There's no pizza 🍕

o lietuvis 🇱🇹💪

How does your pizza plan to do that🤔

This is going on a shirt

@@mungelomwaangasikateyo376 I would buy it.

Quantum physics: 🤨

people catching onto geometric algebra 😭

Schrodingers wave equation is so cool

@@HaedonPL FR THO

infinity is geometrical.

Amen!

@@jamesmiller2521Halleluja!

"trust me bro" is the definition of faith, as always you're saying something really silly.

@@HarryNicNicholasbut why should he be trusted? ur not saying as much as you think lol

it worked when y ou were told to wear a ma sk and get the j ab.

It's more fear mongering as well. Basically the same as "if you don't believe in god you'll burn in hell for eternity." More mind games that the biblical literalist use to trap people.

From my perspective the benefit is getting into Heaven. The benefit is being with God. There is nothing wrong with one of your reasons for believing in God is to get into heaven with Him. You also can't say there's something better than what God gives you, because the reward He gives you is eternal and there is nothing possibly better than it.

@@noahr1126 There's nothing bad with wanting to be with god, the bad thing is ONLY believing in him because of you wanting to get to heaven, not because you believe in the moral good of god, in christian values and ideals or because you came to the logical conclusion that he's real. What I mean by "something better" is a hypothetical. Of course that by the literal definition of heaven there can't be anything better, but I'm saying that if hypothetically something better was offered to people that believe in god only because of pascal's wager then they would stop believing in god; which means there's no believing there in the first place. One shouldn't believe in god solely becauee of the benefits it provides you, but also because you think it's logically and morally right to believe in him. One reaps the benefits of god because they believe in him; you can't truly believe in him solely because you want to reap the benefits of it. It's kind of like saying that you want to get married to someone solely because of the tax benefits it has to be married; sure that can be a reason for you to get married, but if that's your only reason for it then you probably don't truly love your wife.

I think Pascal's Wager isn't a terrible place to start. To expect someone unfamiliar with God to choose to believe in Him out of love and respect seems absurd. I think people unfamiliar with God should use the motivation of Pascal's Wager to seek out more information about God and begin to love and respect Him only once they've learned what His motivations and desires are. I became a Christian as a teenager with a very fundamental understanding of who God is and what He wants, but as I've grown older, I've worked on my relationship with Him and I'd like to think I've begun to understand Him better. My biggest problem (as is the case with many) is practicing what I preach and living the way I see God wants me to in the Bible. Also, if anyone's reading this, it's only too late to turn your life around once you're dead. Make sure you know exactly when you're gonna die, and if you can't do that, learn more about God and what He wants to share with you, because the offer's too good to miss

@@ceo_reubenyea but the argument works with anything and any religion

I think what you're hitting here is that the concept of a greatest possible being ("being" used in the philosophical sense) is not well defined. Better example. I am thinking of the greatest possible pickup truck. One of the attributes of this truck is that it should carry a lot of cargo. But it should also be easy to park. The first attribute means it needs to be big, but the second means it needs to be small. "Greatest possible" just doesn't make sense outside of trivial cases.

​@fluffysheap This is a really interesting comment thank you for writing it

Aww :(

Holy shit, it's a pizza paradox

so what i have to do is put myself in the greatestpossibleinator and then i get to taste the best pizza?!??!?!

Hi reci, thanks for being my #1 fan

Mathed out*

Thats literally what they said ​@@LivingCatholic

RZ totally outmathed those atheists

hey Klukz thanks for being my number 1 fan😊​@@klukz

Damn

That's deeply true

In the context of pascals wagger, if there was an unjust god then causing finite harm to create infinite pleasure would be the right call. If everyone did this, then everyone would be able to live in infinite pleasure with earth just being a bad dream. And a second issue is people cannot agree on what a Just God would be. Some people’s Just God is other people’s Unjust God after all.

But this is an argument for not believing in any particular religion and just doing what feels right to you, this is the literal opposite of what pascal's wager actually wants to achieve.

@@illama5330 If your only reason to not doing bad things is because god sayed that and you want to achieve heaven then you are not good person.

word 🗣️

I mean that's correct, but you're missing the point. Evolution was brought up because the default example was biology, the comment that it didn't explain the constants wasn't a critisism of darwinian evolution, it was a segway into the stronger example. I don't agree with the Teleological argument by the way, or any of the arguments in this video, but this video really does a good job at just presenting them in an intelectually honest way without arguing they're correct, and I find nitpicking on a segway to be a little unfair, or at least you're missing the point.

Darwinian evolution can be applied to reality itself to counter the argument that the universe is intelligently designed bacouse of the fact that a signle value change in one of the 4 constents would make realty fall apart. Our reality survived and there for exists becouse others didnt.

This doesn’t really make sense because biology is just applied chemistry, which is applied physics. They’re not distinctly separate “branches” of science as you imply. Everything in science has to be consistent within the same paradigm, otherwise the entire paradigm needs to shift. That being said, physics has to be consistent with the laws of evolution (which it is). He was just saying that evolution can explain part of how the natural world operates, but not all of it. So you’re agreeing with him while phrasing it as a disagreement while also showing you know less about science.

Atheist came to comments to DESTROY the author lol

So you are admitting that you just mock us because you want to?

🤡

@@BDB2004He’s referencing the very end of the video, pretty sure it’s just a joke 😉

@@BDB2004 yes

@@BDB2004 -- "Trust me bro", I don't think there's any reason to mock or be mocked! lol (esp. when one doesn't even know why)

I’m not smart enough to understand a word you just said but as a mathematical physicist (congrats on having an iq 3x as high as mine) would you agree that maths can prove God or be argued to show a God or not?

​@@Jack-bi8mgin his comlent he states that math is subjective and requires certain assumptions. Therefore yes, god could be proven when the right axioms are chosen, even tho id have no idea how. But math's axioms are reasonable. The axioms required to prove a god might not be

@@Jack-bi8mg For such thing, you would have to give a very objective and non ambiguos definition of what God is (which is not only problematic, but I believe it can be a heresy according to some religious beliefs). Given such definition, you could in principle conceive a set of axioms to prove that the existence of this concept or theorem or whatever that you defined as God. Although I believe you would wish for such axiomatic system to not have contradiction, i.e, to be consistent, which is something that you unfortunately cannot prove if this is the case, this is due to Godel Incompleteness theorem, probably the most important result in mathematics proved in the last century. Yet, a very big problem still remains: you do not have any kind of clue whether or not such a system applies somehow to the World we live in, because we did not create the axioms of the reality that we live (you could argue that God did it, but that is an unfalsifiable statement, and therefore cannot be taken seriously in the search of really finding out about the truth) So, to sum it up, my answer is: depends on what you mean by God. If it is just an abstract well defined concept within an axiomatic set, then yes. But I also believe that you would wish to place that concept somehow in our living World, and, in which case, I would unfortunately have to say that this is just impossible inside any religious/transcendental concept of God that religions usually have, particularly the most influent religious in the West.

Also, if I may extend myself more than I already have, there were some historical events when famous mathematicians tried to define God in an axiomatic system. George Cantor, for instance, when dealing with set theory and was defyning the kinds of infinite (yes, there are more than just one infinite) related the greatest type of infinite (absolute infinity) to God.

Bro said absolutely nothing related to God 😂

For you maybe.

don’t do this to me

Hold up… 😳

how do you know it's green if you've called it yellow this whole life?

@@wangdomAvg2900peanut butter ham sandwich with cheese and a side of curtains

p u r p l e

hard to think logically after TikTok, eh?

😂

@@user-jy8np7zx3z I don't want to assume you actually think that his 30 minutes history lesson starting from the Kievan Rus was a valid reason to invade a non-aggressive independent country, so what did you mean by this comment?

@@failtolawl okay, I allow Biden to read some speech about democracy and freedom to explain aggression against Iraq for example Is he young enough for that?

@@user-jy8np7zx3z Who is talking about Biden? We are talking about Putin invading the Ukraine based on zero valid pretense and getting hundreds of thousands of young Russian and Ukrainians killed all for some allegedly unresolved incident back before the Mongol invasion.

LOLOLOL This comment just made my day

This is the best comment I've seen in a long time. Well done.

Nice job.

