I would suggest moving aside a couple paths in room for a much better and truthful one where religion isn't the focus, you have good morals, and you live your life the way the UNIVERSE would allow you to, which is any one way you can possibly imagine.
The key to winning the game is to stay in the circle, not choose a man-made path and to simply observe other people who are choosing paths. By doing this, we can see the illusion and not be a part of it. Atheists stay in the circle.
What I find interesting is, of all of Theramin Trees' videos, this is the one that constantly bobs up on my subscription feed with people commenting on it, usually trying to argue with it. I think this is because, in a mere 1.15, it succinctly explains the problem with any asserted form of exclusive theism. Long before I ever reached the conclusion I was an atheist, I have always agreed with the sentiment expressed in this video.
@andyfromsheldon It's been interesting to see the responses — some playing the 'My feelings are evidence' card; some rehearsing detached, fallacious arguments like the Kalam; some hoping to sidestep the video by claiming you can't find gods through predefined paths, missing the irony that in doing so they conform to a predefined path: the 'Find your own path' path. And all of them precisely reflecting what the video predicts: lots of claims, but no gods.
@TheraminTrees Yes. In the days when I was what you might call an "agnostic theist" I sort of believed we were all choosing different paths up a mountain, ie. we were all starting from different points but working towards the same destination. Upon closer investigation though, I realised, this video is much more the reality, in that we are starting from the same point and working away from each other. We are all born atheists, but if we're told we must pursue a path we leave others behind.
@LucidCatnap 'Funny though, how a large portion of the comments only argue over semantics.'
—Yes. I think that's because, in the absence of any evidence, semantics is one of the few remaining spaces in which some folks feel they can find some refuge.
I have always liked you and i am open. The path i am on is one i wish to be on. I do not see any reason for anyone to tell another how to live the way they do. Everyone has to choose.
@Omega0350 'I do not see any reason for anyone to tell another how to live the way they do.'
—A great sentiment. And if we could establish it in a global, sustainable way, it could represent a serious leap forward for humanity, *depending on its foundational principles. Unfortunately this isn't the case. We're told to worship nothings — non-entities — and abused if we don't comply to this ridiculous demand.
*eg a foundation of unquestioning apathy would offer poor defence against future abuse.
@TheraminTrees I didn't hear/read that a path in your conceptualisation required a belief in a god/gods. I'd have thought that being an atheist is a concious choice and therefore would be a path of its own. The default position being don't know/don't care/haven't thought about it(i.e agnosticism)
@elkay99 So, to use a classic example, if a majority of the country was into stamp collecting, and they thought that you couldn't be a fulfilled/happy/decent (see good/moral) human being unless you indulged in the same hobby. Thinking they are full of crap, and rejecting their hobby, means you've entered into a hobby of not collecting stamps?
@xRocketNumber9x I replied to theramintrees about not reading the description. But in regards to your example rejecting their hobby is just not partaking in the collection of stamps. but not doing is just an action as doing. I can choose to collect stamps or I can choose not to, they are both decisions. Even choosing to not deciding at all (agnosticism) is still a decision. My position as an "apetheist" is that the answer to the existence or non-existence of god(s), is largely irrelevant.
I hear this all the time, usually from Christians though. I actually find it quite offensive being an ex-Christian. I wanted to believe in God, my family, friends, dreams were all in the church. But I couldn't believe in something that had no evidence for it.
@truckcompany What's wrong with choosing to be an atheist? Are you saying you were forced into atheism because there is no evidence for god, but really wish that there was some? I don't really understand your situation.
The point was, I had every reason to believe in God (not to mention the reward of heaven). But I couldn't, as there was no evidence to base my belief on.
Example: There is an empty table and you see nothing on it. I ask you to believe a ball is sitting on the table, if you do, you get 100 dollars. Could you really force yourself to believe the ball is sitting there? In the same way you believe the sky is blue?
@TheraminTrees "surely atheism is choosing one of those paths," I think he is trying to say atheism is choosing the path where you do nothing and don't choose a path, lol.
WHAT??? Double WHAT??? WTF WHAT??? There's no doG??? But...but...but...I was told (by those I trusted) there was a doG and he/she/it loved me. Did he/she/it die? Do I get to use my own mind now? Shall I start thinking for myself now? Can I live each day for myself now? WOW.....Holy Shit, what a Great Day, somebody get a RED LETTER, I think I have a use for it.
There are no doGs, get over it, welcome to reality, a great place to spend a finite life.
What do you mean you "see" no gods? Not every "right way" claims you will "see" a god. I'm not saying Christianity is the right way...But saying you'd rather not follow that "way" (Christianity) cause you never "saw" god isn't that great of a reason. cause it claims you will "see" god in the afterlife or the 2nd coming of course which isn't guaranteed in your lifetime. Christianity isnt about seeing God. So if u against searching to "see" God within your short lifetime Christianity is for you.
@seanannersss1 and I think you might need to go and read a book...I thinks it's called...erm...oh yes, The Bible. In that book it says quotes Christ quite clearly in John 14:6 "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life...No one comes to the father except through me." I think that leaves very little room for any Christian to say they do not believe Christianity is the right way - else you're not really a Christian are you?
I love this. really love this. What an amazing way to put it. It's the exact thing the believers don't see. they are steadfast on one path for no good reason.
@nadal007isme 'Except, it's not impossible. Whoops. I can say how far you have to go and you could get there many times in your lifetime.'
—Comments like these are brilliant — they are exactly what the video describes and indeed predicts: all talk, but no gods. My thanks to you for proving my point yet again ;8)
@TheraminTrees You clearly have no understanding of what religions are like. If you took only the small amount of time to seriously try to find God, without your preconceived opinions, then you may actually realise that he does exist. It's like you saying that Football doesn't exist, as you have never watched a game of it. If you simply went to a match and saw it for yourself then you would realise that God does exist.
@nadal007isme 'You clearly have no understanding of what religions are like. If you took only the small amount of time to seriously try to find God, without your preconceived opinions'
—er, yep. Done that. Was raised a devout christian. In fact, for many years I didn't know life *without* religion. So you're just plain wrong on that one. But carry on — as I say, all-talk-but-no-gods comments like yours prove my point again and again ;8)
@TheraminTrees "to seriously try to find god" is another one of those ghostly goal posts that get moved around whenever it's convenient for the believer.
@georgek19 Precisely. When pushed on the subject of exactly how much searching for gods is 'enough', the circular reasoning eventually emerges: it's enough when you've found gods.
If someone claims that football doesn’t exist, I can disprove him/her by buying that person a football, or like you implied, bring him/her to watch a game.
If you claim that God exists, please show me sound, repeatable, and scientific evidence of the existence of God (or the Budda, or Allah, or whatever you are exposed to in your culture that you choose to believe in).
@nadal007isme the bible tells us that the desciple known as Thomas didnt believe in the return of jesus but he was given proof. if thats true then why isnt the same proof available to me or you?
I met with some christians (who are all street preachers)at a prayer meeting yesterday. I didnt go there to debate, I came because I was invited and I feel community is important and I love to learn. One in particular tried to censor me when speaking to a skeptic. I was told specifically not to read, think or study. I asked them if books were the devil and they fell silent. I know all christains are not like this, but damn. #peoplewhodonotwantyoutothinkarenotyourfriends
Do you really mean you refuse to play it because you believe it is impossible or do you not believe you can win? No one can know as a certainty this game is impossible.
I really wanted to thank you for making this Theramin. I had long been an atheist before I found your videos (many years of just calling myself agnostic) but your videos, more than any others I have seen, made me feel positive about my atheism.
Not just positive actually, I'd say, down-right happy.
You are a wonderful speaker, and very well versed in psychology. I hope someday, you do more on that topic. Oh, and if you ever happen to have thoughts about becoming and authors - I'll pre-purchase.
