did not publish his wager as an argument either, but as a reflection and a wager of probability. My rendering of it encourages further exploration as compared to the refusal to investigate until undeniable proof punches you in the face - which is a sequence by which no great discovery has ever been made. If you want to address the argument of this video, you have to deal with the logic of the moral argument I laid out after the intro.
@@BrianHoldsworth this was the dumbest argument i have heard. you did appeal to Pascal's wager, which is fallacious, and with the moral argument you made the false equivocation fallacy of equating objective and absolute morality. now you just have to give an example of a mind that is independent of a brain. also, if there is a god, you are not moral, you are amoral.
@@BrianHoldsworth This posted a few 5 days before my birthday. Great Video. Unfortunately, there is probably alot of atheists (actually 1 to 20) are probably rolling their eyes.
The moral argument may be compelling to the laymen. As a former pastor, now atheist, it was a last domino to fall as my “soul” lashed out for reasons to still believe. However, as I allowed myself to research the moral argument from naturalistic standards, this panic quickly faded. The Bible is subjective within itself, and subjective within the world. There has never been anything but subjective “moral standards.” A cursory reading of the text of the Bible shows the subjectivity of murder, slavery and lying. In short, the Bible gives a code of what a group of people, at various contradictory points, thought was “in group” behavior. Naturalism predicts this, and all laws are nothing but this. Your “screaming at the waves” analogy betrays your own point. Some of us did/do scream at them, and say “respect us!” It’s called prayer, and it evidentially does not work, because like you said, there is no personhood behind those natural deterministic acts.
My grandmother believed in god her entire life. She endured so much hardship as many do but even so walking with god made her strong and happy until her last breath. She used to say that god was her therapist. Who knows maybe this was all within her and had nothing to do with an external force but believing in this force is what got her through life. That being said, you cannot deny that there maybe some otherworldly force at play.
@@DrBased Try reading the Bible with more attention than you did my post. A cursory reading of Genesis 37 for example shows that it is an inconsistent mess, even the church admits this. The Bible is a fallible book of moral horrors. I certainly hope you’re not attempting to advocate for the clear biblical teaching of the moral rightness of slave ownership, complete with the beating of slaves nearly to death.
Agree. Even people who used to think that God is real, have now started to think that "religion is a man-made concept" to keep the humanity from chaos. Yes, it sounds correct, thats because we are look at it :retrospectively". Say in a business plan, first you assess the situation ->identify oppotunities-> make strategy. but when you do it from end to start, you make strategy but when you assess the situation, you are trying to fit a square in a circle.
@@AK-kd8iq such big shoulds and should nots are massive assumptions to make with no frame of reference. Science also doesn't just operate on randomness either, not sure what you're even getting at with that.
@@DharmaPT89 Well God is the ultimate necessary being, meaning that everything comes from Him. And Since He's the necessary being for existence, He can't come from anything else because that would make the being that He came from the necessary being. God is what we call the principle necessary being, also making Him the only necessary being. Since He is necessary for existence, nothing else could be necessary because it depends on the necessary being for existence.
@@isaacduplantis1114 Have you witnessed this god so well that you can personally give it attributes? Lets give the Universe these attributes and no god is needed.
@@DharmaPT89 (I forgot who I got this from) if you don’t think that something can’t come from nothing, then nothing would exist, there had to be something there, and then you’d have to ask where did that something come from
I don't want your best argument, I want your best evidence. When I say the universe is expanding, I can show you red-shift to back up my claim. What evidence can you actually show me?
Theists do not have proof, nor do they have any convincing evidence. But in my point of view this is ok, what is ridiculous is that they are not even able to come up with even a single rational argument for their god to be real.
@@doctorwebman Of course not. If they would actually have evidence they would not need faith. Faith is not only useless, it is very dangerous. You can believe literally everything based on faith. Faith is what suicide bombers have most. I prefer evidence, and everybody should. What is claimed without evidence should be dismissed without evidence or even a second thought.
@@hitman5782 well if you look at it like I do. If I were a grand creator and wanted a fellowship who comes to me of their own free will then t his world and existence is a test. A grand creator who wants fellowship and free will knows that a set number will choose to not join his fellowship. An all good being would not force Anyone into fellowship who doesn't want it. So why would a creator dump absolute evidence if he wants us to come willing on our own individual journey to seek him.
It's all chemical reactions in our brains attracting us to a favorable experience. Morals are constructed by our fears of discomfort and our attraction to self significance and pleasure, both physically and emotionally. I still haven't heard an argument for faith that can't be broken down to just that.
There's a little more when it comes to morals it's something that we got from evolution but I don't have time to explain it so I'm gonna dip but read something about it or watch a video anyway have a good day
It’s infuriating that this argument assumes that only Christian societies could make and enforce moral laws, such as theft, assault, and murder. When these morals simply follow the golden rule of treating others as you want to be treated. This idea existed long before the Bible was written. This common philosophy works because it enhances social cohesion. And why do morals matter, when the way to heaven is through belief, not morality. The most moral person in the world would still be punished if they happen to believe in the wrong god. I see this as the weakest argument for god. It would be more persuasive if statistics showed that Christians were less likely to commit moral crimes. When actually statistics show that of all religious groups, it’s the “none” that have the lowest rate of incarceration.
_Best_ argument? The Moral Argument is a _TERRIBLE_ argument! It's two baseless claims in a row: * that objective morality exists * and that if it exists it's best (or could only be) explained by a god If you and I agree Transformers (2007) is a bad movie, _that doesn't make it objectively bad._ Well the only difference between that preference and our behavior preferences (morality) is the consequences: * the consequence of allowing Transformers movies is more Transformers movies got made. Not a great outcome, but also not particularly bad. * the consequence of allowing murder is _people actually die._ A devastatingly more severe consequence. So when people cooperate to enforce a morality (like by our governments' laws), they don't need to delude themselves that they're enforcing some objective standard. All they need is to agree on their standards -- and that's what laws represent: the (often constantly shifting!) morals the community/nation has agreed to enforce with force. We don't have evidence of a single objective moral value -- and if we did, so what? We still wouldn't have evidence the cause of that moral was a god (which is what you'd need for this to logically be evidence of a god -- for it to be even a good _argument_ for a god).
I think employing the Law of Total Probability is the main argument in supporting the existence of God. There is no way that this universe or possibly multiverse could have come into being on its own. Life just happened? Did information come into existence on its own? No way.
Yes, life is not magic, it totally follows the universe rules, thinking is not that much. When you think it's just chemical reactions, you can say that when you use a drug you became a totally different person, or you can say you are always a different person, as those chemical reactions change all the time. And what information? The rules are not really rules, those are just energy manifestations, as me and you, we manifest as mass, gravity as force and it goes on. Just accepting it's "a magical thing from a super human" is kind dumb, don't you think? It's just to simple to accept that everything is resumed to a "man" that came from the nothing. If you think, his existence doesn't have any sense at all as he is not important for something, as existence for itself is not important, because if nothing existed, what would change?
@Daniel Green The arguments of those whose who will not even consider the possibility of a God depend totally on time to do all of the work for them of bucking the odds. They think that trying to explain the world around them (science) is somehow incompatible with there being a higher power who created the very things that they try and explain.
I enjoyed the video and the broad perspectives realized, but I have some problems with this argument. Law doesn’t need to recognize an objective moral code. It’s in place to allow society to function, and in most cases it is in accordance with how people want to be treated. There are disputes over laws too, like abortion, and there are changes in laws, so it isn’t based on an unchanging ideology. And more trivial offences that are less obviously wrong are not usually punished by the law, like being rude to others. Even if the idea of a objective moral code is appealing, you must prove it’s existence before using it as a case to prove its cause is God.
Of course you’re free to reject what is commonly the second premise of the moral argument for Gods existence, and then just boldly admit and own what necessarily follows from that.
Morality is a human creation borne of selfishness. "I do not want X to happen to me, so let's say X is bad and no one can do it." Not only does it not require God to exist, it doesn't require a belief that God exists or, indeed, the idea of a God at all. If someone still does X, then how do we stop that? We have Y as a punishment. Now, who hands out the punishment? This is where things get tricky and the stronger usually overthrow the weak. So .. how can we stop that happening? I know, if you do X then Y will happen to you, but none of us will hand out the punishment ... Z will. Now, you can't see Z, nor can you find him (or her), so there is no way to escape punishment. This has a flaw, however, that the punishment is never meted out. Eventually the person that did X will catch on and laugh at us and go right back to doing X again. So, how do we fix _that_ ? We say that Y will happen _after_ they die, and it will be eternal (cos that's usually a lot more scary than a simple Y). Also, if you are obviously going to be "alive" forever after you die ... then that's not fair on the people that obeyed the rules. So, they get to "live" forever too, but in a good place. If, by chance, something extreme happens to the X'er, and they die unexpectedly ... then we can say "oh, look, Z got impatient and wanted to punish him right away) What we now have is a "person" Z that is impossible to see/find, that judged people's lives and consigns them to an eternal afterlife of either punishment or "paradise" for any transgression of the rules we lay down. We have, effectively, created and defined "God" The more savvy (let's say, unscrupulous) will eventually realise that they can go around making people believe in Z and then make up rules to follow, leaving themselves in a position of power. of course, any transgression against that person will against the rules and Z will have them for it .. eventually. Not only have we now created "God", but also a "Religion" and "The Church" So, if it that simple to create God, Religion and "the Church" from basic morality (and we have seen pretty much the same thing done in industry, politics and cults), is it not more logical to assume that God is a product of morality, not its source? Of course it is. Man created morality. Morality created God Now, what was your "compelling argument" again?
As an atheist i really enjoyed this. It put religion into a new perspective for me, because most arguments that people have had against me you already need to have a specific illogical belief for their argument to make sense. And the way I see it and have had it described to me has been very limited in terms of posibilities and simply believes something for the sake of not knowing what else to think of it. But this video really made it more propable and logical in my mind by not drawing to conclusions that god looks like a human or is one specific entity. It does however still not explain the begining of everything and other paradoxal questions.
I like the moral argument. There's a good argument from evolution that explains our concept of morality fairly well. Basically, the universal morals are the "games" that we took part in that allowed us to become modern humans, and religion is our attempt to explain why we take part in those "games". Great video as usual.
Michael Thomas Stewart hey! Isn't saying "morals are the "games" that we took part in" just descriptive but not explanatory? The question arises, why did we take part in those "games"? Second thing, religion is not just ethics, so it doesn't explain just our interactions with other men, but also connect us to a transcendent reality. I'd say most of theology is not about the relations between men, but between mankind and God. Last thing, an evolutionary ethics would never lead to compassion of individuals outside of a tribe or family. Loving thy neighbour is not intuitive, meaning, it contradicts the laws of natural selection. Trusting, helping and loving people you don't know ( a rough sketch of human ethics) does not help in survival, in fact, it increases the probability of you trusting loving and helping people you shouldn't and end up dying, and so, making the transmission of those values impossible. By natural selection ethics, the strong do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must, and this is good. It ends up being "might is right", which is not how one sees modern ethics, I'd assume. Cheers Michael
@@joaodealbuquerque8819 Actually not necessarily. Their is a multitude of studies showing that being alone increases your likelyhood of dying. Therefore increase friendship as much as possible increases your survival. Therefore under natural selection cooperation is a betterment to survival. Cooperation is a starting point too morality, because without morality the cooperation will start too disappear. Since there would be mistrust between people. Plus plenty of animals have championships with other animals and sometimes with humans. Yet animals don't seem too show any sign of religion in them. So clearly you don't need religion or God to find moral values. Plus cooperation outside your own group can benefit you. I mean I have seen benefits a lot and rarely do I get bad things happening. Plus if this is really the case why is it that animals sometimes help humans out? They aren't part of any religion and clearly the bible states animals won't go to heaven or hell so if morality is really dictated by God plus animals don't really have a reason too cars for this reason. Plus a quote from a friend of mine sums it up best. "Trust is formed from experience and you need too start it in order too progress,"
@@thoughtaddict2739 hey! how you doing? Firstly, thanks for the thought food! Now, I think your first argument is a non sequitur, and it ultimatly doesn't adress my point. "Their is a multitude of studies showing that being alone increases your likelyhood of dying. Therefore increase friendship as much as possible increases your survival." I never said that "natural selection ethics" would lead to isolation, no, on the contrary, in my mind, they'd lead to a rigid tribalism, where trust outside of this group would be unthinkable, and not classic western morals of compassion and love (as caritas). Next, just because a factor in a small amount results in a bad outcome, doesn't mean you should maximize it. Just because being alone might end up resulting in death, it doesn't follow that if one's social interactions are fully maximized the same outcome will arive less frequently, just try to go across town, to the rough neighborhoods and socialize there, see if your chances of survival increase. Basically, socializing is better when one does it in a moderate fashion and not "as much as possible". Now your point about animals is interesting. I don't want to misread you , do you think animals are moral agents? I'd say they aren't for humans are unique in the sense that we are the only ones making moral judgments and choices, an ability Jean Piaget showed we are not born with , but develop over time. Animals might have strong surviva/cooperation -instincts but I'd say there is a world of difference between those and human empathy involving a Theory of Mind, that is, the ability to recognise that one's own perspectives and beliefs can be different from someone else's "I mean I have seen benefits a lot and rarely do I get bad things happening" I'm sorry but this one is just hilarious. Of course, you can act outside of your trust group, but that's because even the people outside of that group have moral systems built onto christian ethics, in some way, shape or form, even if not consciously. Now you might act with people of other cultures that have different values, but the farther away they are from historically western values, the more dangerous it gets. Say you go to the north sentinel island for the weekend, and you assume that you share the same morals. That'd be a grave mistake. Now imagine the everyone on the planet has the same ethical systems as the sentinelese, which basically is "tribalism/a refined "natural selection ethics"! does this world look like the one we live in? No, definitely not. "So clearly you don't need religion or God to find moral values. " Of course you don't, it's called natural law. An atheist can behave morally, but the question arises, where do those morals come from? Can't be nature, unless you're a sentinelese, we've covered that, can't be personal preference,then we'd never be able to say "you ought", so there is an objective foundation for moral values. What can this be? well, then we reach the moral argument for God's existence, i'd advise you to look it up ;) "animals sometimes help humans out" because they seek rewards, that's how you train a rescue dog. Now, on western ethics, an action is good even when you don't get rewarded. We can know this by helping out people that we don't know, and that can't, in any way, thank or reward us. For example, a woman who had a stroke in the street or a homeless who passed out drunk. Finally, here's my quote of choice, "let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair", by G. K. Chesterton, just to finish off by saying that Christian ethics are not a long list of prohibitions, a contrario, there are only two, love God above all things, and your neihghbour as yourself, and we needed God to become man, so we could know these rules, for, by virtue of our nature, we'd never get there. Cheers
@@joaodealbuquerque8819 Doing good. Cheers mate. Ok so your saying it isn't from nature? To some extent I agree, but that doesn't explain how some animals that weren't domesticated or was familiar with humans would help some humans in dangerous situations. You mention police dogs, but that doesn't explain how non domesticated animals would help humans out sometimes. You say they were seeking a reward, but that would go against their natural instincts too stay away from big animals. Plus why would they expect to seek a reward once the animals saved some humans? It doesn't know them for all it knows the humans are dangerous too it. It makes not much sense from a animals perspective if it were seeking a reward. Plus animals are moral agents if they weren't than why would they even have their own little social rules in nature that seem pretty similar to some form of morality? Like I said cooperation eventually leads too some form of morality, because if it didn't that wouldn't explain why social animals seem to have some form of morality in the group, while their is tribalism between groups when you think about it depending on the situation they might make a bigger cooperation simply by the fact that people might depend on the other group that they despised and so does the other in what you could say a tough situation. I mean think about it wouldn't their eventually be a group helping out another group and vice versa when both are stuck in a survival situation? Over time when they get too know each other they would find each others social values as useful. Plus their is a possibilty of the fact that since humans lasted for 200,000 years that they would eventually figure out what works and what doesn't on social values. Plus from what I remember weren't humans back than under some situations of close to catastrophic events? Wouldn't some take a risk too form a bigger group with other groups too survive? As such over time people are less worried of finding danger too strangers forming the possibility of friendship? Plus from what I have seen morality is just "increase health, wellbeing, happiness and decrease whatever damages health/wellbeing/happiness over the long term," It doesn't seem like God is really needed in the equation. Lying can decrease the wellbeing or happiness of people. Killing can also do that. Stealing also seems too decrease someone happiness. Rape can also decrease wellbeing happiness and health. So you know this. Just apply the opposite of these immoral actions and you'll see that it'll follow the effects of this foundation.
I asked myself, If everything PHYSICAL Originated by Chance like most Scientist say, over Billions of years random Particle and atom forned matter mass dust elements gas Stars Galaxies ECT. Eventually forming Intelligent creatures, what would Enable these intelligent beings to make thousands of non random thought and decisions leading to purposefully Events . Shouldn't it take at least a billion years for each thoughtful decision to be made?
