If the god of the bible really was omniscient, then there would be no reason for him to keep getting so angry in the old testament. He supposedly knows in advance what is going to happen from the first second to the last, but still acts surprised.
God makes Adam.
Adam eats the forbidden fruit.
God gets angry at Adam for eating the fruit.
He knew everything in advance, but still designed Adam so that he would eat the fruit. God is an idiot.
I say "all-knowing" is a logical impossibility. no being can fully know itself and you've basically said that in this vid. I'd buy VERY knowledgeable but not ALL-knowing.
Could a god that always existed know his origins? or know his purpose in waiting for all eternity before creating anything? it's all fictional meaningless mumbo jumbo that philosophers love to wallow in.
(cont) Problem is that God by xian definition is omniscient and omniscient beings never have to figure anything out, they just know. If god is omniscient, he axiomatically knows he is omniscient without thought, evidence or proof, the loop is closed. Of course I don't believe this sort of solipsistic crap but Christians like defining things into existence so I don't think you have found a chink in that notion. Frankly I think that omnipotence is a deeper problem logically.
Interesting argument, but I think it is begging the question ("petitio principii") or maybe assuming the consequent in a tricky way. You are essentially assuming that God is not omniscient and then correctly point out that non omniscient beings can think they are omniscient. An omniscient god would also think he was omniscient and since these two things are indistinguishable, an omniscient god would never know if he was omniscient. (cont)
@michalchik I don't have to assume that god is not omniscient because I'm simply asking how any purportedly divine being would possibly know if it's omniscient at all. It is the difference between true omniscience and the illusion of omniscience. Theists don't get to simply define omniscience into god, because not all gods are omniscient, and the very thing this argument questions is the possibility of true omniscience. So no, I don't see that it begs the question at all.
@TaylorX04 Let me put it this way. By definition (according to the faithful) God is omniscient. God knows he is omniscient and has no doubt or even the possibility of doubt because doubt would imply he is not omniscient. Since God is omniscient (premise) is there any way he could be wrong about being omniscient? No. So therefore the issue of him not knowing if he is omniscient and that making him less than omniscient is moot. Its logically impossible given the premise.
@michalchik This all hinges on the presence of doubt, but you'll notice that my argument doesn't involve doubt. When I ask if god could ever know that it's the highest being or know that it knows everything, I'm not proposing that god would be in doubt. Doubt is a RECOGNIZED uncertainty in knowledge. My argument only proposes that it would not be possible for god to know, it's not about whether or not the being would recognize its own inability to know.
@TaylorX04 I agree with your point but I still feel like you are missing mine. I find it difficult to explain. Let me try again. God is certain that he does not just think he is omniscient because he is defined as knowing. He does not acquire knowledge, he does not have evidence, he can not be fooled by a great God because the premise is he is unfoolable.
There could be a god that thinks he is omniscient but isn't but Christian's will just claim that is not one they worship.
@michalchik I get your point and I'm aware of what they will claim, but the point is that you can't simply define a being into omniscience based on its own "testimony" about itself.
@TaylorX04 Here I agree. Your argument is an effective one against people claiming that God is omniscient because he believes so.
It is not an effective argument against people claiming that God is omniscient by definition or by faith or the claim that if a god exists that only thinks he is omniscient, that is not the one I worship or the omniscience is logically impossible.
I wasn't sure which point you were trying to disprove.
@michalchik But that's just the thing, isn't it - where else are they claiming to have learned that god is omniscient? If it's revelation of any kind, that's supposedly god revealing himself, or what he believes about himself. I don't think most believers even think humans can reason to the omniscience of god.
@TaylorX04 That's a good point. Most believers do just take God at his word. I guess I am used to thinking about the way apologists would deal with an issue like this,.
oh for all your hateful people who've commented on my posts, Burger flipping, and such btw, you've all been feeding my Troll fuckers...lmao...you got Trolled... bitches... who's stupid now
@Cadzie442 You've only trolled yourself if that's true. If you're gonna troll, at least learn how to do it right without making yourself look like a retarded dumbass.
(con't- END) Having said all this however... I can understand the questioning of God's omnipotence, considering it appears to all of us, as if there is no God watching over us at all! How could there be, when there's so much death, destruction, inhumanity, etc. going on all around us? What kind of "God" would allow this?!
It sort of reminds me of that famous Jewish question: "Could God make a mountain so big that even HE can't move it?"
(con't) So while it seems as though God is not present in our lives (which is true to an extent: we are unable to sense Him, using only just our 5 senses), He's really been "behind the scenes" of everything, calculating & re-calculating our futures, based upon the choices we make NOW.
We're still responsible for our own destinies... just because he KNOWS where we're headed, based upon the path we're choosing now, doesn't mean our futures couldn't be different, if we chose to take another path.
Hi Taylor! I think what people don't consider, is how God *restricts* Himself, so that we can have a Free Choice. It's not that He doesn't know the future, but if He warned us about it cearly... where would the free choice be?
Where would be the Free Choice, if every time we made a sin, we were able to see the DIRECT consequence of that sin?
Also, part of this *restriction* is also an analogy to the Big Bang. God *restricting* Himself, to create a space where His creatures could live. (con't)
Your mental gymnastics still don't answer a fundamental flaw in the idea that God is both infinitely loving and omniscient: If God knows what we are going to do on Earth, why make us suffer through life at all?
If you have set up an experiment to shoot a paintball at a wall to see what pattern it makes, but you know before-hand with 100% certainty what the pattern will be, what good is the experiment? (cont)
@Lowraith - (con't- END) But if you were able to take a look at the baby RIGHT before he died, as an 80 year old man, and see how stingy he was, how horrible he was to his wife, how nasty he was to his kids, etc... then you'd understand!
So what we all have to do as human beings, is work on OURSELVES to correct these major character flaws inside us, so that our passage through lifetimes is not as impossible & horrible as it seems!
It really is all up to US- not a "God" to save us all.
What evidence do you have to support this hypothesis that everyone deserves everything good and bad that happens to them because of past lives?
And, seriously, that is a rather immature way of viewing the world. All it serves to do is excuse you from having to take responsibility for anything. "Why help that man being robbed? Surely he must have done something in a past life to deserve being attacked, so I will do nothing, lalala." That is pretty irresponsible...
@Lowraith - Oh my goodness! There is sooo much evidence out there that Reincarnation is fact! Not fiction! In America alone, the number of people who have reported experiencing these past-lives or having out-of-body experiences when they reached a clinical death, is staggering! And I believe, all over the world, the number of people who died, but then came back to life & reported what they "saw", is around 30 million! And most of them tell the SAME STORY or very similar ones!
And it's not "irresponsible" to claim that people (not devils or demons, etc) are going to be held accountable for their actions! We are absolutely responsible for what we do\did, and it's up to all of us to correct these mistakes, by living a full & compassionate life NOW. There's nothing we can do about the mistakes that we've made in the past, except to correct them here in the present, so that our next life (or life in the hereafter) will be more pleasant.
"the number of people who have reported [...] experiences when they reached a clinical death, is"... utterly irrelevant! This is called hearsay. That basically means "not evidence". Look it up.
But this aside, you aren't even using the word "evidence" correctly here. Evidence is something that NECESSARILY leads to one conlcusion.
What other less-simple, non-supernatural explanations can expain these "common" near-death experiences? Oxygen deprevation in the human brain. Our brains are all structured the same way, so the experience of dying should be the same. Also, these same experiences have been reported by people on hallucinogens, who aren't dead, but whose brains malfunction in a similar way to those close to death.
"having out-of-body experiences when they reached a clinical death"
By the way: The above sentence is meaningless. Clinical death is not actual death. We don't know enough about actual death yet to really define it. So claiming any experiences near or during a clinical death as proof of anything is kind of silly. This is like saying "something weird happened during that event we don't understand, so SURELY this means that my supernatural assumptions are fact!"
"the number of people who died, but then came back to life"
Is exactly zero. No one has ever completely died and then been ressurrected. Again, clinical death is not actually death. And what exaclty would "kind of" dying be? Nothing, because you're still alive.
