What if what you think you know to be true is actually not? How would you know it wasn't truth, if you didn;t know what truth actually looked like? How would you distinguish the difference? What if what the Bible says is true, and your soul has value? Your childrens souls, your parents souls? Is it worth looking into Jesus to see if He shows up in your life? Its just time...I mean, if you can honestly say that God isnt possible...how do you know for sure?
U dont seem to understand the difference between a scientific theory which has to meet a certain prediction criteria & a non scientific popular use of the word theory. A theory has to give you results. You cant test the soundness of a theory without results. We are not even close to creating a living cell even with an intelligent agent. We havent even figured out the origins of homochirality much less how to create a viable non inert membrane.
@benthemiester Strawman. Cells wouldn't come directly from inorganics. Now, I've asked you two questions multiple times, and you haven't answered. I generally ban people who consistently refuse to answer my questions. I've given you some leeway here, since I myself did not initially answer your own question directly . But if your next comment to my channel fails to provide a reason for the impossibility of natural abiogenesis or a rigorous supernatural explanation for same, you will be banned.
There no testable theories concerning abiogenesis, only a few hypothesis.The most popular being the RNA world. Crick once proposed Pan Spermia which was a type of intelligent design, but no one got bent out of shape since it had to do with space alliens seeding life. It seems little green men get a pass. I know of nothing in the bible that says every lightening strike is done by God.Theres is no empirical study on global flood that I am aware of but we do find marine fossils on top of mountains.
@benthemiester Leading abiogenesis theories are testable, and are being tested. Regardless of what the Bible says or doesn't say, it was once thought that lightning, planetary motion and diversity of species, among many other things we now know have natural causes, were directly caused by God. Do you have reason to think abiogenesis will turn out differently? And can you give a rigorous supernatural explanation of abiogenesis?
You said that there is a natural explanation for many of these things that we once thought of as supernatural or that we formerly needed a God to explain. I gave you two very basic and fundamental examples, and you could offer no explanation. I dont think my questions were unfair. I just believe that if you're going say something publicly as a matter of fact, then you should be held to task on it.
@benthemiester Abiogenesis and the origin of information in the genome are not examples of what I was talking about. I was talking about things like lightning, the motion of the planets and the diversity of species: all once thought to be directly caused by God, and today explained by electricity, gravity and evolution, respectively. Many theories of abiogenesis currently exist (just search Google Scholar); even if none pan out, do you have reason to believe it will be any different in the end?
My answer is that intelligent design is the best explanation for life as we know it.
You keep using the word supernatural. My point is that we don't know enough about the natural world yet to make that distinction. You made the claim that science can explain these things, yet you back peddled and brought up lightening strikes instead. If you cant handle the harder questions there is no need to ban me. I will simply not bother you with the harder questions. ........
@benthemiester A successful explanation needs to meet most or all of the following criteria: (i) testability; (ii) consistency with background knowledge; (iii) past explanatory success; (iv) simplicity; (v) ontological economy and (vi) informativeness. Please explain how intelligent design meets all of these criteria. If your answer won't fit in 500 characters, please respond in a video.
@benthemiester By the way, this is your second warning: multiple comments are not allowed on my channel. If you can't say something in 500 characters, make a video.
@benthemiester Abiogenesis and the origin of information in the genome are not examples of what I was talking about. I was talking about things like lightning, the motion of the planets and the diversity of species: all once thought to be directly caused by God, and today explained by electricity, gravity and evolution, respectively. Many theories of abiogenesis currently exist (just search Google Scholar); even if none pan out, do you have reason to believe it will be any different in the end?
Give me a natural explanation for abiogenesis or the for the origin of the encoded digital information within our genome. Please be specific and use your own words concerning these two questions. If you cant give me a least a reasonable example of your knowledge on these two questions which should have a naturalistic explanation, then I will have to assume that you take these realities on faith and not on first hand knowledge. The brian can also relearn after pieces have been damaged.
@benthemiester Give me a supernatural explanation for abiogenesis or for the origin of the encoded digital information within our genome. Please be specific and use your own words.
@DavidJohnWellman It is interesting that you hold the burden of proof on someone who says, "God exist, so disprove it" To tell you the truth, I agree with you that the burden of proof is on them, but I'm not the one claiming to be able to prove God scientifically, although I believe there is overwhelming evidence. The point I'm making is, that you made a claim that materialism/naturalism has figured all this stuff out. I gave two examples and asked you to give empirical evidence of claim.
