That's exactly the point that I always bring up. Even if one believes in a God, what makes one believe that God is all loving, all knowing, and all powerful. As I write that, it sounds more like words of comfort than fact.
Actually we DONT know that the universe had a beginning ;) But still, even if the universe didn't have a beginning, it STILL doesn't prove the existence of a God. There could just be an eternal yoyo effect (and that's just ONE possibility off the top of my head.) ;-)
@cmpresents This response is irrelevant. Consciousness need not be mathematically describable in all its entirety before the mind can be studied scientifically. And what does any of this have to do with religion or belief in God? Are you insinuating that until feelings and consciousness are completely understood, religion will be relevant? You are artificially linking two things which are unrelated. Gaps in understanding do not prove God or any religious perceptions.
@cmpresents What do you mean by "mind"? If you mean we cannot study the human brain, human behavior, language use, social behavior, etc, I am afraid we have been doing it for quite some time. Its psychology, neurology, psycholinguistics, neurology, sociology, economics, political science, etc. The direct study of the human mind is called cognitive neuroscience. Please explain why you think all of these recognized sciences are not studying "the mind"?
@IShowYouLawAndOrder I have used this argument for years. What is amazing is how little effect it has on believers. What they attempt to do is alter the definition of god so that god can alter his own "level of mightiness" which is already a contradiction in terms. But anyway, after altering their definition of god, they create a god no theologian would agree with or anyone would want to worship. When I point this out, I get silence.
@Deterodae You show that you do not understand this supposed "smart ass" statement. His example shows that god is limited in one way or another. This means that a perfect god is not possible in this universe. Nothing can be almighty, by definition. SO what are we to do with holy books that have definitions for god that are inherently contradictory and therefore impossible. Either god is almighty or he is not. If he isn't then our holy books and theology are wrong. What do you not get about this?
LOL sorry but your video fails. can you state your scientific background? your analogies suck big time. man did not make the laws but are a way to explain them. when in fact all the laws of nature, universe were made before earth was created.
@zeineguy Of course, all of the attributes of the universe preceded the creation of the earth- no one said otherwise. The "laws of nature" in their entirety do not explain the whole universe. That is because all the attributes of the universe are not all known by humans yet. The attributes are all their, the laws which stand for them are not, because we humans have not made them all yet.
hahaha! yes. And for some reason, these dolts are certain that it is only one maker not a trillion. Why?
Then to take it further to complicate things more, they believe in three forms but in essence one form. HUH? That makes no sense. It's like saying a circle and a triangle being the same shape at the same time.
You could use the example of how many people every year die of falling coconuts.Quite a few actually. So either god is being an asshole and will kill off, nay, smite this little creation with an embarrassing plop on the head with a falling coconut, or yes, it is a coincidence, but a coincidence in the area of likeliness where people who live around those areas will be more susseptible to these falling coconuts. If you're in the army, will you die a death via bullets/landmines or a bus?
its hard to take on a video made by philos there are so many problems i never know where to begin. i think you did a good job in pointing some major flaws.
2:50 roughly - good point, but i would like to add that not only is he said to have created everything, he is said to have done it with *magic*. he *poofed* everything into existence whilst not following the laws of the conservation of energy etc...
it goes something like this:
universe = unknown
then: universe -> supernatural (but supernatural is, by definition, an unknown.)
so therefore: universe -> supernatural -> unknown.
it doesn't get us anywhere. it actually pushes science back...
@Niekdvries248 But that is the whole point. Philos does not understand quantum mechanics. His arguments are warmed over creationist arguments that we have all heard before and that have been debunked before, over and over, by scientists. What makes you think that Philos knows something that scientists do not? What makes you think that amateur theology is any match for science? Again, I am simply parroting the words of famous scientists. Please explain why I should beleive you and not them?
@Niekdvries248 All such argumetns have been debunked by scientists a long time ago. The propaganda is the same. Make a misleading statement about science saying that something is impossible and yet happening- therefore god exists. This assumes that if we find something apparently impossible it immediately proves god. Even if such impossibilities were to be found it would mean that we are mistaken or have not discovered something yet-a gap in knowledge. Here we go with the god of the gaps again.
@FourDeuce01 Bravo. One thing that came to my mind is how many things that we know to happen have a very small likelihood of occurring. When one takes into account that the universe is 13 billion or so years old, one realizes that even very unlikely things are bound to happen eventually.
@Niekdvries248 Why do you assume that if carbon based life continues it is either due to a mythological deity or by accident? Why does the absence of myth necessitate "accidents?" Then you call this false choice a scientific fact?? Carbon based life continues for obvious biological reasons that require no outside force. The laws are man-made abstractions based on experiments which show how the universe is already, on its own, working. No evidence suggests these laws require a deity to function
@Niekdvries248 But one cannot claim anythign by reading verses form a book of myth. His definition is not scientific at all since it is not based on scientific evidence. Rational thinking is not science exactly. Science is based on rational thinking about careful measurements, observations, and experimentation. God cannot be measured, observed, or put into an experiment. There are no natural phenomenon that require him for an explanation. Thus god is an unscientific concept by definition.