And "past-life" experiences? Deja Vu, dreams, fuzzy memories, etc. The fact that we have more than one possible explanation means this does not NECESSARILY conclude "reincarnation", and is therefore not evidence of it. Proof is starting with no conclusion and the sum of evidence leads us to only one. If there are multiple conclusions, then the evidence does not lead us anywhere. It means we need more evidence, and forming ANY conclusion is irresponsible and naive.
"And it's not "irresponsible" to claim that people [...] are going to be held accountable for their actions!" Yeah, it is. Not interviening when an evil man acts because you think the universe will punish him if you don't IS irresponsible.
@Lowraith - "Not interviening when an evil man acts because you think the universe will punish him if you don't IS irresponsible."
What?! When did I say this?! Wow! You're making a LOT of assumptions about what I believe! I never said I believe the "Universe" will punish the evil so we don't need to bother w\intervening! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!
To the contary, I was attempting to avoid making assumptions about your personal beliefs. There are hundreds of flavors of every religious/supernatural belief, so I typically argue against the general supernatural belief closest to the ideals expressed by an individual, until they more specifically define their personal flavor of that belief. My arguments were against a general conceptualization of reincarnation.
Best case, a supernatural belief will not be expressed. A person will take action based on their personal morality, then use their supernatural belief afterward to give context and meaning to those actions.
Worst case, a supernatural belief will dictate the actions of an individual. It will alter their personal morality after the fact to justify those actions. The net value of a belief in a general scope will average somewhere between the best and worst cases.
"There's nothing we can do about [past mistakes], except to correct them here in the present" Yes. In a single life.
"so that our [next/afterlife] will be more pleasant" What an immature, IMMORAL belief. We should fix our mistakes because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO and expect no reward for doing so. Doing good because you believe in reincarnation or heaven/hell is the same thing as insisting you get paid for feeding the homeless at a soup kitchen.
@Lowraith - No, you don't do good BECAUSE you "believe" in reincarnation. And people's concepts of Heaven\Hell are very Greek-inspired, very mythical, etc. and aren't at all what those words ACTUALLY mean. When people think of "Heaven" they think little baby angels w\wing & harps, and when they think of "Hell" they think of a Hades-like underworld, where people poke you in naughty places w\tridents. (lol)
This isn't at ALL what I "believe in" mate. I don't live my life for "belief" anyway.
Ultimately, your attempts to provide evidence of your undemonstrable belief are anecdotal. This means that you pick and choose, and focus only on events or claims that are compatible your belief in the first place, and ignore any evidence to the contrary. This is also known as "leading the evidence", rather than "following the evidence". This is unscientific, intellectually dishonest, and invalid as proof or evidence.
@Lowraith - Of course I don't only decide on what to believe in, based on... whatever sounds good enough to me! (lol) I do what YOU do! I do research! I study! I look these things up! I change my mind, when better evidence presents, itself, etc! If I didn't... I would have never left Christianity, and I'd still be praying to a dead guy & believing HE'S responsible for the state of my soul- or of who I am! Come on!
I wasn't trying to get you to accept reincarnation. You don't have to!
"I change my mind, when better evidence presents, itself, etc!"
I hope so. I also hope you consider what I've said regarding the statements you accepted as evidence of reincarnation. Evidence of a conclusion must necessitate that conclusion. It should not easily lead to other possible conclusions in addition to the one you think it evidences, and it should lead you to the conlcusion, no the other way around.
My sincerest congratulations. As a former Christian myself, I understand how hard it is to break free of the circular reasoning, fear/threats of eternal torment, and the stigma placed on you by your Christian friends/family. Religion is a drug, and it can be hard to quit cold turkey. I briefly considered reincarnation as a stepping stone down from Christianity. But I never fooled myself into thinking there was evidence of it.
@Lowraith - Many thanks for your responses, Lowraith! It's nice to hear another person tell me they understand what I'm going through, w\regard to leaving Christianity. Only another "victim" of this kind of brainwashing could fully understand the pain & effort it took to break out of that, to let our families down, etc. But we had to do it, once we saw it was all based on myth & too much "belief", vs. attaining real knowledge about anything.
What kind of sadistic God would make us all suffer through life to "test us" when He knows damn well what we'll do already? Why not just opt to only create those souls that He already knows would pass His test in Heaven to begin with, and avoid creating all the souls that would end up damned to Hell? This God concept is irrational and cruel.
Life becomes utterly meaningless under an all-knowing God.
@Lowraith - I completely understand your sentiments... but the reason we end up the way we do in Life DOES have to do w\our choices! Whether from this life, or the last. (Depending on whether or not you accept Reincarnation as fact or not. And reincarnation doesn't demand that you believe in a God to accept it.)
But OUR choices are what puts us in the position we're in! When you see a sick child for example... what did he do to deserve it? Well, nothing in THIS life!
Kay I didn't wanna do this, Taylor, but since you've been nothing but insulting, your taking something you've read out of one of current Popular Athiest authors Books, and making seem here like it's your Idea, so I have informed Said author of your plagiarism... you left me no choice you little fuck
@Cadzie442 You won't even say what book or author it is while you accuse me of plagiarism, you cowardly little sack of shit. None of this video has been plagiarized from anything.
@Cadzie442 I see you say below that I plagiarized Richard Dawkins. You say it's a "current Popular Athiest" book, but Dawkins' last atheist book was The God Delusion, about 5 years ago. I have a copy right here. You could mention the page numbers and totally own me, but I'll bet that you won't say shit because you even know you're a lying fucktard asswipe. You're sinking about as low as you can go with these false accusations.
@Cadzie442 Oh, I'm plagiarizing Dawkins and Lovecraft and Poe too? Ha, you're so full of shit. It's sad when you're so out of ideas that you just start tossing around accusations that anyone with half a brain can see are completely untrue.
An omnipotent being could create a being in a sandbox who thought it was omnipotent while being unaware of anything outside the sandbox but still aware of the possiblity of an outside. So it could be gods all the way up. Given a possible infinite number of gods, the chance that one of them came into being uncaused should approach unity, however unlikely that might be. Good luck with Pascal's Wager choosing the right one.
@8WholeThing "it could be gods all the way up." - Haha, that's exactly what I thought while making this video. It's why the first cause argument has to arbitrarily decide that god is the only uncaused cause.
@TaylorX04 This video is a killer argument. Even a god can't be certain of its cause. A god could be a brain in a vat, plugged into the Matrix, a computer simulation, or a dream of Krishna. That puts them in the same boat any other sentient being but hardly worthy of being called a god. Until I see this argument refuted, I renounce the agnostic label in favor of pure atheist.
@8WholeThing Let's also try our best to free ourselves of that portion of agnosticism which deals with being undecided. Either you believe something or not. If you don't, even if you have done zero research, you are an atheist.
Holy shit! Is this an original argument or did you get the idea from somewhere? The response I can imagine hearing is that god's way of "knowing" is different from our perception of knowing, so he "just knows". It's a lame and unsupportable assertion, but a conversation stopper nonetheless.
another my imaginary friend or non-friend is better then yours, where the author of the video uses alot of big words and hokem to make him self sound smart, then throws in some DethKlok at beginning and end...
@Cadzie442 Except this has nothing to do with "my imaginary friend or non-friend is better than yours," and if the words in this video are "big" to you, then maybe you need to just go ahead and get back to your burger-flipping job.
@TaylorX04 I like you, and I agree with you, but calling an idiot like Cadzie442 a burger-flipper is condescending of all burger-flippers and I demand an apology.
@TaylorX04 I design video game graphics silly boy, you proaby flip burgers and got kicked out of youth group for harassing the girls/guys for dates... I don't judge
@Cadzie442 Your insults are so laughably bad. I don't really care what you do, I was only drawing attention to the fact that you completely missed the point of the video in how you summed it up. And what's wrong about getting kicked out of youth group? Are you some kind of Christ puncher?
@TaylorX04 I make video games, and your video sucks... your like all christians who sell god, but your proaby all oh I hate life, and god hates you, but your proaby picking out lip gloss at hot topic in your angst... flip that on your burger biznatch
@TaylorX04 and yet you theorize that there are other gods, that their god is not aware of... and so on and so really? if you believe in no god, why are you talking about this non-being so much, your like the rabid christians who try to sell god on people, but you are doing the same bullshit they do, you take what something says and put your own spin what god is, or what it's not, why not just not believe in anything at all? as Shakespeare said "I dost think the lady protest too much"
@Cadzie442 Have you never heard of the concept of granting something for the sake of argument? You of all people have no room to quote Shakespeare, as you've persistently demonstrated your own stupidity. Now don't you have a shitty video game to work on?
