Eddie!! Just wanted to say thanks so much for all your RS videos as they were basically the reason I got through my RS a level last year, so well explained and were genuinely lifesavers. ❤️❤️
*You've got atheism and you've got faith* Eh, what? You've got atheism and you've got theism, is the usual dichotomy. *The assumption is if one is correct the other is wrong* Not really, the assumption is that if the arguments for any specific deity are ambiguous, weak, flawed, unsound, or just plain fallacious, there is no rational reason to believe in that deity. *Science is actually about taking a theory, trying to disprove it by testing and testing and testing, and if you can't disprove it you accept it* Eh, you take a hypothesis, show plenty of reliable evidence that supports the hypothesis, and then you try to disprove it by testing and testing and testing, and if you can't disprove it you accept it as a theory. *Null hypothesis* Is, for any god, what we would expect to see if that specific god does not affect reality in accordance to its scripture or believers. The hypothesis that a specific god exists is what we would expect to see if that specific god did affect reality according to its scripture or believers. *God doesn't exist* Most atheists since Socrates have just said something like "the god you describe doesn't seem to exist because we only see reliable evidence of the null hypothesis, thus I don't believe in it". *Atheists are exactly the same they believe despite the lack of evidence* No, there is plenty of evidence that contradict specific theistic deities as described by those believing in them. As long as there is no reliable evidence of any specific theistic deity, and plenty of contradicting evidence, there is no rational reason to believe in any theistic deity. Effectively leaving atheism as the scientific opinion.
@North Korea Is Best Korea Like most atheists since Socrates, I see no reason to believe that any god exist, so I don't. And I do believe that no god like the gods I've been presented with so far exists.
@North Korea Is Best Korea I don't believe in any, and since I don't know anyone who makes claims or demands in the name of deistic deities I don't care about them.
It’s quite interesting because imo it shows how atheism is somewhat just a response to theistic interpretations of the world rather than a standalone belief - the problem of evil shows how a omni benevolent, omniscient omnipotent god is incompatible with the existence of evil, but that’s a very specific argument against a very specific definition of god, and actually therefore can’t be used as evidence for an alternative interpretation (there is no god) which is why there isn’t any ‘hard’ evidence to prove non existence of god. Theres a jump like you said from arguments against gods existence straight to god non existence. really cool video eddie glad to see you back
Thank you Charlie, very good insights there. I am not critical of atheism's desire to reject theism at all, but I do feel that the argument gets blurred by what I consider to be a false logic. More clarity can only be a good thing. And I'm happy for people to disagree with me!
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles maybe stand alone belief was a mis wording, a more appropriate wording would be it is simply an absence of a belief, as like you say it is the default. I agree that most atheists do not say god doesn’t exist but just don’t believe in God. However in my experience, the most vocal atheists are those who actively reject gods existence and present atheism as the scientific approach , rightly or wrongly.
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles I understand what you say about no label for people who don’t believe in ghosts, but i suppose the difference is that a vast majority of all world systems didn’t revolve around a belief in the objective morality and religion of a ghost. In my opinion atheist is almost a necessary term (even tho i would use it to describe myself probably) as such a vast number of people believed in God and i was argue that belief in God was the default, not in a biological sense, but in a societal sense for so many years, as otherwise there was little to describe the world. So therefore it is a necessary term as western civilisation was founded on a belief in God. Apologies for the slightly incoherent arguments, i am playing csgo haha
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles For the purposes of our discussion, what came before is not all that relevant. We transferred from a largely religious society into a more atheistic one, and that was the most recent change and the one we are talking about. That is why the term atheist is necessary- as we transferred from a time of religion, we needed a term for those who were the minority, the atheist. And no maybe the atheist didn’t ask be called that, but there was undeniably a need for a term to describe that group. I agreed that the biological default is not God, and did not claim anything about human nature, but said that the societal norm for an extended period was a belief in God. I was agreeing that some form of indoctrination is required (indoctrination is quite a harsh word in my opinion but i use it for simplicity) but i was merely saying that this kind of indoctrination was the norm before Nietzsche almost. Anyone who did not closely examine their personal beliefs in an intensely philosophical way in those days would have likely been christian (if we are talking about europe). Because very few people would have differed from such a widely accepted and almost enforced view without strong cause.