2:18 Just because your life improved, doesn’t mean a god did it. Correlation is not necessarily causation 2:48 The problem is being ashamed of those modes of behavior. Not the behavior. Things like lust, using certain language and drinking (in moderation) are totally nothing to be ashamed of, yet Christians go crazy feeling bad about them. 3:00 It’s not a 50/50 argument. Stop using Pascal’s Wager 3:12 Atheism isn’t speculation. It’s a rational way of thinking due to the lack of convincing evidence for a god claim. 3:24 Logical fallacy. Just because a lot of people agree with something doesn’t make it true.
It is interesting that Christians have been relegated to the Moral argument to try and "prove" the existence of their God. It was not long ago that they clung to scientific observations, but those have all been destroyed. SPOILER alert: The moral argument is not a defense of Christianity's God, it is a condemnation of him.
Good argument. “You do you” is society’s current mantra, and without acknowledging absolute truth, everyone has their own set of morals and rules. However, this is faith: to be certain of what we hope for and sure of what we cannot see. Christians are certain of the HOPE we have in Him, as you mentioned in the video. And hope does not disappoint, friend!
It sounded like Pascal's wager for the first few minutes, which leaves us wondering which god to worship. The second point, "objective mortality", doesn't have to exist just because the alternative is unpleasant. Reality doesn't care if you're comfortable with it. We acquired a perception of morality because it enabled us to collaborate with our tribespeople. It provided an evolutionary advantage. If we had evolved a little differently, we might have a completely different perception of right and wrong.
You're replying to something I did not argue. I never said objective morality must exist because the alternative makes us uncomfortable. I invite you to listen again and pay close attention to the argument.
While I can't say this convinced me (unfortunately), kudos for being honest and not condescending. Your attitude is sadly rare among apologist RUclipsrs I've come across.
Hmmm. That may be true. It's hard to detect when you are already sympathetic to their view. But, this is why I would rely more on books than on "influencers". Ego is a big temptation with modern media and so you get an inconsistent cast of characters. In my experience, the authors of apologetics are quite good, humble, and patient with their readers. This video is largely based on CS Lewis' argument in Mere Christianity. I'd give that book a try if you're looking for a friendly tone but sophisticated and moving content.
Don't worry, its very very basic long debunked clap trap, sent out with a mish mash of word salad to sound intellectual. Basically he is saying "I don't want to believe that morals make perfect sense for a social species like humans so god must of done it"
@@rerooar There's more to it than that to be fair. But it still isn't what I would call the best argument, I would probably refer to Aquinas or something similar.
@@CantusTropus Who would follow those today? As a believer in God I would say "The facts are known man , the facts are known" have you watched Coppleston / Russell on utube ?
You should have a conversation with Pinecreek on youtube. My take from this video, You could get the same thing from meditation as you do from religion.
Yea, dropped the mic, and walked out the door in defeat. The mortality argument is one of the easier items to debunk... If God is so omnipotent, Omni benevolent, omnipresenent, then why was slavery so endorsed and women used as fleshlights for almost 2,000 years? Don't you think these "morales" from an all seeing, all powerful creator, wouldn't have to wait for governments of man to determine their equality? Look at modern day Muslims... They worship the same God of Abraham as you Christians, teach from the same old testament, yet they differ severely in these "perfect objective morales" you claim God the father imbued into us. *Drops mic*
@@tobehonest3104 I'm glad you mentioned slavery. Brian actually recently made a video about that very subject: ruclips.net/video/6ubvXLk6EMQ/видео.html
I have a question. First of all, I grew up Christian, and a frequently used argument was as follows. The gist was…If you spend your life without religion only to die and find out you were wrong, then you go to hell. But if you spend your life religious and then die, you end up in heaven. Good for you, you won. On the flip side, if you spent your life not believing in god, die, and there is no afterlife, no biggie. But if you were a Christian who spent their life believing in god, then die and there is no afterlife, then that’s also not a big deal. They would say, “what have you really lost?” In this scenario, as if the obvious answer was nothing. My issue is this… Isn’t this argument a form of fear mongering? Basically their argument is that you might as well believe in Jesus because if you don’t and you’re wrong, you go to hell. Hell. Hell. Hell. Eternal torment for not being able to wrap your head around Christianity, which, like any religion, is highly complicated and who’s authenticity is questionable. Why would something as abstract and difficult to swallow as faith be the currency to get into heaven? I’m hoping someone read this and has some kind of answer. I’ve been struggling for a long time with this and I’m sick of Christians getting on their high horses and offering half baked, condescending answers. (Obvi not all Christians are like this, but my experiences are what they are).
this is the 'most compelling' to you and it is debunked, will you concede that you no longer believe in the existence of a god? Or will you simply reset and ignore that your 'most compelling argument' is no longer in your philosophical arsenal?
@@TheBlackDogChronicles If one of several arguments is debunked? No, that probably wouldn’t be enough to change my mind. There are rational arguments on both sides, IMO. And I’ve been both an atheist and a believer. I would argue that if someone doesn’t think there’s a reasonable argument on the other side (either for or against God’s existence) - he hasn’t thought about it long enough!
Before any other more pertinent questions, I just have to ask you perhaps impertinently about those lovely guitars on your wall. LP junior on the left? Do you play?
@@worldnotworld Yes, I play a little, but my time and enthusiasm have waned somewhat in recent years. I play one of them in an older video found here: ruclips.net/video/jipW5YhuCrk/видео.html
@@BrianHoldsworth Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that? To the topic of the video, I think even if we assume morality we can say it's Platonic Form of the Good, and moral laws are like mathematical laws, no need for G-d.
It depends on the sentence. As a rule of thumb if you are going to the store for example. You’d say “I am going to the store.” So you’d say the same if someone was going with you. “John and I are going to the store.” Same applies if you use me.
Morality is based on material and objective things, it was also developed through evolution, as any part of our behavioir. Saying about something 'well I can't explain it, therefore God exists' is nonsense. Especially when there is plenty of scientific explanation, but instead of studying it you prefer to igrone it.
Dr. Alvin Plantinga (he is Protestant and is a pioneer in modern Christian philosophy) has many arguments for God's existence. He also provides a good argument why theism and evolution make more sense than naturalism and evolution.
I like this argument, Brian. I've heard it before, but your presentation was among the best I've heard recently. "Best" is too subjective a term, but this is certainly a very good one.
I'm a physicist, and heartily agree that physics tells us nothing (or very little) about the fundamental question of philosophy, viz., "How, then, shall we live?" Another was of saying this is: "You can't get 'ought' from 'is'". I don't know how to judge which arguments for the existence of God are "best", but there are many. So I'm going to defer to Edward Feser, a former atheist who began to consider classical philosophy. Here's one of his very accessible discussions, with Patrick Coffin: ruclips.net/video/9R3BXJVjwKI/видео.html
I wonder how you would respond to the observed fact of morality among the other highly social mammals on earth. The other great apes and monkeys have been studied intensely over the last few decades, and they each display characteristic moral behaviors as moral agents with theory of mind. They punish norms violations like stealing, cheating, lying, and infidelity. Their societies are structured hierarchically, where the most successful leaders display not only strength but also charisma - brotherhood and sisterhood. They form alliances based on mutual aspiration, reconcile after conflict, express (and hide) jealousy or joy, comfort each other, celebrate together, and grieve together. They have a keen grasp of fairness and of “tit-for-tat” - what we would call The Golden Rule. They have the intense loyalty to the in-group and are suspect of outsiders. If something in the universe provides an objective moral standard, it clearly doesn’t just apply to humans. And it doesn’t just stop at apes - it goes on and on throughout the tree of life, to varying degrees of similarity to our own. Given these facts, what are the implications for the source of objective morality? And why does “whichever species you happen to be” determine the moral guidelines your species follows?
"I wonder how you would respond to the observed fact of morality among the other highly social mammals on earth." I deny it. Just because you see an animal do something that you find morally agreeable, doesn't mean that it did it for moral reasons. Moral goodness means judging between potential alternatives and then choosing the right one because it's right. There's literally no evidence that any creature, other than humans do this. The only way to provide such evidence would be by getting them to communicate that they can perceive and judge between potentials - which they can't do... because they aren't rational.
If I'd met someone like you while I was going through life, I would probably still be religious. You have such an interesting thought process and I'm gonna binge your videos to try and understand your perspective.
@@maow9240 probably not for other people but it was a destructive choice for me. Not everything should be forgivable and being good to others shouldn't be motivated by eternal reward. To each their own though.
@@sarbnitrof4663 it takes love to forgive and if you arent willing to fully forgive someone do you really love them if they truly are sorry for what they've done which is why they are seeking your help to keep them from going back to such a way of life? Who cares about eternal reward when it comes to the truth? Wouldn't you rather follow the truth despite if there was an eternal reward or eternal torment. You are aware that one doesn't get into heaven on good deeds alone right? How is Christianity a destructive choice? I've heared others says this but when asked they only complain about the old testament instead of actually answering that question about how Christianity is destructive for them.
That's called an "opinion." And it doesn't take a genius to know what constitutes moral behavior. Morality is what it is. It doesn't require an explanation nor justification.
I find the whole conversation dumb because humans have extremely limited knowledge about the world and the universe, we don’t even know if there are aliens, we haven’t even been to mars physically and we have are talking like we “know” something created the universe or not? its stupid.
Q1. Have you ever seen a god interacting with people within reality? Q2. Have you ever heard of someone lying? Q3. What's more likely, that a god used to interact with people within reality thousands of years ago and now plays hide and seek or that it's a bunch of stories made up thousands of years ago that never happened at all?
I recommend Brian Welch of Korn's youtubes. No lies. Or the many Muslim stories of encounters with the spirit of Christ and their conversions, not to atheism.
@@VandeVisscher The christ story is a 2000 year old legend that no one would ever believe if not for the extreme power of indoctrination. If there was a god it certainly wouldn't owe anyone anything unless of course it wanted anyone to actually know that it existed. In that case it would owe everyone a direct encounter the likes of the Damascus road experience. But since there is absolutely no reason to believe that any of the hundreds of thousands of gods that have been fervently believed in ever actually existed, there will NEVER be a real encounter with a god. Sorry to be the one to break the news to you
@@donnyh3497 Why is there no reason to believe God? You can get a glimpse of God through reason. Or at least you can come to the conclusion he exists by the use of reason.
If you think about God simply as being the highest being on the pyramid of beings (kinda like feudal system) than we could talk about things like that. But God is being itself, God is ground of all being, reason why there is something rather than nothing. He is not good in the same sense as we are. When we say - he is a good man, we usually mean that that person HAS a quality of being good. But God does not have a quality of being good, he IS goodness itself, and whatever we have as good has it's source in God. However, we must take into account that our peespectives are limited and that we tend to confuse certain things. For example - we confuse comfortable and what brings good emotions as being good. But drugs can make someone feel good and they are still bad. Likewise, we sometimes say - this is the best thing that has happened to me in my life and only later we discover it was bad. Or vice versa, sometimes we think that something terrible has happened to us, and later it proves to be good. And that is only when we take into account our own situation, and our very limited time here. But, if we are so bad at judging that, how can we even possibly be sure that what happens now is bad or good into grand scheme of things multiplied by billions of people and millions of years?
I'd add that cruelty and lack of caring are,like all sin, just lacks, that is, defects in good. Thus evil is a dependent parasite on good and cannot stand alone, while good is self sufficient.
@@rasmusmller625 True, I think it's the line of st. Augustine, evil defined as lack of good, it doesn't have it's essence. In that respect, only the good can be absolute, and the evil relative. I think it's also one of the main reasons christianity is hated on (mayve even religion in general), it provides a guide towards what is absolute good, and that makes many things relative. It's a blow to our tendency to proclaim that what we do, think or feel is a measure of truth. The call of Christ is to be shaped by him, with him and in him while instead lf trying to make reality and others bend to our own personal truth.
Nah, cuz what would that evidence look like? The only truly irrefutable evidence for anything is going to be something we can physically investigate through scientific means. Any other "evidence" for something outside of the realm of science (like God) will always be argued about, and will never truly convince anyone of anything, as it is nothing like the concrete scientific evidence we're used to. And so even if we were given a divine argument by God, I believe that people would still find ways to refute it, albeit incorrectly. A divine argument is useless if the unbelievers are unwilling to believe in the first place. Besides, I would argue that God brings people to Him in ways far superior than arguments and logical discussions (cuz let's be honest, nobody leaves a God debate convinced of anything else but what they already believed at the start). In my experience, people have been converted far more often by seeing God act through a Christian firsthand. An act of mercy or love is far more compelling than any argument devised by Man. In fact I'd even go as far as saying that the Divine Argument is Action itself.
I agree that the Best Argument for God's existence is hope. If you have hope that you can avoid death, it's the ultimate price, I cannot imagine a price bigger than that. The difference between a theist and an atheist is that atheists do not believe a sales pitch that sounds a BIT too sweet. When you sell something too good, I at least want SOME evidence, if you could just show any evidence, a whisp of evidence, a hope of evidence.
@@BrianHoldsworth Great question. Some good examples are Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, Jay Dyer, and Fr. Dcn. Dr. Ananias. The last two are currently alive and are collaborating on a book on the topic at this very moment, to be released shortly, and you can find them here on RUclips (Fr. Ananias can be found under the name "Norwegian Nous"). You might not find everything about them agreeable, I certainly don't, but, their argumentation on this matter is impeccable, so give them a fair shake. Also, St. John of Damascus, Aristotle, and Kant also make use of transcendental arguments of this sort, although in somewhat different contexts. Essentially, the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (also called 'TAG') does what you touched on in regards to moral transcendental categories, and applies that same reasoning to *all* transcendental categories. Thus, the argument can be expressed as a kind of reductio ad absurdum, in which anything but the Christian God's existence (yes, specifically the Christian God, as other conceptions of deity don't do what they would need to do to provide a coherent basis for transcendentals, only the Christian God does) leads to an absurd conclusion. This sounds like a very grandiose claim, but it has been thoroughly backed up. If you want an example of this argument in action, I can point you to probably the greatest theism debate of the 20th century, between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein. Dr. Stein is your typical atheist type, and he ends up thoroughly refuted. It's truly a joy to behold.
One of the most pointless things you could do is argue for the existence of God. This is because ultimately we get nothing from it. God does not reveal himself to those who have found a good argument, nor does he for those you are arguing against. Life tends to stay the same. Religion is based on faith not fact.
We have no free will. What we have, is a subjective freedom. We think that we are free, but of course we are part of the determined Universe and can not break free.
I am a strong atheist, meaning I see no evidence for any god(s). Pascal's Wager (i.e. 'bet on God') ignores the possible existence of other gods, with other forms of morality. Morality is simply defined by a society. Is slavery moral/allowed? In pre-civil war U.S. it was. Currently it is not allowed. Read Sam Harris on science and morality, in "The Moral Landscape" he shows that science can determine morality, if you assume that morality is concerned with happiness.
I missed the part where it was shown that morals have to have origins outside of this realm. Different cultures have different moralities - if a god supplies us with morality, how is that so? Does god only supply the basic moralities? Then why do we have murder and theft? Somethings just not adding up.
+mrhyde7600, writes _"I missed the part where it was shown that morals have to have origins outside of this realm."_ It wasn't shown. It's never shown because it's not true. It's just a presuppositional claim apologists make in order to claim evidence for their invisible-friend.
@@fred_derf Too bad none of the soldiers of gods army could bother responding. Funny how they have the helmet of salvation the breast plate of righteousness and all that shit and they are safely behind a keyboard somewhere but yet none of these cowards can bring themselves to even attempt an honest response. Pathetic.
If there isnt invisible thing having an impact on life and our mortality like you said then what is feeling how do we have those are impact on our life sad how do we feel mad what how do you explain that what I'm thinking right now how am I supposed to trust in that if it's invisible and nothing has an impact on me?
Also many atheists say where did God come from? So I'm talking about time space and matter so if there is a God that is not affected by time space and matter so if we are talking about that then that means there is no God but there is time space and matter.
So if God is not affected by time space and matter then that makes him God. And like how you were saying how why is their theft and murder it's because God created humans he didn't create what they did it's like a computer you don't see God running around in there changing the numbers no he created the man that created the computer.
I’m an atheist, and I am completely unpersuaded by your arguments, which I’ve known for years…but you seem like a great guy! Someone it would be fun to have coffee with and talk philosophy for hours! You’re the perfect representative for Christianity. Well done.
Atheism is intellectual dead end, and rather childish. Its a faith based religion that can not prove its truth claim of there being no god. Life has never been shown to come from non-life. Even richard dawkins admittted atheism was illogical and then was laughed at for trying to describe nothing.
I concur, the arguments are weak, Brian is a civil and nice guy, though his arguments are nothing new.
