 I can put on lipstick. I can put on makeup. I can pretend I'm a girlfriend and my boyfriend loves me very much. All right guys, so welcome back to the channel if you're new, my name's Bobby. Guys, we are back with a new interface. Finally, we have a semi-professional setup. Today, we're gonna react to Morgh official with his video titled 100% Proof God does not exist. Let's have a look. I'm going to give you 100% proof that God does not exist. We're gonna lay this to rest once and for all. Now is this even? I do not know about 100% proof that God doesn't exist but you already gave me 100% proof that you do not have any eyebrows. Possible? Can you prove that God doesn't exist? A lot of people think it's not possible. Even many atheists think that it's impossible to prove that God... I will put in all my effort to talk as precise and concise into the camera as I can. Doesn't exist, though, they believe that it's highly unlikely that he does. So is it possible? Yeah, it is. The truth is, it's actually pretty easy to prove that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. The problem is that most people aren't smart enough to understand the proof. That's why we are all dummies, dumb, dumb, Christian dummies. Only am I going to give you 100% proof. Right now, the God of the Bible does not exist but by the end of this video, I'm going to show you that something does exist that's stranger than you could have possibly imagined. So are you smart enough to understand? I don't think so. Begin. I have faith in you. My name is Morgan, we are here to wake up the world. The idea of the God of the Bible is an attack on rational thinking. So join our War of the Mind by subscribing now. If anything, this is a war on his own daddy. Little Morg wants to disprove the existence of daddy. I have no idea who this character is. This is the first video that I've seen of him. However, I am willing to bet all I have that this man has an issue with his father. 100%, you can clearly see by his appearance that this man is rebelling against his father. Actually, there has been some science on this as well. People that have father issues tend to be atheist later in life because they never accepted the hierarchy. They are rebelling against hierarchies. They are rebelling against the patriarchy. Ooh, the evil man. And they're so scared of being a man that they effeminize themself. This is why they become so feminine, grow their hairs out, put on makeup and whatnot. And if this is too judgmental for you, if this is too much toxic masculinity, then prove me wrong. Show me that this man has an intact relationship with his father. As if they don't know what a proof is in the first place. You see, most people, when they say prove it to me, don't actually mean prove it. What they mean is convince me. Or show me empirical evidence. Now this is completely different from a rational proof. People are convinced of things that aren't true all the time. I mean, look at all the people that are convinced that the earth is flat. Holy fucking shit. Mork, you little potty mouth. Do not swear. Didn't daddy teach you that? The first thing we need to know is that a rational proof is not the same thing as convincing someone or providing empirical evidence. A rational proof is more powerful than either of these. Someone can be convinced of something that isn't true at all. And empirical evidence never results in certain truth, but only in probability. A deductive rational proof, when its premises are true and it's used correctly, of course, results in 100% certainty. So let's look at a few examples to see the difference. Now induction, based on empirical evidence, goes like induction, empirical evidence, many big words. I will rationalize and prove that God does not exist. This is, of course, the biggest issue here. How can you rationalize the existence of an infinite being that created everything with your limited human mind? How do you want to rationalize something that is beyond rationalization, something that is beyond conceptualization? Obviously you cannot. That is like me going to McDonald's and trying to order a double whopper. And once they're not able to fulfill my order, I'm gonna claim that the whopper doesn't exist. Let's say that I observe 100 white swans. Then because of my repeated observations, I conclude that all swans are white. Well, is my conclusion 100% certain? No, it only has a probability of being true. At any time, a black swan may come along and obliterate my conclusion. Even though it had empirical evidence supporting it. In fact, this actually happened. People used to think, based on empirical evidence, that all swans were white, until black swans were discovered in Australia in 1697. So in contrast, now let's look at an example of a rational deductive proof. Premise one, all humans are mortal. Premise two, Socrates is a human. Conclusion, therefore Socrates is mortal. Now, if it's true that all humans are mortal and if it's true that Socrates is a human, then the conclusion that Socrates is mortal must be true. Yes, correct, Mark. If every human being is mortal, then it would be correct that Socrates, yet again another fancy name to prove my point, we're gonna take a philosopher, then it must be true. It couldn't have been a simple