That's what bothers me too is the assumption that the bible is somehow relevant and they throw out verses like its supposed to convince us. Also the amaturish attempts of these Christians to dip into science and then make giant leaps of logic to the Christian god. Why not leap to Allah or Thor or Zeus? I think we pick on Philos because he is such an easy target.
The whole idea behind 'no evidence for God' is a fallacy. They/We show you evidence but you dont want or just simply dont interpret it as such, What you really want is proof and proof is just an interpretation of evidence. Just beacuse you dont interpret the 'said evidence' as proof for God doent mean there is no 'evidence'for God. Very simple vocabulary misconseption. People use proof and evidence as the samething but they are really quite different.
@NLyTeTV We don't accept your "evidence" because it is bogus. Science measures evidence without "interpreting" it they way you describe. Proof is not an interpretation of evidence, proof is evidence that makes a proposition inevitable. Evidence of god would be data that can not be explained without god, once you have a simpler alternative more-likely hypothesis for data, you have no evidence for god. There must be evidence for god before god counts as a valid explanation.
@SkepticSage You obviously have no idea what science is. the definiton of science is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. (Wikipedia) How can you test evidence for no God? back to an interpretation huh! Proof = The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. (West's Encyclopedia) Not inevitable!!! your english is poor and so is your science
@NLyTeTV One does not have to test evidence for no god. One simply has to acknowledge that the god concept is not clearly defined, has extreme disagreements in definition, has never been observed, is without any direct or indirect evidence to suggest its existence, and is derived from a book of myth which contains impossible absurdities that violate the laws of nature. Things that exist give off evidence. God is the largest variable ever posited and yet leaves evidence nowhere. Impossible.
"The whole idea behind 'no evidence for God' is a fallacy."
It should be easy for you to prove that claim. Just produce some evidence. Hint: Most atheists(like any other person with a working brain) will only accept empirical or logical evidence. Got any?
"or just simply dont interpret it as such"
Evidence that needs to be "interpreted" is neither logical nor empirical.
@SkepticSage Well, if "Something must come from something = God exists" is a valid philosophical argument, then philosophy as a scientific tool is reduced to nonsensical non-sequitur babble that may prove everything and therefore proves nothing. Giant leaps of faith have no place in logical reasoning. That was my point :)
@varunnagpaal If I replace god with electron it will make no sense. We never believed in electrons before we had evidence of their existence. Electrons are not part of a book of fairytales. You should keep the amateur psychotherapy to yourself, you suck at it. The arguments I have given are the reason I do not beleive in god. I do not beleive in religion due to the fact that religions have a track record of violence, immorality, and not coming to the aid of injustice.
"The concept of electron is inherently contradictory. There can be no evidence now or ever for electron to exist. Asking for scientific proof that electron does not exist shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. There is no evidence that unicorns do not exists. However we know that unicorns have fictions written about them, and that humans have a history of making stuff up. The same is true for electron."
@varunnagpaal Your analogy is flawed.The electron has not been defined in a contradictory way, God has. Electrons can be measured, god can't. One cannot proof the lack of existence of anything, but how would we know of the existence of something without evidence? When something is posited without evidence it means it was made up. Electrons have no fictions written about them, we had no idea of their existence until we could measure subatomic particles. God & electron aren't comparable.
Ok here is is your statement (I replaced god with electron), presume that we are asking the question 1000 years ago the same way we are now asking the question about god
philos77 is a mental midget who probably has gotten away with being so before his peers for so long that he felt safe going public with ignorance. The problem being that in the real world, his bullshit does not stand up at all.
Dude, there is a difference between "Believing" and "Knowing". Nobody can know if God exists, but of course they may believe so and it is NOT their plight to proof that they are right.
In fact, it is impossible to proof God exists and it is also impossible to proof God does not exist.
English is not my mothertongue but I think the word "evidence" is the problem as it can mean "proof", but it can also mean "indication". I guess philos71 is not retarded, i.e. he didnt mean to "proof" anything.
well done sir. this guy falls into the category of theists that have a superficial understanding of science and attempt to use that to prove something non scientific. the video you are responding to is very much a god of the gaps argument, but he somehow rationalizes (or maybe glosses over) it in his "5 questions..." vid.
The theists keep using arguments that at BEST, would apply only to a deist position, never, ever, anything that would prove a theistic viewpoint of a specific religion. Furthermore, even all these arguments (i.e., the universe MUST have a designer! It must! It must!), are logically fallacious. Furthermore, there is strong logical evidence to argue against an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God--such as the nagging problem of evil.
Daniel Dennet spoke at my university. Brilliant lecture. A friend of mine changed his major to philosophy in part because of what he learned from Dennet.
However, I never desired for the "sophistry" to be an argument itself. I merely am a filmmaker that likes art, and in everything art must be present. So your statement of this is an assumption in itself. It's as if every Christian has to have crappy, artless videos, then it makes sense: philosophy/theology/science coming from a Christian served in a rusty, ugly platter. That is not so at all.
Hey philos, I'm a humanist who subscribes to your channel. I think it's great. Entertaining and sometimes thought provoking. You are talented and very presentable. However, SkepticSage's rebuttal contains pretty much the same arguments I was going to make.. only I clicked on his link before getting a chance to comment on your page.
