I myself am an atheist, but I can understand people's belief. The mysterious originals of the bible and most likely misinterpreted "miracles" all seem to push people towards their beliefs. Science has still left a lot unexplained and while I don't think it should just be assumed the only answer is something spiritual it is understandable how people can turn to this answer, such as when they describe the presence of god or whatever. Combined with emotions and all that I can see why people believe
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
THERE IS NO GOD YOU MORONS. If you think there is your having a psychological break from reality. In order for this deities book to be accurate you must deny Evolution, Cosmology, Genetics, Geology, Anthropology, all dating methods, the fossil record, D.N.A.sequence testing, Geological distribution of planets and animals.
Either thousands of dedicated scientists are wrong or there's a huge multi generational cover up to lie about the evidence. Is that what you believe? Really? Wake up.
you can't claim that there is no god. all you can do is claim that there are no evidence for god. if you claim that there is no god - it means you have faith that there is no god, which puts you in the same category with religious people
We are not stating these things truthfully. Does God exist? Of course... in the Bible. Does God have the effect on our lives today as he did according to the Bible... No. So the correct answer is both yes and no. Does Smurfette, Spider-Man, etc. exist? Yes... in their worlds. Does a creator which is the nothingness that everything exists in; that created the laws of the universe; that motivates energy to affect matter- exist? Of course... these things are happening right now. The "Unseen" is all
IF a Dog is the most Basicway is a Beast then = God is the Beast what Believers are told to Follow Fear & Worship = making them the Beast Worshippers..
Addtives = G:O:D Game of Death = D:O:G = Death of God, If God is Dead who do these believes think they worship in the first place if God is Dead, in first Place who do they think they worship in the first place. so if they are seeing jesus god or Mohamard what ever crap, they are lying to them selfs.
The question you asked is flawed because you didn't state what kind of evidence you would require to give a positive. Someone could give positive evidence of God but you reject it on the grounds that you do not personally have access to.
Just as an example there is historical evidence for the past, there is empirical evidence in the present, moral evidence, personal experience, other peoples experience etc. Evidence is a wide field.
For me personally God is more than a belief but llfe itself.
I found a whole story made out of Watermarks on Our Planet using Google Earth and I found them in something else to. I just posted my latest video- I found pictures of God! I've put the story together and made a video of it to share with you. When your finished tell someone what you saw this day !! He Lives ! Come see my Channel and look at the Amazing things I've found ! I even found the Garden of Eden - come see !!
"I believe that when we die we transform into ____ and ascend to Lalaland, where our God, ____, and mystical nymphs will be greeting us with ____. We will then live there forever, making ____ for the ___ our God."
Ad-lib and present this to your Christian buddies... Tell them to prove you wrong.
Sadly, many theists know they're lying to themselves, but justify it by how their belief makes them feel. A woman told me, "I have to believe I'll see my brother again." A man told me, "I wouldn't want to live if I didn't believe evil people will be punished." Another man told me, "It helps me to believe that someone's watching over me." The fact that desire is the only reason they "believe," and they're aware of it, doesn't seem to hinder them.
From my experience most theists do not view the burden of proof the same way as atheists. From their point of view, the atheist has to present evidence against their god claim.
@CrazyBluePrime No, they know they have the burden of proof, they just know they haven't a shred of evidence to support it, so say "I know you are but what am I" to try to make that fact go away.
Just making shit up isn't something that requires refutation and everybody knows that.
HOW can you say there is NO evidence for a Supernatural, infinite, intelligent designer- God- when BILLIONS of people believe that there are literally thousands of RATIONAL reasons that support the belief in God? My reasons for belief in God are all very rational, common sense reasons, and these same logical reasons are held by most other Theists as well. I've believed in God since I was 3 years old. My family did not go to church at the time, and my family didn't teach me about who God was u
@TheWayandWordofLife RATIONAL,not entirely , about 95% of your decision making is though. man has a propensity to look for some external cause when things cant be explained, and thanks to science, the building blocks of religion are falling away. look at the amount of people that believe in flying saucers and alien abductees, or that god made the japan disaster, and had nothing to do with the platonic shift.we thought the seas were controled by neptune at one time.hope you find the truth man.
@TheWayandWordofLife "My reasons for belief in God are all very rational, common sense reasons, and these same logical reasons are held by most other Theists as well. I've believed in God since I was 3 years old."
The fact that you don't see the contradiction, and absolute negation, in those two statements is astounding. Everybody else sees it. Just not you. Why is that?
However many believe something, if none of them can justify this belief to you, you should not believe.
I am not the hardest though. You say you have some arguments, show them. Let us all see their irrefutability or know from our refutations that your belief is unjustified after all. It is your responsibility to prove your statements while it is our responsibility to show why your arguments either do not prove what you think they do or how they downright fail.
@TheWayandWordofLife "My reasons for belief in God are all very rational, common sense reasons, and these same logical reasons are held by most other Theists as well. I've believed in God since I was 3 years old."
I can highly recommend picking up a book on developmental psychology. 3 year olds are not the best thinkers in the world. This is one of the reasons why indoctrination of children works so well. This also partially addresses your point about billions of people believing in gods.
@TheWayandWordofLife Another reason people think they have rational reasons to believe in gods is that they are rationalizing emotional beliefs with incredibly crappy arguments, such as the teleological argument you brought up. They just assume the argument vindicates their belief and don't actually look into it seriously, because they were so emotionally convinced in the first place.
There are so many scientific, theological, and biblical truths- proven prophesy, historical evidences , and even supernatural reasons that all highly suggest there IS A Devine, infinite, supernatural God!
@TheWayandWordofLife "There are so many scientific, theological, and biblical truths- proven prophesy, historical evidences , and even supernatural reasons that all highly suggest there IS A Devine, infinite, supernatural God!"
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it will come true.
That's NOT what William l. Craig means at all. There are evidences of the Creator in Cosmology- the fine tuning of the universe, which most cosmologists are Theists because of how precisely fine tuned the universe is, animals that would not be able to function the way they now do, by first having to go through slow changes over millions of years= dolphin, giraffe, and many, many more. Life from non- life, the mind- blowing intricacy of complex design of ALL life- from everything in the univers
"the mind- blowing intricacy of complex design of ALL life"
We know. When you can't understand something, then 'god musta dun did it'. This is not something I'd suggest anyone with any self-respect repeat publicly. Especially not in a forum frequented by molecular biologists.
The only thing mind-blowing here is your ignorance. Crawl back in your hole.
@TheWayandWordofLife "There are evidences of the Creator in Cosmology- the fine tuning of the universe, which most cosmologists are Theists "
If you actually believe this, I highly recommend you Google "On universes and firing squads" and read the article that comes up. All fine tuning arguments can be collectively dismissed as arguments from ignorance, and that paper demonstrates why quite elegantly.
I beleave in SpiderMan.....(the concept of him)...because "with great power comes great responsibility"
There is great power that come with scientific knowledge, and is our responsibility to use it wisely. And it is our responsibility to point out those that do not, for they are doing great harm to all when they do. And they KNOW that they are doing it
I don't think that he believed in god. He certainly used the term god but it was not in a traditional sense. I believe he used it like Spinoza's god. That the universe was, in a sense god. There are some pretty clear quotes from Einstein on the subject as well. Just google Einstein and atheist and plenty of them come up.
@cornyking1992 No, he didnt. In fact, he wrote quite a bit of material specifically denying it.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein.
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. " - Albert Einstein
The misinterpretation often comes with quotes like this which imply he believes in a god, but in actual fact, its more like using the word 'god' to describe 'all of nature' or 'the entirety of the cosmos' (ie: natural, not supernatural), not an actual god-entity as in traditional monotheism
@cornyking1992 I'm going to assume you mean "sources" (because a "sconce" is a lighting fixture)? They are easily found - just do a Google/wiki search for "Einstein" and "god"/"religion". He has dozens of articles and quotes. Look for "The World as I See it", or "Science and Religion", both written by Einstein himself. Alternatively, there are several letters he wrote, as well as many books on the subject. If I had to label his beliefs, I'd go with the common view that he was a pantheist
@cornyking1992 Sorry if I came across as rude - Im trying to get as much information across as I can in a very small comment space, and so sometimes it comes across as sounding rude (especially when I have to allow space for direct quotes, as in the Einstein examples) . I didnt intend it that way, and apologise if it appeared so. My intent was just to be as informative as possible. Good luck with your research :-)
@ferrett78 thank you very much also i found you were to be right all this time he was a god fearing man i never understood that about him but now that i dug deeper thanks to you i now have more understanding of his ideas
Science seeks only to understand the physical universe in the way that it truly IS. With research, it will present itself to us as it is rather than the way we want it. Science has no agenda and doesn't seek to prove or disprove anything, especially a creator. If anyone wants to prove the existence of a deity, they would have to demonstrate every trait of its definition. If the definition is precise, it's more difficult to demonstrate; if it's vague, then why stipulate its existance?
i would have to agree with some of the objections raised here. Evidence of non-existance can exist, but never physically. If something is self-contradictory, it by definition cannot exist physically. this is one of the most useful tools in showing the impossibility of god: if he ever contradicts himself, he must necessarily not exist.