This comment man 😂

Numbers change = God :/ W H A T I S N T G O D T H E N That kind of reminds me of this UKposts short where a mom points at the make up and middle inside cross-section of an eggplant to her daughter and says that you “can’t deny the existence of God” and that’s kind of what this is like, fractals appear E V E R Y where, even in eggplants, in vegetables like that weird broccoli, in flowers, trees, in non plant organisms and ect. Edit: I tried to make and write this so that it’s like I don’t have a side or option in this argument in this religion related stuff that definitely goes on in the comment sections..

Dang didn’t expect to see you here dude, been watching ur vids since 2016 have a great day man

WHAT?! SCARE THEATER?! I thought there was more chance of pigs flying than you coming here

Oh hi there channel I'm subscribed to

Hi

God bless you Scaretheatre, been watching forever

That verse never made sense to me, but that’s actually so simple

That also works for the cosmological argument.

Who then built god? Because if we are allowed to say god doesn't require a creator, why would the universe need one then?

@@maikv750No one built God, as He is eternal

⁠@@maikv750Because something happened that caused the universe. The universe is known to not be eternal, ask any scientist and they will tell you the universe had a beginning. Thus its not eternal, but God is eternal, nothing caused him, he is unmovable etc. So nothing created God. Edit: “Time came the same moment the universe was created according to the theory of relativity.” Ok… eternal means to not have a beginning, since the universe had a beginning roughly 15 billion years ago, this means the universe has a beginning, whether that beginning also was the beginning of time doesn’t truly matter.

Yeah in which case, the religious person might actually be risking a much worse punishment than the atheist.

Huh, I’ve never thought of it this way

That wouldn't make sense though. If God is real you would expect all the other "false gods" to die out or at least have a minority of worshippers in the world, and that's exactly how it is regarding God (the Abrahamic God). Even Hinduism, which is polytheistic, has the concept of "the supreme reality, Brahman", which is the closest thing to God in that religion.

@@greg77389 The idea this comment proposes is that the “real god” doesn’t have an input in peoples beliefs, he exists but humanity has come to different conclusions on how he exists. He just watches and let’s us decide, and if he doesn’t like our decisions then you’ll got to hell

​@@greg77389Maybe it's like a hierarchy system, like Greek mythology

Pascal doesn't so much neglect the other options as he has already considered them unreasonable by the time a person gets to the point of considering the wager.

It’s a really bad reason for faith too. Believing god because you’re afraid of the other outcome won’t get you into heaven.

@@acog_quarks8753 It's not meant as a final reason but as a bridge to true faith. "Endeavor then to convince yourself, not by increase of proofs of God, but by the abatement of your passions. You would like to attain faith, and do not know the way; you would like to cure yourself of unbelief and ask the remedy for it. Learn of those who have been bound like you, and who now stake all their possessions. These are people who know the way which you would follow, and who are cured of an ill of which you would be cured."

@@acog_quarks8753 Pascal also doesn't make that wager in a box. The wager is made only after one comes to believe that its at least a 50/50 chance that God is real.

@@blusheep2which god

checks out, every math professor i know is deeply religious

you forgot "Trusting the bro" argument

"I have experienced divine intervention" SOOOOOORCE? "I am standing before you now, basking in the audacity of your ignorance, instead of resting 6 ft below a tombstone in a child-shaped casket" yeah if my argumentation and speaking skills were even 1/32 as strong as my faith, I feel like there would be more Catholics running around, instead, The Lord keeps blessing me with the inherent martial prowess and poison resistance that comes from being Polish

@@kooolainebulger8117 I feel ya 1 Corinthians 10:31

@@kooolainebulger8117not dying horribly as a child… how great is our benevolent god!

Just because the purpose for this specific video isn't to go into detail, doesn't mean its not possible

@@astralite8769 Yeah, the point is that the video *didn’t* go into detail. Not that it couldnt be done.

Excactly@@Julian0101

@@astralite8769 they've all been debunked and most debunked five minutes after they were dreamed up. why do people who claim to have god by their side 24/7 feel the need to be reassured constantly that their talking snake cult isn't silly? i've been atheist all my life, never needed an apologist to reassure me people die and stay dead and that all gods are mythology.

@@HarryNicNicholas Why cant you be cival ._. Ffs let people belive what they want and stfu

consciousness remains some time in body after death... for some reason. so yea before either going to afterlife or disappearing you are alive in a dead body. this detachment of body and consciousness is pretty interesting and must be researched.

Funny because consciousness is the argument I dislike the most. There is no difference between us and animals. We just are more advanced. We function with our instincts and our desires. I am talking to you about an “abstract’ subject because I have a “data base” of knowledge in my brain, which connect to make ideas, and my desire is to share it with you. I don’t see how that’s so mystical or spiritual.

@@elali64 humans are animals, i rather saying non-human animals.. or simply aloteras. and the desire to share information is because knowledge sharing causes evolution.. so its instinctive aswell

@@jktech2117 Your brain is still active for a short while after death, there is still definitely a connection, just a near severed one on the brink of destruction

@@basic6735 just look for news, many people who have already passed the threshold of death and resuscitated on the hospital had some signs of consciousness during dead short period. whats the most interesting are the famous out of body experience where people could explain stuff that happened during this short period. could be just the remains of consciousness trying to interpret whats going on, but is hard to define since during death u cant see as much activity on the brain. i really do think people with high chance of death on surgeries should volunteer to a study about this, because if there is something more or at least understanding the foundations of the self and consciousness is important. until rn we dont know if the consciousness is destroyed or it just leak out of the body, or remain in the body and slowly breaks into pieces while the body rots and all the energy that make up the consciousness is dissipated to dirt turning us into billion pieces.

For the ontological argument, there is no reason to assume that being “greater” is something universal. E.g. there is no reason to say why existing is objectively better than not existing, or that being eternal is better than having a start and an end. Therefore there is no reason to say that a greatest being must necessarily exist.

@@immoloiser6134 So that was my first thought, but I have seen some rephrase it that it's better than *just existing in the mind alone.* Though it still kinda comes back to presuming existing in multiple states is inherently "greater." It's interesting to think about

I don’t find the cosmological argument to be very compelling. The argument seems to imply that something must have always existed without cause. This could be God, but it could also be energy itself. We can trace our universe back to a time when only energy existed in a dense, singular point. We also know from observation that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so it is sensible to think that energy could be uncaused. The question of “what came first” is a hard one to answer, but why answer it with God, something we don’t know exists, instead of answering it with energy, something we do know exists. The creator of this video just asserts that the first uncaused thing must be all powerful and outside of the natural world, but this need not be true. God existing within the supernatural world doesn’t mean something outside of the supernatural world needs to have caused him, so why would something that exists in nature need a cause beyond nature. These are unfounded assertions meant to lead you away from naturalistic explanations.

Look at the Cosmological Argument as presented by William Lane Craig, if you're interested.

@@Apperax the problem appears when you realize greatness is subjective

I feel you're pain lol

@@Young_Christian7 😭

But you have the potency!

@@H4N5_GRU83R but we're still not strong 😔

You still have potency *wink emoji* ​@@Young_Christian7

Yea it was quite unexpected

Somehow, he doesn't understand such a simple concept himself. If God could exist because he does, why can't the universe? I can simply say that the universe doesn't have a cause and has always existed; what's the difference?

@@hopelesslyoptimistic8231 I think you can't make that claim because the universe obviously has a cause, has physics, and laws, that can't be explained reasonably. If there was an eternal, perfect, unmoved intelligent universe then you could make that claim i guess.

​@@hopelesslyoptimistic8231 you are completely ignoring the statement he said at the end of the video. He isn't defending them or supporting those arguments, just giving you a summarized version of their argument.

@@ThomasDemonte-fb6jj My point is there could be an explanation for one thing that could exist without a cause. Perhaps the existence of such a thing is the cause of itself. There are plenty of other subjects that are beyond human thought processes, so the idea of something without a cause confuses us. There does not need to be a God for everything to exist, and all the “perfection” of your universe could be used and explained by trial and error. There could have been eons of failed universes, but we happen to live in a stable one

The problem is that listing 12 different argument for god (where most can be refuted by atheists) will only encourage people to believe in it until they see the refutations, which this video doesn’t do. This video is (maybe accidentally, idk what his intentions are) crediting religion using seemingly good but actually bad arguments

According to his community post, the return dislike extension is glitched.