Yes, just like wind, and gravity. But especially with Gravity, you cannot see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, or taste it, but it exists. And because it consistently manifests in reality; I, or anyone else can independently demonstrate its effect. This fact cannot be said/shown for any of the fictional/imaginary characters such as fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, and/or the (by definition) fictional gods that others seem to believe in.
Although I am not too inclined to debate on issue on atheism, but some of the statements in this video I don't agree with. My stand on god is an open question. To me whether god exists is just a conjecture. So I am on this side where people believe the conjecture may be true and your on the side who believe conjecture will not be true. But saying that having no evidence of god means there is no god, sounds very naive to me.
@varunnagpaal I am talking about the concept of god as described not some vague concept which could mean anythign to anyone. The god concept is itself contradictory and associated with ridiculous tales which means its origin is fictitious. Of course fictitious things can end up being true. However, god is also purported to be a HUGE variable, being everywhere, creating, causing, and being involved in literally everything. But it leaves evidence nowhere. I beleive this is impossible.
Lot of mathematician made conjectures: which is like saying they know somehow by intuition that there assertion is true, but they simply dont know how to prove it. Fermat's last theorem took more than 350 years to prove his conjecture. But not knowing the solution to the problem, doesn't leads to conclusion the solution does not exists. Its only until someone proves or disproves it that we get to know the truth.
@varunnagpaal I beleive your analogy does not hold. First, god is an empirical issue, not a mathematical or logical one. Secondly, theorems are clearly and cleanly stated, the god concept is vague. Third, a theorem is derived from prior knowledge we know to be true. The god concept is related to nothing accept other stories we know or can be reasonably sure are fictions.
If you say you believe in scientific reasoning why not believe in mathematics or physics. Of course they are our interpretations of understanding the universe. I don't agree that defining a theorem requires precise definition. Lot of mathematicians and physicists made conjectures. Recently a Russian mathematician proved a conjecture which in fact is somehow related to the naive question of why circle is round. Science allows you to question everything
@varunnagpaal Where did I say I do not beleive in physics or mathematics? You should learn to listen better. Physics does not deal with interpretations, it deals with demonstrable truths. Science does not let you question established fact without evidence or to assert a truth without evidence. Evidence is always required. When you posit the existence of god- the burden of proof is on YOU. The god concept is not scientific- it is vague, without evidence, and derived from fiction.
@varunnagpaal Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ACCEPT when the phenomenon is big or the area is small. To say there is no marble in a shoebox only requires looking in the box and noticing the absence of evidence. The idea that there is a pyramid in Egypt 10 times larger than guiza only requires a trip to Egypt. But a god that is described as everywhere and intimately involved in everything should leave evidence EVERYWHERE. Instead he leaves no evidence anywhere. Suspicious.
According to your analogy just because we cant see/feel electrons doesnt me they dont exists. 200 years old nobody would believe dinosaurs existed. Not because they didnt, but because we hadnt found evidence till then. 100 years ago nobody would think its possible to visit moon. but we did. Until recently scientists believed water didnt exist on moon, but it did. My whole point here is that seeing or feeling or any other means are not the only means to assert the evidence.
@varunnagpaal You don't listen very well. In the video I talk about "indirect evidence." We have much evidence that elections are there, we can measure them in experiments, know their mass etc. God is not like this, he cannot be measured and leaves no indirect evidence of his existence. There was no myth of the dinosaurs before they were discovered (like there is for god). 100 years ago people DID think it was possible to visit the moon and wrote about it. Seeing is a necessity of science.
Guys you are simply not scientific in your explanations. In fact you contradict yourself when you talk about moon. Read what you have written about moon carefully. Replace moon by God, and thats what I am trying to say. How do you know god cannot be measured, just because we have not reached a scientific level where we have donot have an understanding on how to build or measure it.
@varunnagpaal How can something which is invisible and has no effect on anything else be measured or said to exist? To insist that something be measurable or suggested by measurements of other things, is the hallmark of science. Are their things in the universe as yet unknown that aren't as yet measured even indirectly? YES, But those things are utterly unknown and thus have no description. God is described at length, without even one measurement. Where do these descriptions come from? Emotions!
The current experiment being done at CERN, Geneva which is said to simulate bing bang is to find some elementary particles which scientists conjectured that they think they may exist. They had no evidence. In fact if you don't know, there are more elementary particles for which we don't have any means to measure them, but thats doesn't mean there existence is COMPLETELY ruled out. Thats what you are saying, and thats completely illogical.
@varunnagpaal They think these particles exist because they HAVE evidence. If you measure other particles and then realize the existence of a hypothetical particle would explain a lot of things, the hypothetical particle is indirectly suggested by other evidence. No such indirect evidence exists for god, nothing is unexplainable without him and he adds nothing to the coherence of the universe. If God existed there would be evidence.
I think your notion of time is also flawed. According to you, asking 1000 years ago, whether electron(god) exists just because we didn't had instruments or theory then to measure/understand an electron(god), means they don't exist, because you didnt had any evidence(direct/indirect)
@varunnagpaal But we did not posit the existence of electrons until we had evidence. No one in ancient Greece discussed electrons. Saying that everything is made of small stuff is not a very complex theory. The ancient Grecian idea of atoms is so different from our own that they are in fact NOT the same theory, despite using the same word. I cant think of one example of something that was believed for emotional reasons with absolutely no evidence and then turned out to be true.
