about the second question. yes, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. religion will come of with all these bullshit lines in order to cover up their tracks to come up with some stupid reason to explain the lack of evidence - like jesus not being in his tomb. you won't be able to find mary's body because oh well, she ascended body and all. then you'll have to excuse our skepticism and realize that is how they can say she existed without ever needing the evidence of her existence
After watching this video I've had an epiphany. Clearly the meaning of existence is to watch this video with Obama. Because then a mixture of bad logic, misuse of the transitive property, and good old fashioned bullshit would result in God's existence. Heck, it would at least be as convincing as the ontological argument.
Actually I did not understand which side you're an atheist or theist, but it does not matter because I just want to learn English, and you seem to speak the language well. If you want to leave some tips on grammar I thank you. I want to use to say that American Christianity is much frowned upon by the South Americans, I'm Brazilian and we see the U.S. as a country that needs reform in its Christian doctrine.
I wish my answers to these questions, if possible in Portuguese.
fantastic response. no-one knows the answers to all these key (and valid) questions. but some people, dare I say it people that are insecure, paranoid, scared or just generally troubled or gullible, like to hide behind blind faith. You are actually spot-on; we don't know why we are here or how the universe started. that is true if you are an atheist or if you believe in superstition.
Great answers. As for the "why we debate creationism or theists". Any cult which uses fear tactics to try and indoctrinate to build their cult needs to be debated. This is self explanatory. Great video, thanks for sharing.
This response will probably end up sounding like the height of brown-nosing, but I really loved this video. I thought your points were well thought out, and even humble in your willingness to say you don't know everything like everyone else who takes a side on this issue. Your sense of humor in responding to the ridiculous, again fantastic. And let's be completely honest, you're pretty easy to look at. Now I feel I should probably wash my now tainted heathen nose.
this has been one of the most interesting debates from my point of view.
As for abuabdullah2009, as RobTheMonk and JohnHendryAlex already pointed out, you are repeating over and over again, and you are claiming to try and save us without even having evidence that ur God exists to try and save us.
It was very annoying to see you that you didnt acknowledge the points that RobTheMonk and JohnHendryAlex made throughout the debate.
Its a natural instinct to believe in God, just like the natural instinct to be attracted to the opposite sex and to know that killing is bad and saving a life is good and so on! No person in their right mind can deny these instincts. Peace!!!
@2009abuabdullah Btw I thank god for not giving me the natural instinct to believe in him if that's the case of "Its a natural instinct to believe in God". And I think you never heard of gays or lesbians before? the last question of yours, go read up on evolutionary psychology thanks
@in1pieces *And I think you never heard of gays or lesbians before?*
Thats abnormal! In many cases, its the society that cause people to develop these abnormal behaviors, especially the tv and billboards. So dont allow the gay scientists to insult your intellect by telling you that its in the genes! Peace!!!
I can, if you take "the natural instinct to be attracted to the opposite sex" to mean that no one can instinctively be attracted to persons of the same sex. If that is your meaning, you'd have to nuts to AFFIRM it.
It seems like you just want to debate for the sake of debating! correct me if am wrong? A sincere debate should result in the loser accepting the truth or a least respect it if one is too weak to practise it! Do read the Quran first before we can move forward! Do let me know when you are done! 5 months should be the minimum to complete reading it! Do take care for now!
Remember , the Bible we have today has been tampared with and not the original! so you can not use it to debate the muslims as you would like to! If you are sincerely searching for the truth and want to debate the muslims, then i advise you to read the Quran!
There are different types of christians as you must know! Some believe Jesus is God; some believe he is the Son of God; and some believe he is only a Prophet. I myself was brought up by a christian mother with christian beliefs. I mentioned the muslims believe in the original bible, which is in Aramic and Not english! The bible we have today has been tampered (mistranslated) with and has contraditions! The quran mention Jesus as a prophet, just like in some places in the Bible!
I agree! As muslims we believe the original Bible (torah and Gospel) was revealed from God (Allah). We also believe in Jesus as a Prophet of God and a muslim like all other prophets sent by God. Even the christian Arabs call God, Allah.
True! There is only one God, and people of other religions call him different names! So you tried to trap me, but you ended up trapping yourself! To conclude: You denying your Creator is a serious crime, and you will be punished for it if you dont repent! So I advise you to repent and embrace the truth! Take care for now!
I can provide you the material containing scientific discoveries in the Quran, if you want? or you can just read the quran cover to cover, and you will find out for yourself!
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?
To your answer to the question, "What is the most important evidence regarding theism?" You may want to review your answer. You then stated that there wasn't evidence that Barack Obama wasn't in the room he can't be there. But that claim does not hold up. that may prove contrary to the fact God isn't around but it doesn't disprove there is a God. Your stance was from a Deistic mindset, not atheist.
What positive evidence is there for the absence of anything? What evidence can you point to for the absence of unicorns in your room other than the ABSENCE of evidence of their presence? It very much stands up.
And I think you're mistaken on my "stance," but I'm beyond caring at this point what term is applied to me: I disbelieve in god for the reasons I elucidate on this channel. Call me what you like.
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?
Quran surah 21 verse 30
I sincerely invite all the sincere people to Islam in order to save themselves from the hellfire!
Successful ones. Start with a definition of god. It's all well and good to string together an argument that MIGHT point to a first cause, but then you have to explain why you're calling that cause god.
Yeah, see how you're still not saying what god is? You're saying, "There is an X which can do Y. Whatever that X is, I call it God." No, an elaboration of what god is will be "God is X." Not "God is like A" or "God can do B" or "God once did C." Try again.
Nope. Where in that does it say what he is? He is "the one and only?" Oh... wow... now I understand. I mean, I've ALWAYS known what "THE one and only" was and now I know that that is god. "He begets not?" I thought he created the world. No?
No one knows how the universe came to be. If you're willing to believe in what a bronze age tribesman wrote while sitting in his tent trying to figure out the universe over modern science with proof and standardized practices, you are hopeless.
Its scientically proven that the big bang took place, but they dont know what caused it! So how did Prophet Muahammad came to now this 1400 years ago, if its not from God?
First thing's first: The big bang has not been proven or even close to proven. Secondly: That scripture you quoted had nothing to do with the big bang. You are losing this argument with no grace at all. You still believe something that was written by a child molester over 1000 years ago but can't acknowledge the FACT that you don't know. Mental capability fail.
I do disbelieve in god and I do not know how the universe came into existence. Why is the thought of both those ideas in the brain so odd to you? It seems unusual to you, doesn't it, that I recognize that some questions haven't been adequately answered yet? It's foreign to you that I would rather have no answer than an answer that is almost certainly false, isn't it?
The fact we are discussing God, or that the word 'God' exist, is enough for a sincere person to acknowledge the existance of God! As for the definition, i gave you that already! 3 days ago
@2009abuabdullah You can think that THERE MUST BE SOMETHING TO CREATE SOMETHING SO COMPLEX LIKE THE UNIVERSE. The thing is, you guys CONCLUDED that no one create god? Because god won't be god if someone created him. Get it? In short, If GOD can appear by his own, why can't humans and all the other animals.
@in1pieces * In short, If GOD can appear by his own, why can't humans and all the other animals. *
You are still mistaken! God never appeared! He always existed! Anything that comes into existance must have something to cause it to exist. As for God, He never came into existance! He alsways existed, so there were no need for the cause. I hope i was able to convince you and made it clear for you! Peace!!!
@2009abuabdullah No u don't get it. If he always existed, and have the power to made this universe. Because of FAITH he can't show his ass to us? I mean, if everyone saw god with their own eyes, they won't NOT believe in him anymore. That's us or at least me(Before you say anything don't associate me which believe in god but go against him). Well, may the force be with you.
@2009abuabdullah if you ask how did the universe came into exsistance then that follows the same pretense as your question. im asking how did your god come into exsistance.
Answer: Anything that came into existance, something was responsible to cause it to exist and it will also come to an end! As for the Creator, He always existed! He has no begining or ending!
I hope i was able to convince you?
Peace
ps I kindly invite you to read the Quran! God says: Do they not then consider the Qur'ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein many contradictions. (82) of surah 4 Qu
@2009abuabdullah we have know clue what caused this existance, but we shouldn't try to find a fallible answer with no evidence just to apease people. and yes i have read your Quran. I've read most of the holy books
And you deleted my response to you on the topic of homosexuality, didn't you? I left a response to your comment on your page and now it's gone; you delete that?
I believe homosexuality is 1000% wrong! I hope respect my view on this point! Am sure you believe that stealing is wrong? Right? or a son sleeping with his mother is wrong?
3. I dont think theres an ultimate meaning to life.
4. Somewhat, yes, and I was religious and spiritual until age 17.
5. For theists to understand atheists, and to create a secular world where no one is forcing each other and where we can all have our personal religious beliefs.