I think you've conflated atheism with anti-theism or at the least strong atheism. As an atheist I don't claim that there is proof of there being no God, but rather that there is no evidence that there is.
So here's my concern: on topics like god, it is very interesting to see what people chose to think is more correct, since this topic usually does not practically affect our lives. So when it comes to faith, the only real reason to believe or not is because it makes you feel better. Which is nothing new, and a lot of psychologists and philosophers argue that it is more beneficial for most people to believe in something. Of cource not believing in god, or believing that he certaintly does not exist, makes people feel better too, since a lot of them chose that. And thats where i want to focus on: isn't it interesting that being "scientific" makes a lot of people feel better and more secure? It definately makes sense considering we grow up in a society that values politics over art and science over religion. But what gave me thoughts in your video was the "whats more scientific to believe in" premise. Because i very often see people defending whichever arguements on the topic the scientific community since to be most in favour of. And what i wanted to say was this: The whole point of faith is to pose a counterweight for science in your psyche- so that for every "i want to know why so i can trust", you can have an "i can trust without knowing why". Religion, based on faith and some common themes, created the concept of god as we know him. This concept has nothing, nothing to do with our need of faith. Whether or not you believe in this god is i think a ridiculous question to ask, and whats far more interesting is the question of "where do you chose to believe, and where do you chose to question." The reason modern day religion's concept of god is a huge fail is because the people of this society think that this concept is to be questioned, instead of believed in. And since science has moved forward enough for most people to recognize that the idea of a guy sitting on some clouds is rediculous, the people not only have the ability to question this concept, but the ability to poke holes in it too. I have not seen a deader horse than modern day western religion. It's so stupid that it tries to question the sanity of the people, and fails miserably. But is deciding whether you should believe in religion based on scientific criteria a pretty dead horse too? Hell yes. That would be like deciding if science has real applications on your microwave based on whether you believe in science or not. Spoiler alert, if you dont believe in science, you'll never even see the applications of gravity on your microwave. And if you do, you might see them, but you'll be approaching science in a way that it is not made to be approached with. And thats exactly what science is doing to religion. To conclude, religion is for believing and science is for questioning. To be "healthy" you should do both, in a way that is suitable for you ( im pretty sure western religion is not a suitable form of faith for most people ). And if you do indeed have a healthy balance of believing and questioning in your life, you will never reach a point where science is your religion and religion is your debate club.
You got atheism wrong.Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism doesn't claim there's evidence that god doesn't exist
Thanks for drawing my attention to a potentially hidden comment, I will make sure it's visible. I agree, Robin Dude has made an excellent contribution to this discussion
@@Bill_Garthright Yeah, it is weird sometimes in my early morning browsing, I see these comment sections that have at the top "3 Comments" yet the comment section only shows one or two or even blank, but when clicking Sort By -> Newest First, it then populates the comment section fully. Even just before this, with the Robin Dude interaction with Eddie Adams, it is still not showing by default.
A SERMON ON WHY HUXLEY WAS NOT AN "ATHEIST" There is an unusual and possibly unique element to this problem. The reason that Huxley would coin a term like "agnostic," which requires evidence that God CANNOT EVER be studied by collecting and sorting evidence, is because he understood what theists mean when they use the term, "God." The term "God" is, in practice if not by definition, "He who acts to produce those effects for which we have no evidence for a material causation," and "He who is the 'intelligence' that makes it meaningful to speak of purpose and redress in human history." I offer a back-of-the-napkin description of God, but you get what I mean. God is defined as invisibly filling in gaps in our understanding and shoring up a mental construct of our practical morality. God especially flourishes in human history because historical events are not as susceptible to experimentation and repetition. Natural explanations are heavily qualified, and they are not able to justify all the suffering and unfairness associated with historical events. God becomes "that being we cannot observe who lives only where natural explanations have not arrived." God doesn't live on the cloud tops anymore; He constantly retreats and is now on the pre-causation side of the Singularity. Huxley realized that there can NEVER BE evidence for this slippery and evasive Entity, because His adherents conceive of Him--or at least treat Him--as a reality that cannot be constrained by the scientific method. Therefore, for atheists to speak of a preponderance of evidence that there does not exist this God, who never exposes Himself to observation and evidence and who exists precisely where evidence stops, is a contradiction in terms. Twice in the New Testament, Jesus' friend, John, says, "No man has seen God, but..." John says that we have seen Jesus, who was a visible representation of the loving Father. And he says elsewhere that when believers love one another as Jesus first loved them, they evidence the unseen God. But God Himself remains unseen. When I get around to constructing a term that means, "I have not seen" (the Greek is awkward and ugly, unfortunately), I will use that as a description of my own flavor of agnosticism--one that blends Stoic resignation and the Sermon on the Mount. In the meantime, while humans struggle to construct better words than "atheist" or even "agnostic," I "believe" I could do worse than to treat others as I would be treated, to love my neighbors as myself, and to take responsibility for, and keep my promises to, my closest companions. PS Your video helped me immensely. I thank you for the clarity and simplicity of your approach. And I thank you just for being a considerate person in a time of mutual hostility and willful ignorance.