His desire to have his faith validated by science is kind of incoherent. If he is happy being a Christian and did not harm anyone, I would not mind him keeping his faith. It is up to him what he does with his life
Eternal life......*laughing*.....I sure feel tempted to be always young and in pristine health. I bet I would enjoy it but I do not spend my years agonizing over things I will not have and I am suspicious that he mentions such big promises like eternal life, yet does not really say anything convincing to back it up but keeps jumping to different points.
Yeah, If i wanted to keep sinning. I throw all logic out the window to keep my dopamine receptors fucked up.
I’m a Catholic and also felt like his argument was not the strongest. I do agree with his premise but he could have constructed his argument better. I believe in God because the universe follows an obvious intelligent design. There is order and natural laws that dictate reality. If everything was just one big happenstance there would be more observable absurdities that violated those laws. We know matter does not just create itself.
@@MountainsBreath this gives no proof of a specific god though. Especially not an omniscient, omnipotent, all loving god that influences our lives daily.
Comments from an atheist:
First of all, you have found your beliefs rewarding and conforting. I get it. If you are convinced that someone is watching over you and all you have to do is follow the rules and everything will eventually be ok, then that will feel very comforting and might relieve a lot of stress and anxiety and will ultimately be beneficial regardless of whether or not it is true. I don't think it is a good idea to believe things based on how it makes you feel. I'm not saying you don't care if it is true but for me it is by far much more important that my beliefs are true or likely true. I think I'm being honest in my approach but the fact that whether or not something is true is almost exclusively what I use to judge whether I should believe something means I do not believe any gods exist. In fact I am convinced that no gods exist.
Morals: Yes, even animals have a sense of fairness. It is an important tool for a social species and is thus an important part of our evolution. Treat other members of your society unfairly and they will ceace to cooperate and you are at a detrimental disadvantage. It might not be all that complicated. Laws change. That does not mean we got them wrong. AND no two people agree 100% on all moral standards. So there either is no universal objective moral OR it is hidden.
Using the word "abuse" is poisoning the well. "Abuse" is a word to describe immoral treatment. The natural sciences can indeed tell us what ought happen regarding a desired outcome. I'm only half way through the video but I'll stop here and direct you to any presentation on secular morals. I think you are missing a point or two in understanding what morals are. Have an open mind and examine the flaws in your argmentation.
Why do you think we are here?
@@kolehollis5852
I'm tired of hit and run apologetics. Elaborate on the question or go away.
@@nmklosterlol well what I mean is what do you think the reason is to why we or anything at all exists?
@@kolehollis5852
Lol well I have no reason to think existence was intended. Why is there something rather than nothing? Don't know. As I wrote, I can understand that it can feel comforting to believe that you exist as an intent by something but I find it more important that what I believe is likely true.
@@kolehollis5852 If someone needs proof or very hard logic, "why do you think we exist" doesnt provide either of those unfortunately. Whats your take on why we exist as it relates to proving specifically the existence of the Christian God?
I agree, I think this debate should always be in good faith because there really is nobody who's right , it's about showing why we view things our way which really isn't right or wrong because it's someone's perspective, I find it fascinating to hear somebody present their arguments of why they do or don't believe or aren't sure don't know . This is the debate that ought to be good natured and respectful .Im rooting for you, all the best
I agree with the good faith arguments stuff, but this video really doesnt prove god exists..
@@Trosvvo while you are right, I don’t think this was the intention of the video. He’s aware that he can’t prove gods existence in the same way you and I are unable to prove that he does not exist. It seems like this video was more of an instructional tool for those who have faith so that they have some grounds for an argument in support of their beliefs.
@@WickedIndigopeople use to think Zeus was real bro god is the same way
@@bygonesbegone oh I’m an atheist, I was just making the point that he seems to want to give other people some better arguments for their theistic positions. There’s plenty of refutations to his arguments in this video and it’s definitely not the best argument for god existence but🤷♂️
I definitely do not agree when you say “there really is nobody who’s right.”
I don’t understand how you can confidently say this. Things are either true or not true and reality does not care about your opinion. There are rules in logic and reasoning and something is either logical or it isn’t.
For me the contingency or ontological arguments are the best and smoothest. Mostly because I've been helped by St. Thomas and St. Francis on the nature of God!
I think these are very good syllogisms, but I've never seen someone on the outside of belief in God respond very well to them. They always seem to act like I just did a magic trick or something and they have to try to figure out how it's fake. I think part of the problem is that, on the cosmological side, you're asking people to try to imagine the whole of reality and to accept premises about causes/contingency all leading to a source, and I think it's a little too big for most people that within that scale, they can imagine there's a gap that, even if they can't identify it, must somehow undermine it. The moral argument is something that descends to their level of experience because we can all understand situations in which we've insisted that things ought to be a certain way and they aren't. And it's within that struggle and that very personal experience that we glimpse the transcendent.
ruclips.net/video/FQfujdlO4oY/видео.html he debunks this idea.
@@BrianHoldsworth _"I think these are very good syllogisms, but I've never seen someone on the outside of belief in God respond very well to them."_
- *As opposed to your argument which causes embarrassed laughter due to your lack of knowledge and facepalming?*
The moral argument is an assertion that ignores everything we know about how morality develops and pretends that secular advances in morality were due to religion. Its based on both ignorance and dishonesty, nothing more.
... this is ignoring that the morality written in religious works, like the bible, is abhorrent and that the most religious people tend to behave with the least morality.
@@BrianHoldsworth And yet, when one monkey is given cucumber pieces as a reward for a task, and they see another monkey get grapes for the same task, the first monkey will get upset and angry. Almost like primates have an innate understanding of fairness.
It's also an untenable argument to say morality is somehow tied to religion, because we do not have the same morality now that we did 1000 years ago. Nor do most religious people. The texts haven't changed, but morality has. So clearly the interpretation of those texts has changed.
But why would interpretations change from within the church? Is the holy text, the most perfect book ever written, so inscrutable and obtuse it has taken many centuries of theological scrutiny to realise what god *actually* wanted to say? And only after this new revelation was come upon, did society get told they've been doing things wrong the whole time and need to change to save their souls? Or maybe the more plausible explanation is that the theologians, being multi-faceted humans with lives not solely confined to a religious bubble, were exposed to new thoughts and ideas from outside the church and then began viewing the scriptures through these new lenses...
Also, does the fact that interpretations have changed mean that back when the church ruled slavery as moral, those faithful are now burning in hell because of a misinterpretation? Or is the modern interpretation wrong, and what morality is being taught is perverted and will lead to eternal damnation? Considering both cannot be true, slavery cannot be both moral and immoral, clearly there is a massive number of faithful who're burning in hell, because they were poorly guided.
Do you trust Your interpretation enough to take that gamble?
@@DrBased First describe what you mean by "objective morality". If you mean it the way most apologists do, then no, objective morality doesn't appear to exist.
Half of the video was spent explaining the already well discussed problem of subjective morality, the other half non sequitur-ing into the argument that objective morality "proves" a higher spiritual existence. This has nothing to do with any gods and frankly was a waste of time... You didn't prove anything about God OR the nature of morality, only that good things are good and therefore there's a source of what makes good and bad. Very non sequitur I think
The fact that you are even asking for proof of God already implies that there IS a God. If you are a mere product of evolution and chemicals then your brain was already pre-wired to ask that question, your thoughts your feelings the questions you ask are all just product of evolution and chemical reactions. That means things like truth proof or reason are illusions in your mind. So for you to ask another person for proof about anything means you are contradicting your worldview or that you don’t really believe you are only a product of evolution and chemicals.
@@Scott777 That might just be the dumbest thing I've ever read... we'll just ignore that you assumed I believe that "we're a product of evolution and chemicals" without even asking (TERRIBLE discourse etiquette) and get to the point. Asking for and expecting quantifiable evidence for a claim does not presuppose the existence of a God, simple as that. I could go on about the myriad other things you got horribly fractally wrong in your response but it all boils down to that. If you believe that any objective reality is contingent upon a God then you're out of your mind
@@angeloortiz2769 so you believe you are a product of evolution, chemicals and something else NOT material? Or are you saying you are a product of neither? Should I have said atoms or molecules quarks? It makes no difference. My original statement cannot be refuted regardless, you are asking for proof and truth and such things are only possible if they are rooted in an objective reality beyond the physical/material and not just from the electrical firings in our brains. Think carefully about what im saying to you.
@@angeloortiz2769 so you believe you are a product of evolution, chemicals and something else NOT material? Or are you saying you are a product of neither? Should I have said atoms or molecules quarks? It makes no difference. My original statement cannot be refuted regardless, you are asking for proof and truth and such things are only possible if they are rooted in an objective reality beyond the physical/material and not just from the electrical firings in our brains. Think carefully about what im saying to you.
@@Scott777 Your argument is rooted in a false dichotomy. Think carefully about what YOU'RE saying
There is nothing saying atheism doesn't promise hope, as an atheist, I have faith. Faith in myself. And to me, that is more credible than relying on something that is unknown and unpredictable. I have faith in my strength and my potential, after coming out of a 10 year abusive relationship. I can't trust anything but myself. Mental abuse against a child for ten years until the child snaps and has to leave is wrong, that is not a preference, as no therapist could argue that I needed my abuse, that I would have been worse off without being abused for 10 years. There is no right and wrong, but there is pain, and hurt. Nothing can justify my 10 years of pain.
brother, im sorry for your abuse, but if you just had faith in a living creator who wants to be in a relationship with you, you would be healed from your scars, i will pray for you no matter how much you oppose God
@@johannacostigan8649 if you claim this god has a relationship with you which denomination does he say is the right one? i don't believe you, you say god is personal but he never passes on ANY useful information, only stuff we already know or stuff that has no practical application. you get him to tell you how to get cold fusion working and i'll have some respect for you, so far though this "personal" god who is omnipresent 24/7 is flippin useless.
@@HarryNicNicholas He gave us natural laws and the Bible... Neither are useful enough for you?
I think "God" is a manifestation of humans need to feel control to alleviate anxiety. It's a secret best friend, it's a hope for the future, it's someone having your back, it's something that gives you power in a group setting, it's something that explains away your inadequacies. It's a very effective tool psychologically. I say this as an atheist that respects the power of the mind. Regardless of how we equate that, We can't argue that it is indeed a very powerful form of self soothing. Some will need that more than others. That may even be dictated by circumstances. There's nothing to say that those who believe won't be crushed by an impossible reality and need that self soothing in the future or visa versa. I respect all views regardless
I think this is a very simplistic point of view, one that we all thought of when we were 15. Truth is there's actually good arguments for theism, the metaphysical impossibility of the infinite made the atheist arguments dig deeper into quantum physics and the fact that time can not exist at a quantum level is now presented as a way the universe could have had a beginning without an outside influence. Ofc this is assuming that minimum state of energy didn't require a cause which we don't know. Truth is both sides require a lot of faith, imo the atheist assumptions require a lot more of it though. May be ironic to some people since they have been led to believe faith is only a thing for believers.
@@jpg6113 Dear JPEG,
I think you should stick to what you are good at, which is delivering pictures in a reliable format! Ha! I got you internet chum! Ha ha! Other than that good sir I say, good day!
@@timm2824 good way of not engaging
@@jpg6113 I think the opening sentence of your comment is indicative enough of your intent and context for this conversation. So I have treated it as it is designed to be. With non chalant contempt and loose humour to accentuate the fact that you have taken a logical intelligent comment and equated it to simplistic and that of a 15 year old. Whether this is a self ego inflation strategy you are feeling the need to use as it's a bad day for you, or if you genuinely feel 15 year Olds have this insight then I challenge you to produce one as I've never come across them.
@@timm2824 Clearly we grew up in radically different environments. The reason why i said that is because a lot of my friends and i at that age said very similar stuff, we grew up in a very Catholic part of the world but our parents weren't religious. I can't fathom being in that age group and not "rebel" against authority and start arguing against Religion, this would be one of the first things everyone says when arguing against it.
I agree that the Moral Argument is the best. Its Also the easiest to explain to people who are not well versed in Philosophy.
It has it's flaws. Not really in it's premises but in that if someone holds to determinism, they will always get out of it. So in order to get this to work fully we have to give a free will argument. there is a video, Braxton Hunter vs Matt Dillahunty I would recommend
Braxton Hunter is a baptist and Matt Dillahunty is an atheist and is one of the hosts in the program, The Atheist Experience
@@piotr1387 Oh I agree with you. I was just saying that's how they would "get out" of it. Plus they could always say, you were determined to think that.
Really an unfalseifiable stance. Which is weird since most atheists only rely on science for truth and science can only show something is most likely true if it is falsifiable
@@piotr1387 Ugmmm. No you can talk about moral good without mentioning the existence of God. Just simply ask a group of atheists on what they think is moral and you'll notice most of them never mention God in their answers. Unless a believer were too enter the conversation.
Plus God's nature could be argued as not good so no.
@@piotr1387 Ah. Ok hears something you might not have heard before. This quote from a guy I know sums it up best.
"Morality is simply increase of happiness, wellbeing, health, while what's immoral damages it. This must be taken into account long term not short term,"
Taking drugs not in moderation is immoral. For the short term you get pleasure. In long term you get pain. As one example. Plus I think what the guy meant happiness isn't anything related to just pleasure. Plus you can scientifically measure pain and pleasure. So their is some objective basis to it.
Lying is wrong, because it can ruin the happiness or well-being of others. Though that depends largely on the situation. Rape is wrong on all accounts, because it increases suffering in physical, mental, emotional states of a person. What's morally right is giving food to the poor or telling the truth, because it increase health, wellbeing, happiness of a person. Considering the straight forward practical nature of it I think it's a pretty good basis of objective morality.
@@piotr1387 "There are many problems with the definition of morality you quoted. Firstly it's still not objective, because it hinges on people's opinion." Not necessarily. We know when someone is in pain or in pleasure. We can scientifically measure pain or pleasure by looking at the pain or pleasure parts of the pain. Plus this is talking about real happiness not hedonistic pleasures. What food too eat in taste you provided as an example is hedonistic pleasure. Plus maximizing health is measurable. You can measure how healthy someone is.
Think of it like this. Morality is more of a objective demonstrable guide for a prosperous society. A prosperous society. Is a society that has all the needs reflected in the maslow's hierarchy of needs. The hierarchy is physiological needs, safety and security, love and belonging, self-esteem, self-actualization. That is morality. A society that provides needs of the people and eliminates anything that takes those needs away. You can have a opinion that morality isn't good, but morality is just a measure of a prosperous society.
Plus a objective foundation can give mixed results depending on how it used. What helps for one person is not helped for another person. Figuring out what a person needs is needed in order to provide the needs of the people. People need maslow's hierarchy of needs plus people need a functioning society. A functioning society is a cooperative society is in a state of happiness, good wellbeing and in good health. Therefore what's moral is reflected by that prosperous society. A society that constantly steals will stagnate since people's wellbeing well eventually stagnate from such choas.
Abortions is iffy considering scientists and philosophers alike don't know enough about the whole biology related to the process of a fetus to a baby or the understanding of what makes a person a person to give any moral advice on this issue with absolute certainty. Their is many arguments on both sides on the issue so I cannot say since I have went back and forth on for or against abortion. So I decided to wait patiently until someone finally gives a decent answer to the abortion question.
On the whole breakdown thing that can easily be answered depending on the philosophy and thought process of the person. If the mother is worried so much about the ethics of the fetus just don't abort if not do abort. That is IF we have a better understanding of what makes a person a person before we can give any moral advice on the issue. Morality is objective, but situational. It depends on the situation. You don't always tell the truth, because if you did what would happen when someone captured you? Are ya gonna tell your real name and where's your family if they asked? Of course not. Plus the goal is too maximize in the long term not short term. If I have too give a little pain to increase happiness long term than that's ok.
Plus morality could be both objective and subjective. It's subjective in the sense that their is a multitude of ways to achieve it, but it's objective in the foundation of it. If your saying the foundation doesn't work with enough proof than I would agree with you.
Its actually pretty simple. Things that are good promote happiness, healthiness and well being and come at no negative consequence to another. Things that are bad do not promote happiness, healthiness or well being or come at a negative consequence to others. It is linked to our will to survive as a species. We do things to promote survival rather than harm it. There is no god required.
Exactly
The creation and maintenance of the universe needing a creator is my best argument.
Moral standards are part of the harmonious way of the universe. We can upset them but they always come back into their own balance.
Like throwing a pebble into a pond where the natural state is for a calm surface, the pond will eventually return to that state.
Yes, it's as though moral laws directly parallel the physical laws of the universe. But while matter of the universe is forced to obey the laws of physics, beings with freewill can choose whether or not to follow the moral law. However, if the moral law is not obeyed, it is the same result as if physical laws were not obeyed: existence would break down into chaos. Of course, God's laws also contain corrective measures (God's laws of justice) for any individual who disobeys the moral law, thus setting things back on course.