"Articulating it" is exactly why I subbed you and because of a couple other vids I saw. This is reasonable debate. It's exactly what needs to happen in society. The internet age is making us hyper-aware and the layman drifts away from fear of the shadows, out of the troll cave and into reality.
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?
Quran surah 21 verse 30
I sincerely invite all the sincere people to Islam in order to save themselves from the hellfire!
Was that little verse intended to shed some light on something? Because it sounds like stone age gibberish to me. How about this: has not the believer said that he understands more than he does, has seen more than he has seen, and knows more than he could?
So... the reason I don't find any reason to believe in god is because I am insincere? Flawless argument, that. Vague suggestions about oneness, water, and sincerity? Ridiculous. Your religion is a stone age myth: it takes a person who is sincerely interested in the truth to face that fact.
Its a natural instinct for you to know whats good and bad; for you to fancy the opposite sex; for you to dislike death; and so on. God has also created us with a natural instinct to believe in Him! So to deny Him is being insincere and lying to yourself, but the reality doesnt change!
Well, that's an exceptionally narrow minded way of looking at things. You're categorically deny that homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality are instinctive... and you do this in denial of evidence to the contrary. And then you have the gall to suggest that I'm "insincere." Really? Which of us is rejecting what can be shown empirically and trumpeting what cannot be? And everything you said about reality carrying on despite you goes double for Muslims. What a putz...
for question #1, there is nothing, if you take the net mass of the universe. recent cosmological models show that our universe is flat, meaning that we have net energy=0, thus we have net mass=0. therefore, we COULD come from nothing, as the strawman says.
Yeah, I've heard the idea. I have always had trouble with even the notion of even that indicating the universe arising ex nihilo. Nothing material? OK. Nothing at all? Not so sure. Potentialities, basic geometry in 4space? Still something.
also, in the same video i saw that said the universes total mass of 0, also said something about string theory, where quarks were quarks were constantly popping into and out of existence inside the nucleus of an atom.could our universe be one of these quarks, just on a grander scale? maybe, ATM that idea is just a random,untested hypothesis though, so who knows?
im not sure if i fully understood the idea of quarks existing and then not. ill post a link
how can you prove that the forces exist without matter for them to act on? geometry could exist, becasue its most basic form, the point, is by definition without measurment or dimensions.
It's not about proving that the forces exist; it is that they DO, in fact, exist. The fact that the two are connected in our experience doesn't affect my point at all. It becomes difficult to imagine how one is to discuss a point without measurement. It may be dimensionless, but where is it?
i think you missed his point he isn't saying his truth on how to live but things in are reality that can be provable, well at least as provable as we can get with science. these things are considered facts or truths. this is not to say that facts of are reality cant be challenged by new information but believing in things with no evidence would not be considered to be true. i.e. belief in a god. your feelings about god are no more true then a person who believes they here voices in there head.
truth is not a democracy. there are facts and evidence. i can convince as many people as i want to vote that my computer runs off of magical fairies. that doesnt change the fact that it is (essentially) a bunch of metal.
also, noproofforjesus makes a good point. to christians, the word "truth" means how to live your life.
Why do you make religion (i.e. Christianity) synonymous with God? They are not one and the same. The problem is religion and those who refer to the bible to propagate hate...not God. The proponents of religion should be the focus of Atheists ..... for God Himself is not responsible for their distortion of who He is !
Well, I appreciate your position; it's far more respectable than theism (treating you as something of a deist). But I don't treat the two as synonymous. I simply find the assumption of God itself dangerous because it's a disconnect from reality, near as I can tell... I think that is obviously dangerous. Religion goes further by making assertions about behavior, but the mere and baseless belief in (insert imaginary being here) is enough for me to call the idea dangerous.
Reality is something not imaginary. Are feelings imaginary? I feel God in my heart and in all forms of life. Is that imaginary? To whom? You? Does that mean Gods not real because you don't choose to feel Him? Feeling Him is a choice not an obligation.
I agree with your concept of theism. However, I propose you dont include that concept in your discussion of God Himself, but rather people (i.e.Christians ) who believe the bibles concept of God which I've long concluded is not Truth.
Then you're lumped in with the theists; feelings played as much a part as religion in the decision to fly planes into the twin towers... feelings aren't imaginary; they're just incredibly unreliable and nothing to be turned for determining belief.
God isn't real because there isn't a single consistent, reliable, coherent reason or fact which supports the notion that he is.
I really hope youre not comparing me to those terrorists?
You havent noticed that your disregard for anothers feelings is exactly what Christians do? They get all fired up if you dont believe what they believe . God isnt real to you, and I respect that. But to me He is real. Can you not respect that?
I come from a place of respect for someones feelings just as long as they dont try to impose them on me.
I am pointing out a similarity; that similarity produces disparate results... which is part of the problem. feelings are inconsistent; they point in too many directions with precisely the same input to be used for descerning.
I don't disregard your feelings; but your feelings are trivial to the truth. I won't tip-toe around them to make my point. And, in fact, your feelings can stand in the way of apprehending the truth... it's a fact which hardly requires elaboration.
You're an Atheist, I'm not....yet I believe you when you say youre cuddly , with a heart of gold, and sensitive . God created you, why wouldnt you be? :) Keep going, I respect your feelings and am interested in what you have to say !
Another aspect of God is that He is holy. He can not tolertate sin. So if God has a reason for remaining hidden, as not to oppose free will (the ability to make a choice between right and wrong without any one but your self to blame) so that all who love God love him freely and not because they were forced to love him or to believe in his Name.
No, saying that he cant tolerate sin doesnt say that sin does not exist at a certain point in time, but rather that evil comes to an end, and God will infact destroy that evil which he cannot tolerate. So God does not tolerate sin, he has mercy on those who have sinned, and has appointed a specific time at which he will Judge the world and that means the evil of the world also, then sin will not abound, then you will say "Clearly God cannot tolerate sin"
So, what the hell is he waiting for? Is he deliberately postponing in order to increase suffering? Or is he just the world's greatest procrastinator?
By "intolerant of sin" I understand God to positively refuse to accept sin... and yet, despite his powers he refuses to prevent sin, even the sins that harm OTHERS and increase the suffering of people apart from the sinner.
He loves his creation and is fulfilling the purpose of creation, that purpose being that man seperated himself from God by disobeying God. Due to the foreknowlege of God, He lays down the Law, and his prophets prophecy of a day when God will show his love and mercy by forgiving them of sin. This is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. People must be born, grow, obtain the knowledge of good and evil, and accept the truth of the gospel, the Word of God. That requires time.Let God be true
How was this a response to the question? The abruptness of theist non-sequiturs is startling.
Now man's estrangement from god was all part of god's plan? Then how was it a product of freewill? And how can man be held accountable for his actions when he was only doing what he was designed to do?
Honestly! Do you think these things through before you post them?
The answer to the question is that bad things even happen to good people and bad people alike, they have free will and bring sin or righteousness upon themselves. Satan, just like in the case of Job, tempts man to sin, even by causing the individual to be afflicted, even by the death and destruction of all they have. Although suffering occurs, it is necessary for those people to realize their need for the salvation of God. Remember God created man in his image, perfect. THEN sin brings wrath
Right, I know the story. What I don't know is any reason to think it's true.
And you still haven't resolved God's indifference in light of his omnipotence and omnibenevolence. There is plenty of suffering which is not the consequence of sin on the part of the sufferer: God watches this, indifferent. He watches people hacked to death in genocides and says, "Eh... freewill, though." How much freewill do the victims actually have?
Well, i suppose that the person who gets hacked to death better have Jesus, because if he doesnt, where he goes is worse that how he got there, whereas the believer is secure and death may occur, but life goes on, and i gaurentee that no one that is alive on this planet knows what hell is like until death, and no one will have the evidence of it until they die and go there, and they wont be able to tell anyone thats alive, because they are dead and the ones who dont believe, wont believe anyway
Right, so your response is to evade the issue, eh? I ask how you account for god's goodness and power in the face of brutal atrocity the victims of which did not arrive as such willingly... and you tell me those people need Jesus. You realize that you're more or less tacitly endorsing god's malevolent nature?
Then you go on for another contradiction: "where he goes is worse..." and "no one that is alive knows what hell is like until death." You just revel in these, dontcha?
lets see, the evidence isnt there, what about if by some chance the "Being" that is greater than his "Creation" who dwells in Light and is Light and Love and Word and Is a Spirit, which is without all contradiction Invisisble and is not physical in the since that His Being was before all "physical matter". Now its not to say that God can"t show himself in some way, physical or spiritual, for God can do anything.
You begin a "what if" statement and, in the process, describe your god in more or less meaningless terms (dwells in light and IS light and THEN "is without contradiction?") but you never go on to finish your what if thought. It's as if you say, "What if the ball that's red and white in a checkered pattern and is a foot in diameter and made of rubber and is made for kicking or throwing..." You see how there isn't a question?