Thank you for your comment. I welcome all to this discussion, and I'm glad that you share my interest in understanding over conflict. Should I take from this that you're accepting that a belief in God is not scientific (i.e. not falsifiable)?
@@EddieEducation MY ANSWER, PART ONE: Belief in the existence of any particular and well-described deity is potentially within the realm of scientific study and potentially falsifiable. Belief in a deity need not be unscientific, any more than belief in very powerful or knowledgeable aliens--or angels--is. MY ANSWER, PART TWO: Belief in a succession of deities who are described universally as "by definition and practice existing just beyond the realm of scientific study" are not identifiable, and thus are not falsifiable. Belief in them is unscientific. The fact is, theists have always spoken of examples of deity or divine action vaguely and inconsistently. They have made an alternate social reality where this sleight-of-mind is not shameful or accountable.
@@I_Am_Monad thank you for your contribution - very detailed, thank you. The suggestion of a God yet to be discovered would indeed be a falsifiable one. Indeed, an intriguing situation to say the least! I suppose that the question is whether one considers it justified to believe that we can reach a stage where humanity has the capacity to do so. But that would be open to debate, as it would be conjecture at this stage. As such, I will thank you for your contribution, and the enjoyable discussion!
You asked me to hear you out but by the 3 minutes mark you had already made so many false propositions that I couldn't imagine any redeeming value to continue watching. You haven't a proficient understanding of either the _position_ of atheism or the employ of scientific methodologies.
Thanks for your comment - as I mentioned, I'm keen to stimulate discussion. I'd be very keen to know which propositions you consider to be false, and why. I would also value your take on the atheist position, so that we may seek the truth together.
Well, I only made it to the 3 minute mark, too. But I'd already written such a long comment that I don't think I could have fitted much more into it! Heh, heh.
@@EddieEducation I define my position of atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Wouldn't you agree?
@@theoskeptomai2535 I agree that skepticism of any claim is prudent until sufficient evidence is provided. And if sufficient evidence cannot be provided, it is best to reject that belief. That assertion is - so far - in line with the content of my video.
@@EddieEducation There's a reason the Vienna Circle failed to apply the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis works if we are say measuring population growth in a group of animals. Falsification works when both sides can be a result of the experiment. God is not 'a side' but a proposition that is clearly man made....
Are there any scientific and reasonable claims for the ultimate existence of the universe? Until I hear one agnosticism in my opinion is the most scientific stance- notice I say the most scientific stance and not necessarily the correct stance. I don’t think there is a correct stance that we can say with certainty and to claim that would indicate I understood the nature of the ultimate divine and that would be extremely arrogant
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles you might be unaware of the large body of world religions that do not hold any value in faith, some of which even renounce mythology, most of which are among the most ancient continually practiced religions in the world: Advaita Vedanta (and other branches of Vedanta, sometimes even including the Hare Krishnas- though their personification practice of bhakti might make it seem otherwise) Taoism (explicitly the traditional yin schools) Theravada Buddhism (the more explicitly atheist cousin of Advaita Vedanta) Lurianic Kabbalah (which became so pervasive among rabbis that it is often held as orthodox judaic theology) Jainism (another kissing cousin of Avaita Vedanta) Even the Sufis interpretation of Islam (which had once been the majority of the religion) and its radical personalism can be said to hold no real merit in Faith (as in belief, and not as the emotion of love), and that belief alone gave no grace to the believer. No No FAITH is the bailiwick of western christianity and their colonial reign of terror and inquisition over the world.