The creation of the universe and the laws of physics/multiple dimensions/conscious entities inside them are the evidence for me to believe
That might be a good reason but what gets me is that which gods holy book has the right set of morals? If there is an intelligent creator then that creator defines what morality is. Unless there are more than one intelligent creators and everyone’s path to heaven leads to salvation, we might fall victim to a false god.
Another thing than makes me doubt an INTELLIGENT creator(s) is from the mass extinctions of the world. I think if the creator was intelligent, mass extinctions wouldn’t be necessary
This is due to Truth. You can deny truth, but you are always wrong.
So why doesn't God need a creator and maintenance?
I personally consider myself an atheist, but I wanted to thank you for showing respect and not falling into argument like lots of other RUclipsr. So thank you
On a number line of positive and negative numbers God is zero, niether existing or existing, No argument can define a being that exists in all states at once defined by a false argument with the expectation of a sum of true or false when both states are true and false at the same time.
You can not truly measure Zero by itself or God.
Because even in a pure vaccume space is still being created from nothing so you truly can not measure down to Zero and reach nothing. at the same time you can never be rid of something because something will always be there.
You can not imagine non existence because darkness is something no matter how long you imagine it.
If you haven't heard the Hidden Gospal of John I highly recommend it.
@@Lok783 dude, a theistic argument propagated on the cosmic unintelligibility of a supposed supernatural entity is no good at all. You can’t seriously expect anyone to believe in your cause when your argument is that it’s impossible to understand the main entity of said cause. At that point you are just asking people to base their entire lives on unsubstantiated here say. This is not even getting into the fact that a supposedly good god would have absolutely no reason to make himself so incredibly inaccessible.
You might as well just have said
Source: “trust me bro”
Looking forward to this one!
I have never needed proof that God exists because I've always KNOWN that God exists. I am lucky that I have never doubted His existence or needed to prove to myself that He exists. For me, just looking at the little toe of my newborn babies (this is back in the 1980s) and how perfect those tiny toes were was a demonstration of the glory of God's creation. It moved me! How can anyone look at that tiny perfection and not believe in God is beyond my comprehension!
@@isaacroufs5779 I have no need to argue God's existence. Only those who doubt do.
What would proving God mean? We believe God is a person. What would it mean for us to prove a person? For example, I see a photo of John, but it doesn't mean much to me because I don't know him. John from the photo is just a generic face to me, lost to me among thousand of everyday people I see on the street but don't meet them.
Only when I get to know John, that photo stops being irrelevant.
Even with people, proving means little to is, getting to know a person makes a difference. Much more so with God, with Christ.
@@stephenson19861 Nice
With respect, you won’t convince anyone with that argument because it’s arbitrarily and inconsistent.
If you are willing to believe massive life-altering doctrines that affect every action you take, and every thought you think, WITHOUT any evidence other than physical beauty, then you’d be far too easily convinced of anything.
@@ericsonofjohn9384 If you are addressing this message to me, I was NOT trying to convince ANYONE of ANYTHING!
Excellent and very valuable testimony, especially in these dark days we’re living in our beloved Church. Thank you Brian for sharing your amazing and realistic faith. Our Lord must be very proud of you for being light and salt to all of us. 😇May God keep blessing you and your family every single day. 🙏🙏🙏
Arguments ain't evidence.
That said - I can precisely say the same about my atheism. It has given me great joy, hope purpose, and meaning. (and as I say that - you hear secular ambient music playing and my tone changes with sincere honesty) And If I had used this as my FAVORITE argument for my disbelieve in your god it would be a terrible argument, and I won't use it.
Look at it with honesty.
Firstly, that wasn't my argument. Secondly, what is your evidence that "arguments ain't evidence." If you hold such a strict standard of evidence for others, then why don't you hold yourself to it with every assertion that you make?
@@BrianHoldsworth Arguments for God aren't evidence for God.
If you claim an argument for something is evidence for something, then why don't you hold yourself to it with every argument made for something you disagree with?
@@BrianHoldsworth DEMONSTRATE god, all you people have is talk, talk, talk and it's nonsense talk too, this "personal" god never gives you any practical information, apparently even HE doesn't know which denomination is the correct one, even though he is "personal" and you say he talks to you daily.
talking does nothing, drag this god onto your show, then i'll be impressed, but as god is a figment of your sorry imagination that will NEVER happen. really until you have some way to show that god isn't pure fantasy you ought to keep your nonsense stories to yourself, this massive spreading of lies about existence ought not be tolerated.
Actually when I became a Christian there were many strongholds in my life that disappeared immediately. I stopped drinking, smoking, etc. without even a struggle. This alone would constitute compelling evidence for Christianity.
Yes, the most compelling evidence for any one individual is to have direct and personal experience with God and/or the spiritual. Of course, this usually doesn't satisfy the skeptics who have not experienced such things themselves.
@@EndTimesHarvest Amen. I agree.
@@EndTimesHarvest And the fact that believers from more than 1 religion are talking about that kind of experience make me very skeptical about it being a "Real" divine experience
@@chanseyinthehood8415 while we are rapidly moving towards two sides God's - satans at this point in time God is working inspite of doctrinal differences and is bringing all believers of honest heart towards one Accord... So Him working with people who have a different understanding is to be expected. I know he has definitely delivered myself and many I know from a darkness none of us could escape from... And I praise Him for the freedom from slavery...
@@EndTimesHarvest absolutely, I have experienced His saving Grace without a doubt...
Ultimately the best argument for God's existence (i.e. the truth) is subjective. It is the one that brings the person to the foot of the Holy Cross of Jesus in repentance.
For me it was living in sin and achieving everything I ever wanted and stil having that nagging question: are you satisfied? To which I could only ever answer no. It did me no good to gain the whole world but forfeit my soul.
I was restless until I found my rest in Christ
@Scott Seufert You missed the point of my post. Let's see if I can explain it for a remedial reader
Let's assume you love your mother. Is your reason(s) for loving your mother subjective (i.e. yours alone)? Does that make it anecdotal? Yes...but it isn't a fallacy because love is relational, it is personal. It is the same with God because God is love.
I'll say it another way: if you think you only need an argument for proof of God's existence (such as those in the Summa or any other), you are still very far from God. The demons believe and tremble, but they don't love God.
Same
Hallelujah
@@illumoportetcresceremeaute887, writes _"It is the same with God because God is love."_
Nothing can _be love,_ love isn't a thing. Love is a description we give to an emotion we experience.
@@fred_derf Your definition of love is irrelevant. It is not the Christian definition of love. When we say love, we mean: willing the good of the other over the self. This is pure will, not one iota of emotion. God is love because God is pure good will. God always wills the good of His creatures even to the point of humiliation and death on the cross.
The music in the background is a manipulation tactic called emotion over intellect. It’s meant to encode emotion within us to override our critical thinking skills.
luckily the guy talks such nonsense the music doesn't even register.
but does it work? It worked in the Godfather
he could be calling for genocide and play that music in the background. LOL
@@africanhistory the words matter, but if you ever watched a movie then you can tell that music makes the scene have more gravity. Whether it’s sad, romantic, wholesome, or action packed.
Love you , brother. You are so honest, genuine, and respectful. Thank you!
god has disgusting morals and christians do too, if you say god has the right to kill everyone on the planet with no trial, no representation, no jury of peers, over an unspecified crime (what was EVERYONE on the planet dong wrong?) and ONE sentence, to burn (after being drowned) then you are a sick person and you need to re-evaluate where your allegiances lie - with god or with your fellows. doesn't "i was only following god's orders" sound familiar??
This video does not prove anything related to God's existence. It only depicts what is necessary for humanity to thrive as a species. My moral compass developed from my understanding that my life will suffer greatly if I do not respect and care for the beings around me...including all the species in this vast eco system that is earth. Not just egocentric humans.
I asked myself, If everything PHYSICAL Originated by Chance like most Scientist say, over Billions of years random Particle and atom forned matter mass dust elements gas Stars Galaxies ECT. Eventually forming Intelligent creatures, what would Enable these intelligent beings to make thousands of non random thought and decisions leading to purposefully Events Every day . Shouldn't it take at least a billion years for each thoughtful decision to be made?
Right. Video is not very smart: but neither is religion so.
@@evalsoftserver Why do you call it "chance"? Are chemistry, energy, and physics not organizing principles? Or is this simply inflammatory language meant to undermine confidence in a scientific explanations?
@@evalsoftserver, writes _" If everything PHYSICAL Originated by Chance like most Scientist say"_
That's not what most scientists say, that's not even what most cosmologists say. Instead of listening to apologists spout strawman arguments about what scientists say, why not talk to actual scientists?
I am happy you reached that conclusion. But your logic doesn’t necessarily follow. Another person could reach the exact opposite conclusion, that their life is better served hurting others for one’s own benefit and because the lack of any moral ontic referent they would not be wrong. Because at the end of the day, within your paradigm, nothing ever really matters. As the atheist Richerd Dawkins correctly stated, “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.” Therefore, though you may get some subjective satisfaction from your personal choice, according to your world view, you are only feeling the sensation of chemicals being released in your brain that again is ultimately meaningless. It doesn’t take a genius to realize this position is untenable and does not align to how we live. The majority of sane individuals live life in a way that reflects and points towards an objective moral standard. We talk of love, Justice, and forgiveness. We denounce genocide and other wrongs not in pragmatic terms but as real objective evil. The only way to cast such denunciations is to stand on the firm ground of objective morals. And the only way to have objective morals grounds is to have an objective moral law giver. But that is who you are trying to disprove in the first place. Difficult and inconsistent position in my view. I encourage you to take your morals seriously and reflect on the world you wish to see. A world with real moral choices and consequences and not mere preferences or tastes. One where we can meaningfully denounce evils and strive towards real Good. I recommend C.S.Lewis’s writing as they helped me greatly and encourage you to reconsider your stance. A loving moral God wishes to reconnect with you. He gave his life for you and me and experienced suffering just like on when he was tortured and crucified. Your comment shows your good heart. Unite it to the universal heart of God. I pray for you brother.
The TAG , or Transcendental Argument for God’s Existence, is not only THE BEST argument for God’s existence, it is also the argument which the Bible itself instructs us to utilize in order to defend our certainty. And yes, it is certainty. “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou be made like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he imagine himself to be wise.” - Proverbs 26:4-5. Basically , we force the non-believer to account for logic, and the transcendental , immaterial realities of life and the universe. They are irrefutable, and once I fully understood it, all doubt immediately went out the window. The atheist / non-believer / doubter MUST account for logic. He cannot get around it, he cannot dodge it, he cannot skirt the issue, because he has knowledge, and he uses it ever second of ever day of his life. It MUST be accounted for, because if it were not, no knowledge can or would exist, ever, across the board, about anything. The moral / ethical question is encapsulated within this argument - b/c if morality were truly relative, “we” (the universe) would have to individuate - to infinity (if it were truly true). This individuation would never allow for any knowledge; no knowledge, much less morality. BUT, there is morality , and there is knowledge, thus, it must be accounted for and grounded in something - and this something is what we call God. The only other move the atheist / non-believer has left at this point is to plead solipsism, but it too is proven ad absurdism via the laws of logic as well. And thus, he has hit rock bottom, and his worldview is proven false.
For a very good (the best) debate on this method of argumentation, watch Jay Dyer vs. Matt Dillahunty, but please watch on Jay Dyer’s RUclips channel, b/c Matt D has edited his version of the video to make him appear superior. He is not. Jay Dyer , although a little rough around the edges, understands and articulates the TAG better than anyone I’ve ever seen before. His debate with Dillahunty is an absolute slaughter. Matt D had no idea what he got himself into in that one. It’s great for entertainment value, but also for getting a true and clear understanding of the TAG.
@Orthodoxy or Death! !!! how about C.S. Lewis?
Good idea, the Bible says to believe the Bible so to see if the Bible is truth, you just need to read the Bible and believe the bible. For a minute I thought you might be a little bias.
even religists will say TAG is dumb.
you can make a TAG about anything:
the source of all intelligibility is actually the quantum field, i cannot
be wrong about this as the quantum field doesn't have a mind and therefore
cannot deceive me, it permeates the universe, so information goes direct to my brain
via the wave function of the universe, and you are misinterpreting this as god as
you are an irrational theist, you know i'm right, and you are suppressing the
truth cos all you want is the comfort of heaven.
TAG falls flat at the first sentence, you need revelation to know that it's really god doing the revelation - how do you get revelation BEFORE you have revelation - you banana.
tjump has made ALL the TAG debaters look dumb, cos it is dumb. it's basically acting like a child and ignoring anything any reasonable person says. it's great for atheism though, cos only intelligent people can see how dumb it is. you get to keep all the idiots.
Pascal's Wager? Seriously? You're going with Pascal's Wager? Even Pascal wrote about the massive flaws in that argument…
that literally wasnt his argument
@@westongunningham7151 It literally is his argument, he's reworded it to camouflage it, but it's Pascal's Wager.
@@fred_derf the very start is pascals wager the rest of it is objective morality argument
@@westongunningham7151 I didn't watch the rest of it, once he pulled out Pascal's Wager I gave up.
@@fred_derf well that was like 20 seconds of the video lol and yes I agree the pascal wager argument is awful
Grew up in the faith, had an incredibly pious mother, and know the Gospel... However, when challenged to dive into the Bible, it actually brought me out of my faith. So much didn't make sense in the book, and the metaphorical sweater started unraveling. I jumped onto this video because I'm desperate for a good argument for God... Unfortunately, all these were basic, flawed, and could be easily argued against.
The argument that our laws are based around morals only shows that humans are moral creatures that seek order, not that there was a divine creator. In fact, I morally disagree with the God of the Bible quire a bit, so... That argument proves nothing to me.
The argument of what does happen and what should happen again bases itself off of the fact that Humans cannot morally judge themselves. When in fact, time and time again, we can. We as beings, understand there is an intrinsic right and an intrinsic wrong. Does an action harm another? Wrong. Does an action help another? Right. We understand that as children... God did not need to tell us that.
Just grabbing onto two of his explanations... Not trying to even start a fight. In fact, I'd love for someone to swoop in with a logical and intelligent answer. Feeling "lost" barely touches on whats going through my head, and so I pose these questions in hope for salvation and a good answer.
Hmmm... okay, so I don't think you can prove god from a scientific perspective because what the goal of science kind of is/became is to give an explanation of the phenomena of the universe and the world without god. So I feel like attempting to prove god from that perspective will always be fruitless. One way I feel we can prove God is through logic which is the basis of what science is based off. Everything created has a creator this is something we can all generally agree on hopefully. If you found a robot in the middle of a desert planet you would be able to logically say that due to the fact a robot is here people likely use to live here because the robot can't make itself. Science today has told us with some confidence that the universe had a beginning and they even have an approximate age for it. Which is 14 or something billion years old. judging from the fact the universe was created and things don't create themselves we can conclude something made the universe. We would also be able to conclude the thing that made the universe is an intelligent being due to the sheer complexity and order the created things show. We would also be able to deduce that the intelligent designer has the ability or power to make what it wants what's happen judging form the fact it created everything as we know it. The reason why there can't be a creator of the creator is simple it would cause a infinite regression paradox and that would entail that it could never get to the creation of the universe. Basically, if you were in an infinite line to check out a book you would never check out the book, hopefully, I said that in a way that makes sense. Also, I'm not a Christian, but I have looked into the bible and I found many contradictions so I definitely don't think Christianity is the right religion. And continuing to use logic I feel you can eliminate most religions without even reading their scriptures. Like Buddhism(or whatever the one where they worship idols is called) doesn't make sense because how could something that a human-made be the creator of humans it's illogical. Christians believe that Jesus died for their sins but if he was god and god was all-powerful why would God need to die for their sins. Also, How can Jesus a human be a god. I don't know what their definition of god is but if it can die it probably isn't god.
ohh yea I forgot to mention I'm a Muslim just in case you were wondering. Saying this I assume you have many or some questions about Islam and I think if you watch these part of these two videos hopefully your questions will get answered. 1. ruclips.net/video/XuyxicbhwQg/видео.html 2. ruclips.net/video/ZfYlpjlHxGY/видео.html
@@myguy4691 There are a lot of Phenomena that defy logic. Especially in the realm of sub atomic and galactic. Logic is just a human brain function, somehow flawed and sometimes easy to manipulate, as it is demonstrable within every cult and religion. Relying purely on logic for deduction without proper data leads to catastrophy.
Same goes to senses and intuition, which are easy to be mislead. Especially vision and feelings are highly inaccurate and not always correspond with reality. Neuroscience shows that even our memories of color, places and names might be highly inaccurate and changes everytime we remember them.
If there is a god, and is interacting through messiahs with the rest of the world, it is extremly and inefficent, flawed and childish way to do it. Especially if you always chose the empty desert to spread your word.