name like John or Jack. It needs to be Socrates. Anyhow, as you said, this is nothing but a premise. We have to assume that every human being is immortal. Just like the black swan, there could be some sort of guru, some sort of swami meditating away somewhere in a cave in India who actually reached immortality. Do I personally believe it? No, of course not. But do we have 100% conclusive proof? Unfortunately not. It's impossible for it to be false. It's 100% certain. But actually it is not, as I said already, for it to be 100% proven, we need to prove every single point first. And that is something that is impossible. There could be a rainbow-colored unicorn somewhere in the edges of the universe. We will not know. Therefore, this is nothing but mental masturbation. For the conclusion to be true, the premises must also be true. So empirical evidence can only ever mean that something might be true, a probability of being true. It can never guarantee the truth of a conclusion, no matter what. Whereas a rational proof, if used correctly, of course, can deliver 100% guaranteed truth. Let's go. This is critical to remember as we prove that God does not exist. Now it's not about convincing someone and it's not about providing empirical evidence. Both of these are flawed. It's about delivering a guaranteed conclusion. It is about guaranteeing that daddy doesn't exist and Mork is a big boy now. This is done through reason. So how do we prove that God does not exist? Well, first we have to identify what God are we talking about. Do we mean Zeus, Yahweh, Ra, which one? We can't prove something doesn't exist if we don't know what we're referring to. Well, here, we're specifically talking about the God of the Bible. Isn't that funny? We always talk about the God of the Bible. Atheists are obsessed with the banking, the God of the Bible. Why not Allah? Why not Zeus? Why not Odin? It is always the Christian God. Christianity hurt you, didn't it? You probably grew up around Christian. They were so bigoted. They didn't accept you the way you are. Isn't that true? It is always the same. Those people hate God. They hate Jesus because they are possessed. It is an evil spirit within them that hates what is good and what is true. This is why they attack the only living God. This is why they attack Christianity and nothing else. Now, this God isn't just some abstract cosmic force. He has a personality. And you do not like that personality, do you? Very specific attributes as laid out in the Bible. And by the way, so does Allah, so does Zeus, so does any other pagan God as well, but you choose Christianity. According to Orthodox Christianity, this God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. True. To prove that this God doesn't exist, all we have to do is prove that he is not one or more of these attributes. And this is easily done. All we have to do is point out that God allows people to go to hell. According to Orthodox Christianity, hell is the worst fate imaginable. It's an eternity of torture. So, since God allows people to go to hell, this means either he is not all-loving because no being of infinite love, what else? Daddy is not all-loving. This is actually very revealing for you to make a statement about a creator, an infinite creator. You must be indeed all-knowing or a mere mortal. It is impossible to truly know, to truly know what love is. What is the essence of love? How can we quantify what infinite love is out of a human perspective? Let me give you an example. As a little child, all you want is to eat chocolate. And now, Daddy says, no chocolate for you, Morgie. So what do you do? You start blaming your dad, not being all-loving, not being kind, not having your best interest in heart because eating chocolate is the right thing to do. Eating chocolate would be true love and because Daddy doesn't give me chocolate, Daddy doesn't love me. In reality, your father has your best interest in heart. In reality, your father doesn't want you to get sick, to get fat, to get obese. Your father wants you to stay healthy. Your father wants you to grow up into a healthy adult. Eating chocolate would impair that. Eating chocolate would be the wrong thing to do. However, from a kid's perspective, you're not able to see that. Why? Because your father is smarter than you. Your father is a grown-up. And now we have to imagine God, an infinite being, as you said yourself, all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, and we, in our limited wisdom, will assume what true love is. Congratulations, Morg, you just debunked yourself. Our soul is to be tortured for all eternity. Or he is powerless to stop this from happening, in which case he is not all-powerful, or he doesn't know that they're going to hell, in which case he's not all-knowing. Let's have a closer look. All-powerful, yes, he can condemn you to hell. All-knowing, yes, he knows very well where you are and where you go. All-loving, yet again, how will we quantify love if we are not all-powerful or all-knowing? No matter how you crack it, this absolutely obliterates the existence of the or- But no, it doesn't. Orthodox fundamentalist Christian God. He just simply doesn't exist. He can't exist. It's in- Daddy doesn't exist! Impossibility. It's a logical