I doubt that most can be refute by atheist, if so they wouldn’t be still being used. I’ve watched many debates on atheism and just refusing to interact with an argument because of any silly reason isn’t actually refuting an argument.

@@matheuscaneta1194 We can refute almost all of them

@@quentind1924You’re trash, there’s nothing wrong with being a Christian

The question is how does this deity expect us to tell the real from the fake? It hasn’t given us the ability to do that, cause all religions have convincing reasons and justifications of their own. But you can never be 100% sure who’s telling the truth or who’s the most convincing, cause your intuition could be wrong or you could be subconsciously biased. So if there’s no objective way of knowing, it’s impossible for us to consciously choose the right one. And there hasn’t been a crystal clear sign from the real deity as to which one is the right one, since every religion preaches itself as legitimate

​@Vickyanimates Want the answer based on most religions? Too bad, you chose wrong, *sentenced to eternal pain* NEXT!

​​@@Vickyanimateslike is it hard to see that religions are designed to keep you in and make you scared of losing faith so you can contribute you money for the pope or some other equivalent

@@piotrek7633 you have a brain. You have reason. Nobody’s forcing you to contribute to the pope. Not saying brainwashing isn’t common in religious faiths for personal gain, but whether the pope or religious figures are greedy, sleazy douchebags that exploit people, that has nothing to do with the morals of the religion. You can still have morals and decency, qualities that many religions promote, without subscribing to any religion. It’s called being human.

Also, Pascals wager arbitrarily assumes that belief or faith in God is the only thing that a God cares about when determining your eternal destiny, when it could possibly be any number of other things too. So better not step on that ant or don't eat that pork. You better be more paranoid, unless you end up in hell by accident.

Whats so special about it? It just the adding of numbers

There’s probably an infinite number of beautiful mathematical concepts he could of brought up. None of them would be an adequate proof of the existence of a god.

@Batzero8515 How so?

@@gregstunts347 that copium isn't gonna last you for eternity bro

@@ryanc970 It’s true, maths being beautiful doesn’t prove gods existence. Maths is beautiful because it consists of a web of interconnected logic. You can attribute it to being the creation of your god, but it is not proof that they exist. We lack knowledge outside of the universe to say definitively that a godless universe cannot have beautiful math.

how do you disagree with every single thing he said?

​@@matheuscabral9618I can't speak for the poster, but most of these arguments can be reduced to arguments from incredulity. "How can evolution create something as complicated as modern cells?" "How can math make an infinite pattern and go so far without being tied to reality?" "How can consciousness be created from non-conscious atoms?" All of the ones I quoted are essentially saying "I don't know the answer to this question, so God explains it." While it's not definitively incorrect, it's fallacious and I ultimately don't currently buy into reasoning of this nature. Also, if you ask an atheist any of these questions they'll likely just admit they don't know, which is a more honest and powerful answer than it's given credit for.

@@matheuscabral9618 Because religion is also a feeling, and if it isn’t genuine then I can’t say I believe in God. I never fully did believe in him no matter how hard others tried, I never felt connected. Then after realising that the bible goes against basic science that was the point I became an atheist. Even with the arguments about how you need something infinite to make our universe, that can be also said about the Big Bang which is the scientific answer. So it is hard to argue for God with me when he can be replaced with a scientifically accurate phenomenon. The math one doesn’t hold for me either because math also says that there are 25% chances we live in a simulation and so much less than 1% that God exists. (25% is less than 50.(1)% so I don’t believe in that either) For morals I don’t believe morals can be fully objective. There is always an element of subjectivity in it, even in the morals of “as long as nobody is or will be hurt then it is ok”. Because that is based on the fact that we don’t like to be hurt which can be a subjective thing because hurt isn’t universally hated, just mostly hate, some people like hurt, there are even kinks about that. Or people who are ok with some hurt because they don’t think that some hurt is a big fuzz (when applied to themselves as well, not just others). So this means even the most common and sensible moral basis is still subjective. And being religious outside of needing faith in something non-observable from a source that as far as I am concerned is also unreliable, it needs spirituality, and I am not spiritual at all. So I can’t believe in God because I don’t feel spiritually connected to anything, and whenever I see spiritual stuff (which religiousness ≠ spirituality), I always feel like it is a waste of time because it’s better to just be honest and reflect than make stuff up to help reflect. So this is why I don’t believe in God despite seeing this video. I can’t connect to it, I disagree with some of the premises used for the arguments in the video and when that isn’t the case there is always a more on point scientific explanation that goes against that. And because of the lack of spirituality within me I am not open to the idea of god no matter what. If I can’t connect with it, then I can’t say that I believe in it.

@@andreimircea2254 ok fair enough, I still think continuousness and theological are way beyond anything science could ever explain, and the chance of everything just happening by chance would be crazy, but I appreciate you took the time to write that

@@quadrewplex6782 Well said. Sometimes we just don’t know, and it’s okay and it doesn’t mean anything unless there is proof that it does. For instance, IDK why cells can form something so complex, but I know that trough evolution they do. The rest is above me.

this reeks of the appeal to ignorance fallacy

@@LiterallyAWasteOfNothingness Demanding evidence for your claims is not a fallacy. Try again. An example of an appeal to ignorance fallacy would be to claim that since one can't prove that God doesn't exist, then one is justified in believing that it does.

​@@WhiteScorpio2 That is true, demanding evidence is not a fallacy, mistake on my part, I'm still learning Relying solely on empirical evidence to either prove or disprove God's existence may lead to the fallacy of an appeal to ignorance, though. It's important to remember, the nature of God as asserted by my Catholic perspective, goes beyond definitive proof, which is why it's based on faith. So technically that video would be short I guess, but it wouldn't make any verifiable points proving nor disproving god's existence either. No hard feelings, just half-awake and honestly bored

@@LiterallyAWasteOfNothingness "it wouldn't make any verifiable points proving nor disproving god's existence either." Not necessarily true. It wouldn't disprove a general idea of an inelligent creator or an uncaused cause or something like that, or, for example, an idea of a God that is completely unrelated to our universe whatsoever. But it would point away from an idea of a God that is actively engaged with our observable universe. In any case, it should be a very informative video in relation to the question of whether one should believe that God exists, which is a different question than whether God actually exists.

💀💀💀💀💀

People who think these arguments are any good is insane. A person with down syndrome with a broken vocal box could easily refute these. Bro in his atheist argument video said you can’t prove god with the natural world and then in this video he uses plenty of natural arguments for god existing like bro you can’t make this up 😂

Well there is cell counts and atoms but yeah

Lmfao

yet modern science is based on Darwin's assumptions, didn't u go to school? they sell u that everything maths, physics, chemistry etc proves Darwin was right and theists are wrong.

In all fairness, it feels like a shotgun argument, where the volume of the argument is supposed to indicate how true it is.

yeah, and they didnt understand what he was talking about lol

@@dankrigby5621 Yeah, basically. It's the idea that if you vomit words so much that people cant keep track of what you're saying, and ideally just accept your argument because you push so many words and give 0 room for thinking. Its a favorite Apologist live debate strat, but it usually gets shut down by moderators because it's overtly fallacious.

The mathematical argument is literally using a deity to fill up gaps in understanding. "This seems too perfect to be caused by anything we currently know, therefore it's Gods work". Same with the cosmological one: "We don't know how time or causality works beyond our universe, therefore God just made everything".

I was trying to take more of a neutral stance, theology wise, just tried to point out a misconstruing of facts. @@Ruzzky_Bly4t

Also the word deity is related to polytheism and means a created god God by definition is uncreated also it isn‘t filling a gap in our knowledge we know that everything has a begining and the begining must be god because then we devolve into to the pointless question of yes but what happened before that

​@@Ruzzky_Bly4t I frankly believe that's why religion exists to begin with. We've went through so many religions and so many gods and mostly used them for things we can now explain by science. Thunder and lighting? Must be them gods getting angry! Solar eclipse? Oh no, we must have deeply offended the gods. Hahaha. When humans can't explain something, they'll make up an explanation to satisfy themselves. No matter if it is true or not.