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles You might also find modern Avaita Vedanta interesting as it is perhaps the most skeptical cosmology Ive ever seen (although I was raised in an Ashram community so that could slant my view a bit). Atman, the perceptual-eye/I of consciousness is seen as the central truth of reality, with everything else becoming a transitory trait of brahman/theUniverse, including the memories you make, and the identity you build of yourself.
While its true that what we believe makes a difference in our lives mentally. Its not true that we should not believe in something for the sake or believing. I believe in Christianity because of the mental comfort it brings but also because of historical, social and theological examples it offers. The only book in the world which is scientifically accurate. Telling the end from the beginning. It describes the circumstances and nature of human beings, which still occurs to this very day. Women are listening to Satan like eve to this very day. Men are passing all their influence and authority to women nowadays just like the stories of the bible. This is only 1 of dozens of examples I could give. Spirituality is an extension of natural living. Jesus Christ is the way and provides not just a religious following but spiritual insight. We can become children of God and become like God in nature, and essence. Jesus Christ even lets those who make it to heaven rule and reign with Him for eternity. There is no greater love than that.
Wow, we live in a strange, strange world. I am so confused rn. I really just need to talk through something with someone in order to get something done for my freshman year of college to be over with, even though it's just started. Help Jesus
Eddie!! Just wanted to say thanks so much for all your RS videos as they were basically the reason I got through my RS a level last year, so well explained and were genuinely lifesavers. ❤️❤️
You're very welcome, it's a pleasure to hear from you!
I should reread Hume’s dialogue on Natural religion because if I am remembering correctly it kind of applied to this topic
*You've got atheism and you've got faith*
Eh, what? You've got atheism and you've got theism, is the usual dichotomy.
*The assumption is if one is correct the other is wrong*
Not really, the assumption is that if the arguments for any specific deity are ambiguous, weak, flawed, unsound, or just plain fallacious, there is no rational reason to believe in that deity.
*Science is actually about taking a theory, trying to disprove it by testing and testing and testing, and if you can't disprove it you accept it*
Eh, you take a hypothesis, show plenty of reliable evidence that supports the hypothesis, and then you try to disprove it by testing and testing and testing, and if you can't disprove it you accept it as a theory.
*Null hypothesis*
Is, for any god, what we would expect to see if that specific god does not affect reality in accordance to its scripture or believers.
The hypothesis that a specific god exists is what we would expect to see if that specific god did affect reality according to its scripture or believers.
*God doesn't exist*
Most atheists since Socrates have just said something like "the god you describe doesn't seem to exist because we only see reliable evidence of the null hypothesis, thus I don't believe in it".
*Atheists are exactly the same they believe despite the lack of evidence*
No, there is plenty of evidence that contradict specific theistic deities as described by those believing in them.
As long as there is no reliable evidence of any specific theistic deity, and plenty of contradicting evidence, there is no rational reason to believe in any theistic deity. Effectively leaving atheism as the scientific opinion.
@North Korea Is Best Korea I think you need to work on your reading comprehension.
@North Korea Is Best Korea When did I say that?
@North Korea Is Best Korea Like most atheists since Socrates, I see no reason to believe that any god exist, so I don't.
And I do believe that no god like the gods I've been presented with so far exists.
@North Korea Is Best Korea I don't believe in any, and since I don't know anyone who makes claims or demands in the name of deistic deities I don't care about them.
@North Korea Is Best Korea That's irrelevant. As an atheist I object to theistic deities.
It’s quite interesting because imo it shows how atheism is somewhat just a response to theistic interpretations of the world rather than a standalone belief - the problem of evil shows how a omni benevolent, omniscient omnipotent god is incompatible with the existence of evil, but that’s a very specific argument against a very specific definition of god, and actually therefore can’t be used as evidence for an alternative interpretation (there is no god) which is why there isn’t any ‘hard’ evidence to prove non existence of god. Theres a jump like you said from arguments against gods existence straight to god non existence. really cool video eddie glad to see you back
Thank you Charlie, very good insights there. I am not critical of atheism's desire to reject theism at all, but I do feel that the argument gets blurred by what I consider to be a false logic. More clarity can only be a good thing. And I'm happy for people to disagree with me!