One could say that there is evidence for the nonexistence of certain things. At the very least, one could claim that impossible things, which by definition cannot be, must not exist. The claim "square circles do not exist" is true. Once you define both "square" and "circle" you see that they are mutually exclusive. Likewise, specific gods can be proven to be impossible while vague gods cannot. In fact, its mostly just the impotent and vague deistic conceptions of god seem to be immune to this.
@cyphonyx. It's a point a lot of people raise, and I half-agree. Some things are logically self-contradictory, so they can't exist. But that's not quite the same concept as empirical evidence of non-existence. And the point remains that there are plenty of things that aren't logically self-contradictory but are also non-existent.
The way I see it, the fact that a proposed state of affairs is self-contradictory is proof/evidence that it does not exist AS PROPOSED. In effect, we can know what god IS NOT through logic. At the very least we can use logic to spot impossible/bad/incomplete definitions of god. To be honest, if we can't even agree on the definition, then what the heck are we even talking about? What the heck is a god anyway?
@cyphonyx "specific gods can be proven to be impossible while vague gods cannot. In fact, its mostly just the impotent and vague deistic conceptions of god seem to be immune to this." --Actually, if we allow God = Incorporeal mind, then he can be proven to be impossible to exist. For if Cartesian Dualism is false, the string all such Gods hang on is sliced.
Mind is to brain as digestion is to stomach. So far, the evidence isn't looking so good for dualism...
Third, the point of science and questioning/skepticism is to not only discover the "truth" but also attempt to explain.
"You won't find it by endlessly validating your imperfect beliefs." Which is where SKEPTICISM plays in because the "Skeptical approach" is TO QUESTION EVERYTHING.
Of course the null/starting position for belief in divine entities is atheism (which is simply lacking belief). The same as the null for belief in fairies, unicorns, smurfs, etc.
@TheOptimistPrime [What is "truth" anyway?] Truth is a concept; something is "true" if it is during the moment being specified.
[If you're an atheist you're going to make sure you can rationally explain everything that's ever been experienced in the history of mankind.] Actually that is false in three ways.
First, while skepticism implies atheism, atheism does not imply skepticism.
Second, if it does not stand to scrutiny/skepticism/questioning then how "true" can it be?
The only way that "evidence against God" makes any sense is that if a theist claims that God exists because of x, y, and z, and then someone else comes along later demonstrating that x, y, and z have natural explanations. But even that is tricky because all theories, natural or supernatural, are sufficient and never necessary.
It actually quite easy to find the origins of spiderman and smurfs.They are literally created to be fictional characters.This is a great example of "I know their not real (as an actual physical being) because of presence of evidence."
@SunsetNap . Not really. For example, even if a sci-fi writer in the 19th century invented black holes as fictional things looooong before they were discovered, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. Just that the writer didn't know they existed.
Similarly, Spider-man could be real. But maybe the guy who thinks he invented Spider-man simply wasn't aware that he was real.
@Not1delusion While your argument is correct, I would have to agree with SunsetNap, in that we know for sure, that both Spider-man, and the Smurfs, are fictional creatures designed by man. Whether they may actually exist is irrelevant. Mythical creatures such as fairy's, God's, UFO's and Bigfoot sort of fall into another category (at least some people claim that they have seen such things, and there is actually some none conclusive evidence to support the stories.)
I like your video good points well thought out. but a little creative feed back: the script/calligraphy style text you use is very hard to read. in future videos I would suggest ether avoiding it or leaving it on screen longer cause it takes your viewer longer to decipher it.
@Not1delusion My guess is the text at 4:50. Italic type is generally more difficult to read than non-cursive fonts. You probably chose it to give the quote a historic feel of a sort, but it's not kind on the eyes. Maybe he also meant the Bertrand Russell quote at 3:14, but you wanted the screen to share both the quote and the picture, so that can't be helped...
@Not1delusion I like to think i'm a pretty decent reader. But I gotta say, I find myself either rewinding, or pausing frequently. Well almost with every slide. Also since you aren't using the video as a slide show with commentary, but rather giving both a lecture, with a detailed slide show requires a person to comprehend essentially two conversation at the same time, one visually, and the other auditory. Which IMO is a talent left only to the very gifted.
Great post! I wish I could say that this vid is idiot proof, but there are a whole lotta idiots out there who hear no truth, see no truth and do no truth
Why does it even matter? why cant everyone just fuck off and leave each other alone! dont force god down anyones throats and dont knock people who have faith... nobody is better than anyone else and it is people who think they are that should fuck off and die.
great video..we need more people like u on youtube..william lane craig is good at what he does..we need others who are just as good at exposing his bullshit.
The future does not exist, there is no evidence that proves the future exist. Thus why "believe" the future will exist and just do what ever we want to do today. After all the future does not exist.. If the past does not exist and future does not exist, where are we then? Why live the lie that we exist at all?
@locoyo386 I feel like that argument is purely semantics. It kind of plays off of "tomorrow never comes because tomorrow is always a day away." But for any practical case the future exists; as it's always what is next. As for evidence, yesterday, I hypothesized that today (the future at the time) would come. It's here, therefore the future exists insofar as it's worth considering. When I can no longer observe tomorrow's existence by its transition to "today" then I'd have an existential dilemma
Technically, in a strict Popperian sense, there's no evidence for the non-existence of anything, but for some claims, there is philosophical, logical, evidence for their non-existence. We know there are no married bachelors, not because we have investigated every bachelor to see if he is married, but because the concept of a "married bachelor" is self-refuting. It's a contradiction.
Likewise with the Isalmo-Christian concept of God. One cannot be both perfectly good and all-knowing. Or ...
copy paste Pi (π) = ●=■=▲=▬=∞ in search demonstrate simplicity to dimensions
Psychological evidence Pi existing in and out side space ask a child blind from birth to draw shape and they will draw physical shape seen and projected to you
Evidence of first primitive form to life the single celled amoeba
Largest body's in universe stars,planets etc are all Pi
Bubbles prove all layers of material form to Pi
Every single pulse with in electromagnetic spectrum is Pi
@JackWisps Yeah, but that's not what most christians are claiming. They are claiming that there IS a god, and not only that but they have a book with everything he wants written in it. So if they are going to be intellectually honest and say they don't know for sure, they should stop being christians. I mean, how can they know that the bible is correct and know that their relgion is correct and that they're worshipping the right god if they readily admit that they don't even know he's there?
if you can't demonstrate that something exists, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist... the planet jupiter existed long before anybody could demonstrate its existence. the trouble here is that the probability of something existing when it cannot be shown to exist is the same as any imaginary construct. therefore it's not reasonable to believe it. 5000 years ago, if someone said Jupiter existed, they would have been correct, but there would have been no good reason to believe it.
Lol, I remember when I first started smoking weed about 2 years ago and I came to the realization that there is a possibility of anything existing as improbable it might be. The first example that came to mind was "superman." I used this logic for some time with random theists I'd run into.
think this would be more of a fault of interpretation than the actual argument itself. I'm agnostic myself, leaning towards atheism. There could be a god, but there really is no evidence for one existing. Perhaps if there was a god, his ancestry may have lead back to something similar to our species. Perhaps the legacy of "god" started as an inferior species that evolved great enough to be able to create a new universe. Who really knows. No one except MAYBE those who died. Great video.