I believe in a God, because it would be impossible for the big bang to have happened without one, as it defies the laws of matter. And to those of you reading this, saying "NOOO MATTER COLLIDED", how could there even be matter in a vast, endless area of nothing? Even still, where would the matter even get the momentum needed for collision to take place? And even still, if matter does, in fact, collide, there'd be a shitton of universes overlapping and causing chaos. God, to me, is a force.
@thecrazyglopss Furthermore, I have been pondering of the possibility of "God" being time itself, because, the beginning of life required time. You wouldn't be where you are now if it weren't for time. Anything and everything that happens relies on time. So, I guess God, as the common theist would describe it, might just be time. I don't know, I've been thinking hard about this subject for quite some time.
Funny thing is that in every aspect of life you usually don't just believe - you need to be sure of something or you might get screwed. Religion seem to be an exception of this rule.
Oh, and don't underestimate the "social pressure" of people around you, who cannot accept you being without a belief. They gently FORCE you to believe ► "if you're not with us - you're against us", making your relationships depending on your ability to pretend to be a believer. Isn't that a mental disability?
@naganokumas Theorems and theories are not the same thing. There is nothing to prove. You just don't have an understanding of basic scientific nomenclature.
We have enormous word games about whether god exists or not , and this has taken place since 4000 plus years ago, and those that are on the side of the apparent creator of everything, dont you realise how powerless he is to not just affirm his existence?
We have to quit searching for ascension, quit materialistic and idealistic hording, stop waiting for something to happen but be proactive in supporting equality. Stop being positivity addicted but rather point your finger at the negativity. We have to stop fighting over ideologies but rather work together on solutions that are good for all of us. Stop feeling superior because you are atheist or a Christ and realize that it doesn`t bring you and others freedom. We all are individual and One.
@paranapoleon There are some laudable sentiments expressed in what you say. There are also sentiments which I find dubious — or at least dubiously expressed. Atheism can absolutely bring freedom — freedom from a vast host of unsubstantiated divine claims, many of which are used to actively confine and circumscribe harmless, natural and even productive thought and behaviour.
Im sure Atheism ,,can`` bring ,,absolute`` freedom`` by excluding everyone who doesn’t belong to the absolute atheist society. But you can replace atheism with ,,Christianity`` and would get the same statement which doesn’t help us to actually solve our problem of ideology war—it rather enhances it since every group claims such beliefs and therefore you fight equality.
@paranapoleon This is an utter distortion. First I didn't say 'atheism can bring absolute freedom'. I said 'Atheism can absolutely bring freedom' — ie it is entirely possible for it to bring freedom, and I pointed out how it could. Second, nope — you cannot replace atheism with christianity. This isn't just arguments for arguments' sake — it's about a disciplined search for knowledge, evidence and truth. Not all beliefs are equal — some are wrong, and it's valuable to find out which ones.
@TheraminTrees absolutely- not absolute. But your argument still remains separated from the current situation of humanity: You exclude the Christians from this utopia only because of their silly believe. Why cant i replace atheism with Christianity? Christians also think that they search for truth- many people do it but in fact all they do is searching for secrets and power and not for true knowledge: How to learn to support our growth as individuals and Oneness.
@paranapoleon 'You exclude the Christians from this utopia'
—You won't find any such sentiment anywhere on this channel. If you intend to pull lazy misrepresentative shit like that, you needn't expect a response.
@TheraminTrees This is actually not misrepresentation but factual observation of the sentence 'Atheism can absolutely bring freedom'- all i did was asking myself: ,,Where are the christians- will they have to be free from god in order to be a part of this freedom?`` I doubt that even if they would be free from god (-->non-christians) that it would bring more freedom as first of all there is stronger brainwashing around than god.
@paranapoleon 'This is actually not misrepresentation but factual observation of the sentence'
—No, not 'factual observation' at all — and by claiming it as such you demonstrate exactly why this conversation isn't working. Perhaps you have some language barrier, who knows. But you take a ludicrous interpretation of what I say, and then you make a ludicrous generalisation, inventing extreme views I do not hold. I'm not going to waste time refuting such undisciplined rubbish.
@TheraminTrees Not all believes are equally true as not all believes support Equality- What is true is equally true for everyone. f. ex. Hegels pov is NOT true for everyone but for a elite who tries to force the truths upon the rest and therefore gain power over them. We have to free everyone from this enslavement so everyone can see the truth as equals.
@TheraminTrees 2. So,can atheism be a practical solution for fixing suffering?- No, because it can only be your ,personal` concern on how to relate to the world (which is perfectly fine) we live in and therefore it has not changed and will not change the system since the problem is not God but the SYSTEM (which you support). If you start to support a system of real freedom and equality then the church will lose control of peoples mind and we will not have to use ,theist` and the suffix ,ism`.
@paranapoleon 'So,can atheism be a practical solution for fixing suffering?'
—First, atheism does not exist with a purpose to fix suffering, so you're attacking a straw man. Second, as it happens, a consequence of atheism is that it can relieve certain kinds of suffering — where suffering comes from unsubstantiated divine claims like 'hell', etc.. But it is not atheism's 'job' to fix suffering. And if you want to stop divisiveness, you might start with your own in your approach to me.
@TheraminTrees christianity, buddhism... try to end suffering- straw man? I overestimated atheism then as i already feared in my statement that it is just a personal concern. Yes atheist are good thinkers- they can erase idiotic words such as god, spirituality, higher-self, hell, afterlife, ascension. So Atheism is a good method to clear some of these illusions but thats it? Why not moving forward to actually do something more? ,,Atheism``is weak just by being the enemy of ,god`.
@paranapoleon While your comment is indeed inspiring and positive, it still doesn't address certain issues. "We have to stop fighting over ideologies but rather work together on solutions that are good for all of us." So what do we do about contraceptives? Stem cell research? Gay marriage? In order to find solutions good for all of us, we must indeed argue ideologies, for one side says "this is better" and the other argues "this is better". This is irreconcilable otherwise.
@edemaomega true- there must exist an institution for sharing the ideas and needs so we wont end in a static dystopia. Adorno is the best example for such a way of thinking, (and its the best way to erase ideologies.) Many questions are very easy to answer with EQUALITY: gay marriage: does it hurt anyone except angry people (egoism)? It is good for all. contraceptives: it is mass destruction of people. not good for all except sex addicts (egoism). etc..,better` for all is EQUALITY.
@paranapoleon i want to correct myself- i replace the word ,,contraceptives`` with ,,abortion`` in my previous post.
- (Of course Contraceptives are fine since f. ex. masturbation is natural and doesn`t harm anyone, except maybe your angry mother- but she will have to deal with it.)
There is no absolute external path- every path separates people. All there is to understand is around us, real and physical. We have to cut out the materialistic and spiritual illusions in order to support freedom for us- our brothers and sisters, animals and nature.
I look at the search for God a different way. I don't follow other people's paths to God; I follow my own path. I don't believe there is one right way to believe. I think that every viewpoint has some merit, though some are better predictors/models of reality than others. I can see how trying to follow the paths that others had found towards God would be an impossible task. I make my way based less on what others think and more on what makes sense to me. Others will find their own truth.
@LaedyRose The irony is that this actually describes a path that still fits in with the video — and it does so because it's one I'd already anticipated when I was making the video. This path is populated with people who tell you you need to find your own way — ie, it's the 'make your own way' path. And the result is the same — no gods.
@LaedyRose But on an important level it's not ok, is it. Don't get me wrong — if theists would keep it to themselves and never sought to impose on others, I'd have no problem with religion at all — it would be innocuous. So, it's 'ok' that you don't impose your unsubstantiated belief on me. Unfortunately though, with no objective measure, even liberal theists implicitly validate the actions of anyone who says 'God told me to do it'. That's not ok. And that's why I ask for objective evidence.
@TheraminTrees If God/Gods were proven with objective evidence to everyone's satisfaction (which I'm not sure is possible, but let's just say) would that necessarily make "God told me to" a good excuse? "I was just following orders" isn't a very good excuse, in general. We all make our own choices. In other words, I do not believe I validate the actions of others due to my beliefs in Gods, any more than I would validate the actions of others due to, say, my political beliefs.