In electrical engineering, using irrational numbers is essential, and also applied to the real world in terms of circuits and their behaviour (inductors, capacitors and phasors).

You are right, but the fact we have made it this far with the math we have discovered (or invented, take your pick) is really not something to take for granted. I don't believe in god but I can see why for some people, god acts as an explanation that ties everything together.

You believe math was created not discovered? Thats a pretty odd take.

@@Quincy_Morriswhy not? I mean, axioms are just assumptions that we make that all of math can be derived from. They have been revised in the past. Also, there alternate rule sets that we can follow that generate totally different structures that also can be studied. To say that math was discovered implies that the axioms foundational to math are universal which is flat out wrong!

The thing with the teleological argument is that meanings can come from a human's subjective interpretation of a experience.

also as an atheist i agree, this video brings up a lot of great points, some are unsubstantial but the concept behind them is explained very well!

I just chum it up too he exists and be on my merry way. Because when any atheist wants an argument, they just get bent out of shape. The best interaction I have found is having none at all. Better than having pure vitriol spewed at you. Nope, had enough of that in my younger years.

I think the main problem with it is, in general out of all the analogies, the thing (watch, painting, building, etc.) that is too complex to have come out of nothing or by chance should therefore be made by a designer namely humans and since humans are complex they must have also been made by a designer namely God. But then, wouldn't that make God complex too? Who is God's creator? From there, you can think of many ways to reason out. - It just stops with God cause why not he's God? - God is not complex, hmmm he is simple? I'm too dumb for this everything is just a dead end not to mention if there was an actual good reason, why would it specifically be the Christian god out of all the many many gods?

@@cagedgandalf3472 exactly, a lot of the arguments in the video rely on some assumptions that contradict the normally theological perspective. If god is the creator of the first thing to be created he did not create himself and cannot create himself therefore is he not all powerful? If god is the embodiment of power itself that is barely a god to worship and more a philosophical concept without any real presence.

Exactly.

...Huh? Did bro really just go "This BIOLOGICAL theory can't explain physics!" Like, no shit. It's about how animals changed into different species through milennia. Not about how gravity works.

He's yapping that's why

I think he is trying to explain that some things couldn't of happened by chance. some things are just too finetuned to be made up by just luck and time. and Darwinism is grounded in that there is no God.

@@thepotatotaxi2430 hes just giving an overview of what it is, not necessaarily saying its true

1. Cosmos only explains Big Bang, not the existence of god. 2. Morals are made by humans and have been changing by the pass of the history, we used to sacrifice childrens to god but that's now considered bad and heretical, so it is not a value to consider if god exists or not. 3. Theology was made by humans, the bible is a human construction, why bible should be more important than any other relgious text? Who say your god is real? What if we're all wong? Because at the end god is a human creation to explain the history and how the world works. (Just read sumerian tales written about the kings and you will find great simmilities with the bible, like the origin of Mosses and more) 4. How do you know there is a god and not a godess? How do you know is not different deities having different works? You can't, because there is nothing that proves the existence of god but there is millions of tests that prove the evolution, big bang, and multiple other things. 5. The personal experience argument as the previous point it breaks by themselves, i can say Goku is the real god and Toriyama just made it to gave him a representation we all can see, and he died after see the degeneration of humanity. And no, this won't work, if i say i saw goku and he took me flying over the sky and you have to believe me because is my personal experience... Bad. 6. The pascal wager only contemplates one kind of god, what if there is a god who doesn't need of praying? And just want us to improve our world and society? What if you go to hell because that god doesn't like how instead of do his work (end with poverty, fight inequalities) there are their "servitors" who istead of help the world they just try to convert people into their fake religion? While the real god is against that... What about this? 7. No, all of this makes sense with or without god, there is no need of a god to make science work, this is why science exists and humans abandoned Theology to explain the world. Otherwise we would still thinking it rains because god says so, or because is sad, or because we sacrified our childrens, and we know why it rains, because the condensation of the air, bla bla bla... 8. Sir, our minds are creation of the nature, all what we think is because or origins. Why do you think fats and sugar are so good for our brain? Why you think people likes it so much? Because fats were incredible good for us when we started to explore and expand, because it helped us to move for longer, why do you think we are two-foot creatures? Because energetically talking is more efficient, and why we love sugar? Because is HARD to find in Nature... ALL we are, ALL we think, ALL we believe, is explained looking at our past, why humans don't marry with their family? Because genetically talking that would lead to worse childrens, by consequence daughters were exchanged between the primitival people to increase the numbers of humans with more diverse genes, making they better at running, carrying, etc. All animals cooperate to survive, monkeys make chains to transport fruit, birds warn each other about predators, etc. And humans feed each other to survive for longer, but animals do it too, all our brain is what it is because of dozens of thousands of years of evolution since the firsts humans to today. Why people wants to fly? Because humans never have been able to look whats behind the clouds. Why people fear darkness? Because at night predators can hunt us, etc... 9. Sir, maths works because maths explains how the existence works, at difference of your god you can ask for rain and will not produce rain, because there is an alternative explaination with REALLY explains why it rains, the same happens with math, this is just sad how you try use math at your favor when is more at the contrary, it all works not because god, but because maths is an excellent system to explain our world, but is not new, it always existed, the thing is we're expanding those knowledge thanks to discard the believe to god. 10. There is not a single evidence of the existence of god, is not about arguments, is about PROVE it is exists, for now it has been proved through math and science it doesn't exist, and if it does, is not so powerfull or is not so good. Or is a weak god who only supervises what the people do or is a maniac who love to see pain and suffering, also, we don't know if there is a god or multiple ones, if they're good and bad or just bad or just good, or if they're male, female, or both... At the end of the day the believers can't prove god exists, that's why they're BELIEVERS, because they see the world, they see god doesn't exist on it, but they still choose to BELIEVE "Just in case". This video is excellent to show up why religious people can't prove the existence of god and instead of that they just choose to create weak "arguments" that can't take a logical observation. I studied theology for more than a decade, i was about to be a priest, all i seen in the clergy was all the opposite is on the bible. I never found god or anything like that, a part of me stills being a bit religious, but we must accept god doesn't exist until is proven, because who says our Christian god is the real god? Who? What if they're other gods? What if we're been wrong and the real gods are the roman ones? There is no way to know, and if you dedicate your life to a wrong god maybe you go to hell anyways, so this is more like: Exists a one or multiple gods? Yes - No You believe on it? Yes - No If a god exists: You believe in the wrong one and you go to hell because of it - Nothing happens because once the deities have been revealed you're not late to pray to they If a god doesn't exist: You just wasted your life and did nothing to improve this world, only skinking it more into the abyss, condemning the whole civilization to pain, death and suffering in exchange of things - You improved the society by seeking alternatives to "god will provide" and probably you fighted poverty and inequality, improving this world. We all can make these manipulative charts, this chart i made is not even realistic, is just to show we all can do the same. The only realistic thing of my chart that yours doesn't have is the consideration of multiple deities and the consideration of make they angry if you believe in the wrong one. So is all especulation, the only thing proved is we can explain everything in our minds, world and universe without the need of a god, and by consequence it doesn't exists until somebody can prove it.

well, if only pascals wager wasnt a disjunction fallacy... your math tutor should have probably known this

Pascal's wager, even if it wasn't misused, isn't a reason god might exist. The whole point of Pascal's wager is to demonstrate that even if god doesn't exist you should believe he does.

Rebuttals please! My theological curiosity will not be sated if I don't get them. Really tho. I am curious about how to argue against these, which can inturn improve the arguments by finding a way that works

@@troydunnage6749 one rebuttal i would have is, for example, the teleological argument. It is fundementally based on human bias, not a universal truth. The claim that most things in the universe display a purpose is generally incorrect. Only about 0.0001% of observable things appear to show "purpose." And is it much coincidence that most things that show purpose are those around and similar to us? As humans, we generally like classifying and deciding how things should work, so when we see things like ecosystems and organisms functioning, it is only natual to assume they must have been intended to be this way, but they only "work" in the way we humans have decided is working. (That is, the assumption that things maintaining their status quo is generally good.) Most of these things that do allegedly "function" simply do so because they're stable, able to perpetuate themselves further, which is what the law/theory of evolution would dictate would happen with or without a god.