Thats because im not implying a question, in fact, the truth is a statement. Im stating, that if you are willing to conceive that God is a Spirit, a being of Divine nature and power, that you cannot see Him because he is invisible to the world, so that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
You can speak words, words can be heard, words are there just for that reason, to communicate, and yet words are invisible. Yet clearly in reality they exist and have an impact in our daily lives. Just cause you cant see the wind doesnt mean its not there.
I have five senses; why do you think it's the absence of VISIBLE evidence? I am talking about the complete lack of ALL FORMS of evidence.
If you would pause for only a few moments to consider the likely objections to the things you say you would work wonders for your own education and spare me and those like me a lot of trouble.
"Evidence" is not a word which refers exclusively to those things which are plainly visible. And YOU agreed that there was an absence of evidence, you recall?
I know, there is no evidence, that is why faith is faith, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"(Heb.11:1) So those who will believe without seeing are blessed because even though the world says there is no evidence for God,, people still believe in the word of God, and know that it is the truth. He can keep all of your senses from sensing he is there, because there is a spirit realm. There are evil spirits out there, and you cant see them either...
So, they get points for being good guessers and the rest of us lose because we were reasonable and decided to treat God just like leprechauns, fairies, and all the other things for which there is no evidence?
You just don't realize how utterly meaningless this all is, don't you? I mean, really: you have said a bunch of things and then gone back and erased all their meaning. You've made it so that a universe with god and one without god are indistinguishable. You feel this advances your case?
I dont feel it advances my case, because if you dont believe it, scriptures wont help. And you dont lose for not "guessing right", you lose because the Son of God has offered to forgive you of your sins, so that you will not burn, and yet even when His hand is strected out, you turn your back in unbelief, because the world allows you to believe what you want, which you have the right to, rather than being forced to believe what you just dont believe.
Iv mention this before. But the problem with faith as a standard of evidence for something to be true. Then really anything can be true granted you had faith that it was. Like If I said there was a pink elephant in my room! Now of course you would say Ohhh but bbread119 There's no such thing as pink elephants! Then I would have to ask. Why not? Why cant my pink elephant exist, when I'm using the same standards of evidence your using for your God to exist?
And you do realize that you've done it again, don't you? You said "if" and never followed up with "then." It's like you have a thought and then never bother finishing it.
If your beliefs are correct then there was no reason to live and you will just die. If Christianity is true then you will perish. To me it's simple. I am a Christian because I would rather have something to believe in than nothing. "Logically", the better choice would be to follow Christianity ,or some belief, Because there is a 50/50 chance of life after death. If you dont believe in anything, then there is a 0/100 chance of living in Heaven. Think about it.
I have.That's known as "Pascal's Wager" and every atheist is confronted with it. It doesn't work. For one thing, it's not "50/50" because it's not "Christianity or atheism," God could exist but the Muslim's could have it right. Besides that, existence claims aren't 50/50 "it does exist/it doesn't." Do you think there are 50/50 odds that leprechauns exist?
And finally, I believe things because I think they're true, not because believing in them seems to have advantages.
You are the perfect example of bad reasoning in religion.
I believe there is virtually 0% chance of life after death, since I had no life before I was born, there is no reason for me to believe life will continue after my brain stops functioning.
There is no reason to believe otherwise, just for a second think of god as fiction, instead of the answer for everything. You no longer have to make unreasonable excuses for things you don't think you would like in this world, like murder and rape.
No, I haven't read it either. I was reading a review of the book and the reviewer said he answered question one. So I wondered if you read the book. It is his newest one though, so not too many people have read it yet. Plus as an added bonus he debunks all things stupid that invoke quantum mechanics. Such as the theory that God intervenes through manipulating quantum events. Although I really haven't heard much of that one before.
Yeah, I try to put the kaibosh (s?) on it whenever someone tries to drag QM into a subject that isn't QM. No, Stenger's on the list. That essay was really good, I'll see if I can scrounge up the title.
Just looked; I've never found that answer to be all that impressive. It's better to simply point out that the question is meaningless and move on. Saying a question is unanswerable when it is will always do you better than trying to answer it.
Argument ad ignoratum is to argue that a thing is the case merely because it hasn't been proven to not be the case. This is subtly different from saying, "The absence of evidence for the truth of existential-claim X is evidence of the absence of X." Remember, "evidence," not "proof." We're dealing with imperfect knowledge; as such there is always the possibility of error. But if you claim a thing is in front of me, your claim is significantly affected if that thing is undetectable.
OK, but as I interpret your subtle difference, you are admitting that you are talking about "belief" not "knowledge". It's OK to admit that your atheism is a belief system - after all, that's what most theists do, when confronted with logic.
Getting back to my extra-dimensionality example. Do I take it that you would refuse to believe in any more than the usual 4 space-time dimensions, since any "extras" are undetectable?
First, let me say how much I appreciate your tone. Not everyone who has raised such objections has done it as politely :D But, I do feel you're starting rather at the middle. If claim X is made and is A) immune to investigation or B) not immune but, nevertheless, no evidence is found to support it, then DISbelief in claim X is the reasonable default position. So I wouldn't characterize my disbelief as a belief system, but that's trivial, really. (cont.)
(cont.) Even if it were a belief system, it is demonstrably the more rational of them. I'll say more on that if you like, but to your question about n-space; I could accept it if and only if it plays nicely with observation, direct or indirect. I could also expound on this, if you like, and will happily do so via private message (if you don't object to a non-public exchange) simply because 500 characters isn't enough for the task. If not, I'll respond more here.
I think I understand your perspective - no need to drag this out.
The point of my multiple dimensions question is that quite often the atheists I talk to have no trouble believing in, say, M-theory because it strikes them as "scientific" (and therefore believable), in spite of the fact that the only 'evidence' to support the theory is some rather creative mathematics. It's kind of a test to see if your skepticism has a theistic bias.
I was a little surprised by two of your answers, in reverse order for dramatic effect...
You say you are opposed to bad reasoning BUT you use the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" argument.
This is a logical fallacy. You may choose to delude yourself otherwise, but it has a name. One I don't think you would be too proud to own up to: "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (appeal to ignorance).
There's a flaw with your Barack Obama example, which I will cover in the next post...
The problem with your Barack Obama example is that you have all of the necessary data to determine if the assertion is true or false.
With respect to the existence of God, you do not. You might argue that the test is unfair by definition (i.e. God is invisible, omnipresent, and not earthly), but the fact that you are unable to perceive him does not disprove him.
Contrast this with scientific theories of extra dimensions. You cannot perceive them, but many scientific theories require them.
And I did not say that the claim "God exists" was proven to be false, I merely said that the absence of evidence supporting the claim is evidence which SUPPORTS the position that the claim is false. As with Barrack Obama standing in the room beside me.
The answer to the question "why is there is God rather than nothing" is the very root of the meaning of life. Unless, of course, you're ok with there being no meaning whatsoever.
For me, it is not really about "evidence of God" (though that discussion is a fun one) as much as relationship ~ there is a God (rather than nothing) because he WANTS TO KNOW YOU ...
The universe doesn't owe it to you to provide a meta-narrative. You owe it to yourself to find it ~ we all do!!
But I'm afraid none of these answer the question at all; the question "Why is there a God rather than nothing" isn't addressed by any of this. And, even if it did, no answer you give would be immune to the question, either.
If it's not about evidence, then WHAT are you having a relationship with? My contention would be that you have an comforting imaginary friend. If you're comfortable with that, that's fine. But claiming that you have some reason (that's denied to me) is simply irrational.
If relationship to God is impossible if he is unknowable (this would make you agnostic not atheistic) then I am curious to here what you believe regarding origins. Do you believe in spontaneous generation? directed panspermia?
No, I'm pretty much an atheist, as well as an anti-theist. Strictly speaking, I am also an agnostic, though. It depends on how you define "God." If your definition is like 90 percent of christians, I'm an atheist. If your God is defined more carefully, I might just be an agnostic. But I positively disbelieve in most Gods. Just as you do (or are you an agnostic toward Odin?)
So, the question I was asking in my comment was, "You have to define God before you can believe in him." No really.
Actually agnosticism is not a separate category from atheism. Agnosticism is actually a subcategory of atheism. It is only in common parlance that agnosticism is treated as something different from atheism. The technical definition of atheism, includes agnostics because an agnostic is someone who refrains from siding on the issue of God's existence because he deems it to be an impossible question to answer, hence he is without (A) a belief in God (theism) (continued).
(continued from previous post) Atheism literally means without belief in God. Though this is not the exhaustive meaning of the term, it is its most basic definition. Books on philosophy that cover atheism, such as George H. Smiths Atheism: The Case Against God or Dr. Michael Martins book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification explain the different categories of atheism, and they demonstrate that agnosticism is subsumed under the category of negative, implicit, or weak atheism.