@LaedyRose In terms of proving the existence of God, or Gods, I think it's okay for each person to come to their own conclusion. A belief in Gods helps me make sense of things you might explain as coincidence, subconscious stimuli, and/or my brain just playing tricks on me. It seems like atheism works for you. I really like your videos, and your responses. They make me think. I believe in freedom of religion. I grew up atheist, and know how oppressive proselytizing can feel.
@LaedyRose 'A belief in Gods helps me make sense of things you might explain as coincidence, subconscious stimuli, and/or my brain just playing tricks on me.'
—Then I'm interested to hear what you think is explained. 'Explanation' indicated explanatory power — ie connections between substantiated processes/entities.
'It seems like atheism works for you.'
—It's not that atheism 'works' for me — what 'works' for me is not accepting claims without evidence. That inevitably produces atheism.
@TheraminTrees Like my reasons for other subjective beliefs, such as love, my reasons for my belief in Gods is personal. I can share if you're interested, but I know that my experiences also have other, more secular explanations. I accept subjective things, such as intuitive feelings, as evidence, where others may not.
@LaedyRose 'I accept subjective things, such as intuitive feelings, as evidence, where others may not.
—You accept intuitive feelings as evidence. So when you're accused of a crime, all we need to do is present your photo to a jury, and let their intuition do the job. Hey, it'll save us a lot of time and money — and thinking. Can you see the problem? You're accepting all manner of fantasies, prejudices, biases as evidence. You're supporting a system that leads inevitably to horrendous abuse.
@LaedyRose 'When someone "feels" angry, or "feels" they are in love, there are outward signs, but they are not conclusive.Now compare that to a belief in Gods.'
—OK I'll do just that. You feel anger — because it's a feeling. It does not refer to a referent beyond the feeling. When you say you 'feel' gods, you're positing entities beyond yourself, for which you have no evidence. We can define anger — eg a level of arousal accompanied by negative thoughts. Now define the feeling 'gods'.
@TheraminTrees I agree that relying on subjective evidence alone is pure folly. However, subjective evidence can be quite useful in combination with objective evidence. In "Twelve Angry Men," (a fictional but realistic story) one man in a jury has an intuitive feeling that the accused, who looks guilty at first glance, is in fact innocent. The man uses his intuition to lead him to objective evidence which convinces the rest of the jury that the accused is in fact innocent.
@LaedyRose That is by no means evidence, and certainly not the object of the story, which is that you shouldn't be so quick to judge. You're obfuscating the point here, Laedy. Let me ask you something. Without any context, without anybody telling you what your personal feelings of "God" actually are, would they still be "God"? Why are your feelings of "God" more valid than the feelings of conviction that those of us once-Christians had, and how is it that your understanding is better?
@LaedyRose How can you claim to things without being able to back them up? What purpose does it serve to insinuate certain things about the workings of spirituality if you have no intention of proving them with anything other than subjective thought?
@LaedyRose Do you see we've come back to where I started: talking about the need for objective measures. And by alluding to the film '12 Angry Men', you make my point for me. If Peter Fonda's intuition counts as 'evidence' for the innocence of the accused, then the other jurors' intuition counts as 'evidence' for his guilt. You can't have it both ways. Intuition is not evidence. It simply inspires the search for evidence. Which brings us back to the central subject: objective evidence for gods.
@TheAwesomeMaths First, from what I've read, Vilenkin himself is quick to point out that he's referring to the expansion of the universe having a beginning — he is not happy with how the phrase 'absolute beginning' has been used, and also concedes several possible work-arounds. But second, even if the universe was shown to begin, the Kalam is not validated — this is not 'evidence for gods' whatsoever. It's the old story — jumping from wish to conclusion via zero evidence.
@TheraminTrees You should read more. Vilenkin had a presantation which I read in the NewScientist in which he showed that the Universe had a beginning. Secondly, if the Universe began
@TheAwesomeMaths Wow, you read New Scientist, how impressive. Guess what — so do I. But I also bother to read around — and, as I've said, Vilenkin has clarified his 'beginning' referred to expansion, not the absolute beginning, and he has made concessions to work-arounds. Go on trotting out the same comments on people's videos if you like. It won't get you anywhere. And the false dichotomies you employ in your Kalam defence will similarly gain you nothing.
@TheraminTrees Firstly, Vilenkin analysed all model describing the Universe and he concluded that the all of them needed a beginning. If you want to see more on this I suggest you check
@TheraminTrees out TheisticThinker's channel on Youtube. He is very polite and he will answer any question you might have about the BVG Theorem and The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
@TheraminTrees Secondly, how is it a false dichotomy? If the Universe began to exist( which means that matter, enrgy, space and time came into existence) then what is left to cause it
@TheAwesomeMaths Whenever I have questions about anything, I tend to investigate independent, non-biassed sources. That way, you get answers that aren't laden with wishful interpretation. Anyway, I've already mentioned Vilenkin's concessions.
As for 'supernatural', it's not a useful word. Whether it's being used to mean 'unknowable' — which cancels out the idea of evidence — or merely 'currently unknown', it certainly does not imply gods. 'We don't know' doesn't magically become 'gods did it'.
@TheAwesomeMaths 'I have sent you the article.If do not believe me read it.'
—Because, as I've said — which confirms you're not listening — I've read it. And as I said, it's not the only reading I've done. If you want to convince me that talking to you is a waste of time, you just go ahead and carry on not listening.
'When I say supernatural I mean spaceless, timeless, imaterial. Like the properties of God.'
—a) None of these is implied, and b) none of these would imply gods. Next fallacy?
@TheAwesomeMaths 'How have you read it, when Vilenkin said 'that scientists can no longer avoid a beginning'?'
—Already repeatedly answered.
'Do you know anything that is spaceless, timeless, imaterial and belongs to the natural realm?'
—You don't know anything with these qualities in any realm. Saying that something isn't observed in the natural realm doesn't mean it exists in another realm. Exactly how many logical fallacies do you want to commit?
@TheraminTrees He himself got a Quantum Gravity model which is quite like Hartle and Hawkings from the early 80's which have a Euclidean geometry at the Planck era.
@TheraminTrees His collaboration with Borde and Guth was over the problem of an Initial SIngularity and whether Inflationary spacetime could solve it by violating the...
@TheraminTrees ...Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems, which indicated that the Universe had a singular beginning if certain general conditions were true.
@TheraminTrees Since Inflation violates the energy condition, it seemed at first that the Universe could be past-eternal. But this was then proven false by numerous singularity theorems...
@TheraminTrees ...Published in the 90's and ending with the 2003 theorem commonly refered to as the 'BVG'-theorem. And this theorem, just like Hawking-Penrose's, indicate a past-finite Universe.
@TheraminTrees It does that by proving that worldlines (path traveled through spacetime) only affected by gravity, so-called geodesics, terminate at a spacetime boundary in the past.
@TheraminTrees This is called 'geodesic-incompleteness', and just like with the singularity theorems by Hawking and Penrose in the 60's, the 2003 theorem also implies it, but with much less...
@TheraminTrees ...Assumptions. Unlike the HP-theorem which relied upon Einstein's equations, and alot of other conditions (energy condition being the most important), the BVG-theorem only..
@TheraminTrees I was recommended this discussion, and I'm sorry if I don't know exactly where you guys are in the discussion, but I'm interested in Cosmology, and this seem to be interesting.
@TheisticThinker 'I'm sorry if I don't know exactly where you guys are in the discussion'
—I'm happy to let you know where we were. I was saying that I'd done some reading around and heard about possible concessions from Vilenkin about work-arounds, as well as reservations about 'absolute' nothingness; that I pursue matters like this by reading independently and from various sources, not one article/YT user; and that whatever the case, no evidence for gods was established — unexplained ≠ gods.
@TheAwesomeMaths By ignoring what I've said repeatedly and clearly about having read the NS article, but also having read around because I don't take one source, you have now convinced me that you wish to waste my time.