LOL, you're just an artist! Do you think this qualifies you to somehow judge the logical soundness and professional success of others? Congratulations, you're good at using software other people wrote for simple users to be able to draw pretty pictures. Maybe if you had studied logic instead of the color wheel you'd understand the point this video is making.
-A game dev at one of the largest software companies in the world.
@ Cadzie442 TaylorX04 makes like he says ' Who created the creator?' a VALID question.
It is the ever eternal regression-- It is the reason of why we may never know ,where did it all come from..I do not mean just this universe; as there may be others.
Maybe our brains are not wired to understand it all.
Try teaching your cat algebra -- Its brain is not wired to understand the concept. This is one of the better channels out there - He has some great points
@Dionysus5252 you rant at me for 3 segments and then CAPSLOCK peace at, 12 years old much?... donnu if your brain is wired right to get anything, mister taylor told me to go back to my job flipping burgers, I make video games, that he proaby spends all day playing... my brain is wired different from others so I would know, PEACE OUT BIZNATCH
Another problem with omniscience is that it makes it impossible for God to have free will. Since "he" already knows every action he is ever going to take, he can't freely choose to do something else. Without free will he is not omnipotent and knowing everything in advance he can't feel responsive emotions like anger or joy.
@taylorx04 When I first met god she granted me one question. I must admit, as an atheist, I was surprised and pleased by this. God, I said, you know as an unrepentant sinner I picked up an evil jinn that cannot part from me until he grants me a wish. Thankfully, he told me the nature of our bond: he will curse any wish I make. Ever since, I have felt his spirit within me--even here--and I have yet to make a wish. Since you are all knowing god, please tell me what to wish for. God was silent.
And thats why gnostic christianity makes more sense than orthodoxy. Only a truley deluded being could find himself to be perfectly merciful loving and capable of enacting eternal on a single soul.
@playerwithfaith This deals with the concept of god, but it's still left to speculation whether or not a particular being, like Yahweh or Jesus, fits the profile. I don't see that as wiggle room at all. ;-)
@TaylorX04 And unfortunately, that ends with the theist basically changing the definition of God to the God of the bible. Defining good as God and god as good, and all that fun circular nonsense.
I didn't mean their wiggle room gave them a valid criticism, I meant it gave them a chance to escape and wander into their territory of defining God into existence.
Still a good point though. All knowledge of everything can never be gained, even by an impossibly improbable magical father figure.
@playerwithfaith "This is because it is greater to have more knowledge than less knowledge." Knowledge has to be acquired. We can then ask where did this knowledge come from and what was the status of the omniscient being before the consumption of all knowledge was complete?
@pilgrimpater Not necessarily. For humans knowledge has to be acquired. Who says that Gods have to acquire it? If you are truly omniscient then you know everything, even the future, so there is no way to obtain new knowledge if you already have all the knowledge there is.
@playerwithfaith I am not arguing against the theory that a god could be omniscient but as you hint, that omniscience necessitates existing in the past, present & future. The knowledge, at least in part, must be external to that god & hence must be acquired. It also means that god cannot question it's own existence & hence be even aware of it.
Btw i am never impressed with the theist argument that god is timeless/spacelles until one of them can explain what it really means.
@playerwithfaith "it is greater to have more knowledge than less knowledge." The term greater is logically problematic because of the nature of knowledge: it is gained by only by dividing parts and is based upon comparison (think of the tree of knowledge). Understanding, on the other hand, is gained by unifying parts into a larger whole (think of the tree of life). One can argue that the greater god would understand all and have no need of divisiveness. If so, less knowledge would be greater.
@0gods The "greater" term used here is indeed problematic for a number of different propositions in Anselm, but I think it still works for knowledge. Knowledge is quantifiable, there is only a certain amount of it, so its easy to say 7>6. Your interpretation of knowledge is based on how our brains work, God wouldn't have to have a human brain. The greater God could understand knowledge without having to unify parts into a larger whole or by dividing it.
@playerwithfaith My definition is not based upon how the brain works but upon the inherent properties of knowledge. Think of an example of anything a god could express meaningfully without division and comparison. Knowledge emanates from within something and, therefore, only has meaning by comparison of its parts. You can confirm this by looking at the etymology. If the word is not used to mean the product of such a process when applied to a god, it is being used incorrectly.
@playerwithfaith The greatest conceivable being is limited by the conceptual ability of the conceiver, no? Psychologically faitheists are predisposed to believe that which strengthens their beliefs, as such conceiving of something higher is inconceivable, or something :D
@COEXISTential haha well done. Literally an argument for ignorance against the believer.
And yeah, not every theologian even agrees with Anselm, many of them think humans can't conceive of God or his actions. They get to use their favorite excuse for things this way: "His ways are above our ways", or "God acts in mysterious ways".
It's particularly useful in justifying the atrocities of the bible. "God killed all those babies for a greater good we cannot conceive of"" sort of shtick.
nice video. I've thought about this alot as well: How can "God" be sure that he is all there is? Maybe he knows all that is possible for it to know. Still, there could always be something else...
I believe that it was Richard Dawkins who defined "god" as an entity or being that isn't a result of some evolutionary process, and any entity or being that is doesn't deserve the title of God or worship no matter how powerful it is. It would seem, also, that a created being could not deservedly take the title of a god.
@Cathmoytura A good point, and yet another reason why it's important to ask if a being that would claim to be a god could actually be a god when there's this distinct possibility that it is created by something unknown to itself.
King Heathen pointed out that Yahweh's being all-knowing AND all-powerful is logically impossible. To know everything, the future would have to be decided. Set in stone. Meaning that not even God could change it, hence, NOT all-powerful. If he can change the future, then the future is fluid and it's impossible for even God to know exactly for a certainty that it WILL happen. Then there's the whole "free will" can of worms!
@RadarKat73080 Yeah, Free-will is incompatible with omniscience. If God knows I am going to eat oatmeal for breakfast tommorow, then I have no choice but to eat that oatmeal otherwise I would prove God wrong. I may think I can choose the corn flakes, but that is an illusion.
Between this and the conflict of omni-power and omni-knowledge, christianity as a religion is pretty much demonstrably false. No need to play games with burden of proof like one needs to do with deists.
Definitely an interesting idea. Though, as a rule I'm not in favor of negative arguments, since that's how you end up with "How do you know there aren't aliens?" or "Do you have evidence that the lock ness monster isn't real?" and so on.
As you know the Bible talks multiple times about multiple Gods. Discussing the quality's of god (not with a capital G) tends to fanciful and speculative with no grounds in the Bible it self. I recommend Dan Barkers Loosing faith in faith, where he goes in detail through the claims of gods supernatural qualities and shreds these speculative arguments in the same clever fashion that you do here. Thanks a lot for everything you have posted. I am a great admirer. Merry Xmas from Iceland.
I don't think I agree with all your logic, TaylorX04. But I do think there's one thing a god could never know for sure: where he came from/what created him/what came before him.
I don't see how any sort of "mind" could honestly make the claim that it "always existed." How could it possibly know THAT?
@GetMeThere1 That's not really that different from the point I'm making in the video. It may one day be possible for us to one day create AI that we give memories that it never actually experienced. In the same way, how do we know that a higher being couldn't have done such a thing with Yahweh/Jesus/Allah?
@EdwardHowton You are in deep trouble sir! Now that you have demonstrated to yourself that there is an insane god, the Camerons and other folk are actually not crazy. So there is no need to explain their existence. Which means your insane god doesn't exist ... which puts you back at square one!
@TaylorX04, maybe a bit off topic. What kind of arguments are made for the morality and goodness of God? How do apologists address the simple argument God could be deceiving people.