Well, I guess that's one way to get more people on your side... just redefine the boundaries.
Seriously, since both Smith and Martin have an ax to grind, their decision to redefine the words is hardly a compelling argument for a "non-believer".
I don't think you would be easily swayed if I happened to quote some religious fanatic (i mean philosopher) who claimed that agnostics were simply closet theists...
Well, semantics isn't unimportant, but these sorts of idioms are. I have a positive disbelief in certain kinds of god, a passive kind of absence of positive belief in other kinds of gods, and conduct my affairs and arrange my thoughts on reality without accommodating any kind of God. What you call that is unimportant beside what that all means.
BTW, I don't know what you think of Richard Dawkins (most atheist look to him as 'like' the pope of atheism). Anyway, Dawkins himself admits that he is technically an agnostic and only claims to be an atheist because of the polarizing effect it has on people.
Also, (my opinion) Dawkins, due to his polarizing atheism, has done more to hamper the acceptance of evolution than any creationists. Dawkins links atheism and evolution unnecessarily.
I like Dawkins. I was tickled pink when I found that one of my videos had been posted (whether by administrators or a user) on his page. But I certainly don't think of him as the pope of atheism.
And, I think you and I disagree on his impact on Evolution's credibility.
But I do find Evolution to be linked to certain religious claims, though I think Evolution is far from the most crippling idea for religion.
I'm sure you're right about our relative positions on Dawkin's influence on evolution (sort of). I think he's been hugely influential, but the scientific merit of some of his conclusions is simply horrible. There's not enough space here to discuss and it's really not relevant.
I've studied evolutionary theory for many, many years. Gould, Mayr, Eldredge, Zimmer, Futuyma, (and many others) - all great scientists and authors; Dawkins - not so much.
I mention this because many atheists cite theistic attitudes as a negative influence on the acceptance of evolution. I've actually had reasonably intelligent Christian friends tell me that they used to have no conflict between evolution and their religious conviction... then Dawkins forced them to choose...
Well, depending on how the theist's faith accounts for the diversity of species, that might be a necessary choice. I think a literal belief in the Genesis account of the Bible ought to be devastated by Evolutionary Theory, Geology, Radiometric Dating, Astronomy etc... a reasonable person who has previously accepted Genesis as an explanation really does have to choose between scientific explanations and... something else. Wouldn't you say? A deist may not have such troubles, of course.
Of course, fundamentalist Christians have problems with evolution, but they just happen to be the vocal minority. The lionshare of the Christian community, as well as other theologies are mostly accepting of evolution.
In fact, the concerns that most theists have with evolution are not really part of evolutionary theory at all, just usually associated with it. (i.e. abiogenesis and the impossibility of "divine selection" in the process).
And WHAT wants to know me? God? What is God? How can you sensibly direct this claim at me without first establishing his existence? Anyway, I'm not trying to be rude, but I feel your response is entirely a non sequitur.
If you are sincere in your quest for knowing then I know scripture says "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened ... how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
So, in other words, if I will simply FIRST believe, then I will be shown all the reasons to believe? No. I'm sorry, just doesn't work for me- in fact, why does it work for you?
Very clear and well-explained. I would argue on #2 rather that your default position on the existance of X (e.g. Barack Obama in the room) should be on its non-existance unless you have evidence to the contrary... which I think is subtly different to what you said. Anyway, good video!
I definitely agree; I think I may have slipped on that one because I was assuming the position of a person who first believes (as the theist viewer is already a believer) and then must consider how the absence of evidence should be permitted to affect ones belief. With a little bit of a elaboration, though, I think yours is by far the more reasonable default position, of course.
Ah, yes, it's true that when someone is already convinced that X exists, it's difficult to convince them of the opposite! (How much no-evidence do you need before you'll be convinced...?)
RobTheMonk8 I agree wholeheartedly with your answers! (I'm an atheist...)
I find most of the questions posed by theists to challenge atheists are actually the reasons why I'm an atheist...
The whole: 'Why are we here/what happens when we die?' thing - clearly at various points in history people have attempted to answer that in the form of various gods and religions. There are so many in fact that I feel it makes more sense to conclude that none of them are right, rather than choosing one.
I watched it all the way through, I like how clearly and concisely you answered the questions. Maybe by the time I'm your age I'll be as good of an Atheist as you are.
I just want to be knowledgeable with my beliefs and you are far more knowledgeable than me. I'm not saying that you are some sort of Atheist god (hehe), or that once I have gotten as learned as you I will be satisfied. I really just mean to say that I appreciate your insight.
about the second question. yes, absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. religion will come of with all these bullshit lines in order to cover up their tracks to come up with some stupid reason to explain the lack of evidence - like jesus not being in his tomb. you won't be able to find mary's body because oh well, she ascended body and all. then you'll have to excuse our skepticism and realize that is how they can say she existed without ever needing the evidence of her existence
infernalone666 1 week ago
Bone structure, overall facial expression and voice tonalities evoke a similarity to Matt Damon.
lduych 1 month ago
Great video! Logic and reason ftw!!
dkthg 2 months ago
After watching this video I've had an epiphany. Clearly the meaning of existence is to watch this video with Obama. Because then a mixture of bad logic, misuse of the transitive property, and good old fashioned bullshit would result in God's existence. Heck, it would at least be as convincing as the ontological argument.
KOLN555 5 months ago
im a big cuddly atheist too :DD
MetalXManiac666 10 months ago
Actually I did not understand which side you're an atheist or theist, but it does not matter because I just want to learn English, and you seem to speak the language well. If you want to leave some tips on grammar I thank you. I want to use to say that American Christianity is much frowned upon by the South Americans, I'm Brazilian and we see the U.S. as a country that needs reform in its Christian doctrine.
I wish my answers to these questions, if possible in Portuguese.
hugock5 1 year ago
fantastic response. no-one knows the answers to all these key (and valid) questions. but some people, dare I say it people that are insecure, paranoid, scared or just generally troubled or gullible, like to hide behind blind faith. You are actually spot-on; we don't know why we are here or how the universe started. that is true if you are an atheist or if you believe in superstition.
blueray1969 1 year ago
you sort of remind me of VenomFang lol :P
YourSoulEmbarks 1 year ago
Great answers. As for the "why we debate creationism or theists". Any cult which uses fear tactics to try and indoctrinate to build their cult needs to be debated. This is self explanatory. Great video, thanks for sharing.
strikenetter 1 year ago
Brilliantly articulated answers to those questions! Great job!
RyanJesseParsons 1 year ago
This response will probably end up sounding like the height of brown-nosing, but I really loved this video. I thought your points were well thought out, and even humble in your willingness to say you don't know everything like everyone else who takes a side on this issue. Your sense of humor in responding to the ridiculous, again fantastic. And let's be completely honest, you're pretty easy to look at. Now I feel I should probably wash my now tainted heathen nose.
KOLN555 1 year ago
yes, but Barack Obama is in the UNIVERSE
Superay360 1 year ago
I agree with everything you have said.
Atheist667 1 year ago
this has been one of the most interesting debates from my point of view.
As for abuabdullah2009, as RobTheMonk and JohnHendryAlex already pointed out, you are repeating over and over again, and you are claiming to try and save us without even having evidence that ur God exists to try and save us.
It was very annoying to see you that you didnt acknowledge the points that RobTheMonk and JohnHendryAlex made throughout the debate.
Peace, and i hope to see more videos from u!
electroforce2 1 year ago
Its a natural instinct to believe in God, just like the natural instinct to be attracted to the opposite sex and to know that killing is bad and saving a life is good and so on! No person in their right mind can deny these instincts. Peace!!!
2009abuabdullah 1 year ago
@2009abuabdullah Btw I thank god for not giving me the natural instinct to believe in him if that's the case of "Its a natural instinct to believe in God". And I think you never heard of gays or lesbians before? the last question of yours, go read up on evolutionary psychology thanks
in1pieces 1 year ago
@in1pieces *And I think you never heard of gays or lesbians before?*
Thats abnormal! In many cases, its the society that cause people to develop these abnormal behaviors, especially the tv and billboards. So dont allow the gay scientists to insult your intellect by telling you that its in the genes! Peace!!!
2009abuabdullah 1 year ago
@2009abuabdullah
I can, if you take "the natural instinct to be attracted to the opposite sex" to mean that no one can instinctively be attracted to persons of the same sex. If that is your meaning, you'd have to nuts to AFFIRM it.
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago 2
@RobTheMonk8 Not you again! have no time for you, dear! Peace!!!