@TheraminTrees If the Universe came from absolute nothing then ,as Stephen Hawking has said,science cannot explain something like that.The only explanation that remains is the supernatural.
@truckcompany I think that the best way the explain what the supernatural is to say what it is not. There is evidence for the existence of God ( Kalam Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument, Historical evidence, etc.)
Those are NOT evidence for the existence of 'God', those are philosophical arguments.
And the CA and the OA contain fallacies that invalidate them.
There is no historical evidence that a god exists. There are some accurate historical accounts in texts that also talk about the existence of a god, but those historical accounts do not give any validity to the supernatural god claims.
Nothing has the same properties as your description of the supernatural. If you can't explain what the supernatural is, then there is no difference between what you believe the supernatural is and what nothing is.
Please answer the question, tell me what the supernatural is. I don't want to make fun of your argument, so tell me why I shouldn't laugh.
@TheAwesomeMaths So, because the universe had a beginning, you know how it began? You're a fucking ignorant fuckwad shut the fuck up you don't know shit.
@LaedyRose 'If God/Gods were proven with objective evidence to everyone's satisfaction would that necessarily make "God told me to" a good excuse?'
—Let's think this through. Say we know person X exists. Person Y claims X told them to do something. Do we just believe Y? No — we ask for evidence that X said the thing. With gods, none of this happens — unverifiable claims are allowed merely because the individual 'feels' them to be true. That principle, which you support, permits 'god told me to'.
@TheraminTrees There are many things that people "feel" to be true which are not strictly verifiable. When someone "feels" angry, or "feels" they are in love, there are outward signs, but they are not conclusive. Now compare that to a belief in Gods. If I, for instance, "feel" that I am in love, that in no way validates someone who commits a vile act because they "felt" that they were in love.
@TheAwesomeMaths: You've limited the selection. It's okay to say "We don't know yet." We haven't been at this very long.
"If we are to be courageous in our questing, we must then ask the question 'what created God?'. If we conclude that this is an unanswerable question, why not skip a step and say that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? If we conclude that God has always existed, why not skip a step and say that the universe has always existed?" - Carl Sagan
@DrifterRise But the Universe did not alwalys existed as Valenkin said. If the Universe came into existence from nothing then there is no other explanation besides the supernatural because there is no natural realm.
@TheAwesomeMaths You speak with great authority about the nature of reality outside of this universe. Have you been there? What's it like?
If one of the multi-verse theories turns out to be correct then outside our universe is another universe which might be older than ours and may or may not have contributed to that which is ours. Or maybe there's just a load of quantum foam waiting to manifest in some way.
I would suggest moving aside a couple paths in room for a much better and truthful one where religion isn't the focus, you have good morals, and you live your life the way the UNIVERSE would allow you to, which is any one way you can possibly imagine.
xTipshedax 1 day ago
The key to winning the game is to stay in the circle, not choose a man-made path and to simply observe other people who are choosing paths. By doing this, we can see the illusion and not be a part of it. Atheists stay in the circle.
noraasworld 3 days ago
@noraasworld By manmade paths I mean made up "truths" such as christianity, islam etc..
noraasworld 3 days ago
Good job [̲̅$̲̅(̲̅ιοο̲̅)̲̅$̲̅] cash prize to you. Just copy and paste into wallet.
pumpstations 3 days ago
Comment removed
pumpstations 3 days ago
interesting and thought provking way to put the impossable game great vid
fallbread 3 days ago
'Life' is the closest that anybody can get to any kind of divinity.
:d*
ArcadePerfect 3 days ago
What I find interesting is, of all of Theramin Trees' videos, this is the one that constantly bobs up on my subscription feed with people commenting on it, usually trying to argue with it. I think this is because, in a mere 1.15, it succinctly explains the problem with any asserted form of exclusive theism. Long before I ever reached the conclusion I was an atheist, I have always agreed with the sentiment expressed in this video.
andyfromsheldon 4 days ago 9
@andyfromsheldon It's been interesting to see the responses — some playing the 'My feelings are evidence' card; some rehearsing detached, fallacious arguments like the Kalam; some hoping to sidestep the video by claiming you can't find gods through predefined paths, missing the irony that in doing so they conform to a predefined path: the 'Find your own path' path. And all of them precisely reflecting what the video predicts: lots of claims, but no gods.
TheraminTrees 3 days ago 10
@TheraminTrees Yes. In the days when I was what you might call an "agnostic theist" I sort of believed we were all choosing different paths up a mountain, ie. we were all starting from different points but working towards the same destination. Upon closer investigation though, I realised, this video is much more the reality, in that we are starting from the same point and working away from each other. We are all born atheists, but if we're told we must pursue a path we leave others behind.
andyfromsheldon 3 days ago
I think this is a good video which beautifully illustrates the major flaw with nearly all religions in that they all claim to be ''the one''.
Funny though, how a large portion of the comments only argue over semantics.
LucidCatnap 4 days ago
@LucidCatnap 'Funny though, how a large portion of the comments only argue over semantics.'
—Yes. I think that's because, in the absence of any evidence, semantics is one of the few remaining spaces in which some folks feel they can find some refuge.
TheraminTrees 3 days ago 4
I have always liked you and i am open. The path i am on is one i wish to be on. I do not see any reason for anyone to tell another how to live the way they do. Everyone has to choose.
Omega0350 5 days ago
@Omega0350 'I do not see any reason for anyone to tell another how to live the way they do.'
—A great sentiment. And if we could establish it in a global, sustainable way, it could represent a serious leap forward for humanity, *depending on its foundational principles. Unfortunately this isn't the case. We're told to worship nothings — non-entities — and abused if we don't comply to this ridiculous demand.
*eg a foundation of unquestioning apathy would offer poor defence against future abuse.
TheraminTrees 5 days ago 3
I'd consider myself an apathetic agnostic, surely atheism is choosing one of those paths, and agnosticism is choosing not to.
elkay99 5 days ago
@elkay99 With every path representing a belief in a god or gods, tell me, which of them do you think atheists are choosing then?
TheraminTrees 5 days ago 12
@TheraminTrees I didn't hear/read that a path in your conceptualisation required a belief in a god/gods. I'd have thought that being an atheist is a concious choice and therefore would be a path of its own. The default position being don't know/don't care/haven't thought about it(i.e agnosticism)
elkay99 5 days ago
@elkay99 So, to use a classic example, if a majority of the country was into stamp collecting, and they thought that you couldn't be a fulfilled/happy/decent (see good/moral) human being unless you indulged in the same hobby. Thinking they are full of crap, and rejecting their hobby, means you've entered into a hobby of not collecting stamps?
xRocketNumber9x 5 days ago
@xRocketNumber9x I replied to theramintrees about not reading the description. But in regards to your example rejecting their hobby is just not partaking in the collection of stamps. but not doing is just an action as doing. I can choose to collect stamps or I can choose not to, they are both decisions. Even choosing to not deciding at all (agnosticism) is still a decision. My position as an "apetheist" is that the answer to the existence or non-existence of god(s), is largely irrelevant.
elkay99 5 days ago
@elkay99 "I can choose to collect stamps or I can choose not to, they are both decisions"
But they aren't both hobbies...
xRocketNumber9x 5 days ago
@elkay99
"being an atheist is a concious choice"
I hear this all the time, usually from Christians though. I actually find it quite offensive being an ex-Christian. I wanted to believe in God, my family, friends, dreams were all in the church. But I couldn't believe in something that had no evidence for it.
truckcompany 5 days ago
Comment removed
elkay99 5 days ago
@truckcompany What's wrong with choosing to be an atheist? Are you saying you were forced into atheism because there is no evidence for god, but really wish that there was some? I don't really understand your situation.
elkay99 5 days ago
@elkay99
The point was, I had every reason to believe in God (not to mention the reward of heaven). But I couldn't, as there was no evidence to base my belief on.