If there is a god and it is out of our realm, thus not interact with us, it is pointless to speculate since there is no way to prove either way.
Therefore, for all who claim the first option, I refuse.
All claim the second option, move on, there is nothing to be had here.
If you really have to try really hard with brain gymnastics, word salads, fallacies, set-ups and misrepresentations to prove your god is the right one, you definetly prove with that act that there is none.
I’m going to respond to your points as best as I can.
In response to you falling out of your faith diving into the Bible, here’s what I have to say. In the Bible God revealed Himself to the people or Israel that doesn’t happen in the ways that the Bible describes. However, even with people back then seeing those miracles happen. Some still didn’t have faith. Adam, Abraham, and St. Thomas doubted God at first. Peter betrayed Jesus 3x due to a lack of belief. Judas betrayed Christ but wasn’t forgiven because Judas couldn’t bring himself to repent for what he did. All that aside, this begs the question: where is your faith in the first place? It takes two to tengo. The Bible is Gods word to all of us. He is revealing the at to us so it is our job to believe. We have free will and we can choose not to believe it, but The Bible and Christianity is not truth then why would it be revealed to us for our salvation?
In response to your second point. You state that humans are able to know what is right and wrong without God. Yes with our intellect, us humans can only come so far to know what is right and wrong. How could we know premarital sex is wrong without God/Bible? How could we know that abusing alcohol is wrong? How could we know having pride when committing sin is deadly without God? We simply can’t. Yeah there may be signs that certain actions are wrong based on the natural consequences that occur afterwards, but God is there in the Bible to confirm what is objectively right and wrong.
I hope this helps. And I’m happy that you want salvation and want to be with God and you are looking for more reasons to believe. God doesn’t ask us to be perfect he asks you to try. And this indicated your effort for believing in God. Hope you’re well.
The Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, and literally thousands of other religions embrace these same "compelling facts" he presented...yet they're ALL different. All I know is that when I need courage, or motivation, or relief from grief, it's still there for me despite my lack of faith. Plus, I've made effort to spend more quality time with loved ones(and donate a kidney to one)in part due to my inability to believe in an eternal family reunion, thus improving my earthly experience. I focus on what I've gained, not lost, when my critical thinking matured to a level that isn't conducive with gullibility and confirmation bias required for adherence to religious doctrines.
I definitely agree! The moral law argument is very compelling, especially when you consider how many philosophical traditions it can reach and challenge. The first five chapters of C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity go in depth into this argument, so I would highly recommend that book to anyone who wants to ponder this argument more.
It's the best!
Feels good to believe doesn’t equal true
Who said it feels good to believe? I just find the argument to be intellectually compelling. If that’s not a good enough reason to believe something, I don’t know what is.
@@kulturkriget the argument still has to prove what mechanisms god used to make morals objective, why some people are immoral, and we subjective morality exists
I actually don't find it compelling at all. In my view, our biological evolution as a social primate species, is a superior explanation for morality.
The fact that people have to use (flawed) arguments for god instead of just proving him with evidence is very telling. An all powerful being who loves you, but just can't interact with you in any demonstrable way always seemed kinda useless to me?
Morality comes from social group dynamics. For a social group it is better to have some moral code(x) to prosper. It helps preserve resources and improves survival. Morality is natural and evolves with complexity of a society.
That is correct 👍
No, it doesn't, animals don't have morals, yet are social creatures.
"Consider that every human civilizations that we have record for..."
The key phrase here is "that we have record for". This points to survivorship bias. What if "morality" that you're referring to is simply a social contract necessary for the society and civilization to exist for a reasonable period of time to create said records? May be a society that doesn't value the right to life or property is too violent and dies out? Would a feral human have the same "moral" compass one from a civilized society?
It's not even necessarily a matter of "dying out" vs "surviving". It could also simply be about whether they kept written records or not. If they didn't keep records, there's a much higher chance of us knowing nothing about them.
Simply put no they wouldn't because of what you just said.
Allow me to elaborate what I mean, as I realize what i said sounded weird. All i was saying is that it makes since that a civilization would survive, if they created a means to order.
Not to mention the cultures that did keep records, just oral ones, and when missionaries arrived, they (for some reason or another) caused those records to go missing forever...
Loads of African history has been lost like this, either not preserved because it wasn't deemed important, or willfully destroyed in a cultural genocide. Much like a certain nation is doing to its minority muslim population...
@@ianedwards4227 I think you cannot have a civilization without order. That is heavily implied in the word "civilization" itself.
A civilization of anarchy is a contradiction. If the society you live in has wildly differing rules and customs every day, it becomes far too stressful to live in and the "civilization" never goes anywhere. It's nothing more than a momentary gathering of people.
Nothing stated necessitates that fixed moral laws actually exist. We can build a social contract around shared preferences and our own sense of empathy and the common good.
Exactly. That's what we humans are *already* doing. I'm not sure how Brian takes the *giant* epistemic leap from "we have moral intuitions" to "God put them there." God is most certainly *not* the best explanation. We have not ruled out all the other explanations. I would suggest to Brian H to interview a cultural anthropologist and a neuroscientist on the topic of why humans have evolved to have taboos, moral intuitions and, essentially, cultures.
BTS I was thinking of the Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith, basically stating we’re social animals and we pick up our morality from society and our sense of ourselves. I understand the desire to have these things fixed as immutable laws, but it’s just not true. Under the right circumstances, we can even have societies that permit murder and other terrible things. The only reason things get better is because we posses empathy in a high enough degree or are advocating for ourselves, not because of a moral law. Things can also get better ‘accidentally’ and then we just come up with some post hoc explanation too. Also, I always find it interesting that Christians are trying to ground things in objective laws when Jesus, asked on the very same question, tells people to treat others the way you want to be treated. Sounds like he was comfortable basing morality in people’s individual preferences. You don’t need a big brain to figure this one out.
Sure, you can make all kinds of arguments about social contracts, natural selection, social development, etc. The problem with these arguments is that they eliminate right and wrong as a real catagory. Murder is no longer wrong, for instance, it's merely unpreferable, disadvantageous, undesirable, or disavowed for the time being.
Jonathan Stensberg Why is that a problem exactly? I honestly think the bigger problem isn’t getting people to recognize ‘murder’ as ‘objectively’ wrong, but to get people to recognize the highly disadvantageous and troubling ways people are already being killed every day that we can’t seem to agree on including: drone strikes, domestic violence, crimes of passion, abortion and forced sterilization, economic sanctions and disinformation around infections disease that leads to unnecessary death. It just seems like every time someone talks about this, they’re talking about some hypothetical crime of passion or hate that they aren’t going to commit anyway. We are currently nearing a period of some very serious political violence in the US. That violence is held back by our social contract and mutual bonds, not by some abstract idea of what is ‘objectively wrong’. Nothing about acts people call ‘objectively wrong’ keeps people from committing them when given the right rhetorical cover and social / material circumstances.
@@jonathanstensberg Lol no, murder is still wrong because of the social contracts and social development. How do you make the mental leap from "you say you should treat people how you want to be treated" to " but that means murder isnt wrong"? Sure you can make all kinds of arguements about spiritual accountability from God etc. The problem is your reasoning eliminates right and wrong as a real category. Murder is no longer wrong, for instance, its merely not what God wants or how you end up in hell, for the time being. Goodness is no longer right, its merely what God wants or how to go to heaven. You're acting for you own benefit by being good because of Gods punishments and not acting wrong out of fear of them, not because you actually think they are right or wrong. You should try the mental exercise of applying your own arguements to your own beliefs and see if they still stand up.
I am not a Christian but I do believe in God, and I appreciate the energy that you bring to your videos. it's one of honesty and open-heartedness. Thank you for creating this content :)
Rubizel Murgatroyd The world reflects the God you believe in ,assuming you believe He is the Creator. Every living creature is part of a trinity, mother, father and offspring. None of us live independently, we are in a trinity of love (hopefully love, not lust). His creation tells us that God is an eternal Trinity of Love and Life. Jesus reveals to us the Father,Son and Holy Spirit. Ofcourse this is beyond our understanding but then do we really think that we can comprehend God with our limited human intelligence. The human family is as close an understanding we can get of the Blessed Trinity . Blessings
@@larryluch8178 I believe that God is everything and we're basically God experiencing itself thorough many different eyes and forms. It's complicated lol. I have a long history of taking issue with lots of stuff in the bible, but watching Brian's videos has made me want to reexamine it (it's been 10 years so I might have a different perspective than I did in my early 20's.) To believe in a certain portrayal of God or to accept something as my holy book though, I'd have to believe that it is absolutely a portrayal of Good, and I haven't gotten to that point yet. This time around I have more support to help me understand the Bible though so we'll see.
Rubizel Murgatroyd Yes there are some wonderful Bible commentators on RUclips etc Speaking as a convinced Catholic l obviously believe the Catholic Church has the proper teachings on all things Biblical but l wish you every blessing on your journey of discovery and hopefully it brings you to a prayer life and receiving Jesus truly present in the Blessed Eucharist. Your first few sentences made me laugh, too obscure for me 😄😇💒
@@larryluch8178 Thank you! Lol I guess everyone's beliefs look puzzling from the outside looking in, but I'm glad that you got a laugh at least. =)
@@rubizelmurgatroyd7893 Pantheism, ah.
I am a former atheist. I was raised a Christian, and a very sincere one. I lost my faith in God for about 5 years. In that time, I emersed myself in atheist arguments. I actually didn't, and still don't, find the simple version of the moral argument that compelling. Because it is possible to have an objective moral ethic that is not finally based on any idea of a deity. Chess is a good analogy. The game itself is ultimately arbitrary. Nothing ultimately objectively true about it. However, if we both play, and we both agree on the goal of the game, then based on that goal, we can objectively evaluate a move as good or bad with respect to that goal. Life is the same way. Almost everyone agrees that human wellbeing is good, a goal of mortality as it were. Therefore, actions can be objectively judged as good or bad with respect to how they affect human well being.
Having said all of that, I came to believe that morality is about much more than human wellbeing, though that is a key factor. There are forms of the moral argument that I do find compelling. I can't detail them here. But I would start with the fact that we all, as human beings, recognize that we, as individuals, are not as morally good as we could be. We know we fall short. If we recognize that, then what we are doing is intuiting some standard, some ultimate good. In my humble opinion, a good moral argument for God is along those lines.
Why I believe in God. There are several very important reasons. But the final point is this. I can logic myself into or out of anything I want if I so desire and put forth the effort. Logic cannot finally reveal the truth. It can only reveal your options. Once you know your options, you must choose. I think you suggested this very thing. I believe in God because I choose to. And I choose to because it calls me to. I am compelled to believe. I responded to that call by choosing to trust that there is a God, and that He is good. I love logical argumentation. It is a necessary tool in defense of the faith. But the final point about faith is that one feels the calling and chooses to trust it as an act of the will. This was a major insight for me in my own life. But argument does facilitate personal insight. So we should attempt to persuade others.
Very well written Tim thanks for sharing
Allow me to sum up this video.
1. Fallacies
2. Unjustified reasons
3. Bald assertions
4. Cherry picking
5. Misunderstandings.
The most logically superior proof of God’s existence is “The beginning and the end”. We have to admit that something came before is; all people. We are a result of something greater than us, despite what it is. Our concept of God has become too much. All things are set by whatever came first. If only the universe is the greatest of all things than that would be God because all things, including us are set by that. But if something existed before the universe, then that is greater. We ask the question “What created God?” But we would then have to ask what created that, and then that, and so on. But we’d then have to admit that something always was. Whatever that is, is God. All that we are came from something greater. Whatever came first will be after all things and is greater then all things and therefore is God.
Time and space is just our human experience, so I’m not sure it has to be related to ‘beginning and end’. Everything that goes beyond our comprehension will be called ‘God’ anyway, that’s true. It’s indeed a pretty logical way of thinking: we aren’t all knowing and never will be, therefor, to us, God will always be the explanation for things beyond our capabilities of understanding or experiencing. Just like a worm can’t see or hear, we probably miss an infinity amount of possible senses. We just have 5. To the worm vision and sound are Godlike sensations if he was able to detect a little bit of them.
No. In the believers mind god is not merely "something". Everyone thinks there's "something". Atheist believe there's "something". Believers believe there is SOMEONE.
You never disappoint! Thank you so much for this.
It may be interesting for you to know that my life has also significantly gained in levels of happiness, purpose and drive since adopting a new way of thinking, which is non-belief in a deity. What this potentially points to (I believe) is that the main focus for human growth is purpose...not how someone came to it.
Glad to know you're watching. Can I invite you to watch this one as it relates to your comment? ruclips.net/video/bhE5MEMt1yQ/видео.html
The greatest scientific and philosophical question is this: why is there something rather than nothing? To me, it only makes sense that there are two default states of existence: absolute nothingness and the infinite. Our universe is somewhere between nothingness and the infinite; our universe is finite in nature. It only makes sense that our finite universe came from something that was infinite in nature (what we call "God"). How could our finite reality come from nothing?
A universal code of moral behavior is explained by the fact that 1. humans everywhere are all the same species, and 2. that humans evolved to be extremely social and cooperating animals. It is therefore not surprising that humans everywhere have much the same set of moral expectations.
All social mammals have basic rules of behavior that are enforced to some extent by others of the species. That is part of what being social is. The rules don't have to be perfect nor do the rules have to be perfectly enforced. The rules only need to succeed to the extent that it helps the species be viable. Good enough to pass on genes is good enough for evolution. Nothing including moral behavior has to work perfectly.
I like the Jesus look you have going there.
So why is it okay for other social animals to kill their mate after mating or kill one of two twins or abandon young at birth? Why is it different for humans?
@@tana7256 Because humans are a different species. A rather unique thing about humans is that we can adapt our moral behavior to the living circumstances in which we find ourselves. A couple of examples: It was once okay to abandon young at birth when the group couldn't afford to feed another person. It was once okay to own people. More recently it was once okay to litter and still is in some cultures.
Remember moral rules do not have to be perfect to be effective. The rules only have to support the existence of the group in which they are held. God was once okay with slavery, for example.
The 2 problems I've run across in response to Pascal's Wager (the idea that perhaps it's better to just live your life as if God exists, because what have you got to lose?) seem to be :
1. The assumption that a person could "fool" God by pretending to believe something in which they don't actually believe. A person can't be compelled to believe in unicorns anymore than they can be compelled to believe in God... so at the end of their life, if God is real... wouldn't He know that they were faking it? Wouldn't that person have lived a life contrary to their true beliefs? Would such a person be rewarded for simply paying lip service?
2. Giving "license" to other unsupported, possibly dangerous, ideas. In other words... If a person puts their faith in something for which there is poor (no) real evidence, and lives their life by acting upon those beliefs... can that person really criticize someone else for doing the same? And what if the other person's beliefs are proving to be down right harmful of detrimental to others? Can one person using the same "faith" criticize another for doing the same... and still have a leg to stand on?
And in regard to the question of morality, and the idea that science/nature can give us an "is"... but never an "ought" - Sam Harris does a pretty good job of dispelling this myth in his book 'The Moral Landscape". I'm sure there are some youtube videos in which he lays it out much better than I can, but in short... it's a thought project. We have to try an imagine a barren landscape, which represents the worst most miserable suffering for all people. Everyone living there is tortured every minute of every day. Once we begin to make some scientific assessments as to what's causing the suffering, we can begin to make vertical moves "away" from that plane of existence. The moral answers would be found in addressing what helps us to make those moves away from such horrible living conditions for all people.
Sam Harris never addressed that issue properly. In reality, there is nothing in science telling us that suffering is bad or good. It doesn't tell what is bad and good are or even what we should do. There is nothing in science telling us that it is good to help others and bad to kill someone. There is virtually no grounding for morality in materialism.
@@aidan-ator7844 correct me if im wrong, but does that really disprove the abscence of a god? I mean you are only proving that there is no materialistic cause or ground for morality, not that a higher being exists to have given us our respect for human life.
This argument is as solid as Swiss cheese.
In regards to whether there is anything more than the physical world, if all that exists is green, then blue should be inconceivable.
Though we can conceive of colors that we cannot perceive or experience. You also have to define what you are referring to, and whether or not it is fundamental. If you are referring to the color spectrum, then all colors can exist since it is just a wavelength spectrum of light, and if it was an impossible spectrum as if that existed, it would still be conceivable. There isn't anything inconceivable, albeit it might not be fully understandable because it would just be an idea, but it would still be a conceivable idea if not conceivable by us. If you are referring to the perception, green is also the mixture of blue and yellow in most color theory, and so green implies blue (although you could say red instead of green, but color itself would be meaningless/not a useful concept unless there were at least two to differentiate from. So if all that existed were colored green, green wouldn't exist because color, as well as most everything, is defined by difference as much as similarity.) Also see- www.quora.com/Can-we-think-and-make-a-new-color-that-has-not-existed
@@TriDexterousTiger You don`t get the argument it seems. I said "IF" all that exists is green. So imagine ontologically all that exists is green, which is what materialists argue in regards to the material world. If that is true, then nothing outside of the material world should be conceivable. If all that exists is green, then no other colour should be conceivable. It`s possible to misrepresent this argument or misunderstand it, but it holds true. If all there is is green, and nothing else, then all that can be conceived of is green.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 If what you are saying is that assume only green exists and green is also the only color conceivable, yes I agree, green would be the only color that could be in any form. But in regards to reality and considering God, there isn’t anything that is unable to be conceived and is completely detached from us, while we might not be able to completely experience it, which was my point.