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles maybe stand alone belief was a mis wording, a more appropriate wording would be it is simply an absence of a belief, as like you say it is the default.
I agree that most atheists do not say god doesn’t exist but just don’t believe in God. However in my experience, the most vocal atheists are those who actively reject gods existence and present atheism as the scientific approach , rightly or wrongly.
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles That is almost what i meant when i said it’s not a standalone argument, it is just a response to the notion of god.
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles I understand what you say about no label for people who don’t believe in ghosts, but i suppose the difference is that a vast majority of all world systems didn’t revolve around a belief in the objective morality and religion of a ghost. In my opinion atheist is almost a necessary term (even tho i would use it to describe myself probably) as such a vast number of people believed in God and i was argue that belief in God was the default, not in a biological sense, but in a societal sense for so many years, as otherwise there was little to describe the world. So therefore it is a necessary term as western civilisation was founded on a belief in God. Apologies for the slightly incoherent arguments, i am playing csgo haha
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles
For the purposes of our discussion, what came before is not all that relevant. We transferred from a largely religious society into a more atheistic one, and that was the most recent change and the one we are talking about. That is why the term atheist is necessary- as we transferred from a time of religion, we needed a term for those who were the minority, the atheist. And no maybe the atheist didn’t ask be called that, but there was undeniably a need for a term to describe that group.
I agreed that the biological default is not God, and did not claim anything about human nature, but said that the societal norm for an extended period was a belief in God. I was agreeing that some form of indoctrination is required (indoctrination is quite a harsh word in my opinion but i use it for simplicity) but i was merely saying that this kind of indoctrination was the norm before Nietzsche almost. Anyone who did not closely examine their personal beliefs in an intensely philosophical way in those days would have likely been christian (if we are talking about europe). Because very few people would have differed from such a widely accepted and almost enforced view without strong cause.
100% agree with you, thoroughly enjoyed this
Thank you, I'm glad that you did
I think you've conflated atheism with anti-theism or at the least strong atheism. As an atheist I don't claim that there is proof of there being no God, but rather that there is no evidence that there is.
So here's my concern: on topics like god, it is very interesting to see what people chose to think is more correct, since this topic usually does not practically affect our lives. So when it comes to faith, the only real reason to believe or not is because it makes you feel better. Which is nothing new, and a lot of psychologists and philosophers argue that it is more beneficial for most people to believe in something. Of cource not believing in god, or believing that he certaintly does not exist, makes people feel better too, since a lot of them chose that. And thats where i want to focus on: isn't it interesting that being "scientific" makes a lot of people feel better and more secure? It definately makes sense considering we grow up in a society that values politics over art and science over religion.
But what gave me thoughts in your video was the "whats more scientific to believe in" premise. Because i very often see people defending whichever arguements on the topic the scientific community since to be most in favour of. And what i wanted to say was this: The whole point of faith is to pose a counterweight for science in your psyche- so that for every "i want to know why so i can trust", you can have an "i can trust without knowing why". Religion, based on faith and some common themes, created the concept of god as we know him. This concept has nothing, nothing to do with our need of faith. Whether or not you believe in this god is i think a ridiculous question to ask, and whats far more interesting is the question of "where do you chose to believe, and where do you chose to question."
The reason modern day religion's concept of god is a huge fail is because the people of this society think that this concept is to be questioned, instead of believed in. And since science has moved forward enough for most people to recognize that the idea of a guy sitting on some clouds is rediculous, the people not only have the ability to question this concept, but the ability to poke holes in it too.
I have not seen a deader horse than modern day western religion. It's so stupid that it tries to question the sanity of the people, and fails miserably. But is deciding whether you should believe in religion based on scientific criteria a pretty dead horse too? Hell yes. That would be like deciding if science has real applications on your microwave based on whether you believe in science or not. Spoiler alert, if you dont believe in science, you'll never even see the applications of gravity on your microwave. And if you do, you might see them, but you'll be approaching science in a way that it is not made to be approached with. And thats exactly what science is doing to religion.
To conclude, religion is for believing and science is for questioning. To be "healthy" you should do both, in a way that is suitable for you ( im pretty sure western religion is not a suitable form of faith for most people ). And if you do indeed have a healthy balance of believing and questioning in your life, you will never reach a point where science is your religion and religion is your debate club.