Example: There is an empty table and you see nothing on it. I ask you to believe a ball is sitting on the table, if you do, you get 100 dollars. Could you really force yourself to believe the ball is sitting there? In the same way you believe the sky is blue?
truckcompany 5 days ago
@truckcompany THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
Apolloin 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees Having now actually read the video description :p, my comment really doesn't make any sense. hehe sorry
elkay99 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheraminTrees "surely atheism is choosing one of those paths," I think he is trying to say atheism is choosing the path where you do nothing and don't choose a path, lol.
Arcexey 5 days ago
Rolling the dice....SNAKE EYES!! But I don't wanna be a Mormon! LOL! Religion distracts people from reality, and is a complete waste of fucking time.
TheCrimsonification 5 days ago
Short, Simple, Brilliant.
BlueAvantiGuy 5 days ago
Theramin, thank you for making video after amazing video. You're doing a service to the world. Hats off!
hopefulatheist 6 days ago
@hopefulatheist Hey, thanks! ;8)
TheraminTrees 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees And what makes it so good is its quick and concise.
No 10 minute rambling to get to the point and to the point it does.
smartarse001 5 days ago
this isn't about a jumping cube with badass BGM?
lol, nice vid anyway
ericon52168 1 week ago
How can God be the creator of existence and yet still need to exist?
CameoGuise 1 week ago
@CameoGuise
Because the word "be" has a meaning.
rkyeun 1 week ago
This is one of my favorite videos, ever!
bfstan1980 1 week ago
I love your videos! Keep up the great work.
RobsMemoryLane 1 week ago
@RobsMemoryLane Cheers!
TheraminTrees 1 week ago
wierd part of youtube again?
vatoloconigga1500 1 week ago
WHAT??? Double WHAT??? WTF WHAT??? There's no doG??? But...but...but...I was told (by those I trusted) there was a doG and he/she/it loved me. Did he/she/it die? Do I get to use my own mind now? Shall I start thinking for myself now? Can I live each day for myself now? WOW.....Holy Shit, what a Great Day, somebody get a RED LETTER, I think I have a use for it.
There are no doGs, get over it, welcome to reality, a great place to spend a finite life.
Gregg
martyngmeyers 1 week ago
What do you mean you "see" no gods? Not every "right way" claims you will "see" a god. I'm not saying Christianity is the right way...But saying you'd rather not follow that "way" (Christianity) cause you never "saw" god isn't that great of a reason. cause it claims you will "see" god in the afterlife or the 2nd coming of course which isn't guaranteed in your lifetime. Christianity isnt about seeing God. So if u against searching to "see" God within your short lifetime Christianity is for you.
seanannersss1 1 week ago
@seanannersss1 .... er, you appear to be taking the word 'see' a bit literally. Think about it more in terms of perceiving.
TheraminTrees 1 week ago 2
@seanannersss1 and I think you might need to go and read a book...I thinks it's called...erm...oh yes, The Bible. In that book it says quotes Christ quite clearly in John 14:6 "I am THE way, THE truth and THE life...No one comes to the father except through me." I think that leaves very little room for any Christian to say they do not believe Christianity is the right way - else you're not really a Christian are you?
MusicStudyMan 1 week ago
I love this. really love this. What an amazing way to put it. It's the exact thing the believers don't see. they are steadfast on one path for no good reason.
Darw1n1st 1 week ago
I can say how far you have to go and you could get there many times in your lifetime.
nadal007isme 1 week ago
@nadal007isme 'Except, it's not impossible. Whoops. I can say how far you have to go and you could get there many times in your lifetime.'
—Comments like these are brilliant — they are exactly what the video describes and indeed predicts: all talk, but no gods. My thanks to you for proving my point yet again ;8)
TheraminTrees 1 week ago 26
@TheraminTrees You clearly have no understanding of what religions are like. If you took only the small amount of time to seriously try to find God, without your preconceived opinions, then you may actually realise that he does exist. It's like you saying that Football doesn't exist, as you have never watched a game of it. If you simply went to a match and saw it for yourself then you would realise that God does exist.
nadal007isme 1 week ago
@nadal007isme 'You clearly have no understanding of what religions are like. If you took only the small amount of time to seriously try to find God, without your preconceived opinions'
—er, yep. Done that. Was raised a devout christian. In fact, for many years I didn't know life *without* religion. So you're just plain wrong on that one. But carry on — as I say, all-talk-but-no-gods comments like yours prove my point again and again ;8)
TheraminTrees 1 week ago 28
@TheraminTrees "to seriously try to find god" is another one of those ghostly goal posts that get moved around whenever it's convenient for the believer.
georgek19 1 week ago
@georgek19 Precisely. When pushed on the subject of exactly how much searching for gods is 'enough', the circular reasoning eventually emerges: it's enough when you've found gods.
TheraminTrees 1 week ago
@nadal007isme Your football analogy is flawed.
If someone claims that football doesn’t exist, I can disprove him/her by buying that person a football, or like you implied, bring him/her to watch a game.
If you claim that God exists, please show me sound, repeatable, and scientific evidence of the existence of God (or the Budda, or Allah, or whatever you are exposed to in your culture that you choose to believe in).
chan518 1 week ago
@nadal007isme SAID:"It's like you saying that Football
doesn't exist, as you have never watched a game of it."
------------
GAME = Here, game. Here, referee. Here, ball.
& LIFE = Here, planet. Here, people, Here: NO REFEREE
Life outside games of violence: many await the end of ignorant crusades. Anyone can play with their balls. Should this not be obvious by now?
waterspindle 1 week ago
@nadal007isme the bible tells us that the desciple known as Thomas didnt believe in the return of jesus but he was given proof. if thats true then why isnt the same proof available to me or you?
ZLi0n 1 week ago
Except, it's not impossible. Whoops.
nadal007isme 1 week ago
I met with some christians (who are all street preachers)at a prayer meeting yesterday. I didnt go there to debate, I came because I was invited and I feel community is important and I love to learn. One in particular tried to censor me when speaking to a skeptic. I was told specifically not to read, think or study. I asked them if books were the devil and they fell silent. I know all christains are not like this, but damn. #peoplewhodonotwantyoutothinkarenotyourfriends
thanks TT
lowlowseesee 2 weeks ago
Do you really mean you refuse to play it because you believe it is impossible or do you not believe you can win? No one can know as a certainty this game is impossible.
SPYK3O 2 weeks ago
I really wanted to thank you for making this Theramin. I had long been an atheist before I found your videos (many years of just calling myself agnostic) but your videos, more than any others I have seen, made me feel positive about my atheism.
Not just positive actually, I'd say, down-right happy.
You are a wonderful speaker, and very well versed in psychology. I hope someday, you do more on that topic. Oh, and if you ever happen to have thoughts about becoming and authors - I'll pre-purchase.
PurpleGhost 2 weeks ago 5
@PurpleGhost Thank you — great to hear these videos have left you feeling positive as an atheist ;8)
TheraminTrees 2 weeks ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
I believe in a God, because it would be impossible for the big bang to have happened without one, as it defies the laws of matter. And to those of you reading this, saying "NOOO MATTER COLLIDED", how could there even be matter in a vast, endless area of nothing? Even still, where would the matter even get the momentum needed for collision to take place? And even still, if matter does, in fact, collide, there'd be a shitton of universes overlapping and causing chaos. God, to me, is a force.
thecrazyglopss 2 weeks ago
@thecrazyglopss Furthermore, I have been pondering of the possibility of "God" being time itself, because, the beginning of life required time. You wouldn't be where you are now if it weren't for time. Anything and everything that happens relies on time. So, I guess God, as the common theist would describe it, might just be time. I don't know, I've been thinking hard about this subject for quite some time.
thecrazyglopss 2 weeks ago
Funny thing is that in every aspect of life you usually don't just believe - you need to be sure of something or you might get screwed. Religion seem to be an exception of this rule.
Oh, and don't underestimate the "social pressure" of people around you, who cannot accept you being without a belief. They gently FORCE you to believe ► "if you're not with us - you're against us", making your relationships depending on your ability to pretend to be a believer. Isn't that a mental disability?
halo2pc 2 weeks ago
Right-angled triangles and Pythagoras' 'theorem'.