@varunnagpaal 1000 years ago no one asked about elections because no one had any idea that they existed. However, 1000, years ago they believed in the existence of a myriad of animals that do not exist (e.g. dragons). They also posited thousands of gods, none of which are believed to exits anymore. One of those gods was Yahweh/Jehovah of the Hebrew people. He is the only imaginary entity still believed in. But he is not believed in by the vast majority of scientists. Coincidence?
Problem is, the problem of theory/existence of electron is solved/proved, but problem of theory/existence god is unsolved/unproven. Its the most difficult problem or question that mankind has asked and none has answer to it(neither you). Thats my stand.
@varunnagpaal But your missing something. There was evidence and a reason to beleive in atoms to begin with. There is no reason to beleive in god other than how it makes us feel. Such feelings are not legitimate evidence in science. Evidence comes BEFORE something is seen as a viable hypothesis. God does not even reach that level. And there was no evidence to support the idea that electrons were fictitious and believed for emotional reasons. With god there is ample evidence that he is made up.
@varunnagpaal The existence of god (as defined by Christians) was dis-proven by science a long time ago. The reason this fact is not accepted is not due to scientific issues but emotional issues. People are unable to face life without a space daddy in the sky and an afterlife ready for them when they die. It is too difficult for them to live a life where we are on our own and after we die we cease to exist.
Just because the evidence is beyond our reach until now doesn't mean it will not exist. Ok I do understand that there is a possibility god doesn't exist. But what I donot understand is what scientific assertion(I need proofs) that god doesn't exist. Prove me mathematically, physically, chemically,etc that explains coherently we completely rule out the possibility of god, and I will accept you.
@varunnagpaal The concept of god is inherently contradictory. There can be no evidence now or ever for god that is all capable and all powerful at the same time. Asking for scientific proof that god does not exist shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. There is no evidence that unicorns do not exists. However we know that unicorns have fictions written about them, and that humans have a history of making stuff up. The same is true for god.
This guy makes me smile. :D A real thinker, thanks man.
NuPheonix 1 year ago
That's exactly the point that I always bring up. Even if one believes in a God, what makes one believe that God is all loving, all knowing, and all powerful. As I write that, it sounds more like words of comfort than fact.
muzikjay 1 year ago
Actually we DONT know that the universe had a beginning ;) But still, even if the universe didn't have a beginning, it STILL doesn't prove the existence of a God. There could just be an eternal yoyo effect (and that's just ONE possibility off the top of my head.) ;-)
devilzown11 1 year ago
BUT WE CAN OBSERVE THE EFFECTS OF GOD!!! Look at the effect hes having on imbeciles like Philos71
greeny202a 1 year ago
quick question. are you reading from a script?
i don't want to raise an issue, and props if its of your own. it just seems like you were.
hiphopguy0 1 year ago
@hiphopguy0 No script just notes
SkepticSage 1 year ago
Great video.
cujasmine13 1 year ago
SkepticSage, explain feelings with mathematics, explain consciouness with mathematics, this should keep you busy for the rest of your life.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents This response is irrelevant. Consciousness need not be mathematically describable in all its entirety before the mind can be studied scientifically. And what does any of this have to do with religion or belief in God? Are you insinuating that until feelings and consciousness are completely understood, religion will be relevant? You are artificially linking two things which are unrelated. Gaps in understanding do not prove God or any religious perceptions.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage Ok, then describe it in parts. The mind can't be study scientifically.
cmpresents 1 year ago
@cmpresents What do you mean by "mind"? If you mean we cannot study the human brain, human behavior, language use, social behavior, etc, I am afraid we have been doing it for quite some time. Its psychology, neurology, psycholinguistics, neurology, sociology, economics, political science, etc. The direct study of the human mind is called cognitive neuroscience. Please explain why you think all of these recognized sciences are not studying "the mind"?
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@cmpresents And again I must ask. What does this have to do with the video above? What does it have to do with atheist and theism.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
A question:
Can God create something that he cannot destroy ?
If yes: God is not almighty, because he can't destroy anything.
If no: God is not almighty, because he can't create anything.
Hence: God is not almighty. God doesn't exist.
Example:
Can God destroy himself, can he end his own existence, if he were to exist ?
If not, then he's less capable than any human being.
If yes, then he's not invulnerable, hence no God.
Please spread this information, if you are an atheist like me.
IShowYouLawAndOrder 1 year ago
@IShowYouLawAndOrder
Saw this a few times now. You might want to correct it.
If God can create something he cannot destroy, that doesn't mean he can't create anything, that just means he can't destroy it after he's created it.
If he cannot, that means he can't, that doesn't mean anything more than he can't create a specific item.
I don't know what your game is, but you've got to check these things before you start mass-posting them.
Deterodae 1 year ago
@Deterodae
Replace "anything" with "any one thing".
So it's like:
Can God create something that he cannot destroy ?
If so: God is not almighty, because there's at least one thing he can't destroy.
If no: God is not almighty, because there's at least one thing he can't create.