​@troydunnage6749 Ill try my best, but im not sure if OP agrees with that I'd say. Evidential: This is a case by case one, you can just look at different sources and whatnot to refute this argument as required. Moral: Morality is a complicated subject, why it exists is explained by our modern understanding of evolution and how "moral" humans would be selected for since our species is a social one. Morality has to be assumed as an objective truth for this argument to work, when it isnt, in most religions you can easily point out how their own morals are ever changing, if this isnt enough then we could easily explain morals away through rational thought. Morality is also case by case too, "is it ok to kill babies? No? What if that baby caused WWII? Still no?", etc. Cosmological: This one is also based off of an assertion with no proof of its validity. Why cant all things be caused by other things? Why does there have to be a first cause? What does a first cause mean if time didnt exist? If a first cause does have to exist, and it can and did exist, why would it be a god? It could just be a particle with 0 consciousness, it can be a single noodle with no will, it could be anything. Why god specifically? Why pick god over say a turtle? Pascal's wager: Its absolutely wrong, this is rhe easiest to disprove so instead of recounting everything from memory and doing a botched job of disproving it I'd HIGHLY recommend a channel called TheraminTrees and their famous video on Pascals Wager. Theological: Also very easy to debunk. Lets start with fine tuning, if things were different we wouldnt exist, so things must be the way they are for us to make the observation that they are the way they are, and this also assumes that the constants CAN change, it also assumes that these constants are the only way to "construct" a universe, it also assumes that theres a chance factor if god didnt exist. All baseless claims, without any tangible proof. As for cells acting like machines, evolution can explain it, this requires basic understanding of biology. Ontological: These are human definitions of "greater than", why is existing greater than not existing? Why is bigger better than smaller? Etc etc. Also, theres so many different paradoxes that follow the assumption of a All knowing all powerful and all good god. Simple one being: God is all knowing, he knows what you will do, you have no free will, and then you go to hell in some religions, but you had no choice, god could change that due to his infinite power, but he doesnt, so god cant be all good? Or he cant be all knowing? Or he doesnt have the power thus cant be all Powerful? Badly explained but hopefully you get the gist. Experience: I dont think i have to explain this, countless times has it been proven that personal experience is not reliable, society would collapse if we went off of persinal unsubstantiated experience. Transcendental: This one is so nonsensical, you assume a worldview where god exists, but where's the basis in that view? Everything still crumbles from the ground up? This is the god of the gaps but fancier. Consciousness: An emergent property is a property of a group/thing that cannot be found in any individual part of the said group/thing. This argument is founded on ignorance. A single ant is worthless, yet get enough together and you have a colony. A Motherboard itself is worthless, combine it with different parts of a computer and suddenly you can play fortnite. This one needs basic thought and reasoning to disprove. Mathematics: This one is built upon misunderstandings and presumptions. Imaginary numbers are real, they're jsut badly named. Finding complexity in maths to prove god is stupid, why does the mandelbrot set require god to exist? It assumes that god created so it can say that it cant exist without a god. This is a circular argument? Euler's discovery is incredible indeed, he was brilliant, but it does not mean god exists, just because he discovered an equation does not mean a god exists. Why does math require god to exist? No idea why this presumption was made. Maybe someone can shed more light on this, its my first time seeing this argument. And thats all.

Trust me this guy is not. He says the most outlandish things on this and his Whatifathist channel

@@troydunnage6749 I actually posted my rebuttals in the main comments, but I'll post them here so you can examen them as you please. Firstly, this argument is weak as a "supernatural event" isn't at all well documented, nor is at all a good idea to rely on random miracles happening in profession of a faith. Yes strange things may happen, but in relation of a faith is cherry picking a coincidence at best. Now, I just want to be logical with this to be unbiased. However, I do want to note that there has been no evidence by the Romans of Jesus' resurrection, and with an event of that magnitude, it seems suspicious at best again. Again, people dying for their faith isn't a crazy weird thing only with Christianity. Just look at cults. Second, very weak argument; not sure why he put it in. It's a baseless claim. Objective morality is not real. However, human nature is. We see murder as bad in most of us because we were evolved to need each other to prosper as a society. If we were hard wired with pure subjective morality then we wouldn't be where we are today. I recommend looking into Game Theory if you're interested. Third, this is an interesting one. Everything has a cause as per the axiom of causality. However, we're tracing it back to the big bang times. Where all our current understanding of time and causality breaks down. To say that the only solution of a universe is due to God because everything has a cause is disingenuous as most our instruments break down around this time, so we cannot accurately pertain an answer as to what may happen. Further note, a "first cause" does indeed break an axiom of causality, so a God being a "first cause" would break science as we know it. Where as with science, we may see an extension of this axiom instead. The comments about actualizing a potential is just an extension of causality; not sure why he brought it up to be honest. Fourth, I really hope I don't have to explain why this is wrong. I am anyway, but never use this an argument. A major issue is that this relies on fear and punishment rather than an actual faith. Is faith real if you're being held at gun point? ie, would you truly love your parents if you know that result of not loving them would be getting slapped eternally. An extension of pascal's wager is also to believe in the worst god because the worst god will have the most damning punishment, hence it reduces suffrage. Another issue is that it can be applied to literally anything. Jews, Christians, Muslims, Nazi's. Just a terrible argument indeed. Fifth, there are many routes with this one. Firstly, this is built on a baseless claim of "purpose". To believe this argument would to be believe the universe has purpose, and from a completely logical standpoint, it has none. Now with items such as our cell, it does have a purpose. The purpose is to keep us alive to breed, hence why we have evolved complex systems for thousands of years. I'm not sure on his argument that the ecosystem works as a machine. It can be explained. Again, not by Darwin but by Game Theory. Research it if you're interested. It explains the most curious facet of nature to date, collaboration. The point with the forces seems logical, however, it is not. If you were to look at the universe as it has been made for 14 billions years with such forces then applied different ones, of course it will collapse. However, if you were to alter those constants then let the universe run its course, it'd look plenty different. My point is, you can't suddenly change a varible and say it's evidence. Another point to this that we don't know why these constants are. So to try and explain this is bad practice. Six, this isn't an argument? It's just making a definition and saying it must be true because this is a definition. The pizza analogy doesn't work because the perfect pizza wouldn't be an infinitely large slice, unless your subjective opinion is to have one be that way, but most probably it's the one that tastes the best. Seven, never base logic on just "experience that you think you saw". I cannot technically disprove this with argument because Seven isn't even an argument. It's a claim that people think they see God. Eight, this one actually is my personal favorite as it did make me think for a moment. These logical pillars are true to the universe. Logic, continuity, truth, and with which we can build other bricks out of. However, we can prove pillars from other pillars. We can observe logic and continuity and build truth. We can observe truth and logic and form continuity that are consistent. (This does delve into the realm of meta physics a tad). However, God doesn't fit with these pillars. There is nothing about logic that has to observe God existing. Even if these pillars could not be observed true, they can still be held as axiomatic. Logic should be consistent, and then we build bricks from there. If you're wondering, well what would be the case if we found that logic wasn't consistent, then we'd most likely have to rebuild foundations for further science, however keep current ones as "good enough" answers to old. An example of this is Classical Newtonian Mechanics getting replaced with Einstein's theories, but we still use Newtonian mechanics for simple, old problems. Nine, perhaps the worse argument here. His point was, well an atom isn't consciousness. Nor is two atoms. Nor is three. Thus consciousness has to be God's work. Large issue with this. It's what's know as fallacy of composition. How the parts must equal the whole. The atom itself wouldn't be consciousness, but the interact thereof. Think of a car. Well an atom isn't a car. Nor is two. Nor is three. Hence a car must be God's work. Well no, we know it's interaction of complex systems that form into this beautiful work of man. Lastly, the math one is also weak. Humans created math to explain nature. A beautiful formula such as Euler's Identity doesn't prove the work of God. However, it does prove that logical axioms in math hold up because it is a natural sequence and the Euler's Identity can be proven. Math is much like a work of art. It fits together, and when stepped back from, it completes itself. However, we know that work of art is made by man explaining facets of life. This does not mean the art is God. The point with infinity also can be disproven with the same logical as before, and even more so as if I were to make an infinite series that doesn't mean I'm God. The technical last point is a joke so I won't comment on it. It took me a while to write

Literally the mood when you debate fans of that argument. Like wtf bro.

