Agreed. It's what made every radical religious person commit an atrocity without justification.

@@SharedPhilosophy Exactly.

@@hermanhalici1 thanks! I did that and got contradictory answers from every Christian denomination ✌️

I mock people for believing things on bad evidence. Faith is an unreliable method of identifying truth, because you could justify ANY belief based on faith. You, nor anyone that I'm aware of, could demonstrate that "god used luck or lack of skill" in order to save Trump. Thanks for the comment!

@@stephanpain Faith is the excuse people give when they don’t have a good reason to justify their beliefs. If this life is meaningless compared to the eternal afterlife then why shouldn’t we all end our lives right now? Its meaningless anyway correct? I dont know which one is worse, nihilism from nothingness or nihilism from eternity.

Jesus brother what a weak argument.

“There to me still isn’t proof god loves us” Well if you’re going to be like this, you’ll never see it. Proof is already there. Among every group of 2 or more Christians. Jesus is the way and the light. That’s the proof brother. That he assumed flesh and experienced humanity and took on our sins. He’s saved our souls to forever be close to his glory. Corey is up in heaven right now being close to God.

Jesus I remember when I was an athiest as a teen, I had better arguments than this. Cmon kid.

"Proof is already there. Among every group of 2 or more Christians" This is proof that 2 or more people love and show love, says nothing about god. "Jesus is the way and the light. That’s the proof brother." That is not evidence or proof, that is simply a statement you have pulled from the bible "That he assumed flesh and experienced humanity and took on our sins." We know what the story is, now where is the evidence. How could anyone possibly prove that such a thing as sins has been taken? How do you distinguish Jesus taking on our sins and someone dude dying from crucifixion? "He’s saved our souls to forever be close to his glory. Corey is up in heaven right now being close to God." Assertion, assertion. Now provide the evidence that supports the idea that souls exist and that Corey is in heaven

End times gonna be here any day now, am i right?

@@SharedPhilosophy The grain of truth in Revelations is that which has already caused the downfall of many ancient cultures. Life has the potential to exist on Earth for around 4 billion years before the Sun becomes a red giant. Modern apes lasting that long would be cool, but that depends on our ability to learn resource management.

Nah he definitely would do that if it served his plans. Father loves playing pranks. All the apostles and early followers of Christ were all blasphemers or heathens or invalids.

Yes God did save the German chancellor. Or rather, he didn’t interfere to make eyepatch Tom Cruise plan work. It’s not that God specifically saves you, it’s that he doesn’t do anything to prevent things from playing out as they have.

Luck is when preparation meets opportunity, no it wasn't luck...

ask god 🤷‍♂

Well that's actually more likely since "Satan is the god of this world" or "ruler of the material world" 😅

@@SharedPhilosophy The .evil has no power except inspiring things to ears of people. He doesn't rule anything beside if a gathering of people in charge decides to coordinate their action accordingly to his whispers. We can conclude that he cannot control a bullet trajectory.

From a Christian perspective there are only two options (because God actively upholds all things at all time). Either God intervened or God let it happen. Apart from that it would not have happened. The devil is not an independent actor who can act counter to what God wills. That's it.

@@stephanpain So when babies get cancer and earthquakes kill people that's all god? Got it

The idea that god is willing to intervene with human affairs is in DIRECT opposition to the theodicy of human free will causing evil in the world. This is a double standard that must be discussed because god's valuing of free will has been used in order to justify the existence of numerous evils. If god is willing to save trump then there is no excuse to why he won't save children with disease. As Alex O'Connor would say this is just "unthinking theological sloppiness" to attribute any person being saved to god. I disagree. If Trump somehow transformed America into an actual paradise that would still not be evidence of god protecting him, only evidence of Trump being a good leader.

@@SharedPhilosophy I will explain why it doesn't hurt the free-will argument, the free-will argument doesn't once ever claim that free-will is absolute such that God could never intervene, in fact if this was true you could say Jesus's existence would contradict free-will as we have all freely chosen sin and don't deserve forgiveness. The idea God can have no impact on the world at all or else free-will doesn't exist is absurd, and would logically mean Christianity is outright false because it professes a God that impacted the world. To respond a theist could go further and utilize skeptical theism combined with the free-will defense. There is no contradiction, and again you are hyper focusing on a single theodicy of which there are many, so you can drag out a centuries old argument that was dead before atheism was even 1% of the global population. Just for the sake of this point, let's pretend you are correct and it is irreconcilable, it does nothing. The Problem of Evil isn't refuted by just free-will, it is refuted by numerous theodicies that have made it to where all frameworks can answer it (thus killing the logical problem). A single theodicy being refuted would not suddenly make the PoE some profound argument, it would mean people switch to any other theodicy as a defense because those still hold and refute the PoE. This aside, basic Bayesian reasoning would show why you are wrong on if it is evidence. What would we expect if God did save Trump VS if it was dumb luck? If Trump managed to save America from economic collapse that has destroyed many great empires, would we expect that more under dumb luck or divine intervention? If Trump failed to save America from economic collapse, what would we expect that more under?