@supersoulfly I believe the accepted argument is that it's not in god's nature to be immoral. Quite how theists "know" this is anyone's guess, maybe they just made it up... Who knows ;)
@supersoulfly For the morality and goodness of god, there are usually appeals to experience, from what I've seen. "He sent his son to die on the cross"... "He healed so-and-so". It's also often said that goodness is god's nature, but there is never really an attempt at justifying it. The morality of god seems to be an article of faith. I actually asked the same question about a deceitful god in my video "Free Will vs. Evil."
your 'logic' seems to be bouncing on one thing to another as though they chained in consistency when they are simply... bouncing. "what if insert" and then saying "therefore also, what if insert" isnt exactly valid. youre just taking shots based on "what ifs". okay to ask questions and being a skeptic. and I will applaud you if as you mentioned in a comment that you find that Yahweh dont seem to fit the profile of a Supreme Being but to completely rule out a Supreme Being wouldnt be too wise
The "god is eternal" "argument" is just so piss poor, I really feel sorry for the dim witted fuckers that have to tout it as an "explanation" for the question "where did god come from". Have they never heard of special pleading... Really!
THE most insightful video regarding religion I've watched in a long time. It is unfortunate that >90% of videos due to the Youtube atheist community end up repeating the same counter-arguments and catchphrases over and over.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I am the highest being. And I deem both atheist and Christians highly annoying. My 1st and most important commandment is.... That they both shut the fuck up.
@TaylorX04 I presented what you wrote to many Christians who hold the position that there are secular sources that confirm the historicity of Jesus and the reply I received was not something I expected. They pointed out that there is a "Scholarly Consensus Regarding Jesus Performing Miracles"
@surshot56 I just sent you a private message about your comments. Let's please keep further discussion to PMs, to avoid unrelated comments on these videos. Thanks.
@TaylorX04 I'm sorry for the many post, but they also talked about some archaeological evidence such as, Jerusalem being rebuilt after the Babylonian exile, the Temple was rebuilt a decree issued to do this, Jesus appearing on a time schedule dated from the decree, Jesus dying shortly afterward, the city of Jerusalem then destroyed within 40 years, one generation of Jesus' death related to Jesus' death the temple also destroyed within one generation 40 years of Jesus' death
@TaylorX04 related to Jesus' death, the Jews losing Isreal by being taken captive into all the nations, all specifically predicted beforehand by the Bible.
This was the response I received when I referred them to your website. They also discredited your findings since you're not a scholar. I would like to know what you think and please get back to me. BTW, if there are no secular sources for Jesus, why do they keep acting like they exist?
@Alanf15 I wondered how long it would be before I got a comment like this. I get your point, but I also see no problem in occasionally going along with an idea for the sake of argument. In my opinion, it's not only the lack of evidence for god that makes atheism such a strong position, but it's also all those things that work against the existence of particular gods.
@MardasMan Unknowable in what sense? Unknowable to us, I would think that most theists will say yes. Unknowable in every sense? I'm not sure what that would even constitute, which is partly why I have a problem with the "all that can be known" definition of omniscience. Still, I see no logical contradiction in the possibility of knowing or not knowing that there is a higher being than yourself.
I use Wikipedia, I know far less then a God, he he. Actually Wiki is pretty good as a starting point because nerds with a reputation write this stuff. Nerds want what they contribute to be kept right. It's a nerd thing. You know what I mean, right nerd? He he. I love your stuff :-)
@bigboy45454545 Yeah, Wikipedia gets a bad reputation, but I find their mistakes are often corrected in very little time, and are usually easy to spot. Of course, I try to avoid using it for more serious discussions, though it's a great resource for finding scholarly material to check out.
If the god of the bible really was omniscient, then there would be no reason for him to keep getting so angry in the old testament. He supposedly knows in advance what is going to happen from the first second to the last, but still acts surprised.
God makes Adam.
Adam eats the forbidden fruit.
God gets angry at Adam for eating the fruit.
He knew everything in advance, but still designed Adam so that he would eat the fruit. God is an idiot.
It also means that free will is complete rubbish.
TychoCelchu 1 month ago 3
I say "all-knowing" is a logical impossibility. no being can fully know itself and you've basically said that in this vid. I'd buy VERY knowledgeable but not ALL-knowing.
Could a god that always existed know his origins? or know his purpose in waiting for all eternity before creating anything? it's all fictional meaningless mumbo jumbo that philosophers love to wallow in.
TruthSurge 1 month ago
Still Winning
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 lol no.
dioseolo 2 months ago
(cont) Problem is that God by xian definition is omniscient and omniscient beings never have to figure anything out, they just know. If god is omniscient, he axiomatically knows he is omniscient without thought, evidence or proof, the loop is closed. Of course I don't believe this sort of solipsistic crap but Christians like defining things into existence so I don't think you have found a chink in that notion. Frankly I think that omnipotence is a deeper problem logically.
michalchik 2 months ago
Interesting argument, but I think it is begging the question ("petitio principii") or maybe assuming the consequent in a tricky way. You are essentially assuming that God is not omniscient and then correctly point out that non omniscient beings can think they are omniscient. An omniscient god would also think he was omniscient and since these two things are indistinguishable, an omniscient god would never know if he was omniscient. (cont)
michalchik 2 months ago
@michalchik I don't have to assume that god is not omniscient because I'm simply asking how any purportedly divine being would possibly know if it's omniscient at all. It is the difference between true omniscience and the illusion of omniscience. Theists don't get to simply define omniscience into god, because not all gods are omniscient, and the very thing this argument questions is the possibility of true omniscience. So no, I don't see that it begs the question at all.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 Let me put it this way. By definition (according to the faithful) God is omniscient. God knows he is omniscient and has no doubt or even the possibility of doubt because doubt would imply he is not omniscient. Since God is omniscient (premise) is there any way he could be wrong about being omniscient? No. So therefore the issue of him not knowing if he is omniscient and that making him less than omniscient is moot. Its logically impossible given the premise.
michalchik 2 months ago
@michalchik There is no contradiction, just a solipsism.
michalchik 2 months ago
@michalchik This all hinges on the presence of doubt, but you'll notice that my argument doesn't involve doubt. When I ask if god could ever know that it's the highest being or know that it knows everything, I'm not proposing that god would be in doubt. Doubt is a RECOGNIZED uncertainty in knowledge. My argument only proposes that it would not be possible for god to know, it's not about whether or not the being would recognize its own inability to know.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 I agree with your point but I still feel like you are missing mine. I find it difficult to explain. Let me try again. God is certain that he does not just think he is omniscient because he is defined as knowing. He does not acquire knowledge, he does not have evidence, he can not be fooled by a great God because the premise is he is unfoolable.
There could be a god that thinks he is omniscient but isn't but Christian's will just claim that is not one they worship.
michalchik 2 months ago
@michalchik I get your point and I'm aware of what they will claim, but the point is that you can't simply define a being into omniscience based on its own "testimony" about itself.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 Here I agree. Your argument is an effective one against people claiming that God is omniscient because he believes so.
It is not an effective argument against people claiming that God is omniscient by definition or by faith or the claim that if a god exists that only thinks he is omniscient, that is not the one I worship or the omniscience is logically impossible.
I wasn't sure which point you were trying to disprove.
michalchik 2 months ago
@michalchik But that's just the thing, isn't it - where else are they claiming to have learned that god is omniscient? If it's revelation of any kind, that's supposedly god revealing himself, or what he believes about himself. I don't think most believers even think humans can reason to the omniscience of god.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 That's a good point. Most believers do just take God at his word. I guess I am used to thinking about the way apologists would deal with an issue like this,.
michalchik 2 months ago
oh for all your hateful people who've commented on my posts, Burger flipping, and such btw, you've all been feeding my Troll fuckers...lmao...you got Trolled... bitches... who's stupid now
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 You've only trolled yourself if that's true. If you're gonna troll, at least learn how to do it right without making yourself look like a retarded dumbass.
TaylorX04 2 months ago 3
@TaylorX04 Umad
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 Fail.
dioseolo 2 months ago
@dioseolo Try, there no fail you angst driven teenage dirtbags
Cadzie442 2 months ago
Comment removed
dioseolo 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 English or Spanish, please. I don't speak Moron.
dioseolo 2 months ago
A very well thought-out video. Thanks.
function13 2 months ago
(con't- END) Having said all this however... I can understand the questioning of God's omnipotence, considering it appears to all of us, as if there is no God watching over us at all! How could there be, when there's so much death, destruction, inhumanity, etc. going on all around us? What kind of "God" would allow this?!