I'm watching it right now eating breakfast. Truly effortless. I cringed hard at how confident Redeemed Zoomer sounds, or tries to sound trying to prove the bible doesn't support slavery 🥴

I liked MindShift's video the most. The ones by Viced Rhino and Prophed of Zod were great too tho.

Also, prions which can spread and cause mad cow disease.

@@NeatCrownthat’s only if you eat the brain

And why is you hurting bad?

@@kioley1233 because we don't want to die, we are coded to try to stay alive so we can reproduce

@@kioley1233 hurting your own species when theres no apparent reason is bad for the survival of the species. So due to evolution its mostly discouraged since well reproduction is the instincutal endgame for any organism and taking away that potential endgame for no reason is bad for the survival of your own species

well he is just creating a piece in the chain and defining it as the end piece. its really similar to the ontological argument in a sense that a definition of something cannot force it into existence. If i define a unicorn as a horse with a horn that exists doesn't mean it exists

@@PvlmVIsHere right. And same with the mathematical argument. It completely shatters once you realize that math is nothing more than humans' way of interpreting quantity. It doesn't inherently exist

@@iamShinyGeodude Maybe 3000 years ago you could've said that math was simply the way we interpret quantity, but it has been way more than that ever since the medieval period. Sequences, patterns, graphs, statistics, theories, formulas and proofs get incredibly abstract, and simplifying the field into being "our way of interpreting quality" is doing the field a disservice and neglecting its beautiful complexity.

@@Matdrox yes, it has beautiful complexity. Yes, we've nailed it down to a point where it gets abstract. That doesn't prove anything. Ultimately, it's all the derivative of Ook telling Grook "me have rock. Me have other rock. One rock.. TWO ROCK???"

@@PvlmVIsHere He is saying that since there can't be an infinite regression of causes, there must be an uncaused cause. The argument isn't meant to prove that a particular God exists, nor that God is all good, omnipotent, or omniscient, just that an uncaused cause exists. It is in conjunction with the other arguments that we conclude that the uncaused cause has those attributes.

And you're Lutheran just because that's the religion you were taught to believe as a child? (I don't know you, but that's certainly the overwhelming pattern of religious belief, worldwide. If you'd been born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a devout Muslim now, don't you think?) So, if you care about the truth, maybe you should watch videos from people who disagree with you. I'd recommend Paulogia, a former Christian. But I hope you at least _talk_ to us atheists, occasionally. I regularly watch videos from Christians, Muslims, religious Jews, etc. I have yet to hear any good evidence that a god is real, but I still like to talk to intelligent people who disagree with me about religion.

​​@@Bill_Garthright Find an apologist, they know best, excepting clergymen

Martin luther was the man! Everyone should read his book - " The ****** and their lies. "... have you read that steven?

@@paldennorbu8808 _"Find an apologist, they know best, excepting clergymen"_ The only people who run away _faster_ from a conversation with an atheist than apologists are clergymen. That's been _my_ experience, at least. If you know of a religious apologist _or_ a clergyman who is willing to have a conversation, a back-and-forth discussion, with an atheist, please send them my way. But in my experience, as soon as I ask them for one piece of good evidence - just *one* - religious apologists (Christian and Muslim alike) run for the hills. And it doesn't usually take a pastor even _that_ long to run away. (I've had a good conversation with a Christian philosophy professor, but even that was extraordinarily rare. And he didn't even _attempt_ to defend Christianity. But he had some wild arguments for a generic god I'd never heard before - not at all persuasive, but interesting. So I enjoyed our discussion, and he said that he did, too. I still hear from him, occasionally.)

@@Bill_Garthright bro didnt watch the video

As a Christian: 1. As seen in the video, they are referring to more modern miracles, and proving or disproving them is... good luck with that. 2. Agree 3. Yeah you can't know that. Could also have just randomly happened, like particles just generate outta thin nothing, look up hawking radiation to see where I got that from. Or it could also be god. 4. Indeed. Although it can get you going, give you reasons to look into god. 5. The point is, the universe is so complex and fine-tuned to allow for such complex things that we are either increeeeedibly lucky or this world was designed by someone, and there is no argument against that, only theories why we got so lucky. 6. Yeah I didn't get this one either. 7. I am very good at statistics, top of my class, the literal people that invented modern statistics were Christians. I have experienced things that can not be explained with statistics or biases, only by incredible luck or much rather a guiding god. You can not argue away this one. This is one of the main reasons for why I believe. Although it is no good for convincing anyone else, and therefore kinda irrelevant for this argument. 8. We had this in religion class. There are things that science can explain, but also things that it cannot, and as long as we don't, god is a very good guide as to what happened over there. Although not necessarily a proof either. 9.Neural networks haven't achieved consciousness (yet), and if they do, we are doomed anyways. The argument is that we don't understand what consciousness is, as it is completely different from its parts. But not understanding something is no proof for something, you can of course believe it is the holy spirit, but that has some rather nasty implications for abortion and eating meat so I don't wanna go down that path really. 10. Mathematics are a miracle, these may be plain to you but if you get into it it all makes some divine sense, and it is understandable to believe only a god could have made a construct of this beauty, with new links you keep finding. Although that is not a hard solid argument. You don't need to reply to all of these, just if you have something new to say. But in the end there is no "gotcha, liberal!" to prove god, nor to disprove, you have to find your own reasons.and dive deep into it, and that is much more meaningful than these essays, so you can of course look at them, but ultimately go your own journey and find for yourself what belief means to you, through whatever means that may be, whether these are the commonly used ones or other, it is yours to discover and a path you cannot force one onto.

You missed the point of the argument...

​@@dawnfire82 i think his point is just moral argument will always be weak in reality

i think the moral argument can just be debunked by evolution. Why don't most animals reproduce with family. Because inbreeding produces inferior offspring. Why don't most animals cannibalise. because the survival of the species is beneficial to reproduction. Everything mainly focuses on reproduction. You could call reproduction a god heh. Of course theres always going to be outliers.

@@dawnfire82i don’t think he did. Morals are relative, it is just set and revised by our modern culture. Culture + instincts form morality.

Incorrect. Humans are born with a sense of right and wrong therefore morals are objective.@@ahhhsothisishowyouchangean162

That's pretty freaking impressive

I suggest you stop using these arguments (except maybe the math argument) because they are all really bad. Atheists, agnostics and other theists alike have been saying why these arguments are bad for a long time now and yet apologists keep using them.

Yeah I did cosmological from looking at space so much and how all these things allign for us to exists over and over, evidential from history where people who killed Jesus would testify his resurection as well as Rome literally documenting his existence, teleogical ties into cosmological to where how if one law with a constant formula was changed we would theoretically all die, another thing about Transcendential is that 99% of science was made by ancient religious philosophers as well as throughout time every civilization separetly until now has come to the conclusion of some sort of higher power(s) being involved in everything, Pascal's Wager I just thought of one day while arguing with a guy on why you would even want to not have faith compared to having so much to look for, personal was a near death experience where I saw through the eyes of a bodyless view looking upon golden gates yet they were closed (maybe forshadowing it wasn't my time), conciousness ties to the "fermies paradox" and how we humans are the only one able to cotemplate our own existence and why we are able to do so yet cannot truly look at this, moral is so many examples such as why people are willing to sacrifice basic survival and continuing their species for an idea and why the Bible's moral's are so perfect, etc... but I won't pretend like I know the others like Eulers or Mandlebrot lol. And mathematics was something I heard and I was never a fan of the ontological idea. Sorry for the essay but it is true people literally just by themselves come up with this. It comes to a point where you can never know if you are correct, but there are so SO many hints you are in the right direction. I hope we can convince others. God bless. ​@@BowlOSoup6661

whats your strongest point? i would be glad to debunk it

​@@BowlOSoup6661 Yeah I did cosmological from looking at space so much and how all these things allign for us to exists over and over, evidential from history where people who killed Jesus would testify his resurection as well as Rome literally documenting his existence, teleogical ties into cosmological to where how if one law with a constant formula was changed we would theoretically all die, another thing about Transcendential is that 99% of science was made by ancient religious philosophers as well as throughout time every civilization separetly until now has come to the conclusion of some sort of higher power(s) being involved in everything, Pascal's Wager I just thought of one day while arguing with a guy on why you would even want to not have faith compared to having so much to look for, personal was a near death experience where I saw through the eyes of a bodyless view looking upon golden gates yet they were closed (maybe forshadowing it wasn't my time), conciousness ties to the "fermies paradox" and how we humans are the only one able to cotemplate our own existence and why we are able to do so yet cannot truly look at this, moral is so many examples such as why people are willing to sacrifice basic survival and continuing their species for an idea and why the Bible's moral's are so perfect, etc... but I won't pretend like I know the others like Eulers or Mandlebrot lol. And mathematics was something I heard and I was never a fan of the ontological idea. Sorry for the essay but it is true people literally just by themselves come up with this. It comes to a point where you can never know if you are correct, but there are so SO many hints you are in the right direction. I hope we can convince others. God bless.