@@TriDexterousTiger To suggest that anything is conceivable outside of the physical world if the physical world is all that exists (as in the analogy) is a non sequitur. You have to follow the logical inference. God should be inconceivable if all that exists is the material world. It follows. Think about it.
@@myrddingwynedd2751 I agree. I wasn’t intentionally suggesting that the physical was all that is and if it seemed that, my mistake. I was just clarifying that concepts/things need opposites or differences, things similar but separate, to be of any importance so green couldn’t be the *only* color. Also I was saying that even if blue didn’t exist it would still be thinkable, which from the oc it appeared to me you weren’t when you actually were. My mistake. I thought you were arguing the opposite of what you apparently were.
The problem: One can argue that even in materialistic view of human being (no soul), men decided, from "egoistic", materialistic view, to AGREE between them to do good to each other, so that the individual will not get harm.
For example, lionesses hunt in a group, together. The lioness does not have a soul, and still, with less intelligent mind - they AGREED to work together and not, lets say, eat each other.
The moral code is like that - a sophisticated agreement between humans that invented by humans to better their lives. Better the live of the group, and better the live of the individual.
"to AGREE between them to do good to each other, so that the individual will not get harm."
This presupposes what is good. The ability to judge what is good and what is not comes before the supposed agreement. Just because you can see lions doing something that you think is good, doesn't mean they are moral. It just means you are moral for being able to approve or disapprove of their actions. You have no evidence that they evaluated the potential actions to be good or not and then chose to do the good one because it is good.
@@BrianHoldsworth
1. I do not presuppose what is good. I wrote in the sentence you quoted me how I define "good": "so that the individual will not get harm".
Sure, "how to not get harm" have many interpretations, and we (you and me and the rest of the world) could be descendants of the groups of people that CHOSE the best method of not harming each other.
Groups of people, or animals, that chose less effective ways to work in a group - are all DEAD now.
2. About the lions example: They are not moral creatures. I wrote it explicitly: "(no soul)". Look again at what I wrote.
The lions are example of clearly not a "moral agents" that are working together in a group and an observer can do mistake and relates morals to their actions.
The lion groups that chose less effective ways to "not harm the group" or "work in a group" - are dead today.
P.S. I'm not an English speaker - so sorry for butchering the language.
@@gest07 You aren't getting to the root of what morality is. You're just telling me what your fundamental moral precept is - not doing harm. That's not morality, that's just a rule contained within morality. Morality is the ability to judge right from wrong. It is the judgement, not the particular acts. It's the ability to look at potentials and pick the right one as an actual. You're just giving an example of a potential converted to actual. That's not getting to the root of what morality is.
Furthermore, it's a bad moral precept because it requires you to know what is harmful without truly defining it. Does that mean never causing pain? Because some pain is actually very good for us. Exercise is painful, but good. Medical procedures are painful, but good. Making sacrifices for others is painful, but good. Removing abusive people from your life can be painful, but good. It's also a mere negative - as in what NOT to do. But true morality tells us what we should do (positive). Anything that doesn't rise to that requirement cannot be offered as a summary of all morality.
@@BrianHoldsworth
1. Atheist or Agnostic can claim that there is no "morality" as in "the ability to judge right from wrong". Instead, we can TRY to choose the action that we ASSESS (and sometimes we assess wrong) will do the least harm to us and others in our "group".
Again, the "ability to judge from right from wrong" do not exist. It's an illusion that stem from the ability of our mind to do complex and sophisticated calculations and to assess facts of reality pretty good.
We then pat ourselves on the back and say: We "possess" the power of KNOWING right from wrong. NO. Why? Because we make mistakes on moral judgment. Not always, but many times. Why? Because it's just an assessment. Not a divine power from above.
2. About what you said: "it requires you to know what is harmful without truly defining it."
True, I didn't define what is "harmful". Why? because there is NO set rule, "carved in stone". So how we decide what is harmful? The same way less intelligent creatures are trying to survive and stay away from harming their body. We can see with our own eyes that unmoral animals work in a group, and protect each other, to some extent. So why we could not achieve that?
3. About the pain. I didn't claim it's all about pain. But, because you asked about pain, I myself think that pain could have been the base, the start of "trying to not harm yourself". I can theorize that more sophisticated decisions that involve others for example, can be the product of try and error, where the error is not causing harm to the "group" immediately. The groups or cultures that chose wrong by mistake - are no longer exist.
We (all humans that live today) are descendants of the cultures that chose more right than wrong.
@@BrianHoldsworth If morality is the ability to judge right from wrong, then which morality is the correct view on right and wrong? What is "true morality"?
Nobody has been able to definitively, objectively show anything to be the case on this.
And talking about love... You discuss love between a man and a woman. Love is a diverse and broad definition covering a wide range of human interaction, what about love for friends, your parents, love for your children, your pets, love between two men, two woman.
Greetings from Mexico, It's always a pleasure watching your videos
Mexico is AWESOME. 🇲🇽
@@culturecoroner Thank you! I'm glad that someone is able to see not only the bad things
Hey! I really liked your video. But it made me wonder, animals have been proved that they have morality, studies have been made on chimpanzees, dogs and rats. So, if that is true, it means animals also have a soul. How can this be in your argument? I believe in god but how can I explain it! Wow
This isn't the best argument for God. Its actually the WEAKEST
It’s not convincing but Which one is the best?
@@rotorblade9508 I have not heard a good one and this definitely isn't it
But why do you believe God does not exist? Genuine question.
@@bryannajordan7814 the idea of a perfect/ loving/ all-powerful/ all-knowing being making imperfect creatures then punishing those creatures for being imperfect doesn't make any sense and I'm tired of pretending that it does. But thats only scratching the surface as to why
@@jaymason8352 who cares believe what you want
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
I used to be an atheist for similar reasons. I earned my undergraduate degree in psychology while believing most of this but I ran into a problem. Much of what the sciences holds to be true has never been observed including the existence of atoms themselves. Atoms are simply too minuscule to see even with a microscope. In the early 1900s Einstein had to convince the majority of the population through a scientific equation.
The big bang theory was originally rejected by most scientists as a desperate attempt by Fr. Georges lemetre to put God into the natural sciences but he was able to convince almost everyone by way of the laws of physics and mathematics. The expansion between planets via the Hubble telescope among other observations wasn't recorded and measured until much later. In fact a few years ago it was thought that the sound waves from the big bang were finally observed but it turned out to not be true. This would have been a smoking gun of evidence but so far, no such evidence has been discovered.
In the behavioral sciences there are a ton of things that lack good physical data.
When it comes to phenomenon you they owe it to yourself to study phenomenology.
@@famvids9627 I am a psychologist as well (MS, Experimental Psychology, Villanova). I also happen to have a theological degree (MDiv, Ecumenics, Princeton Theological Seminary).
I would like to caution you, one scientist to another, that science, and indeed all knowledge is based on observation. And everything real, and in the capable employ of the scientific methodologies, is observable - including atoms, gravity, even quarks. Not only are all scientific specimens observable, they are measurably so. Remember, all scientific approach begins with an initial observation from which a scientist forms a stated testable null hypothesis, contrasts populations under variable conditions, performs an ANOVA based on measurable results, and renders a publically accessible conclusion.
@@famvids9627 I am quite familiar with phenomenology and Heidegger's ideas.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I would agree that everything is based upon observations but not necessarily by us. We cannot possibly be experts in everything and we must have faith in the perspective and observations of others.
Another place where it is not observed is horizontal gene transfer and other forms of evolution that are not observed in real-time but rather in the fragments that are discovered billions of years later.
If I wasn't so busy at the moment I would go further down the rabbit hole but this will have to suffice for now.
This is a great argument for why we should follow a moral law as compared to subjective morality but not sure why this leads to proof of Gods Existence. Our moral code could be encoded in us as living beings just because it’s what our biology has led us to intrinsically believe as humans. That could be the result of the purpose of some greater creators purpose or it could just be how we evolved. This feels like a “God of the gaps” argument of using divine intervention as an explanation for something science hasn’t found a solution for. With all this being said I loved this video and think this is a fantastic perspective for living life so if this was the universal doctrine taught in religion I think we’d be making the world a better place for all.
Evolution is why we developed the moral codes we have, but who is to say that a a higher will did not have a hand in our evolution (through naturalistic means). I believe that God had a hand in our upbringing as a species, after all he's always had a *"plan".*
I'd say the answer as to why we do not blame natural phenomenon, is because we know we have no control over it. It does not mean people do not experience anger or resentment towards the situation. In fact, people often redirect that emotional distress and point fingers during the aftermath. People are biologically designed to want to survive, and we, intellectually know it is better for ourselves individually, if we operate within a whole. This means we co-operate by preventing harm towards ourselves, and also unto others. You do not harm people, because people might harm you. And we all want to feel safe. It is a unique result of mixing animalistic rudimental behavior, with self consciousness and collective oversight. We often condemn people who display aggression, because it makes us feel unsafe within that society. We do not want it to happen to ourselves or the people we care about. It is not some intrinsic urge to know what is right, in fact, this is proven by the fact that our capability for empathy seldom extends beyond our small circle of people we bond with. We are biological computers that compute that harming someone is not beneficial when thoughtlessly provoked. But we are all capable of violence under the right conditions. Also, socialization is a huge part of developing a sense of what we perceive as morals and values., which is nurtured by empathic individuals . The result of people that are taught by non empathically nurtured individuals, can be found in your local prison.
If these are the best arguments, it's no wonder so many people can't believe.
@PeakApex _" Labor shortages are abundant. Have you ever heard of "unemployment rates?""_
The point went over your head.
_"What kinda of mental gymnastics is that? Science doesn't say "the world is random and so everything is random therefore everything that is stable should be unstable." You have constructed a strawman out of grass."_
The point DEFINITELY went over your head.
Here's the question he's posing. Don't strawman the argument: *It is unreasonable to presume that a random evolutionary process would create the thinking faculties that far exceed the need to survive, thus any argumentation that relies on the intelligibility of the universe is severely undermined.*
Even atheists accept this premise.
So many people can't believe because they have been blinded. The reason I believe is because I can see the truth (and also I have had my own personal experiences with God).
@@TheSpacePlaceYTvery bold of you to assume you have the real "truth"
@@TheSpacePlaceYT Is it within my power to entirely counter that argument by saying I have experienced the lack of experiences with god. If you can take your own subjecitve truth, and present it universally objective, can I do the same and cancel it out. My point is that your arguement isn't a good one, because you can say that about really any otherworldly experiece. I have seen the truth that the greek pantheon exists, doesn't mean it does. If everyone experienced your truth thats a different story, but most people haven't.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT Referring to the last paragraph you write, it is not unreasonable to presume that random evolutionary process would create the thinking faculties that far exceed the need to survive.
We have objective proof of the evolutionary process being random because of the variation of species that are all on a spectrum of capability and intellect, all rooting from a select few species that existed a long time ago. We just happen to be one of the species that got extremely lucky and we landed on the highest known point of most spectrums of intellect. It is reasonable to assume that variety will occur because its random, the outcome is RANDOM. Its absurd. It doesn't make much sense.
I hope this accurately adresses your argument.
First fallacy happened when you used Pascal’s wager - “if Christianity is right atheists go to hell, if it’s wrong nothing happens” so it seems like you should choose the option that promises eternal life as you said in the video at 3:00 but this argument is flawed as it is a false dichotomy, there are infinite possible gods which will all have different requirements for getting into a heaven like idea. It is also an argument for ignorance, as it says if we don’t know that Christianity is true we should believe it anyway. So no, you shouldn’t believe in Christianity because of Pascal’s wager.
I didn't use Pascal's wager as an argument. This video is about the moral argument, but I start with an anecdote about my own experience. That isn't proposed as an argument. You are also straw-manning Pascal for he did not publish his wager as an argument either, but as a reflection and a wager of probability. My rendering of it encourages further exploration as compared to the refusal to investigate until undeniable proof punches you in the face - which is a sequence by which no great discovery has ever been made. If you want to address the argument of this video, you have to deal with the logic of the moral argument I laid out after the intro.
@@BrianHoldsworth this was the dumbest argument i have heard. you did appeal to Pascal's wager, which is fallacious, and with the moral argument you made the false equivocation fallacy of equating objective and absolute morality. now you just have to give an example of a mind that is independent of a brain. also, if there is a god, you are not moral, you are amoral.
@@BrianHoldsworth This posted a few 5 days before my birthday. Great Video. Unfortunately, there is probably alot of atheists (actually 1 to 20) are probably rolling their eyes.
You watch cosmicakeptic one time and this happens 💀
@@benjaminzamora6964 I had actually just came across his video along with this one through search.
The moral argument may be compelling to the laymen. As a former pastor, now atheist, it was a last domino to fall as my “soul” lashed out for reasons to still believe. However, as I allowed myself to research the moral argument from naturalistic standards, this panic quickly faded. The Bible is subjective within itself, and subjective within the world. There has never been anything but subjective “moral standards.” A cursory reading of the text of the Bible shows the subjectivity of murder, slavery and lying. In short, the Bible gives a code of what a group of people, at various contradictory points, thought was “in group” behavior. Naturalism predicts this, and all laws are nothing but this.
Your “screaming at the waves” analogy betrays your own point. Some of us did/do scream at them, and say “respect us!” It’s called prayer, and it evidentially does not work, because like you said, there is no personhood behind those natural deterministic acts.
Better explained than I could have.
It really isn't much of an argument at all. certainly nowhere near the best one lol.
My grandmother believed in god her entire life. She endured so much hardship as many do but even so walking with god made her strong and happy until her last breath. She used to say that god was her therapist. Who knows maybe this was all within her and had nothing to do with an external force but believing in this force is what got her through life. That being said, you cannot deny that there maybe some otherworldly force at play.
@@theredloro2138 yes I can. There is no evidence. Your anecdote is not evidence.
@@DrBased Try reading the Bible with more attention than you did my post. A cursory reading of Genesis 37 for example shows that it is an inconsistent mess, even the church admits this. The Bible is a fallible book of moral horrors. I certainly hope you’re not attempting to advocate for the clear biblical teaching of the moral rightness of slave ownership, complete with the beating of slaves nearly to death.
@@DrBased with the text itself. It’s a widely known gibberish text.
Agree. Even people who used to think that God is real, have now started to think that "religion is a man-made concept" to keep the humanity from chaos. Yes, it sounds correct, thats because we are look at it :retrospectively". Say in a business plan, first you assess the situation ->identify oppotunities-> make strategy. but when you do it from end to start, you make strategy but when you assess the situation, you are trying to fit a square in a circle.
I remain unconvinced but I like your energy. You're very respectful.
@@AK-kd8iq such big shoulds and should nots are massive assumptions to make with no frame of reference. Science also doesn't just operate on randomness either, not sure what you're even getting at with that.
Something cannot come from nothing. Same with conscience.
Where did God came from then?
@@DharmaPT89 Well God is the ultimate necessary being, meaning that everything comes from Him. And Since He's the necessary being for existence, He can't come from anything else because that would make the being that He came from the necessary being. God is what we call the principle necessary being, also making Him the only necessary being. Since He is necessary for existence, nothing else could be necessary because it depends on the necessary being for existence.
@@isaacduplantis1114 but you just said something cannot come from nothing... why are you contradicting yourself?
@@isaacduplantis1114 Have you witnessed this god so well that you can personally give it attributes? Lets give the Universe these attributes and no god is needed.
@@DharmaPT89 (I forgot who I got this from) if you don’t think that something can’t come from nothing, then nothing would exist, there had to be something there, and then you’d have to ask where did that something come from
I don't want your best argument, I want your best evidence. When I say the universe is expanding, I can show you red-shift to back up my claim. What evidence can you actually show me?
Theists do not have proof, nor do they have any convincing evidence. But in my point of view this is ok, what is ridiculous is that they are not even able to come up with even a single rational argument for their god to be real.
@@hitman5782 That doesn't stop them from having faith. Faith does not require evidence or proof.
@@doctorwebman Of course not. If they would actually have evidence they would not need faith.
Faith is not only useless, it is very dangerous. You can believe literally everything based on faith.
Faith is what suicide bombers have most. I prefer evidence, and everybody should.
What is claimed without evidence should be dismissed without evidence or even a second thought.