"The sum of the squares of the two shorter sides equals the square of the long side."
It's his 'theory', that we 'assume' to be true. Still labelled as a theory, not a law.
This is maths, one of the few provable realms. Yet this is considered a 'theory'.
I'm keen to view a good explanation of it's 'truth'.
After viewing such 'proof', why can it continue to be a 'theory', not a 'law'?
Maths is deductive, not inductive.
Show me the proof.
naganokumas 2 weeks ago
@naganokumas Theorems and theories are not the same thing. There is nothing to prove. You just don't have an understanding of basic scientific nomenclature.
bcFiRe12 2 weeks ago
@bcFiRe12 I do. Forgive me but I get fat fingers when typing drunk.
Thankyou for correcting me.
naganokumas 1 week ago
We all love you @.@
Yahweigh 2 weeks ago
every religion must die!
azmanabdula 2 weeks ago
We have enormous word games about whether god exists or not , and this has taken place since 4000 plus years ago, and those that are on the side of the apparent creator of everything, dont you realise how powerless he is to not just affirm his existence?
azmanabdula 2 weeks ago
We have to quit searching for ascension, quit materialistic and idealistic hording, stop waiting for something to happen but be proactive in supporting equality. Stop being positivity addicted but rather point your finger at the negativity. We have to stop fighting over ideologies but rather work together on solutions that are good for all of us. Stop feeling superior because you are atheist or a Christ and realize that it doesn`t bring you and others freedom. We all are individual and One.
paranapoleon 2 weeks ago
@paranapoleon There are some laudable sentiments expressed in what you say. There are also sentiments which I find dubious — or at least dubiously expressed. Atheism can absolutely bring freedom — freedom from a vast host of unsubstantiated divine claims, many of which are used to actively confine and circumscribe harmless, natural and even productive thought and behaviour.
TheraminTrees 2 weeks ago 4
Im sure Atheism ,,can`` bring ,,absolute`` freedom`` by excluding everyone who doesn’t belong to the absolute atheist society. But you can replace atheism with ,,Christianity`` and would get the same statement which doesn’t help us to actually solve our problem of ideology war—it rather enhances it since every group claims such beliefs and therefore you fight equality.
paranapoleon 2 weeks ago
@paranapoleon This is an utter distortion. First I didn't say 'atheism can bring absolute freedom'. I said 'Atheism can absolutely bring freedom' — ie it is entirely possible for it to bring freedom, and I pointed out how it could. Second, nope — you cannot replace atheism with christianity. This isn't just arguments for arguments' sake — it's about a disciplined search for knowledge, evidence and truth. Not all beliefs are equal — some are wrong, and it's valuable to find out which ones.
TheraminTrees 2 weeks ago 3
@TheraminTrees absolutely- not absolute. But your argument still remains separated from the current situation of humanity: You exclude the Christians from this utopia only because of their silly believe. Why cant i replace atheism with Christianity? Christians also think that they search for truth- many people do it but in fact all they do is searching for secrets and power and not for true knowledge: How to learn to support our growth as individuals and Oneness.
paranapoleon 2 weeks ago
@paranapoleon 'You exclude the Christians from this utopia'
—You won't find any such sentiment anywhere on this channel. If you intend to pull lazy misrepresentative shit like that, you needn't expect a response.
TheraminTrees 2 weeks ago
@TheraminTrees This is actually not misrepresentation but factual observation of the sentence 'Atheism can absolutely bring freedom'- all i did was asking myself: ,,Where are the christians- will they have to be free from god in order to be a part of this freedom?`` I doubt that even if they would be free from god (-->non-christians) that it would bring more freedom as first of all there is stronger brainwashing around than god.
well if you don`t want to discuss, we can stop.
paranapoleon 2 weeks ago
@paranapoleon 'This is actually not misrepresentation but factual observation of the sentence'
—No, not 'factual observation' at all — and by claiming it as such you demonstrate exactly why this conversation isn't working. Perhaps you have some language barrier, who knows. But you take a ludicrous interpretation of what I say, and then you make a ludicrous generalisation, inventing extreme views I do not hold. I'm not going to waste time refuting such undisciplined rubbish.
TheraminTrees 2 weeks ago 3
@TheraminTrees Not all believes are equally true as not all believes support Equality- What is true is equally true for everyone. f. ex. Hegels pov is NOT true for everyone but for a elite who tries to force the truths upon the rest and therefore gain power over them. We have to free everyone from this enslavement so everyone can see the truth as equals.
paranapoleon 2 weeks ago
@TheraminTrees 2. So,can atheism be a practical solution for fixing suffering?- No, because it can only be your ,personal` concern on how to relate to the world (which is perfectly fine) we live in and therefore it has not changed and will not change the system since the problem is not God but the SYSTEM (which you support). If you start to support a system of real freedom and equality then the church will lose control of peoples mind and we will not have to use ,theist` and the suffix ,ism`.
paranapoleon 2 weeks ago
@paranapoleon 'So,can atheism be a practical solution for fixing suffering?'
—First, atheism does not exist with a purpose to fix suffering, so you're attacking a straw man. Second, as it happens, a consequence of atheism is that it can relieve certain kinds of suffering — where suffering comes from unsubstantiated divine claims like 'hell', etc.. But it is not atheism's 'job' to fix suffering. And if you want to stop divisiveness, you might start with your own in your approach to me.
TheraminTrees 2 weeks ago 5
@TheraminTrees christianity, buddhism... try to end suffering- straw man? I overestimated atheism then as i already feared in my statement that it is just a personal concern. Yes atheist are good thinkers- they can erase idiotic words such as god, spirituality, higher-self, hell, afterlife, ascension. So Atheism is a good method to clear some of these illusions but thats it? Why not moving forward to actually do something more? ,,Atheism``is weak just by being the enemy of ,god`.
paranapoleon 2 weeks ago
@paranapoleon While your comment is indeed inspiring and positive, it still doesn't address certain issues. "We have to stop fighting over ideologies but rather work together on solutions that are good for all of us." So what do we do about contraceptives? Stem cell research? Gay marriage? In order to find solutions good for all of us, we must indeed argue ideologies, for one side says "this is better" and the other argues "this is better". This is irreconcilable otherwise.
edemaomega 2 weeks ago
@edemaomega true- there must exist an institution for sharing the ideas and needs so we wont end in a static dystopia. Adorno is the best example for such a way of thinking, (and its the best way to erase ideologies.) Many questions are very easy to answer with EQUALITY: gay marriage: does it hurt anyone except angry people (egoism)? It is good for all. contraceptives: it is mass destruction of people. not good for all except sex addicts (egoism). etc..,better` for all is EQUALITY.
paranapoleon 2 weeks ago
@paranapoleon i want to correct myself- i replace the word ,,contraceptives`` with ,,abortion`` in my previous post.
- (Of course Contraceptives are fine since f. ex. masturbation is natural and doesn`t harm anyone, except maybe your angry mother- but she will have to deal with it.)
paranapoleon 2 weeks ago
There is no absolute external path- every path separates people. All there is to understand is around us, real and physical. We have to cut out the materialistic and spiritual illusions in order to support freedom for us- our brothers and sisters, animals and nature.
paranapoleon 2 weeks ago
I look at the search for God a different way. I don't follow other people's paths to God; I follow my own path. I don't believe there is one right way to believe. I think that every viewpoint has some merit, though some are better predictors/models of reality than others. I can see how trying to follow the paths that others had found towards God would be an impossible task. I make my way based less on what others think and more on what makes sense to me. Others will find their own truth.
LaedyRose 2 weeks ago
@LaedyRose The irony is that this actually describes a path that still fits in with the video — and it does so because it's one I'd already anticipated when I was making the video. This path is populated with people who tell you you need to find your own way — ie, it's the 'make your own way' path. And the result is the same — no gods.
TheraminTrees 2 weeks ago 4
@TheraminTrees Good point. I didn't think of that. Maybe your path leads to no Gods, and that's okay. Maybe my path does, and that's okay, too.
