Was the sadistic & evil Xian god real? No! It simply reflected the mentality of the men who invented it. This is exactly why we see the Judeo/Christian god making such Misogynistic laws as forcing a woman rape victim to marry her rapist. Would a loving, intelligent god advocate such a law? Would it advocate slavery as the biblical god did? No! And would a compassionate god kill innocent women & children?Of course not.
Seeing thru religion is a no brainer...unless one is delusional.
Even if creation were true, it certainly doesn't default to a "god" being the cause. We have no way of knowing if a 1st cause took place. Matter cannot be "created" nor destroyed, only change form.
There is no historicity 4 jesus! No 1 can make any valid claims, especially supernatural 1s. If you state the tomb was empty, prove it!
As an atheist, but having been a Xian, my conversion came from spending 3 years in bible study. The obvious conclusion for me was in finding the biblical god as evil.
@scrap222666 I eliminate it by reflection. From nothing nothing comes, after all. Since all physical reality began a finite time ago, there has to be a spiritual entity who created it. The spiritual creator of the universe is how the term "God" is usually understood. So we know God did it which means that "I don't know" is false.
Bro, the cosmological argument as you presented if true proves only something caused the universe to come into existence. You simply call that something "god", but based upon your argument there is no necessary reason to call it "god" much less to ascribe said something with the qualities of a supernatural agent. Something does not equal GOD. This is painfully obvious. Thus this proof doesn't even get you to a deistic god much less to a theistic god much less to the Christian theistic god.
I appreciate your attempt to provide objective evidence, but in my opinion it falls woefully short both in substance & quantity to move someone logically from non-believer to the believer
Most noteablly, I fail to see how proving Jesus resurrected (which I don't think your evidence proves) would necessarily lead to the conclusion that he is the co-creator of the universe much less that he is divine
It would prove that an very unusal event ocurred but nothing more. Your thoughts? Cheers
@LetReasonPrevail1 My thoughts are that if Jesus resurrected that would confirm his claims about himself. And, he claimed to be the co-creator of the universe. The very unusual event is so unusual, by the way, that it is downright impossible on the atheistic worldview.
Look, the only necessary proof any religion requires to be objectively logical is that it has living adherants. Suicide cults are logically wrong. If you believe in a Jonestown Cult in order to be right you need to be dead jn which case we wouldn't need to be having any further debate. A billion Christians or Muslims sure did something right.
NO it is not logically valid. All we know is that the universe did not always exist in this form. WE do not know if there was nothing and then something. NObody knows that. Cosmological argument relies entirely on its premises to be true. It does not present proof that they are.
@sashajw1234 Only one sort of cosmological arguments among several depends on the universe beginning to be. Moreover, the standard big bang model does say that all physical reality came into being a finite time ago.
@evangelical1 "Moreover, the standard big bang model does say that all physical reality came into being a finite time ago."
Because thats what it has to say to fit the theory my friend. It is inductive reasoning, not proof. There is no proof the universe came from an infantesimal point. Whenever it is possible that something might not be the case, any claim on said topic could be false.
@evangelical1 you just need to go to the wikipedia article on the big bang:
According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today.
it does not say physical reality came into being. it says it expanded from a different state. But anyway even if what you claim to be true is, its the same old, What created god, if you image he can just always be, then why can you not image the same for this actual universe we can see. cheers
@dexter121uk I have checked the wikipedia article and it does indeed say that the universe began-and hence came into being-13 billion years ago give or take. Nothing created God for He, as a necessary being, has always existed. We cannot say the universe has always been around for we are assuming that what I said about the big bang is true.
@evangelical1 can you copy and paste from the wikipedia article the part where it says the universe began?, i might be missing it? right from the start it says: According to the Big Bang model, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly... did you type in Big bang? would really appreciate knowing cheers! I was dead for billions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.
Ok I'm an atheist and here's something for u to think about:
PROOF GOD - Atheists are only NOT believing it. And if you would think subjective enough you would notice that NOTHING points to a God (wheter God Allah Zeus and so on - and yes god is nothing more than an other version of Zeus and any other God)
Yes it's hard but the Truth and I would prefer believing in God and I know much about religion but I don't choose things to think only because it's easier and a good feelingRead next comment
The cause being God can be very very vague. A personal God cause? A strange interaction of quantum phenomena being called God? The ordered structure of the universe being called God?