@benthemiester I make no such claim. The scientific body of information is very far from complete. But it has an awfully good track record, and we have no good reason to think its chain of success won't continue with respect to specific phenomena that, at present, theists point to and say "Science can't explain it, so it MUST have been God."
Actually, there are quite a number of Christians who subscribe to a non-reductive physicalist view of anthropology (think materialism without the reductionism). This relieves one of yester-century bi- or tripartite anthropologies where 1, 2, 3, or more parts make up a person with 1 or more parts continuing on after death. This is just one of many areas where theistic evolutionists can be intelligible dialogical partners with agnostic/atheists.
Finally, with regards to the paradoxical tension between desire or impetus and divine perfection, that's a cogent refutation of a certain category of ontological argument that proceeds from the premise that god is a being encompassing all possible perfections. A similar impasse arises between the notion of a god simultaneously perfectly just and perfectly merciful. Or a god immutable, eternal, and supernatural, yet somehow capable of intervening in the temporal world.
Re: theodicy, there are at least two other frequent arguments made to rationalize the existence of evil in the presence of an omnipotent & benevolent god. One: evil is an inevitable consequence of free will. Two, cognate to Leibnizian optimism: evil is necessary for the existence of good (i.e., that a synergistic relationship exists between good and evil, in which one only exists in juxtaposition to the other). It's impossible to elaborate these subjects within a single YouTube comment.
Excellent video, but I have to remonstrate with your remark that the theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity. As I'm sure you're aware, the Bible makes assertions about the physical composition of the universe and living matter, and the process by which they were formed. Some Christians claim that these passages are merely allegorical, though this strikes me as arbitrary and disingenuous. Any literal interpretation of the Bible, however, unequivocally contradicts scientific fact.
I have preformed miracles from prayer I used to be sick and now am better I have prayed for friends that where going through tuff times and it was miracle they got throu it, if your idea of a miracles is evrything you want to happen come true or save every cancer paitent your confused miracles are simple thing that hold people back you think god would save evreyone you prayed for or give you everything you ask4 thats selfish you have to work hard& have hard times& good ones or maybe i got lucky?
I'm still intrigued to find out whether you as an atheist can actually falsify the existence of a creator. Not a christian God, or any other religious deity. But simply a creator that, through philosophical deduction can actually exist. People often criticize the power of logic, but what I will say, just in case, is that Democritus formulated the atom theory we know to be true today, 2000+ years ago, based on reason and logic alone.
5w...it is laughable that one would have to. if a person asserts that a WIDGET exists and another says "i dont believe you" then how is it anything less than laughable to then hear the one asserting the widgets existance to then say "well prove me wrong" or "falsify its existance" . I personally would challenge you to prove its existance. i assert to you that there is a god dog that exists and it ate your god a long time ago. prove me wrong! lol
I'm not sure if you thought i was a christian theist but i shall clarify now that I'm not. So many of your arguments does not apply to me at all. but one thing does apply. A perfect being is one that has all things good, or perfect. It is more perfect to have desires than it is to not have them. Therefore God having desires doesn't make him imperfect. Imagine, if he had no 'desires' then God would essentially be 'dead', in that he would be practically robotic, which is not perfect at all.
"It is more perfect to have desires than it is to not have them."
Is it?
Buddhists, for instance, would disagree. Lack of desires could mean contentment rather than death. Your assertion is more suitably a point of discussion than a pillar of an arguement.
Perfection seems to me far too vague a property to use it as a definition.
Thanks for making a video response. I do have to say that you are one of the more intelligent atheists that I have run into. There have been very few thathave taken my offer. Not to look over your video, but I am looking more for contradictions in the Bible. I know you want to go for your sword of Science, but ltets be honest 95% of the people here do not truly undersatnd science. I am sure we will end up here, but lets keep it to the Bible for now.
What do you think (academically if not spiritually) of the oldest intact copy of the bible on record that made it on to CNN this week?
1600 years old and no mention of the resurrection of Jesus. It also had additional chapters that were removed in later editions.
Shouldn't a holy book (divinely inspired by a perfect god, or the literal word of god depending on the follower) not be subject to such heavy revision?
As I said, I try to avoid Biblical contradictions in generic existence-of-God debates. The reason I gave is that not all Christians subscribe to inerrancy, and that is one reason, but not the only reason. The other reason is that contradictions are so easy to wiggle out of -- all you have to do, for the most part, is make up assumptions, to make them POSSIBLY harmonize. The one contradiction I gave is one of the few that is absolutely historically compelling.
I would say 100% of everybody does not understand science. Thats why science exists, we strive to learn and know, and there is endless ammounts of knowledge to absorb. No one knows, but we try our best.