LaedyRose 1 week ago
@LaedyRose But on an important level it's not ok, is it. Don't get me wrong — if theists would keep it to themselves and never sought to impose on others, I'd have no problem with religion at all — it would be innocuous. So, it's 'ok' that you don't impose your unsubstantiated belief on me. Unfortunately though, with no objective measure, even liberal theists implicitly validate the actions of anyone who says 'God told me to do it'. That's not ok. And that's why I ask for objective evidence.
TheraminTrees 1 week ago 2
@TheraminTrees If God/Gods were proven with objective evidence to everyone's satisfaction (which I'm not sure is possible, but let's just say) would that necessarily make "God told me to" a good excuse? "I was just following orders" isn't a very good excuse, in general. We all make our own choices. In other words, I do not believe I validate the actions of others due to my beliefs in Gods, any more than I would validate the actions of others due to, say, my political beliefs.
LaedyRose 1 week ago
@LaedyRose In terms of proving the existence of God, or Gods, I think it's okay for each person to come to their own conclusion. A belief in Gods helps me make sense of things you might explain as coincidence, subconscious stimuli, and/or my brain just playing tricks on me. It seems like atheism works for you. I really like your videos, and your responses. They make me think. I believe in freedom of religion. I grew up atheist, and know how oppressive proselytizing can feel.
LaedyRose 1 week ago
@LaedyRose 'A belief in Gods helps me make sense of things you might explain as coincidence, subconscious stimuli, and/or my brain just playing tricks on me.'
—Then I'm interested to hear what you think is explained. 'Explanation' indicated explanatory power — ie connections between substantiated processes/entities.
'It seems like atheism works for you.'
—It's not that atheism 'works' for me — what 'works' for me is not accepting claims without evidence. That inevitably produces atheism.
TheraminTrees 1 week ago
@TheraminTrees Like my reasons for other subjective beliefs, such as love, my reasons for my belief in Gods is personal. I can share if you're interested, but I know that my experiences also have other, more secular explanations. I accept subjective things, such as intuitive feelings, as evidence, where others may not.
LaedyRose 1 week ago
@LaedyRose 'I accept subjective things, such as intuitive feelings, as evidence, where others may not.
—You accept intuitive feelings as evidence. So when you're accused of a crime, all we need to do is present your photo to a jury, and let their intuition do the job. Hey, it'll save us a lot of time and money — and thinking. Can you see the problem? You're accepting all manner of fantasies, prejudices, biases as evidence. You're supporting a system that leads inevitably to horrendous abuse.
TheraminTrees 1 week ago
@LaedyRose 'When someone "feels" angry, or "feels" they are in love, there are outward signs, but they are not conclusive.Now compare that to a belief in Gods.'
—OK I'll do just that. You feel anger — because it's a feeling. It does not refer to a referent beyond the feeling. When you say you 'feel' gods, you're positing entities beyond yourself, for which you have no evidence. We can define anger — eg a level of arousal accompanied by negative thoughts. Now define the feeling 'gods'.
TheraminTrees 1 week ago
@TheraminTrees I agree that relying on subjective evidence alone is pure folly. However, subjective evidence can be quite useful in combination with objective evidence. In "Twelve Angry Men," (a fictional but realistic story) one man in a jury has an intuitive feeling that the accused, who looks guilty at first glance, is in fact innocent. The man uses his intuition to lead him to objective evidence which convinces the rest of the jury that the accused is in fact innocent.
LaedyRose 1 week ago
@LaedyRose That is by no means evidence, and certainly not the object of the story, which is that you shouldn't be so quick to judge. You're obfuscating the point here, Laedy. Let me ask you something. Without any context, without anybody telling you what your personal feelings of "God" actually are, would they still be "God"? Why are your feelings of "God" more valid than the feelings of conviction that those of us once-Christians had, and how is it that your understanding is better?
Aphotic0221 6 days ago
@LaedyRose How can you claim to things without being able to back them up? What purpose does it serve to insinuate certain things about the workings of spirituality if you have no intention of proving them with anything other than subjective thought?
Aphotic0221 6 days ago
@LaedyRose Do you see we've come back to where I started: talking about the need for objective measures. And by alluding to the film '12 Angry Men', you make my point for me. If Peter Fonda's intuition counts as 'evidence' for the innocence of the accused, then the other jurors' intuition counts as 'evidence' for his guilt. You can't have it both ways. Intuition is not evidence. It simply inspires the search for evidence. Which brings us back to the central subject: objective evidence for gods.
TheraminTrees 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees There is evidence for God. The BVG Theorem shows the Universe began to exist and therefore validates Kalam Cosmological Argument.
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths First, from what I've read, Vilenkin himself is quick to point out that he's referring to the expansion of the universe having a beginning — he is not happy with how the phrase 'absolute beginning' has been used, and also concedes several possible work-arounds. But second, even if the universe was shown to begin, the Kalam is not validated — this is not 'evidence for gods' whatsoever. It's the old story — jumping from wish to conclusion via zero evidence.
TheraminTrees 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees You should read more. Vilenkin had a presantation which I read in the NewScientist in which he showed that the Universe had a beginning. Secondly, if the Universe began
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths Wow, you read New Scientist, how impressive. Guess what — so do I. But I also bother to read around — and, as I've said, Vilenkin has clarified his 'beginning' referred to expansion, not the absolute beginning, and he has made concessions to work-arounds. Go on trotting out the same comments on people's videos if you like. It won't get you anywhere. And the false dichotomies you employ in your Kalam defence will similarly gain you nothing.
TheraminTrees 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees Firstly, Vilenkin analysed all model describing the Universe and he concluded that the all of them needed a beginning. If you want to see more on this I suggest you check
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees out TheisticThinker's channel on Youtube. He is very polite and he will answer any question you might have about the BVG Theorem and The Kalam Cosmological Argument.
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees Secondly, how is it a false dichotomy? If the Universe began to exist( which means that matter, enrgy, space and time came into existence) then what is left to cause it
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees except the supernatural?
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths Whenever I have questions about anything, I tend to investigate independent, non-biassed sources. That way, you get answers that aren't laden with wishful interpretation. Anyway, I've already mentioned Vilenkin's concessions.
As for 'supernatural', it's not a useful word. Whether it's being used to mean 'unknowable' — which cancels out the idea of evidence — or merely 'currently unknown', it certainly does not imply gods. 'We don't know' doesn't magically become 'gods did it'.
TheraminTrees 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees I have sent you the article.If do not believe me read it. Why don't you visit the channel I suggested, he is a very honest guy.
When I say supernatural I mean spaceless, timeless, imaterial. Like the properties of God.
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths 'I have sent you the article.If do not believe me read it.'
—Because, as I've said — which confirms you're not listening — I've read it. And as I said, it's not the only reading I've done. If you want to convince me that talking to you is a waste of time, you just go ahead and carry on not listening.
'When I say supernatural I mean spaceless, timeless, imaterial. Like the properties of God.'
—a) None of these is implied, and b) none of these would imply gods. Next fallacy?
TheraminTrees 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees How have you read it, when Vilenkin said 'that scientists can no longer avoid a beginning'?
a) how none of these is implied? If there was something natural that created
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees the Universe, then that would be part of a bigger Universe.
b) Does that not imply the existence of the supernatural? Do you know anything that is spaceless, timeless,
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees imaterial and belongs to the natural realm?
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths 'How have you read it, when Vilenkin said 'that scientists can no longer avoid a beginning'?'
—Already repeatedly answered.
'Do you know anything that is spaceless, timeless, imaterial and belongs to the natural realm?'
—You don't know anything with these qualities in any realm. Saying that something isn't observed in the natural realm doesn't mean it exists in another realm. Exactly how many logical fallacies do you want to commit?
TheraminTrees 5 days ago 14
@TheraminTrees Vilenin affirms a beginning to the Universe. What the question is about what kind of orgin there was.
