First, you grant "EVERYTHING" apologists claim, and then immediately take it back -- if you grant EVERYTHING apologists claim, then God declared himself clearly.
Second, all you've done is changed the name of the deity. If "Aliens" did everything in the Bible, then we're still serving the Christian God, only His (undeclared) name is "Alien." So?
And third, it's not enough to assert a possibility; give me one, sane reason to believe that this is true.
No I granted every event and every claim APART from it being divine revelation.
No I didnt merely change a name. Aliens are not a God. They are not supernatural, not eternal, etc. They are limited beings like, only way more advanced.
I dont believe this of course, if you think I did, you totally missed the point. The point is that there is no reason to believe divine revelation over alien deception or something similar; on the contrary such an alternative hypothesis fits better.
@KnownNoMore "God said" does not have to be divine revelation for it to be true. If what the NT says is true, then God is the Father, and His son is Jesus. Sorry, but that's simple and obvious.
"Aliens are not a god." In what sense? How would you know? All you're saying is that [X] that did all those things in the NT is unknowable. SO WHAT??? If ALIENS did all the things in the NT, then we all owe obedience and gratitude to ALIENS. Explain why we don't.
@KnownNoMore The alien hypothesis fits better??? I can point to the universe and use it to prove a conscious, intelligent, powerful, purposive, morally perfect being that is capable of doing all the things in the NT. So now it's your turn: prove that such a thing as alien life forms even EXIST, let alone are capable of any of the things in the NT. From reality, just like I did. And then explain how aliens came to be.
BTW, planetary anthropic constants prove that alien life is not possible.
@philWynk "BTW, planetary anthropic constants prove that alien life is not possible."
Huh? Life on Earth kinda proves that planets CAN harbour life so I'm pretty sure you're wrong there.
"I can point to the universe and use it to prove a conscious, intelligent, powerful, purposive, morally perfect being that is capable of doing all the things in the NT."
So what? Can you prove that being is actually a god as opposed to an alien? If you can't, why assume it's a god?
@KnownNoMore I regard your continued defense of this incredible nonsense as proof that atheists are incapable of rational thought, and furthermore that atheism is nothing more than the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and yelling at God, "Nyaaa, nyaaa, I can't HEEEEEEEAAAAAR YOOOOOOOOO." Basically what you're saying is that God could prove Himself real in every way possible, and you'd dream up a reason not to obey Him anyway.
Maybe you should watch the follow up videos before you judge, because I basically answer all the objections you just named, in fact some of them I actually answered in THIS one if you had payed some attention.
The existence of Christian Apologists signals a failure of the central tenants of Christianity - that an infinitely intelligent Supreme Being directed the writing of the Bible. Consider this: The works of Shakespeare contain over 880,000 words – more words than in the Bible. Writings containing some of the most profound insights into the human condition ever penned. Yet, there is no cadre of apologists explaining the inconsistencies, contradictions and errors in Shakespeare’s works.
Whenever I listen to a religious apologetic talking, I hear the same tone and patter that I hear out of spirit mediums and telephone psychics. It sounds just like cold reading to me.
While Alien technology is simpler than Omnipotent beings, the tech part still takes up some assumptions. An easier explanation would be extra dimensional creatures. Since they come from another dimension, the physics would be different, and they would be able to manipulate water, light, fire, ect, without the use of technology. It also explains why they would be invisible.
However, if all that bible stuff was true, better play it safe and be a Christian. That's what the aliens want anyways.
yes that would work as well. But the assumption that another dimension exist is a far greater one than the existence of more advanced lifeforms on other planets which is already very likely
But we also have to asume that those lifeforms are advanced enough to reach another planet, have molecule manipulating stuff. We barely have this technology on Earth. Since we know our universe/dimension exists, it doesn't seem as off. However, I have been taking these things into consideration, and not really sure which is "simpler"
"Yeah, although you'd probably be a Christian is you saw all those events."
I would not. If that happened a couple of years ago before I even thought about things like epistemology I probably would. But if it would happen now, I would not.
The problem here is is you're using Occams razor to justify this belief, when it isn't the only way. Since you have not been able to actually observe what happened, you aren't able to decide what is true.
Christianity would work, because if the Aliens conspiracy was true, the Aliens would want us to believe in this, and have provided us the evidence.
"The problem here is is you're using Occams razor to justify this belief"
No not specifically. Also I am NOT saying that if I saw those events myself I therefore would believe in alien deception. I would simply not be able to determine the actual cause. But at the very least, an explanation such as alien deception would be more plausible than divine revelation. Point is, there is no justification to invoke God to explain events that require none of his unique attributes.
Thats the point. So I should either stick with no explanation (in other words: I don't know) or go with the most probable explanation I can think of, which would be that the events are cause by some sort of superhuman intelligence. But stretching that to infinite absolute omnipotence and omniscience would be unjustified. Just SOME sort of superhuman beings. And aliens would fit that description rather well
"the Aliens would want us to believe in this, and have provided us the evidence."
You are missing the point. None of those events ARE evidence for omniscience, omnipotence, the supernatural, the cause being the creator of the universe, etc. So in what way would it be evidence for Christianity? That's the whole point. Since none of those events require any of God's attributes, there is no reason to believe that God is responsible and in fact lots of reason to believe otherwise
Actually supertechnology and Aliens are supernatural
So exactly what would be proof of an omni-whatever being.
Anyways, if you can believe that some hyperintelligent entity brought Jesus back from the dead, why can't you believe the reason. I mean, I don't think believing that God is omnipotent is a requirement for Christianity.
"Actually supertechnology and Aliens are supernatural"
noooooo, absolutely not. Aliens and supertechnology are 100% natural. Aliens aren't immaterial, nonspacial beings and supertechnology isn't magic violating the laws of nature.
"Anyways, if you can believe that some hyperintelligent entity brought Jesus back from the dead, why can't you believe the reason."
Because nothing about seeing Jesus body standing up and floating into the sky requires supernatural intervention
In order to call them "natural" you need to make things up, and asume that all of this is possible. All of this would require a lot of aliens working collectively. If an omnipotent being exists, you could also say it is "natural" since it is using its natural powers.
Furthermore, if the Aliens were capable of doing all these feats, why wouldn't they be able to create an afterlife?
define natural and supernatural please because I dont understand what your definition is.
"Furthermore, if the Aliens were capable of doing all these feats, why wouldn't they be able to create an afterlife?"
Depends, if we are talking about aliens from another universe for example who created a sort of matrix computer simulation (which would be this universe) then I guess they could create something that we would regard as an afterlife, but wouldnt literally be an afterlife.
Yeah I know, but I of course don't really believe that aliens were responsible for establishing any religion. I am merely defending that it would be as likely and even more likely that aliens would responsible for religious events if they indeed happened, than that God would have caused them.
Arif Ahmed uses very similar argumentation in his debate with Gary Habermas - if you haven't seen it yet I'd highly suggest watching at least Ahmed's opening statement.
Historical methods cannot demonstrate anything for certain since there is always the possibility of events happening differently than how they are recorded. It is possible, for example, that the moon landing was a government conspiracy. That possibility should not paralyze us, though, from making a historical judgment. Historical methods deal with probabilities, but not all possibilities are probable. So with miracles. The intervention of aliens or whatever are not probable possibilities...
@BalladoftheWindfish ...despite what you have said. The established historical context and the confluence of factors that you are granting support a historical judgment favoring that of the religious apologist. Your alternative explanation is possible, but not probable. It is so much unnecessary ad hoc with significantly low epistemic warrant. We need not consider it too seriously anymore than we need to consider seriously 9/11 conspiracies.
@BalladoftheWindfish To me, the case for Christianity is excellent. Natural theology proves the existence of God and the truth of monotheism with certainty, stubborn postivists and verificationists aside. Miracles provide motives of credibility for one particular claim of Revelation over the others. Boom. See you at Mass this Sunday!
What I am interested in seeing, KnownNoMore, is a statement squaring this with the video you did about stretching one's worldview. After all, is that not what you are doing in this video?
Take, for example, the scene in the anime series where the protagonist sees the magical battle. You would explain it away as being aliens, not magic. Are you being skeptical to a fault here?
Ah now that is a great question. Am I being hyperskeptical here? I am doing some follow up videos to this one and I will adress the notion of hyperskepticism in one of those.
I am actually surprised that you are the first one to link this to hyperskepticism or "stretching your world view".
@KnownNoMore When I first saw this video a week ago, it was my immediate thought. I just did not have the time to post the comment and had to race out the door. By the time I got back, I had forgotten all about the video. Lucky me, you posted a follow up to this one to remind me of my thought about it.
I will eagerly await your video about this objection.
@caseagainstfaith-I don't believe you addressed the personal revelation argument.
I just assumed it was included. Direct alien mind control to make sure that a certain percentage of the population is convinced despite evidence, or some sort of genetic engineering. Them aliens be clever buggers.