@xchainlinkx There is no such thing as an "agnostic leaning towards atheism". You either believe there is a god or you don't. I can tell you don't believe in any gods and you don't claim to know if they do or don't exist so you are clearly an agnostic atheist
@xchainlinkx "Agnostic leaning towards atheism" makes no sense. They address two different things. An agnostic can be atheist or theist, an atheist can be agnostic or gnostic.
Watching this vid with my girlfriend she makes this observation: It seems to her that you may "have it out for Christians" in general...
Christians aren't the only theist who lie to themselves and others in this manner. There are theists of varying beliefs who go the same route as well lying to themselves and others to make it seem like their points are true and valid.
@MethodicalMadness He uses the words Christian and theist interchangeably. While I can't speak for Not1delusion, I assume that he is only bringing a focus on Christianity because it is the most widespread theism in the United States. As such, it is the religion that most of his target audience would be most familiar with.
If Hinduism were as prevalent in America as Christianity, his argument would remain the same, the only change being in appellations.
i had once had athiest ask me if i belive in big foot becuase they have wierd vidios of it and i told him how you know thats real and not some guy in a costume and why the fuck is a stupid fuck like you who belives in a god asking me who does not wheter i belive in some undiscover animal call big foot. Fucking jack ass co worker. Oh i call him stupid plenty of times and he does too good thing he is getting a differnt job.
If the universe is the answer, what was the question. I think that's the tittle of a book, but I find it a very thought provoking question regarding.
I would say that doubt requires equal justification as belief. That is, of course, if you are an anti-skeptic and not a regular skeptic. The fact is, you can find evidence against something, not proof for something. You make the mistake of falling for the fallacy of verification in place of the more correct practice of falsification.
Verification, which you advocate, is illogical because it is a concept that cannot meet its own standard for evidence. You cannot show that verification is demonstrably true, making your claims about science in this video completely illogical.
Please do not attempt to reanimate the corps of Logical Positivism. It was abandoned by philosophers and scientists long ago for a reason.
Here's the thing. Christianity isn't a choice people make, it's a change God makes. God decides when you become a Christian, and if and when He decides you become a Christian you encounter him and have a moment of clarity (bit like when mathematics starts to make sense) and that is personal evidence which unfortunately has no physical manifestation, but can be shown to others when you tell them about your conversion.
So...does evidence have to be a physical object that you can see, and feel?
@Kumiho Then it isn't real evidence or proof (which defined is a large amount of evidence). If you cannot present the evidence to back up your claim then you cannot prove it anyway.
@Kumiho Exactly. I think that's the fundamental division between the two schools - there is no medium to prove one side's superiority over the other, and so the whole debate is moot. That's my way of looking at it, at least.
@Kumiho You state God chooses for you to be a Christian, but this is false. The bible clearly states that God gave us free will to do whatever we like. If we choose to obey God's will, we are welcome to join him in heaven. If not, he bans you from paradise! (Adam and Eve)
Anyway, if there wouldn't be free will, he couldn't deny anyone paradise since he would be the great puppet master controlling us all and thus responsible for our sins as well, invalidating Jesus usage to Christianity.
@Smirnoff71 Yeah sure we have free will, God chooses for you to become a Christian and you can either choose to reject Christianity or accept it. It's like an agreement.
@Kumiho And to the question you ask "does evidence have to be a physical object that you can see, and feel?"
If there is no physical manifestation, it does not exist. Our universe is physical. Anything outside it, can not be experienced by us and therefor it does not exist. You can believe it does, even have faith it does, but that is not proof of that it does.
My personal conviction is that the mighty spaghetti monster is the true master of our universe.. and I don't need proof. I KNOW HE IS!
I hate to point out the obvious here, but science doesn't "prove" anything, either... it offers the evidence it has and creates theories. No scientific theory can ever be proven true in the sense that we are limited to what we can observe in the world. Some examples would of course be wormholes, black holes, time travel, and different dimensions. There is certainly evidence to some of their existence, but others find it ridiculous evidence. Does this mean that it's any less evidence?
I'm an atheist; but I have to disagree with your argument. It is indeed possible to prove something doesn't exist if all of the terms of its existence are prespecified and observable.
For example; I can claim that there is a dragon in my garage visible at all times to all sighted people. If a sighted person enters my garage and sees no dragon, that is proof against the existence of my dragon.
However, it's correct to say that God, and the majority of false claims reside in the middle set.
@rufsketch1 That only proves that the dragon is not in your garage. He could have went out for a pack of smokes. He could have ceased to exist at the split second that the person entered your garage. That doesn't mean he didn't exist at the time you claimed he did. These are the kinds of arguments presented by some theists. This is why one can't prove something doesn't exist.
And this is why Craig is the most shameless dishonest apolegetic I know (and that means a lot...). Every person who isn't absolutely clueless facepalms when they hear a mean who calls himself a "philosopher" asking for evidence of non-existance. Yet he does so at every single debate.
@theLepisma The debate with Peter Atkins was titled "What is the Evidence For/Against the Existence of God?". Atkins agreed to this debate, thus it is up to him to give evidence to support his position.
Philosophers ask for evidence of non-existence all the time. To ask why something cannot occur or exist is a perfectly reasonable question. If you believe that there is no potential evidence for God's non-existence, then it only shows how little you have thought about the subject.
@theLepisma The debate with Peter Atkins was titled "What is the Evidence For/Against the Existence of God?". Atkins agreed to this debate, thus it is up to him to give evidence to support his position.
Philosophers ask for evidence of non-existence all the time. To ask why something cannot occur or exist is a perfectly reasonable question. If you believe that there is no potential evidence for God's non-existence, then it only shows how little you have thought about the subject.
@theLepisma The debate with Peter Atkins was titled "What is the Evidence For/Against the Existence of God?". Atkins agreed to this debate, thus it is up to him to give evidence to support his position.
Philosophers ask for evidence of non-existence all the time. To ask why something cannot occur or exist is a perfectly reasonable question. If you believe that there is no potential evidence for God's non-existence, then it only shows how little you have thought about the subject.
@theLepisma The concept of God and Santa Claus are entirely different. It seems you do not have any potential evidence that God does not exist, which only weakens your position of atheism, and as I said, shows how little you have studied the subject. The reason I don't believe in Santa is because he's a legend derived from Saint Nicholas; he doesn't deliver gifts down my chimney; he could'nt deliver gifts to the world in one night, and most of all, because his existence is contrary to the Bible.
@Victoruto Nothing that you pointed out is evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and you can't even prove many of them. Nevertheless, the same things can be said about god: God is a legend derived from human psychology, he doesn't answer any prayer, he couldn't possibly answer all prayers, and his existance is contrary to many books. If you think that's evidence of non-existance, you're contradicting yourself.
Please, tell me what evidence do you have that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
@theLepisma You are refuting yourself. If God is "a legend derived from human psychology" then isn't this evidence (if not proof) that He does not exist? And how do you know God does not answer prayers? He answers mine. Have you ever prayed to Him with sincerity?
Please explain how the evidences I gave for the non-existence of Santa are not truly evidences? You have only asserted so.
@Victoruto No, being a legend has no connection to the truth value of the proposition that something exists. Something can be a legend and exist, and it can be a legend and not exist. It's not evidence that something doesn't exist. Just like not having prayers answered or not receiving gifts isn't evidence that god/santa doesn't exist, since the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. It's impossible to provide evidence that santa/god doesn't exist, this is an invalid question.
@theLepisma I, as well, would not consider unanswered prayers as evidence for God's non-existence. However, most atheists do consider the problem of evil a good argument against God's existence. Some also believe that the concept of God is incoherent. Do you not consider these to be evidence?
And, if bringing gifts on Christmas is a necessary condition of Santa's existence (which it ought to be), then surely it would be evidence against his existence if he brought no gifts.
@Victoruto Yes, but bringing gifts isn't a necessary condition of Santa's existence, because he only brings gifts to "good" children, just like God only answers prayers of "faithful" people. This is a way of avoiding apparent contradiction, and the problem of evil also has its workarounds. It's easy to come up with a supernatural, non-contradictory claim, and such claims can't be disproven. That's why I consider it an example of bad faith to ask so, like Craig often does.
@theLepisma Ha, I knew you were going to say that. All one must do is to go to a "good" child's house (or many houses if one is not sure who is naughty or nice) and observe the chimney Christmas Eve.