There are many religions, with many written documents even within the same religion conflicting each other. If one viewpoint is to be considered "true", eg. Christianity, all other viewpoints must be false.
Furthermore if the chosen standard fails a test of veracity then it too must be false. So statements within the bible which contradict itself or the known world (demons causing sickness, global flood, etc.) indicate that it is false as well.
A broader version of that argument was in the recorded version of the video, but I had to remove it for time. Basically, the Bible contains a number of historical assertions that, within any acceptable standard of reasonable historical certainty, we know to be false. A global flood is one such historical assertion.
What if what you think you know to be true is actually not? How would you know it wasn't truth, if you didn;t know what truth actually looked like? How would you distinguish the difference? What if what the Bible says is true, and your soul has value? Your childrens souls, your parents souls? Is it worth looking into Jesus to see if He shows up in your life? Its just time...I mean, if you can honestly say that God isnt possible...how do you know for sure?
regularjoez 1 month ago
is this guy a atheist or a cristian i realy can't tell anymore
RaincoatCriminal 7 months ago
No thanks, take care.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester That's what I thought. Ciao, then.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
"Leading abiogenesis theories are testable, etc"
U dont seem to understand the difference between a scientific theory which has to meet a certain prediction criteria & a non scientific popular use of the word theory. A theory has to give you results. You cant test the soundness of a theory without results. We are not even close to creating a living cell even with an intelligent agent. We havent even figured out the origins of homochirality much less how to create a viable non inert membrane.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Strawman. Cells wouldn't come directly from inorganics. Now, I've asked you two questions multiple times, and you haven't answered. I generally ban people who consistently refuse to answer my questions. I've given you some leeway here, since I myself did not initially answer your own question directly . But if your next comment to my channel fails to provide a reason for the impossibility of natural abiogenesis or a rigorous supernatural explanation for same, you will be banned.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
There no testable theories concerning abiogenesis, only a few hypothesis.The most popular being the RNA world. Crick once proposed Pan Spermia which was a type of intelligent design, but no one got bent out of shape since it had to do with space alliens seeding life. It seems little green men get a pass. I know of nothing in the bible that says every lightening strike is done by God.Theres is no empirical study on global flood that I am aware of but we do find marine fossils on top of mountains.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Leading abiogenesis theories are testable, and are being tested. Regardless of what the Bible says or doesn't say, it was once thought that lightning, planetary motion and diversity of species, among many other things we now know have natural causes, were directly caused by God. Do you have reason to think abiogenesis will turn out differently? And can you give a rigorous supernatural explanation of abiogenesis?
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
@benthemiester By the way, I don't allow multiple comments on my channel. If you can't say it in 500 characters, make a video.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
You said that there is a natural explanation for many of these things that we once thought of as supernatural or that we formerly needed a God to explain. I gave you two very basic and fundamental examples, and you could offer no explanation. I dont think my questions were unfair. I just believe that if you're going say something publicly as a matter of fact, then you should be held to task on it.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Abiogenesis and the origin of information in the genome are not examples of what I was talking about. I was talking about things like lightning, the motion of the planets and the diversity of species: all once thought to be directly caused by God, and today explained by electricity, gravity and evolution, respectively. Many theories of abiogenesis currently exist (just search Google Scholar); even if none pan out, do you have reason to believe it will be any different in the end?
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
@DavidJohnWellman
My answer is that intelligent design is the best explanation for life as we know it.
You keep using the word supernatural. My point is that we don't know enough about the natural world yet to make that distinction. You made the claim that science can explain these things, yet you back peddled and brought up lightening strikes instead. If you cant handle the harder questions there is no need to ban me. I will simply not bother you with the harder questions. ........
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester A successful explanation needs to meet most or all of the following criteria: (i) testability; (ii) consistency with background knowledge; (iii) past explanatory success; (iv) simplicity; (v) ontological economy and (vi) informativeness. Please explain how intelligent design meets all of these criteria. If your answer won't fit in 500 characters, please respond in a video.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
@benthemiester By the way, this is your second warning: multiple comments are not allowed on my channel. If you can't say something in 500 characters, make a video.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
@benthemiester Abiogenesis and the origin of information in the genome are not examples of what I was talking about. I was talking about things like lightning, the motion of the planets and the diversity of species: all once thought to be directly caused by God, and today explained by electricity, gravity and evolution, respectively. Many theories of abiogenesis currently exist (just search Google Scholar); even if none pan out, do you have reason to believe it will be any different in the end?