@@RudyAvelino-j4c bro just wanna believe whateva i guess 🤷‍♂️

@@SharedPhilosophy I release the arrow of the Lord's deliverance in my life (2 Kings 13:17). I release Your sharp arrows into the heart of the King's enemies (Ps. 45:5).

You worship the Devil

@@papa_ethan haha, Satan is ruler of this world 🤷‍♂️

Assuming God did it, then no, it wouldn't be in bad taste because it is merely a truth claim.

@@wakkablockablaw6025 Well, the idea is that people are attributing Trump's save to god. People don't actually know, they're just surmising it to be the case. So by that same reasoning, they would also have to arbitrarily be surmising that Corey who was killed in the bleachers was meant to die, which is a horrible thing to say to their loved ones.

Nope it’s not. As a believer, you believe everyone dies as God intends it. Cory is now in heaven experiencing the overwhelming joy of being close to God.

✌

Even if the country somehow became an actual paradise because of Trump, that still wouldn't be evidence of god.

@@SharedPhilosophy The evidence of God is that you cannot create a successful society without religion. It keeps being tried, and it keeps failing. If you had read your fucking Dawkins, like an self-respecting atheist SHOULD, you might have some idea of why that is. But you didn't, and you certainly haven't applied any critical thinking to it.

Therefore all your sarcasm is worthless, just like you.

if you wanna just define anything good as your god, go ahead, but don't expect to convince anyone else with that circular reasoning

Once he makes into office he has that sweet sweet pardon from himself as president from all his crimes

😱

When I state that trump was saved by luck, I don't have to provide evidence for anything because it's not a claim that has insane implication on reality. But when someone states that the creator of the universe saved this person, they are making a fundamental claim about reality and how it is affected by a supernatural entity, therefore, prompting that evidence should be provided in order to back their claim. If god did save trump he absolutely would have to interfere with human affairs and influence human free will. Saying that trump had the choice to listen to god doesn't solve anything. Anyone who is not suicidal doesn't have the choice to easily choose to die. Any slight inference with human affairs is god interfering with human free will, doesn't matter if YOU think it's not significant, he is still interfering which then eliminates the argument of evil from free will.

@@_-___________ thanks, appreciate the insight 👍

@@SharedPhilosophy ufufufufu~ Anything for you. **Pulls out a strange collection of screws, strings, buttons, and whoopee cushions** JUST KIDDING!!! **throws the entire collection at you** .... **stares in bafflement at the fact that every projectile missed** What is this? Pulp fiction? **goes home in a dour mood with the exhale of whoopee cushions in the background**