Hence: God is not almighty. God doesn't exist.
Almight is an indispensable precondition to being a God.
If one can create a logical contradiction regarding almight, then it's possible to prove God's non-existence.
IShowYouLawAndOrder 1 year ago
@IShowYouLawAndOrder I have used this argument for years. What is amazing is how little effect it has on believers. What they attempt to do is alter the definition of god so that god can alter his own "level of mightiness" which is already a contradiction in terms. But anyway, after altering their definition of god, they create a god no theologian would agree with or anyone would want to worship. When I point this out, I get silence.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@Deterodae You show that you do not understand this supposed "smart ass" statement. His example shows that god is limited in one way or another. This means that a perfect god is not possible in this universe. Nothing can be almighty, by definition. SO what are we to do with holy books that have definitions for god that are inherently contradictory and therefore impossible. Either god is almighty or he is not. If he isn't then our holy books and theology are wrong. What do you not get about this?
SkepticSage 1 year ago
Sage! we need more videos! get back to me!
Powerslave138 1 year ago
LOL sorry but your video fails. can you state your scientific background? your analogies suck big time. man did not make the laws but are a way to explain them. when in fact all the laws of nature, universe were made before earth was created.
zeineguy 1 year ago
@zeineguy Of course, all of the attributes of the universe preceded the creation of the earth- no one said otherwise. The "laws of nature" in their entirety do not explain the whole universe. That is because all the attributes of the universe are not all known by humans yet. The attributes are all their, the laws which stand for them are not, because we humans have not made them all yet.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
I am an atheist but I am now a Carlinist. I believe in the Sun because I can see it, it gives us energy, it makes us live. I believe in the sun.
mullen2105 1 year ago
@mullen2105 LMAO
Powerslave138 1 year ago
@mysticsanguine The evolution of the eye has been explained quite thoroughly by many scientists.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
3:05 excellent point sir.
anarimus 1 year ago
At 6:50)
hahaha! yes. And for some reason, these dolts are certain that it is only one maker not a trillion. Why?
Then to take it further to complicate things more, they believe in three forms but in essence one form. HUH? That makes no sense. It's like saying a circle and a triangle being the same shape at the same time.
It's retarded!
Domzdream 1 year ago
At(4:05)
You could use the example of how many people every year die of falling coconuts.Quite a few actually. So either god is being an asshole and will kill off, nay, smite this little creation with an embarrassing plop on the head with a falling coconut, or yes, it is a coincidence, but a coincidence in the area of likeliness where people who live around those areas will be more susseptible to these falling coconuts. If you're in the army, will you die a death via bullets/landmines or a bus?
Domzdream 1 year ago
its hard to take on a video made by philos there are so many problems i never know where to begin. i think you did a good job in pointing some major flaws.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
2:50 roughly - good point, but i would like to add that not only is he said to have created everything, he is said to have done it with *magic*. he *poofed* everything into existence whilst not following the laws of the conservation of energy etc...
it goes something like this:
universe = unknown
then: universe -> supernatural (but supernatural is, by definition, an unknown.)
so therefore: universe -> supernatural -> unknown.
it doesn't get us anywhere. it actually pushes science back...
daemonowner 1 year ago
@Niekdvries248
"but if that which is presented in Philos' video about quantom mechanichs is true"
I wouldn't count on ANYTHING in philos's video being true. He lies even when the truth would be easier.
FourDeuce01 1 year ago
@Niekdvries248
""If there was a natural system which caused nuclei to come together, and it is unguided that would be like an extra variable in a formula."
Sort of like a god, right?
You don't like extra variables? Why throw in your fairy tale god?
FourDeuce01 1 year ago
I made a video about philos. I hope I got some facts strait. D:
YawwdSM 1 year ago
@Niekdvries248 But that is the whole point. Philos does not understand quantum mechanics. His arguments are warmed over creationist arguments that we have all heard before and that have been debunked before, over and over, by scientists. What makes you think that Philos knows something that scientists do not? What makes you think that amateur theology is any match for science? Again, I am simply parroting the words of famous scientists. Please explain why I should beleive you and not them?
SkepticSage 1 year ago 2
@Niekdvries248 All such argumetns have been debunked by scientists a long time ago. The propaganda is the same. Make a misleading statement about science saying that something is impossible and yet happening- therefore god exists. This assumes that if we find something apparently impossible it immediately proves god. Even if such impossibilities were to be found it would mean that we are mistaken or have not discovered something yet-a gap in knowledge. Here we go with the god of the gaps again.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@Niekdvries248
"the chances of there being so many carbon-based life forms are very, very small."
How small?
"If there is no agent it is unlikely to happen."
Is it? Prove that claim, if you can.
"This would make the chances of unguided growth even smaller."
Show the math, if you can, then. You claim the chances are small and smaller. Prove it.
FourDeuce01 1 year ago
@FourDeuce01 Bravo. One thing that came to my mind is how many things that we know to happen have a very small likelihood of occurring. When one takes into account that the universe is 13 billion or so years old, one realizes that even very unlikely things are bound to happen eventually.
SkepticSage 1 year ago 2
@SkepticSage if that was the case then mars should be inhabited.
zeineguy 1 year ago
@zeineguy I'm not following you. Why must Mars be inhabited???