You assume too many things. Such as what atheism is, stuff that historians agree about. Your logic is poor and at many times fallacious. Ex. What a person is willing to do based on a belief has no bearing on whether it is true, so whether the disciples(if they even existed) were willing to die for their belief that jesus was god is not evidence. It is riddled with this kind of poor logic.
You assume too many things. Such as what atheism is, stuff that historians agree about. Your logic is poor and at mana times fallacious. Ex. What a person is willing to do based on a belief has no bearing on whether it is true, so whether the disciples(if they even existed) were willing to die for their belief that jesus was god is not evidence. It is riddled with this kind of poor logic.
Firstly, comment from ultradevon04 is right, and addresses that point.
Secondly, if everything has a cause, and god caused the universe, then what caused god? Whatever your answer is, I would apply that answer to the universe itself. For example, that it had no cause, that it's always been, etc. Actually, this is a troubling point for me, and it represents a real philosophical question.
The comment from ultradevon04 is NOT right according to the dictionary. Look it up for yourself. It is there in black and white. Everything does NOT need a cause. God cannot have a cause for He is a necessary being. In contrast, the universe has to have had a beginning for it is contingent. The troubling point for you, is a troubling point for everyone. That is the whole point of the cosmological argument (i.e. that God is first cause of the cosmos, and so exists) in the first place.
n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
ATHEISM IS NOT A POSTITIVE BELIEF, IT IS A LACK OF BELIEF.
Do you believe in a teacup orbiting Venus? Disbelief in nonsense does not have to be defended. He who posits the idea must defend it.
I would rephrase your point: The Universe cannot have a cause for it is a necessary being. In contrast, God has to have had a beginning, because He is a mere fantasy of man.
@evangelical1: "God cannot have a cause because He is a necessary being". That is a claim (conclusion) for which you have yet the present the data (arguments). You are presupposing "Gods" existence by DEFINING "God" as a "necessary being". Definitions are not proof, they do not add up to real argumentation, neither are they inherently logical.
@Nalae1978 Infinite causal regresses are not possible. That is the evidence leading to the conclusion that there is an uncaused first cause. We know the universe is not the uncaused first cause. The only candidate left would be God. So God is not defined to be necessary. Rather, that is a conclusion as you rightly point out.
@evangelical1: 1. Why do we KNOW that the universe is not the uncaused first cause? I would say we do not know how the universe came into being, thus all claims to knowledge are, for the moment, mere sepculation. 2. Thats an either-or fallacy. Why God? In your case, a specific God with a specific agenda (I agree that a "deistic" belief cannot be disproven)? Your statement is not based on data, it is a presupposition. It is what linguists would call an "ideological presupposition".
@Nalae1978 1. We know because science tells us the universe began to be. That which begins cannot be first. Also, there are philosophical reasons for rejecting an eternally old world. 2. Either the universe or something beyond the universe. Not the universe. Therefore something beyond the universe. What do we call a Being beyond the universe? God. So at least a deistic God must exist.
@evangelical1: Science has not yet answered all questions about the beginning of the universe, maybe it never will, because we really lack evidence and data about the very first milli/nanoseconds. There are also those theories that see ours as only one of a multitude of universes. Also: Even if there was "something beyond" - why a BEING, a term which carries characteristics like intelligence and intention?
@evangelical1: As far as I see, you are not arguing for a deistic god, but for a very specific kind of theism, and also, that Christianity is right, while all other religions are wrong. I grant you that a deistic "God" cannot be disproven (at the same time, it cannot be proven!). But how do you rationalize your leap from deism to theism?
ATHEISM IS NOT A POSTITIVE BELIEF, IT IS A LACK OF BELIEF. The belief in god is proposed with no evidence and can be dismissed with no evidence, thus leading to the default position. . . . .lack of belief (atheism)
Atheism can be a claim eg "I know there is no god"
Sometimes called strong atheism.
I know I cannot back up such a claim so I define MY atheism as - "A lack of belief in the claims others make about the existence of god(s)"
Sometimes called weak atheism.
However I don't really care what it is labeled. The important thing is the best, most honest and most accurate explanation of my position on the matter is - "I'm not convinced of the claims that god exist."
atheism <3
zoesyd13 2 days ago
I wish you were with your god right now, that way you could not make anymore videos.
darbone 1 month ago
the mask of self deception sits nicely with this crack pot.
kram83au 5 months ago
Was the sadistic & evil Xian god real? No! It simply reflected the mentality of the men who invented it. This is exactly why we see the Judeo/Christian god making such Misogynistic laws as forcing a woman rape victim to marry her rapist. Would a loving, intelligent god advocate such a law? Would it advocate slavery as the biblical god did? No! And would a compassionate god kill innocent women & children?Of course not.
Seeing thru religion is a no brainer...unless one is delusional.
Cootabux 1 year ago
Even if creation were true, it certainly doesn't default to a "god" being the cause. We have no way of knowing if a 1st cause took place. Matter cannot be "created" nor destroyed, only change form.
There is no historicity 4 jesus! No 1 can make any valid claims, especially supernatural 1s. If you state the tomb was empty, prove it!
As an atheist, but having been a Xian, my conversion came from spending 3 years in bible study. The obvious conclusion for me was in finding the biblical god as evil.
Cootabux 1 year ago
"...and the cause what we mean by in turn god." No. Let's look at the possible options. What caused the universe? God. Not god. Don't know.
How can you eliminate my favorite option "I don't know"?
scrap222666 1 year ago
@scrap222666 I eliminate it by reflection. From nothing nothing comes, after all. Since all physical reality began a finite time ago, there has to be a spiritual entity who created it. The spiritual creator of the universe is how the term "God" is usually understood. So we know God did it which means that "I don't know" is false.
evangelical1 1 year ago
Bro, the cosmological argument as you presented if true proves only something caused the universe to come into existence. You simply call that something "god", but based upon your argument there is no necessary reason to call it "god" much less to ascribe said something with the qualities of a supernatural agent. Something does not equal GOD. This is painfully obvious. Thus this proof doesn't even get you to a deistic god much less to a theistic god much less to the Christian theistic god.
LetReasonPrevail1 1 year ago
I appreciate your attempt to provide objective evidence, but in my opinion it falls woefully short both in substance & quantity to move someone logically from non-believer to the believer
Most noteablly, I fail to see how proving Jesus resurrected (which I don't think your evidence proves) would necessarily lead to the conclusion that he is the co-creator of the universe much less that he is divine
It would prove that an very unusal event ocurred but nothing more. Your thoughts? Cheers
LetReasonPrevail1 1 year ago
@LetReasonPrevail1 My thoughts are that if Jesus resurrected that would confirm his claims about himself. And, he claimed to be the co-creator of the universe. The very unusual event is so unusual, by the way, that it is downright impossible on the atheistic worldview.
evangelical1 1 year ago
Look, the only necessary proof any religion requires to be objectively logical is that it has living adherants. Suicide cults are logically wrong. If you believe in a Jonestown Cult in order to be right you need to be dead jn which case we wouldn't need to be having any further debate. A billion Christians or Muslims sure did something right.
Texasjim2007 1 year ago
you, my good man... are BIASED.
LulsParody 1 year ago
NO it is not logically valid. All we know is that the universe did not always exist in this form. WE do not know if there was nothing and then something. NObody knows that. Cosmological argument relies entirely on its premises to be true. It does not present proof that they are.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@sashajw1234 Only one sort of cosmological arguments among several depends on the universe beginning to be. Moreover, the standard big bang model does say that all physical reality came into being a finite time ago.
evangelical1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@evangelical1 "Moreover, the standard big bang model does say that all physical reality came into being a finite time ago."
Because thats what it has to say to fit the theory my friend. It is inductive reasoning, not proof. There is no proof the universe came from an infantesimal point. Whenever it is possible that something might not be the case, any claim on said topic could be false.
sashajw1234 1 year ago
@evangelical1 you just need to go to the wikipedia article on the big bang:
According to the Big Bang model, the universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today.
it does not say physical reality came into being. it says it expanded from a different state. But anyway even if what you claim to be true is, its the same old, What created god, if you image he can just always be, then why can you not image the same for this actual universe we can see. cheers
dexter121uk 11 months ago
@dexter121uk I have checked the wikipedia article and it does indeed say that the universe began-and hence came into being-13 billion years ago give or take. Nothing created God for He, as a necessary being, has always existed. We cannot say the universe has always been around for we are assuming that what I said about the big bang is true.
evangelical1 11 months ago
@evangelical1 can you copy and paste from the wikipedia article the part where it says the universe began?, i might be missing it? right from the start it says: According to the Big Bang model, the universe was originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly... did you type in Big bang? would really appreciate knowing cheers! I was dead for billions of years before I was born and it never inconvenienced me a bit.
dexter121uk 11 months ago
Your logic is flawed. Also, your premises are false.
IcedPhoenix666 1 year ago
Bibel=Storys (and some of them are evil)
Jesus=Never existed figure/if he existed he was nothing special
Gott=Fiction (Easy Solution/Great Imagination/Result of naivity and Influence of surroundings/parents/school)
Religion=2000 years ago maybe it was good now it's only worth for wars and regressive development
....and you're a typical ugly naiv guy @ evangelical1
and go on believing your thoughts OR realise reality
Robsshot 1 year ago
Ok I'm an atheist and here's something for u to think about:
PROOF GOD - Atheists are only NOT believing it. And if you would think subjective enough you would notice that NOTHING points to a God (wheter God Allah Zeus and so on - and yes god is nothing more than an other version of Zeus and any other God)
Yes it's hard but the Truth and I would prefer believing in God and I know much about religion but I don't choose things to think only because it's easier and a good feelingRead next comment
Robsshot 1 year ago
The cause being God can be very very vague. A personal God cause? A strange interaction of quantum phenomena being called God? The ordered structure of the universe being called God?
AzureDrag0n1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You assume too many things. Such as what atheism is, stuff that historians agree about. Your logic is poor and at many times fallacious. Ex. What a person is willing to do based on a belief has no bearing on whether it is true, so whether the disciples(if they even existed) were willing to die for their belief that jesus was god is not evidence. It is riddled with this kind of poor logic.
Botzu 1 year ago
You assume too many things. Such as what atheism is, stuff that historians agree about. Your logic is poor and at mana times fallacious. Ex. What a person is willing to do based on a belief has no bearing on whether it is true, so whether the disciples(if they even existed) were willing to die for their belief that jesus was god is not evidence. It is riddled with this kind of poor logic.
Botzu 1 year ago
Pseudo-intellectual guff.
tymadman 1 year ago
Logic 101: You cannot prove a negative. Didn't care to watch after your first point.
ragnarok9899 1 year ago
Why couldnt the universe always have existed? and PRAISE ZOMBIE JESUS! listen to yourself man!
minesoriginal 2 years ago
In this case, given your points, the guy who converted should be seen as Anti-theist, rather than atheist.
I'm an Anti-Theist. : )
inventiveinsanity 2 years ago
damn...i cant give -1 to this video...what a shame
Vakian 2 years ago
Wicked logical fallacies. I can't believe you guys are still dusting off the old cosmological argument.
johngeetar 2 years ago
Firstly, comment from ultradevon04 is right, and addresses that point.
Secondly, if everything has a cause, and god caused the universe, then what caused god? Whatever your answer is, I would apply that answer to the universe itself. For example, that it had no cause, that it's always been, etc. Actually, this is a troubling point for me, and it represents a real philosophical question.
SamDarVid 2 years ago
The comment from ultradevon04 is NOT right according to the dictionary. Look it up for yourself. It is there in black and white. Everything does NOT need a cause. God cannot have a cause for He is a necessary being. In contrast, the universe has to have had a beginning for it is contingent. The troubling point for you, is a troubling point for everyone. That is the whole point of the cosmological argument (i.e. that God is first cause of the cosmos, and so exists) in the first place.
evangelical1 2 years ago
n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
ATHEISM IS NOT A POSTITIVE BELIEF, IT IS A LACK OF BELIEF.
Do you believe in a teacup orbiting Venus? Disbelief in nonsense does not have to be defended. He who posits the idea must defend it.
I would rephrase your point: The Universe cannot have a cause for it is a necessary being. In contrast, God has to have had a beginning, because He is a mere fantasy of man.
SamDarVid 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BTW, check out my page. I just added some lame singing, and guitar. :-)
SamDarVid 2 years ago
@evangelical1: "God cannot have a cause because He is a necessary being". That is a claim (conclusion) for which you have yet the present the data (arguments). You are presupposing "Gods" existence by DEFINING "God" as a "necessary being". Definitions are not proof, they do not add up to real argumentation, neither are they inherently logical.
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978 Infinite causal regresses are not possible. That is the evidence leading to the conclusion that there is an uncaused first cause. We know the universe is not the uncaused first cause. The only candidate left would be God. So God is not defined to be necessary. Rather, that is a conclusion as you rightly point out.
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1: 1. Why do we KNOW that the universe is not the uncaused first cause? I would say we do not know how the universe came into being, thus all claims to knowledge are, for the moment, mere sepculation. 2. Thats an either-or fallacy. Why God? In your case, a specific God with a specific agenda (I agree that a "deistic" belief cannot be disproven)? Your statement is not based on data, it is a presupposition. It is what linguists would call an "ideological presupposition".
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@Nalae1978 1. We know because science tells us the universe began to be. That which begins cannot be first. Also, there are philosophical reasons for rejecting an eternally old world. 2. Either the universe or something beyond the universe. Not the universe. Therefore something beyond the universe. What do we call a Being beyond the universe? God. So at least a deistic God must exist.
evangelical1 1 year ago
@evangelical1: Science has not yet answered all questions about the beginning of the universe, maybe it never will, because we really lack evidence and data about the very first milli/nanoseconds. There are also those theories that see ours as only one of a multitude of universes. Also: Even if there was "something beyond" - why a BEING, a term which carries characteristics like intelligence and intention?
Nalae1978 1 year ago
@evangelical1: As far as I see, you are not arguing for a deistic god, but for a very specific kind of theism, and also, that Christianity is right, while all other religions are wrong. I grant you that a deistic "God" cannot be disproven (at the same time, it cannot be proven!). But how do you rationalize your leap from deism to theism?
Nalae1978 1 year ago
ATHEISM IS NOT A POSTITIVE BELIEF, IT IS A LACK OF BELIEF. The belief in god is proposed with no evidence and can be dismissed with no evidence, thus leading to the default position. . . . .lack of belief (atheism)
ultradevon04 2 years ago
Dishonest off the bat.
Truly pathetic mumbly bullshit.
not even 1 star.
martiangrundy 2 years ago
1 star, I couldn't even make it to the end... all I heard was "Blah blah blah..." nothing interesting or factual, just another brainwashed follower.
HBanana55 2 years ago
Atheism can be a claim eg "I know there is no god"
Sometimes called strong atheism.
I know I cannot back up such a claim so I define MY atheism as - "A lack of belief in the claims others make about the existence of god(s)"
Sometimes called weak atheism.
However I don't really care what it is labeled. The important thing is the best, most honest and most accurate explanation of my position on the matter is - "I'm not convinced of the claims that god exist."
Danmill23 2 years ago
So someone who converts to atheism may simply be no longer convinced of the claim.
Thus there is no evidence "for atheism", there might be reasons why the belief is lost.
Danmill23 2 years ago
Wow, horribly reasoning.
So many logical errors, assumptions, presumptions, definition mistakes, etc.
The old TAG has been killed more times than Kenny.
And the resurrection? Sure, "why would they die for a lie?" But who wrote about that, and when? Where's the evidence?
No, never mind. This was horrendous.
Gnug215 2 years ago
Poor thinking.
Faulty logic
Mistakes faith for fact
only 1 star ,
TheEnglishAthiest 2 years ago 12