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
Give me a natural explanation for abiogenesis or the for the origin of the encoded digital information within our genome. Please be specific and use your own words concerning these two questions. If you cant give me a least a reasonable example of your knowledge on these two questions which should have a naturalistic explanation, then I will have to assume that you take these realities on faith and not on first hand knowledge. The brian can also relearn after pieces have been damaged.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester Give me a supernatural explanation for abiogenesis or for the origin of the encoded digital information within our genome. Please be specific and use your own words.
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
@DavidJohnWellman It is interesting that you hold the burden of proof on someone who says, "God exist, so disprove it" To tell you the truth, I agree with you that the burden of proof is on them, but I'm not the one claiming to be able to prove God scientifically, although I believe there is overwhelming evidence. The point I'm making is, that you made a claim that materialism/naturalism has figured all this stuff out. I gave two examples and asked you to give empirical evidence of claim.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@benthemiester I make no such claim. The scientific body of information is very far from complete. But it has an awfully good track record, and we have no good reason to think its chain of success won't continue with respect to specific phenomena that, at present, theists point to and say "Science can't explain it, so it MUST have been God."
DavidJohnWellman 1 year ago
Actually, there are quite a number of Christians who subscribe to a non-reductive physicalist view of anthropology (think materialism without the reductionism). This relieves one of yester-century bi- or tripartite anthropologies where 1, 2, 3, or more parts make up a person with 1 or more parts continuing on after death. This is just one of many areas where theistic evolutionists can be intelligible dialogical partners with agnostic/atheists.
amphipyros 1 year ago
This was a very good video!
Omega5001x 2 years ago
Finally, with regards to the paradoxical tension between desire or impetus and divine perfection, that's a cogent refutation of a certain category of ontological argument that proceeds from the premise that god is a being encompassing all possible perfections. A similar impasse arises between the notion of a god simultaneously perfectly just and perfectly merciful. Or a god immutable, eternal, and supernatural, yet somehow capable of intervening in the temporal world.
nirtseg 2 years ago
Re: theodicy, there are at least two other frequent arguments made to rationalize the existence of evil in the presence of an omnipotent & benevolent god. One: evil is an inevitable consequence of free will. Two, cognate to Leibnizian optimism: evil is necessary for the existence of good (i.e., that a synergistic relationship exists between good and evil, in which one only exists in juxtaposition to the other). It's impossible to elaborate these subjects within a single YouTube comment.
nirtseg 2 years ago
Excellent video, but I have to remonstrate with your remark that the theory of evolution is compatible with Christianity. As I'm sure you're aware, the Bible makes assertions about the physical composition of the universe and living matter, and the process by which they were formed. Some Christians claim that these passages are merely allegorical, though this strikes me as arbitrary and disingenuous. Any literal interpretation of the Bible, however, unequivocally contradicts scientific fact.
nirtseg 2 years ago
See John 14;11-14
Condensed;
Jesus: believe in me, see the evidence of the miracles,
ANYONE who has faith in me will also preform miracles.
Ask me for anything in my name and I will do it.
Why isn't this working, either there are no believers or the claim isn't true.
traog 2 years ago 2
I have preformed miracles from prayer I used to be sick and now am better I have prayed for friends that where going through tuff times and it was miracle they got throu it, if your idea of a miracles is evrything you want to happen come true or save every cancer paitent your confused miracles are simple thing that hold people back you think god would save evreyone you prayed for or give you everything you ask4 thats selfish you have to work hard& have hard times& good ones or maybe i got lucky?
mrsuperterd 2 years ago
I'm still intrigued to find out whether you as an atheist can actually falsify the existence of a creator. Not a christian God, or any other religious deity. But simply a creator that, through philosophical deduction can actually exist. People often criticize the power of logic, but what I will say, just in case, is that Democritus formulated the atom theory we know to be true today, 2000+ years ago, based on reason and logic alone.
5W909 2 years ago
5w...it is laughable that one would have to. if a person asserts that a WIDGET exists and another says "i dont believe you" then how is it anything less than laughable to then hear the one asserting the widgets existance to then say "well prove me wrong" or "falsify its existance" . I personally would challenge you to prove its existance. i assert to you that there is a god dog that exists and it ate your god a long time ago. prove me wrong! lol
logicalthinker101 2 years ago
I'm not sure if you thought i was a christian theist but i shall clarify now that I'm not. So many of your arguments does not apply to me at all. but one thing does apply. A perfect being is one that has all things good, or perfect. It is more perfect to have desires than it is to not have them. Therefore God having desires doesn't make him imperfect. Imagine, if he had no 'desires' then God would essentially be 'dead', in that he would be practically robotic, which is not perfect at all.
