Logical Arguments For God's Existence: DEBUNKED

[tatertruck124]

I have evidence for you, the Bible.

Did you say tables are energy? Did you say energy cannot be created or destroyed? Are Lightbulbs energy? did you say energy cannot be created or destroyed? Did you say everything is energy?

If a table is energy and it cannot be created then you have some explaining to do because I just say someone create a table and I think he used energy to do so.

God had the energy to create the universe.

You also assume a limited God in your argument.

reply AHughman8

[SwordSworn147]

@tatertruck124

First, The bible is the opposite of evidence

Second, If matter is energy and the table exists what was destroyed? saying matter cannot be created or destroyed is not the same as saying it cannot change states. what disappeared the wood (matter) has not disappeared. Also when we refer to matter we are talking at the atomic level.

Third, I created the universe the moment you began reading this everything you remember I implanted in your mind. PROVE ME WRONG

[tatertruck124]

@SwordSworn147 1st, the Bible has never been proven wrong so how can it be considered the opposite of evidence.

2nd, a tree was destroyed, the wood didnt disapear except for the wood that was shaved off.

3rd, I know that the universe is at least 24 years old because thats how old I have been alive. My Dad can prove that it is at least 51 years old, and my Grandma can prove that it is at least 74 years old.

Also if you created the universe the burden of proof is on you to prove it to me.

[tatertruck124]

@SwordSworn147 Your third argument is very illogical, here is an example. The insides of a watermelon are blue until you cut the surface, prove me wrong.

[nishbrown]

So, for the Teleological debuking, are you saying that Natural Selection is racist?

LOL!

LMAO @ nztexas1

[nztexas1]

you know nothing...have you died???

Have you been to the holy land???

you are too young to know anything!!!

[izovire]

@nztexas1

Do you know more... about death?

Have you been to the holy land yourself???

Once again, age has nothing to do with how much a person knows. Perhaps challenging the topic that was discussed in this video will prove what you know.

[Brokencarnage]

That tongue thing is hilarious.

[rkyeun]

No, it requires ungodly, not godly. The amount of computing power is exactly equal to the power required by a universe with no god in it.

Adding an omniscient god requires more computing power than actually exists in the universe.

[rkyeun]

What we mean is that the source is chaotic enough or difficult enough to predict that it can be replaced with a probability without loss of accuracy. We could attempt to trace back every gamma ray and alpha particle shooting through the atmosphere, we could attempt to track every molecule in a solution, but this would require ungodly tons of computing power and give practically no net gain. The source is best modeled as a random influence.

[rkyeun]

Right, we're pretty much in agreement here, you're just getting caught up on the scientific use of the word random.

It doesn't mean non-deterministic. If we rewind and play again, it will happen the same way. That's deterministic. Non-deterministic would play out a different way every time we run the tape again. That doesn't happen outside of quantum physics.That's not what we mean in science when we say random.

[rkyeun]

Mutations are random. This doesn't mean that physics suddenly becomes non-deterministic. We don't have access to the initial states that determine exactly what mutations will appear in what circumstances. It is unpredictable for us, and thus random.

[rkyeun]

Yep, my genes are made of atoms. Was this supposed to be some startling revelation?

It turns out I don't much study genealogy, but courtesy of my mother I have an extensive family tree listing going back almost a thousand years on some lines.

I wasn't aware that immunoglobulins could attack specific genes out of a chromosome in the nucleus of a cell behind a cell wall. It was my understanding that they only attached to specific epitopes on an antigen. I'd like to see your source for that.

[rkyeun]

No, that reaction comes from a copy made however old you are ago of another system which evolved naturally to cause just such a function about the time you turned two or three years old.

It may be predetermined, but it's not creation.

There is no intelligent agency involved in choosing which genes will survive in an environment. It is entirely the result of undirected processes.

[rkyeun]

The assembly of your brain neuron by neuron is the result of your genetics causing neuron growth and the alignment of those neurons is partly a result of your genetics and partly a result of your experiences. You are the result of those influences, and now in self-awareness a recursion occurs whereby you influence yourself.

[rkyeun]

free will

noun

1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.

2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.

Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009

[rkyeun]

If you don't want to be mistaken for redneck creationists, you shouldn't use their failed arguments in the same incorrect way they do.

Okay then, yes. There are creators within this universe. I created the posts above with my user name on them. No argument there.

If you're going to pit the definitions of creator vs free will against each other, Random House Dictionary gives two definitions of free will. I accept the first, and disbelieve the second.

[rkyeun]

Yes, creationism supposes a designer, and it does so incorrectly. Humans are living, meaning they come not from a designer but from their parents. The basic building blocks of cellular life have natural affinities for each other, and stick together by themselves without anyone having to put them that way.