2009abuabdullah 1 year ago
@2009abuabdullah
Oh, well you'll be missed :-(
RobTheMonk8 1 year ago
Comment removed
electroforce2 1 year ago
It seems like you just want to debate for the sake of debating! correct me if am wrong? A sincere debate should result in the loser accepting the truth or a least respect it if one is too weak to practise it! Do read the Quran first before we can move forward! Do let me know when you are done! 5 months should be the minimum to complete reading it! Do take care for now!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
Remember , the Bible we have today has been tampared with and not the original! so you can not use it to debate the muslims as you would like to! If you are sincerely searching for the truth and want to debate the muslims, then i advise you to read the Quran!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
There are different types of christians as you must know! Some believe Jesus is God; some believe he is the Son of God; and some believe he is only a Prophet. I myself was brought up by a christian mother with christian beliefs. I mentioned the muslims believe in the original bible, which is in Aramic and Not english! The bible we have today has been tampered (mistranslated) with and has contraditions! The quran mention Jesus as a prophet, just like in some places in the Bible!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
I agree! As muslims we believe the original Bible (torah and Gospel) was revealed from God (Allah). We also believe in Jesus as a Prophet of God and a muslim like all other prophets sent by God. Even the christian Arabs call God, Allah.
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
True! There is only one God, and people of other religions call him different names! So you tried to trap me, but you ended up trapping yourself! To conclude: You denying your Creator is a serious crime, and you will be punished for it if you dont repent! So I advise you to repent and embrace the truth! Take care for now!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
"Say: He is Allah,
The One and Only.
Definition is as follows:
"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him."
[Al-Quran 112:1-4]
This is the best i can do! Now define Man!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
how will define a man or human?
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
I can provide you the material containing scientific discoveries in the Quran, if you want? or you can just read the quran cover to cover, and you will find out for yourself!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
1430 years ago, God says:
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?
Quran surah 21 verse 30
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
As musims, we know the answer already! so its left for people to prove us wrong or to join us as muslims!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
To your answer to the question, "What is the most important evidence regarding theism?" You may want to review your answer. You then stated that there wasn't evidence that Barack Obama wasn't in the room he can't be there. But that claim does not hold up. that may prove contrary to the fact God isn't around but it doesn't disprove there is a God. Your stance was from a Deistic mindset, not atheist.
mattalonzo87 2 years ago
What positive evidence is there for the absence of anything? What evidence can you point to for the absence of unicorns in your room other than the ABSENCE of evidence of their presence? It very much stands up.
And I think you're mistaken on my "stance," but I'm beyond caring at this point what term is applied to me: I disbelieve in god for the reasons I elucidate on this channel. Call me what you like.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
1430 years ago, God says:
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?
Quran surah 21 verse 30
I sincerely invite all the sincere people to Islam in order to save themselves from the hellfire!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
Yeah, you said that already. Repetition doesn't make a thing sensible.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Am targeting the sincere people! People are seeking the truth, so its my responsibility to spread! Thank very much!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
Well-- sincerely-- come up with an argument. So long as you're on my page, I prefer arguments to scripture.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
What arguments and proofs do you want?
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
Successful ones. Start with a definition of god. It's all well and good to string together an argument that MIGHT point to a first cause, but then you have to explain why you're calling that cause god.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
God? The one who is able to create from nothing and give life to the dead! Agree with my definition?
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
Yeah, see how you're still not saying what god is? You're saying, "There is an X which can do Y. Whatever that X is, I call it God." No, an elaboration of what god is will be "God is X." Not "God is like A" or "God can do B" or "God once did C." Try again.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Ok, you got me there! God is Allah! Are you satisfied?
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
How helpful: "Cats are cats."
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
The most concise definition of God in Islam is given in the four verses of Surah Ikhlas which is Chapter 112 of the Quran:
"Say: He is Allah,
The One and Only.
"Allah, the Eternal, Absolute.
"He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him." [Al-Quran 112:1-4]
I hope you are satisfied now? God is a supreme Being!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
Nope. Where in that does it say what he is? He is "the one and only?" Oh... wow... now I understand. I mean, I've ALWAYS known what "THE one and only" was and now I know that that is god. "He begets not?" I thought he created the world. No?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I read that you disbelieve in God! So i ask, how did the universe come into existance?
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
No one knows how the universe came to be. If you're willing to believe in what a bronze age tribesman wrote while sitting in his tent trying to figure out the universe over modern science with proof and standardized practices, you are hopeless.
JadedRockStar84 2 years ago
Its scientically proven that the big bang took place, but they dont know what caused it! So how did Prophet Muahammad came to now this 1400 years ago, if its not from God?
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
First thing's first: The big bang has not been proven or even close to proven. Secondly: That scripture you quoted had nothing to do with the big bang. You are losing this argument with no grace at all. You still believe something that was written by a child molester over 1000 years ago but can't acknowledge the FACT that you don't know. Mental capability fail.
JadedRockStar84 2 years ago
Peace!!!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
I do disbelieve in god and I do not know how the universe came into existence. Why is the thought of both those ideas in the brain so odd to you? It seems unusual to you, doesn't it, that I recognize that some questions haven't been adequately answered yet? It's foreign to you that I would rather have no answer than an answer that is almost certainly false, isn't it?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I guess you are still searching for your answers! Do let me know in the future the outcome!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
And you've changed the subject, by the way. We were talking about the definition of god you gave, not how the universe came into being.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
The fact we are discussing God, or that the word 'God' exist, is enough for a sincere person to acknowledge the existance of God! As for the definition, i gave you that already! 3 days ago
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
@2009abuabdullah You can think that THERE MUST BE SOMETHING TO CREATE SOMETHING SO COMPLEX LIKE THE UNIVERSE. The thing is, you guys CONCLUDED that no one create god? Because god won't be god if someone created him. Get it? In short, If GOD can appear by his own, why can't humans and all the other animals.
in1pieces 1 year ago
@in1pieces * In short, If GOD can appear by his own, why can't humans and all the other animals. *
You are still mistaken! God never appeared! He always existed! Anything that comes into existance must have something to cause it to exist. As for God, He never came into existance! He alsways existed, so there were no need for the cause. I hope i was able to convince you and made it clear for you! Peace!!!
2009abuabdullah 1 year ago
@2009abuabdullah No u don't get it. If he always existed, and have the power to made this universe. Because of FAITH he can't show his ass to us? I mean, if everyone saw god with their own eyes, they won't NOT believe in him anymore. That's us or at least me(Before you say anything don't associate me which believe in god but go against him). Well, may the force be with you.
in1pieces 1 year ago
@2009abuabdullah so i ask you you were did your god (out of the 70,000+ suposed gods might i add) come from?
myco578 1 year ago
@myco578 Your question is not clear! Make it clear and sincere, please!
Peace
2009abuabdullah 1 year ago
@2009abuabdullah if you ask how did the universe came into exsistance then that follows the same pretense as your question. im asking how did your god come into exsistance.
myco578 1 year ago
@ Know thats clear! I hope its sincere as well?
Answer: Anything that came into existance, something was responsible to cause it to exist and it will also come to an end! As for the Creator, He always existed! He has no begining or ending!
I hope i was able to convince you?
Peace
ps I kindly invite you to read the Quran! God says: Do they not then consider the Qur'ân carefully? Had it been from other than Allâh, they would surely have found therein many contradictions. (82) of surah 4 Qu
2009abuabdullah 1 year ago
@2009abuabdullah we have know clue what caused this existance, but we shouldn't try to find a fallible answer with no evidence just to apease people. and yes i have read your Quran. I've read most of the holy books
myco578 1 year ago
And you deleted my response to you on the topic of homosexuality, didn't you? I left a response to your comment on your page and now it's gone; you delete that?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I deleted most of the comments people leave after reading them! is that a problem?
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
No, but it is an uncommon practice. And had you any intention of responding? Or do you persist in the inane belief that homosexuality is wrong?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I believe homosexuality is 1000% wrong! I hope respect my view on this point! Am sure you believe that stealing is wrong? Right? or a son sleeping with his mother is wrong?
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
Hey RTM8, I was thinking about making a response video to Veritas48, but started looking through the other responses.
At this point I am tempted to just say "What RobTheMonk8 said". Damn you! But in a good way. ;-)
jokidder 2 years ago
Thanks; it's nice to hear I've hit the nail on the head every now and again.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
1. I dont know.
2. Evidence of a deity still in play on earth.
3. I dont think theres an ultimate meaning to life.
4. Somewhat, yes, and I was religious and spiritual until age 17.
5. For theists to understand atheists, and to create a secular world where no one is forcing each other and where we can all have our personal religious beliefs.
:)
Sjarke98 2 years ago
Theist believe that god has not been created, IE nothing created god, IE they believe nothing created something.
BaileysBeads 2 years ago
"Articulating it" is exactly why I subbed you and because of a couple other vids I saw. This is reasonable debate. It's exactly what needs to happen in society. The internet age is making us hyper-aware and the layman drifts away from fear of the shadows, out of the troll cave and into reality.
igytsiycm 2 years ago
1430 years ago, God says:
Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and we made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?