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@Niekdvries248 Why do you assume that if carbon based life continues it is either due to a mythological deity or by accident? Why does the absence of myth necessitate "accidents?" Then you call this false choice a scientific fact?? Carbon based life continues for obvious biological reasons that require no outside force. The laws are man-made abstractions based on experiments which show how the universe is already, on its own, working. No evidence suggests these laws require a deity to function
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@Niekdvries248 But one cannot claim anythign by reading verses form a book of myth. His definition is not scientific at all since it is not based on scientific evidence. Rational thinking is not science exactly. Science is based on rational thinking about careful measurements, observations, and experimentation. God cannot be measured, observed, or put into an experiment. There are no natural phenomenon that require him for an explanation. Thus god is an unscientific concept by definition.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
That's what bothers me too is the assumption that the bible is somehow relevant and they throw out verses like its supposed to convince us. Also the amaturish attempts of these Christians to dip into science and then make giant leaps of logic to the Christian god. Why not leap to Allah or Thor or Zeus? I think we pick on Philos because he is such an easy target.
Mahgwa 1 year ago
The whole idea behind 'no evidence for God' is a fallacy. They/We show you evidence but you dont want or just simply dont interpret it as such, What you really want is proof and proof is just an interpretation of evidence. Just beacuse you dont interpret the 'said evidence' as proof for God doent mean there is no 'evidence'for God. Very simple vocabulary misconseption. People use proof and evidence as the samething but they are really quite different.
NLyTeTV 1 year ago
@NLyTeTV We don't accept your "evidence" because it is bogus. Science measures evidence without "interpreting" it they way you describe. Proof is not an interpretation of evidence, proof is evidence that makes a proposition inevitable. Evidence of god would be data that can not be explained without god, once you have a simpler alternative more-likely hypothesis for data, you have no evidence for god. There must be evidence for god before god counts as a valid explanation.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage You obviously have no idea what science is. the definiton of science is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories. (Wikipedia) How can you test evidence for no God? back to an interpretation huh! Proof = The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. (West's Encyclopedia) Not inevitable!!! your english is poor and so is your science
NLyTeTV 1 year ago
@NLyTeTV One does not have to test evidence for no god. One simply has to acknowledge that the god concept is not clearly defined, has extreme disagreements in definition, has never been observed, is without any direct or indirect evidence to suggest its existence, and is derived from a book of myth which contains impossible absurdities that violate the laws of nature. Things that exist give off evidence. God is the largest variable ever posited and yet leaves evidence nowhere. Impossible.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@NLyTeTV
"The whole idea behind 'no evidence for God' is a fallacy."
It should be easy for you to prove that claim. Just produce some evidence. Hint: Most atheists(like any other person with a working brain) will only accept empirical or logical evidence. Got any?
"or just simply dont interpret it as such"
Evidence that needs to be "interpreted" is neither logical nor empirical.
FourDeuce01 1 year ago
Philos71 has no "spell". He just tries to follow the old saying, "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit." ;)
FourDeuce01 1 year ago
@SkepticSage Well, if "Something must come from something = God exists" is a valid philosophical argument, then philosophy as a scientific tool is reduced to nonsensical non-sequitur babble that may prove everything and therefore proves nothing. Giant leaps of faith have no place in logical reasoning. That was my point :)
bongolongo 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal If I replace god with electron it will make no sense. We never believed in electrons before we had evidence of their existence. Electrons are not part of a book of fairytales. You should keep the amateur psychotherapy to yourself, you suck at it. The arguments I have given are the reason I do not beleive in god. I do not beleive in religion due to the fact that religions have a track record of violence, immorality, and not coming to the aid of injustice.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
Prime Mover argument = philosophical lobotomy.
bongolongo 1 year ago
"The concept of electron is inherently contradictory. There can be no evidence now or ever for electron to exist. Asking for scientific proof that electron does not exist shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. There is no evidence that unicorns do not exists. However we know that unicorns have fictions written about them, and that humans have a history of making stuff up. The same is true for electron."
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal Your analogy is flawed.The electron has not been defined in a contradictory way, God has. Electrons can be measured, god can't. One cannot proof the lack of existence of anything, but how would we know of the existence of something without evidence? When something is posited without evidence it means it was made up. Electrons have no fictions written about them, we had no idea of their existence until we could measure subatomic particles. God & electron aren't comparable.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
Ok here is is your statement (I replaced god with electron), presume that we are asking the question 1000 years ago the same way we are now asking the question about god
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal Again they are not comparable. You are making an analogy between tow very different situations. Your argument is flawed.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
Subscribing. You responded with so many of the things that I wanted to comment with on his video. Thanks for being awesome.
jgodby1 1 year ago
philos77 is a mental midget who probably has gotten away with being so before his peers for so long that he felt safe going public with ignorance. The problem being that in the real world, his bullshit does not stand up at all.
sharkysvideostore 1 year ago
Dude, there is a difference between "Believing" and "Knowing". Nobody can know if God exists, but of course they may believe so and it is NOT their plight to proof that they are right.
In fact, it is impossible to proof God exists and it is also impossible to proof God does not exist.
English is not my mothertongue but I think the word "evidence" is the problem as it can mean "proof", but it can also mean "indication". I guess philos71 is not retarded, i.e. he didnt mean to "proof" anything.
Superhaufen1337 1 year ago
I really wish rational people didn't have to waste their time addressing retards like philos71.
rayallenchallenge 1 year ago
well done sir. this guy falls into the category of theists that have a superficial understanding of science and attempt to use that to prove something non scientific. the video you are responding to is very much a god of the gaps argument, but he somehow rationalizes (or maybe glosses over) it in his "5 questions..." vid.
JesusFuck 1 year ago
You're group one.
BeachBumGTG 1 year ago
The theists keep using arguments that at BEST, would apply only to a deist position, never, ever, anything that would prove a theistic viewpoint of a specific religion. Furthermore, even all these arguments (i.e., the universe MUST have a designer! It must! It must!), are logically fallacious. Furthermore, there is strong logical evidence to argue against an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing God--such as the nagging problem of evil.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
Daniel Dennet spoke at my university. Brilliant lecture. A friend of mine changed his major to philosophy in part because of what he learned from Dennet.
edthewave 1 year ago
Good video. Keep it up :)
redsaint182 1 year ago
every thing you do is act of creativity so whats wrong in presenting what ever you have to say in creative way rather then in boring way?
EnariellStarlight 1 year ago
Good rebuttal.
However, I never desired for the "sophistry" to be an argument itself. I merely am a filmmaker that likes art, and in everything art must be present. So your statement of this is an assumption in itself. It's as if every Christian has to have crappy, artless videos, then it makes sense: philosophy/theology/science coming from a Christian served in a rusty, ugly platter. That is not so at all.
philos71 1 year ago
@philos71
Hey philos, I'm a humanist who subscribes to your channel. I think it's great. Entertaining and sometimes thought provoking. You are talented and very presentable. However, SkepticSage's rebuttal contains pretty much the same arguments I was going to make.. only I clicked on his link before getting a chance to comment on your page.
channel715 1 year ago
@philos71 No, your video contained an argument. It practically demanded a response from the title.
Understand that when you attempt to claim evidence where all you have is faith, people will call you out on it.
skepticaltuber 1 year ago
Wonderful to see you again! Good vid!
CrankyCrone 2 years ago
Yes, just like wind, and gravity. But especially with Gravity, you cannot see it, hear it, touch it, smell it, or taste it, but it exists. And because it consistently manifests in reality; I, or anyone else can independently demonstrate its effect. This fact cannot be said/shown for any of the fictional/imaginary characters such as fairies, leprechauns, unicorns, and/or the (by definition) fictional gods that others seem to believe in.
Great video SkepticSage. ★★★★★
Katalyzt
Katalyzt 2 years ago
Bravo
SkepticSage 2 years ago
@SkepticSage
Although I am not too inclined to debate on issue on atheism, but some of the statements in this video I don't agree with. My stand on god is an open question. To me whether god exists is just a conjecture. So I am on this side where people believe the conjecture may be true and your on the side who believe conjecture will not be true. But saying that having no evidence of god means there is no god, sounds very naive to me.
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
Just a question, why do you believe god does not exist? What makes you so sure that the conjecture(which it is to me) is false!
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal I am talking about the concept of god as described not some vague concept which could mean anythign to anyone. The god concept is itself contradictory and associated with ridiculous tales which means its origin is fictitious. Of course fictitious things can end up being true. However, god is also purported to be a HUGE variable, being everywhere, creating, causing, and being involved in literally everything. But it leaves evidence nowhere. I beleive this is impossible.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal
Lot of mathematician made conjectures: which is like saying they know somehow by intuition that there assertion is true, but they simply dont know how to prove it. Fermat's last theorem took more than 350 years to prove his conjecture. But not knowing the solution to the problem, doesn't leads to conclusion the solution does not exists. Its only until someone proves or disproves it that we get to know the truth.
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal I beleive your analogy does not hold. First, god is an empirical issue, not a mathematical or logical one. Secondly, theorems are clearly and cleanly stated, the god concept is vague. Third, a theorem is derived from prior knowledge we know to be true. The god concept is related to nothing accept other stories we know or can be reasonably sure are fictions.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage
If you say you believe in scientific reasoning why not believe in mathematics or physics. Of course they are our interpretations of understanding the universe. I don't agree that defining a theorem requires precise definition. Lot of mathematicians and physicists made conjectures. Recently a Russian mathematician proved a conjecture which in fact is somehow related to the naive question of why circle is round. Science allows you to question everything
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal Where did I say I do not beleive in physics or mathematics? You should learn to listen better. Physics does not deal with interpretations, it deals with demonstrable truths. Science does not let you question established fact without evidence or to assert a truth without evidence. Evidence is always required. When you posit the existence of god- the burden of proof is on YOU. The god concept is not scientific- it is vague, without evidence, and derived from fiction.
outlawleather 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal Again, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence ACCEPT when the phenomenon is big or the area is small. To say there is no marble in a shoebox only requires looking in the box and noticing the absence of evidence. The idea that there is a pyramid in Egypt 10 times larger than guiza only requires a trip to Egypt. But a god that is described as everywhere and intimately involved in everything should leave evidence EVERYWHERE. Instead he leaves no evidence anywhere. Suspicious.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage
According to your analogy just because we cant see/feel electrons doesnt me they dont exists. 200 years old nobody would believe dinosaurs existed. Not because they didnt, but because we hadnt found evidence till then. 100 years ago nobody would think its possible to visit moon. but we did. Until recently scientists believed water didnt exist on moon, but it did. My whole point here is that seeing or feeling or any other means are not the only means to assert the evidence.
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal You don't listen very well. In the video I talk about "indirect evidence." We have much evidence that elections are there, we can measure them in experiments, know their mass etc. God is not like this, he cannot be measured and leaves no indirect evidence of his existence. There was no myth of the dinosaurs before they were discovered (like there is for god). 100 years ago people DID think it was possible to visit the moon and wrote about it. Seeing is a necessity of science.
outlawleather 1 year ago
@outlawleather
Guys you are simply not scientific in your explanations. In fact you contradict yourself when you talk about moon. Read what you have written about moon carefully. Replace moon by God, and thats what I am trying to say. How do you know god cannot be measured, just because we have not reached a scientific level where we have donot have an understanding on how to build or measure it.
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal How can something which is invisible and has no effect on anything else be measured or said to exist? To insist that something be measurable or suggested by measurements of other things, is the hallmark of science. Are their things in the universe as yet unknown that aren't as yet measured even indirectly? YES, But those things are utterly unknown and thus have no description. God is described at length, without even one measurement. Where do these descriptions come from? Emotions!
outlawleather 1 year ago
@outlawleather
The current experiment being done at CERN, Geneva which is said to simulate bing bang is to find some elementary particles which scientists conjectured that they think they may exist. They had no evidence. In fact if you don't know, there are more elementary particles for which we don't have any means to measure them, but thats doesn't mean there existence is COMPLETELY ruled out. Thats what you are saying, and thats completely illogical.
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal They think these particles exist because they HAVE evidence. If you measure other particles and then realize the existence of a hypothetical particle would explain a lot of things, the hypothetical particle is indirectly suggested by other evidence. No such indirect evidence exists for god, nothing is unexplainable without him and he adds nothing to the coherence of the universe. If God existed there would be evidence.
outlawleather 1 year ago
@outlawleather
I think your notion of time is also flawed. According to you, asking 1000 years ago, whether electron(god) exists just because we didn't had instruments or theory then to measure/understand an electron(god), means they don't exist, because you didnt had any evidence(direct/indirect)
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal But we did not posit the existence of electrons until we had evidence. No one in ancient Greece discussed electrons. Saying that everything is made of small stuff is not a very complex theory. The ancient Grecian idea of atoms is so different from our own that they are in fact NOT the same theory, despite using the same word. I cant think of one example of something that was believed for emotional reasons with absolutely no evidence and then turned out to be true.
outlawleather 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal 1000 years ago no one asked about elections because no one had any idea that they existed. However, 1000, years ago they believed in the existence of a myriad of animals that do not exist (e.g. dragons). They also posited thousands of gods, none of which are believed to exits anymore. One of those gods was Yahweh/Jehovah of the Hebrew people. He is the only imaginary entity still believed in. But he is not believed in by the vast majority of scientists. Coincidence?
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@outlawleather
Problem is, the problem of theory/existence of electron is solved/proved, but problem of theory/existence god is unsolved/unproven. Its the most difficult problem or question that mankind has asked and none has answer to it(neither you). Thats my stand.
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal But your missing something. There was evidence and a reason to beleive in atoms to begin with. There is no reason to beleive in god other than how it makes us feel. Such feelings are not legitimate evidence in science. Evidence comes BEFORE something is seen as a viable hypothesis. God does not even reach that level. And there was no evidence to support the idea that electrons were fictitious and believed for emotional reasons. With god there is ample evidence that he is made up.
outlawleather 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal The existence of god (as defined by Christians) was dis-proven by science a long time ago. The reason this fact is not accepted is not due to scientific issues but emotional issues. People are unable to face life without a space daddy in the sky and an afterlife ready for them when they die. It is too difficult for them to live a life where we are on our own and after we die we cease to exist.
SkepticSage 1 year ago
@SkepticSage
Just because the evidence is beyond our reach until now doesn't mean it will not exist. Ok I do understand that there is a possibility god doesn't exist. But what I donot understand is what scientific assertion(I need proofs) that god doesn't exist. Prove me mathematically, physically, chemically,etc that explains coherently we completely rule out the possibility of god, and I will accept you.
varunnagpaal 1 year ago
@varunnagpaal The concept of god is inherently contradictory. There can be no evidence now or ever for god that is all capable and all powerful at the same time. Asking for scientific proof that god does not exist shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of science. There is no evidence that unicorns do not exists. However we know that unicorns have fictions written about them, and that humans have a history of making stuff up. The same is true for god.
outlawleather 1 year ago
Welcome back!
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Thanks
SkepticSage 2 years ago
Blasphemy!!!
The apple-bug god is going to send you to hayell!
TheRedneckAtheist 2 years ago
LOL
SkepticSage 2 years ago