@@hitman5782 Evidences are everywhere but some decided to ignore them. Show me another forged Shroud of Turin outside of our Century. Show me.
@@hitman5782 well if you look at it like I do. If I were a grand creator and wanted a fellowship who comes to me of their own free will then t his world and existence is a test. A grand creator who wants fellowship and free will knows that a set number will choose to not join his fellowship. An all good being would not force Anyone into fellowship who doesn't want it. So why would a creator dump absolute evidence if he wants us to come willing on our own individual journey to seek him.
It's all chemical reactions in our brains attracting us to a favorable experience. Morals are constructed by our fears of discomfort and our attraction to self significance and pleasure, both physically and emotionally. I still haven't heard an argument for faith that can't be broken down to just that.
There's a little more when it comes to morals it's something that we got from evolution but I don't have time to explain it so I'm gonna dip but read something about it or watch a video anyway have a good day
korosu what do I read? What video do I watch? Is your argument just “trust me bro”?
@@Sehon13Ultd There isn't a argument I'm just saying do more research
It’s infuriating that this argument assumes that only Christian societies could make and enforce moral laws, such as theft, assault, and murder. When these morals simply follow the golden rule of treating others as you want to be treated. This idea existed long before the Bible was written. This common philosophy works because it enhances social cohesion.
And why do morals matter, when the way to heaven is through belief, not morality. The most moral person in the world would still be punished if they happen to believe in the wrong god.
I see this as the weakest argument for god. It would be more persuasive if statistics showed that Christians were less likely to commit moral crimes. When actually statistics show that of all religious groups, it’s the “none” that have the lowest rate of incarceration.
_Best_ argument? The Moral Argument is a _TERRIBLE_ argument! It's two baseless claims in a row:
* that objective morality exists
* and that if it exists it's best (or could only be) explained by a god
If you and I agree Transformers (2007) is a bad movie, _that doesn't make it objectively bad._ Well the only difference between that preference and our behavior preferences (morality) is the consequences:
* the consequence of allowing Transformers movies is more Transformers movies got made. Not a great outcome, but also not particularly bad.
* the consequence of allowing murder is _people actually die._ A devastatingly more severe consequence.
So when people cooperate to enforce a morality (like by our governments' laws), they don't need to delude themselves that they're enforcing some objective standard. All they need is to agree on their standards -- and that's what laws represent: the (often constantly shifting!) morals the community/nation has agreed to enforce with force.
We don't have evidence of a single objective moral value -- and if we did, so what? We still wouldn't have evidence the cause of that moral was a god (which is what you'd need for this to logically be evidence of a god -- for it to be even a good _argument_ for a god).
I think employing the Law of Total Probability is the main argument in supporting the existence of God. There is no way that this universe or possibly multiverse could have come into being on its own. Life just happened? Did information come into existence on its own? No way.
Same here, and even more, He still does it, so God keeps making us anew every day and keeps us alive and the whole universe going
Yeah, that is called evolution...
Yes, life is not magic, it totally follows the universe rules, thinking is not that much. When you think it's just chemical reactions, you can say that when you use a drug you became a totally different person, or you can say you are always a different person, as those chemical reactions change all the time. And what information? The rules are not really rules, those are just energy manifestations, as me and you, we manifest as mass, gravity as force and it goes on. Just accepting it's "a magical thing from a super human" is kind dumb, don't you think? It's just to simple to accept that everything is resumed to a "man" that came from the nothing. If you think, his existence doesn't have any sense at all as he is not important for something, as existence for itself is not important, because if nothing existed, what would change?
@@DharmaPT89 I don't take the Genesis account (Gen.1-11) as a litoral creation of planet earth. I'm a theistic evolutionist.
@Daniel Green The arguments of those whose who will not even consider the possibility of a God depend totally on time to do all of the work for them of bucking the odds. They think that trying to explain the world around them (science) is somehow incompatible with there being a higher power who created the very things that they try and explain.
Hey Brian! Is the Alleluia that plays around 3:30 also written by Paul Jernberg? If so, which one of his pieces is it? It’s absolutely beautiful.
It's the introitus to the Confirmation Mass or Mass of the Holy Spirit. You may most easily find it on Soundcloud.
The song is called The love of god
I enjoyed the video and the broad perspectives realized, but I have some problems with this argument. Law doesn’t need to recognize an objective moral code. It’s in place to allow society to function, and in most cases it is in accordance with how people want to be treated. There are disputes over laws too, like abortion, and there are changes in laws, so it isn’t based on an unchanging ideology. And more trivial offences that are less obviously wrong are not usually punished by the law, like being rude to others. Even if the idea of a objective moral code is appealing, you must prove it’s existence before using it as a case to prove its cause is God.
Of course you’re free to reject what is commonly the second premise of the moral argument for Gods existence, and then just boldly admit and own what necessarily follows from that.
Morality is a human creation borne of selfishness.
"I do not want X to happen to me, so let's say X is bad and no one can do it."
Not only does it not require God to exist, it doesn't require a belief that God exists or, indeed, the idea of a God at all.
If someone still does X, then how do we stop that? We have Y as a punishment.
Now, who hands out the punishment? This is where things get tricky and the stronger usually overthrow the weak. So .. how can we stop that happening?
I know, if you do X then Y will happen to you, but none of us will hand out the punishment ... Z will.
Now, you can't see Z, nor can you find him (or her), so there is no way to escape punishment.
This has a flaw, however, that the punishment is never meted out. Eventually the person that did X will catch on and laugh at us and go right back to doing X again.
So, how do we fix _that_ ?
We say that Y will happen _after_ they die, and it will be eternal (cos that's usually a lot more scary than a simple Y). Also, if you are obviously going to be "alive" forever after you die ... then that's not fair on the people that obeyed the rules. So, they get to "live" forever too, but in a good place.
If, by chance, something extreme happens to the X'er, and they die unexpectedly ... then we can say "oh, look, Z got impatient and wanted to punish him right away)
What we now have is a "person" Z that is impossible to see/find, that judged people's lives and consigns them to an eternal afterlife of either punishment or "paradise" for any transgression of the rules we lay down. We have, effectively, created and defined "God"
The more savvy (let's say, unscrupulous) will eventually realise that they can go around making people believe in Z and then make up rules to follow, leaving themselves in a position of power. of course, any transgression against that person will against the rules and Z will have them for it .. eventually.
Not only have we now created "God", but also a "Religion" and "The Church"
So, if it that simple to create God, Religion and "the Church" from basic morality (and we have seen pretty much the same thing done in industry, politics and cults), is it not more logical to assume that God is a product of morality, not its source?
Of course it is.
Man created morality.
Morality created God
Now, what was your "compelling argument" again?
^^^^^ This! ^^^^^
As an atheist i really enjoyed this. It put religion into a new perspective for me, because most arguments that people have had against me you already need to have a specific illogical belief for their argument to make sense. And the way I see it and have had it described to me has been very limited in terms of posibilities and simply believes something for the sake of not knowing what else to think of it. But this video really made it more propable and logical in my mind by not drawing to conclusions that god looks like a human or is one specific entity. It does however still not explain the begining of everything and other paradoxal questions.
I like the moral argument. There's a good argument from evolution that explains our concept of morality fairly well. Basically, the universal morals are the "games" that we took part in that allowed us to become modern humans, and religion is our attempt to explain why we take part in those "games". Great video as usual.
Michael Thomas Stewart hey! Isn't saying "morals are the "games" that we took part in" just descriptive but not explanatory? The question arises, why did we take part in those "games"?
Second thing, religion is not just ethics, so it doesn't explain just our interactions with other men, but also connect us to a transcendent reality. I'd say most of theology is not about the relations between men, but between mankind and God.
Last thing, an evolutionary ethics would never lead to compassion of individuals outside of a tribe or family. Loving thy neighbour is not intuitive, meaning, it contradicts the laws of natural selection. Trusting, helping and loving people you don't know ( a rough sketch of human ethics) does not help in survival, in fact, it increases the probability of you trusting loving and helping people you shouldn't and end up dying, and so, making the transmission of those values impossible. By natural selection ethics, the strong do what they want, and the weak suffer what they must, and this is good. It ends up being "might is right", which is not how one sees modern ethics, I'd assume. Cheers Michael
@@joaodealbuquerque8819 Actually not necessarily. Their is a multitude of studies showing that being alone increases your likelyhood of dying. Therefore increase friendship as much as possible increases your survival. Therefore under natural selection cooperation is a betterment to survival. Cooperation is a starting point too morality, because without morality the cooperation will start too disappear. Since there would be mistrust between people. Plus plenty of animals have championships with other animals and sometimes with humans. Yet animals don't seem too show any sign of religion in them. So clearly you don't need religion or God to find moral values.
Plus cooperation outside your own group can benefit you. I mean I have seen benefits a lot and rarely do I get bad things happening. Plus if this is really the case why is it that animals sometimes help humans out? They aren't part of any religion and clearly the bible states animals won't go to heaven or hell so if morality is really dictated by God plus animals don't really have a reason too cars for this reason.
Plus a quote from a friend of mine sums it up best.
"Trust is formed from experience and you need too start it in order too progress,"
@@thoughtaddict2739 hey! how you doing?
Firstly, thanks for the thought food! Now, I think your first argument is a non sequitur, and it ultimatly doesn't adress my point.
"Their is a multitude of studies showing that being alone increases your likelyhood of dying. Therefore increase friendship as much as possible increases your survival."
I never said that "natural selection ethics" would lead to isolation, no, on the contrary, in my mind, they'd lead to a rigid tribalism, where trust outside of this group would be unthinkable, and not classic western morals of compassion and love (as caritas).
Next, just because a factor in a small amount results in a bad outcome, doesn't mean you should maximize it. Just because being alone might end up resulting in death, it doesn't follow that if one's social interactions are fully maximized the same outcome will arive less frequently, just try to go across town, to the rough neighborhoods and socialize there, see if your chances of survival increase. Basically, socializing is better when one does it in a moderate fashion and not "as much as possible".
Now your point about animals is interesting. I don't want to misread you , do you think animals are moral agents? I'd say they aren't for humans are unique in the sense that we are the only ones making moral judgments and choices, an ability Jean Piaget showed we are not born with , but develop over time. Animals might have strong surviva/cooperation -instincts but I'd say there is a world of difference between those and human empathy involving a Theory of Mind, that is, the ability to recognise that one's own perspectives and beliefs can be different from someone else's
"I mean I have seen benefits a lot and rarely do I get bad things happening"
I'm sorry but this one is just hilarious. Of course, you can act outside of your trust group, but that's because even the people outside of that group have moral systems built onto christian ethics, in some way, shape or form, even if not consciously. Now you might act with people of other cultures that have different values, but the farther away they are from historically western values, the more dangerous it gets. Say you go to the north sentinel island for the weekend, and you assume that you share the same morals. That'd be a grave mistake. Now imagine the everyone on the planet has the same ethical systems as the sentinelese, which basically is "tribalism/a refined "natural selection ethics"! does this world look like the one we live in? No, definitely not.
"So clearly you don't need religion or God to find moral values. "
Of course you don't, it's called natural law. An atheist can behave morally, but the question arises, where do those morals come from? Can't be nature, unless you're a sentinelese, we've covered that, can't be personal preference,then we'd never be able to say "you ought", so there is an objective foundation for moral values. What can this be? well, then we reach the moral argument for God's existence, i'd advise you to look it up ;)
"animals sometimes help humans out" because they seek rewards, that's how you train a rescue dog. Now, on western ethics, an action is good even when you don't get rewarded. We can know this by helping out people that we don't know, and that can't, in any way, thank or reward us. For example, a woman who had a stroke in the street or a homeless who passed out drunk.
Finally, here's my quote of choice, "let your religion be less of a theory and more of a love affair", by G. K. Chesterton, just to finish off by saying that Christian ethics are not a long list of prohibitions, a contrario, there are only two, love God above all things, and your neihghbour as yourself, and we needed God to become man, so we could know these rules, for, by virtue of our nature, we'd never get there. Cheers
@@joaodealbuquerque8819 Doing good. Cheers mate.
Ok so your saying it isn't from nature? To some extent I agree, but that doesn't explain how some animals that weren't domesticated or was familiar with humans would help some humans in dangerous situations. You mention police dogs, but that doesn't explain how non domesticated animals would help humans out sometimes. You say they were seeking a reward, but that would go against their natural instincts too stay away from big animals. Plus why would they expect to seek a reward once the animals saved some humans? It doesn't know them for all it knows the humans are dangerous too it. It makes not much sense from a animals perspective if it were seeking a reward. Plus animals are moral agents if they weren't than why would they even have their own little social rules in nature that seem pretty similar to some form of morality?
Like I said cooperation eventually leads too some form of morality, because if it didn't that wouldn't explain why social animals seem to have some form of morality in the group, while their is tribalism between groups when you think about it depending on the situation they might make a bigger cooperation simply by the fact that people might depend on the other group that they despised and so does the other in what you could say a tough situation. I mean think about it wouldn't their eventually be a group helping out another group and vice versa when both are stuck in a survival situation? Over time when they get too know each other they would find each others social values as useful.
Plus their is a possibilty of the fact that since humans lasted for 200,000 years that they would eventually figure out what works and what doesn't on social values. Plus from what I remember weren't humans back than under some situations of close to catastrophic events? Wouldn't some take a risk too form a bigger group with other groups too survive? As such over time people are less worried of finding danger too strangers forming the possibility of friendship?
Plus from what I have seen morality is just "increase health, wellbeing, happiness and decrease whatever damages health/wellbeing/happiness over the long term," It doesn't seem like God is really needed in the equation. Lying can decrease the wellbeing or happiness of people. Killing can also do that. Stealing also seems too decrease someone happiness. Rape can also decrease wellbeing happiness and health. So you know this. Just apply the opposite of these immoral actions and you'll see that it'll follow the effects of this foundation.
I asked myself, If everything PHYSICAL Originated by Chance like most Scientist say, over Billions of years random Particle and atom forned matter mass dust elements gas Stars Galaxies ECT. Eventually forming Intelligent creatures, what would Enable these intelligent beings to make thousands of non random thought and decisions leading to purposefully Events . Shouldn't it take at least a billion years for each thoughtful decision to be made?
Beautifully said
2:18 Just because your life improved, doesn’t mean a god did it. Correlation is not necessarily causation
2:48 The problem is being ashamed of those modes of behavior. Not the behavior. Things like lust, using certain language and drinking (in moderation) are totally nothing to be ashamed of, yet Christians go crazy feeling bad about them.
3:00 It’s not a 50/50 argument. Stop using Pascal’s Wager
3:12 Atheism isn’t speculation. It’s a rational way of thinking due to the lack of convincing evidence for a god claim.
3:24 Logical fallacy. Just because a lot of people agree with something doesn’t make it true.
It is interesting that Christians have been relegated to the Moral argument to try and "prove" the existence of their God. It was not long ago that they clung to scientific observations, but those have all been destroyed.
SPOILER alert: The moral argument is not a defense of Christianity's God, it is a condemnation of him.
To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible. - St. Thomas Aquinas.
This is a bad argument for morality.
and i guess the Atheist can justify morality??
@@torontoash45 What does that even mean, "justify morality"? Do you want a justification for an absolute morality like the one dictated by the Bible?
if you don´t know what justify means then you have problems
@@torontoash45 I asked to understand your question, you don't have to explain anything if you don't want an answer.
what makes you think i don´t have an answer ? however more important i would like to hear your opinion and what you think it means
Thank you. Man, I found the righteous side of RUclips. And I’m not leaving.
I've noticed that to be a very narrow category compared to everything else found on RUclips.
Good argument. “You do you” is society’s current mantra, and without acknowledging absolute truth, everyone has their own set of morals and rules. However, this is faith: to be certain of what we hope for and sure of what we cannot see. Christians are certain of the HOPE we have in Him, as you mentioned in the video. And hope does not disappoint, friend!
It sounded like Pascal's wager for the first few minutes, which leaves us wondering which god to worship. The second point, "objective mortality", doesn't have to exist just because the alternative is unpleasant. Reality doesn't care if you're comfortable with it. We acquired a perception of morality because it enabled us to collaborate with our tribespeople. It provided an evolutionary advantage. If we had evolved a little differently, we might have a completely different perception of right and wrong.
You're replying to something I did not argue. I never said objective morality must exist because the alternative makes us uncomfortable. I invite you to listen again and pay close attention to the argument.
While I can't say this convinced me (unfortunately), kudos for being honest and not condescending. Your attitude is sadly rare among apologist RUclipsrs I've come across.
Hmmm. That may be true. It's hard to detect when you are already sympathetic to their view. But, this is why I would rely more on books than on "influencers". Ego is a big temptation with modern media and so you get an inconsistent cast of characters. In my experience, the authors of apologetics are quite good, humble, and patient with their readers. This video is largely based on CS Lewis' argument in Mere Christianity. I'd give that book a try if you're looking for a friendly tone but sophisticated and moving content.