Quran surah 21 verse 30
I sincerely invite all the sincere people to Islam in order to save themselves from the hellfire!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
Was that little verse intended to shed some light on something? Because it sounds like stone age gibberish to me. How about this: has not the believer said that he understands more than he does, has seen more than he has seen, and knows more than he could?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Its for the sincere people to reflect upon! The truth is only for the sincere people!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
So... the reason I don't find any reason to believe in god is because I am insincere? Flawless argument, that. Vague suggestions about oneness, water, and sincerity? Ridiculous. Your religion is a stone age myth: it takes a person who is sincerely interested in the truth to face that fact.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Its a natural instinct for you to know whats good and bad; for you to fancy the opposite sex; for you to dislike death; and so on. God has also created us with a natural instinct to believe in Him! So to deny Him is being insincere and lying to yourself, but the reality doesnt change!
2009abuabdullah 2 years ago
Well, that's an exceptionally narrow minded way of looking at things. You're categorically deny that homosexuality, bisexuality, and asexuality are instinctive... and you do this in denial of evidence to the contrary. And then you have the gall to suggest that I'm "insincere." Really? Which of us is rejecting what can be shown empirically and trumpeting what cannot be? And everything you said about reality carrying on despite you goes double for Muslims. What a putz...
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
for question #1, there is nothing, if you take the net mass of the universe. recent cosmological models show that our universe is flat, meaning that we have net energy=0, thus we have net mass=0. therefore, we COULD come from nothing, as the strawman says.
mynameisdarthtater 2 years ago
Yeah, I've heard the idea. I have always had trouble with even the notion of even that indicating the universe arising ex nihilo. Nothing material? OK. Nothing at all? Not so sure. Potentialities, basic geometry in 4space? Still something.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
when i said "nothing" i meant no matter.
also, in the same video i saw that said the universes total mass of 0, also said something about string theory, where quarks were quarks were constantly popping into and out of existence inside the nucleus of an atom.could our universe be one of these quarks, just on a grander scale? maybe, ATM that idea is just a random,untested hypothesis though, so who knows?
im not sure if i fully understood the idea of quarks existing and then not. ill post a link
mynameisdarthtater 2 years ago
Well, nothing means "no thing." There are more things than matter; the forces, for instance; the geometries.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
how can you prove that the forces exist without matter for them to act on? geometry could exist, becasue its most basic form, the point, is by definition without measurment or dimensions.
mynameisdarthtater 2 years ago
It's not about proving that the forces exist; it is that they DO, in fact, exist. The fact that the two are connected in our experience doesn't affect my point at all. It becomes difficult to imagine how one is to discuss a point without measurement. It may be dimensionless, but where is it?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
great response, the poster of that video, whatever his name is, 's videos questions were left rather open to interpretation i noticed aswell.
peace.
Tait011 2 years ago
Apprehending the truth? Your truth correct? Who determines who's truth is TRUTH? You or I? Maybe Christians?
I believe the bible says Jesus is "The way , The TRUTH, and the life". Insert the word Atheism instead of Jesus and it sounds like you !
You're sounding like a Christian by professing that your truth need be the only truth one MUST embrace.
The danger isn't what one believes, but professing to have the ONLY answer and the TRUTH for everyone else as well.
Hence 9/11
Tiffanynicolina 2 years ago
i think you missed his point he isn't saying his truth on how to live but things in are reality that can be provable, well at least as provable as we can get with science. these things are considered facts or truths. this is not to say that facts of are reality cant be challenged by new information but believing in things with no evidence would not be considered to be true. i.e. belief in a god. your feelings about god are no more true then a person who believes they here voices in there head.
noproofforjesus 2 years ago
truth is not a democracy. there are facts and evidence. i can convince as many people as i want to vote that my computer runs off of magical fairies. that doesnt change the fact that it is (essentially) a bunch of metal.
also, noproofforjesus makes a good point. to christians, the word "truth" means how to live your life.
mynameisdarthtater 2 years ago
Why do you make religion (i.e. Christianity) synonymous with God? They are not one and the same. The problem is religion and those who refer to the bible to propagate hate...not God. The proponents of religion should be the focus of Atheists ..... for God Himself is not responsible for their distortion of who He is !
Tiffanynicolina 2 years ago
Well, I appreciate your position; it's far more respectable than theism (treating you as something of a deist). But I don't treat the two as synonymous. I simply find the assumption of God itself dangerous because it's a disconnect from reality, near as I can tell... I think that is obviously dangerous. Religion goes further by making assertions about behavior, but the mere and baseless belief in (insert imaginary being here) is enough for me to call the idea dangerous.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Reality is something not imaginary. Are feelings imaginary? I feel God in my heart and in all forms of life. Is that imaginary? To whom? You? Does that mean Gods not real because you don't choose to feel Him? Feeling Him is a choice not an obligation.
I agree with your concept of theism. However, I propose you dont include that concept in your discussion of God Himself, but rather people (i.e.Christians ) who believe the bibles concept of God which I've long concluded is not Truth.
Tiffanynicolina 2 years ago
Then you're lumped in with the theists; feelings played as much a part as religion in the decision to fly planes into the twin towers... feelings aren't imaginary; they're just incredibly unreliable and nothing to be turned for determining belief.
God isn't real because there isn't a single consistent, reliable, coherent reason or fact which supports the notion that he is.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I really hope youre not comparing me to those terrorists?
You havent noticed that your disregard for anothers feelings is exactly what Christians do? They get all fired up if you dont believe what they believe . God isnt real to you, and I respect that. But to me He is real. Can you not respect that?
I come from a place of respect for someones feelings just as long as they dont try to impose them on me.
Thats the key to peace.
Tiffanynicolina 2 years ago
I am pointing out a similarity; that similarity produces disparate results... which is part of the problem. feelings are inconsistent; they point in too many directions with precisely the same input to be used for descerning.
I don't disregard your feelings; but your feelings are trivial to the truth. I won't tip-toe around them to make my point. And, in fact, your feelings can stand in the way of apprehending the truth... it's a fact which hardly requires elaboration.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
You're an Atheist, I'm not....yet I believe you when you say youre cuddly , with a heart of gold, and sensitive . God created you, why wouldnt you be? :) Keep going, I respect your feelings and am interested in what you have to say !
Tiffanynicolina 2 years ago
that was an extremely eloquent response, definitely above average when it comes to the usual five question and answer type videos
five stars
TheJamesPope 2 years ago
Another aspect of God is that He is holy. He can not tolertate sin. So if God has a reason for remaining hidden, as not to oppose free will (the ability to make a choice between right and wrong without any one but your self to blame) so that all who love God love him freely and not because they were forced to love him or to believe in his Name.
mirrormoveuchiha 2 years ago
He cannot tolerate sin... and yet sin abounds. Clearly he CAN tolerate sin. He tolerates sin and he tolerates evil in abundance.
It boggles my mind... not so much that one could say such things and then say that he is without contradiction. Yes he bloody well is.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
No, saying that he cant tolerate sin doesnt say that sin does not exist at a certain point in time, but rather that evil comes to an end, and God will infact destroy that evil which he cannot tolerate. So God does not tolerate sin, he has mercy on those who have sinned, and has appointed a specific time at which he will Judge the world and that means the evil of the world also, then sin will not abound, then you will say "Clearly God cannot tolerate sin"
mirrormoveuchiha 2 years ago
So, what the hell is he waiting for? Is he deliberately postponing in order to increase suffering? Or is he just the world's greatest procrastinator?
By "intolerant of sin" I understand God to positively refuse to accept sin... and yet, despite his powers he refuses to prevent sin, even the sins that harm OTHERS and increase the suffering of people apart from the sinner.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
He loves his creation and is fulfilling the purpose of creation, that purpose being that man seperated himself from God by disobeying God. Due to the foreknowlege of God, He lays down the Law, and his prophets prophecy of a day when God will show his love and mercy by forgiving them of sin. This is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. People must be born, grow, obtain the knowledge of good and evil, and accept the truth of the gospel, the Word of God. That requires time.Let God be true
mirrormoveuchiha 2 years ago
How was this a response to the question? The abruptness of theist non-sequiturs is startling.
Now man's estrangement from god was all part of god's plan? Then how was it a product of freewill? And how can man be held accountable for his actions when he was only doing what he was designed to do?
Honestly! Do you think these things through before you post them?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
The answer to the question is that bad things even happen to good people and bad people alike, they have free will and bring sin or righteousness upon themselves. Satan, just like in the case of Job, tempts man to sin, even by causing the individual to be afflicted, even by the death and destruction of all they have. Although suffering occurs, it is necessary for those people to realize their need for the salvation of God. Remember God created man in his image, perfect. THEN sin brings wrath
mirrormoveuchiha 2 years ago
Right, I know the story. What I don't know is any reason to think it's true.