Even the supposed "evidence of the holy spirit" that theists use as the ultimate fallback justification for their personal belief could be explained as aliens simply implanting these spiritual experiences using some form of mind control.
"Lets say it is an infinite number way to build infinite improbable god."
I'd never agree to that. There can not be, because that would imply an infinite number of ways to be perfect. Also no one every said the living cell arouse without simpler precursors, god however must have.
There can only be one way to be omnimax, otherwise multiple independent beings could be omnimax, and thus the idea would be self refuting.
Well you can always come up with any excuse. Just think of the painting at the end. Maybe it was painted by the greatest artist ever, but he simply tried to mask that fact.
Let's say we grant your hypothetical here (though I'm thinking if we could look back in time, we could see the aliens in there). Wouldn't that mean Christianity is true and God is an alien? Aliens strike as a way Christianity could be true, not an alternative explanation. Some Christians, notably Hugh Ross and Mormons, hold more or less this view.
It's not entirely clear what counts as proving a religion true because not everyone takes their religion literally and some religious people are philosophically oriented.
The fundamental question is where nature came from. Answering with a natural answer, like aliens, doesn't help. You cannot expect to find the answer to something's existence within itself.
The GOD answer is superior, because GOD is not natural. Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, so the answer is not natural. GOD necessarily exists. In Alien's case, because they're natural, it validates the fallacious question atheists like asking, "Who created the creator." And so the infinate regress goes on.
@DIURYL77 Of course, a non-natural origin doesn't have to be a god either. I can propose some immaterial origin apart from the natural from which our universe, and perhaps others, occur. It doesn't have to be omnipotent, omniscient, or even have any kind of conscience at all. Trying to argue for any given traits for something that has already been defined as apart from our universe is pointless, as there would be no way to say what it could or could not be.
@StevePinto3 What I was arguing with "Thenakedatheist" is whether the universe had an uncaused cause, instead of just a singularity just suddenly expanding. whether the first cause which could have caused the singularity to expand is conscious/omnipotent.etc. is a whole other topic. You can say it occured spontaneously, but that's exactly what TNA and I were arguing about. cause or no cause? I say there is a cause because things do not spontaneously occur, whereas he seems to think so.......
@DIURYL77 Further, I could even make an argument such that there is no reality outside of ours, and that our universe began spontaneously with no external forces necessary. I could say that before the singularity that expanded in the Big Bang, there was nothing, no reality at all, and thus no law of causality. Thus why couldn't a singularity simply begin to exist? There are no physical laws that prevent this from happening. Theists argue that God exists in this same state outside of reality.
@StevePinto3 .....Also, saying something BEFORE the singularity caued it doesn't make sense. Whether it be the singularity or GOD, they're both not governed by natural laws such as time. So your statement is pointless. Things do not just happen. Things do not bring themselves into existence, I don't care how much you believe it does, that just DOES NOT happen. Something before always brings something else into existence, all the way back to the first cause. The big bang was an effect not the...
@StevePinto3 ...Not the cause. The steady state theory was debunked decades ago, no serious scientist believes the universe always existed, that's why I also deny it. The material universe never always existed, science proves it. So obviously, logic dictates, based on the law of cause = effect, the material world was caused. If it's outside the material world, it means the cause was immaterial/supernatural/unnatural. Maybe there is a fairy realm, I'm not saying there isn't.....
@DIURYL77 Why not just accept that the universe always existed? Why do you need to invent something supernatural and beyond our material universe to try and explain it? There might be a hidden faerie realm hidden beyond our own material plane, and it may be timeless, space-less, immaterial, but still quite magical - but probably this hidden faerie realm does not exist and everything that is in the universe is all that there is, and it has always existed, though sometimes it does change in form.
@pkeod The infinite universe idea was abandoned long ago. If it was infinite, we wouldn't have never reached this point. Why the supernatural? Because we want to know where the natural came from. It's silly to answer the question with another natural answer. Maybe the "fairy realm" does exist, who knows. The point I am making is that you cannot explain how nature came to be, with nature, it's circular reasoning. The steady state theory no longer holds water. The answer is outside nature.
@DIURYL77 >you cannot explain how nature came to be, with nature
We live in a material universe. To stay sane rational people don't automatically jump to the supernatural for things they cannot yet explain. At the point of a big brunch "time" ceases to exist, and at the point of the big bang the universe is reborn in a never ending cycle of both creating itself and inevitably destroying itself into an infinitely small space. This may not be correct, but it makes more sense than "god did it."
@DIURYL77-The steady state theory no longer holds water. The answer is outside nature.
The first sentence appears to be true, from what we think we know, the second pure conjecture. The singularity would have been timeless. There was no "before" the singularity. Now when it comes to quantum physics, or cosmology I'm no expert, but first of all most of those I know, or have heard of see no need for a God being involved.
The claim I usually hear from theists regarding this is that a "first cause" would be needed to start the singularity banging. It seems like a bit of overkill (to put it mildly) to invent a timeless space-less immaterial mind who loves us and cares for us etc etc etc as being necessary to do nothing more than what amounts to a universe jump start.
@TheNakedAtheist Well no one said which GOD....yet. But you're on the right track. You already said the singularity is timeless. Casue and effect are fundamental laws. Things don't just happen. If a bang can happen uncaused(not that you said it was), then why can't bangs happen anytime anywhere uncaused? Or things pop in and out of existence uncaused out of nothing?
Whether GOD is loving and caring is relevant right now. I'm telling you that your everlasting singularity theory isn't valid.
@DIURYL77-Casue and effect are fundamental laws. Things don't just happen.
First of all cause, and effect are not "laws", they are philosophical claims. Secondly cause and effect are how we observe things working when there is a passage of time, and there is no passage of time in a singularity. I've heard some claim by quantum physicists that things may (just happen), but again I'm no expert, but I do know we don't know enough to make wild God assertions. lol
@TheNakedAtheist It is a philosophical claim, which are true, and can be observed every single day. It's the order of things, it can be observed by science, which is what science is about anyway. True, there was no passage of time. But an everlasting singularity would still exist today, at this moment, and you and I wouldn't be doing this. So your theory still fails. If things, "just happen" then that opens the doors, and anything can happen? Why doesn't a car appear in the room you're in.....>
@TheNakedAtheist <....right now? Does it require a causal explanation? According to those quantum physicists, No. But it makes no sense, and philosophically, it's just nonsense. Suddenly cause and effect are removed when it comes to things happening, yet in everyday life, it's applies. Why? Seems like a double standard. Why do you dismiss GOD so quickly. If you don't know enough, or simply don't know, every theory shloud be held at an equal standard, you're dimissing GOD without a good reason..
@TheNakedAtheist You don't understand. There is no such thing as infinity. If the singularity had always been there, (1) It would not have expanded and we wouldn't not be here now. (2) The singularity's expansion had to have been caused. CAUSE = EFFECT. The Big Bang(BB) is the effect so what was the cause? It was obviously timeless, spaceless and immaterial, which supports my earlier point. Some say nothing, which is silly. Others say we don't know, but for some reason they are sure it.....>
@DIURYL77-There is no such thing as infinity. If the singularity had always been there
There is no such thing as "always" in the absence of time it's an incoherent term.
-The singularity's expansion had to have been caused
Well first of all we know nothing about causal relationships when there is no time, whether they exist how they would work. Cause, and effect require the passage of time.
Secondly, even IF the universe required a cause, given we know nothing about causal relationships when there is no time, we can even guess what sort of mechanism would be required. Thirdly even if we had reason to believe something "timeless, spaceless and immaterial" piece of lint, or speck of dust was required, it would have to somehow cause a change, and change without time is also an incoherent idea.
@TheNakedAtheist If something lasts forever, it should be here right now. Clearly the singularity is no longer here. Which means it's not timeless and everlasting, thereofore your entire argument crumbles. So if you claim we have not sufficient knowledge, and clearly the singularity is no longer here, on what grounds do you dismiss GOD, and regard it as a far lesser answer than others? I also accept the possiblity of aliens, but giving a natural answer to explain the origins of nature......>
@DIURYL77-If somthing lasts forever, it should be here right now.
Again, and for the 15th time forever, eternity, cause, and effect are all are all terms related to time, and are meaningless in a timeless singularity. The singularity did quite literally exist since the "beginning of time".
@TheNakedAtheist Actually, it's the 2nd time you've said it. But let me clarify something. Eternity is not a term related to time. For example: When people say GOD is eternal, they mean timeless, and unchanging, one of the characteristics a GOD should have. Infinity, is related to time, meaning time that never ends. Now, whether or not the singularity is timeless, the fact remains that it should be here, but it is NOT, because we are here, and not it, which refutes your argument that the....>
@TheNakedAtheist <...Which refutes your argument that a timeless singularity exists. We, and the rest of the universe CAME FROM the singularity. When it expanded, this universe cam to be, and it no longer existed(not timeless). The very fact you are sitting there typing, is 100% proof that the singularity is NOT timeless. Also, the singualrity is not independent of this universe, or exist in some other timeless dimension, that's beginning to sound like GOD, who you're rejecting.