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees He himself got a Quantum Gravity model which is quite like Hartle and Hawkings from the early 80's which have a Euclidean geometry at the Planck era.
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees And this model is interpreted usually as being a creation ex-nihilo in the same way standard Friedman Universes are.
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees His collaboration with Borde and Guth was over the problem of an Initial SIngularity and whether Inflationary spacetime could solve it by violating the...
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees ...Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems, which indicated that the Universe had a singular beginning if certain general conditions were true.
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees Since Inflation violates the energy condition, it seemed at first that the Universe could be past-eternal. But this was then proven false by numerous singularity theorems...
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees ...Published in the 90's and ending with the 2003 theorem commonly refered to as the 'BVG'-theorem. And this theorem, just like Hawking-Penrose's, indicate a past-finite Universe.
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees It does that by proving that worldlines (path traveled through spacetime) only affected by gravity, so-called geodesics, terminate at a spacetime boundary in the past.
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees This is called 'geodesic-incompleteness', and just like with the singularity theorems by Hawking and Penrose in the 60's, the 2003 theorem also implies it, but with much less...
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees ...Assumptions. Unlike the HP-theorem which relied upon Einstein's equations, and alot of other conditions (energy condition being the most important), the BVG-theorem only..
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees ...Relied upon the Universe/Multiverse having an average rate of expansion (the Hubble constant) greater than zero.
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees Does this prove that the Universe had a beginning? Probably so, and this view is held by all of the collaborators, including Vilenkin.
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees Sorry for the many, many posts here, but Youtube for some reason allow very little characters (less than 500 now...).
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees I was recommended this discussion, and I'm sorry if I don't know exactly where you guys are in the discussion, but I'm interested in Cosmology, and this seem to be interesting.
TheisticThinker 5 days ago
@TheisticThinker 'I'm sorry if I don't know exactly where you guys are in the discussion'
—I'm happy to let you know where we were. I was saying that I'd done some reading around and heard about possible concessions from Vilenkin about work-arounds, as well as reservations about 'absolute' nothingness; that I pursue matters like this by reading independently and from various sources, not one article/YT user; and that whatever the case, no evidence for gods was established — unexplained ≠ gods.
TheraminTrees 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees I do not know what you have read, because you do not understand the BVG Theorem and you clearly do not know what Vilenkin has said.
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths By ignoring what I've said repeatedly and clearly about having read the NS article, but also having read around because I don't take one source, you have now convinced me that you wish to waste my time.
TheraminTrees 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees Are you so kind to tell us your sources?
If you do not believe me, read the BVG Theorem itself.
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheraminTrees If the Universe came from absolute nothing then ,as Stephen Hawking has said,science cannot explain something like that.The only explanation that remains is the supernatural.
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheraminTrees to exist, the you as atheist, have two options:
1) Say the Universe came from nothing
2) Say the Universe was caused by the supernatural(i.e. God)
If you want to
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths
Quick question. Can you explain what the supernatural is? (But don't say what it is not)
truckcompany 5 days ago
@truckcompany I think that the best way the explain what the supernatural is to say what it is not. There is evidence for the existence of God ( Kalam Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument, Historical evidence, etc.)
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths
Those are NOT evidence for the existence of 'God', those are philosophical arguments.
And the CA and the OA contain fallacies that invalidate them.
There is no historical evidence that a god exists. There are some accurate historical accounts in texts that also talk about the existence of a god, but those historical accounts do not give any validity to the supernatural god claims.
pandstar 5 days ago
@pandstar What are the fallacies that invalidate them? What is the problem with philosophical arguments.
There is evidence for the existence of Jesus.
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths
CA contains an equivocation fallacy.
The OA takes too many characters to refute here.
This random 200 character limit is going to chase me off of YT!
pandstar 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths
I can create a logically valid version of the OA where the most prefect god is one that does not exist.
The OA just defines a god into existence.
pandstar 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths
The existence of a man that the Bible character is based on does not offer a shred of evidence for the supernatural god claims.
pandstar 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths
The Iliad contains some historical accuracy. Does that mean that Zeus exists?
pandstar 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths
OA defines a god in premise 1 (god is maximally great), then goes on to say that 1 aspect of being maximally great is existence.
It just defines god into existence
pandstar 5 days ago
@pandstar
If you want more characters to write with in your comments, I think refreshing your browser helps.
truckcompany 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheAwesomeMaths "There is evidence for the existence of God ( Kalam Cosmological Argument, Ontological Argument, Historical evidence, etc.)"
Assumption on top of assumption.
123backinyerface 4 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths
So you can't explain the difference between the supernatural and nothing? And why shouldn't I laugh at you right now?
truckcompany 4 days ago
@truckcompany You should laugh because you did not ask me to tell you the difference between the supernatural and nothing.
TheAwesomeMaths 4 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths
Nothing has the same properties as your description of the supernatural. If you can't explain what the supernatural is, then there is no difference between what you believe the supernatural is and what nothing is.
Please answer the question, tell me what the supernatural is. I don't want to make fun of your argument, so tell me why I shouldn't laugh.
truckcompany 4 days ago
@TheraminTrees say that the Universe beginning to exist is not evidence for existence of God then you are wrong.
TheAwesomeMaths 5 days ago
@TheAwesomeMaths So, because the universe had a beginning, you know how it began? You're a fucking ignorant fuckwad shut the fuck up you don't know shit.
NSflyler 5 days ago
@LaedyRose 'If God/Gods were proven with objective evidence to everyone's satisfaction would that necessarily make "God told me to" a good excuse?'
—Let's think this through. Say we know person X exists. Person Y claims X told them to do something. Do we just believe Y? No — we ask for evidence that X said the thing. With gods, none of this happens — unverifiable claims are allowed merely because the individual 'feels' them to be true. That principle, which you support, permits 'god told me to'.
TheraminTrees 1 week ago 2
@TheraminTrees There are many things that people "feel" to be true which are not strictly verifiable. When someone "feels" angry, or "feels" they are in love, there are outward signs, but they are not conclusive. Now compare that to a belief in Gods. If I, for instance, "feel" that I am in love, that in no way validates someone who commits a vile act because they "felt" that they were in love.
LaedyRose 1 week ago
@LaedyRose
No, God telling you to do something evil is not an excuse to do the evil thing.
rkyeun 1 week ago
Excellent!! . . .
hughc023 2 weeks ago
There was stuff like gases around before the big bang
It certainly wasn't god
TheSezwat 2 weeks ago
i dub this the hairy nipple theory
BonafriedD 2 weeks ago
@TheAwesomeMaths: You've limited the selection. It's okay to say "We don't know yet." We haven't been at this very long.
"If we are to be courageous in our questing, we must then ask the question 'what created God?'. If we conclude that this is an unanswerable question, why not skip a step and say that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? If we conclude that God has always existed, why not skip a step and say that the universe has always existed?" - Carl Sagan
DrifterRise 3 weeks ago
@DrifterRise But the Universe did not alwalys existed as Valenkin said. If the Universe came into existence from nothing then there is no other explanation besides the supernatural because there is no natural realm.
TheAwesomeMaths 3 weeks ago
@TheAwesomeMaths You speak with great authority about the nature of reality outside of this universe. Have you been there? What's it like?
If one of the multi-verse theories turns out to be correct then outside our universe is another universe which might be older than ours and may or may not have contributed to that which is ours. Or maybe there's just a load of quantum foam waiting to manifest in some way.
COEXISTential 2 weeks ago
@COEXISTential Even the Multiverse would have to have a beginning
TheAwesomeMaths 2 weeks ago
@TheAwesomeMaths That's as may be, but you still can't know what's outside (or before) that boundary.
COEXISTential 2 weeks ago
@COEXISTential There is nothing outside the boundry
TheAwesomeMaths 2 weeks ago
@TheAwesomeMaths ...and how do you 'know' that?
COEXISTential 2 weeks ago
@TheAwesomeMaths
Why?
rkyeun 2 weeks ago