And you still haven't resolved God's indifference in light of his omnipotence and omnibenevolence. There is plenty of suffering which is not the consequence of sin on the part of the sufferer: God watches this, indifferent. He watches people hacked to death in genocides and says, "Eh... freewill, though." How much freewill do the victims actually have?
Reread this. Then respond.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Well, i suppose that the person who gets hacked to death better have Jesus, because if he doesnt, where he goes is worse that how he got there, whereas the believer is secure and death may occur, but life goes on, and i gaurentee that no one that is alive on this planet knows what hell is like until death, and no one will have the evidence of it until they die and go there, and they wont be able to tell anyone thats alive, because they are dead and the ones who dont believe, wont believe anyway
mirrormoveuchiha 2 years ago
Right, so your response is to evade the issue, eh? I ask how you account for god's goodness and power in the face of brutal atrocity the victims of which did not arrive as such willingly... and you tell me those people need Jesus. You realize that you're more or less tacitly endorsing god's malevolent nature?
Then you go on for another contradiction: "where he goes is worse..." and "no one that is alive knows what hell is like until death." You just revel in these, dontcha?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
lets see, the evidence isnt there, what about if by some chance the "Being" that is greater than his "Creation" who dwells in Light and is Light and Love and Word and Is a Spirit, which is without all contradiction Invisisble and is not physical in the since that His Being was before all "physical matter". Now its not to say that God can"t show himself in some way, physical or spiritual, for God can do anything.
mirrormoveuchiha 2 years ago
You begin a "what if" statement and, in the process, describe your god in more or less meaningless terms (dwells in light and IS light and THEN "is without contradiction?") but you never go on to finish your what if thought. It's as if you say, "What if the ball that's red and white in a checkered pattern and is a foot in diameter and made of rubber and is made for kicking or throwing..." You see how there isn't a question?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Thats because im not implying a question, in fact, the truth is a statement. Im stating, that if you are willing to conceive that God is a Spirit, a being of Divine nature and power, that you cannot see Him because he is invisible to the world, so that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
mirrormoveuchiha 2 years ago
Right... are you familiar with the term "ad hoc speculation?"
And, if there is a complete absence of evidence after a fairly exhaustive search... what possible reason can you have for believing in God?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
You can speak words, words can be heard, words are there just for that reason, to communicate, and yet words are invisible. Yet clearly in reality they exist and have an impact in our daily lives. Just cause you cant see the wind doesnt mean its not there.
mirrormoveuchiha 2 years ago
I have five senses; why do you think it's the absence of VISIBLE evidence? I am talking about the complete lack of ALL FORMS of evidence.
If you would pause for only a few moments to consider the likely objections to the things you say you would work wonders for your own education and spare me and those like me a lot of trouble.
"Evidence" is not a word which refers exclusively to those things which are plainly visible. And YOU agreed that there was an absence of evidence, you recall?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I know, there is no evidence, that is why faith is faith, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen"(Heb.11:1) So those who will believe without seeing are blessed because even though the world says there is no evidence for God,, people still believe in the word of God, and know that it is the truth. He can keep all of your senses from sensing he is there, because there is a spirit realm. There are evil spirits out there, and you cant see them either...
mirrormoveuchiha 2 years ago
So, they get points for being good guessers and the rest of us lose because we were reasonable and decided to treat God just like leprechauns, fairies, and all the other things for which there is no evidence?
You just don't realize how utterly meaningless this all is, don't you? I mean, really: you have said a bunch of things and then gone back and erased all their meaning. You've made it so that a universe with god and one without god are indistinguishable. You feel this advances your case?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I dont feel it advances my case, because if you dont believe it, scriptures wont help. And you dont lose for not "guessing right", you lose because the Son of God has offered to forgive you of your sins, so that you will not burn, and yet even when His hand is strected out, you turn your back in unbelief, because the world allows you to believe what you want, which you have the right to, rather than being forced to believe what you just dont believe.
mirrormoveuchiha 2 years ago
@ mirrormovechiha
Iv mention this before. But the problem with faith as a standard of evidence for something to be true. Then really anything can be true granted you had faith that it was. Like If I said there was a pink elephant in my room! Now of course you would say Ohhh but bbread119 There's no such thing as pink elephants! Then I would have to ask. Why not? Why cant my pink elephant exist, when I'm using the same standards of evidence your using for your God to exist?
Just have faith..
bananabread119 2 years ago
And you do realize that you've done it again, don't you? You said "if" and never followed up with "then." It's like you have a thought and then never bother finishing it.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Thanks for this video.
yo1o2eggs 2 years ago
If your beliefs are correct then there was no reason to live and you will just die. If Christianity is true then you will perish. To me it's simple. I am a Christian because I would rather have something to believe in than nothing. "Logically", the better choice would be to follow Christianity ,or some belief, Because there is a 50/50 chance of life after death. If you dont believe in anything, then there is a 0/100 chance of living in Heaven. Think about it.
ChristianBoy95 2 years ago
I have.That's known as "Pascal's Wager" and every atheist is confronted with it. It doesn't work. For one thing, it's not "50/50" because it's not "Christianity or atheism," God could exist but the Muslim's could have it right. Besides that, existence claims aren't 50/50 "it does exist/it doesn't." Do you think there are 50/50 odds that leprechauns exist?
And finally, I believe things because I think they're true, not because believing in them seems to have advantages.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
And, if I AM wrong and you ARE right... are you honestly telling me your God wouldn't mind if I believed simply to cover my own ass?
Thought not.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
You are the perfect example of bad reasoning in religion.
I believe there is virtually 0% chance of life after death, since I had no life before I was born, there is no reason for me to believe life will continue after my brain stops functioning.
There is no reason to believe otherwise, just for a second think of god as fiction, instead of the answer for everything. You no longer have to make unreasonable excuses for things you don't think you would like in this world, like murder and rape.
Itachi1sama 2 years ago
Rob....Have you read Quantum Gods by Victor Stenger?
SirJustinI 2 years ago
Negatron, Justin. Just an essay of his on the subject. Would you recommend it over his other books?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
No, I haven't read it either. I was reading a review of the book and the reviewer said he answered question one. So I wondered if you read the book. It is his newest one though, so not too many people have read it yet. Plus as an added bonus he debunks all things stupid that invoke quantum mechanics. Such as the theory that God intervenes through manipulating quantum events. Although I really haven't heard much of that one before.
SirJustinI 2 years ago
Yeah, I try to put the kaibosh (s?) on it whenever someone tries to drag QM into a subject that isn't QM. No, Stenger's on the list. That essay was really good, I'll see if I can scrounge up the title.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
sorry ...BAHHHN ...unexcepted answer number 1.
yummyseed 2 years ago
...quois? Did you mean "unacceptable?"
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
greatkingofevil has the right answer , I excepted it .lol
yummyseed 2 years ago
Just looked; I've never found that answer to be all that impressive. It's better to simply point out that the question is meaningless and move on. Saying a question is unanswerable when it is will always do you better than trying to answer it.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Comment removed
rayscuba 2 years ago
Argument ad ignoratum is to argue that a thing is the case merely because it hasn't been proven to not be the case. This is subtly different from saying, "The absence of evidence for the truth of existential-claim X is evidence of the absence of X." Remember, "evidence," not "proof." We're dealing with imperfect knowledge; as such there is always the possibility of error. But if you claim a thing is in front of me, your claim is significantly affected if that thing is undetectable.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
OK, but as I interpret your subtle difference, you are admitting that you are talking about "belief" not "knowledge". It's OK to admit that your atheism is a belief system - after all, that's what most theists do, when confronted with logic.
Getting back to my extra-dimensionality example. Do I take it that you would refuse to believe in any more than the usual 4 space-time dimensions, since any "extras" are undetectable?
EnricoFosaveo 2 years ago
First, let me say how much I appreciate your tone. Not everyone who has raised such objections has done it as politely :D But, I do feel you're starting rather at the middle. If claim X is made and is A) immune to investigation or B) not immune but, nevertheless, no evidence is found to support it, then DISbelief in claim X is the reasonable default position. So I wouldn't characterize my disbelief as a belief system, but that's trivial, really. (cont.)
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
(cont.) Even if it were a belief system, it is demonstrably the more rational of them. I'll say more on that if you like, but to your question about n-space; I could accept it if and only if it plays nicely with observation, direct or indirect. I could also expound on this, if you like, and will happily do so via private message (if you don't object to a non-public exchange) simply because 500 characters isn't enough for the task. If not, I'll respond more here.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I think I understand your perspective - no need to drag this out.
The point of my multiple dimensions question is that quite often the atheists I talk to have no trouble believing in, say, M-theory because it strikes them as "scientific" (and therefore believable), in spite of the fact that the only 'evidence' to support the theory is some rather creative mathematics. It's kind of a test to see if your skepticism has a theistic bias.