Anime existed decades prior to WW2

@@User-lo6sxshhh, it's way funnier this way

@@User-lo6sx No anime is biased on old american rubber hose cartoons that were brought over after the war, but was adapted into Japanese culture and arts to get the final form you see today.

@Napoleon_Bonaparte1804 m.ukposts.info/have/v-deo/e4dmpH98sa-WyWQ.html

Anime destroyed japanese culture and turned a nation of tradition into a nation of people locked in their apartments getting off to the most horrific things. SAVE JAPAN.

That's not a great response. All his arguments are in fact him attempting to prove his position. He's just unaware that all his arguments are bad arguments. But it wasn't for lack of trying to present arguments that prove his position, it's just that he's not aware of the mistake each argument makes. (Though if he reads comments then he'll have read my explanation of why each is wrong, in a comment I wrote a couple days ago)

Proving things isn't a great response. Take notes people. @@majmage

@@fwwryh7862 Sorry did you ignore my point? * the author was _trying_ to prove his position. * the author probably _believes_ he's done that. * his arguments are bad, so he _hasn't_ proven it, which is why the distinction I've described matters. Ironically by ignoring the distinction I made you've illustrated exactly the need for the clarity I'm recommending * I made a fairly clear point * you completely missed it because it was me disagreeing with you * that's the point! The point is those people are going to ignore you if you aren't extremely clear about why they're wrong. They think they've already done what you've asked, and so if you don't explain to them why their arguments have failed to prove their position they're going to just bounce away from the conversation and ignore you (exactly like you ignored me).

Proof cannot exist by the rules of the Christian God. It is known that you need faith to go to heaven, but if there is concrete, indisputable proof, faith would not be needed to beleve in the existence of God. Evidence and argument is the farthest we can get to proof. TLDR: Proof of God would create a paradox in which the rules of Christianity say that proof cannot exist. If that all made sense.

@@Ihatedropshippers..__.__.._..6 Well you agree that if Gary tells you leprechauns have _identical_ "rules" to them (Gary says we must only believe in leprechauns by faith, and that's why we don't have evidence of them), we still shouldn't believe in leprechauns, right? The most unprovable an idea is defined, the _less likely_ we should be to believe that idea. So anyone telling you a god exists with the rules you've described is really just trying to sucker you into believing a bad idea.

Nah, they simply make equations a lot easier, but they don't exist. The rules of logic apply but not in actuality

@@freshbakedclips4659 I mean real numbers, digits and equations also don't "exist". They're something that people made up to make it easier to describe and analyze things from the real world. It's just that we're so used to them, that they seem like something that the world can't exist without.

@@petkogeorgiev2103the point is I can show you 3 apples. I can’t show you i apples

​@@Quincy_MorrisBut you also can't show me π apples, or √2 apples, because the number of cells in an apple is not divisible by √2 or π (as they're irrational). By that logic, irrational numbers also don't exist, not just imaginary ones. You can't show me -1 apples either. You can't divide an apple among one and a half people, because "one and a half people" isn't a thing. You can't define the existence of these concepts, they're just a made up abstraction in our minds that let us better describe the world around us. Examples where imaginary numbers (or any abstract concept) doesn't make sense aren't useful and don't prove anything.

You found another leak in his brain

God is self actualizing.

@@Otome_chan311 yes and fairy tales are real!!!!!!!!!! LOL CUT THE CRAP

@@aardapel112 they asked a question so I gave an answer. Why do you post idiotic unrelated remarks?

@@Otome_chan311"Why do you post idiotic unrelated remarks?" Because you did exactly what OP predicted: you made a special case for god. The question of OP means one of two things: not ALL things needs a cause, defeating the argument, OR that you make a special case with no justification to make the argument work toward your prefered conclusion, and that's illogical and dishonest therefore invalidating the argument. This argument is so stupid it gets defeated anyway by simple logic. The fact it resisted hundreds of years is because people would get KILLED or OSTRACIZED if disagreeing even slightly and failing to praise every, single, stupid argument that ends with "therefore god exists". The faster you realize that, the better.

no

@@Melancholian No argument? Just "no"?

@@YoshiCh1ef-je6me I mean, the man did say no lol

@@YoshiCh1ef-je6me I am Christian but you cannot prove God to an Atheist with the bible lol

@@Melancholian True lol.

Would it be assuming a god exists and that that fact is true

@@roode2123 Nice DoG pfp btw

As an atheist TAG and a fine tuning are the ones I find most interesting.

​@@dogsandyoga1743as a christian Tag is sophist bull$$$$$ To me I think cosmological arguments are the most interesting

@@kiroshakir7935 Cosmo is also interesting 😋 And clearly, I don't find tag (or any) arguments convincing, but some are definitely more interesting than others. I made a separate post where I (subjectively) rank how compelling these arguments are...

?????

tell me why

​@@PauI24 ain't nothin but a heartache

Now number 5

There’s an i in the schroedinger equation, the equation that explains how every atom works.

In a sense, nothing other than counting numbers truly is "real". (You can't have -3 apples any more than you can have 3i apples.) But in another sense, ALL numbers, even complex numbers, are useful in explaining real-world phenomena.

You can't really do any physics, outside of Newton's laws, without imaginary numbers. But it does seem to be the case that all natural constants and properties have real values. (Not just positive values - electric charge for example comes in both positive and negative varieties). Imaginary numbers are necessary "under the hood," but whenever you make an observation, you can only ever measure a real number.

The imaginary number i is used in conceptual practices and for defining and visualizing various models. It never once appears in any physical measurements or values. It is, in fact, an imaginary number, because its value does not exist anywhere other than solely as a concept. All numbers are concepts, but all real numbers have an actual physical value they are associated with that can be observed and measured according to said concepts. Like another person mentioned, you can have 2 apples, and know for a fact that there is more than 1 apple and less than 3. You can't have 2i apples, because imaginary apples don't exist anywhere outside the mind.

@@camerapasteurize7215 Yes, but you also can't have -2 apples, so are negative numbers imaginary? You can't have pi apples, so is pi imaginary? (Though you CAN have apple pie, which is absolutely not imaginary and is delicious.) So negative numbers don't exist outside the mind either. Nor do lots of other types of number. In fact, the only numbers that have true concrete meaning in the real world are, as mentioned, counting numbers (that is to say, integers greater than zero). Everything else is a construct of logic.

Fr

Basically it's just seeing how beautifull math is, and claiming that something like that could only be created by god. The same thing can be same for astronomy, but that remains not a valid argument

He did, yes, the video style has also been highly popularised by ‘The Paint Explainer’, who is in fact a fan of Zoomer

@@Hope-77- How do you Know that he is a Fan of Zoomer?

He did

i think some of his other vids were inspired by bill wurz

@@JesusOrDestruction Yes, his channel really gained a lot of popularity with the "History of the entire church, i guess...", which is ased off of Bill Wurtz' video.

They can work if you just correctly rephrase it

@@XanderAnimations My point being Theocracy always fails or results in atrocities committed against innocent people.

@@adamproductions4529 Ohh, in that case, yeah. You're right

unlike secular governments, of course. we all remember Imam Stalin, Bishop Hitler and Rabbi Pol Pot.