It sort of reminds me of that famous Jewish question: "Could God make a mountain so big that even HE can't move it?"
The answer is: Yes! If he *restricts* Himself!
Thanks!
KabbalahSherry 2 months ago
(con't) So while it seems as though God is not present in our lives (which is true to an extent: we are unable to sense Him, using only just our 5 senses), He's really been "behind the scenes" of everything, calculating & re-calculating our futures, based upon the choices we make NOW.
We're still responsible for our own destinies... just because he KNOWS where we're headed, based upon the path we're choosing now, doesn't mean our futures couldn't be different, if we chose to take another path.
KabbalahSherry 2 months ago
Hi Taylor! I think what people don't consider, is how God *restricts* Himself, so that we can have a Free Choice. It's not that He doesn't know the future, but if He warned us about it cearly... where would the free choice be?
Where would be the Free Choice, if every time we made a sin, we were able to see the DIRECT consequence of that sin?
Also, part of this *restriction* is also an analogy to the Big Bang. God *restricting* Himself, to create a space where His creatures could live. (con't)
KabbalahSherry 2 months ago
@KabbalahSherry
Your mental gymnastics still don't answer a fundamental flaw in the idea that God is both infinitely loving and omniscient: If God knows what we are going to do on Earth, why make us suffer through life at all?
If you have set up an experiment to shoot a paintball at a wall to see what pattern it makes, but you know before-hand with 100% certainty what the pattern will be, what good is the experiment? (cont)
Lowraith 2 months ago
@Lowraith - (con't- END) But if you were able to take a look at the baby RIGHT before he died, as an 80 year old man, and see how stingy he was, how horrible he was to his wife, how nasty he was to his kids, etc... then you'd understand!
So what we all have to do as human beings, is work on OURSELVES to correct these major character flaws inside us, so that our passage through lifetimes is not as impossible & horrible as it seems!
It really is all up to US- not a "God" to save us all.
KabbalahSherry 2 months ago
@KabbalahSherry
What evidence do you have to support this hypothesis that everyone deserves everything good and bad that happens to them because of past lives?
And, seriously, that is a rather immature way of viewing the world. All it serves to do is excuse you from having to take responsibility for anything. "Why help that man being robbed? Surely he must have done something in a past life to deserve being attacked, so I will do nothing, lalala." That is pretty irresponsible...
Lowraith 2 months ago
@Lowraith - Oh my goodness! There is sooo much evidence out there that Reincarnation is fact! Not fiction! In America alone, the number of people who have reported experiencing these past-lives or having out-of-body experiences when they reached a clinical death, is staggering! And I believe, all over the world, the number of people who died, but then came back to life & reported what they "saw", is around 30 million! And most of them tell the SAME STORY or very similar ones!
(con't)
KabbalahSherry 2 months ago
@Lowraith - (con't - END)
And it's not "irresponsible" to claim that people (not devils or demons, etc) are going to be held accountable for their actions! We are absolutely responsible for what we do\did, and it's up to all of us to correct these mistakes, by living a full & compassionate life NOW. There's nothing we can do about the mistakes that we've made in the past, except to correct them here in the present, so that our next life (or life in the hereafter) will be more pleasant.
Thanks!
KabbalahSherry 2 months ago
@KabbalahSherry
"There is sooo much evidence out there that Reincarnation is fact!"
I find that hard to believe, considering the amount of difficulty you are having in providing any. Your "proof":
People "saw the light" near death. (hearsay, anecdote)
People "died", then "came back", and reported similar experiences. (hearsay, anecdote)
People "rememeber" a "previous life". (hearsay, anecdote)
Hmm, I'm seeing a problematic trend in your "evidence"... But let's take a closer look.
Lowraith 2 months ago
@KabbalahSherry
"the number of people who have reported [...] experiences when they reached a clinical death, is"... utterly irrelevant! This is called hearsay. That basically means "not evidence". Look it up.
But this aside, you aren't even using the word "evidence" correctly here. Evidence is something that NECESSARILY leads to one conlcusion.
Lowraith 2 months ago
@KabbalahSherry
What other less-simple, non-supernatural explanations can expain these "common" near-death experiences? Oxygen deprevation in the human brain. Our brains are all structured the same way, so the experience of dying should be the same. Also, these same experiences have been reported by people on hallucinogens, who aren't dead, but whose brains malfunction in a similar way to those close to death.
Lowraith 2 months ago
@KabbalahSherry
"having out-of-body experiences when they reached a clinical death"
By the way: The above sentence is meaningless. Clinical death is not actual death. We don't know enough about actual death yet to really define it. So claiming any experiences near or during a clinical death as proof of anything is kind of silly. This is like saying "something weird happened during that event we don't understand, so SURELY this means that my supernatural assumptions are fact!"
Lowraith 2 months ago
@KabbalahSherry
"the number of people who died, but then came back to life"
Is exactly zero. No one has ever completely died and then been ressurrected. Again, clinical death is not actually death. And what exaclty would "kind of" dying be? Nothing, because you're still alive.
Lowraith 2 months ago
@KabbalahSherry
And "past-life" experiences? Deja Vu, dreams, fuzzy memories, etc. The fact that we have more than one possible explanation means this does not NECESSARILY conclude "reincarnation", and is therefore not evidence of it. Proof is starting with no conclusion and the sum of evidence leads us to only one. If there are multiple conclusions, then the evidence does not lead us anywhere. It means we need more evidence, and forming ANY conclusion is irresponsible and naive.
Lowraith 2 months ago
@KabbalahSherry
"And it's not "irresponsible" to claim that people [...] are going to be held accountable for their actions!" Yeah, it is. Not interviening when an evil man acts because you think the universe will punish him if you don't IS irresponsible.
Lowraith 2 months ago
@Lowraith - "Not interviening when an evil man acts because you think the universe will punish him if you don't IS irresponsible."
What?! When did I say this?! Wow! You're making a LOT of assumptions about what I believe! I never said I believe the "Universe" will punish the evil so we don't need to bother w\intervening! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard!
KabbalahSherry 1 month ago
@KabbalahSherry
To the contary, I was attempting to avoid making assumptions about your personal beliefs. There are hundreds of flavors of every religious/supernatural belief, so I typically argue against the general supernatural belief closest to the ideals expressed by an individual, until they more specifically define their personal flavor of that belief. My arguments were against a general conceptualization of reincarnation.
Lowraith 1 month ago
@KabbalahSherry
Best case, a supernatural belief will not be expressed. A person will take action based on their personal morality, then use their supernatural belief afterward to give context and meaning to those actions.
Worst case, a supernatural belief will dictate the actions of an individual. It will alter their personal morality after the fact to justify those actions. The net value of a belief in a general scope will average somewhere between the best and worst cases.
Lowraith 1 month ago
@KabbalahSherry
"There's nothing we can do about [past mistakes], except to correct them here in the present" Yes. In a single life.
"so that our [next/afterlife] will be more pleasant" What an immature, IMMORAL belief. We should fix our mistakes because it's the RIGHT THING TO DO and expect no reward for doing so. Doing good because you believe in reincarnation or heaven/hell is the same thing as insisting you get paid for feeding the homeless at a soup kitchen.
Lowraith 2 months ago
@Lowraith - No, you don't do good BECAUSE you "believe" in reincarnation. And people's concepts of Heaven\Hell are very Greek-inspired, very mythical, etc. and aren't at all what those words ACTUALLY mean. When people think of "Heaven" they think little baby angels w\wing & harps, and when they think of "Hell" they think of a Hades-like underworld, where people poke you in naughty places w\tridents. (lol)
This isn't at ALL what I "believe in" mate. I don't live my life for "belief" anyway.
KabbalahSherry 1 month ago
@KabbalahSherry
"No, you don't do good BECAUSE you "believe" in reincarnation."
Good, glad to hear it :) Many people with that religious beliefs do, though. :/
Lowraith 1 month ago
@KabbalahSherry
Ultimately, your attempts to provide evidence of your undemonstrable belief are anecdotal. This means that you pick and choose, and focus only on events or claims that are compatible your belief in the first place, and ignore any evidence to the contrary. This is also known as "leading the evidence", rather than "following the evidence". This is unscientific, intellectually dishonest, and invalid as proof or evidence.