[rkyeun]

First you'll have to define "spontaneous intelligent design". Creation happens all the time when an architect sketches blueprints to your house, or a programmer writes code. The parts of houses aren't alive and don't have natural affinities for each other, so someone has to put them together. This process isn't spontaneous though, as nothing suddenly pops into existence.

[rkyeun]

No, if I wrote an AI like me in computer code, it would be able to talk to me, and I would be able to show it how I wrote it, and demonstrate to it that I did in fact write it and so it had a creator. No such god has yet appeared to explain to me what steps he took in creating my mind. Instead it appears I am entirely the product of physical laws without any creator, and looking at those laws I can see perfectly well that I do not require a creator.

[rkyeun]

I don't believe in free will. My brain chemistry alters my thoughts, not the other way around. However there is certainly a cascade reaction when I think of happy things that produces various chemicals that alter my brain chemistry. So in that sense the answer to your question is yes.

[rkyeun]

The brain is an organic computer. We are the AI in question which evolved without a designer.

The process of the sodium and potassium ions passing through our synapses is not independent of our consciousness. Our consciousness is contingent on them continually doing this in familiar ways. When they do it in different ways our consciousness is disrupted and we no longer recognize ourselves. When they stop doing it, we die.

[TheKwiesidavis]

i tought you well i tought you well

[knowwaie]

The record of history proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a god exists. Not a specific god, that can only be found by comparing 'revelations'. It's your belief that they were all hallucinating but even hallucination can't produce unknown information, a midget wearing a green tuxedo exist somewhere.

[rkyeun]

The record of history shows that many people have believed in God. It also shows none have been able to prove one exists.

Hallucinations can produce unknown information. Most of the time that information is also wrong. Every so often a hallucination will get something right on accident.

[DjBlindShadows]

Why do people like god?

[toelesshoe]

You have a bright future kid.

[tommy99addams]

GOD and religions are the biggest lies of mankind!!!!!!!!!!

[SuperCeon]

are yhu really tht dumb.??

God does exist. if he didnt then yhu wuldnt b deny'n him. he must exist if yhu are.

[eagleeye1975]

LOGIC FAIL!

[burkeyatm]

Good observation PIEDol. Unfortunately, some won't understand what you're ACTUALLY implying with that statement.

[PIEDol]

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

What came first, Man or God?

The answer is man.

[rkyeun]

Egg came first.

Unless you mean the chicken egg. Then the chicken and its egg co-evolved simultaneously.

[knowwaie]

"chicken and its egg co-evolved simultaneously."

Is this rational without some deep doctrines of explanation?

[rkyeun]

Yes.

[knowwaie]

In fact it is not. The theory is revised constantly to explain things which would otherwise be evidence against evolution. I'm sure you'll never understand that though.

[rkyeun]

The Scientific Theory of Evolution stands strong after 150 years. Our understanding of it has broadened. The evolution of the chicken population from its ancestral bird population comes complete with the evolution of those bird eggs into eggs containing baby chickens.

The answer to your previous question is yes because evolution is not a religion and there is no such thing as "deep doctrine".

[knowwaie]

Understanding hasn't broadened the theory has broadened to incorporate more 'explanation'. The key word there is explanation.

I knew you wouldn't understand and at this point to don't believe you are even capable.

[rkyeun]

No, the theory is the same as it has always been.

It has always been based on heredity, mutation, and unequal reproductive success.

The presumed mechanism of these factors have changed numerous times, but that change is not relevant to the theory itself. Evolution works even on systems with any means of those factors abstracted away, so long as they are still present. What has been changing are theories of heredity, mutation, and selection, not that they happen and combined cause evolution.

[knowwaie]

Lets be a little more practical, would this also mean any spontaneous generation of a new and unique gene? Neither heredity or mutation can account for these magical genes.

You still didn't address the problem of the missing lizards with wings, birds with scales or monkeys with hooves. Wouldn't we predict that these things should exist? Or is there some special magical exception to the rule?

[rkyeun]

Mutation accounts for the change of genes just fine. It's not magical or "spontaneous generation". Copies are imperfect and so new information creeps in. Sometimes the new information does something stupid and the creature dies. Sometimes it does something good and the gene spreads through the population.

Feathers are modified scales. Archaeopteryx is dead, not missing.

Primates are not members of the ungulates, so we should not expect primates with hooves unless they develop it separately.

[knowwaie]

I'll give an example of how this works. They say modern chickens evolved from dinosaurs, so i point out the fact that we observe no living species of lizard with wings or birds with scales. Then i'm sure you'll explain why we don't and thus prove my point that explanation is always required. How do you not see how no one can falsify a theory that constantly changes depending on the evidence against it? In order to explain something which shouldn't need explaining if it is so evident.

[rkyeun]

Your argument is analogous to this one:

You have no living great great great great grandparents.