@@_-___________ 😭💀

Hey! Thank you for the feedback I really appreciate it. 3:42 you're welcome! 4:07 I have no problem with the supernatural, just saying that it requires an extraordinary amount of evidence to back it up because it is detached from reality. When people started talking about general relativity it seemed like some crazy out-of-this-world idea but with enough evidence provided to back the idea it became part of science and accepted. You can call my epistemology "subjective" because it doesn't even mean anything. Of course it's subjective, by definition, epistolomy is subjective. I personally want to believe whatever comports closest to reality, and in order to do that I require evidence for my beliefs. If you're fine accepting ideas on insufficient evidence that's fine, you have that right 100% but I personally believe it would be more beneficial to us if we accepted ideas that are backed by evidence instead of ignorance fallacies. 4:20 It's huge because the claim is detached from reality. It's so far from the reality that we know, study, and experience. I understand for some people that have been part of the faith for a long time it sounds strange to suggest that god is something supernatural and far from reality but that is what supernatural is. The further you get from reality the more evidence is needed in order to honestly back the idea. If you disagree with that stance, that's fine, we can agree to disagree. 4:55 Disagree, I have never thrown out the supernatural explanations. If anywhere in the video I stated that I am going to throw out the supernatural explanations please state the time and I will admit to being inconsistent in my reasoning. Here's how I view it. What do we have more evidence for? People getting lucky, people missing because a mistake, people getting nervous and making a hiccup in their aim, and any other number of natural explanations that we see every single day. But, if there is evidence of the supernatural presented, I will say, the natural explanations can now be ignored as we have found clear evidence of the supernatural. Until that happens, I will be considering the natural explanations as more probable and reasonable. 5:15 Theres nothing to rebuke here. It comes down to subjective interpretation of the situation. All I'm saying is that there are still natural explanations available. This is the fundamental difference between people who believe in the supernatural and people who don't. At some point, the supernatural believer became convinced one way or another, and now they are open to the possibility of the supernatural, the person who doesn't believe in the supernatural was never convinced therefore the supernatural is much less likely of an answer. Doesn't mean the person who believes in the supernatural is wrong, but the only way to prove to others that they're right is by using evidence. 6:37 Once again, you don't have to accept Hume's parameters (I think you're correct the quote was attributed to the wrong person) but this is my video and I'm stating my opinion and my epistemology on a channel that is my own. I think it is more reasonable to require more evidence for the supernatural than the natural. Because we have more evidence of the natural than the supernatural, so the natural takes credence over the supernatural. The further from the reality that we experience a claim goes the more evidence is required in order to justify belief in it. 6:48 Science, as far as I know, is the most reliable method we have in order to discover and understand the phenomenon. It may not be perfect, but it's the best we've got. So if someone claims something that goes against the claims of science they need to provide the "method" (doesn't have to be like the scientific method, as long as it produces reliable results) that they used in order to come to that conclusion. I don't understand what else you would accept in order to produce reliable evidence for claims. If there's an inconsistency in the way someone tries to justify their ideas then that means their method is flawed and likely to produce inconsistent results. 8:20 Nirvana fallacy doesn't work when talking about god aka a perfect being with the knowledge and ability to come up with the perfect solution. 11:42 People have just started with the axiom that god is good and moved on from their without having to justify it. He is contradicting himself when he says that we loves everyone equally and decides to save trump but let hundreds of others die. 13:47 I don't hate Trump. Never said I did. I disagree with some of his policies and ideas but I don't hate him as a human being. Well good thing I left that very obvious joke at the end of the video since it was so unfunny that you couldn't bear to watch anymore 🤣 Thanks for the comment!

Cool, I personally think has a problematic personality and isn't fit to be a leader, but that's just based off my research so far. Maybe that idea will change. I have trouble connecting with the conservatives a lot of the time due to constant affiliation with religion and the consequences of it such as homophobia and transphobia. Not suggesting you're any of those but that is a common thing in the conservative party. Thanks for commenting

@@SharedPhilosophy I know a lot of atheist and agnostic conservatives. Generally speaking we just recognize patterns. The more democratic the voters and politicians in a county are, the higher the violent crime, the higher the homelessness, the bigger the gap between wealthy and poor (the more devastated the middle class). When a republican is in office, gas is cheaper, groceries are cheaper, interest rates are cheaper, stocks go up. With the modern right, when we had Trump in office, we had less people being lost to wars, there were less civilian casualties. We also use simple logic. Liberals often say they want a nationwide flat minimum wage. That would destroy our economy and massively increase homelessness while wrecking the middle class. California wages can't relate to countryside Ohio wages. Also, in terms of patterns, places with the lowest minimum wages have people who are financially better off. As for the transphobia claims, it's about chivalry. We want biological women to have a space where they can compete amongst each other, gain scholarships, get access to new opportunism. Disregarding objective reality to cater to someone's incorrect identification would logically result in biological men taking opportunities intended for women. And we care about women. We don't want that to happen to them. Logic, reasoning, rationality, objective reality.

@@vela-6 I'm also an atheist. I tend to lean right-wing, but I do share some sentiments on the left. My argument about trans people is just that it doesn't take competing in sports in order to transition. I also believe there's a difference between actual trans people and "trans-trenders", as I would call them.

Catholicism isnt very scriptural either and has a lot of idol worship.

@@TheZodiacRipper Classic accusation I heard countless times. It's veneration to saints not worship.

@@TheZodiacRipper I used to be part of a catholic church. I recommend you have long form conversations with them because they have a lot of reasoning behind their beliefs. Don’t base your opinions of peoples beliefs based off what others tell you they think. Go ask them.

@@SharedPhilosophy Ye that comes with over thousand years of theologian study.

Worship of Catholicism is not very scriptural and worship around your denomination is to be considered idol worship and against the scripture.