You passed ;-)
EnricoFosaveo 2 years ago
Cool, glad to hear it. I'm sending you a friend request.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I was a little surprised by two of your answers, in reverse order for dramatic effect...
You say you are opposed to bad reasoning BUT you use the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" argument.
This is a logical fallacy. You may choose to delude yourself otherwise, but it has a name. One I don't think you would be too proud to own up to: "argumentum ad ignorantiam" (appeal to ignorance).
There's a flaw with your Barack Obama example, which I will cover in the next post...
EnricoFosaveo 2 years ago
The problem with your Barack Obama example is that you have all of the necessary data to determine if the assertion is true or false.
With respect to the existence of God, you do not. You might argue that the test is unfair by definition (i.e. God is invisible, omnipresent, and not earthly), but the fact that you are unable to perceive him does not disprove him.
Contrast this with scientific theories of extra dimensions. You cannot perceive them, but many scientific theories require them.
EnricoFosaveo 2 years ago
And I did not say that the claim "God exists" was proven to be false, I merely said that the absence of evidence supporting the claim is evidence which SUPPORTS the position that the claim is false. As with Barrack Obama standing in the room beside me.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
The answer to the question "why is there is God rather than nothing" is the very root of the meaning of life. Unless, of course, you're ok with there being no meaning whatsoever.
For me, it is not really about "evidence of God" (though that discussion is a fun one) as much as relationship ~ there is a God (rather than nothing) because he WANTS TO KNOW YOU ...
The universe doesn't owe it to you to provide a meta-narrative. You owe it to yourself to find it ~ we all do!!
Lookin4TruthDotCom 2 years ago
But I'm afraid none of these answer the question at all; the question "Why is there a God rather than nothing" isn't addressed by any of this. And, even if it did, no answer you give would be immune to the question, either.
If it's not about evidence, then WHAT are you having a relationship with? My contention would be that you have an comforting imaginary friend. If you're comfortable with that, that's fine. But claiming that you have some reason (that's denied to me) is simply irrational.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
If relationship to God is impossible if he is unknowable (this would make you agnostic not atheistic) then I am curious to here what you believe regarding origins. Do you believe in spontaneous generation? directed panspermia?
Lookin4TruthDotCom 2 years ago
No, I'm pretty much an atheist, as well as an anti-theist. Strictly speaking, I am also an agnostic, though. It depends on how you define "God." If your definition is like 90 percent of christians, I'm an atheist. If your God is defined more carefully, I might just be an agnostic. But I positively disbelieve in most Gods. Just as you do (or are you an agnostic toward Odin?)
So, the question I was asking in my comment was, "You have to define God before you can believe in him." No really.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Actually agnosticism is not a separate category from atheism. Agnosticism is actually a subcategory of atheism. It is only in common parlance that agnosticism is treated as something different from atheism. The technical definition of atheism, includes agnostics because an agnostic is someone who refrains from siding on the issue of God's existence because he deems it to be an impossible question to answer, hence he is without (A) a belief in God (theism) (continued).
alphacause 2 years ago
(continued from previous post) Atheism literally means without belief in God. Though this is not the exhaustive meaning of the term, it is its most basic definition. Books on philosophy that cover atheism, such as George H. Smiths Atheism: The Case Against God or Dr. Michael Martins book Atheism: A Philosophical Justification explain the different categories of atheism, and they demonstrate that agnosticism is subsumed under the category of negative, implicit, or weak atheism.
alphacause 2 years ago
Well, I guess that's one way to get more people on your side... just redefine the boundaries.
Seriously, since both Smith and Martin have an ax to grind, their decision to redefine the words is hardly a compelling argument for a "non-believer".
I don't think you would be easily swayed if I happened to quote some religious fanatic (i mean philosopher) who claimed that agnostics were simply closet theists...
EnricoFosaveo 2 years ago
Well, semantics isn't unimportant, but these sorts of idioms are. I have a positive disbelief in certain kinds of god, a passive kind of absence of positive belief in other kinds of gods, and conduct my affairs and arrange my thoughts on reality without accommodating any kind of God. What you call that is unimportant beside what that all means.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
BTW, I don't know what you think of Richard Dawkins (most atheist look to him as 'like' the pope of atheism). Anyway, Dawkins himself admits that he is technically an agnostic and only claims to be an atheist because of the polarizing effect it has on people.
Also, (my opinion) Dawkins, due to his polarizing atheism, has done more to hamper the acceptance of evolution than any creationists. Dawkins links atheism and evolution unnecessarily.
EnricoFosaveo 2 years ago
I like Dawkins. I was tickled pink when I found that one of my videos had been posted (whether by administrators or a user) on his page. But I certainly don't think of him as the pope of atheism.
And, I think you and I disagree on his impact on Evolution's credibility.
But I do find Evolution to be linked to certain religious claims, though I think Evolution is far from the most crippling idea for religion.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I'm sure you're right about our relative positions on Dawkin's influence on evolution (sort of). I think he's been hugely influential, but the scientific merit of some of his conclusions is simply horrible. There's not enough space here to discuss and it's really not relevant.
I've studied evolutionary theory for many, many years. Gould, Mayr, Eldredge, Zimmer, Futuyma, (and many others) - all great scientists and authors; Dawkins - not so much.
EnricoFosaveo 2 years ago
Not to be totally negative though, I really like this quote from Dawkins:
> However many ways there may be of being alive, it is
> certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead.
Also, I think Dawkins' concept of the meme is an important one.
OK, I'm off that tangent, sorry.
EnricoFosaveo 2 years ago
(continued)
I mention this because many atheists cite theistic attitudes as a negative influence on the acceptance of evolution. I've actually had reasonably intelligent Christian friends tell me that they used to have no conflict between evolution and their religious conviction... then Dawkins forced them to choose...
EnricoFosaveo 2 years ago
Well, depending on how the theist's faith accounts for the diversity of species, that might be a necessary choice. I think a literal belief in the Genesis account of the Bible ought to be devastated by Evolutionary Theory, Geology, Radiometric Dating, Astronomy etc... a reasonable person who has previously accepted Genesis as an explanation really does have to choose between scientific explanations and... something else. Wouldn't you say? A deist may not have such troubles, of course.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Of course, fundamentalist Christians have problems with evolution, but they just happen to be the vocal minority. The lionshare of the Christian community, as well as other theologies are mostly accepting of evolution.
In fact, the concerns that most theists have with evolution are not really part of evolutionary theory at all, just usually associated with it. (i.e. abiogenesis and the impossibility of "divine selection" in the process).
EnricoFosaveo 2 years ago
And WHAT wants to know me? God? What is God? How can you sensibly direct this claim at me without first establishing his existence? Anyway, I'm not trying to be rude, but I feel your response is entirely a non sequitur.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
If you are sincere in your quest for knowing then I know scripture says "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened ... how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!
Lookin4TruthDotCom 2 years ago
So, in other words, if I will simply FIRST believe, then I will be shown all the reasons to believe? No. I'm sorry, just doesn't work for me- in fact, why does it work for you?
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Why is there a god rather than nothing? Nice.
killerbandit 2 years ago
Very clear and well-explained. I would argue on #2 rather that your default position on the existance of X (e.g. Barack Obama in the room) should be on its non-existance unless you have evidence to the contrary... which I think is subtly different to what you said. Anyway, good video!
rasmusfribble 2 years ago
I definitely agree; I think I may have slipped on that one because I was assuming the position of a person who first believes (as the theist viewer is already a believer) and then must consider how the absence of evidence should be permitted to affect ones belief. With a little bit of a elaboration, though, I think yours is by far the more reasonable default position, of course.
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
Ah, yes, it's true that when someone is already convinced that X exists, it's difficult to convince them of the opposite! (How much no-evidence do you need before you'll be convinced...?)
rasmusfribble 2 years ago
RobTheMonk8 I agree wholeheartedly with your answers! (I'm an atheist...)
I find most of the questions posed by theists to challenge atheists are actually the reasons why I'm an atheist...
The whole: 'Why are we here/what happens when we die?' thing - clearly at various points in history people have attempted to answer that in the form of various gods and religions. There are so many in fact that I feel it makes more sense to conclude that none of them are right, rather than choosing one.
unclestoostoo 2 years ago
I watched it all the way through, I like how clearly and concisely you answered the questions. Maybe by the time I'm your age I'll be as good of an Atheist as you are.
12233312233328 2 years ago
Well... one, how old do you think I am? :D And two, that's not a very high aspiration; I'd rather be a better cook than a better atheist, y'see :D
RobTheMonk8 2 years ago
I just want to be knowledgeable with my beliefs and you are far more knowledgeable than me. I'm not saying that you are some sort of Atheist god (hehe), or that once I have gotten as learned as you I will be satisfied. I really just mean to say that I appreciate your insight.
12233312233328 2 years ago