contradiction. His properties and actions result in a contradiction. What we're talking about here is a version of what's known as the Epicurean paradox. But we're just getting started. Some fundamentalist believers will say that God allows people to go to hell because that's their punishment for not believing in him. They say God wants people to have free will, and that's simply their punishment for choosing not to believe. Now, how insane is this? This is beyond crazy for so many reasons. First of all, what kind of a maniac of a God gives someone free will but then allows them to be tortured for eternity if they don't choose what God wants them to choose? How is that free will? Yeah, right. How is that free will? You can do what you want to do, but you will suffer consequences. Mind-blowing concept. Don't play with fire or you might get burnt. As the Bible says, we're not wrestling against flesh and blood but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. And this is what we see here in his face. This is not a person anymore. We're not really attacking Morgh. It is a spiritual battle. This man is battling his own demons. He's miserable. He hates himself. He hates his father. He hates ultimately God. And he wants you to hate him too. And really think about it. Would you do that? If you're a sane person. Would you do that because you are God? Of course you wouldn't. So why would a being of supposed infinite love do it? This is reprehensible to any being with any shred of decency at all. Again, how do you know where is your wisdom coming from? Why should we believe you? But alone, a supposed all loving being. Furthermore, it's not like hell is the only example that results in the nullification of the God of the Bible. In the story of Noah, God drowns the entire world population except for Noah and his... All right, we already see where this is going. God's so bad, God kill people. The real question is of course where do your morals come from? If you have no basis for your worldview, for your morals, how can you judge them a moral being? Spoiler, you can't. By the way, I know you've heard the story of Noah's Ark over and over. So you become desensitized to it. So people don't really think about it. But come on, I mean, really give it some thought. God drowns everyone except Noah, his family, and the animals on some boat. Think about how many innocent lives would have been drowned. Oh, do you know that there are innocent in the eyes of God, in the eyes of the Creator? Only Noah was able to live up to that moral standard. But yet again, what is your moral standard? With which moral standard are you judging an action that has happened in the past? You have none. Children, babies, all the animals. Does that sound like an all loving God? No, of course not. Wake up. I mean, you wouldn't do that. So how could an all loving God? There are many things that I wouldn't do and there are many things that I would do. That is not the basis of morality. That is yet again, just another example of moral relativism. Do you like it? Does it feel good to you? If we are basing our moral standard on what feels good, we are already doomed. This means his existence is impossible. Literally, this is not hyperbole. This is not exaggeration. It's not Hylian. No, it's not exaggeration at all. Likely, it's literally impossible for this God to exist. In fact, this God shares more in common with the definition of Satan than a loving God. What I want to get across is that if you suffer from religious trauma syndrome, you can begin to... Religious trauma syndrome. Put your mind at ease. There is no way. Just relax. You can do whatever you want. You can shape off your eyebrows. You can be a woman today. It's all good as long as it feels good. This God can exist as described and that's 100% guaranteed. You can be certain of it. Thank you very much for the 100% guaranteed or all knowing being more. But we're about to go even deeper here. Even deeper. I'm going to show you that something else does exist and this will blow your mind. We've established that one of the attributes of God is omnipotence, that is being all powerful. So according to fundamentalist Christianity, nothing is impossible for God, nothing at all. So let's discover the omnipotence paradox. If God is all powerful, can he create a stone that is so heavy that he can't lift it? Well, if he can create it, then that means he's not all powerful because he can't lift the stone. But if he can't create it, then he is also not all powerful. Remember, fundamentalist Christianity says that nothing is impossible for God. All I see here is childhood trauma compressed into pseudo-rationalism, trying to pseudo-interlectualize what exactly. You try to fit in all powerful being into the confinement of physical laws. Can he create a stone that is so heavy that he cannot even lift it? Morgie, yet again, how is this mental masturbation proof against God? Here is a phone. Was there an inventor to this phone? Yes, probably there was. Can this inventor create a phone that is so heavy that he cannot lift it? Wow, it is such limited human thought. So one dimensional. Now, admittedly, this heavy stone example is really crude, but it's easy to understand. A more accurate question would be, if given the axioms of