The Nazi party used Christianity as a propaganda tool, but that's besides the point. At it's core religion isn't rational, but rather misplaced faith in a god or gods. I haven't head of a theocratic government that didn't use their religion as justification for discrimination. Yes there are examples of Governments that weren't theocracies doing terrible things, but very often god is used and has been used as an excuse to do great evil. @@dentelle2190

Well, yes and no. You will never find a property of a real particle with an imaginary number. Laplace transforms are applied math. Certainly the technique is useful, but that's not the same as physically real. No physical thing exists in the Laplace domain. Usually the example people use is the Navier-Stokes equation, which at least describes real fluids, but which is also a mathematically convenient approximation rather than a description of the underlying reality.

@@fluffysheap Well it's only not a "property of a real particle" if you consider every instance of time as separate to every other one. Sure it also requires infinite time but that's just a formality, and a realisable continuously decaying oscillation of a particle is still modelled with a complex number in the s-space. No physical thing exists in the Laplace domain, but only in the sense that no physical thing has velocity either. You can measure the position of something at two points in time, but you then need to mathematically derive velocity. Derivatives don't really exist but you can still see that things are moving faster than other things, just like how you can see that a thing is oscillating.

@@fluffysheap I would use the normal example of electrical circuits (also kinda linked to laplace) since inductors and capacitors do have a complex modellation to them, to compensate some "blndpower" (really cant do this stuff in english lmao). The same you apply to complex numbers could also be applied to other mathematical models tho. Nothing we ever calculate, be it real or complex numbers, is completely grounded in real life. Its all just observatiuosn, and then building formulas that give you a clear approximation how the model works. Even the maxwell equations were changed a few years ago, bc a missing factor was just found to be calculated. (current dissipation). We use math to calculate what we observe. That isnt a proof, nor a disproof for a divinie deity. If our modesl wouldnt work, we would have come up with other working models until now.

@@dankrigby5621 I think the English term is reactive power.

@@josephbevan1036 Ahh true, could have guessed that since it is similar in my language too^^ So it prolly really is reactive power, or reactance.

It’s not even the correct equation. The correct one is e^(i*theta)=cos(theta)+i*sin(theta) At theta=pi (halfway around a circle) you get e^(i*pi)=-1 I went into more detail (along with arguing for tau as the correct choice of circle constant) in my own comment.

​@@Shettykettyofbettys So if humans didn't exist 1 apple + 1 apple wouldn't equal 2 apples?

@@isakoolsson If humans didn't exist e^(πi) apples + 1 apple wouldn't equal to 0 apples.

​@@Shettykettyofbettys That response is postmodernist relativism, in a nutshell. "If it exists beyond human experience, well then it just doesnt actually exist, because I dictate reality."

@@Shettykettyofbettys, ​​⁠phenomenons follow rules regardless humans are not there to unravel them

the cosmological argument has always fallen flat for me because, at least in my opinion, claiming that god is eternal and has always existed is just as ridiculous as claiming that the universe just showed up out of nowhere (or, like you said, claiming that the universe is eternal, since we don't really have any way of knowing what existed, if anything, before the big bang). there isn't really anything about the argument that makes god's existence seem more logical or rational than god not existing at all and the universe just existing on its own

@muresic2948 Claiming the universe is eternal is actually less absurd than saying god created the universe, because we can actually test and see the universe, so assuming the universe has always existed is not out of the realm of possibility when we are talking about something we can test and observe. We have no proof of a consciousness or subject that exists extigent of the universe that has the power to create the universe, so it is much more absurd to claim such a being exists than positing that the universe is eternal.

@@TheLeftistOwlyeah, that’s true. For my money, the contingency argument is the best form of the cosmological argument. It still doesn’t actually imply that the necessary existence is a personal being though, so the possibility of the universe being necessary and eternal still excludes it from being a definitive argument.

​@@TheLeftistOwlBut the universe it's expanding,so the universe can't be eternal.

@kermitthethinker1465 how does the universe's expansion negate it's eternal quality (assuming it has that equality)

I don't recommend learning more about these arguments then

i think the math one is the easiest to debunk. in my opinion the best one is the personal experience one as no one can really tell you you didnt experience something, and religion is all about finding your own purpose in life.

@@energeticgorilla Agreed, but at the same time, someone who's personal experience contradicts the Christian view of God (maybe someone who feels a loving god can't exist because of their own unanswered prayers or requests for a sign) could use their experience as just as strong of an argument against religion. So, like Zoomer said, personal experience is really useless to everyone except your own self. Maybe even to your own self because one of those people's experiences has to be wrong.

@@energeticgorillahe meant the “trust me bro.”

"Trust me bro" is pretty much the only argument atheists have

@@jacobjensen7704 indeed

this is the exact reason "Pascal's Wager" shouldn't be used as a religious argument. Not to mention it's flaws, like how do you know what exact religion is actually true. In addition, religion actually DOES make you lose something during your life, if you follow a religion you need to life a certain way and sometimes not the exact way you would have wanted to.

Yeah, I’m really glad he clarified that it’s not a logical argument and more of a thought experiment. It’s odd to me that people choose this avenue to prove God when it does nothing but say “I’ll be happier if I’m right.”

He did reiterate that it's not really an argument for this exact reason. I like how WLC puts it though - if, hypothetically, the evidence in your mind was exactly 50/50, then you should believe in God just for the sake of prudence.

@@stupidrainbo yeah, but what you want to believe shouldn’t impact what you believe

@@josephmartin9737 I would agree if the evidence wasn't exactly 50/50. There's a quote from someone (I believe it was also from Pascal) that goes "The heart has reasons the mind knows nothing about". Our motivations are complex and sometimes we turn a blind eye to the truth if we find it ugly in some way. So just as in a court we might stick with some kind of axiom like "Beyond reasonable doubt", a sentence which is based more on being morally prudent rather than evidentially accurate, we should go with Pascal's Wager if it seems the evidence is 50/50 or indeterminate.

Why?

@@noahr1126would u keep garlic above your bed in case vampries exist, youve got nothing to lose if they arent and everything if they are right?

​@@slaytaniccthis is so good

Reversed pascal wager: the god that exists loves skeptic minds, and will throw into hell every single person falling for earthly false religions because he designed them as a test. And this god hell is 10 times worse than the christian one. There, best wage is now not to believe.

@@kregorovillupo3625 best atheist argument

This is what I was gonna say

You can't simply disprove God, it's already impossible. Humans can still never go past the Universe and likely never will be able to leave our own galaxy, and thus will never be able to see what lies beyond and can never truly know - in all certainty, that God is fake or real. That is it, Glory be to God :]

You can’t prove nor disprove that a god exists… so just live in acceptance that you’ll never know until the day comes that you have to die

@@Cr1sscr0ssaplesawc3 exactlyyy the best thing to do is live a good life

this is not an argument it's just a statement that only a religious person could agree with in the first place

1) how do you know other avenues can't lead to fulfillment, you got evidence? 2) how do you figure out which religion is true. They could all fill the void, but they can't all be correct.

The argument for a god-shaped hole in us has overwhelming evidence in its favor out there. Every civilization, from mesopotamia to ancient Greeks, from Romans to modern states have had religion as part of its social structure. And once religion was in decline, Nietzsche claimed that we had killed God... But more importantly, he then asked: and what shall we put in Its place? You only need to replace something if there's an inherent need for it in the first place. Thence a god-shaped hole. But hey, if you're not convinced, that's fine. Many great philosophers and every great civilization before you have been, and that's more than enough for me.

​@@PvlmVIsHere There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure. And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place. But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you find God eventually!

​ @PvlmVIsHere There is overwhelming evidence for a "God-shaped hole" throughout history. Every great civilization, from ancient Mesopotamia to Ancient Greece, from Rome to modern day America, has had God(s) and religion at the core of its social structure. And when religion started to decline in mainstream thought, Nietzsche - an atheist - claimed that God was dead, and that we had killed him. And then he tells us to beware of what we would replace Him with. Now, we don't replace something (or someone) unless there's an inherent need for it in the first place. But look, you don't have to agree with me, naturally. I'm more than fine with having great philosophers in Pascal and Nieztsche and every great civilization in history by my side in this argument. I hope you find God eventually!