Depending on the nature of reality, one can disprove the existence of contingent beings (e.g., Santa). If the Christian worldview is true, then Santa does not exist, for there is only One who knows the hearts of men. Thus, evidence can be shown within the context a fundamental worldview.
@theLepisma Perhaps one can develop a "workaround" if one is defending some vague deity or undefined god. But the Christian must not depart from Scripture, thus workarounds are very limited. I do believe the problem of evil to be a bad argument (at least logically), but not because we have managed to work around the problem.
It was once thought that planets revolve around the Earth according to epicycles. However, Newton provided us with equations to more accurately and simply predict the movement of the planets through eliptical orbits, and epicycles were thrown out. I would say that Newton's equations provided *evidence against* the existence of epicycles. Or, more simply, the sight of a woman giving birth provides evidence against the belief that babies come from storks.
The guy has a point. That's why I believe in the flaming panda of death who want me to club young penguins and urinate in other people's churches. After all, there is no evidence against the flaming Pand's existence, he never claimed to part seas, stop the rotating earth, or commit genocide--and he hasn't told me to kill anyone (but those sinful penguins).
@mackhand1 They were never blue, they were a lizard society filled with Slave Masons. Heil Glenn Back, 9/11 was an outside job. Fox News hates the Jews.
There was no evidence that the earth wasn't the center of the universe for quite some time.
It was also believed at one point that planets were stars that moved in a sporadic nature. Their movements in the sky were mapped out quite accurately without taking into account that they might orbit around the sun.
As for spiderman, smurfs, and fairies you're right. There's no evidence that they don't exist. For all I know they are out there somewhere in this huge universe, or perhaps another dimension
I think there are things for which there is evidence that the thing does not exist.
For instance, while someone could claim that there is another moon circling the Earth, if there was such a moon we would see it, we'd be able to detect it's gravitational pull and our satelites would have caught pictures of it.
Thus-- we have evidence that thing's nonexistence.
@TheHobgoblyn Well, a better analogy would be (as is the case with the way most people describe their God) that someone told you that there is in fact a second moon circling the Earth but you just can't see it or detect it because it's actually invisible and undetectable due to our currently limited physical and technological means. See the problem? In other words, what you describe doesn't work if the person feels they can just keep adding qualities that make what they believe in inscrutable.
«there are things for which there is evidence that the thing does not exist.»
-- You're right; It depends on what claim is being asserted. It's easy enough to test the finite space of Earth's orbit to demonstrate the absence of a second moon. But if we borrow page from the theistic tactical guide, I could use dishonest ad hoc tactics like:
"It's an invisible moon!"
"It's etheral!"
"It transcends time!"
- and so forth, which would make my claim absurd, but also immune to evidence.
@TheHobgoblyn That isn't evidence against another moon. Such a claim is just an unsupported claim. Someone could say the moon is invisible and doesn't have a strong gravitational pull. The burden of proof rests on the person saying the moon is, not isn't because what we have so far supports the negative.
@HybridD91 But then it wouldn't be a moon, would it?
We know what the properties of a moon are. And we know what the consequences of an object with those properties existing would be.
If we can thus demonstrate that the consequences of an object with those properties does not exist, that is proof against its existence.
There may be a catagory of things whose properties deny disprovable consequences, but that does not mean there is no such thing as evidence against the existence of something
I myself am an atheist, but I can understand people's belief. The mysterious originals of the bible and most likely misinterpreted "miracles" all seem to push people towards their beliefs. Science has still left a lot unexplained and while I don't think it should just be assumed the only answer is something spiritual it is understandable how people can turn to this answer, such as when they describe the presence of god or whatever. Combined with emotions and all that I can see why people believe
brno32 3 weeks ago
@brno32 origins* instead of originals
brno32 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you know anyone who's been falsely DMCA'd by William Lane Craig collaborator John Leonard, otherwise known as drcraigvideos, please contact @thunderf00t.
YOURINQUIRER 1 month ago in playlist William Lane Craig
THERE IS NO GOD YOU MORONS. If you think there is your having a psychological break from reality. In order for this deities book to be accurate you must deny Evolution, Cosmology, Genetics, Geology, Anthropology, all dating methods, the fossil record, D.N.A.sequence testing, Geological distribution of planets and animals.
Either thousands of dedicated scientists are wrong or there's a huge multi generational cover up to lie about the evidence. Is that what you believe? Really? Wake up.
metalsusa1 1 month ago
@metalsusa1
you can't claim that there is no god. all you can do is claim that there are no evidence for god. if you claim that there is no god - it means you have faith that there is no god, which puts you in the same category with religious people
skaloon 1 month ago
Man is the evidence
SkyHeavenMaranatha 2 months ago
@SkyHeavenMaranatha In what way? You got me curious.
TheAnubisDrake 2 months ago in playlist Lies Christians Tell and why They Tell Them
@TheAnubisDrake in "YOUR (time)" it is for you to DISCERN through choice of Free will before you are actualized in "YOUR choice" outside of time.
SkyHeavenMaranatha 2 months ago
@SkyHeavenMaranatha A little less like a Chines movie style monk please.
TheAnubisDrake 2 months ago
We are not stating these things truthfully. Does God exist? Of course... in the Bible. Does God have the effect on our lives today as he did according to the Bible... No. So the correct answer is both yes and no. Does Smurfette, Spider-Man, etc. exist? Yes... in their worlds. Does a creator which is the nothingness that everything exists in; that created the laws of the universe; that motivates energy to affect matter- exist? Of course... these things are happening right now. The "Unseen" is all
Trinivalist 2 months ago
hypothetically speaking or what-ifs.
IF a Dog is the most Basicway is a Beast then = God is the Beast what Believers are told to Follow Fear & Worship = making them the Beast Worshippers..
Addtives = G:O:D Game of Death = D:O:G = Death of God, If God is Dead who do these believes think they worship in the first place if God is Dead, in first Place who do they think they worship in the first place. so if they are seeing jesus god or Mohamard what ever crap, they are lying to them selfs.
realnameunknown2011 2 months ago in playlist bill
The question you asked is flawed because you didn't state what kind of evidence you would require to give a positive. Someone could give positive evidence of God but you reject it on the grounds that you do not personally have access to.
Just as an example there is historical evidence for the past, there is empirical evidence in the present, moral evidence, personal experience, other peoples experience etc. Evidence is a wide field.
For me personally God is more than a belief but llfe itself.
Surfxeo 3 months ago
I found a whole story made out of Watermarks on Our Planet using Google Earth and I found them in something else to. I just posted my latest video- I found pictures of God! I've put the story together and made a video of it to share with you. When your finished tell someone what you saw this day !! He Lives ! Come see my Channel and look at the Amazing things I've found ! I even found the Garden of Eden - come see !!
downyourtube 3 months ago
wasn't it Ann Rhan who when questioned about proving that God does not exit , reply that it was illogical to be asked to 'prove a negative.' :-)
psycho3968 5 months ago
brilliant
psycho3968 5 months ago
you dont have to disprove anything that has never been proven before...thats it...problem solved
AbhirajGrewal 6 months ago
1:51 Too bad that fairy doesn't exist :)
Atchuu2004 6 months ago
"I believe that when we die we transform into ____ and ascend to Lalaland, where our God, ____, and mystical nymphs will be greeting us with ____. We will then live there forever, making ____ for the ___ our God."
Ad-lib and present this to your Christian buddies... Tell them to prove you wrong.
IdiotsUseMSN 7 months ago
Sadly, many theists know they're lying to themselves, but justify it by how their belief makes them feel. A woman told me, "I have to believe I'll see my brother again." A man told me, "I wouldn't want to live if I didn't believe evil people will be punished." Another man told me, "It helps me to believe that someone's watching over me." The fact that desire is the only reason they "believe," and they're aware of it, doesn't seem to hinder them.
YY4Me133 8 months ago 3
Of course you can prove that a specific and defined god does not exist. The god that the bible discribes most certainly not exists.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
Dr. Craig, if his religious gig doesn't pan out, would make a good gay porn star!
JOHNINCOLUMBUS 10 months ago
From my experience most theists do not view the burden of proof the same way as atheists. From their point of view, the atheist has to present evidence against their god claim.
CrazyBluePrime 11 months ago
@CrazyBluePrime No, they know they have the burden of proof, they just know they haven't a shred of evidence to support it, so say "I know you are but what am I" to try to make that fact go away.
Just making shit up isn't something that requires refutation and everybody knows that.
Skindoggiedog 10 months ago
HOW can you say there is NO evidence for a Supernatural, infinite, intelligent designer- God- when BILLIONS of people believe that there are literally thousands of RATIONAL reasons that support the belief in God? My reasons for belief in God are all very rational, common sense reasons, and these same logical reasons are held by most other Theists as well. I've believed in God since I was 3 years old. My family did not go to church at the time, and my family didn't teach me about who God was u
TheWayandWordofLife 11 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife RATIONAL,not entirely , about 95% of your decision making is though. man has a propensity to look for some external cause when things cant be explained, and thanks to science, the building blocks of religion are falling away. look at the amount of people that believe in flying saucers and alien abductees, or that god made the japan disaster, and had nothing to do with the platonic shift.we thought the seas were controled by neptune at one time.hope you find the truth man.
kram83au 11 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife It can be said that there's NO evidence for the supernatural because it's...um...true?
gigisdad 10 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife Argument ad populum.
Try again.
Skindoggiedog 10 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife "My reasons for belief in God are all very rational, common sense reasons, and these same logical reasons are held by most other Theists as well. I've believed in God since I was 3 years old."
The fact that you don't see the contradiction, and absolute negation, in those two statements is astounding. Everybody else sees it. Just not you. Why is that?
Skindoggiedog 10 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife
However many believe something, if none of them can justify this belief to you, you should not believe.
I am not the hardest though. You say you have some arguments, show them. Let us all see their irrefutability or know from our refutations that your belief is unjustified after all. It is your responsibility to prove your statements while it is our responsibility to show why your arguments either do not prove what you think they do or how they downright fail.
Quintinohthree 10 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife "My reasons for belief in God are all very rational, common sense reasons, and these same logical reasons are held by most other Theists as well. I've believed in God since I was 3 years old."
I can highly recommend picking up a book on developmental psychology. 3 year olds are not the best thinkers in the world. This is one of the reasons why indoctrination of children works so well. This also partially addresses your point about billions of people believing in gods.
Gnomefro 9 months ago 2
@TheWayandWordofLife Another reason people think they have rational reasons to believe in gods is that they are rationalizing emotional beliefs with incredibly crappy arguments, such as the teleological argument you brought up. They just assume the argument vindicates their belief and don't actually look into it seriously, because they were so emotionally convinced in the first place.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
There are so many scientific, theological, and biblical truths- proven prophesy, historical evidences , and even supernatural reasons that all highly suggest there IS A Devine, infinite, supernatural God!
TheWayandWordofLife 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheWayandWordofLife "There are so many scientific, theological, and biblical truths- proven prophesy, historical evidences , and even supernatural reasons that all highly suggest there IS A Devine, infinite, supernatural God!"
Keep telling yourself that. Maybe it will come true.
Skindoggiedog 10 months ago
That's NOT what William l. Craig means at all. There are evidences of the Creator in Cosmology- the fine tuning of the universe, which most cosmologists are Theists because of how precisely fine tuned the universe is, animals that would not be able to function the way they now do, by first having to go through slow changes over millions of years= dolphin, giraffe, and many, many more. Life from non- life, the mind- blowing intricacy of complex design of ALL life- from everything in the univers
TheWayandWordofLife 11 months ago
@TheWayandWordofLife "which [is why] most cosmologists are Theists"
Bullshit.
"the mind- blowing intricacy of complex design of ALL life"
We know. When you can't understand something, then 'god musta dun did it'. This is not something I'd suggest anyone with any self-respect repeat publicly. Especially not in a forum frequented by molecular biologists.
The only thing mind-blowing here is your ignorance. Crawl back in your hole.
Skindoggiedog 10 months ago 2
@TheWayandWordofLife "There are evidences of the Creator in Cosmology- the fine tuning of the universe, which most cosmologists are Theists "
If you actually believe this, I highly recommend you Google "On universes and firing squads" and read the article that comes up. All fine tuning arguments can be collectively dismissed as arguments from ignorance, and that paper demonstrates why quite elegantly.
Gnomefro 9 months ago
Your videos bring up some good concepts. Helps raise someones thinking ability.
viper2808 11 months ago
@discountninjuh I think I love this comment
hoopajoo88 1 year ago
Awesome Video Bro
shandcunt 1 year ago
What isn't a thought?
Nacluw 1 year ago
lol, you really do like smurfs :P
dont you
daddyleon 1 year ago
Very glossy and high quality video! Glad to have found it.
ReligiousFiction 1 year ago
That was one hot ffairy.....just sayin.
cyberbunnie 1 year ago
I beleave in SpiderMan.....(the concept of him)...because "with great power comes great responsibility"
There is great power that come with scientific knowledge, and is our responsibility to use it wisely. And it is our responsibility to point out those that do not, for they are doing great harm to all when they do. And they KNOW that they are doing it
Trbitt213 1 year ago
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But absence of evidence is a good reason to not believe in something.
I don't think most christians know this, but if you are proven wrong you can always change your beliefs.
founoe 1 year ago
smurfette really grew up when I wasn't looking. She's hot.
estragon9 1 year ago 2
Man...now I want to ask creationists to prove transitional fossils don't exist.
dookiecheez 1 year ago
the only problem i have with this video is the poster for atheism Albert einstein believed in a god
cornyking1992 1 year ago
@cornyking1992
I don't think that he believed in god. He certainly used the term god but it was not in a traditional sense. I believe he used it like Spinoza's god. That the universe was, in a sense god. There are some pretty clear quotes from Einstein on the subject as well. Just google Einstein and atheist and plenty of them come up.
padawanskeptic 1 year ago
@cornyking1992 No, he didnt. In fact, he wrote quite a bit of material specifically denying it.
"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." -Albert Einstein.
ferrett78 1 year ago
@cornyking1992 or
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. " - Albert Einstein
The misinterpretation often comes with quotes like this which imply he believes in a god, but in actual fact, its more like using the word 'god' to describe 'all of nature' or 'the entirety of the cosmos' (ie: natural, not supernatural), not an actual god-entity as in traditional monotheism
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 do you have sconces for this?
cornyking1992 1 year ago
@cornyking1992 I'm going to assume you mean "sources" (because a "sconce" is a lighting fixture)? They are easily found - just do a Google/wiki search for "Einstein" and "god"/"religion". He has dozens of articles and quotes. Look for "The World as I See it", or "Science and Religion", both written by Einstein himself. Alternatively, there are several letters he wrote, as well as many books on the subject. If I had to label his beliefs, I'd go with the common view that he was a pantheist
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 I dont spell very well sorry. thank you for your help on the subject but i felt that your attitude could be better next time
cornyking1992 1 year ago
@cornyking1992 Sorry if I came across as rude - Im trying to get as much information across as I can in a very small comment space, and so sometimes it comes across as sounding rude (especially when I have to allow space for direct quotes, as in the Einstein examples) . I didnt intend it that way, and apologise if it appeared so. My intent was just to be as informative as possible. Good luck with your research :-)
ferrett78 1 year ago
@ferrett78 thank you very much also i found you were to be right all this time he was a god fearing man i never understood that about him but now that i dug deeper thanks to you i now have more understanding of his ideas
cornyking1992 1 year ago
Science seeks only to understand the physical universe in the way that it truly IS. With research, it will present itself to us as it is rather than the way we want it. Science has no agenda and doesn't seek to prove or disprove anything, especially a creator. If anyone wants to prove the existence of a deity, they would have to demonstrate every trait of its definition. If the definition is precise, it's more difficult to demonstrate; if it's vague, then why stipulate its existance?
Great vid!
AngelsInAbsentia 1 year ago
i would have to agree with some of the objections raised here. Evidence of non-existance can exist, but never physically. If something is self-contradictory, it by definition cannot exist physically. this is one of the most useful tools in showing the impossibility of god: if he ever contradicts himself, he must necessarily not exist.
kittehprimo 1 year ago
hate me for this comment :
your view count with me watching is.... OVER NINE THOUSAAAANNNDDD!!!!
Zralf 1 year ago
One could say that there is evidence for the nonexistence of certain things. At the very least, one could claim that impossible things, which by definition cannot be, must not exist. The claim "square circles do not exist" is true. Once you define both "square" and "circle" you see that they are mutually exclusive. Likewise, specific gods can be proven to be impossible while vague gods cannot. In fact, its mostly just the impotent and vague deistic conceptions of god seem to be immune to this.
cyphonyx 1 year ago 6
@cyphonyx. It's a point a lot of people raise, and I half-agree. Some things are logically self-contradictory, so they can't exist. But that's not quite the same concept as empirical evidence of non-existence. And the point remains that there are plenty of things that aren't logically self-contradictory but are also non-existent.
Maybe it's worth another video.
Not1delusion 1 year ago 6
@Not1delusion
The way I see it, the fact that a proposed state of affairs is self-contradictory is proof/evidence that it does not exist AS PROPOSED. In effect, we can know what god IS NOT through logic. At the very least we can use logic to spot impossible/bad/incomplete definitions of god. To be honest, if we can't even agree on the definition, then what the heck are we even talking about? What the heck is a god anyway?
cyphonyx 1 year ago
@Not1delusion "Maybe it's worth another video." Or a revision of this one.
UNLebanon 3 months ago
@cyphonyx "specific gods can be proven to be impossible while vague gods cannot. In fact, its mostly just the impotent and vague deistic conceptions of god seem to be immune to this." --Actually, if we allow God = Incorporeal mind, then he can be proven to be impossible to exist. For if Cartesian Dualism is false, the string all such Gods hang on is sliced.
Mind is to brain as digestion is to stomach. So far, the evidence isn't looking so good for dualism...
StygianDysnomia 1 month ago
(cont)
Third, the point of science and questioning/skepticism is to not only discover the "truth" but also attempt to explain.
"You won't find it by endlessly validating your imperfect beliefs." Which is where SKEPTICISM plays in because the "Skeptical approach" is TO QUESTION EVERYTHING.
Of course the null/starting position for belief in divine entities is atheism (which is simply lacking belief). The same as the null for belief in fairies, unicorns, smurfs, etc.
onijester56 1 year ago
@TheOptimistPrime [What is "truth" anyway?] Truth is a concept; something is "true" if it is during the moment being specified.
[If you're an atheist you're going to make sure you can rationally explain everything that's ever been experienced in the history of mankind.] Actually that is false in three ways.
First, while skepticism implies atheism, atheism does not imply skepticism.
Second, if it does not stand to scrutiny/skepticism/questioning then how "true" can it be?
(cont)
onijester56 1 year ago
The only way that "evidence against God" makes any sense is that if a theist claims that God exists because of x, y, and z, and then someone else comes along later demonstrating that x, y, and z have natural explanations. But even that is tricky because all theories, natural or supernatural, are sufficient and never necessary.
BuBBaGump014 1 year ago
It actually quite easy to find the origins of spiderman and smurfs.They are literally created to be fictional characters.This is a great example of "I know their not real (as an actual physical being) because of presence of evidence."
SunsetNap 1 year ago
@SunsetNap . Not really. For example, even if a sci-fi writer in the 19th century invented black holes as fictional things looooong before they were discovered, it doesn't mean they didn't exist. Just that the writer didn't know they existed.
Similarly, Spider-man could be real. But maybe the guy who thinks he invented Spider-man simply wasn't aware that he was real.
Not1delusion 1 year ago 8
@Not1delusion That would be Stan Lee~ And I challenge you to prove to me that Stan Lee does not exist!
thirtysilver 1 year ago
@Not1delusion While your argument is correct, I would have to agree with SunsetNap, in that we know for sure, that both Spider-man, and the Smurfs, are fictional creatures designed by man. Whether they may actually exist is irrelevant. Mythical creatures such as fairy's, God's, UFO's and Bigfoot sort of fall into another category (at least some people claim that they have seen such things, and there is actually some none conclusive evidence to support the stories.)
craigbondy1 2 months ago
@SunsetNap //They are literally created to be fictional characters.//
So were Yahweh and Allah. ;D
Drgamedood 11 months ago
simple, concise and to the point, it doesn't get much better then that..
americasace2002 1 year ago
Excellent video. I subscribed to your channel because I want to see more of your videos.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 1 year ago
Excellent video. Now if we can only get those "But there IS evidence for God!" people to understand what counts as evidence....
Drowsong 1 year ago
I like your video good points well thought out. but a little creative feed back: the script/calligraphy style text you use is very hard to read. in future videos I would suggest ether avoiding it or leaving it on screen longer cause it takes your viewer longer to decipher it.
13ravenfeather 1 year ago 2
@13ravenfeather Which text specifically? Creative feedback is always very helpful :).
Not1delusion 1 year ago
@Not1delusion My guess is the text at 4:50. Italic type is generally more difficult to read than non-cursive fonts. You probably chose it to give the quote a historic feel of a sort, but it's not kind on the eyes. Maybe he also meant the Bertrand Russell quote at 3:14, but you wanted the screen to share both the quote and the picture, so that can't be helped...
danninemx 1 year ago
@Not1delusion I like to think i'm a pretty decent reader. But I gotta say, I find myself either rewinding, or pausing frequently. Well almost with every slide. Also since you aren't using the video as a slide show with commentary, but rather giving both a lecture, with a detailed slide show requires a person to comprehend essentially two conversation at the same time, one visually, and the other auditory. Which IMO is a talent left only to the very gifted.
craigbondy1 2 months ago
Great post! I wish I could say that this vid is idiot proof, but there are a whole lotta idiots out there who hear no truth, see no truth and do no truth
cmsalvagio 1 year ago
You got my sub! Great Video!
scole665 1 year ago
1:45 and 1: 50 both hot. Cartoon women are sexy.
JosephDanielsTC7R 1 year ago
Very nicely done.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
Why does it even matter? why cant everyone just fuck off and leave each other alone! dont force god down anyones throats and dont knock people who have faith... nobody is better than anyone else and it is people who think they are that should fuck off and die.
thatskelowna 1 year ago
@thatskelowna
Nobody is better than anybody else. But truth is better than lies.
mrbluesky323 1 year ago
great video..we need more people like u on youtube..william lane craig is good at what he does..we need others who are just as good at exposing his bullshit.
itzahazylife 1 year ago
So well explained!
kingbryananthony 1 year ago
Glad you're back
SseBb 1 year ago
Only one reply to this video.
The future does not exist, there is no evidence that proves the future exist. Thus why "believe" the future will exist and just do what ever we want to do today. After all the future does not exist.. If the past does not exist and future does not exist, where are we then? Why live the lie that we exist at all?
locoyo386 1 year ago
@locoyo386 I feel like that argument is purely semantics. It kind of plays off of "tomorrow never comes because tomorrow is always a day away." But for any practical case the future exists; as it's always what is next. As for evidence, yesterday, I hypothesized that today (the future at the time) would come. It's here, therefore the future exists insofar as it's worth considering. When I can no longer observe tomorrow's existence by its transition to "today" then I'd have an existential dilemma
fequalsma42 1 year ago
Another excellent video.
Glad to have you back :)
HappyCheeze 1 year ago
Technically, in a strict Popperian sense, there's no evidence for the non-existence of anything, but for some claims, there is philosophical, logical, evidence for their non-existence. We know there are no married bachelors, not because we have investigated every bachelor to see if he is married, but because the concept of a "married bachelor" is self-refuting. It's a contradiction.
Likewise with the Isalmo-Christian concept of God. One cannot be both perfectly good and all-knowing. Or ...
ergasterAUS 1 year ago
@ergasterAUS ...divorce is to expensive lol
only π is proven to exist in and out side space time
okuma0kuma 1 year ago
no evidence either way
copy paste Pi (π) = ●=■=▲=▬=∞ in search demonstrate simplicity to dimensions
Psychological evidence Pi existing in and out side space ask a child blind from birth to draw shape and they will draw physical shape seen and projected to you
Evidence of first primitive form to life the single celled amoeba
Largest body's in universe stars,planets etc are all Pi
Bubbles prove all layers of material form to Pi
Every single pulse with in electromagnetic spectrum is Pi
lol
okuma0kuma 1 year ago
@okuma0kuma im sure reply would be is this evidence a claim for divine or non devine proof
well ..... !
it isnt proof of a god or non god existence it is actually proof that with out Pi you simply can not exist
okuma0kuma 1 year ago
If they admit they have no evidence, then why aren't they agnostics?
Raptor302 1 year ago
@Raptor302
They are agnostic theists. Remember that gnostic/agnostic goes to what you know, and theist/atheist go to what you believe. They are not exclusive.
JackWisps 1 year ago
@JackWisps Yeah, but that's not what most christians are claiming. They are claiming that there IS a god, and not only that but they have a book with everything he wants written in it. So if they are going to be intellectually honest and say they don't know for sure, they should stop being christians. I mean, how can they know that the bible is correct and know that their relgion is correct and that they're worshipping the right god if they readily admit that they don't even know he's there?
Raptor302 1 year ago
What about all the other religions in this world? Is god exist with them? Are we not part of something bigger?
Battlestarsbw 1 year ago
Great vid! Summed up that argument quite nicely!
rj512 1 year ago
if you can't demonstrate that something exists, it doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist... the planet jupiter existed long before anybody could demonstrate its existence. the trouble here is that the probability of something existing when it cannot be shown to exist is the same as any imaginary construct. therefore it's not reasonable to believe it. 5000 years ago, if someone said Jupiter existed, they would have been correct, but there would have been no good reason to believe it.
playadominical 1 year ago
Lol, I remember when I first started smoking weed about 2 years ago and I came to the realization that there is a possibility of anything existing as improbable it might be. The first example that came to mind was "superman." I used this logic for some time with random theists I'd run into.
rangedkid 1 year ago
think this would be more of a fault of interpretation than the actual argument itself. I'm agnostic myself, leaning towards atheism. There could be a god, but there really is no evidence for one existing. Perhaps if there was a god, his ancestry may have lead back to something similar to our species. Perhaps the legacy of "god" started as an inferior species that evolved great enough to be able to create a new universe. Who really knows. No one except MAYBE those who died. Great video.
xchainlinkx 1 year ago
@xchainlinkx There is no such thing as an "agnostic leaning towards atheism". You either believe there is a god or you don't. I can tell you don't believe in any gods and you don't claim to know if they do or don't exist so you are clearly an agnostic atheist
Aleitheo 1 year ago
@xchainlinkx "Agnostic leaning towards atheism" makes no sense. They address two different things. An agnostic can be atheist or theist, an atheist can be agnostic or gnostic.
Harabeck 1 year ago
@Not1delusion
Watching this vid with my girlfriend she makes this observation: It seems to her that you may "have it out for Christians" in general...
Christians aren't the only theist who lie to themselves and others in this manner. There are theists of varying beliefs who go the same route as well lying to themselves and others to make it seem like their points are true and valid.
MethodicalMadness 1 year ago
@MethodicalMadness He uses the words Christian and theist interchangeably. While I can't speak for Not1delusion, I assume that he is only bringing a focus on Christianity because it is the most widespread theism in the United States. As such, it is the religion that most of his target audience would be most familiar with.
If Hinduism were as prevalent in America as Christianity, his argument would remain the same, the only change being in appellations.
Tzemesce 1 year ago
Comment removed
Smirnoff71 1 year ago
I love your videos! And I love the Christopher Hitchens Quote!
EVERYONE! Wish Christopher a save and swift recovery in the fight against cancer!
=^_^=
BlankPicketSign 1 year ago
Spiderman exists I've seen him in a documentary film. Wait that wasn't a documentary?
petehjr1 1 year ago
@petehjr1 I saw that too, the narrator was awful. They should have got Morgan Freeman.
b8ingu 1 year ago
i had once had athiest ask me if i belive in big foot becuase they have wierd vidios of it and i told him how you know thats real and not some guy in a costume and why the fuck is a stupid fuck like you who belives in a god asking me who does not wheter i belive in some undiscover animal call big foot. Fucking jack ass co worker. Oh i call him stupid plenty of times and he does too good thing he is getting a differnt job.
LORDNAG1 1 year ago
If the universe is the answer, what was the question. I think that's the tittle of a book, but I find it a very thought provoking question regarding.
I would say that doubt requires equal justification as belief. That is, of course, if you are an anti-skeptic and not a regular skeptic. The fact is, you can find evidence against something, not proof for something. You make the mistake of falling for the fallacy of verification in place of the more correct practice of falsification.
FlowCell 1 year ago
Verification, which you advocate, is illogical because it is a concept that cannot meet its own standard for evidence. You cannot show that verification is demonstrably true, making your claims about science in this video completely illogical.
Please do not attempt to reanimate the corps of Logical Positivism. It was abandoned by philosophers and scientists long ago for a reason.
FlowCell 1 year ago
Here's the thing. Christianity isn't a choice people make, it's a change God makes. God decides when you become a Christian, and if and when He decides you become a Christian you encounter him and have a moment of clarity (bit like when mathematics starts to make sense) and that is personal evidence which unfortunately has no physical manifestation, but can be shown to others when you tell them about your conversion.
So...does evidence have to be a physical object that you can see, and feel?
Kumiho 1 year ago
@Kumiho I think the most hilarious part of this comment had to be when you had the gall to actually compare comprehending math to "finding god".
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally Well I needed something to compare it to
Kumiho 1 year ago
@Kumiho Yes. Proof tends to lie in logic's front yard, while faith is its own separate area.
Blahbahbooey 1 year ago
@Blahbahbooey Then the real tragedy is that I can't give you proof in a manner you'll be able to accept.
Kumiho 1 year ago
@Kumiho Then it isn't real evidence or proof (which defined is a large amount of evidence). If you cannot present the evidence to back up your claim then you cannot prove it anyway.
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally Is that a huge problem?
Kumiho 1 year ago
@Kumiho Yeah kinda if you're going to make a claim and assert that it's true.
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally I'm claiming nothing I'm just telling you what I've seen lol
Kumiho 1 year ago
@Kumiho By asserting that you have any kind of evidence you are claiming that what happened to you was real.
lvl70shampally 1 year ago
@lvl70shampally Well like I said. Just telling you what I've seen.
Kumiho 1 year ago
@Kumiho Exactly. I think that's the fundamental division between the two schools - there is no medium to prove one side's superiority over the other, and so the whole debate is moot. That's my way of looking at it, at least.
Blahbahbooey 1 year ago
@Blahbahbooey So how do we resolve that difference?
Kumiho 1 year ago
@Kumiho You state God chooses for you to be a Christian, but this is false. The bible clearly states that God gave us free will to do whatever we like. If we choose to obey God's will, we are welcome to join him in heaven. If not, he bans you from paradise! (Adam and Eve)
Anyway, if there wouldn't be free will, he couldn't deny anyone paradise since he would be the great puppet master controlling us all and thus responsible for our sins as well, invalidating Jesus usage to Christianity.
Smirnoff71 1 year ago
@Smirnoff71 Yeah sure we have free will, God chooses for you to become a Christian and you can either choose to reject Christianity or accept it. It's like an agreement.
Kumiho 1 year ago
@Kumiho And to the question you ask "does evidence have to be a physical object that you can see, and feel?"
If there is no physical manifestation, it does not exist. Our universe is physical. Anything outside it, can not be experienced by us and therefor it does not exist. You can believe it does, even have faith it does, but that is not proof of that it does.
My personal conviction is that the mighty spaghetti monster is the true master of our universe.. and I don't need proof. I KNOW HE IS!
Smirnoff71 1 year ago
set up a charity so we can donate:)!
GenericGenerator 1 year ago
I hate to point out the obvious here, but science doesn't "prove" anything, either... it offers the evidence it has and creates theories. No scientific theory can ever be proven true in the sense that we are limited to what we can observe in the world. Some examples would of course be wormholes, black holes, time travel, and different dimensions. There is certainly evidence to some of their existence, but others find it ridiculous evidence. Does this mean that it's any less evidence?
afearlesslover 1 year ago
At about 2:30, the image of the gods is an image from the (excellent) city-building game Zeus: Master of Olympus. Just pointing that out.
zpconn2 1 year ago
I'm an atheist; but I have to disagree with your argument. It is indeed possible to prove something doesn't exist if all of the terms of its existence are prespecified and observable.
For example; I can claim that there is a dragon in my garage visible at all times to all sighted people. If a sighted person enters my garage and sees no dragon, that is proof against the existence of my dragon.
However, it's correct to say that God, and the majority of false claims reside in the middle set.
rufsketch1 1 year ago
@rufsketch1 That only proves that the dragon is not in your garage. He could have went out for a pack of smokes. He could have ceased to exist at the split second that the person entered your garage. That doesn't mean he didn't exist at the time you claimed he did. These are the kinds of arguments presented by some theists. This is why one can't prove something doesn't exist.
cablepanos 1 year ago
That was straight to the point. I can see how theists will now try to dance around the facts...
wwwggxcom 1 year ago
And this is why Craig is the most shameless dishonest apolegetic I know (and that means a lot...). Every person who isn't absolutely clueless facepalms when they hear a mean who calls himself a "philosopher" asking for evidence of non-existance. Yet he does so at every single debate.
theLepisma 1 year ago
Comment removed
Victoruto 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theLepisma The debate with Peter Atkins was titled "What is the Evidence For/Against the Existence of God?". Atkins agreed to this debate, thus it is up to him to give evidence to support his position.
Philosophers ask for evidence of non-existence all the time. To ask why something cannot occur or exist is a perfectly reasonable question. If you believe that there is no potential evidence for God's non-existence, then it only shows how little you have thought about the subject.
Victoruto 1 year ago
Comment removed
Victoruto 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@theLepisma The debate with Peter Atkins was titled "What is the Evidence For/Against the Existence of God?". Atkins agreed to this debate, thus it is up to him to give evidence to support his position.
Philosophers ask for evidence of non-existence all the time. To ask why something cannot occur or exist is a perfectly reasonable question. If you believe that there is no potential evidence for God's non-existence, then it only shows how little you have thought about the subject.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@theLepisma The debate with Peter Atkins was titled "What is the Evidence For/Against the Existence of God?". Atkins agreed to this debate, thus it is up to him to give evidence to support his position.
Philosophers ask for evidence of non-existence all the time. To ask why something cannot occur or exist is a perfectly reasonable question. If you believe that there is no potential evidence for God's non-existence, then it only shows how little you have thought about the subject.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto Ok, if you think so then tell me what's the evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
theLepisma 1 year ago
@theLepisma The concept of God and Santa Claus are entirely different. It seems you do not have any potential evidence that God does not exist, which only weakens your position of atheism, and as I said, shows how little you have studied the subject. The reason I don't believe in Santa is because he's a legend derived from Saint Nicholas; he doesn't deliver gifts down my chimney; he could'nt deliver gifts to the world in one night, and most of all, because his existence is contrary to the Bible.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto Nothing that you pointed out is evidence that Santa Claus doesn't exist, and you can't even prove many of them. Nevertheless, the same things can be said about god: God is a legend derived from human psychology, he doesn't answer any prayer, he couldn't possibly answer all prayers, and his existance is contrary to many books. If you think that's evidence of non-existance, you're contradicting yourself.
Please, tell me what evidence do you have that Santa Claus doesn't exist.
theLepisma 1 year ago
@theLepisma You are refuting yourself. If God is "a legend derived from human psychology" then isn't this evidence (if not proof) that He does not exist? And how do you know God does not answer prayers? He answers mine. Have you ever prayed to Him with sincerity?
Please explain how the evidences I gave for the non-existence of Santa are not truly evidences? You have only asserted so.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto No, being a legend has no connection to the truth value of the proposition that something exists. Something can be a legend and exist, and it can be a legend and not exist. It's not evidence that something doesn't exist. Just like not having prayers answered or not receiving gifts isn't evidence that god/santa doesn't exist, since the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. It's impossible to provide evidence that santa/god doesn't exist, this is an invalid question.
theLepisma 1 year ago
@theLepisma I, as well, would not consider unanswered prayers as evidence for God's non-existence. However, most atheists do consider the problem of evil a good argument against God's existence. Some also believe that the concept of God is incoherent. Do you not consider these to be evidence?
And, if bringing gifts on Christmas is a necessary condition of Santa's existence (which it ought to be), then surely it would be evidence against his existence if he brought no gifts.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@Victoruto Yes, but bringing gifts isn't a necessary condition of Santa's existence, because he only brings gifts to "good" children, just like God only answers prayers of "faithful" people. This is a way of avoiding apparent contradiction, and the problem of evil also has its workarounds. It's easy to come up with a supernatural, non-contradictory claim, and such claims can't be disproven. That's why I consider it an example of bad faith to ask so, like Craig often does.
theLepisma 1 year ago
@theLepisma Ha, I knew you were going to say that. All one must do is to go to a "good" child's house (or many houses if one is not sure who is naughty or nice) and observe the chimney Christmas Eve.
Depending on the nature of reality, one can disprove the existence of contingent beings (e.g., Santa). If the Christian worldview is true, then Santa does not exist, for there is only One who knows the hearts of men. Thus, evidence can be shown within the context a fundamental worldview.
Victoruto 1 year ago
@theLepisma Perhaps one can develop a "workaround" if one is defending some vague deity or undefined god. But the Christian must not depart from Scripture, thus workarounds are very limited. I do believe the problem of evil to be a bad argument (at least logically), but not because we have managed to work around the problem.
Victoruto 1 year ago
It was once thought that planets revolve around the Earth according to epicycles. However, Newton provided us with equations to more accurately and simply predict the movement of the planets through eliptical orbits, and epicycles were thrown out. I would say that Newton's equations provided *evidence against* the existence of epicycles. Or, more simply, the sight of a woman giving birth provides evidence against the belief that babies come from storks.
mongrelcat05 1 year ago
The guy has a point. That's why I believe in the flaming panda of death who want me to club young penguins and urinate in other people's churches. After all, there is no evidence against the flaming Pand's existence, he never claimed to part seas, stop the rotating earth, or commit genocide--and he hasn't told me to kill anyone (but those sinful penguins).
nothingUnrealExists 1 year ago 25
Very well put. Such a frustrating argument.
mjschret 1 year ago
If Smurfette doesn't exist I have no reason to live.
mackhand1 1 year ago 9
@mackhand1 They were never blue, they were a lizard society filled with Slave Masons. Heil Glenn Back, 9/11 was an outside job. Fox News hates the Jews.
HybridD91 1 year ago
There was no evidence that the earth wasn't the center of the universe for quite some time.
It was also believed at one point that planets were stars that moved in a sporadic nature. Their movements in the sky were mapped out quite accurately without taking into account that they might orbit around the sun.
As for spiderman, smurfs, and fairies you're right. There's no evidence that they don't exist. For all I know they are out there somewhere in this huge universe, or perhaps another dimension
xeemo 1 year ago
I think there are things for which there is evidence that the thing does not exist.
For instance, while someone could claim that there is another moon circling the Earth, if there was such a moon we would see it, we'd be able to detect it's gravitational pull and our satelites would have caught pictures of it.
Thus-- we have evidence that thing's nonexistence.
TheHobgoblyn 1 year ago
@TheHobgoblyn Well, a better analogy would be (as is the case with the way most people describe their God) that someone told you that there is in fact a second moon circling the Earth but you just can't see it or detect it because it's actually invisible and undetectable due to our currently limited physical and technological means. See the problem? In other words, what you describe doesn't work if the person feels they can just keep adding qualities that make what they believe in inscrutable.
belebih 1 year ago
@TheHobgoblyn
«there are things for which there is evidence that the thing does not exist.»
-- You're right; It depends on what claim is being asserted. It's easy enough to test the finite space of Earth's orbit to demonstrate the absence of a second moon. But if we borrow page from the theistic tactical guide, I could use dishonest ad hoc tactics like:
"It's an invisible moon!"
"It's etheral!"
"It transcends time!"
- and so forth, which would make my claim absurd, but also immune to evidence.
Skullpudding 1 year ago
@TheHobgoblyn That isn't evidence against another moon. Such a claim is just an unsupported claim. Someone could say the moon is invisible and doesn't have a strong gravitational pull. The burden of proof rests on the person saying the moon is, not isn't because what we have so far supports the negative.
HybridD91 1 year ago
@HybridD91 But then it wouldn't be a moon, would it?
We know what the properties of a moon are. And we know what the consequences of an object with those properties existing would be.
If we can thus demonstrate that the consequences of an object with those properties does not exist, that is proof against its existence.
There may be a catagory of things whose properties deny disprovable consequences, but that does not mean there is no such thing as evidence against the existence of something
TheHobgoblyn 1 year ago
@TheHobgoblyn
Nah, we just have to say it's magic. It works for God and Santa Claus!
tctheunbeliever 1 year ago
I love this series, keep up the good work!
Trifer420