Euclidean geometry, can God create a triangle with internal angles that do not add up to 180 degrees? Now, we could also come up with a similar but different question for non-Euclidean geometries, such as Riemannian geometries. But if this sounds a little too complicated, we can get even simpler by simply asking the question, could God make two plus two equal five? Of course he can't. If it's not apparent to you why, just go back to the heavy stone example. While it is crude. Again, Morgie is throwing around very fancy words to confuse the little dummies. In reality, the question shouldn't be, can two plus two equal five? But where can two plus two equal five? You are observing this mathematical equation in this created realm, in this physical created realm. So if you take a deep dive into physics, you will see that everything is beautifully put together. Everything makes sense. This creation is truly beautiful. A true miracle in it sends. This universe follows physical laws. This universe follows mathematical laws. Of course, this is how it has been created. Within this universe, there is of course no chance for two plus two to equal five that would go against its physical laws that are established by God. Let's imagine you're playing GTA San Andreas on a PlayStation 2. Is it possible for Trevor, a character of GTA 5, on a PlayStation 4 to enter your PlayStation 2? Of course not. However, is it possible for Sony to create a PlayStation 4, a PlayStation 5, a PlayStation 6, GTA 23? Yes, of course it is possible. Why do I give you this example? You find yourself as a character in an already existing universe with already existing physical, mathematical laws. A created game, if you will. Now you want to tamper with the rule set. You cannot tamper with it because God created it in His infinite wisdom. You have no idea where you are at the moment. You have no idea what the nature of this reality is. You have no idea what is possible inside or outside of it. So, what do all these questions have in common? They are breaking the rules of reason, the rules of logic, the rules of mathematics. They simply aren't possible because these laws can't be broken. They simply cannot be broken within a physical existence that is correct. This results in some important consequences because even God cannot break these rational mathematical laws. This means that God is restricted by them. That means that this physical reality that has been created by God is restricted in itself because it is physical and not metaphysical. God, on the other hand, is metaphysical. What are you talking about? So, either these laws are more powerful than God, which means that God isn't God at all. Let me stop you right there. If God wanted to destroy His creation, he could do it with the snap of a finger. So, for you and I to live, to breathe, to eat, to make YouTube videos, we need this physical existence in tech. And this is why God didn't tamper with this physical creation of His. So, you and I can have life. Isn't that beautiful? But that these laws are God or that God can't break these laws because these mathematical laws are what God is and God can't go against its own nature. That yet again would imply that God itself is physical. We already established that God is metaphysical and not subject to those laws. Either case leads to the same conclusion that mathematical law is God. How am I too dumb to understand this? God created mathematical law for His creation. It doesn't mean God equals mathematical law. The God of the Bible does not exist. God- Repeat it often enough and you will believe it too. The new gospel is the God of the Bible doesn't exist. And is mathematical law? But wait, if that's true. Is this mathematical God conscious and did He create the universe in seven days and do everything else the Bible claims? No, no, let me explain. So, the principle of sufficient reason is a variant. I love this, who is your audience and why are they listening to you? How come that you have the explanation for God? This is what we see with YouTube. It opens up the door for mini cults where we have fanboys like a little morgue here telling you that God doesn't exist and God is math, except my worldview. It is 100% proof. Important yet very simple law. The principle of sufficient reason simply means that for everything that exists there must be and exist a rational explanation for how it can exist. To put it very simply, the principle- The rational thought is confined to the human brain so we cannot possibly know what is in the realm of possibilities outside of the human brain. So how can we then make the assumption that everything has to be based on rational thinking on a reason? Those are human concepts and have nothing to do with God. For how it can exist. To put it very simply, the principle of sufficient reason means that reason is true. We all automatically accept it as soon as we start to look for reasons why something is true or false. It's what powers thought and allows proofs to work. If you deny this principle, you're literally denying reason itself and if that's the case, then there's no reason I could possibly give to you for anything at all. Very true. Because you would be literally denying reason. No, I would deny reason based on reason, based on