@TheNakedAtheist <......they are sure it was not GOD. Which is also silly, because if you don't know, GOD becomes a possibility aswell and no one can say which answer is right or wrong, especially seeing as they do not know. Others accept that GOD is a possibility, amongst other possibilities, and those we call Agnostics.
@DIURYL77-Others accept that GOD is a possibility, amongst other possibilities, and those we call Agnostics.
I accept it's a possibility, but far less likely than other simpler answers. In a similar way that I accept the possibility of aliens being behind Christianity, BUT I think Christianity is far more likely a combination of lies, deception, imagination, hallucination, human error, wishful thinking, mistranslations, propaganda, and so on.
@TheNakedAtheist <.....to explain the origins of nature doesn't make sense, and is circular reasoning. Atheists like saying Christians use the bible to prove the validity of the bible. You're doing the same thing. You're using a natural explanation to explain nature. Well what you think about Christianity is YOUR opinion, I do obviously disagree with you, but at the end of the day, it's what YOU think. Not to mention it's irrelevant to what we're discussing.
@DIURYL77 How is stating that the universe likely has always existed is the same thing as using the Bible to prove that the Bible is valid? There are many possible ultimate fates of the universe, and it is the big crunch then most likely the universe cycles from crunch to bang. A supernatural explanation is unnecessary. It was once thought that the gods lived in mountains, then the sky, and now you realize they only exist in your imagination.
@pkeod .......You're either ignoring or are ignorant of scientific facts(the universe BEGAN to exist), ignoring logic(cause = effect) all just to maintain your atheistic/materialistic worldview of not having a supernatural realm/GOD.etc.
Now between the two of us, who is being more scientific and logical?
@DIURYL77 After we know for certain the natural origin of the universe, your god will have nowhere else to hide. Why is it so hard to accept that the universe always existed in some form? You choose to only believe in one version of the origin story - which is one of the many created by man man has no evidence. Are you scientific and logical for believing in something which has no evidence to exist? Show me the evidence and I'll believe. Until then the burden of proof for such things is on you.
@pkeod "My GOD" is in your face every single day, he has never hidden from you. You do you keep asking about the universe existing forever? Didn't you ever hear about the steady state theory and how it was debunked? do some research. If choose to believe in this version, because it's the most factual, logically, sceintifically, philosophically.etc. Your version relies heavily on blind faith and denial. If you want evidence, that's a another story. How can you say there is no evidence when......
@pkeod ....When we're not even discussing evidences? You're making strawman arguments, ever heard of those?
A negative CAN be proven, contrary to popular belief. So the burden is also on you to demonstarte/provide undeniable proof why it is impossible for GOD to have created the universe, or even exist. Until then, good bye! and GOD bless!
@DIURYL77@DIURYL77 I've never seen your god. I don't even know which one you believe in so what exactly am I supposed to look for? Thor? Zeus? Yahweh god of war- one of the five Jewish gods, whose followers were so bloodthirsty that they annihilated the followers of the other five gods?
@DIURYL77 We do not yet know the origin of the universe - that does not mean you should jump to supernatural conclusions. We do know that there was a "big bang" for sure. There is no evidence for your "god" to exist, let alone any evidence she was the one who created the universe. An invisible pink universe could have created the universe, but until we have evidence we should not assume one did, nor even give any supernatural cause a moment of acceptance when a natural origin is likely.
It's easy to prove the Bible describes God wrong, were he to exist. We have no evidence of an Exodus, since it would ahve left a large amount of evidence, no records of Jesus healing or the recorded hundreds of witnesses, no evidence of the Canaanite extermination, lots of linguistic evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis, and most of all, failed prophecies. Most Christians don't say the Bible is perfect, but man, it really bit the nail there.
Aliens don't explain origins, or morality. It might challenge religious apologetics but not philosophical apologetics. One of the biggest questions is where did nature come from? Inserting Aliens, who are also natural ,does little to debunk the philosophical arguments for GOD. It's the same for those who talk about multiverses, when first of all there is no evidence for multiverse and second of all, multiverses are also natural, therefore the question of natural/universal origins remains.
"Aliens don't explain origins, or morality. It might challenge religious apologetics but not philosophical apologetics. "
thats true, but didnt I say that in the video? that this is specifically an argument against religious apologetics? I even granted the existence of a God for sake of argument.
Some good points being made here. I've actually heard the idea that Jesus might have been an alien, crazy ancient astronaut theorists and their wild ideas...
@TitenSxull-crazy ancient astronaut theorists and their wild ideas...
That made me chuckle because if Jesus actually did the things Christians claim he did those "wild ideas" would be more rational than him being the son of God.
If one accepts that God exists, and that there are also good reasons to believe God is interested in man, then revelation makes more sense than aliens. Clearly you aren't actually accepting the premises of natural theology (which have more to do than with "proving God's existence" btw) in making your argument. I'll warrant it's an interesting, notwithstanding.
Arguments aren't pointless. Only to people with little to no Philosophical education. Arguments allow a person to utilize logic and reason, and allow their conclusions to be forced deductively. Also, logical arguments allow others to see the premises and conclusion upfront and with clarity to allow for unambiguous digestion.
@Dhorpatan Ok, I'll rephrase. An argument, such as the historical accuracy of the crucifixion, is about as pointless as an athlete walking on a treadmill for an hour. It burns barely more calories then sitting on the couch, it doesn't provide transportation to anyplace, and since the individual is an athlete it has no practical impact when compared to an actual workout. It MIGHT inspire some fatty to exercise, but probably only if there is already a close relationship between them.
THis is the best video I've seen for a very long time. I wish to ask permission for me to mirror it on my channel, and of course I will see that you get the credit. Peace, Hereticbooks
No they can't possibly win. Just as someone that believes the external world exists cannot possibly win against someone that believes everything (including other minds) exists only in his own mind.
And just as someone can't win against someone who believes they are the true king of England and a victim of a conspiracy.
How come if someone commits a felony, and they tell the Judge or Jury that they did nothing wrong since everything exists only in their own mind, that that doesn't work?
Yeah I was expecting a kind of "hyperskepticism" accusation. However, this has nothing to do with hyperskepticism. Moreover there is a big difference between why we accept the existence of the external world and other minds eventhough we cannot prove it, and not accepting any other random claim which cannot be proven.
@KnownNoMore If you grant the premises you did in your video, than you are being a hyperskeptic conspiracy theorist, akin to those who believe speculate over shape-shifters. IOW, your skeptism and alternative theories is a pointless waste of time, much how David Icke's theories are a waste of time...given the fact that you granted as much as you did.
I usually find you very thought-provoking, but not here. Your argument was pretty much "Apologists can't win against unreasonable people!"
@KnownNoMore It's meaningless speculation & a meaningless theory. You granted Jesus rose from the dead and whatnot, and even proposed time-travel to grant you were even a witness the claims in the Bible happened the way they said they did. So let's take Jesus:
Premise A: Jesus said he would die and be resurrected to prove he is who he said is was.
Premise B: Jesus said that and rose from the dead because he's part of an alien conspiracy.
My Conclusion: Premise B = Waste of time to consider.
but WHY is premise B a waste of time to consider? Why is Jesus being raised from the dead because of God more probable? And how could we distinguish between God and an alternative explanation?
@KnownNoMore The way I usually draw a distinction is anything that rings of gnostic-esque conspiracy theory has a historic knack of being nothing but garbage. So, your alien theory would fall under that.
@KnownNoMore And what makes it more reasonable than say, David Icke's theory of an evil race of shape-shifting lizards? If you think his theory is reasonable and worth serious consideration by thinking persons, then I really don't know how to respond. Because how does one respond to a conspiracy theorist dot-connecting maniac? No offense, I respect you and all, but...I don't respect this conspiracy theory nonsense.
I am just giving a hypothetical here Nymphrenic. We dont take alien conspiracy not serious because of some inherit improbability of alien deception because the existence of aliens isnt improbable, but there is no evidence of aliens controlling us and therefore we dont take it seriously. But if all these wonderous events would happen we are probably dealing with higher beings. Now why would aliens THEN be such an absurd explanation over a divine being?
@KnownNoMore An alien race playing tricks on us, by freeing the Hebrews from slavery (bet they had a good laugh over that) & an alien getting crucified for shits & giggles, and rising but then laughing at us for believing he's God behind our back? It's just hyper-paranoia. And paranoia (such as being startled by your own shadow and suspecting it's plotting against you) is a behavior found in lower life forms, conspiracy theorists & geniuses who have gone mad. Why shouldn't I favor premise A?
We would have no way of knowing why aliens would deceive us. It could be for dozens of reasons we can conceive of and yet dozens more reasons we wouldnt even think of. Point is, all that the biblical events show us some type of higher being(s) and you wouldnt require more then merely advanced technology to make the biblical events happen. So alien deception would be suficient. But none of God's unique attributes are remotely required for any biblical event.
You really think tullips pretending to be mere flowers is on the same grounds as alien beings who are basically just beings similar to us but from another planet? The existence of aliens is very likely and you as a theist would have to concede that. But flowers being intelligent deceptive beings is extremely unlikely.
@KnownNoMore Why would flowers being intelligent deceptive beings be extremely unlikely? Or even, an unreasonable theory? I think it's reasonable, why don't you? You should consider it seriously and not scoff at it.
No it means that no theory is valid because any theory would be a complete and utter guess. Didnt I say that at the end of the video? That we couldnt just assume the alien deception theory either unless we would have actual evidence that it were specifically alien beings who did it. If we dont, we simply have to conclude that we dont have a clue what caused the unexplained events.
@KnownNoMore Really? That's what we'd have to conclude? That we "don't have a clue"? Maybe we could say that Jesus came back by chance, someone resurrecting was bound to happen sooner or later. Given enough time. According to naturalism.
@KnownNoMore You should watch your video on debate that featured the anime video between the naturalist and the witch again. That was a good video. :-)
@KnownNoMore I only saw the clips, but would you say he was reasonable for denying magic? Prior to him being proven right there was no magic, that is. I'm recalling your video on that Jodie Foster movie, now.
Do you think he was going by reason and evidence, or was he irrationally sticking to his guns despite the 'apparent' "evidence."?
Because none of the biblical events require the involvement of a being that is not just powerfull, but allpowerful, not just a being that is smart, but a being that is all knowing, not just a being with advanced technology, but a supernatural omnipotence, not just being who is capable of doing something we cannot understand, but an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, supernatural mind that created the universe.
IS there any biblical event or anything whatsoever in the bible that demands an omniscient being as the cause? IS there any biblical event or anything whatsoever in the bible that demands an omnipotent being as the cause? IS there any biblical event or anything whatsoever in the bible that demands the cause to be the creator and foundation of reality?
No not at all. All that is required is smart and powerful beings. and aliens would be such beings for example.
"What must happen for you to say "Only an omniscient, omnipotent being could have pulled that off."? "
you tell me, what event could only be explained by omnipotence? How can we distinguish between a very powerful being and an allpowerful being? How can we distinguish between a very knowledgable being and an all knowing being?
My video demonstrates an epistemoligical problem for religious claims. That they are simply unprovable because we can never discern what the cause is
@KnownNoMore I'm a Christian, so my very status answers the question I posed to you, which you are avoiding answering.
Your video demonstrated that cognitive dissonance can occur even if you were a witness to the events in question, which is made plain even by Jesus when he said "neither will they believe if one came back from the dead."
And yes, tulips is on the same level as your alien theory. They are supernatural tulips that are playing a big prank on us.
Only if you are feeling generous, but if you don't then you show the true plausibility of the situation. If they can't even demonstrate that those events took place as said, then it doesn't even make sense to even postulate a god to explain them.
Oh there are tons more of hypothetical scenarios than just God and aliens, obviously. And of course I dont really believe that aliens are involved in any religion. But I would be inclined to believe that before jumping to supernatural explanations.
The matrix has the same explanatory power as reality existing, yet it is not equally rational to believe hte matrix is true. Appealing to God being an illusion created by aliens is akin to believing that the matrix is true.
Certain arguments (moral, ontological, cosmological) are not consistent with aliens either but are consistent with theistic belief.
The cosmological argument fails on the first premise, nothing has ever been seen to come into existence which has a cause.
Moral arguments are done from ignorance, and negative consequence
The ontological arugment is an attempt to define a god into existence, which fails, because all I say is "my god is as good as your god, but comes with an extra free pizza"
Epgydemic2020 is actually one of my favorite Christians on youtube, and he isn't new at this :p
I recommend you check his videos out before you just assume his arguments are so naive. They are definitely better constructed and defended then 95% of other Christians on youtube.
He invokes 3 'arguments' which have all been shown to not be worth the electrons used to represent them. This means either they are 'new' at this, and don't know how worthless those statements are, or they are willfully misrepresenting their position.
I think the ontological argument fails, there are mutliple versions of the cosmological argument and your summary of the moral argument is simply wrong. I have videos on the moral argument if you are interested in throwing your hat into the discussion.
But the naturalism being supposed here is quite minor, and in fact its the exact same level of naturalism that needs to be assumed for science. The only principle required to come this conclusion is that naturalistic explanations always supersede supernatural explanations for any given phenomena. If we don't assume this principle then why is it more rational to assume that gravity comes from the evasive graviton rather than from god pulling individual particles down?
Another Excellent Vid - Sound Quality is poor - You should redo audio sometime
Artifactorfiction 5 months ago
@Artifactorfiction yeah, I've been thinking about redoing the audio.
KnownNoMore 5 months ago
First, you grant "EVERYTHING" apologists claim, and then immediately take it back -- if you grant EVERYTHING apologists claim, then God declared himself clearly.
Second, all you've done is changed the name of the deity. If "Aliens" did everything in the Bible, then we're still serving the Christian God, only His (undeclared) name is "Alien." So?
And third, it's not enough to assert a possibility; give me one, sane reason to believe that this is true.
Sorry. Pure, unadulterated idiocy.
philWynk 6 months ago
@philWynk
No I granted every event and every claim APART from it being divine revelation.
No I didnt merely change a name. Aliens are not a God. They are not supernatural, not eternal, etc. They are limited beings like, only way more advanced.
I dont believe this of course, if you think I did, you totally missed the point. The point is that there is no reason to believe divine revelation over alien deception or something similar; on the contrary such an alternative hypothesis fits better.
KnownNoMore 6 months ago
@KnownNoMore "God said" does not have to be divine revelation for it to be true. If what the NT says is true, then God is the Father, and His son is Jesus. Sorry, but that's simple and obvious.
"Aliens are not a god." In what sense? How would you know? All you're saying is that [X] that did all those things in the NT is unknowable. SO WHAT??? If ALIENS did all the things in the NT, then we all owe obedience and gratitude to ALIENS. Explain why we don't.
philWynk 6 months ago
@KnownNoMore The alien hypothesis fits better??? I can point to the universe and use it to prove a conscious, intelligent, powerful, purposive, morally perfect being that is capable of doing all the things in the NT. So now it's your turn: prove that such a thing as alien life forms even EXIST, let alone are capable of any of the things in the NT. From reality, just like I did. And then explain how aliens came to be.
BTW, planetary anthropic constants prove that alien life is not possible.
philWynk 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@philWynk "BTW, planetary anthropic constants prove that alien life is not possible."
Huh? Life on Earth kinda proves that planets CAN harbour life so I'm pretty sure you're wrong there.
"I can point to the universe and use it to prove a conscious, intelligent, powerful, purposive, morally perfect being that is capable of doing all the things in the NT."
So what? Can you prove that being is actually a god as opposed to an alien? If you can't, why assume it's a god?
NoeLPZC 5 months ago
Comment removed
philWynk 6 months ago
@KnownNoMore I regard your continued defense of this incredible nonsense as proof that atheists are incapable of rational thought, and furthermore that atheism is nothing more than the equivalent of sticking one's fingers in one's ears and yelling at God, "Nyaaa, nyaaa, I can't HEEEEEEEAAAAAR YOOOOOOOOO." Basically what you're saying is that God could prove Himself real in every way possible, and you'd dream up a reason not to obey Him anyway.
Boy, am I impressed with your intellect...
philWynk 6 months ago
@philWynk
Maybe you should watch the follow up videos before you judge, because I basically answer all the objections you just named, in fact some of them I actually answered in THIS one if you had payed some attention.
KnownNoMore 6 months ago
Fantastic. I have made this exact argument with friends. Great video.
ThotherBrother 6 months ago
Convincingly argued :-) You have a fascinating new angle on an old issue.
LibbyANZ 7 months ago
@LibbyANZ
Thank you :)
You might also enjoy the follow up videos in which I answer objections.
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
Just watched most of your videos. Good work. Keep it up.
DejZant 7 months ago
@DejZant
"Just watched most of your videos. Good work. Keep it up."
Thank you :) glad you enjoy my videos.
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
The existence of Christian Apologists signals a failure of the central tenants of Christianity - that an infinitely intelligent Supreme Being directed the writing of the Bible. Consider this: The works of Shakespeare contain over 880,000 words – more words than in the Bible. Writings containing some of the most profound insights into the human condition ever penned. Yet, there is no cadre of apologists explaining the inconsistencies, contradictions and errors in Shakespeare’s works.
apeek7 7 months ago
Whenever I listen to a religious apologetic talking, I hear the same tone and patter that I hear out of spirit mediums and telephone psychics. It sounds just like cold reading to me.
zEropoint68 7 months ago
While Alien technology is simpler than Omnipotent beings, the tech part still takes up some assumptions. An easier explanation would be extra dimensional creatures. Since they come from another dimension, the physics would be different, and they would be able to manipulate water, light, fire, ect, without the use of technology. It also explains why they would be invisible.
However, if all that bible stuff was true, better play it safe and be a Christian. That's what the aliens want anyways.
Mectrixctic 7 months ago
@Mectrixctic
yes that would work as well. But the assumption that another dimension exist is a far greater one than the existence of more advanced lifeforms on other planets which is already very likely
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@KnownNoMore
But we also have to asume that those lifeforms are advanced enough to reach another planet, have molecule manipulating stuff. We barely have this technology on Earth. Since we know our universe/dimension exists, it doesn't seem as off. However, I have been taking these things into consideration, and not really sure which is "simpler"
Mectrixctic 7 months ago
@Mectrixctic
At least both are better explanations for religious phenomena even IF God exists. That's my position
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@KnownNoMore
Yeah, although you'd probably be a Christian is you saw all those events.
Also, did you get my PM?
Mectrixctic 7 months ago
@Mectrixctic
"Yeah, although you'd probably be a Christian is you saw all those events."
I would not. If that happened a couple of years ago before I even thought about things like epistemology I probably would. But if it would happen now, I would not.
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@KnownNoMore
The problem here is is you're using Occams razor to justify this belief, when it isn't the only way. Since you have not been able to actually observe what happened, you aren't able to decide what is true.
Christianity would work, because if the Aliens conspiracy was true, the Aliens would want us to believe in this, and have provided us the evidence.
Mectrixctic 7 months ago
@Mectrixctic
"The problem here is is you're using Occams razor to justify this belief"
No not specifically. Also I am NOT saying that if I saw those events myself I therefore would believe in alien deception. I would simply not be able to determine the actual cause. But at the very least, an explanation such as alien deception would be more plausible than divine revelation. Point is, there is no justification to invoke God to explain events that require none of his unique attributes.
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@Mectrixctic
"you aren't able to decide what is true."
Thats the point. So I should either stick with no explanation (in other words: I don't know) or go with the most probable explanation I can think of, which would be that the events are cause by some sort of superhuman intelligence. But stretching that to infinite absolute omnipotence and omniscience would be unjustified. Just SOME sort of superhuman beings. And aliens would fit that description rather well
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@Mectrixctic
"the Aliens would want us to believe in this, and have provided us the evidence."
You are missing the point. None of those events ARE evidence for omniscience, omnipotence, the supernatural, the cause being the creator of the universe, etc. So in what way would it be evidence for Christianity? That's the whole point. Since none of those events require any of God's attributes, there is no reason to believe that God is responsible and in fact lots of reason to believe otherwise
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@KnownNoMore
Actually supertechnology and Aliens are supernatural
So exactly what would be proof of an omni-whatever being.
Anyways, if you can believe that some hyperintelligent entity brought Jesus back from the dead, why can't you believe the reason. I mean, I don't think believing that God is omnipotent is a requirement for Christianity.
Mectrixctic 7 months ago
@Mectrixctic
"Actually supertechnology and Aliens are supernatural"
noooooo, absolutely not. Aliens and supertechnology are 100% natural. Aliens aren't immaterial, nonspacial beings and supertechnology isn't magic violating the laws of nature.
"Anyways, if you can believe that some hyperintelligent entity brought Jesus back from the dead, why can't you believe the reason."
Because nothing about seeing Jesus body standing up and floating into the sky requires supernatural intervention
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@KnownNoMore
In order to call them "natural" you need to make things up, and asume that all of this is possible. All of this would require a lot of aliens working collectively. If an omnipotent being exists, you could also say it is "natural" since it is using its natural powers.
Furthermore, if the Aliens were capable of doing all these feats, why wouldn't they be able to create an afterlife?
Mectrixctic 7 months ago
@Mectrixctic
define natural and supernatural please because I dont understand what your definition is.
"Furthermore, if the Aliens were capable of doing all these feats, why wouldn't they be able to create an afterlife?"
Depends, if we are talking about aliens from another universe for example who created a sort of matrix computer simulation (which would be this universe) then I guess they could create something that we would regard as an afterlife, but wouldnt literally be an afterlife.
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
@UnApologist74
Yeah I know, but I of course don't really believe that aliens were responsible for establishing any religion. I am merely defending that it would be as likely and even more likely that aliens would responsible for religious events if they indeed happened, than that God would have caused them.
KnownNoMore 7 months ago
Arif Ahmed uses very similar argumentation in his debate with Gary Habermas - if you haven't seen it yet I'd highly suggest watching at least Ahmed's opening statement.
FireproofAshes 9 months ago
Historical methods cannot demonstrate anything for certain since there is always the possibility of events happening differently than how they are recorded. It is possible, for example, that the moon landing was a government conspiracy. That possibility should not paralyze us, though, from making a historical judgment. Historical methods deal with probabilities, but not all possibilities are probable. So with miracles. The intervention of aliens or whatever are not probable possibilities...
BalladoftheWindfish 10 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish ...despite what you have said. The established historical context and the confluence of factors that you are granting support a historical judgment favoring that of the religious apologist. Your alternative explanation is possible, but not probable. It is so much unnecessary ad hoc with significantly low epistemic warrant. We need not consider it too seriously anymore than we need to consider seriously 9/11 conspiracies.
BalladoftheWindfish 10 months ago
@BalladoftheWindfish To me, the case for Christianity is excellent. Natural theology proves the existence of God and the truth of monotheism with certainty, stubborn postivists and verificationists aside. Miracles provide motives of credibility for one particular claim of Revelation over the others. Boom. See you at Mass this Sunday!
BalladoftheWindfish 10 months ago
I'm uploading a response to this whole argument.
I dont think you gents realize just how much you're sacrificing when you use this sort of skepticism against miracles
migkillertwo 10 months ago
This looks like a rock solid argument to me. Nice job, KnownNoMore.
VeryEvilPettingZoo 10 months ago
Kind of makes me think of Stargate, where it turns out the gods Egyptians worshiped were aliens.
NashvilleKildCountry 10 months ago
What I am interested in seeing, KnownNoMore, is a statement squaring this with the video you did about stretching one's worldview. After all, is that not what you are doing in this video?
Take, for example, the scene in the anime series where the protagonist sees the magical battle. You would explain it away as being aliens, not magic. Are you being skeptical to a fault here?
balanceseeker 10 months ago
@balanceseeker
Ah now that is a great question. Am I being hyperskeptical here? I am doing some follow up videos to this one and I will adress the notion of hyperskepticism in one of those.
I am actually surprised that you are the first one to link this to hyperskepticism or "stretching your world view".
KnownNoMore 10 months ago
@KnownNoMore When I first saw this video a week ago, it was my immediate thought. I just did not have the time to post the comment and had to race out the door. By the time I got back, I had forgotten all about the video. Lucky me, you posted a follow up to this one to remind me of my thought about it.
I will eagerly await your video about this objection.
balanceseeker 10 months ago
can't you people see it was the invisible pink unicorn that created the universe? repent non-unicorn believers before it's too late lol
proudatheist4life 11 months ago
the alien creation hypothesis has one more assumption, therefore inferior, due to occam's razor.
simonthesinner 11 months ago
@simonthesinner
Thats actually not the way it works, you are leaving out tons of factors. My follow up video will be on occam's razor.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore Looking forward to it.
simonthesinner 11 months ago
This is why few try to win with 'logic'. The rest ignore logic completely. Thinking hurts.
Miranox2 11 months ago
@caseagainstfaith-I don't believe you addressed the personal revelation argument.
I just assumed it was included. Direct alien mind control to make sure that a certain percentage of the population is convinced despite evidence, or some sort of genetic engineering. Them aliens be clever buggers.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
Even the supposed "evidence of the holy spirit" that theists use as the ultimate fallback justification for their personal belief could be explained as aliens simply implanting these spiritual experiences using some form of mind control.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist
Yeah, a future video will address religious experience in general.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@ScientificStandard
"Lets say it is an infinite number way to build infinite improbable god."
I'd never agree to that. There can not be, because that would imply an infinite number of ways to be perfect. Also no one every said the living cell arouse without simpler precursors, god however must have.
There can only be one way to be omnimax, otherwise multiple independent beings could be omnimax, and thus the idea would be self refuting.
mordinvan 11 months ago
@ScientificStandard
Well you got me there :p
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@ScientificStandard
Well you can always come up with any excuse. Just think of the painting at the end. Maybe it was painted by the greatest artist ever, but he simply tried to mask that fact.
Possibilities come cheap.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
I'll have a video response up sometime this week.
RaiderJoe76 11 months ago
@RaiderJoe76
Sounds interesting.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
No one knows what happened. And if they did they couldn't do anything about it anyways.
sambricky 11 months ago
Let's say we grant your hypothetical here (though I'm thinking if we could look back in time, we could see the aliens in there). Wouldn't that mean Christianity is true and God is an alien? Aliens strike as a way Christianity could be true, not an alternative explanation. Some Christians, notably Hugh Ross and Mormons, hold more or less this view.
AceOfSevens 11 months ago
@AceOfSevens
Well I wouldnt call an alien God. So I do see it as an alternative
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
It's not entirely clear what counts as proving a religion true because not everyone takes their religion literally and some religious people are philosophically oriented.
mageslime 11 months ago
@mageslime
Well liberal Christians dont rely on apologetics any way. For them its more about ideas.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
The fundamental question is where nature came from. Answering with a natural answer, like aliens, doesn't help. You cannot expect to find the answer to something's existence within itself.
The GOD answer is superior, because GOD is not natural. Timeless, Spaceless, Immaterial, so the answer is not natural. GOD necessarily exists. In Alien's case, because they're natural, it validates the fallacious question atheists like asking, "Who created the creator." And so the infinate regress goes on.
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@DIURYL77 Of course, a non-natural origin doesn't have to be a god either. I can propose some immaterial origin apart from the natural from which our universe, and perhaps others, occur. It doesn't have to be omnipotent, omniscient, or even have any kind of conscience at all. Trying to argue for any given traits for something that has already been defined as apart from our universe is pointless, as there would be no way to say what it could or could not be.
StevePinto3 11 months ago
@StevePinto3 What I was arguing with "Thenakedatheist" is whether the universe had an uncaused cause, instead of just a singularity just suddenly expanding. whether the first cause which could have caused the singularity to expand is conscious/omnipotent.etc. is a whole other topic. You can say it occured spontaneously, but that's exactly what TNA and I were arguing about. cause or no cause? I say there is a cause because things do not spontaneously occur, whereas he seems to think so.......
DIURYL77 9 months ago
@DIURYL77 Further, I could even make an argument such that there is no reality outside of ours, and that our universe began spontaneously with no external forces necessary. I could say that before the singularity that expanded in the Big Bang, there was nothing, no reality at all, and thus no law of causality. Thus why couldn't a singularity simply begin to exist? There are no physical laws that prevent this from happening. Theists argue that God exists in this same state outside of reality.
StevePinto3 11 months ago
@StevePinto3 .....Also, saying something BEFORE the singularity caued it doesn't make sense. Whether it be the singularity or GOD, they're both not governed by natural laws such as time. So your statement is pointless. Things do not just happen. Things do not bring themselves into existence, I don't care how much you believe it does, that just DOES NOT happen. Something before always brings something else into existence, all the way back to the first cause. The big bang was an effect not the...
DIURYL77 9 months ago
@StevePinto3 ...Not the cause. The steady state theory was debunked decades ago, no serious scientist believes the universe always existed, that's why I also deny it. The material universe never always existed, science proves it. So obviously, logic dictates, based on the law of cause = effect, the material world was caused. If it's outside the material world, it means the cause was immaterial/supernatural/unnatural. Maybe there is a fairy realm, I'm not saying there isn't.....
DIURYL77 9 months ago
@DIURYL77 Why not just accept that the universe always existed? Why do you need to invent something supernatural and beyond our material universe to try and explain it? There might be a hidden faerie realm hidden beyond our own material plane, and it may be timeless, space-less, immaterial, but still quite magical - but probably this hidden faerie realm does not exist and everything that is in the universe is all that there is, and it has always existed, though sometimes it does change in form.
pkeod 11 months ago
@pkeod The infinite universe idea was abandoned long ago. If it was infinite, we wouldn't have never reached this point. Why the supernatural? Because we want to know where the natural came from. It's silly to answer the question with another natural answer. Maybe the "fairy realm" does exist, who knows. The point I am making is that you cannot explain how nature came to be, with nature, it's circular reasoning. The steady state theory no longer holds water. The answer is outside nature.
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@DIURYL77 >you cannot explain how nature came to be, with nature
We live in a material universe. To stay sane rational people don't automatically jump to the supernatural for things they cannot yet explain. At the point of a big brunch "time" ceases to exist, and at the point of the big bang the universe is reborn in a never ending cycle of both creating itself and inevitably destroying itself into an infinitely small space. This may not be correct, but it makes more sense than "god did it."
pkeod 11 months ago
@DIURYL77-The steady state theory no longer holds water. The answer is outside nature.
The first sentence appears to be true, from what we think we know, the second pure conjecture. The singularity would have been timeless. There was no "before" the singularity. Now when it comes to quantum physics, or cosmology I'm no expert, but first of all most of those I know, or have heard of see no need for a God being involved.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
(cont)
The claim I usually hear from theists regarding this is that a "first cause" would be needed to start the singularity banging. It seems like a bit of overkill (to put it mildly) to invent a timeless space-less immaterial mind who loves us and cares for us etc etc etc as being necessary to do nothing more than what amounts to a universe jump start.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Well no one said which GOD....yet. But you're on the right track. You already said the singularity is timeless. Casue and effect are fundamental laws. Things don't just happen. If a bang can happen uncaused(not that you said it was), then why can't bangs happen anytime anywhere uncaused? Or things pop in and out of existence uncaused out of nothing?
Whether GOD is loving and caring is relevant right now. I'm telling you that your everlasting singularity theory isn't valid.
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@DIURYL77-Casue and effect are fundamental laws. Things don't just happen.
First of all cause, and effect are not "laws", they are philosophical claims. Secondly cause and effect are how we observe things working when there is a passage of time, and there is no passage of time in a singularity. I've heard some claim by quantum physicists that things may (just happen), but again I'm no expert, but I do know we don't know enough to make wild God assertions. lol
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist It is a philosophical claim, which are true, and can be observed every single day. It's the order of things, it can be observed by science, which is what science is about anyway. True, there was no passage of time. But an everlasting singularity would still exist today, at this moment, and you and I wouldn't be doing this. So your theory still fails. If things, "just happen" then that opens the doors, and anything can happen? Why doesn't a car appear in the room you're in.....>
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist <....right now? Does it require a causal explanation? According to those quantum physicists, No. But it makes no sense, and philosophically, it's just nonsense. Suddenly cause and effect are removed when it comes to things happening, yet in everyday life, it's applies. Why? Seems like a double standard. Why do you dismiss GOD so quickly. If you don't know enough, or simply don't know, every theory shloud be held at an equal standard, you're dimissing GOD without a good reason..
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist You don't understand. There is no such thing as infinity. If the singularity had always been there, (1) It would not have expanded and we wouldn't not be here now. (2) The singularity's expansion had to have been caused. CAUSE = EFFECT. The Big Bang(BB) is the effect so what was the cause? It was obviously timeless, spaceless and immaterial, which supports my earlier point. Some say nothing, which is silly. Others say we don't know, but for some reason they are sure it.....>
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@DIURYL77-There is no such thing as infinity. If the singularity had always been there
There is no such thing as "always" in the absence of time it's an incoherent term.
-The singularity's expansion had to have been caused
Well first of all we know nothing about causal relationships when there is no time, whether they exist how they would work. Cause, and effect require the passage of time.
(cont)
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
(cont)
Secondly, even IF the universe required a cause, given we know nothing about causal relationships when there is no time, we can even guess what sort of mechanism would be required. Thirdly even if we had reason to believe something "timeless, spaceless and immaterial" piece of lint, or speck of dust was required, it would have to somehow cause a change, and change without time is also an incoherent idea.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist If something lasts forever, it should be here right now. Clearly the singularity is no longer here. Which means it's not timeless and everlasting, thereofore your entire argument crumbles. So if you claim we have not sufficient knowledge, and clearly the singularity is no longer here, on what grounds do you dismiss GOD, and regard it as a far lesser answer than others? I also accept the possiblity of aliens, but giving a natural answer to explain the origins of nature......>
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@DIURYL77-If somthing lasts forever, it should be here right now.
Again, and for the 15th time forever, eternity, cause, and effect are all are all terms related to time, and are meaningless in a timeless singularity. The singularity did quite literally exist since the "beginning of time".
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist Actually, it's the 2nd time you've said it. But let me clarify something. Eternity is not a term related to time. For example: When people say GOD is eternal, they mean timeless, and unchanging, one of the characteristics a GOD should have. Infinity, is related to time, meaning time that never ends. Now, whether or not the singularity is timeless, the fact remains that it should be here, but it is NOT, because we are here, and not it, which refutes your argument that the....>
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist <...Which refutes your argument that a timeless singularity exists. We, and the rest of the universe CAME FROM the singularity. When it expanded, this universe cam to be, and it no longer existed(not timeless). The very fact you are sitting there typing, is 100% proof that the singularity is NOT timeless. Also, the singualrity is not independent of this universe, or exist in some other timeless dimension, that's beginning to sound like GOD, who you're rejecting.
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@DIURYL77 I see one major flaw in your thinking - You say that God is the Eternal Unmoved mover and He lives Eternally - Eternal = Infinite.
You say there is no such thing as "infinity" - Therefore your God cannot exist either.
knightd00b 11 months ago
@knightd00b Eternal is not the same as infinite. Infinite is never ending time. Eternity is timeless.
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist <......they are sure it was not GOD. Which is also silly, because if you don't know, GOD becomes a possibility aswell and no one can say which answer is right or wrong, especially seeing as they do not know. Others accept that GOD is a possibility, amongst other possibilities, and those we call Agnostics.
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@DIURYL77-Others accept that GOD is a possibility, amongst other possibilities, and those we call Agnostics.
I accept it's a possibility, but far less likely than other simpler answers. In a similar way that I accept the possibility of aliens being behind Christianity, BUT I think Christianity is far more likely a combination of lies, deception, imagination, hallucination, human error, wishful thinking, mistranslations, propaganda, and so on.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
@TheNakedAtheist <.....to explain the origins of nature doesn't make sense, and is circular reasoning. Atheists like saying Christians use the bible to prove the validity of the bible. You're doing the same thing. You're using a natural explanation to explain nature. Well what you think about Christianity is YOUR opinion, I do obviously disagree with you, but at the end of the day, it's what YOU think. Not to mention it's irrelevant to what we're discussing.
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@pkeod
Ironically it's the same reasoning and logic as validating the bible by using the bible.
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@DIURYL77 How is stating that the universe likely has always existed is the same thing as using the Bible to prove that the Bible is valid? There are many possible ultimate fates of the universe, and it is the big crunch then most likely the universe cycles from crunch to bang. A supernatural explanation is unnecessary. It was once thought that the gods lived in mountains, then the sky, and now you realize they only exist in your imagination.
pkeod 11 months ago
@pkeod .......You're either ignoring or are ignorant of scientific facts(the universe BEGAN to exist), ignoring logic(cause = effect) all just to maintain your atheistic/materialistic worldview of not having a supernatural realm/GOD.etc.
Now between the two of us, who is being more scientific and logical?
DIURYL77 9 months ago
@DIURYL77 After we know for certain the natural origin of the universe, your god will have nowhere else to hide. Why is it so hard to accept that the universe always existed in some form? You choose to only believe in one version of the origin story - which is one of the many created by man man has no evidence. Are you scientific and logical for believing in something which has no evidence to exist? Show me the evidence and I'll believe. Until then the burden of proof for such things is on you.
pkeod 9 months ago
@pkeod "My GOD" is in your face every single day, he has never hidden from you. You do you keep asking about the universe existing forever? Didn't you ever hear about the steady state theory and how it was debunked? do some research. If choose to believe in this version, because it's the most factual, logically, sceintifically, philosophically.etc. Your version relies heavily on blind faith and denial. If you want evidence, that's a another story. How can you say there is no evidence when......
DIURYL77 9 months ago
@pkeod ....When we're not even discussing evidences? You're making strawman arguments, ever heard of those?
A negative CAN be proven, contrary to popular belief. So the burden is also on you to demonstarte/provide undeniable proof why it is impossible for GOD to have created the universe, or even exist. Until then, good bye! and GOD bless!
DIURYL77 9 months ago
@DIURYL77 @DIURYL77 I've never seen your god. I don't even know which one you believe in so what exactly am I supposed to look for? Thor? Zeus? Yahweh god of war- one of the five Jewish gods, whose followers were so bloodthirsty that they annihilated the followers of the other five gods?
pkeod 9 months ago
@DIURYL77 We do not yet know the origin of the universe - that does not mean you should jump to supernatural conclusions. We do know that there was a "big bang" for sure. There is no evidence for your "god" to exist, let alone any evidence she was the one who created the universe. An invisible pink universe could have created the universe, but until we have evidence we should not assume one did, nor even give any supernatural cause a moment of acceptance when a natural origin is likely.
pkeod 9 months ago
@pkeod
It's easy to prove the Bible describes God wrong, were he to exist. We have no evidence of an Exodus, since it would ahve left a large amount of evidence, no records of Jesus healing or the recorded hundreds of witnesses, no evidence of the Canaanite extermination, lots of linguistic evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis, and most of all, failed prophecies. Most Christians don't say the Bible is perfect, but man, it really bit the nail there.
Mectrixctic 7 months ago
Aliens don't explain origins, or morality. It might challenge religious apologetics but not philosophical apologetics. One of the biggest questions is where did nature come from? Inserting Aliens, who are also natural ,does little to debunk the philosophical arguments for GOD. It's the same for those who talk about multiverses, when first of all there is no evidence for multiverse and second of all, multiverses are also natural, therefore the question of natural/universal origins remains.
DIURYL77 11 months ago
@DIURYL77
"Aliens don't explain origins, or morality. It might challenge religious apologetics but not philosophical apologetics. "
thats true, but didnt I say that in the video? that this is specifically an argument against religious apologetics? I even granted the existence of a God for sake of argument.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago 2
Some good points being made here. I've actually heard the idea that Jesus might have been an alien, crazy ancient astronaut theorists and their wild ideas...
TitenSxull 11 months ago
@TitenSxull
Well I obviously dont really believe that Jesus was an alien :) but I'm sure such ideas already exist.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@TitenSxull-crazy ancient astronaut theorists and their wild ideas...
That made me chuckle because if Jesus actually did the things Christians claim he did those "wild ideas" would be more rational than him being the son of God.
TheNakedAtheist 11 months ago
KnownNoMore, you forgot one thing:
If aliens generated all the religions, they would have assassinated you for foiling their plan. God wins, silly atheist.
(/poe)
grays42 11 months ago
If one accepts that God exists, and that there are also good reasons to believe God is interested in man, then revelation makes more sense than aliens. Clearly you aren't actually accepting the premises of natural theology (which have more to do than with "proving God's existence" btw) in making your argument. I'll warrant it's an interesting, notwithstanding.
hxrtotally 11 months ago
@hxrtotally
so which of the arguments in natural theology would establish that God is interested in man? what argument could a Deist not accept?
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore See my video response.
hxrtotally 11 months ago
Well presented. Sure beats all those pointless specific arguments people spend so much time on.
Uhlbelk 11 months ago
@Uhlbelk
Arguments aren't pointless. Only to people with little to no Philosophical education. Arguments allow a person to utilize logic and reason, and allow their conclusions to be forced deductively. Also, logical arguments allow others to see the premises and conclusion upfront and with clarity to allow for unambiguous digestion.
Dhorpatan 11 months ago
@Dhorpatan Ok, I'll rephrase. An argument, such as the historical accuracy of the crucifixion, is about as pointless as an athlete walking on a treadmill for an hour. It burns barely more calories then sitting on the couch, it doesn't provide transportation to anyplace, and since the individual is an athlete it has no practical impact when compared to an actual workout. It MIGHT inspire some fatty to exercise, but probably only if there is already a close relationship between them.
Uhlbelk 11 months ago
THis is the best video I've seen for a very long time. I wish to ask permission for me to mirror it on my channel, and of course I will see that you get the credit. Peace, Hereticbooks
Hereticbooks 11 months ago
@Hereticbooks
sure, thats perfectly fine :)
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@caseagainstfaith
The next video (or at least an upcoming video) will be about religious experience
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
No they can't possibly win. Just as someone that believes the external world exists cannot possibly win against someone that believes everything (including other minds) exists only in his own mind.
And just as someone can't win against someone who believes they are the true king of England and a victim of a conspiracy.
Dumb video.
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
How come if someone commits a felony, and they tell the Judge or Jury that they did nothing wrong since everything exists only in their own mind, that that doesn't work?
Dhorpatan 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
Yeah I was expecting a kind of "hyperskepticism" accusation. However, this has nothing to do with hyperskepticism. Moreover there is a big difference between why we accept the existence of the external world and other minds eventhough we cannot prove it, and not accepting any other random claim which cannot be proven.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore If you grant the premises you did in your video, than you are being a hyperskeptic conspiracy theorist, akin to those who believe speculate over shape-shifters. IOW, your skeptism and alternative theories is a pointless waste of time, much how David Icke's theories are a waste of time...given the fact that you granted as much as you did.
I usually find you very thought-provoking, but not here. Your argument was pretty much "Apologists can't win against unreasonable people!"
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
so what exactly is unreasonable about it?
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore It's meaningless speculation & a meaningless theory. You granted Jesus rose from the dead and whatnot, and even proposed time-travel to grant you were even a witness the claims in the Bible happened the way they said they did. So let's take Jesus:
Premise A: Jesus said he would die and be resurrected to prove he is who he said is was.
Premise B: Jesus said that and rose from the dead because he's part of an alien conspiracy.
My Conclusion: Premise B = Waste of time to consider.
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
but WHY is premise B a waste of time to consider? Why is Jesus being raised from the dead because of God more probable? And how could we distinguish between God and an alternative explanation?
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore The way I usually draw a distinction is anything that rings of gnostic-esque conspiracy theory has a historic knack of being nothing but garbage. So, your alien theory would fall under that.
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore And what makes it more reasonable than say, David Icke's theory of an evil race of shape-shifting lizards? If you think his theory is reasonable and worth serious consideration by thinking persons, then I really don't know how to respond. Because how does one respond to a conspiracy theorist dot-connecting maniac? No offense, I respect you and all, but...I don't respect this conspiracy theory nonsense.
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
I am just giving a hypothetical here Nymphrenic. We dont take alien conspiracy not serious because of some inherit improbability of alien deception because the existence of aliens isnt improbable, but there is no evidence of aliens controlling us and therefore we dont take it seriously. But if all these wonderous events would happen we are probably dealing with higher beings. Now why would aliens THEN be such an absurd explanation over a divine being?
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore An alien race playing tricks on us, by freeing the Hebrews from slavery (bet they had a good laugh over that) & an alien getting crucified for shits & giggles, and rising but then laughing at us for believing he's God behind our back? It's just hyper-paranoia. And paranoia (such as being startled by your own shadow and suspecting it's plotting against you) is a behavior found in lower life forms, conspiracy theorists & geniuses who have gone mad. Why shouldn't I favor premise A?
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
We would have no way of knowing why aliens would deceive us. It could be for dozens of reasons we can conceive of and yet dozens more reasons we wouldnt even think of. Point is, all that the biblical events show us some type of higher being(s) and you wouldnt require more then merely advanced technology to make the biblical events happen. So alien deception would be suficient. But none of God's unique attributes are remotely required for any biblical event.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore Or, maybe we just don't understand the power of tulips? Maybe tulips did it. It's always the one's you least suspect afterall.
I think my tulip theory is more reasonable than your alien theory. We have evidence that tulips exist. Think about it.
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
Eh... and could tullips cause the Biblical events... or pretty much any event for that matter?
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore Yes, tulips could. They trick us by pretending to be harmless flower, but I'm on to them.
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
You really think tullips pretending to be mere flowers is on the same grounds as alien beings who are basically just beings similar to us but from another planet? The existence of aliens is very likely and you as a theist would have to concede that. But flowers being intelligent deceptive beings is extremely unlikely.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore Why would flowers being intelligent deceptive beings be extremely unlikely? Or even, an unreasonable theory? I think it's reasonable, why don't you? You should consider it seriously and not scoff at it.
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore It's an epistomological problem, therefore, my tulip theory is completely valid.
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
No it means that no theory is valid because any theory would be a complete and utter guess. Didnt I say that at the end of the video? That we couldnt just assume the alien deception theory either unless we would have actual evidence that it were specifically alien beings who did it. If we dont, we simply have to conclude that we dont have a clue what caused the unexplained events.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore Really? That's what we'd have to conclude? That we "don't have a clue"? Maybe we could say that Jesus came back by chance, someone resurrecting was bound to happen sooner or later. Given enough time. According to naturalism.
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore You should watch your video on debate that featured the anime video between the naturalist and the witch again. That was a good video. :-)
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
Yeah and I actually would agree with the naturalist there. No evidence of magic was shown. (and in fact the guy turns out to be right)
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore I only saw the clips, but would you say he was reasonable for denying magic? Prior to him being proven right there was no magic, that is. I'm recalling your video on that Jodie Foster movie, now.
Do you think he was going by reason and evidence, or was he irrationally sticking to his guns despite the 'apparent' "evidence."?
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
"Why shouldn't I favor premise A?"
Because none of the biblical events require the involvement of a being that is not just powerfull, but allpowerful, not just a being that is smart, but a being that is all knowing, not just a being with advanced technology, but a supernatural omnipotence, not just being who is capable of doing something we cannot understand, but an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, supernatural mind that created the universe.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
IS there any biblical event or anything whatsoever in the bible that demands an omniscient being as the cause? IS there any biblical event or anything whatsoever in the bible that demands an omnipotent being as the cause? IS there any biblical event or anything whatsoever in the bible that demands the cause to be the creator and foundation of reality?
No not at all. All that is required is smart and powerful beings. and aliens would be such beings for example.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore What would demand an omniscient and omnipotent being as the cause, in your judgment?
What must happen for you to say "Only an omniscient, omnipotent being could have pulled that off."?
nymphrenic 11 months ago
@nymphrenic
"What must happen for you to say "Only an omniscient, omnipotent being could have pulled that off."? "
you tell me, what event could only be explained by omnipotence? How can we distinguish between a very powerful being and an allpowerful being? How can we distinguish between a very knowledgable being and an all knowing being?
My video demonstrates an epistemoligical problem for religious claims. That they are simply unprovable because we can never discern what the cause is
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore I'm a Christian, so my very status answers the question I posed to you, which you are avoiding answering.
Your video demonstrated that cognitive dissonance can occur even if you were a witness to the events in question, which is made plain even by Jesus when he said "neither will they believe if one came back from the dead."
And yes, tulips is on the same level as your alien theory. They are supernatural tulips that are playing a big prank on us.
nymphrenic 11 months ago
I wish there was a "love" button rather than just "like".
PainefulMass 11 months ago
@PainefulMass
well there is the subscribe button :p that basically serves as a love button
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
Awesome video man.
SuffocateJav90 11 months ago
@SuffocateJav90
Thank you :)
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
@KnownNoMore
What is that technique called when you peel the pages off? What video making software do you use to do that?
Dhorpatan 11 months ago
@Dhorpatan
oh thats simply one of the video transitions in windows moviemaker
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
If this were the case, then Scientology would be more justified then christianity, lolz.
Caveman135 11 months ago
Human fallibility is even further an superior argument to the alien scenario.
TheAtheistPaladin 11 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
You're right, but he was simply granting every premise an apologist could possibly put forward as being true. And then stomped on their neck.
mordinvan 11 months ago
@mordinvan
Only if you are feeling generous, but if you don't then you show the true plausibility of the situation. If they can't even demonstrate that those events took place as said, then it doesn't even make sense to even postulate a god to explain them.
TheAtheistPaladin 11 months ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
Oh there are tons more of hypothetical scenarios than just God and aliens, obviously. And of course I dont really believe that aliens are involved in any religion. But I would be inclined to believe that before jumping to supernatural explanations.
KnownNoMore 11 months ago
wow :D
bellyzbad 11 months ago
I think occam's razor cuts in the theists favor.
The matrix has the same explanatory power as reality existing, yet it is not equally rational to believe hte matrix is true. Appealing to God being an illusion created by aliens is akin to believing that the matrix is true.
Certain arguments (moral, ontological, cosmological) are not consistent with aliens either but are consistent with theistic belief.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
You're new at this right?
The cosmological argument fails on the first premise, nothing has ever been seen to come into existence which has a cause.
Moral arguments are done from ignorance, and negative consequence
The ontological arugment is an attempt to define a god into existence, which fails, because all I say is "my god is as good as your god, but comes with an extra free pizza"
mordinvan 11 months ago
@mordinvan
Epgydemic2020 is actually one of my favorite Christians on youtube, and he isn't new at this :p
I recommend you check his videos out before you just assume his arguments are so naive. They are definitely better constructed and defended then 95% of other Christians on youtube.
MaximumAxiom 11 months ago
@MaximumAxiom
Thanks :P
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@MaximumAxiom
He invokes 3 'arguments' which have all been shown to not be worth the electrons used to represent them. This means either they are 'new' at this, and don't know how worthless those statements are, or they are willfully misrepresenting their position.
mordinvan 11 months ago
@mordinvan
I think the ontological argument fails, there are mutliple versions of the cosmological argument and your summary of the moral argument is simply wrong. I have videos on the moral argument if you are interested in throwing your hat into the discussion.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
"there are mutliple versions of the cosmological argument "
all I've seen fail at premise 1
"your summary of the moral argument is simply wrong"
Maybe you have some 'new' argument from morality, but all I've seen are arguments from negative consequence, combined with arguments from ignorance.
mordinvan 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020
"I think occam's razor cuts in the theists favor."
Between supernatural explanations (god) and natural explanations (aliens), How so?
"matrix has the same explanatory power as reality existing"
At least one objection I see off the top of my head, is that aliens and god aren't equal, aliens appear superior.
"Appealing to God being an illusion"
I don't know that he made any claim in this video insinuating that?
"Certain arguments..."
At 8:25 - 8:45 he addressed this objection.
MaximumAxiom 11 months ago
@MaximumAxiom
"Between supernatural explanations (god) and natural explanations (aliens), How so?"
If you don't start by assuming naturalism, then the only difference is the additional assumption that God is an illusion.
Using 8:25-8:45, the probability God exists and religion is a product of aliens seems slim. Extra assumptions + Occam's razor.
Epydemic2020 11 months ago
@Epydemic2020 (1)
But the naturalism being supposed here is quite minor, and in fact its the exact same level of naturalism that needs to be assumed for science. The only principle required to come this conclusion is that naturalistic explanations always supersede supernatural explanations for any given phenomena. If we don't assume this principle then why is it more rational to assume that gravity comes from the evasive graviton rather than from god pulling individual particles down?
MaximumAxiom 11 months ago
Comment removed
MaximumAxiom 11 months ago