5W909 2 years ago
"It is more perfect to have desires than it is to not have them."
Is it?
Buddhists, for instance, would disagree. Lack of desires could mean contentment rather than death. Your assertion is more suitably a point of discussion than a pillar of an arguement.
Perfection seems to me far too vague a property to use it as a definition.
Bozeman42 2 years ago
Good. Very Good.
i would subscribe to you if i wasn't cutting back on them. good work.
Dogofwar206 2 years ago
David,
Thanks for making a video response. I do have to say that you are one of the more intelligent atheists that I have run into. There have been very few thathave taken my offer. Not to look over your video, but I am looking more for contradictions in the Bible. I know you want to go for your sword of Science, but ltets be honest 95% of the people here do not truly undersatnd science. I am sure we will end up here, but lets keep it to the Bible for now.
WordPlanter 2 years ago
That's going to take a lot of ten-minute videos.
darkrideus 2 years ago
What do you think (academically if not spiritually) of the oldest intact copy of the bible on record that made it on to CNN this week?
1600 years old and no mention of the resurrection of Jesus. It also had additional chapters that were removed in later editions.
Shouldn't a holy book (divinely inspired by a perfect god, or the literal word of god depending on the follower) not be subject to such heavy revision?
bitterbug 2 years ago
Speaking for myself, I think I need to watch more CNN . . .
DavidJohnWellman 2 years ago
bitterbug: "What do you think (academically if not spiritually) of the oldest intact copy of the bible on record that made it on to CNN this week?"
I think you're referring to Codex Sinaiticus. It, along with Codex Vaticanus, are "missing" Mark 16:9-20. It appears Mark 16:9-20 was added later.
irreduciblyc0mplex 2 years ago
@irreduciblyc0mplex
Maybe the person who added it was an anti-theist who was hoping Christians would make it a habit to start drinking deadly poisons. :p
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
WordPlanter,
As I said, I try to avoid Biblical contradictions in generic existence-of-God debates. The reason I gave is that not all Christians subscribe to inerrancy, and that is one reason, but not the only reason. The other reason is that contradictions are so easy to wiggle out of -- all you have to do, for the most part, is make up assumptions, to make them POSSIBLY harmonize. The one contradiction I gave is one of the few that is absolutely historically compelling.
Thanks for the reply!
DavidJohnWellman 2 years ago
Look like you got owned.
AAL 2 years ago
Me or him?
DavidJohnWellman 2 years ago
David who could think you got owned in this one? It was a slam dunk out of the part funny insightful one sided brain beating.
You are the man.
Sorry if I wasn't clear!
AAL 2 years ago
I'll keep my proof that Christianity is made up to the bible happily. I'll work on my response soon :)
AsheIsTheRaven 2 years ago
I would say 100% of everybody does not understand science. Thats why science exists, we strive to learn and know, and there is endless ammounts of knowledge to absorb. No one knows, but we try our best.
Beastleh 2 years ago
the perfect being with needs and wants areguement was interesting. i had not heard that one before.
jmsimpson11 2 years ago
All gods need sustenance to live. So Jesus and company are just holy vampires feeding off the belief of the people.
If everyone stopped believing, they would cease to exist :)
bitterbug 2 years ago
Applications of Occam's Razor.
There are many religions, with many written documents even within the same religion conflicting each other. If one viewpoint is to be considered "true", eg. Christianity, all other viewpoints must be false.
Furthermore if the chosen standard fails a test of veracity then it too must be false. So statements within the bible which contradict itself or the known world (demons causing sickness, global flood, etc.) indicate that it is false as well.
No religion wins.
bitterbug 2 years ago 4
No global flood ever occurred, therefore the bible is false, therefore the god the bible claims does not exist. Done, how long did that take?
FlyingFree333 2 years ago
A broader version of that argument was in the recorded version of the video, but I had to remove it for time. Basically, the Bible contains a number of historical assertions that, within any acceptable standard of reasonable historical certainty, we know to be false. A global flood is one such historical assertion.
Thanks for commenting.
DavidJohnWellman 2 years ago
☠☠☠☠☠
Great response. I admire your patience with users like wordplanter, sadly I lack that virtue as is evidenced by my comment on his video.
FUCKYOURGODINTHEASS 2 years ago
Ok, he deleted the comment I left on his video, so I'll repost it here for clarity.
@wordplanter:
Come on, talking snakes and magic fruit?
You're too old for imaginary friends.
FUCKYOURGODINTHEASS 2 years ago 4
Well said/done DavidJohnWellman ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago