what about morals & ethics under athiesm in reference to not being able to get a "should" statement from an "is" statement wile it is possible for an athiest to hold preference it is arguable that athiesm finds itself connected to nihilism with a complete absence of ethics and morals as outlined in several videos on youtube i would like to hear u ideas on this
@pauloscum Atheists and agnostics tend to be humanists morally, and are just as capable of comprehending right and wrong w/o the imagined coercion of an imaginary deity. We (I am an agnostic myself) operate out of a sense of genuine, natural compassion and empathy, not under duress. Do you only do right because some superstition threatens recourse if you do wrong? If so, who is more moral?
Stef, (raising hand)... Is consciousness something we can define physically? (obviously not mass/matter but energy of some sort), or no?. I hope that's a good question. Thanks.
It seems like you're attempting to define away the possibility of a God. Why assume a priori that only things comprised of matter or energy can exist?
@ClumsyRoot The point is that with the knowledge we posses today , there is no reason whatsoever to assume god exists... Anyone claiming to know that god DOES exists has no more ground to make that claim than someone claiming unicorns exist. God does NOT exist UNTIL there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Which is much more rational than to believe he DOES exist until there is evidence to suggest he doesn't...
@stefbot Just because something does not 'exist' as you understand does not mean it isn't there. If the ghosts and pac-man were to sit down and read your article but replace 'matter and energy' with 'pixels' then by that definition we don't (and shouldn't) exist. Yet clearly we do.
@Stefbot The argument that gods must be made out of matter and energy or they do not 'exist' is weak. To say that a creator must be defined by its creation is frankly stupid. Take Pac-Man for example. Pac-man's existence is solely defined by what constraints the programmer has put upon the game. However, said programmer is not limited to mucking about collecting dots and fleeing from ghosts. Take the metaphor and apply it the universe. Why should a god be limited by the bounds of its creation?
I agree with your objection; to dogmatically assert that the only things that can exist are those made of (or emerging from) matter and energy is unfounded.
Nonetheless, this is not an argument for a God of any kind, since we have NO reasons to think that any "nonmaterial" entities DO exist. And those who would claim that there is a "supernatural" realm have the daunting task of both defining the term and explaining what it means. Good luck with that. :)
@MagnesiumAlloy Me neither... I DO however see a lot of people killing each other and the planet that keeps them alive and most of em seem to find a lot of comfort in the idea that a.) God will forgive them as long as they say "sorry!". b) Everything is part of a 'big plan' and basically bare little responsibility for their actions. ( which matches up nicely with "a" ) and any evidence that might suggest they are delusional is just god fucking with them...
But isn't that just wordplay? Why would you name the law "God" or vice versa?
And yes, people of faith tend to call God "the Truth" but of course that has nothing to do with truth and reality because it is not empirical but rather just divine dogma.
The only truth's in science are laws. Truth is a dangerous subject because it can't be bent. So we can even get to the point that we can claim there is no truth at all. I'm not using God=Law as word play either. I'm claiming that the way things work is from a devine presance. Religious "dogma" (I speak of the bible) is a book of prophecy. I claim of it's truth's because I am a personal witness of the prophecies in action as well as the power of God. God is everything.
You can't support Atheism either. To claim completely there is no God is to say you in fact know there was no God for creation. You would need to know everything in the universe to claim there is no God. You'd have to be everywhere to see that there is no God. So to claim there is no God you'd have to be omnipresent as well as omnipotent. So to be Atheist is to really say you are god...
It's quite sad that you make this argument cause it shows that even if you watched/read the article on which we are commenting, you didn't understand much of it cause it pretty much addresses this.
The basic idea is that you don't need to be omnicient (or omni-anything) to identify something as non-existent if it is self-contradictory. Any definition of Gods is sef-contradictory (usually on many levels). Thus you don't need to be omnicient to know that Gods do not exist.
I understand it, I used to be atheist. But what I am stating is this article really doesn't prove anything and atheist and belivers will forever do their circular argumentive dance. It's just strong faith to belive there is no God; then try to logically back it up and make excuses for the case. I respect the stance and the faith behind it but you will not be able to scientifically prove there is no God. By slighly using the stance of how we define existance;
@panzeraid Failure to provide evidence after such a long time means that the Atheist position is justified. The burden of proof is now on the believer, this is not a faith position. If new evidence arises then I am willing to change my mind, but no such evidence has arisen and at this point I think it is safe to be a strong Atheist.
I know these are just statements and not arguments but it's really pointless to just repeat what Stef says in the video. It's not like I'm gonna present the argument more consistently or comprehensively.
I'd actually say to use the definetion of existance is pulling a fast one. I can say there is a God. You can't argue with that. But if I am to say God exists then I have to prove it because we define existance as something we can sense. Haha Using proper wording is key here.
Actually atheism is the lack of belief in deities and is not actually an outright denial whereas agnosticism is the lack of desire to decide on the topic.
The term active-atheist would infer outright denial while natural-atheist infers that until there is actual scientific evidence that the topic has the same level of sanity as the belief in pink elephants circling the moon.
The existence we know is composed of matter and energy but this is the only existence we know about. How do we know for certain that this is the only form of existence there can possibly ever be?
Your definitions bases on that our current knowledge of the universe is accurate. We can't assume we understand all the layers of existence in the universe. In reality we don't know what matter is, cause we aren't able to magnify enough yet to actually see the very ground principle of matter/energy. However, quantum physics gave us a preview of how little we actually know about the dimensional texture of the universe. Science is still a single-celled organism in its evolution.
Who made God/the Universe? And who made the thing that made God/ the Universe? And on and on and on. I believe it is a question that NOONE can ever fully, completely answer.
How can something come from nothing? And when there is 'something' who or what put it there. Whether it is creationism or evolution what was before God or the Big Bang? And what was before the before of God or the Big bang? And what was before the before of the before lol? How can we ever truly know?
What is the meaning of life? I think the meaning of life is to find out the meaning of life! You can be a believer, agnostic or atheist as long as the quest for the truth is still ongoing. When we have irrefutable evidence any which way, life will become more interesting! But then again, I don't think our brains are so advanced - it can't even "see" things in 4 dimensions. Hello...are you all with me? LOL!!!
What if we're in a Matrix. Then Stef would be saying: Existence is that which is composed of (digital) matter and energy. I fully agree that it's impossible to say anything specific about the world outside, but it might exists, right? So why is it complete nonsence to leave open the possibility of a matrix and for the outside world to sometimes add new code (miracles) that seem to violate the 'laws' inside it?
OK. Some Physicists believe that there exist other universes outside our own. Likely with different laws of nature. Wouldn't this be a logical contradiction with your definition?
Actually you could say that ideas "exist" in the same way that consciousness "exists" as an effect of matter and energy. But then in the same way, ideas are subjective and have nothing to do with universal and objective reality and truth.
@newexperiment Well in my approximation, as thoughts and feelings are transmitted and received biochemically, there are both an energy and matter component, which would put it in the realm of existence, and I don't think the bit at the end really impacts that, as the prior is a more fundamental logic.
If there is a creator, don't you think it would have to exist outside of this universe in order to create the universe, thus making it not subject to the physical laws of this universe (possibly not even time, and possibly explaining why there was no beginning on that plain of existence).
This is why i'm agnostic, either everything came from somewhere or everything came from nowhere, hell if I know which it is, and neither do you.
How does that make sense? If I write a computer program that says there is no law of gravity in the world that I create, that world has nothing to do with my world and I am outside of it.
Hello. I'm a non-Christian believer. I found the light of the universe on my own terms. An Atheist told me he required PROOF of the existence of God. I don't require any further proof but please, do your best.
The day an Atheist proves the existence of God will either be a great day for humanity, or one man's last day as an Atheist.
Saint Thomas Aquinas can also make a good semantic debate, that doe not mean that you or him are right. I just believe in the humankind, so agnosticism is really the only choice I got left.
religion has nothing to do with science-re deductive or inductive.objective truth existing on a physical level.the spiritual and God is not on a physical level, this is the hole in your arguement.concerning for example christ as a spiritual being outside of even the dimension of time,and space.the orange arguement again relates to the physical.likeness can have a spiritual component.rational doesn t simply mean spiritual things don t exist,as i see it.sartre also mentioned the subject.
There is the opposition to the non existence of Deities for the same reasons we believe in beauty, love, hope, truth, rationality, anything meaningful, all subjective by nature but we cling to them just the same.
are you a good person? have you ever told a lie? ever stolen anything? ever looked with lust? if you said yes,then youre a lying,theiving,adulterer at heart and you have to face a holy GOD on judgement day! rev.21v8-says that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire! no theif,and no adulterer will inherit GODs kingdom! its like this;we broke GODs law,but JESUS paid our fine! you must repent and trust in CHRIST or you will perish!
Experiencing deities is a creation of the psyche (spiritual experience can be measured in the brain), and believers act to how they think their god wants them to behave. Hence, their god(s) have, via their believers, influence on daily life (this is undeniable). Can Gods do miracles? No. Are they existing outside the people's minds? No. Or yes, ...on paper... as statues... etc...
Does strong/weak atheism make any distinction between personal and impersonal gods? Because I believe that there is logical proof of the non-existence of a personal god, yet insufficient evidence to make any statements on an impersonal god. I'm not sure if that makes me a strong or weak atheist because I fall into both camps. I do not like your definition of agnosticism either, you make it sound like a 50/50 indecisiveness whereas I find it implies what you would call "weak atheism".
The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history,mythology, and art even to be entertained—as the beliefs, rituals,
and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of crosspollination
among them. Whatever their imagined source, the doctrines of modern religions are no more tenable than those which, for lack of adherents, were cast upon the scrap heap of mythology millennia ago.
have you ever known a person who hated, based on rules from their religion? have you ever known a person who loved, based on rules from their religion? what are..a hating atheist and a hating member of a religion? they are haters. what are..a loving atheist and a loving member of a religion? they are believers.
"have you ever known a person who hated, based on rules from their religion?"
All the time. Evangelicals are openly hostile to people expressing materialistic worldviews, equating them with Nazis etc. Muslims tend to be even worse against.. well every non-muslim.
A better way to put it is:
Haters hate
Lovers love
But for Lovers to hate, that takes religion
I have a lot more faith in humanity itself than religion.
Please look at China! How great they are now as an atheist country who are still trying to destroy religion, especially Tibet, a Buddhist state. They are so good at controlling religions and gradually destroying them. Look at their economy, the number of cars, people wealth, and the Olympics. The new Peking airport finished in no time, and compare that to T5 in Heathrow. Atheism is well presented in China.
Communism is not the same as what we see in the world. The idea of communism as put forth by Carl Marx is a good idea. For example, things like health care and free education are communist traits...
State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom & practice. State atheism has been implemented in communist countries, such as the former Soviet Union, China, Communist Albania, North Korea & Communist Mongolia. In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an intrinsic part of communist ideology.
Everything you stated is bullshit. However, if you want a dictionary definition of atheism: 'a disbelief in the existence of a deity'. That's all the term atheism means. It has nothing to do with the Communism of Marx, no the 'twisted version' (of Communism) held by people like Stalin...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Haven't U heard? Atheists R the biggest proselytisers N the world these days. So much so that many R saying they have made atheisism almost N2 a religion. My atheism/ communism post was N response 2 some1 saying communism had nothing 2 do with atheism, but many beg to differ. Perhaps it was on another thread. Many atheists try 2 claim religion is responsible 4 most wars but that isn't true. Ppl R going 2 go 2 war whether they have religion 2 blame it on or not. They will always find something
Yes, I've heard alot of stupid things, indeed. Again, communism was an ideology created by Carl Marx, and it has nothing to do with countries like Russia, Korea or the like. They are 'dictorships'. If you want to understand 'real' communism read a university text book on it. Also, Atheism IS NOT a belief system. If people disagree it's because they don't understand what the term atheism means (they're ignorant). I suggest you read up on these topics (from reputable sources)and understand them.
Hey. I don't want to play the semantic game. However, to me atheism is a 'lack of an action'. The action is of course belief in a God. There are many reasons for why one may be an atheist. For me, its just a lack of belief. I thought about the question of God. And I don't believe it. I'm not saying that there isn't a intelligence behind the universe. However, I wouldn't call it 'God'. Since that term was spawned out of religion.
Atheism to you can be whatever you want it to mean, but it just doesn't coincide with the reality.
Firstly atheism isn't a lack of action, if anything that's agnosticism (although that in itself can still be an active belief as I mentioned earlier).
Secondly in this context when we say 'God' we are talking about an intelligence that created the universe - it doesn't have to entail any additional dogmatic beliefs provided by religion. You can be a theist or deist and not belong to a religion.
I disagree. Atheism isn't a belief system. Its a disbelief in God. That's it. Also, atheism is a 'lack of an action'. Agnostics and theists, give thought to the 'God' question. Many atheists dont. If you don't give a believe system any thought, then thats a 'lack of an action'. So, I guess I'm an atheist to the Gods of religion. However, I'm an agnostic to the concept of an intelligence behind the universe. However, I don't call that intelligence God. Since the term god is religious in nature.
You clearly do not disagree with anything I've said and you Are clearly agnostic, even if you disprove of the word 'God'.
All you've done is just add a new definition of the word atheism which is simply false, I would love for you to provide a reputable source to back up such a definition.
I'm an atheist in regards to the Gods of religion. I'm an agnostic to the possibility that the universe may have had a conscious behind. My reasons for that have to do with modern cosmology. Anyway, this debate seems to be about semantics. Thats boring. I haven't add anything 'new' to the term atheism. I said that its just a disbelief in GOd. I think you need to go beyond Wiki, and do some 'real' research into this subject. If you want to discuss this futher, Message me. I hate 'cramming'.
"It has nothing to do with the Communism of Marx, no the 'twisted version' (of Communism) held by people like Stalin..."
There are countless people who attach dogma to atheism. Like those who think it has something remotely to do with science. Humans do dogma. It is what defines us. Without the subjective we are nothing. It is what we are.
How do you know only matter & energy exists? I doubt Hawking knows that. And have you flown around the universe and seen there's no physical gods out there? And your statement about the burden of proof is incorrect. The claim that there's no apple on the table requires support the same as the claim that there is an apple on the table. What people familiar with philosophy know, in fact, is that claiming something's untrue based on lack of evidence is the fallacy Argument From Ignorance.
2+2=5 is a claim about how things work, and we can disprove it here on earth. A claim something might physically exist somewhere requires a search if you want to disprove it.
But this was my least important point. "God" is humanity's word for that which explains/underlies/transcends matter & energy. Saying "existence=matter & energy" isn't an argument for the nonexistence of gods; it's just a rephrasing of the unsupported statement "no gods exist." That's called Begging the Question.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure what your point is. You're here to claim that there might be something beyond matter/energy, despite the logical evidence that says "that which cannot be observed in some manner by definition does not exist". Should we also assume that leprechauns MIGHT exist also?
I'm not "assuming" anything exists; I'm saying it might. Leprechauns aren't a metaphysical claim. We have counterevidence to disprove them here on Earth. A consciousness behind the universe has no counterevidence, though the Biblical god has plenty.
"Existent=observable" isn't logical evidence, but a false definition.
If there were no microscopes, it wouldn't make electrons nonexistent.
I repeat, "only the physical exists; therefore the metaphysical doesn't" begs the question.
I just have to say one more thing. It is a very subjective notion that the burden of proof only rests on the affirmative side of the argument. While this dialectic form is sometimes very useful, it is not always are sincere way to approach an argument if you are really wanting to consider all of the possibilities. Why can you not see this? lol. Ugh. The circular motion of this discussion is starting to fully materialize. :) And I am getting dizzy.
One more thing. . . I think that what I am trying to get at is that quantum physics has pointed out that we do not really know all of the factors and variables which contribute to commonly observable physical reality. So Matter can be reliable and consistent but current theories indicate that we do not know WHY matter is consistent and reliable. There are questions which classic physics my not be adequate to resolve. So you really cannot prove that any of this exists.
Regardless, it can be summed up in this analogy. There is a room and people are inside discussing and talking. A man walks in and says that he has seen Avalon, and everything there is made of pure gold. Some members of the room say, "Wow, i believe you," other's say, "I dunno..." and the rest say, "prove it." The man states his proof that he feels it in his "soul" that Avalon exists and is made of gold. I'm sure you can see where there is going.
You know, I can. I have just always been particularly partial to the notion of a soul and since I posted this last month I have had a little time to let reason sink in.
I think I heard you base your argument on matter. If you argue that everything we see is real then you argue for the affirmative. So, according to your logic, the burden of proof rests on you. How is it that you have come to such a well rounded conclusion regarding the physical universe when quantum physicists still wander in darkness? You need to mentor some quantum physicists. Get them moving in the right direction. Proove the universe we know is real.
Thank you for responding! Anyway, just because I use matter does not mean that I fully understand the nature of matter. I also navigate the world of my dreams when I am asleep which requires force and resistance (so far as my mind perceives). So there is matter in my dreams. Right? And where there is matter, there is truth. Right?
Einstein was not at all religious -- he used the word "spirit" in the sense of "wonder" or "curiosity." He particularly and openly rejected the concept of a personal deity.
i wonder why an atheist will insist (falsely) that you must have a personal religion to recognize that something created the universe that we commonly call God.. as if Einstein must have been wrong about it because he didn't have a personal religion- or that he MUST HAVE BEEN religious and therefore wrong..
an atheist will carve a big hole in logic when they want to lie about something- Einstein literally called them "liars"..
slothsarepeculiar- you know as well as anyone that atheists make their living denying anything.. deny that- see that's proof.. read what Einstein had to say about atheists.. and then you can deny that too.. and then look in Websters dictionary and see atheist=deny and then you can also deny that.. then of course you will deny yourself and greatly shorten your life..
"make their living." What is that supposed to mean, I don't get paid to be an atheist. Since when do atheists deny anything other than the delusional belief of a supernatural being in the sky whom you refer to as "God???" Send me a reliable link with evidence of Einstein's negative views of atheists (I have to admit I don't know everything about him as you probably do not either). I was under the strong impression that Einstein was a Pantheist...actually I'm positive he was.
you live in denial- if you are an atheist you will deny what you don't like. just like you are denying this. you will deny all the dictionaries that say atheism is all about denial. and atheists will deny this too. it's a terrible thing to happen to a mind.
the definition of Atheism I used is from a Dictionary, I feel sorry for your warped mind. You're too delusional to have a rational exchange of thoughts with...I'm not going to argue with you any longer you clearly lack the mental capacity...
Secondly, I don't make a living out of being atheist...
Thirdly, atheist=deny WHAT??? deny what, surely not deny everything or "anything" as you put it. Rather, we deny the existence in supernatural beings (Zeus, Apollo, God)....Us atheists claim there is no proof for God[s].
So agnostics are like atheists without balls, right? :) Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge and belief is another matter. When asked about beliefs no-one should hide behind their knowledge claims. Nobody knows the sun will rise tomorrow and yet I don't see any agnostics fighting those who belive the sun will rise tomorrow.
there are many religions in this world...If you believe the existence of god...which definition of god you will prefer ?...or if you are an athiest...why and how to proof that god is not existed through logic ?...science without philosophy is meaningless but philosophy without science is total darkness.....find the truth ! good luck my friends.
to the believer of god..what is your ideas of a god ?...make it precisely clear !...and to the athiest...if you don't know what (precisely) god is..how can you deny the existence of god ?..when you combine the way of the scientist and philosopher's thinking method..soon or later..you'll find the truth ...good luck !
God is a square circle, a self-contradictory concept (existence without mass/energy, consciousness without life, complexity without evolution etc) - and so axiomatically does not exist.
I think that statement is very carefully worded, and clever too! When you say axiomatically though, do you mean it simply as a "foundational" concept, or were you making a pun on the Geometrical reference? Just curious.
While that was a very nice vid, Stef, it doesn't do much. It simply explains how materialism leads to atheism. And we know how much our friends the theists dislike materialism...
Which section of the philosophy series focuses on this? I've been planning on watching them, but I don't usually have enough time for a whole hour long vid :P
Another swing and miss. This is all based on the premise that "only matter and energy exists." The possibility of some other sort of existence is briefly covered by the idea that "some other form of matter or energy" might exist, thus opening up the field greatly, albeit ambiguously. This is dismissed as being "cowardice" but was NOT refuted.
BTW: I am an atheist and I greatly appreciate the effort made here. Please keep at it.
personally I'm an agnostic (don't know what form of agnostic I am but I don't really think that matters) but I do not believe that any religions could be right as every religion I have looked into I have found major flaws.Therfore I am not a coward as this video seems to be suggesting agnostics are as I will argue against someone else's religion and I do not care whether my comments will offend them. They are entitled to they're wrong views and I'm entitled to my views.
Matter/Energy! What happened to Space/Time? And Gravity!?
Physical laws!!? The whole project of physics (a Theory of Everything) is pure hypothesis, not truth. The 'proven' physical laws of Newton, Einstein and Quantum Mechanics significantly contradict each other.
I irrationally believe your assertion that there is no such thing as gods, I completely disagree with your faith that:
Perhaps a 12 minute video/ essay is not sufficient space/time to positively state the a priori existence of matter/energy and gods.
Newton stated that what goes up must come down. He had no idea why or how, but created a series of physical laws that were very accurate for humans scaled experiments, but have since been proven false at cosmic and quantum scales.
General Relativity states that gravity is proportional to mass, that is space-time is warped by great mass (matter/energy) creating the effect of gravity. Einstein unified electromagnetism with space-time and matter-energy, but didn't know about strong and weak nuclear forces. Hence no unified theory of everything.
Quantum mechanics uses a speculative theory of gravity by proposing that a messenger particle called a graviton exists. This theory contradicts Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
String Theory attempts to unify the universe within Physical Laws, but it is unproven.
My point is that physical laws, or anecdotal references to matter-energy, are not sufficient grounds for whether things exist or not.
I would define atheism as not against theism but without it. Not to appeal to authority but the editor of the Cambridge companion to atheism agrees with me. Against theism would be to me antitheism. Like Christopher Hitchens calls himself an antitheist.
So then an agnostic is basically someone (like me) that is torn between our planet and it's laws & the vastness of the universe and the unknown. I don't think mankind knows about what potentially exists beyond our own scope of vision. Seriously.. with the apparent size of the universe, who knows what's out there or how/why it came about in the first place?
Sure. That's if "it" is in our universe. But nobody actually knows if there is a space/something beyond the universe for example. "It" could exist out there perhaps? My point is that there is really a massive spectrum that mankind does not/probably will not ever know about with regard to the universe and beyond. This would be my case for agnosticism. But as far as mankind is concerned, there is no material evidence for a god today.
If that 'other' universe ever has impact on our own, then it will be detectable by evidence. If not, it's exactly the same as 'non-existence' - do you see?
While eliminating the 'middle ground' can we oust the higher and lower ground as well? Everywhere I go in my search for like-minded non-believers I find this conversation re:agnosticism/atheism. Can we stop wasting time on definitions and verbosity and just join together in the spread of reason and the denial of its counterpart?
by the by Im not trying to "save" anyone -maybe opening blind eyes. Your "surely She loves me & wants to rescue me" statement no doubt is sarcastic but it reveals as always that atheists hold an IDEA (or belief) of what God is if She exists at all.
Tell you what - pray to your god, who surely loves me and wants to rescue me from error. He/she will surely tell you the error in my logic, and then you can tell me and I will be saved!
"Proof" of what? that a Divine Intelligence exists or not? I find it amusing that there exists billions of inhabitants on this planet & zillions of birds fish animals insects plant life PLUS 200 billion galaxies yet atheists deny "God" exists!
I wager that if She DID appear in the flesh atheists still would demand She first perform miracles like walking & still not satisfied require some "cosmic" ID!
are certain that THEY exist but cant see anything further than their noses. Oh yes, they believe in potatoes & cucumbers & beautiful mathematical equations that sound like "music" to their minds but
they ignore "the ghost in the machine" namely "spirit" which scientistZ will never be able to bottle in a lab.
Steppin' Wolf to "know" God is to COMMUNE, to be in communion with Nature, the Universe & all things wondrous & beautiful, itZ easy! Seven StepZ to Wisdom: Know God Trust God Love God Embrace God Help God Use God and Thank God! theSpaghettiKing
From a debate between Francis Collins and DAWKINS: I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea
May I offer this question to the atheists debating here (making an assumption that you believe in evolution - if you do not, forgive me): How is entropy not violated by the whole process of evolution?
Entropy is the measure of the *total* amount of energy available within a system to do work -- which can also be expressed as the measure of order/disorder within a system. Locally entropy can decrease -- and does so all the time (when a gas freezes and becomes a solid, it's entropy decreases) so long as the entropy in the entire system increases -- that is, the total energy available to do work goes down.
However, this doesn't mean that for those who want to be "spiritual" cannot also have an awe inspiring appreciation of nature and the orderliness of the laws of science that does not require an unconfirmable belief in a personal divinity. In that sense, agnosticism does not conflict with a spiritual type of nature worship or appreciation.
I -& Im sure many otherZ- can offer u MORE than ample "proof" that God existZ. Not to be disrespectful but it seemZ that atheistZ have their headZ in the sand & r tempted to rule with their arseZ.
PS altho' atheism may not be organized it IS a religion that BELIEVEZ that God doesnt exist
Certainly, most people who are atheists do believe in "something" -- and some atheists do affirmatively reject the existence of god the way anarchists affirmatively reject government -- but that doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes anarchism a system of government.
what about morals & ethics under athiesm in reference to not being able to get a "should" statement from an "is" statement wile it is possible for an athiest to hold preference it is arguable that athiesm finds itself connected to nihilism with a complete absence of ethics and morals as outlined in several videos on youtube i would like to hear u ideas on this
pauloscum 2 months ago
@pauloscum Atheists and agnostics tend to be humanists morally, and are just as capable of comprehending right and wrong w/o the imagined coercion of an imaginary deity. We (I am an agnostic myself) operate out of a sense of genuine, natural compassion and empathy, not under duress. Do you only do right because some superstition threatens recourse if you do wrong? If so, who is more moral?
JennJenification 3 weeks ago
Stef, (raising hand)... Is consciousness something we can define physically? (obviously not mass/matter but energy of some sort), or no?. I hope that's a good question. Thanks.
JennJenification 4 months ago
It seems like you're attempting to define away the possibility of a God. Why assume a priori that only things comprised of matter or energy can exist?
ClumsyRoot 5 months ago
@ClumsyRoot The point is that with the knowledge we posses today , there is no reason whatsoever to assume god exists... Anyone claiming to know that god DOES exists has no more ground to make that claim than someone claiming unicorns exist. God does NOT exist UNTIL there is evidence to suggest otherwise. Which is much more rational than to believe he DOES exist until there is evidence to suggest he doesn't...
z3r0Projects 1 month ago
Comment removed
ClumsyRoot 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@z3r0Projects
I agree completely; the burden of proof is entirely upon the person making the truth claim.
My only point is that, while there is no compelling evidence for a God, one cannot assert with absolute confidence that no God of any kind exists.
ClumsyRoot 1 month ago
It's interesting they always say "God" as if they know it's only one.
alique087 6 months ago
@stefbot Just because something does not 'exist' as you understand does not mean it isn't there. If the ghosts and pac-man were to sit down and read your article but replace 'matter and energy' with 'pixels' then by that definition we don't (and shouldn't) exist. Yet clearly we do.
TollScott 6 months ago
@TollScott we are matter and energy.. pacman exists.. he is on a video game...
sniped101 4 months ago
@TollScott
There is no evidence that ghosts exist, and Pac-man emerges from physical processes.
ClumsyRoot 1 month ago
@Stefbot The argument that gods must be made out of matter and energy or they do not 'exist' is weak. To say that a creator must be defined by its creation is frankly stupid. Take Pac-Man for example. Pac-man's existence is solely defined by what constraints the programmer has put upon the game. However, said programmer is not limited to mucking about collecting dots and fleeing from ghosts. Take the metaphor and apply it the universe. Why should a god be limited by the bounds of its creation?
TollScott 6 months ago
@TollScott Pacman doesn't believe in us either... He has no reason to...
z3r0Projects 1 month ago
@TollScott
I agree with your objection; to dogmatically assert that the only things that can exist are those made of (or emerging from) matter and energy is unfounded.
Nonetheless, this is not an argument for a God of any kind, since we have NO reasons to think that any "nonmaterial" entities DO exist. And those who would claim that there is a "supernatural" realm have the daunting task of both defining the term and explaining what it means. Good luck with that. :)
ClumsyRoot 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Atheism has no "case"
mrtadreamer 7 months ago
Lol, God not real? Hahahehe, look around. But denial is always comforting I guess.
SunnyLovetts 1 year ago
@SunnyLovetts I'm looking around.. and I see no god.
MagnesiumAlloy 10 months ago
@MagnesiumAlloy Me neither... I DO however see a lot of people killing each other and the planet that keeps them alive and most of em seem to find a lot of comfort in the idea that a.) God will forgive them as long as they say "sorry!". b) Everything is part of a 'big plan' and basically bare little responsibility for their actions. ( which matches up nicely with "a" ) and any evidence that might suggest they are delusional is just god fucking with them...
z3r0Projects 1 month ago
And what if God is the law? =) God is known as truth and the laws of matter and energy are truth. By the way I really do love your video's.
panzeraid 1 year ago
@panzeraid
But isn't that just wordplay? Why would you name the law "God" or vice versa?
And yes, people of faith tend to call God "the Truth" but of course that has nothing to do with truth and reality because it is not empirical but rather just divine dogma.
brickmastertube 1 year ago
@brickmastertube
The only truth's in science are laws. Truth is a dangerous subject because it can't be bent. So we can even get to the point that we can claim there is no truth at all. I'm not using God=Law as word play either. I'm claiming that the way things work is from a devine presance. Religious "dogma" (I speak of the bible) is a book of prophecy. I claim of it's truth's because I am a personal witness of the prophecies in action as well as the power of God. God is everything.
panzeraid 1 year ago
@panzeraid
"Personal witness" doesn't sound as good as "objective empirical evidence" such as reproducability.
Also, you can't claim there is no truth at all because even if there isn't, it's just a position you can't support. But that's a different story.
brickmastertube 1 year ago
@brickmastertube
You can't support Atheism either. To claim completely there is no God is to say you in fact know there was no God for creation. You would need to know everything in the universe to claim there is no God. You'd have to be everywhere to see that there is no God. So to claim there is no God you'd have to be omnipresent as well as omnipotent. So to be Atheist is to really say you are god...
panzeraid 1 year ago
@panzeraid
It's quite sad that you make this argument cause it shows that even if you watched/read the article on which we are commenting, you didn't understand much of it cause it pretty much addresses this.
The basic idea is that you don't need to be omnicient (or omni-anything) to identify something as non-existent if it is self-contradictory. Any definition of Gods is sef-contradictory (usually on many levels). Thus you don't need to be omnicient to know that Gods do not exist.
brickmastertube 1 year ago
@brickmastertube
I understand it, I used to be atheist. But what I am stating is this article really doesn't prove anything and atheist and belivers will forever do their circular argumentive dance. It's just strong faith to belive there is no God; then try to logically back it up and make excuses for the case. I respect the stance and the faith behind it but you will not be able to scientifically prove there is no God. By slighly using the stance of how we define existance;
panzeraid 1 year ago
@panzeraid Failure to provide evidence after such a long time means that the Atheist position is justified. The burden of proof is now on the believer, this is not a faith position. If new evidence arises then I am willing to change my mind, but no such evidence has arisen and at this point I think it is safe to be a strong Atheist.
alangnixon 8 months ago
@panzeraid
I know these are just statements and not arguments but it's really pointless to just repeat what Stef says in the video. It's not like I'm gonna present the argument more consistently or comprehensively.
brickmastertube 1 year ago
@brickmastertube
I'd actually say to use the definetion of existance is pulling a fast one. I can say there is a God. You can't argue with that. But if I am to say God exists then I have to prove it because we define existance as something we can sense. Haha Using proper wording is key here.
panzeraid 1 year ago
@panzeraid WOW! So you must believe in a SHITLOAD of gods then....?!
z3r0Projects 1 month ago
Comment removed
panzeraid 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And what if God is the law? =)
panzeraid 1 year ago
that was an enjoyable video. Easy for follow your thoughts and understand how they back up your "argument"
technicolour45 1 year ago
Actually atheism is the lack of belief in deities and is not actually an outright denial whereas agnosticism is the lack of desire to decide on the topic.
The term active-atheist would infer outright denial while natural-atheist infers that until there is actual scientific evidence that the topic has the same level of sanity as the belief in pink elephants circling the moon.
The English language shouldn't be dumbed down.
jabcreations 1 year ago
BULL BULL BULL BULL! ATHEISTS ARE JUST PLAN HEART LESS! JUST LOOK AT A ATHEISM NATION LIKE CHINA AND YOU CAN SEE A WORLD WITH OUT GOD!
caoromero 1 year ago
@caoromero We live in a nation of atheists and fake Christan's. This is China, except we are all MUCH lazier.
SunnyLovetts 1 year ago
Comment removed
MrKimura00 1 year ago
The existence we know is composed of matter and energy but this is the only existence we know about. How do we know for certain that this is the only form of existence there can possibly ever be?
Enzo012 1 year ago
Your definitions bases on that our current knowledge of the universe is accurate. We can't assume we understand all the layers of existence in the universe. In reality we don't know what matter is, cause we aren't able to magnify enough yet to actually see the very ground principle of matter/energy. However, quantum physics gave us a preview of how little we actually know about the dimensional texture of the universe. Science is still a single-celled organism in its evolution.
InSaneTK 2 years ago
Who made God/the Universe? And who made the thing that made God/ the Universe? And on and on and on. I believe it is a question that NOONE can ever fully, completely answer.
How can something come from nothing? And when there is 'something' who or what put it there. Whether it is creationism or evolution what was before God or the Big Bang? And what was before the before of God or the Big bang? And what was before the before of the before lol? How can we ever truly know?
thestarsign 2 years ago
What is the meaning of life? I think the meaning of life is to find out the meaning of life! You can be a believer, agnostic or atheist as long as the quest for the truth is still ongoing. When we have irrefutable evidence any which way, life will become more interesting! But then again, I don't think our brains are so advanced - it can't even "see" things in 4 dimensions. Hello...are you all with me? LOL!!!
mennelly 2 years ago
I'm gonna try to play the Matrix-card here.
What if we're in a Matrix. Then Stef would be saying: Existence is that which is composed of (digital) matter and energy. I fully agree that it's impossible to say anything specific about the world outside, but it might exists, right? So why is it complete nonsence to leave open the possibility of a matrix and for the outside world to sometimes add new code (miracles) that seem to violate the 'laws' inside it?
BTW: I'm an atheist. :-)
janc71 2 years ago
The definition of exist that you use in the end would mean ideas do not exist.
newexperiment 2 years ago
Quite so!
stefbot 2 years ago 6
Yea.. after I left the comment I tried to find a site with a definition that would allow ideas to exist but with no luck =(
newexperiment 2 years ago
OK. Some Physicists believe that there exist other universes outside our own. Likely with different laws of nature. Wouldn't this be a logical contradiction with your definition?
newexperiment 2 years ago
@stefbot
Actually you could say that ideas "exist" in the same way that consciousness "exists" as an effect of matter and energy. But then in the same way, ideas are subjective and have nothing to do with universal and objective reality and truth.
brickmastertube 1 year ago
@stefbot So you admit that ideas can't exist in the physical realm, how then, can we own them?
Hashishin13 8 months ago
@stefbot Wait a minute... so then you don't believe that ideas exist? What, then, according to you, are we talking about when we speak of "ideas"?
IvanTheHeathen 7 months ago
@newexperiment Well in my approximation, as thoughts and feelings are transmitted and received biochemically, there are both an energy and matter component, which would put it in the realm of existence, and I don't think the bit at the end really impacts that, as the prior is a more fundamental logic.
steviesama 1 year ago
@newexperiment I'm sure our ideas are formed and stored in our brains as some form of matter/energy, just like our gods are.
TheLivirus 11 months ago
I'm agnostic
If there is a creator, don't you think it would have to exist outside of this universe in order to create the universe, thus making it not subject to the physical laws of this universe (possibly not even time, and possibly explaining why there was no beginning on that plain of existence).
This is why i'm agnostic, either everything came from somewhere or everything came from nowhere, hell if I know which it is, and neither do you.
Azigal 2 years ago
Comment removed
elliot91murphy 2 years ago
How does that make sense? If I write a computer program that says there is no law of gravity in the world that I create, that world has nothing to do with my world and I am outside of it.
Azigal 2 years ago
Stefbot, are you aware that this video was plagiarized long ago (as 'God Does Not Exist') by an idiot who calls himself FightingAtheist?
.
winocologist 2 years ago
in the description, he cites Stef's article on strike the root as his source.
narkfly 2 years ago
It's amusing to see that people (including me) still comment on really old videos.
Stefbot SAYS he's defending 'strong' atheism. This kind of makes all debates about what 'atheism' means moot, right?
His illogical case boils down to:
EXISTANT=OBSERVABLE
Buy that, & Stefbot's argument's flawless, & you two can toast yer shared brilliance w' champagne.
If you don't, then you can drink ditchwater alone and know that I'm probably drinking it too, wherever Im dying.
salut!
winocologist 2 years ago
Hello. I'm a non-Christian believer. I found the light of the universe on my own terms. An Atheist told me he required PROOF of the existence of God. I don't require any further proof but please, do your best.
The day an Atheist proves the existence of God will either be a great day for humanity, or one man's last day as an Atheist.
mrbucketface 2 years ago
Saint Thomas Aquinas can also make a good semantic debate, that doe not mean that you or him are right. I just believe in the humankind, so agnosticism is really the only choice I got left.
tapoe 2 years ago
everybody is leaving really long comments....
nhmllr725 3 years ago
thanks! this was really educational
favd!
FutileFreak 3 years ago
religion has nothing to do with science-re deductive or inductive.objective truth existing on a physical level.the spiritual and God is not on a physical level, this is the hole in your arguement.concerning for example christ as a spiritual being outside of even the dimension of time,and space.the orange arguement again relates to the physical.likeness can have a spiritual component.rational doesn t simply mean spiritual things don t exist,as i see it.sartre also mentioned the subject.
thegoodman765 3 years ago
There is the opposition to the non existence of Deities for the same reasons we believe in beauty, love, hope, truth, rationality, anything meaningful, all subjective by nature but we cling to them just the same.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
There are no scientific "truths"
There are FACTS.
Truths are subjective by nature and not scientific.
"Matter or energy" There is no clear definition of either and in fact they are one in the same.
There are countless things that we have "discovered". They were there existing all the time and did not need us to "discover" their existence.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
are you a good person? have you ever told a lie? ever stolen anything? ever looked with lust? if you said yes,then youre a lying,theiving,adulterer at heart and you have to face a holy GOD on judgement day! rev.21v8-says that all liars will have their part in the lake of fire! no theif,and no adulterer will inherit GODs kingdom! its like this;we broke GODs law,but JESUS paid our fine! you must repent and trust in CHRIST or you will perish!
jaymangoingup 3 years ago
Experiencing deities is a creation of the psyche (spiritual experience can be measured in the brain), and believers act to how they think their god wants them to behave. Hence, their god(s) have, via their believers, influence on daily life (this is undeniable). Can Gods do miracles? No. Are they existing outside the people's minds? No. Or yes, ...on paper... as statues... etc...
PuppetXeno 3 years ago
There would be no such thing as a deist if belief in a god was only so shallow.
SidedPanic 3 years ago
Does strong/weak atheism make any distinction between personal and impersonal gods? Because I believe that there is logical proof of the non-existence of a personal god, yet insufficient evidence to make any statements on an impersonal god. I'm not sure if that makes me a strong or weak atheist because I fall into both camps. I do not like your definition of agnosticism either, you make it sound like a 50/50 indecisiveness whereas I find it implies what you would call "weak atheism".
CyrusGuitar 3 years ago
The idea that any one of our religions represents the infallible word of the One True God requires an encyclopedic ignorance of history,mythology, and art even to be entertained—as the beliefs, rituals,
and iconography of each of our religions attest to centuries of crosspollination
among them. Whatever their imagined source, the doctrines of modern religions are no more tenable than those which, for lack of adherents, were cast upon the scrap heap of mythology millennia ago.
talicohen 3 years ago
Best...podcaster....ever.
threebobs 3 years ago
religions are a great way for haters to hate.
religions are a great way for lovers to love.
have you ever known a person who hated, based on rules from their religion? have you ever known a person who loved, based on rules from their religion? what are..a hating atheist and a hating member of a religion? they are haters. what are..a loving atheist and a loving member of a religion? they are believers.
parafleet 3 years ago
"have you ever known a person who hated, based on rules from their religion?"
All the time. Evangelicals are openly hostile to people expressing materialistic worldviews, equating them with Nazis etc. Muslims tend to be even worse against.. well every non-muslim.
A better way to put it is:
Haters hate
Lovers love
But for Lovers to hate, that takes religion
I have a lot more faith in humanity itself than religion.
FaithIsImaginary 3 years ago
It just happens to be that there are more Christian haters.
TheJacolyte 3 years ago
> It just happens to be that there are more
> Christian haters.
Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers get death threats from people of faith all the time.
I do not know if atheists send death threats to prominent Christian thinkers (is this an oxymmoron?) but I very much doubt that.
jtoksa 3 years ago
Thanks!
stefbot 3 years ago
Please look at China! How great they are now as an atheist country who are still trying to destroy religion, especially Tibet, a Buddhist state. They are so good at controlling religions and gradually destroying them. Look at their economy, the number of cars, people wealth, and the Olympics. The new Peking airport finished in no time, and compare that to T5 in Heathrow. Atheism is well presented in China.
scarp1234567 3 years ago
Communism is as irrational as religion, but I cannot slay all the heads of the hydra in one vid! :)
stefbot 3 years ago 3
Communism is not the same as what we see in the world. The idea of communism as put forth by Carl Marx is a good idea. For example, things like health care and free education are communist traits...
crazykb 3 years ago
From en-wikipedia
State atheism is the official promotion of atheism by a government, typically by active suppression of religious freedom & practice. State atheism has been implemented in communist countries, such as the former Soviet Union, China, Communist Albania, North Korea & Communist Mongolia. In these nations, the governments viewed atheism as an intrinsic part of communist ideology.
FreedomLover4Ever 3 years ago
Everything you stated is bullshit. However, if you want a dictionary definition of atheism: 'a disbelief in the existence of a deity'. That's all the term atheism means. It has nothing to do with the Communism of Marx, no the 'twisted version' (of Communism) held by people like Stalin...
crazykb 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Haven't U heard? Atheists R the biggest proselytisers N the world these days. So much so that many R saying they have made atheisism almost N2 a religion. My atheism/ communism post was N response 2 some1 saying communism had nothing 2 do with atheism, but many beg to differ. Perhaps it was on another thread. Many atheists try 2 claim religion is responsible 4 most wars but that isn't true. Ppl R going 2 go 2 war whether they have religion 2 blame it on or not. They will always find something
FreedomLover4Ever 3 years ago
Yes, I've heard alot of stupid things, indeed. Again, communism was an ideology created by Carl Marx, and it has nothing to do with countries like Russia, Korea or the like. They are 'dictorships'. If you want to understand 'real' communism read a university text book on it. Also, Atheism IS NOT a belief system. If people disagree it's because they don't understand what the term atheism means (they're ignorant). I suggest you read up on these topics (from reputable sources)and understand them.
crazykb 3 years ago
Atheism is as malleable a term as God, with near infinite definitions. Here are wikis, which coincides with the majority:
1. The rejection of theism (nontheism/antitheism).
2. The affirmation of belief in the nonexistence of a god.
The former is inherently incorrect because atheism is also the opposing to other nontheistic terms e.g deism.
And we must emphasise that the latter is Not just an absence of belief.
Agnosticism is the belief that it is possible that there is or isn't a God.
SidedPanic 3 years ago
Hey. I don't want to play the semantic game. However, to me atheism is a 'lack of an action'. The action is of course belief in a God. There are many reasons for why one may be an atheist. For me, its just a lack of belief. I thought about the question of God. And I don't believe it. I'm not saying that there isn't a intelligence behind the universe. However, I wouldn't call it 'God'. Since that term was spawned out of religion.
crazykb 3 years ago
Atheism to you can be whatever you want it to mean, but it just doesn't coincide with the reality.
Firstly atheism isn't a lack of action, if anything that's agnosticism (although that in itself can still be an active belief as I mentioned earlier).
Secondly in this context when we say 'God' we are talking about an intelligence that created the universe - it doesn't have to entail any additional dogmatic beliefs provided by religion. You can be a theist or deist and not belong to a religion.
SidedPanic 3 years ago
I disagree. Atheism isn't a belief system. Its a disbelief in God. That's it. Also, atheism is a 'lack of an action'. Agnostics and theists, give thought to the 'God' question. Many atheists dont. If you don't give a believe system any thought, then thats a 'lack of an action'. So, I guess I'm an atheist to the Gods of religion. However, I'm an agnostic to the concept of an intelligence behind the universe. However, I don't call that intelligence God. Since the term god is religious in nature.
crazykb 3 years ago
You clearly do not disagree with anything I've said and you Are clearly agnostic, even if you disprove of the word 'God'.
All you've done is just add a new definition of the word atheism which is simply false, I would love for you to provide a reputable source to back up such a definition.
SidedPanic 3 years ago
I'm an atheist in regards to the Gods of religion. I'm an agnostic to the possibility that the universe may have had a conscious behind. My reasons for that have to do with modern cosmology. Anyway, this debate seems to be about semantics. Thats boring. I haven't add anything 'new' to the term atheism. I said that its just a disbelief in GOd. I think you need to go beyond Wiki, and do some 'real' research into this subject. If you want to discuss this futher, Message me. I hate 'cramming'.
crazykb 3 years ago
Learn to spell in English.
PoopShoot1102 3 years ago
"It has nothing to do with the Communism of Marx, no the 'twisted version' (of Communism) held by people like Stalin..."
There are countless people who attach dogma to atheism. Like those who think it has something remotely to do with science. Humans do dogma. It is what defines us. Without the subjective we are nothing. It is what we are.
Why we are and what we are all about.
Twicebakedtaters 3 years ago
I meant: "It has nothing to do with the Communism of Marx, nor the 'twisted version' (of Communism) held by people like Stalin...
crazykb 3 years ago
How do you know only matter & energy exists? I doubt Hawking knows that. And have you flown around the universe and seen there's no physical gods out there? And your statement about the burden of proof is incorrect. The claim that there's no apple on the table requires support the same as the claim that there is an apple on the table. What people familiar with philosophy know, in fact, is that claiming something's untrue based on lack of evidence is the fallacy Argument From Ignorance.
victorcamel 3 years ago
If you say to a mathematician that 2+2=5, does he have to fly around the universe to prove it does not? Of course not.
stefbot 3 years ago
2+2=5 is a claim about how things work, and we can disprove it here on earth. A claim something might physically exist somewhere requires a search if you want to disprove it.
But this was my least important point. "God" is humanity's word for that which explains/underlies/transcends matter & energy. Saying "existence=matter & energy" isn't an argument for the nonexistence of gods; it's just a rephrasing of the unsupported statement "no gods exist." That's called Begging the Question.
victorcamel 3 years ago
Naturally, the burden of proof lies on you. If you believe that there is something other than matter and energy out there, then prove it.
Balden2 3 years ago
If I say there's something beyond Matter & Energy, I must prove it.
If, (like Stefbot) I say there's nothing beyond M & E, I must prove it.
But all I claim is there MIGHT be something beyond M & E.
Anything not disproven is possible.
Thus, burden of proof lies with those claiming something beyond matter & energy is impossible.
Hint: the fallacies Begging the Question and Argument From Ignorance (look 'em up) are not promising approaches to disproving my claim...
victorcamel 3 years ago
Quite frankly, I'm not sure what your point is. You're here to claim that there might be something beyond matter/energy, despite the logical evidence that says "that which cannot be observed in some manner by definition does not exist". Should we also assume that leprechauns MIGHT exist also?
Balden2 3 years ago
I'm not "assuming" anything exists; I'm saying it might. Leprechauns aren't a metaphysical claim. We have counterevidence to disprove them here on Earth. A consciousness behind the universe has no counterevidence, though the Biblical god has plenty.
"Existent=observable" isn't logical evidence, but a false definition.
If there were no microscopes, it wouldn't make electrons nonexistent.
I repeat, "only the physical exists; therefore the metaphysical doesn't" begs the question.
victorcamel 3 years ago
VC, when you say something "exists," what do you mean? What constitutes existence and how do you demonstrate it?
pedanticmofo 3 years ago
I just have to say one more thing. It is a very subjective notion that the burden of proof only rests on the affirmative side of the argument. While this dialectic form is sometimes very useful, it is not always are sincere way to approach an argument if you are really wanting to consider all of the possibilities. Why can you not see this? lol. Ugh. The circular motion of this discussion is starting to fully materialize. :) And I am getting dizzy.
myfavoriteperson 4 years ago
One more thing. . . I think that what I am trying to get at is that quantum physics has pointed out that we do not really know all of the factors and variables which contribute to commonly observable physical reality. So Matter can be reliable and consistent but current theories indicate that we do not know WHY matter is consistent and reliable. There are questions which classic physics my not be adequate to resolve. So you really cannot prove that any of this exists.
myfavoriteperson 4 years ago
Regardless, it can be summed up in this analogy. There is a room and people are inside discussing and talking. A man walks in and says that he has seen Avalon, and everything there is made of pure gold. Some members of the room say, "Wow, i believe you," other's say, "I dunno..." and the rest say, "prove it." The man states his proof that he feels it in his "soul" that Avalon exists and is made of gold. I'm sure you can see where there is going.
Bluedragon094 4 years ago
You know, I can. I have just always been particularly partial to the notion of a soul and since I posted this last month I have had a little time to let reason sink in.
myfavoriteperson 3 years ago
I think I heard you base your argument on matter. If you argue that everything we see is real then you argue for the affirmative. So, according to your logic, the burden of proof rests on you. How is it that you have come to such a well rounded conclusion regarding the physical universe when quantum physicists still wander in darkness? You need to mentor some quantum physicists. Get them moving in the right direction. Proove the universe we know is real.
myfavoriteperson 4 years ago
Yet you use the reliability of matter and energy to post your rebuttal... (PS I think you mean 'prove.')
stefbot 4 years ago
Thank you for responding! Anyway, just because I use matter does not mean that I fully understand the nature of matter. I also navigate the world of my dreams when I am asleep which requires force and resistance (so far as my mind perceives). So there is matter in my dreams. Right? And where there is matter, there is truth. Right?
myfavoriteperson 4 years ago
So the burden of prooooooooffff remains upon you. :)
myfavoriteperson 4 years ago
your voice sure is clear with that good mic..
"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe.." Einstein
az101010 4 years ago
Einstein was not at all religious -- he used the word "spirit" in the sense of "wonder" or "curiosity." He particularly and openly rejected the concept of a personal deity.
stefbot 4 years ago
i wonder why an atheist will insist (falsely) that you must have a personal religion to recognize that something created the universe that we commonly call God.. as if Einstein must have been wrong about it because he didn't have a personal religion- or that he MUST HAVE BEEN religious and therefore wrong..
an atheist will carve a big hole in logic when they want to lie about something- Einstein literally called them "liars"..
az101010 4 years ago
when
slothsarepeculiar 4 years ago
slothsarepeculiar- you know as well as anyone that atheists make their living denying anything.. deny that- see that's proof.. read what Einstein had to say about atheists.. and then you can deny that too.. and then look in Websters dictionary and see atheist=deny and then you can also deny that.. then of course you will deny yourself and greatly shorten your life..
az101010 4 years ago
"make their living." What is that supposed to mean, I don't get paid to be an atheist. Since when do atheists deny anything other than the delusional belief of a supernatural being in the sky whom you refer to as "God???" Send me a reliable link with evidence of Einstein's negative views of atheists (I have to admit I don't know everything about him as you probably do not either). I was under the strong impression that Einstein was a Pantheist...actually I'm positive he was.
slothsarepeculiar 4 years ago
you live in denial- if you are an atheist you will deny what you don't like. just like you are denying this. you will deny all the dictionaries that say atheism is all about denial. and atheists will deny this too. it's a terrible thing to happen to a mind.
az101010 4 years ago
the definition of Atheism I used is from a Dictionary, I feel sorry for your warped mind. You're too delusional to have a rational exchange of thoughts with...I'm not going to argue with you any longer you clearly lack the mental capacity...
slothsarepeculiar 4 years ago
Firstly, Einstein was a Pantheist.
Secondly, I don't make a living out of being atheist...
Thirdly, atheist=deny WHAT??? deny what, surely not deny everything or "anything" as you put it. Rather, we deny the existence in supernatural beings (Zeus, Apollo, God)....Us atheists claim there is no proof for God[s].
slothsarepeculiar 4 years ago
So agnostics are like atheists without balls, right? :) Agnosticism is a claim about knowledge and belief is another matter. When asked about beliefs no-one should hide behind their knowledge claims. Nobody knows the sun will rise tomorrow and yet I don't see any agnostics fighting those who belive the sun will rise tomorrow.
florinmiu 4 years ago
there are many religions in this world...If you believe the existence of god...which definition of god you will prefer ?...or if you are an athiest...why and how to proof that god is not existed through logic ?...science without philosophy is meaningless but philosophy without science is total darkness.....find the truth ! good luck my friends.
Aiwanforyou 4 years ago
to the believer of god..what is your ideas of a god ?...make it precisely clear !...and to the athiest...if you don't know what (precisely) god is..how can you deny the existence of god ?..when you combine the way of the scientist and philosopher's thinking method..soon or later..you'll find the truth ...good luck !
Aiwanforyou 4 years ago
God is a square circle, a self-contradictory concept (existence without mass/energy, consciousness without life, complexity without evolution etc) - and so axiomatically does not exist.
stefbot 4 years ago
I think that statement is very carefully worded, and clever too! When you say axiomatically though, do you mean it simply as a "foundational" concept, or were you making a pun on the Geometrical reference? Just curious.
Doodsrsly 4 years ago
While that was a very nice vid, Stef, it doesn't do much. It simply explains how materialism leads to atheism. And we know how much our friends the theists dislike materialism...
sonata1992 4 years ago
For a more in-depth explanation, you might enjoy my "intro to philosophy" series...
stefbot 4 years ago
Which section of the philosophy series focuses on this? I've been planning on watching them, but I don't usually have enough time for a whole hour long vid :P
sonata1992 4 years ago
The part on religion. They're also available as free podcasts on my web site.
stefbot 4 years ago
Judism exist!!!!!!
rubino0427 4 years ago
not so... :)
stefbot 4 years ago
u can believe what u want and i will belive what I want
rubino0427 4 years ago
Another swing and miss. This is all based on the premise that "only matter and energy exists." The possibility of some other sort of existence is briefly covered by the idea that "some other form of matter or energy" might exist, thus opening up the field greatly, albeit ambiguously. This is dismissed as being "cowardice" but was NOT refuted.
BTW: I am an atheist and I greatly appreciate the effort made here. Please keep at it.
SciPunk215 4 years ago
Haha, do you think this is the only place I have made this argument?
Try my podcasts 502, 511, 604, 607 and 608... :)
stefbot 4 years ago
"... circumcising your son to appease gravity" - Hah!
qtronman 4 years ago
personally I'm an agnostic (don't know what form of agnostic I am but I don't really think that matters) but I do not believe that any religions could be right as every religion I have looked into I have found major flaws.Therfore I am not a coward as this video seems to be suggesting agnostics are as I will argue against someone else's religion and I do not care whether my comments will offend them. They are entitled to they're wrong views and I'm entitled to my views.
Darkasthenight06 4 years ago
Matter/Energy! What happened to Space/Time? And Gravity!?
Physical laws!!? The whole project of physics (a Theory of Everything) is pure hypothesis, not truth. The 'proven' physical laws of Newton, Einstein and Quantum Mechanics significantly contradict each other.
I irrationally believe your assertion that there is no such thing as gods, I completely disagree with your faith that:
physical laws x (matter + energy) = existence
... as a proof that gods do not exist.
al3xgibson 4 years ago
Haha, it's a 12 minute video, sorry for not dealing with all of physics! :)
As an example, though, without matter there would be no gravity...
stefbot 4 years ago
Perhaps a 12 minute video/ essay is not sufficient space/time to positively state the a priori existence of matter/energy and gods.
Newton stated that what goes up must come down. He had no idea why or how, but created a series of physical laws that were very accurate for humans scaled experiments, but have since been proven false at cosmic and quantum scales.
al3xgibson 4 years ago
General Relativity states that gravity is proportional to mass, that is space-time is warped by great mass (matter/energy) creating the effect of gravity. Einstein unified electromagnetism with space-time and matter-energy, but didn't know about strong and weak nuclear forces. Hence no unified theory of everything.
al3xgibson 4 years ago
Quantum mechanics uses a speculative theory of gravity by proposing that a messenger particle called a graviton exists. This theory contradicts Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.
String Theory attempts to unify the universe within Physical Laws, but it is unproven.
My point is that physical laws, or anecdotal references to matter-energy, are not sufficient grounds for whether things exist or not.
polyopticon 4 years ago
You are forgiven for not dealing with all of physics, but don't do it again. ;)
polyopticon 4 years ago
You have not made the case - theoretical particles don't contradict the premise that they need to be observed to be validated... :)
stefbot 4 years ago
Agnosticism is to do with knowledge or knowing.
Atheism is lack of belief.
They aren't mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist.
If you are agnostic you still have to be an atheist or a theist. Agnosticism doesn't negate the other two.
Mjhavok 4 years ago
Atheism means 'against theism'. It is not a lack of belief, but a rational opposition to a dangerous fantasy.
stefbot 4 years ago
I would define atheism as not against theism but without it. Not to appeal to authority but the editor of the Cambridge companion to atheism agrees with me. Against theism would be to me antitheism. Like Christopher Hitchens calls himself an antitheist.
Mjhavok 4 years ago
So then an agnostic is basically someone (like me) that is torn between our planet and it's laws & the vastness of the universe and the unknown. I don't think mankind knows about what potentially exists beyond our own scope of vision. Seriously.. with the apparent size of the universe, who knows what's out there or how/why it came about in the first place?
JonasBridgous 4 years ago
But if it is in the universe, it is logical, and there must be evidence for it, right?
stefbot 4 years ago
Sure. That's if "it" is in our universe. But nobody actually knows if there is a space/something beyond the universe for example. "It" could exist out there perhaps? My point is that there is really a massive spectrum that mankind does not/probably will not ever know about with regard to the universe and beyond. This would be my case for agnosticism. But as far as mankind is concerned, there is no material evidence for a god today.
JonasBridgous 4 years ago
If that 'other' universe ever has impact on our own, then it will be detectable by evidence. If not, it's exactly the same as 'non-existence' - do you see?
stefbot 4 years ago
Ah yes. That's a logical way of looking at it alright.
JonasBridgous 4 years ago
While eliminating the 'middle ground' can we oust the higher and lower ground as well? Everywhere I go in my search for like-minded non-believers I find this conversation re:agnosticism/atheism. Can we stop wasting time on definitions and verbosity and just join together in the spread of reason and the denial of its counterpart?
OGRastamon 4 years ago
(2) Brother Stefbot
by the by Im not trying to "save" anyone -maybe opening blind eyes. Your "surely She loves me & wants to rescue me" statement no doubt is sarcastic but it reveals as always that atheists hold an IDEA (or belief) of what God is if She exists at all.
yrpapa5 4 years ago
So I should just accept that something that makes no sense exists because you say so?
OK - I say that leprechauns and 'square circles' exist - do you believe me?
stefbot 4 years ago
stefbot:
Im not asking U to believe anything.
yrpapa5 4 years ago
This video presentation is 12:54 of pure wind. (Boy, it's drafty in here!)
yrpapa5 4 years ago
'Pure wind' is not an argument.
Tell you what - pray to your god, who surely loves me and wants to rescue me from error. He/she will surely tell you the error in my logic, and then you can tell me and I will be saved!
Thanks brother!
stefbot 4 years ago
Brother Stefbot
"Proof" of what? that a Divine Intelligence exists or not? I find it amusing that there exists billions of inhabitants on this planet & zillions of birds fish animals insects plant life PLUS 200 billion galaxies yet atheists deny "God" exists!
I wager that if She DID appear in the flesh atheists still would demand She first perform miracles like walking & still not satisfied require some "cosmic" ID!
yrpapa5 4 years ago
Astronomy does not require a god.
stefbot 4 years ago
ATHEISTS
are certain that THEY exist but cant see anything further than their noses. Oh yes, they believe in potatoes & cucumbers & beautiful mathematical equations that sound like "music" to their minds but
they ignore "the ghost in the machine" namely "spirit" which scientistZ will never be able to bottle in a lab.
yrpapa5 4 years ago
Metaphors are not proof.
stefbot 4 years ago
NO GOD or KNOW GOD, that is the question
yrpapa5 4 years ago
...and the answer is...
no god :)
stefbot 4 years ago
yrpapa5 4 years ago
Anton Flew, author of The Presumption of Atheism (1984) and Darwinian Evolution (1984)
now belives in God
toptenhistory 4 years ago
That is not a logical argument, and holds no weight with me.
stefbot 4 years ago
From a debate between Francis Collins and DAWKINS: I provided what I thought were cogent arguments against a supernatural intelligent designer. But it does seem to me to be a worthy idea
Richard Dawkins Nov 5th 2006 Time
sharndan 4 years ago
May I offer this question to the atheists debating here (making an assumption that you believe in evolution - if you do not, forgive me): How is entropy not violated by the whole process of evolution?
Tanstripe 4 years ago
Read Richard Dawkins for excellent answers on that!
stefbot 4 years ago
Entropy is the measure of the *total* amount of energy available within a system to do work -- which can also be expressed as the measure of order/disorder within a system. Locally entropy can decrease -- and does so all the time (when a gas freezes and becomes a solid, it's entropy decreases) so long as the entropy in the entire system increases -- that is, the total energy available to do work goes down.
prodprod 4 years ago
However, this doesn't mean that for those who want to be "spiritual" cannot also have an awe inspiring appreciation of nature and the orderliness of the laws of science that does not require an unconfirmable belief in a personal divinity. In that sense, agnosticism does not conflict with a spiritual type of nature worship or appreciation.
joesub007 4 years ago
STIFF
I -& Im sure many otherZ- can offer u MORE than ample "proof" that God existZ. Not to be disrespectful but it seemZ that atheistZ have their headZ in the sand & r tempted to rule with their arseZ.
PS altho' atheism may not be organized it IS a religion that BELIEVEZ that God doesnt exist
The Spaghetti King
yrpapa5 4 years ago
Saying 'atheism is a religion' is like saying 'bald' is a hair color! ;)
You need to make arguments, not assertions.
stefbot 4 years ago
STIFF
as erudite as u come off u need to check the dictionary dude
(Webster's II) "religion":
"a belief pursued with fervor & devotion"
'rnt u stating WHAT eggZactly u BELIEVE?
yrpapa5 4 years ago
There are members of the Republican party that persue their beliefs with "fervor and devotion." Republicanism isn't a religion.
It's silly to demand what an atheist "believes" when it is, explictly not "having" a belief -- but lacking a belief.
You may be an anarchist - someone who *actively* believes in no government.
Or you could simply have grown up on a desert island and you simply have no belief in any system of government.
You could also lack belief in any kind of god.
prodprod 4 years ago
PRODDING
u have a point with the elephants, but sorry: everyone BELIEVES in something, even if it begins with a negative
yrpapa5 4 years ago
Certainly, most people who are atheists do believe in "something" -- and some atheists do affirmatively reject the existence of god the way anarchists affirmatively reject government -- but that doesn't make atheism a religion any more than it makes anarchism a system of government.
prodprod 4 years ago
POD
atheists disdain calling themselves "religious" because they somehow associate it with something "dirty"
I'm convinced there are many atheists who are more spiritual than so-called Christians, dont U agree?
yrpapa5 4 years ago