Lowraith 2 months ago
@Lowraith - Of course I don't only decide on what to believe in, based on... whatever sounds good enough to me! (lol) I do what YOU do! I do research! I study! I look these things up! I change my mind, when better evidence presents, itself, etc! If I didn't... I would have never left Christianity, and I'd still be praying to a dead guy & believing HE'S responsible for the state of my soul- or of who I am! Come on!
I wasn't trying to get you to accept reincarnation. You don't have to!
KabbalahSherry 1 month ago
@KabbalahSherry
"I change my mind, when better evidence presents, itself, etc!"
I hope so. I also hope you consider what I've said regarding the statements you accepted as evidence of reincarnation. Evidence of a conclusion must necessitate that conclusion. It should not easily lead to other possible conclusions in addition to the one you think it evidences, and it should lead you to the conlcusion, no the other way around.
Lowraith 1 month ago
@KabbalahSherry
"I would have never left Christianity"
My sincerest congratulations. As a former Christian myself, I understand how hard it is to break free of the circular reasoning, fear/threats of eternal torment, and the stigma placed on you by your Christian friends/family. Religion is a drug, and it can be hard to quit cold turkey. I briefly considered reincarnation as a stepping stone down from Christianity. But I never fooled myself into thinking there was evidence of it.
Lowraith 1 month ago
@Lowraith - Many thanks for your responses, Lowraith! It's nice to hear another person tell me they understand what I'm going through, w\regard to leaving Christianity. Only another "victim" of this kind of brainwashing could fully understand the pain & effort it took to break out of that, to let our families down, etc. But we had to do it, once we saw it was all based on myth & too much "belief", vs. attaining real knowledge about anything.
Thanks again!
KabbalahSherry 1 month ago
@KabbalahSherry
What kind of sadistic God would make us all suffer through life to "test us" when He knows damn well what we'll do already? Why not just opt to only create those souls that He already knows would pass His test in Heaven to begin with, and avoid creating all the souls that would end up damned to Hell? This God concept is irrational and cruel.
Life becomes utterly meaningless under an all-knowing God.
Lowraith 2 months ago
@Lowraith - I completely understand your sentiments... but the reason we end up the way we do in Life DOES have to do w\our choices! Whether from this life, or the last. (Depending on whether or not you accept Reincarnation as fact or not. And reincarnation doesn't demand that you believe in a God to accept it.)
But OUR choices are what puts us in the position we're in! When you see a sick child for example... what did he do to deserve it? Well, nothing in THIS life!
(con't)
KabbalahSherry 2 months ago
Some good points here, though I have to admit it stressed my mental capabilities to it's limit.
Anyway, theists would argue "by definition god knows everything".
It's the usual by-definition-crap they use to give their god(s) any attribute they want to and to slam any criticism as "non sensical".
Klobinator 2 months ago
Reading Cadzie442's failed attempts at English make my brain hurt..
Seakkon 2 months ago
Wonderfully said! I can't believe I hadn't thought of this argument before, but it's a crusher; I can't think of any sufficient counter.
MercuryShining 2 months ago
Kay I didn't wanna do this, Taylor, but since you've been nothing but insulting, your taking something you've read out of one of current Popular Athiest authors Books, and making seem here like it's your Idea, so I have informed Said author of your plagiarism... you left me no choice you little fuck
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 You won't even say what book or author it is while you accuse me of plagiarism, you cowardly little sack of shit. None of this video has been plagiarized from anything.
TaylorX04 2 months ago 4
@TaylorX04 you know who you ripped off, I'd expect to get sued, enjoy jail or debt... lol
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 I see you say below that I plagiarized Richard Dawkins. You say it's a "current Popular Athiest" book, but Dawkins' last atheist book was The God Delusion, about 5 years ago. I have a copy right here. You could mention the page numbers and totally own me, but I'll bet that you won't say shit because you even know you're a lying fucktard asswipe. You're sinking about as low as you can go with these false accusations.
TaylorX04 2 months ago 7
@TaylorX04 Don't worry, we'll take over from here and make these people that toss out false accusations show some shame.
Arcexey 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 read the conversation you had and gotta agree with taylor. You are definitely worthy of the title "stupid fuck".
TheLuckySaGe 2 months ago
@TheLuckySaGe yeah I geuss I'm stupid as he's plagarising Richard Dawkins.. I'd rather be stupid then being a thief
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 and HP Lovecraft while I'm at it, Edgar Allen Poe... Hurrah you fraud
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 Oh, I'm plagiarizing Dawkins and Lovecraft and Poe too? Ha, you're so full of shit. It's sad when you're so out of ideas that you just start tossing around accusations that anyone with half a brain can see are completely untrue.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
great video!
ItsEasyIfYouThink 2 months ago
An omnipotent being could create a being in a sandbox who thought it was omnipotent while being unaware of anything outside the sandbox but still aware of the possiblity of an outside. So it could be gods all the way up. Given a possible infinite number of gods, the chance that one of them came into being uncaused should approach unity, however unlikely that might be. Good luck with Pascal's Wager choosing the right one.
8WholeThing 2 months ago
@8WholeThing "it could be gods all the way up." - Haha, that's exactly what I thought while making this video. It's why the first cause argument has to arbitrarily decide that god is the only uncaused cause.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 This video is a killer argument. Even a god can't be certain of its cause. A god could be a brain in a vat, plugged into the Matrix, a computer simulation, or a dream of Krishna. That puts them in the same boat any other sentient being but hardly worthy of being called a god. Until I see this argument refuted, I renounce the agnostic label in favor of pure atheist.
8WholeThing 2 months ago
@8WholeThing Glad to help. ;-)
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@8WholeThing Let's also try our best to free ourselves of that portion of agnosticism which deals with being undecided. Either you believe something or not. If you don't, even if you have done zero research, you are an atheist.
Arcexey 2 months ago
Exactly ★★★★★
Katalyzt 2 months ago
The content of this video is suspiciously similar to a thread in 2+2...
murli486 2 months ago
@murli486 What is 2+2? Well, other than 4. :-p
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 forumserver.twoplustwo(dot)com/137/religion-god-theology/can-god-apply-cartesian-skepticism-1138122/
murli486 2 months ago
Holy shit! Is this an original argument or did you get the idea from somewhere? The response I can imagine hearing is that god's way of "knowing" is different from our perception of knowing, so he "just knows". It's a lame and unsupportable assertion, but a conversation stopper nonetheless.
YashinNashi 2 months ago
and i thought I'd heard all the back-and-forth on this issue. Cool angle!
mim0sabones 2 months ago
From now on, please put the intro/outro music credits in the description box, or something.
SSJ3Ulcer 2 months ago
Dechristianized! \m/
theshredator 2 months ago
another my imaginary friend or non-friend is better then yours, where the author of the video uses alot of big words and hokem to make him self sound smart, then throws in some DethKlok at beginning and end...
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 Except this has nothing to do with "my imaginary friend or non-friend is better than yours," and if the words in this video are "big" to you, then maybe you need to just go ahead and get back to your burger-flipping job.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 I like you, and I agree with you, but calling an idiot like Cadzie442 a burger-flipper is condescending of all burger-flippers and I demand an apology.
nuckable 2 months ago
@nuckable Condescending? Nah, I was just telling him to get back to what he does best.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 When I was young, I started out squirting ketchup and had to work my way up to flipping burgers.
8WholeThing 2 months ago
@TaylorX04
To shed some much needed light on this discussion, my own omniscience informs me that Cadzie442 makes Crabby Patties and not burgers.
exodus21v20 2 months ago
@nuckable nuckable, your shoulf change your name to Suckable, because you suck up so good, lol... your midget vacum cock sucker
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 Haha, the good old christian way. Thou shalt call people names when they disagree with you.
nuckable 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 I design video game graphics silly boy, you proaby flip burgers and got kicked out of youth group for harassing the girls/guys for dates... I don't judge
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 Your insults are so laughably bad. I don't really care what you do, I was only drawing attention to the fact that you completely missed the point of the video in how you summed it up. And what's wrong about getting kicked out of youth group? Are you some kind of Christ puncher?