Then I'm sure you'll explain why you don't have any living ancestors that far back, but the point remains that without any living ancestors you couldn't have been born. That you have to explain why you have no living ancestors makes genealogy a religion.

[rkyeun]

Here's the actual argument.

As with any other scientific theory, you falsify evolution by demonstrating that something it predicts should not happen actually does. If there is an animal or plant with no genetic ancestor, evolution is wrong. If a cow ever spontaneously appears in a fit of magical clapping of genie-blinking, evolution is wrong. If we find fossil bunnies in the Cambrian fossil layers, evolution is wrong.

[xdh1117]

URA COOL DUDE...iHATE TO SEE U GO 2 HELL...BUT...MY GOD iZ SOO GOD THAT iWONT REMEMBER ANY LOVED ONEZ R FRiENDZ THAT DiDNT MAKE iT...HE WOULD LET ME GO THROUGH THAT...AND OF COURSE U CAN USE SCiENCE AND LOGiC THAT CAN DiSPROOF GODS EXiSTANCE...HE iZ BEYOND LOGiC AND THE HUMAN MiND!U CANT THiNK LYKE HiM...ALL OF WAT U R SAYiN AND OTHER PEOPLE LYKE U R TALKED BOUT iN THE BiBLE...WAT UR SAYiN iZNT NEW...GOD iZ AND ALWAYZ WiLL BE AND iNFANiTE AMOUNT OF STEPZ BEYOND THE GREATEST HUMAN MiNDZ!

[Epydemic2020]

I have 100% proof a square circle cannot exist. You started to drift into the idea that you cannot prove a negative at the beginning. However there are two definite ways to disprove a negative.

You seemed to have at least one misconception for each argument, (except perhaps the ontological/personal experience) i might make video responses later.

[burkeyatm]

Let me make my previous comment more clear to all the theists out there. Outside of biblical/religious texts, there is NO documented evidence of Jesus or any of the so called facts contained within the bible. Have a think about what that means at its most base level.

[PIEDol]

Don't waste your time. Whenever theists see their beliefs actually being proved wrong, they give you the thumbs down and mark your comment as spam so others won't see the truth in your words. Leave the ignorant fags to their delusion. It's not hurting anybody but themselves.

(This comment will be given the thumbs down in 10...9...8....)

[Rubiscube69]

Wow, you have no idea how stupid you are appearing PIEDol. If you don't like the video because you well and truley KNOW it's the truth, you don't have to comment. You're the ignorant fag. You believe in a religioin that copied others. You believe in a invisiable man who lives in the sky, and watches you everyday and every second. You believe you can live on and on when you die. You believe a MAN created the eart? Try creating a brain right now, pretty hard isn't it?

[rkyeun]

If only that were so. Sadly, their ignorant screams are loud enough to affect the law and civil liberties, and their extremists can hijack planes and fly them into buildings.

Irrationality is goddamn dangerous.

[knowwaie]

So what is rationality?

[burkeyatm]

There are NO eyewitnesses of God or Jesus. THE BIBLE, THE GOSPELS AND ALL THEIR CONTENTS ARE NOT REAL. Which part of this do you peoiple not grasp......;.?

[xdh1117]

NOT TRYiN 2 DiS U BUT...THAT iZ Y THE BiBLE AND GOD TELLS US 2 HAVE FAiTH iN HiM...EVERYTHiNG PEOPLE SAY THAT DONT BELiVE iZ PREDiCTED!

[burkeyatm]

Could you please construct a more rigorous argument? I'm not sure what you're alluding to with your comment.

[sabertooth1980]

Cause we all know that if you type in all caps 'god' will believe you.

[PIEDol]

(I response to sabertooth1980)

GOD, I THINK YOU ARE A FAG AND THAT I COULD DO A WAY BETTER JOB RULING THE UNIVERSE!

Did he get that?

[sabertooth1980]

>.> I don't know. All I get when I shake the magic 8 ball is "Please ask later."

[beegburd]

you know... i cant take you seriously because everything is capitalized except the i's

and besides your comment didnt make any sense.

just because the bible says " you must have faith in god cus he said so" doesnt mean that god really said it. the bible was written by man.

[xdh1117]

OK OK EVERYBODY SAYS THAT ABOUT THE CAPiTAL THiNG...DO U THiNK iCARE?!iTZ NOT HOW iTYPE iTZ WAT iSAY...AND MEN HAVE MAD ENCOUNTERS WiTH GOD AND HAS WRiTTEN DOWN WAT HE SAiD SO WATEVER U HAVE 2 SAY NXT DOENT REALLY MATTER AND iF U READ THE BiBLE U WOULDNT HAVE WRiTTEN THAT COMMENT...

[Skepnostic]

People have also "met" allah. What's your point? Islam and christianity are mutually exclusive, so one of them MUST be lying or hallucinating, and if one of them MUST be wrong, it's not a stretch to say they both are.

[ManifestationOfTruth]

It is a stretch to claim they both are without evidence that demonstrates one aspect of either of them is false, or you can maintain more Agnostic in regards to this and seriously doubt their validity, in which case one needs to investigate them. And do not make the mistake of associating Christianity's concept of God with Islam's - doing so demonstrates you have done inadequate investigation into Islam's concept which is far more Pandeistic and not anthropomorphic/pagan.

With Peace.

[ManifestationOfTruth]

Further, "God" and "Allah" are not entirely seperate in the way you posit. Of course your line of reasoning suggests that you maintain they are entirely different "God's" which is an argument hoisted especially at many Christians who may maintain an anthropomorphic concept i.e. God = magical invisible man outside of the universe, a concept that would certainly lead me to disbelief. Rather, they are merely different concepts attempting to understand one alleged Reality. And no, people have not

[ManifestationOfTruth]

met Allah - but of course you were only joking. Tell me, what do you think of a Pandeistic concept of God? You see, the evidence for a Pandeistic God is the same evidence for the existence of the Omniverse.

Peace

[destylebaby]

you define god, Ok, cool. But then you stray! (ie which came first, the chicken or the egg) I argue that we like god are ongoing, ever changing ( energy). .; Evolution disproves relgion not God. as all your debunks. oh yea and lastly..eye witnesses often but not always put people in jail. God has millions of witnessess, though that may not Prove god, surley it shouldent be dismissed as drug reactions or all crazy people. [ do u believe in love or trust}

[Proletariat12]

Loved the random tongue.. It made me actually laugh at loud.

Is that what you think of when you hear a silly argument?

[llstevej]

So do most scientists believe energy has always existed and is uncaused? And is there an equal amount of "antienergy" or whatever so the sum total is 0?

[Proletariat12]

Energy always existing is more probable and actually backed by evidence. A God is not.

[NinjaDonutPhillip]

No one knows where the universe came from. But you cannot create something to say that he created the universe. We have the question of where the universe came from, and we just don't know. To create a god means that we have the question of where he came from. And we know that he came from humans looking for an answer to satisfy questions. Therefore, he is a figment of your imaginations and you cannot understand that he is imaginary.

Creationism does not exist.

[NinjaDonutPhillip]

This also leaves where humans came from. Religions try to say that humans began by creation of "God", but then that means that evolution cannot exist. Evolution means the change over time, meaning that we evolved from a species now extinct. To say that we appeared out of nowhere would mean that the species we were supposed to evolve from was still around after evolution (and it's not). So basically if you took a biology class, you probably took a secular/sacrilegious seminar.

[destylebaby]

change over time. ok. ill buy that. A literal interpatation that poof god made us as we are from in the bible?? I still cant see how evolution disproves God

[destylebaby]

Ok so god dident create man. man created god. I see, like man created right, and wrong, good, and bad, trust, love, and so on. Could be. but I wouldent go so far as to say I KNOW.Perhaps these "things" or "ideas" existed long before mankind or this earth. In a infinite megaUniverse the latters more probable, dont ya think......

[DarkMessiah123456]

Nice video. It helped me form my counter argument. What is the name of the song being played?

[tonniemier]

OMG can u be any hotter.

[TheHonestTheist]

You still have a lot more studying to do.

I do too, yet still I can see how far I have come when I listen to these same old arguments I heard a year ago and know their refutations, where as you do not.

Keep studying.

[AHughman08]

man. not so humble next time, arrogant- I mean honestTheist.

[TheHonestTheist]

Finally the experience argument.

Firstly, you have never experienced what these people are talking about, so what right do you have to talk about it? Not much.

If I do something and experience a certain thing, do you have the right to say "no you didn't"? No, you haven't got a clue

Besides, this experience isn't even for you. A personal experience of God is exactly that, personal. It isn't supposed to be evidence for the masses, it is evidence for those who accept God. It doesn't apply to you

[AHughman08]

How do you know I haven't experienced what other people have experienced?

Is it because If I had experienced it I would be a theist?

Can nobody experience these things and then be an atheist?

If so does having one of these experiences take away my free will?

I think you've got a problem there.

[TheHonestTheist]

No having this experience does not take away free-will. It just confirms to you the truth.

[TheHonestTheist]

So far the only thing you have debunked, is the argument that you know the arguments.

As for the teleological argument. You fail to address the full scope of the argument and the more powerful version which involves the fine-tuning of the universe. Instead you choose to use the fallacious version which is easily debunked. You look at life "now" but the real argument is about life even beginning, not life once it is fully formed. You cannot use natural selection to explain the fine-tuning.

[AHughman08]

just pointing out, this is an introduction to all the arguments for god's existence. Just the basics.

needless to say I didn't go into "fine tuning" because the idea is absolutely absurd. Why would god need to "fine tune" the universe after he made it? was he not powerful enough to make it perfect to begin with?

and abiogenesis explains pretty well how life began. as does natural selection explain complexity.

[TheHonestTheist]

first you say

"the idea is absolutely absurd"

then you say

"Why would god need to "fine tune" the universe after he made it?"

know what this tells me?

YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE IDEA!

Yet you call it absurd! Stop talking about things you obviously don't have a clue about! Fine-tuning isn't after creation. It is the initial values of the cosmological constants.

"abiogenesis explains pretty well how life began"

lol

[TheHonestTheist]

"what created/caused God?"

You should know this is you claim to be able to prove God doesn't exist, it's a very basic and foundation level question.

You then readdress the argument that nothing begins. Let's use a watch to illustrate why you are wrong. The atoms of a watch may of existed before hand, but the watch itself did not always exist. Can you see the distinction? It's not "what the thing is made of" but "the thing itself" that began to exist.

[AHughman08]

I'm not going to get too involved in this because...it would take forever. maybe if you want to PM me we could have a debate about it.

The point I was making is: the theist claims contingency falsely. Energy's movement may be contingent, but it's existence is not. EVEN if it was, the search for something non-contingent would NEVER lead us to believe it was some kind of conscious bearded virgin lover, who has a personal interest in out lives.

[TheHonestTheist]

"maybe if you want to PM me"

add "henrylea" to skype and we'll have a chat about it all.

[TheHonestTheist]

While failing to release that this applies a closed system (the universe) it does not apply to what created the universe, is does not extend beyond the universe, it applies to the workings of the universe.

We know the universe had a beginning, along with time, space, matter AND energy. Everything we observe in the universe had its origin in the big bang, this is a very well established fact that you need to learn.

[AHughman08]

look. I dare you to find a physicist that says "the universe came from nothing". There isn't one. Nobody believes that. I have yet to hear any say anything but the universe came from a cause, most likely some form of energy.

neither time nor matter nor space is energy. Yes all those things did originate at the big bang. No that doesn't say a thing about energy.

[TheHonestTheist]

2. Epic fail on numerous points. Firstly, the argument that nothing begins in false. It is true that things can change form and therefore do not begin. But have you always existed? No. What you are "made of" may of existed before, but "you" have not. So you failed to spot the distinction there.

You then go on to do the classic, extremely common and annoying misuse of the second law of thermodynamics which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed....

[AHughman08]

please don't cite "epic fail" so loosely. It makes it difficult to take you seriously.

My argument was not that "I" have always existed. it was that what I am made of always has and what everything is made of always has.

This distinction makes no difference in the argument.

[TheHonestTheist]

You say "when I say prove" and then show the definition for the word "proof" (they are two different words!

What you are doing is proving "a proof"

You are not "proving" God doesn't exist. No one can.

1. I haven't studied the Ontological argument, but I know this much, the way you present it is a straw-man version.

[AHughman08]

The proof thing is just establishing that 100% proof does not exist in reality. thats it. I've gotten "you can't prove it 100%" from theists way to many times, which is why I clarified.

As for the ontological argument. My version is a simplified version. But believe it or not, it's that lame of an argument.

[gimesomtin555]

shut up and research

[pctopgs]

Have you been voteboted??

[hunkamonkiman]

I have a yellow glorp. Picked her up in Thailand last year...

[bedsbronco75]

Not that I am very religious but you have a logical problem here. you say that people claim god exists because they say everything is causal (thus god must be an exception). However you fall into the same trap saying that "you bet energy was there before the big bang." just as they can not prove god was the beginning, you can not prove energy was there before the BB, clearly energy exists in your closed mathematical systems as well as god does.

[capitolsoccer]

There is a law in physics. It states that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed." So technically his logic does not fail.

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Of course the rest of this statement is "but can be transformed."

[Darkpoisonofmyheart]

I guess what I want to say, is that there is a difference between invisible concepts and measurable forces and quantities.

God exists as a concept - no one can presume to know what the actions of a Perfect Omnipotent being would be.

To an ant, wouldn't a TV seem highly illogical? Wouldn't it's actions be beyond that creature's understanding?

Wouldn't it appear strange, mysterious, or even be assumed to be something other than it was? The truth would seem unbelievable and irrational.

[Darkpoisonofmyheart]

Question: What if some things have a beginning and others don't... like the concept of Gravity, for instance.

Assuming that the Big Bang was the beginning of the Universe, that does not necessarily mean that Gravity began with the existence of Matter. Gravity is a rule governing Matter. But just because we couldn't see proof of its existence until the creation of Matter, does not mean it couldn't have existed beforehand.

Matter could have a beginning, and Gravity be infinite - like God.

[calistio]

all i hear from you is that which you have derived from your imagination of how you wish things to be you have debunked nothing at all . you have been taking drugs and hallucinating .

[Vornesoul]

To AHughman08:

The Teleological argument requires us the come to the conclusion that the reason we know the watch to be designed is because it is so complicated. This however isn't the case. We know Stonehenge to be designed but it is hardly complicated. We know the watch to be designed not because it is complex but because it does not occur in nature. 'Tis a good lead-up to why evolution helps disprove this argument.

[AHughman08]

very cool. I like that explanation better.

[pctopgs]

There is the argument from morality....

[Lobotaru]

Also, there is still the issue of psychic phenomena, some of which has worked, including remote viewing performed by the CIA. Also, ghost phenomena suggests an existence beyond the physical body. This doesn't prove that there is, but such phenomena does defy current scientific logic.

Also, Atheism is actually a religion in and of itself because you believe that, since we disprove the existence of various "gods" through time, that eventually god will be disproven.

[Vornesoul]

Atheism isn't a religion, it's a belief that there are no deities. A religion is a belief system, which is a group of many beliefs.

It's a common misconception that being an Atheist means you only believe in reasoned logic and science. You can be an Atheist and believe in reincarnation.

[Lobotaru]

Actually, AHughman is right in all of his arguments. The point of God is having faith in something beyond understanding. Faith does not in and of itself have a logical reason. However, as human's understand it, we are energy, and energy does move in more than one direction at the subatomic level, meaning it is possible for a being of such power to exist. I'm not saying he absolutely exists, just that it is a possibility.

[knaspelle]

I dont know how many times i have wached this video...

You claim The Ontological Argument to be "mouthfart".

What if i say. Sciende is evolving all the time aswell.... hey. Science even thought the earth was flat once. Until science proved itself wrong. Science discover new things all the time.

So, what im trying to say is. You argument is based on "one way of thinking".

Therefor: "mouthfart"!!

What if all we believe now is changed in 100 years?

You see the point im trying to make?

[Barack0to0the0future]

Ahughman... please give this man some truth in his life: Ironmaw1776....

You are very elegant in your arguments, I subscribed and will be looking forward to more videos...

[snake3741]

I really truly believe that you cannot prove God or disprove God. Ok lets say you did prove that God does not exist, but thats only with science. I believe theres something else than science that can prove God exists. But those 2 will cancel out, so therefore you cannot prove God's existence. But lets also say that there is something else that proves those 2 are wrong then something else and something else and its and endless chain. So i am saying we are all right but in our own way.

[amazonhippie]

What might this 'something else' be?

When you say 'but that's only with science', you're implying that science is basically worthless.

And, No, we are Not all correct in our own way.

There is the correct answer, which can be scientifically tested & confirmed.

Then there are the nonsensical ideas that people refuse to let go of.

[Censeo]

snake, do you not believe that either god exist or god doesn't exist? If you do, then some people are wrong. We know that most people are wrong, because there is no majority answer to the question. Some don't believe a god exist, some believe a specific kind of god exist, some believe another kind of god exist. Evidence by logic proves omniscient omnipresent benevolent gods can't exist, but Christians and Muslims believe that. It means they are definitely wrong.

[Barack0to0the0future]

Lol, no we aren't all right... If you believe in a god, you are surely wrong. Where is the physical proof in reality that a god exists? By adding a "god" into the picture, you over complicate the meaning of existance of it's self. In anything in life, we strife to get to the simplest explantion for the problems in life, when you add god, you are also adding, where it came from, what energy if possesses, how it interacts with reality, and how does it seemingly escapes entropy? If Answer just 1.

[Galyco]

That something else is your brain. You can live with your loving and sympathetic, caring, ever so attentive imaginary friend.

Or realize that there is no god. For you christians, muslims, faith bearing people.. I understand that abandoning such a belief causes a social 'suicide', because, more than likely, your friends and family also uphold similar beliefs. Though I encourage you to realize life has no ultimate master plan. It's your life, you have freedom of thought and your own decisions.

[Seekmosttoprophesy]

It is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that neither evolution nor atheism has been able to adequately explain the existence of all life forms including humans which are the most intelligent in terms of abstract thinking and expressing that in speech. These directives that made us had to have had a beginning. They had to have been spoken at a time in the not too distant past.

[knaspelle]

"This video isn't about abiogenesis it's about debunking logical arguments for the existence of god."

Well, yeah. Im not the one starting to argue with the biological terms. Lets bring it back to the start here. Yourself "admit" that it HAS to be a huge amount of energy from the start. So, all i said is that, that energy you talk about... just could be God? Just as much as it could not be. Who knows? no one was there to see or mesure it. You believe its not God. I believe it is God. All belief

[knaspelle]

Yeah, "tested". They were able to produce traces of one or two amino acids. Not hole functioning biologicall systems and a gazillion of different species of BOTH animals and plants. You seriously cant say its "tested" mate?. Im sure there is a 50/50 amongst the scientists that accept this "tested theory".

But stil not a proofe that God does NOT exist. (like the titel of your video here)

[AHughman08]

1.) This video isn't about abiogenesis it's about debunking logical arguments for the existence of god.

2.) Evolution is what gave us the diversity of life, NOT abiogenesis. In order to prove abiogenesis you simply need to show how life could have begun. which HAS been tested. granted not the the extent that evolution has been proven, but MUCH more than the hypothesis of creationism has ever been tested. And sorry, the theory is broadly accepted by scientists.

[knaspelle]

Well i think we can agree on one thing.

I can surely not prove that God does exist. And you can not prove to me that he does not exist. Just because we know sience, doesnt say its a profe that God does not exist, right? Thats just profe.... of.... whatever the sience is trying to prove at that point.

[Barack0to0the0future]

oh joy, a delusional christian...

[knaspelle]

Yeah... i hear you mate. But offcourse we know what causes wind and rockformation. Offcourse there is no magic involved! :D

But wait a sec.

You say "life "came up" about 4.4 billion years ago. very probably through a process we call abiogenesis. look it up. These are not guesses! They are tested and validated."

Notice your own: "came up". Hehe ;)

Both you and i know we cant create life. Thats not "tested" as you say.

[AHughman08]

It is tested. Of course it's been tested. Otherwise it wouldn't be a theory. Seriously, look it up.

[Jared93phillips]

very well put together man i tip my hat to you :P

[knaspelle]

.. yeah... and you just said it yourself.

Life itself... when did it "come up" all by itself?

Is not life it self a bit more complicated than a watch. And yet a watch can not be created "from nothing", but life can?

(just commentating some stuff in this video)

[AHughman08]

life didn't come from nothing. C'mon think. Life is natural. we don't need a supernatural explanation for wind. we know it's just air traveling from high pressure to low pressure. Or rock formation. We understand that pressure and heat make different, even complicated rocks. No need for magic!

life "came up" about 4.4 billion years ago. very probably through a process we call abiogenesis. look it up. These are not guesses! They are tested and validated.

[knaspelle]

Well.. there you go. You just called "it" energy. Energy existed. Okay.. lets call "him" energy if that is easier for you to believe in.

God is energy to you.

[AHughman08]

why would you assume that energy is actually a powerful supernatural man who made people out of mud 6,000 years ago?

Why??

it's just energy!!

[Galyco]

Well the point I was trying to get at, is that there is a 'war' between creationism and evolution, it's an ongoing battle. I was thinking you may want to explore the area of why people think that God is real. Instead of just trying to disprove it. I'm atheist, and I've come to learn about why people feel the need to have a 'supernatural being' governing us.

"Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." - Sun-tzu

Understanding them, can help in your arguments, in my opinion.

[AHughman08]

oh thanks goodness. sorry I snapped on you there, I just really despise that movie and feel bad for people when they eat it up so easily.

Thanks for the advise. You're right.

[Galyco]

Haha, no worrys, I see your point as well. Thanks for the conversation, I enjoyed it. =]

Take it easy.

[Galyco]

My good man Ahughman08, you need to watch 'Expelled' by Ben Stein.

I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

It discusses some issues between religion and science. A very good documentary.

[AHughman08]

Glyco. please. PLEASE. DO NOT mistake 'Expelled' for anything less than unreliable, unorganized, unintelligent rambling of a washed out actor who used to play somewhat smart people in movies.

there's a reason that movie got great acclaim in the creationist community and terrible acclaim in the academic community. Stein spent the whole movie trying to show why evolution should be taught along side creationism without EVER KNOWING or researching what evolution was.

[AHughman08]

My good man Galyco. I have seen 'Expelled'. And while Ben stein tries to use big words like "evolution does not explain thermodynamics" to wow the creationist audience, it's terribly SAD because thermodynamics and evolution are two completely different fields of study. thats like saying. "Nothing in geology explains how plants photosynthesize" It's LUDICROUS. its not an honest documentary. It's a pep rally for the misinformed. please, I beg you, don't buy into that crap.

[knaspelle]

I ran into a comment about a movie called

''Expelled" by someone called Ben Stein. I hade too look it up here on Youtube and run into a probbably trailer or something. I agree on when you say: "its not an honest documentary. It's a pep rally for the misinformed". But what documentary is truly honest. Its allways someones opinion that needs to be stated. Anyhow. One interesting thing should be to look into how many of the "scientists" accually got "frozen out" because of their questioning?

[ooglebydoogleby]

i call the id argument the i cant explain it so god must exist argument its realy a disguised god of the gaps argument. if it were true further inquiry would be pointles. it would not be posible to deconstruct. the only other option is that its wrong so ile leave it to the no inteligence allowed croud. sorry about my spelling by the way. its just laziness

[ooglebydoogleby]

i have a couple of aproaches to the cosmollogical argument. 1 if you came home and found a pitsa with a chunk taken out of it you would rightly deduce that someone had taken a chunk out of your pitsa but you would not deduce that god had taken a chunk out of your pitsa unless you could first independently varify the existence of god. the pitsa is not evidence of god , at best its a cause without an explanation.

[ooglebydoogleby]

if we asume the cause of the universe to be god then necisarilly the universe becomes evidence of the cause but the same is true of the proposition of thiere being no god.  all things being equall we are left with the claim for god despite no concrete evidenc whilst on the other hand there is a mountain of evidence sugesting a naturalistic cause.

[CangryKid]

umm...god IS energy

[califoniania]

Is this god sentient? If so, when did it become sentient? Surely it couldn't be before the Big Bang as at that point complexity was non-existent so sentience could not have existed and not being sentient is not part of the definition of god. You can say that god is energy but then all you're doing is just redefining the word "god" and adding a new synonym for "energy"; why not just use the word "energy"?

[CangryKid]

im saying god is the energy and anyways im 13 im just looking through new posibilities

[califoniania]

No problems. Being inquisitive is a good thing. Keep looking through the possibilities and do so with an open, yet critical mind and you'll find the answers that best explain your questions.

[xIsaiah2x]

the theory of entropy. Look it up. There are 1000's of arguements, and you didnt even disprove number 2 and 3. "there is no need for a God". Maybe you think you don't need him, but you're dead wrong

[xIsaiah2x]

so i mutated into me. great. watches are designed because it's not alive?

[FredricF]

Just some comment on the cosmological argument:

The Big Bang theory involve states that is substantially different from the reality we are used to. "Time" most likely did not exist before the BB. "Before the BB" makes no sense.

The cosmological argument find no support in the BB theory.

Religious people sometimes try to appeal to our "common sense" but we live in a part of the universe that is very atypical and our "common sense" is seriously warped by these abnormal surroundings.

[FredricF]

Replying to myself:

The BB theory is not an idea that the universe started in a infinitesimal point some time ago.

It is much more complicated than that and it can not be understood by some "common sense" that you acquire during life in a strong gravity field on a small, very dense, ball made mainly of very rare elements such as oxygen and silicon circling a star in the outskirts of a spiral galaxy.

My point: The BB theory does not prove anything about God (and certainly not that he exists).

[BlumoonNow]

hey jack ass,I'm right here,yup that's right, it's Me; God.I know what I know, and know what I don't know<---omniscience. omnipotence?doubt you'll be satisfied until I'm shooting lightening out me ass,then I'll be too pissed off,n it'll be too late for you.Hate me,I'm perfect;even when I lie,I tell the truth.Oh,n it's an historical fact, I'm exactly who I say I am; GrandSon of Allah, Allah Burlingame. 5th generation amerikan illuminati.Fuckin goyim!.. lame ass 1st year phl concepts.

[AHughman08]

hahaha! Are you for real?

[BlumoonNow]

yup it's me... admitedly I've been a student of PHL for many years; started at UT Austin, and involved with the occult since childhood. What's the difference between me n u? EXPERIENCE Now, I've gone over dis guys logic proof on the existence of myself and decided atheists aren't exactly wrong, since I do and do not exist... after all, the ability not to exist would be a negation of my omnipotence... Cheshire Cat trick... Who are you?

[BlumoonNow]

oh wait, u are dat guy. well at least you've maintained your sense of humor, and not excessively responded to my insult... sorry I just hate the fact you people doubt ME. Released on 9.11.02 for sending demons n the hell fire after my neighbor... played Bush n Osama cuz I hate all of you. muhahaahaha now, I jest; b/c I doubt the true enlightenment will reach full manifestation; dis world's still scheduled for destruction, or well, at least a hell of a ride.Sheep follow, Shepherds know the trick

[flexbreak]

how come religion is taught in schools then? Taking up childrens time and energy to learn about made up stories? So people commit less crimes?

[AHughman08]

Well actually the more educated people are the less likely they are to commit crimes. Faith schools actually raise the crime rate from just good education schools.

I think it's because people are so committed in their beliefs they will do just about anything in the name of them. Voltaire said, "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"

That includes subjecting kids to bad education to make them believe "made up stories". They dont realize what they're doing.

[sockpuppetsfromhell]

Excellent.

[Scrapheap71]

I've never heard the cosmological argument, debunked using theromdynamics. Good Job!!