You got atheism wrong.Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism doesn't claim there's evidence that god doesn't exist
Need a new deffinition i think
intellectual dishonesty is not a virtue.
As faith…
@@lolololo4496 faith is the excuse given when facts are conspicuously absent,
@@bootskanchelsis3337
That's why i said faith is not a virtue.
Who ever is reading these comments, make sure you sort by Newest, as Robin Dude's reply that breaks this down fully might be hidden...
Thanks for drawing my attention to a potentially hidden comment, I will make sure it's visible.
I agree, Robin Dude has made an excellent contribution to this discussion
I don't see a comment from "Robin Dude" _or_ a reply to that, anywhere. But RUclips just gets worse all the time.
@@Bill_Garthright I think we can all agree on that!
@@Bill_Garthright Yeah, it is weird sometimes in my early morning browsing, I see these comment sections that have at the top "3 Comments" yet the comment section only shows one or two or even blank, but when clicking Sort By -> Newest First, it then populates the comment section fully.
Even just before this, with the Robin Dude interaction with Eddie Adams, it is still not showing by default.
A SERMON ON WHY HUXLEY WAS NOT AN "ATHEIST"
There is an unusual and possibly unique element to this problem. The reason that Huxley would coin a term like "agnostic," which requires evidence that God CANNOT EVER be studied by collecting and sorting evidence, is because he understood what theists mean when they use the term, "God." The term "God" is, in practice if not by definition, "He who acts to produce those effects for which we have no evidence for a material causation," and "He who is the 'intelligence' that makes it meaningful to speak of purpose and redress in human history." I offer a back-of-the-napkin description of God, but you get what I mean.
God is defined as invisibly filling in gaps in our understanding and shoring up a mental construct of our practical morality. God especially flourishes in human history because historical events are not as susceptible to experimentation and repetition. Natural explanations are heavily qualified, and they are not able to justify all the suffering and unfairness associated with historical events.
God becomes "that being we cannot observe who lives only where natural explanations have not arrived." God doesn't live on the cloud tops anymore; He constantly retreats and is now on the pre-causation side of the Singularity. Huxley realized that there can NEVER BE evidence for this slippery and evasive Entity, because His adherents conceive of Him--or at least treat Him--as a reality that cannot be constrained by the scientific method. Therefore, for atheists to speak of a preponderance of evidence that there does not exist this God, who never exposes Himself to observation and evidence and who exists precisely where evidence stops, is a contradiction in terms.
Twice in the New Testament, Jesus' friend, John, says, "No man has seen God, but..." John says that we have seen Jesus, who was a visible representation of the loving Father. And he says elsewhere that when believers love one another as Jesus first loved them, they evidence the unseen God. But God Himself remains unseen. When I get around to constructing a term that means, "I have not seen" (the Greek is awkward and ugly, unfortunately), I will use that as a description of my own flavor of agnosticism--one that blends Stoic resignation and the Sermon on the Mount. In the meantime, while humans struggle to construct better words than "atheist" or even "agnostic," I "believe" I could do worse than to treat others as I would be treated, to love my neighbors as myself, and to take responsibility for, and keep my promises to, my closest companions.
PS Your video helped me immensely. I thank you for the clarity and simplicity of your approach. And I thank you just for being a considerate person in a time of mutual hostility and willful ignorance.
Thank you for your comment. I welcome all to this discussion, and I'm glad that you share my interest in understanding over conflict.
Should I take from this that you're accepting that a belief in God is not scientific (i.e. not falsifiable)?
@@EddieEducation
MY ANSWER, PART ONE: Belief in the existence of any particular and well-described deity is potentially within the realm of scientific study and potentially falsifiable. Belief in a deity need not be unscientific, any more than belief in very powerful or knowledgeable aliens--or angels--is.
MY ANSWER, PART TWO: Belief in a succession of deities who are described universally as "by definition and practice existing just beyond the realm of scientific study" are not identifiable, and thus are not falsifiable. Belief in them is unscientific. The fact is, theists have always spoken of examples of deity or divine action vaguely and inconsistently. They have made an alternate social reality where this sleight-of-mind is not shameful or accountable.
@@I_Am_Monad thank you for your contribution - very detailed, thank you. The suggestion of a God yet to be discovered would indeed be a falsifiable one. Indeed, an intriguing situation to say the least!