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 I make video games, and your video sucks... your like all christians who sell god, but your proaby all oh I hate life, and god hates you, but your proaby picking out lip gloss at hot topic in your angst... flip that on your burger biznatch
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 I'm an atheist, you fucking retard, lol. Man, you really were completely clueless about this video.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 and yet you theorize that there are other gods, that their god is not aware of... and so on and so really? if you believe in no god, why are you talking about this non-being so much, your like the rabid christians who try to sell god on people, but you are doing the same bullshit they do, you take what something says and put your own spin what god is, or what it's not, why not just not believe in anything at all? as Shakespeare said "I dost think the lady protest too much"
Cadzie442 2 months ago
@Cadzie442 Have you never heard of the concept of granting something for the sake of argument? You of all people have no room to quote Shakespeare, as you've persistently demonstrated your own stupidity. Now don't you have a shitty video game to work on?
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@Cadzie442
What does your job have to do with his video?
LOL, you're just an artist! Do you think this qualifies you to somehow judge the logical soundness and professional success of others? Congratulations, you're good at using software other people wrote for simple users to be able to draw pretty pictures. Maybe if you had studied logic instead of the color wheel you'd understand the point this video is making.
-A game dev at one of the largest software companies in the world.
Lowraith 2 months ago
@ Cadzie442 TaylorX04 makes like he says ' Who created the creator?' a VALID question.
It is the ever eternal regression-- It is the reason of why we may never know ,where did it all come from..I do not mean just this universe; as there may be others.
Maybe our brains are not wired to understand it all.
Try teaching your cat algebra -- Its brain is not wired to understand the concept. This is one of the better channels out there - He has some great points
PEACE !!
Dionysus5252 2 months ago
@Dionysus5252 you rant at me for 3 segments and then CAPSLOCK peace at, 12 years old much?... donnu if your brain is wired right to get anything, mister taylor told me to go back to my job flipping burgers, I make video games, that he proaby spends all day playing... my brain is wired different from others so I would know, PEACE OUT BIZNATCH
Cadzie442 2 months ago
Another problem with omniscience is that it makes it impossible for God to have free will. Since "he" already knows every action he is ever going to take, he can't freely choose to do something else. Without free will he is not omnipotent and knowing everything in advance he can't feel responsive emotions like anger or joy.
OddityDK 2 months ago
@taylorx04 When I first met god she granted me one question. I must admit, as an atheist, I was surprised and pleased by this. God, I said, you know as an unrepentant sinner I picked up an evil jinn that cannot part from me until he grants me a wish. Thankfully, he told me the nature of our bond: he will curse any wish I make. Ever since, I have felt his spirit within me--even here--and I have yet to make a wish. Since you are all knowing god, please tell me what to wish for. God was silent.
0gods 2 months ago
And thats why gnostic christianity makes more sense than orthodoxy. Only a truley deluded being could find himself to be perfectly merciful loving and capable of enacting eternal on a single soul.
GallusSapien 2 months ago
Solid Video, but there is still wiggle room for the apologist.
One could make an appeal to Anselm's erroneous but still relevant meditations for the "greatest conceivable being"
God, as the greatest conceivable being, would by definition know all that could be known.
This is because it is greater to have more knowledge than less knowledge.
If the "god" in question didn't meet this criteria, then it wouldn't be God. Simple as that, or so they would say.
playerwithfaith 2 months ago
@playerwithfaith This deals with the concept of god, but it's still left to speculation whether or not a particular being, like Yahweh or Jesus, fits the profile. I don't see that as wiggle room at all. ;-)
TaylorX04 2 months ago 2
@TaylorX04 And unfortunately, that ends with the theist basically changing the definition of God to the God of the bible. Defining good as God and god as good, and all that fun circular nonsense.
I didn't mean their wiggle room gave them a valid criticism, I meant it gave them a chance to escape and wander into their territory of defining God into existence.
Still a good point though. All knowledge of everything can never be gained, even by an impossibly improbable magical father figure.
playerwithfaith 2 months ago
@playerwithfaith "This is because it is greater to have more knowledge than less knowledge." Knowledge has to be acquired. We can then ask where did this knowledge come from and what was the status of the omniscient being before the consumption of all knowledge was complete?
pilgrimpater 2 months ago
@pilgrimpater Not necessarily. For humans knowledge has to be acquired. Who says that Gods have to acquire it? If you are truly omniscient then you know everything, even the future, so there is no way to obtain new knowledge if you already have all the knowledge there is.
playerwithfaith 2 months ago
@playerwithfaith I am not arguing against the theory that a god could be omniscient but as you hint, that omniscience necessitates existing in the past, present & future. The knowledge, at least in part, must be external to that god & hence must be acquired. It also means that god cannot question it's own existence & hence be even aware of it.
Btw i am never impressed with the theist argument that god is timeless/spacelles until one of them can explain what it really means.
pilgrimpater 2 months ago
@playerwithfaith "it is greater to have more knowledge than less knowledge." The term greater is logically problematic because of the nature of knowledge: it is gained by only by dividing parts and is based upon comparison (think of the tree of knowledge). Understanding, on the other hand, is gained by unifying parts into a larger whole (think of the tree of life). One can argue that the greater god would understand all and have no need of divisiveness. If so, less knowledge would be greater.
0gods 2 months ago
@0gods The "greater" term used here is indeed problematic for a number of different propositions in Anselm, but I think it still works for knowledge. Knowledge is quantifiable, there is only a certain amount of it, so its easy to say 7>6. Your interpretation of knowledge is based on how our brains work, God wouldn't have to have a human brain. The greater God could understand knowledge without having to unify parts into a larger whole or by dividing it.
playerwithfaith 2 months ago
@playerwithfaith My definition is not based upon how the brain works but upon the inherent properties of knowledge. Think of an example of anything a god could express meaningfully without division and comparison. Knowledge emanates from within something and, therefore, only has meaning by comparison of its parts. You can confirm this by looking at the etymology. If the word is not used to mean the product of such a process when applied to a god, it is being used incorrectly.
0gods 2 months ago
@playerwithfaith The greatest conceivable being is limited by the conceptual ability of the conceiver, no? Psychologically faitheists are predisposed to believe that which strengthens their beliefs, as such conceiving of something higher is inconceivable, or something :D
COEXISTential 2 months ago
@COEXISTential haha well done. Literally an argument for ignorance against the believer.
And yeah, not every theologian even agrees with Anselm, many of them think humans can't conceive of God or his actions. They get to use their favorite excuse for things this way: "His ways are above our ways", or "God acts in mysterious ways".
It's particularly useful in justifying the atrocities of the bible. "God killed all those babies for a greater good we cannot conceive of"" sort of shtick.
playerwithfaith 2 months ago
nice video. I've thought about this alot as well: How can "God" be sure that he is all there is? Maybe he knows all that is possible for it to know. Still, there could always be something else...
ndjarnag 2 months ago
Vital Remains - Dechristianize! I must say, best intro music of all time.
BacklTrack 2 months ago
I believe that it was Richard Dawkins who defined "god" as an entity or being that isn't a result of some evolutionary process, and any entity or being that is doesn't deserve the title of God or worship no matter how powerful it is. It would seem, also, that a created being could not deservedly take the title of a god.
Cathmoytura 2 months ago
@Cathmoytura A good point, and yet another reason why it's important to ask if a being that would claim to be a god could actually be a god when there's this distinct possibility that it is created by something unknown to itself.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
King Heathen pointed out that Yahweh's being all-knowing AND all-powerful is logically impossible. To know everything, the future would have to be decided. Set in stone. Meaning that not even God could change it, hence, NOT all-powerful. If he can change the future, then the future is fluid and it's impossible for even God to know exactly for a certainty that it WILL happen. Then there's the whole "free will" can of worms!
RadarKat73080 2 months ago
@RadarKat73080 Yeah, Free-will is incompatible with omniscience. If God knows I am going to eat oatmeal for breakfast tommorow, then I have no choice but to eat that oatmeal otherwise I would prove God wrong. I may think I can choose the corn flakes, but that is an illusion.
Between this and the conflict of omni-power and omni-knowledge, christianity as a religion is pretty much demonstrably false. No need to play games with burden of proof like one needs to do with deists.
playerwithfaith 2 months ago
Definitely an interesting idea. Though, as a rule I'm not in favor of negative arguments, since that's how you end up with "How do you know there aren't aliens?" or "Do you have evidence that the lock ness monster isn't real?" and so on.
Nervousification 2 months ago
Always look forward to your videos, interesting angle...
ReligionPutrifies 2 months ago
As you know the Bible talks multiple times about multiple Gods. Discussing the quality's of god (not with a capital G) tends to fanciful and speculative with no grounds in the Bible it self. I recommend Dan Barkers Loosing faith in faith, where he goes in detail through the claims of gods supernatural qualities and shreds these speculative arguments in the same clever fashion that you do here. Thanks a lot for everything you have posted. I am a great admirer. Merry Xmas from Iceland.
prakkari 2 months ago
@prakkari I have read Godless, but not Losing Faith in Faith. Godless is one book I recommend a lot, though.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
Great video. As they might have said in Life of Brian, .. " I am god, .. and so is my wife"
bonnie43uk 2 months ago
I don't think I agree with all your logic, TaylorX04. But I do think there's one thing a god could never know for sure: where he came from/what created him/what came before him.
I don't see how any sort of "mind" could honestly make the claim that it "always existed." How could it possibly know THAT?
GetMeThere1 2 months ago
@GetMeThere1 That's not really that different from the point I'm making in the video. It may one day be possible for us to one day create AI that we give memories that it never actually experienced. In the same way, how do we know that a higher being couldn't have done such a thing with Yahweh/Jesus/Allah?
TaylorX04 2 months ago
You know, this is a good point I never even considered.
What if god exists, and it's completely batshit insane?
It'd certainly explain the existence of the Comforts, Boy-Toy-Camerons, Lane Craigs, Robertsons, and o'Reillys of the world...
In fact, I'm not sure how else to explain the existence of the aforementioned fuckwits -without- appealing to some supernatural batshit insane deity.
Great. Now I have to subscribe to Batshit Insane Deity Newsletter. Thanks a lot Taylor, you jerk.
EdwardHowton 2 months ago
@EdwardHowton You are in deep trouble sir! Now that you have demonstrated to yourself that there is an insane god, the Camerons and other folk are actually not crazy. So there is no need to explain their existence. Which means your insane god doesn't exist ... which puts you back at square one!
farvision 2 months ago
@farvision Oh thank goodness for that! Now I can get back to not being delusional! Huzzah, huzzah, a thousand times huzzah.
EdwardHowton 2 months ago
I agree, not even a God could be sure it wasn't delusional. Especially when said God is really only a cluster of neurons in a believer's brain.
zarkoff45 2 months ago
@TaylorX04, maybe a bit off topic. What kind of arguments are made for the morality and goodness of God? How do apologists address the simple argument God could be deceiving people.
supersoulfly 2 months ago
@supersoulfly I believe the accepted argument is that it's not in god's nature to be immoral. Quite how theists "know" this is anyone's guess, maybe they just made it up... Who knows ;)
unixhead101 2 months ago
@supersoulfly For the morality and goodness of god, there are usually appeals to experience, from what I've seen. "He sent his son to die on the cross"... "He healed so-and-so". It's also often said that goodness is god's nature, but there is never really an attempt at justifying it. The morality of god seems to be an article of faith. I actually asked the same question about a deceitful god in my video "Free Will vs. Evil."
TaylorX04 2 months ago
your 'logic' seems to be bouncing on one thing to another as though they chained in consistency when they are simply... bouncing. "what if insert" and then saying "therefore also, what if insert" isnt exactly valid. youre just taking shots based on "what ifs". okay to ask questions and being a skeptic. and I will applaud you if as you mentioned in a comment that you find that Yahweh dont seem to fit the profile of a Supreme Being but to completely rule out a Supreme Being wouldnt be too wise
xXBlackxRebelXx 2 months ago
what is a name of song from end of this video please?
dogsoldiernsc 2 months ago
@dogsoldiernsc "Dechristianize" by Vital Remains.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
The "god is eternal" "argument" is just so piss poor, I really feel sorry for the dim witted fuckers that have to tout it as an "explanation" for the question "where did god come from". Have they never heard of special pleading... Really!
It's just pathetic!
unixhead101 2 months ago
THE most insightful video regarding religion I've watched in a long time. It is unfortunate that >90% of videos due to the Youtube atheist community end up repeating the same counter-arguments and catchphrases over and over.
JennyFarlopez 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I am the highest being. And I deem both atheist and Christians highly annoying. My 1st and most important commandment is.... That they both shut the fuck up.
g0dh4x 2 months ago
@g0dh4x Your commandments are just as lame as Yahweh's.
TaylorX04 2 months ago 16
@TaylorX04 I presented what you wrote to many Christians who hold the position that there are secular sources that confirm the historicity of Jesus and the reply I received was not something I expected. They pointed out that there is a "Scholarly Consensus Regarding Jesus Performing Miracles"
surshot56 2 months ago
@surshot56 I just sent you a private message about your comments. Let's please keep further discussion to PMs, to avoid unrelated comments on these videos. Thanks.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 I'm sorry for the many post, but they also talked about some archaeological evidence such as, Jerusalem being rebuilt after the Babylonian exile, the Temple was rebuilt a decree issued to do this, Jesus appearing on a time schedule dated from the decree, Jesus dying shortly afterward, the city of Jerusalem then destroyed within 40 years, one generation of Jesus' death related to Jesus' death the temple also destroyed within one generation 40 years of Jesus' death
Continued
surshot56 2 months ago
@TaylorX04 related to Jesus' death, the Jews losing Isreal by being taken captive into all the nations, all specifically predicted beforehand by the Bible.
This was the response I received when I referred them to your website. They also discredited your findings since you're not a scholar. I would like to know what you think and please get back to me. BTW, if there are no secular sources for Jesus, why do they keep acting like they exist?
surshot56 2 months ago
Impressive video!!!
saiyanmage 2 months ago
Well done. I happen to like the music. :)
RhunDraco 2 months ago
Exodus 32 - Yahweh has to be reminded of his covenant and CHANGES HIS MIND due to a mere mortal Moses.
MrEmeraldfusion 2 months ago
I'm god and so is my wife!
calmreason 2 months ago
ok fine.. but let's not muse that much without checking
the first point that is to know if any god does exist
Alanf15 2 months ago
@Alanf15 I wondered how long it would be before I got a comment like this. I get your point, but I also see no problem in occasionally going along with an idea for the sake of argument. In my opinion, it's not only the lack of evidence for god that makes atheism such a strong position, but it's also all those things that work against the existence of particular gods.
TaylorX04 2 months ago 6
@TaylorX04 well, it didn't take too long, i appreciate your videos man im just saying what i thought of this one by the way ;)
Alanf15 2 months ago
@Alanf15 It's cool, I just thought I'd throw in my two cents.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
Does god know the unknowable?
MardasMan 2 months ago
@MardasMan Unknowable in what sense? Unknowable to us, I would think that most theists will say yes. Unknowable in every sense? I'm not sure what that would even constitute, which is partly why I have a problem with the "all that can be known" definition of omniscience. Still, I see no logical contradiction in the possibility of knowing or not knowing that there is a higher being than yourself.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
I use Wikipedia, I know far less then a God, he he. Actually Wiki is pretty good as a starting point because nerds with a reputation write this stuff. Nerds want what they contribute to be kept right. It's a nerd thing. You know what I mean, right nerd? He he. I love your stuff :-)
bigboy45454545 2 months ago
@bigboy45454545 Yeah, Wikipedia gets a bad reputation, but I find their mistakes are often corrected in very little time, and are usually easy to spot. Of course, I try to avoid using it for more serious discussions, though it's a great resource for finding scholarly material to check out.
TaylorX04 2 months ago
No doubt in my mind and I know I can be deceived.
Dwicker64 2 months ago
this is an interesting perspective I had not considered. Great work. I don't like the music.
InnocuousRemark 2 months ago
@InnocuousRemark I put the music in for the Christians.
TaylorX04 2 months ago 7