reason, based on nothingness. So let me introduce to you one more law than I promise we'll have what we need. Resulting from the principle of sufficient reason is a law called Occam's razor. Occam's razor simply means that existence will choose the most simple path or option. Now why is that? Resistance. Well, it must choose the most optimal path because there would be no reason to choose a more complicated path. It would go against reason. It would violate the laws that we've just been discussing. So getting back to God, if God is a mathematical law. Which he is not. God doesn't need to be conscious. It doesn't need to be self-aware. If he is a mathematical law, he doesn't need to be conscious. The same would apply to any algorithm, to any AI. And this is why we see that many new ages are attracted to the transhumanist movement because they believe they can recreate God as a Google algorithm, as Alexa. And this algorithm will give you mathematical truth. Don't you see what you are trying to create is a new God. You cannot accept a living, conscious God that has a set of morals of ethics for you. You do not want to accept that your lifestyle might not be in accordance with the moral standard of God. You want to recreate God. You want to create God in your own degenerate image. Self-aware creator God, like the one described in the Bible, violates Occam's razor. Why is this? Because unconscious mathematics is all we need to generate the universe. So this is compatible with... Because we already have done it, correct? We already know exactly how this universe works. Again, what you are describing are mathematical equations within this universe. You have no clue how the Big Bang, if this is what you choose to believe in, originated or started. To quote Terence McKenna, science operates under the premise grant us one miracle and we explain the rest. This is what modern day science tries to do. It tries to explain phenomena within this universe, within this creation. You won't find out how this universe was created. Occam's razor. A self-aware creator God is an extra complexity that isn't necessary. It's extra. We don't need it. Going to the gym instead of passing out on my couch and eating ice cream is an extra. I do not need it. I still do it though and I recommend you try to. What violates Occam's razor? Now let's see why. So what does it mean to say mathematics is the ultimate force in existence? Is there some cosmic piece of paper floating around somewhere in the universe with the laws of mathematics inscribed on them? Are numbers floating around in space? No, of course not. What mathematics is ontologically, what it actually is, is frequency. It's energy. To be precise, it's sinusoidal waveforms. So mathematics- Sinusoidal waveforms, where do they come from? Who created energy? Who created matter? Who created matter? All by itself. It's not abstract numbers on paper. They are living frequency patterns defined by sinus- They're living frequency patterns, but they don't have to be alive. They don't have to be conscious. So it'll waveforms. That's what we mean by math. It's living energy that obeys- Living energy, you say? Size laws. Now, a sinusoidal wave, considered across one full cycle, is equal to zero. This is important. Because it's equal to zero across a full cycle, it's dimensionless. It's not something physical. It's mental. So what mathematics truly is, is mental frequency. Frequency of mind. Would this frequency of mind exist without a human mind? And if so, who is this mind? As not a self-aware creator god, but a collection of unconscious mathematical frequencies, sinusoidal waveforms. There we go. The code is correct. God is dead. God is unconscious. He does not exist. I can do what I want. I can put on lipstick. I can put on makeup. I can pretend I'm a girlfriend and my boyfriend loves me very much. What you're trying to do is escape the judgment of God. As I said in the beginning of the video, after watching this whole thing, nothing changed. You are traumatized, not by religion. You are traumatized by your relationship with your father. Maybe daddy wasn't there. Maybe daddy was too strict with you. Maybe daddy pampered you a little bit too much. Maybe daddy cheated on mama, or maybe mama cheated on daddy. Either way, you cannot accept your father. You cannot accept a set rule set. This is why you are trying to break out of the norm. This is why you like to dress up as a woman. You try to break out of the norm. You want to go against everything that is normal, everything that has value, everything that is appreciated by humans, everything that is too conservative from your standpoint. In the end, looking at this man makes me sad. You hate yourself. You hate your father. You hate God. Do yourself a favor, forgive yourself, forgive your daddy and return to God. All right, that's it for today's video. I hope you enjoyed this new format. If so, leave it a thumbs up. If you haven't subscribed already, guys, please do so. And if you want to support this channel, all the links are in the description box below. Check them out. Those are the contact links as well. You can add me on Instagram, Facebook, et cetera. Anyways, guys, as always, may God bless you all, especially our Morg here, and much love and peace.