I suppose that the question is whether one considers it justified to believe that we can reach a stage where humanity has the capacity to do so. But that would be open to debate, as it would be conjecture at this stage.
As such, I will thank you for your contribution, and the enjoyable discussion!
You asked me to hear you out but by the 3 minutes mark you had already made so many false propositions that I couldn't imagine any redeeming value to continue watching. You haven't a proficient understanding of either the _position_ of atheism or the employ of scientific methodologies.
Thanks for your comment - as I mentioned, I'm keen to stimulate discussion. I'd be very keen to know which propositions you consider to be false, and why. I would also value your take on the atheist position, so that we may seek the truth together.
Well, I only made it to the 3 minute mark, too. But I'd already written such a long comment that I don't think I could have fitted much more into it! Heh, heh.
@@EddieEducation I define my position of atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Wouldn't you agree?
@@theoskeptomai2535 I agree that skepticism of any claim is prudent until sufficient evidence is provided. And if sufficient evidence cannot be provided, it is best to reject that belief. That assertion is - so far - in line with the content of my video.
@@EddieEducation There's a reason the Vienna Circle failed to apply the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis works if we are say measuring population growth in a group of animals. Falsification works when both sides can be a result of the experiment. God is not 'a side' but a proposition that is clearly man made....
Are there any scientific and reasonable claims for the ultimate existence of the universe? Until I hear one agnosticism in my opinion is the most scientific stance- notice I say the most scientific stance and not necessarily the correct stance. I don’t think there is a correct stance that we can say with certainty and to claim that would indicate I understood the nature of the ultimate divine and that would be extremely arrogant
Agnosticism is definitely more scientific since it acknowledges the fact that that it can neither prove or disprove the existence of God
And for something to be scientific it has to be disprovable
Well if your a pantheist you might be able to claim you see God outside your window
faith is not a universal trait of all world religions. You are WRONG to place it in a dichotomy.
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles you might be unaware of the large body of world religions that do not hold any value in faith, some of which even renounce mythology, most of which are among the most ancient continually practiced religions in the world:
Advaita Vedanta (and other branches of Vedanta, sometimes even including the Hare Krishnas- though their personification practice of bhakti might make it seem otherwise)
Taoism (explicitly the traditional yin schools)
Theravada Buddhism (the more explicitly atheist cousin of Advaita Vedanta)
Lurianic Kabbalah (which became so pervasive among rabbis that it is often held as orthodox judaic theology)
Jainism (another kissing cousin of Avaita Vedanta)
Even the Sufis interpretation of Islam (which had once been the majority of the religion) and its radical personalism can be said to hold no real merit in Faith (as in belief, and not as the emotion of love), and that belief alone gave no grace to the believer.
No No FAITH is the bailiwick of western christianity and their colonial reign of terror and inquisition over the world.
@RealMenloveblueberrywaffles You might also find modern Avaita Vedanta interesting as it is perhaps the most skeptical cosmology Ive ever seen (although I was raised in an Ashram community so that could slant my view a bit). Atman, the perceptual-eye/I of consciousness is seen as the central truth of reality, with everything else becoming a transitory trait of brahman/theUniverse, including the memories you make, and the identity you build of yourself.
While its true that what we believe makes a difference in our lives mentally. Its not true that we should not believe in something for the sake or believing. I believe in Christianity because of the mental comfort it brings but also because of historical, social and theological examples it offers. The only book in the world which is scientifically accurate. Telling the end from the beginning. It describes the circumstances and nature of human beings, which still occurs to this very day. Women are listening to Satan like eve to this very day. Men are passing all their influence and authority to women nowadays just like the stories of the bible. This is only 1 of dozens of examples I could give. Spirituality is an extension of natural living. Jesus Christ is the way and provides not just a religious following but spiritual insight. We can become children of God and become like God in nature, and essence. Jesus Christ even lets those who make it to heaven rule and reign with Him for eternity. There is no greater love than that.
How old is the earth?
Wow, we live in a strange, strange world. I am so confused rn. I really just need to talk through something with someone in order to get something done for my freshman year of college to be over with, even though it's just started. Help Jesus
@@andrewramirez3816 Jesus helps those who call out to Him and use knowledge of His word to bring natural understanding and circumstantial effects.