Above me but thanks all the same. I just believe God exists.
Don't worry, its very very basic long debunked clap trap, sent out with a mish mash of word salad to sound intellectual. Basically he is saying "I don't want to believe that morals make perfect sense for a social species like humans so god must of done it"
@@rerooar There's more to it than that to be fair. But it still isn't what I would call the best argument, I would probably refer to Aquinas or something similar.
@@CantusTropus Who would follow those today? As a believer in God I would say "The facts are known man , the facts are known" have you watched Coppleston / Russell on utube ?
You should have a conversation with Pinecreek on youtube. My take from this video, You could get the same thing from meditation as you do from religion.
Meditation is a big part of catholicism
@@cazwalt9013 Apparently so is molesting little boys... I'd stick with the meditation without the indoctrination. :)
Just a casual mic drop from Mere Christianity ;)
Yea, dropped the mic, and walked out the door in defeat. The mortality argument is one of the easier items to debunk... If God is so omnipotent, Omni benevolent, omnipresenent, then why was slavery so endorsed and women used as fleshlights for almost 2,000 years? Don't you think these "morales" from an all seeing, all powerful creator, wouldn't have to wait for governments of man to determine their equality?
Look at modern day Muslims... They worship the same God of Abraham as you Christians, teach from the same old testament, yet they differ severely in these "perfect objective morales" you claim God the father imbued into us.
*Drops mic*
@@tobehonest3104 I'm glad you mentioned slavery. Brian actually recently made a video about that very subject: ruclips.net/video/6ubvXLk6EMQ/видео.html
@@tobehonest3104 What would you do if somebody came in, handcuffed you and forced you to do good?
I have a question. First of all, I grew up Christian, and a frequently used argument was as follows. The gist was…If you spend your life without religion only to die and find out you were wrong, then you go to hell. But if you spend your life religious and then die, you end up in heaven. Good for you, you won. On the flip side, if you spent your life not believing in god, die, and there is no afterlife, no biggie. But if you were a Christian who spent their life believing in god, then die and there is no afterlife, then that’s also not a big deal. They would say, “what have you really lost?” In this scenario, as if the obvious answer was nothing. My issue is this… Isn’t this argument a form of fear mongering? Basically their argument is that you might as well believe in Jesus because if you don’t and you’re wrong, you go to hell. Hell. Hell. Hell. Eternal torment for not being able to wrap your head around Christianity, which, like any religion, is highly complicated and who’s authenticity is questionable. Why would something as abstract and difficult to swallow as faith be the currency to get into heaven? I’m hoping someone read this and has some kind of answer. I’ve been struggling for a long time with this and I’m sick of Christians getting on their high horses and offering half baked, condescending answers. (Obvi not all Christians are like this, but my experiences are what they are).
This form of the moral argument is the most compelling argument for God to me. Well done!
Then you aren't a critical thinker.
this is the 'most compelling' to you and it is debunked, will you concede that you no longer believe in the existence of a god? Or will you simply reset and ignore that your 'most compelling argument' is no longer in your philosophical arsenal?
@@TheBlackDogChronicles If one of several arguments is debunked? No, that probably wouldn’t be enough to change my mind.
There are rational arguments on both sides, IMO. And I’ve been both an atheist and a believer. I would argue that if someone doesn’t think there’s a reasonable argument on the other side (either for or against God’s existence) - he hasn’t thought about it long enough!
Before any other more pertinent questions, I just have to ask you perhaps impertinently about those lovely guitars on your wall. LP junior on the left? Do you play?
The guitars have switches places in the course of the video, so obviously you've got some music going on
@@worldnotworld Yes, I play a little, but my time and enthusiasm have waned somewhat in recent years. I play one of them in an older video found here: ruclips.net/video/jipW5YhuCrk/видео.html
@@BrianHoldsworth Hi! As someone from a Soviet culture (now an immigrant in the USA) I believe that the resurrection was staged by the Romans, as explained in a popular book where I'm from - "The Gospel of Afranius"; like many others, I read it in childhood and never thought about this question again - until coming to the USA and noticing a stark contrast in the discussion of this question. What's wrong with that explanation? Also, I believe matter is eternal - it can only move and change but not appear from nowhere - seems like common sense to me, but apparently not here in the US, what's wrong with that?
To the topic of the video, I think even if we assume morality we can say it's Platonic Form of the Good, and moral laws are like mathematical laws, no need for G-d.
"But, with you and I..." Incorrect.
"But, with you and me.."
Correct.
Wrong.
@@Ancipital_ "I" is for subject, but when the clause begins with "with" it is not subject, but a complement to the main subject and action.
@@Ancipital_ look it up
It depends on the sentence. As a rule of thumb if you are going to the store for example. You’d say “I am going to the store.” So you’d say the same if someone was going with you. “John and I are going to the store.” Same applies if you use me.
Morality is based on material and objective things, it was also developed through evolution, as any part of our behavioir.
Saying about something 'well I can't explain it, therefore God exists' is nonsense. Especially when there is plenty of scientific explanation, but instead of studying it you prefer to igrone it.
Dr. Alvin Plantinga (he is Protestant and is a pioneer in modern Christian philosophy) has many arguments for God's existence. He also provides a good argument why theism and evolution make more sense than naturalism and evolution.
I like this argument, Brian. I've heard it before, but your presentation was among the best I've heard recently. "Best" is too subjective a term, but this is certainly a very good one.
Amazing video Brian!
Video actually starts at 3:40. You’re welcome.
I'm a physicist, and heartily agree that physics tells us nothing (or very little) about the fundamental question of philosophy, viz., "How, then, shall we live?" Another was of saying this is: "You can't get 'ought' from 'is'". I don't know how to judge which arguments for the existence of God are "best", but there are many. So I'm going to defer to Edward Feser, a former atheist who began to consider classical philosophy. Here's one of his very accessible discussions, with Patrick Coffin:
ruclips.net/video/9R3BXJVjwKI/видео.html
I wonder how you would respond to the observed fact of morality among the other highly social mammals on earth.
The other great apes and monkeys have been studied intensely over the last few decades, and they each display characteristic moral behaviors as moral agents with theory of mind. They punish norms violations like stealing, cheating, lying, and infidelity. Their societies are structured hierarchically, where the most successful leaders display not only strength but also charisma - brotherhood and sisterhood. They form alliances based on mutual aspiration, reconcile after conflict, express (and hide) jealousy or joy, comfort each other, celebrate together, and grieve together. They have a keen grasp of fairness and of “tit-for-tat” - what we would call The Golden Rule. They have the intense loyalty to the in-group and are suspect of outsiders.
If something in the universe provides an objective moral standard, it clearly doesn’t just apply to humans. And it doesn’t just stop at apes - it goes on and on throughout the tree of life, to varying degrees of similarity to our own.
Given these facts, what are the implications for the source of objective morality? And why does “whichever species you happen to be” determine the moral guidelines your species follows?
"I wonder how you would respond to the observed fact of morality among the other highly social mammals on earth."
I deny it. Just because you see an animal do something that you find morally agreeable, doesn't mean that it did it for moral reasons. Moral goodness means judging between potential alternatives and then choosing the right one because it's right. There's literally no evidence that any creature, other than humans do this. The only way to provide such evidence would be by getting them to communicate that they can perceive and judge between potentials - which they can't do... because they aren't rational.
@@BrianHoldsworth"I deny it". Thank you, that is an honest statement. You may as well say you deny reality.
God has blessed you with an amazing gift. I have been listening to your videos and God is absolutely using you to help me grow.
Yes, Zeus has been good to him.
@@JoachimLarsen101 Zeus is just a Myth, Odin is the real god
If I'd met someone like you while I was going through life, I would probably still be religious. You have such an interesting thought process and I'm gonna binge your videos to try and understand your perspective.
Why not come back to God today?
@@maow9240 i just like myself too much go through that again.
@@sarbnitrof4663 I'm not assuming you were a christian by the way but Christianity isn't truly that bad is it?
@@maow9240 probably not for other people but it was a destructive choice for me. Not everything should be forgivable and being good to others shouldn't be motivated by eternal reward. To each their own though.
@@sarbnitrof4663 it takes love to forgive and if you arent willing to fully forgive someone do you really love them if they truly are sorry for what they've done which is why they are seeking your help to keep them from going back to such a way of life? Who cares about eternal reward when it comes to the truth? Wouldn't you rather follow the truth despite if there was an eternal reward or eternal torment. You are aware that one doesn't get into heaven on good deeds alone right? How is Christianity a destructive choice? I've heared others says this but when asked they only complain about the old testament instead of actually answering that question about how Christianity is destructive for them.
“There is no such thing as moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena”
Says who?
@@ucheodozor4147 says Daemon Amdusias
That's called an "opinion."
And it doesn't take a genius to know what constitutes moral behavior.
Morality is what it is. It doesn't require an explanation nor justification.
These are usually the "most convincing" points that someone who is open to it may decide to be. You did the cs lewis proud
I find the whole conversation dumb because humans have extremely limited knowledge about the world and the universe, we don’t even know if there are aliens, we haven’t even been to mars physically and we have are talking like we “know” something created the universe or not? its stupid.
Nice video. Really liked it 👌🏽
not really, reinforcing lies is never a good thing.
Q1. Have you ever seen a god interacting with people within reality?
Q2. Have you ever heard of someone lying?
Q3. What's more likely, that a god used to interact with people within reality thousands of years ago and now plays hide and seek or that it's a bunch of stories made up thousands of years ago that never happened at all?
I recommend Brian Welch of Korn's youtubes. No lies. Or the many Muslim stories of encounters with the spirit of Christ and their conversions, not to atheism.
@@glenliesegang8935 Or maybe you could get god to stop hiding and show itself
@@donnyh3497 He showed Himself through Christ.
@@VandeVisscher The christ story is a 2000 year old legend that no one would ever believe if not for the extreme power of indoctrination. If there was a god it certainly wouldn't owe anyone anything unless of course it wanted anyone to actually know that it existed. In that case it would owe everyone a direct encounter the likes of the Damascus road experience. But since there is absolutely no reason to believe that any of the hundreds of thousands of gods that have been fervently believed in ever actually existed, there will NEVER be a real encounter with a god. Sorry to be the one to break the news to you
@@donnyh3497 Why is there no reason to believe God? You can get a glimpse of God through reason. Or at least you can come to the conclusion he exists by the use of reason.
Lovely explanation, but hard to get my head around it. I hope you'll make a video about how can we know God is a good God not a cruel, uncaring God?
If you think about God simply as being the highest being on the pyramid of beings (kinda like feudal system) than we could talk about things like that. But God is being itself, God is ground of all being, reason why there is something rather than nothing.
He is not good in the same sense as we are. When we say - he is a good man, we usually mean that that person HAS a quality of being good. But God does not have a quality of being good, he IS goodness itself, and whatever we have as good has it's source in God.
However, we must take into account that our peespectives are limited and that we tend to confuse certain things. For example - we confuse comfortable and what brings good emotions as being good. But drugs can make someone feel good and they are still bad. Likewise, we sometimes say - this is the best thing that has happened to me in my life and only later we discover it was bad. Or vice versa, sometimes we think that something terrible has happened to us, and later it proves to be good. And that is only when we take into account our own situation, and our very limited time here. But, if we are so bad at judging that, how can we even possibly be sure that what happens now is bad or good into grand scheme of things multiplied by billions of people and millions of years?
I'd add that cruelty and lack of caring are,like all sin, just lacks, that is, defects in good. Thus evil is a dependent parasite on good and cannot stand alone, while good is self sufficient.
@@rasmusmller625 True, I think it's the line of st. Augustine, evil defined as lack of good, it doesn't have it's essence. In that respect, only the good can be absolute, and the evil relative.
I think it's also one of the main reasons christianity is hated on (mayve even religion in general), it provides a guide towards what is absolute good, and that makes many things relative. It's a blow to our tendency to proclaim that what we do, think or feel is a measure of truth.
The call of Christ is to be shaped by him, with him and in him while instead lf trying to make reality and others bend to our own personal truth.
You would think that an all powerful, omnipotent god would have given his followers irrefutable evidence of his existence..
Nah, cuz what would that evidence look like? The only truly irrefutable evidence for anything is going to be something we can physically investigate through scientific means. Any other "evidence" for something outside of the realm of science (like God) will always be argued about, and will never truly convince anyone of anything, as it is nothing like the concrete scientific evidence we're used to. And so even if we were given a divine argument by God, I believe that people would still find ways to refute it, albeit incorrectly. A divine argument is useless if the unbelievers are unwilling to believe in the first place.
Besides, I would argue that God brings people to Him in ways far superior than arguments and logical discussions (cuz let's be honest, nobody leaves a God debate convinced of anything else but what they already believed at the start). In my experience, people have been converted far more often by seeing God act through a Christian firsthand. An act of mercy or love is far more compelling than any argument devised by Man. In fact I'd even go as far as saying that the Divine Argument is Action itself.
I agree that the Best Argument for God's existence is hope. If you have hope that you can avoid death, it's the ultimate price, I cannot imagine a price bigger than that.
The difference between a theist and an atheist is that atheists do not believe a sales pitch that sounds a BIT too sweet. When you sell something too good, I at least want SOME evidence, if you could just show any evidence, a whisp of evidence, a hope of evidence.
The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God is best. It includes the Moral Argument within it.
Do you have a version or thinker that you can refer us to?
@@BrianHoldsworth Great question. Some good examples are Dr. Greg Bahnsen, Cornelius Van Til, Jay Dyer, and Fr. Dcn. Dr. Ananias. The last two are currently alive and are collaborating on a book on the topic at this very moment, to be released shortly, and you can find them here on RUclips (Fr. Ananias can be found under the name "Norwegian Nous"). You might not find everything about them agreeable, I certainly don't, but, their argumentation on this matter is impeccable, so give them a fair shake. Also, St. John of Damascus, Aristotle, and Kant also make use of transcendental arguments of this sort, although in somewhat different contexts. Essentially, the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (also called 'TAG') does what you touched on in regards to moral transcendental categories, and applies that same reasoning to *all* transcendental categories. Thus, the argument can be expressed as a kind of reductio ad absurdum, in which anything but the Christian God's existence (yes, specifically the Christian God, as other conceptions of deity don't do what they would need to do to provide a coherent basis for transcendentals, only the Christian God does) leads to an absurd conclusion. This sounds like a very grandiose claim, but it has been thoroughly backed up. If you want an example of this argument in action, I can point you to probably the greatest theism debate of the 20th century, between Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Dr. Gordon Stein. Dr. Stein is your typical atheist type, and he ends up thoroughly refuted. It's truly a joy to behold.
One of the most pointless things you could do is argue for the existence of God. This is because ultimately we get nothing from it. God does not reveal himself to those who have found a good argument, nor does he for those you are arguing against. Life tends to stay the same. Religion is based on faith not fact.
Kid: mom can we have jesus?
Mom: no we have Jesus at home
Jesus at home:
We have no free will. What we have, is a subjective freedom. We think that we are free, but of course we are part of the determined Universe and can not break free.
I am a strong atheist, meaning I see no evidence for any god(s). Pascal's Wager (i.e. 'bet on God') ignores the possible existence of other gods, with other forms of morality. Morality is simply defined by a society. Is slavery moral/allowed? In pre-civil war U.S. it was. Currently it is not allowed.
Read Sam Harris on science and morality, in "The Moral Landscape" he shows that science can determine morality, if you assume that morality is concerned with happiness.
I missed the part where it was shown that morals have to have origins outside of this realm. Different cultures have different moralities - if a god supplies us with morality, how is that so? Does god only supply the basic moralities? Then why do we have murder and theft? Somethings just not adding up.
+mrhyde7600, writes _"I missed the part where it was shown that morals have to have origins outside of this realm."_
It wasn't shown. It's never shown because it's not true. It's just a presuppositional claim apologists make in order to claim evidence for their invisible-friend.
@@fred_derf Too bad none of the soldiers of gods army could bother responding. Funny how they have the helmet of salvation the breast plate of righteousness and all that shit and they are safely behind a keyboard somewhere but yet none of these cowards can bring themselves to even attempt an honest response. Pathetic.
If there isnt invisible thing having an impact on life and our mortality like you said then what is feeling how do we have those are impact on our life sad how do we feel mad what how do you explain that what I'm thinking right now how am I supposed to trust in that if it's invisible and nothing has an impact on me?
Also many atheists say where did God come from? So I'm talking about time space and matter so if there is a God that is not affected by time space and matter so if we are talking about that then that means there is no God but there is time space and matter.
So if God is not affected by time space and matter then that makes him God. And like how you were saying how why is their theft and murder it's because God created humans he didn't create what they did it's like a computer you don't see God running around in there changing the numbers no he created the man that created the computer.