LIVE Exclusive: Ben Shapiro with Dr. Edward Feser

When tragedy strikes, it's important to
have faith. So Ben talks with Dr. Edward Feser, an author and Associate Professor of Philosophy at Pasadena City College in California. Dr. Feser has written an excellent book called, "5 Proofs of the Existence of God". He and Ben have some fantastic discussions about it and why it's important to keep your faith alive, especially in difficult times. You can find him online at EdwardFeser.com.

[@jwilks1111]

Feser made me a theist. I'm so grateful for his books.

[@timpieper5293]

jwilks1111 huh. I’m an atheist who just found out about Feser. Haven’t heard enough to know if he has a case or not but he seems very well articulated. Then again, Craig is articulate and I think he misses the mark every time. Having said that, which lecture or book of Feser did you observe that made you a theist? I’m interested in learning his arguments.

[@timpieper5293]

Ariiel11RP Ariiel11RP thank you so much for the references! I’d be happy to review their arguments. I feel like it’s been atleast 3 years since I heard a new argument for a god. I recommend you watch PineCreek’s review of the debate between Fesser and another gentleman. The video is titled “Critiquing Roman Catholic Dr. Edward Feser; 5 Proofs for God” I think it shows that atleast one of his five “proofs” is easily refuted if only Feser would stop being so long-winded. But I haven’t examined his other 4 or David Bently Harts arguments, so I’ll have to get back to you on those.

[@timpieper5293]

Ariiel11RP for a detailed explanation on why his rationalist proof doesn’t work; Feser introduces his argument with the premise that everything must have a reason for the way it is. That everything must be reducible and explainable in terms of its parts or of something else. That saying “this thing is unexplained yet” or “this thing may very well just be the way it is because that’s the default state of reality” would render all of our language unintelligible. This is stupid for two reasons. 1. We understand language by associating words with perceptions. You don’t need to understand how atoms formed or what makes them behave the way they do to describe a chair in terms of atoms. That’s really basic shit and Feser doesn’t strike me as having any clue how ridiculous he sounds. 2. Even if this were the case, theism doesn’t solve anything because according to his very own premises, saying “god does it” doesn’t explain this god, and if a god is your explanation of the universe and you cannot explain how god works, what makes god have the properties he does, then all our language is unintelligible gibberish! Of course if he tries to say that his god is the way he is because he can’t not be that way, then he has to concede that that could easily be the same reason why the observable universe is the way it is without a god, and that this possibility doesn’t make language unintelligible because he clearly thinks he’s speaking intelligible thoughts despite relying on that possible explanation. Feser strikes me as just another WLC, but Ill look more into his other arguments without preconceptions.

[@timpieper5293]

Ariiel11RP so, what I’m getting from your admittedly imperfect understanding of Feser’s argument is that there’s something that exists by default and that this thing is the explanation for all things. Now aside from the problem that there could always be 2 or more necessary things, I cannot help but notice you’ve given zero justification for calling this thing “god” or for not considering the possibility that this necessary thing is the universe. This strikes me as a word game on top of a unjustified insistence not to consider obvious alternatives. You can see why I don’t think Pinecreek straw mans Feser at all. I think Pinecreek nails it and Feser is presenting a false dichotomy; to believe in a god or to abandon intelligibility. If all you mean by “god” is “a first thing that is responsible for our existence”, then i think you’re an atheist that has bought into using the label “theist” in a sloppy and confusing way.

[@timpieper5293]

Ariiel11RP by the way, you are a very well written commenter. I had no hint that English isn’t your first language. I think you represented your reasoning and your position fairly well.

[@sonicbluestrat934]

ordered the book.. as an atheist, I am always open to thinking about this stuff and am not closed minded to the possibility of something we would call "godlike". Thanks!

[@CarlosRodriguez-dh7mm]

SonicBlue Strat I don't mean to lecture, but that's exactly the mindset more ought to have. Even if it doesn't convince you, you'll have done your part respectfully. As a Christian, I intend to finish the Bible before I read more of Dawkins or the Quran, but I'll get there. What would you recommend to a theist like myself? Perhaps someday I'll get to it.

[@mohammedrashid8250]

+SonicBlue Strat Bro I agree with you. As an agnostic, I fucking hate all these smug atheists trying to put down religions. Religions have been ubiquitous in every culture and there's definitely more to it than calling it a "delusion". I believe religion has done us more good than harm over the long run. I applaud your open mindedness!

[@jof8160]

I highly recommend you check out ReasonableFaith (the book and website) by William Lane Craig also, for a defense of Christianity by one of the most influential analytic philosophers today. And here is an essay on the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth explicated with the Bayesian probability theorem by another prominent philosopher. On the historicity of the Biblical documents: www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/archaeology-and-the-historical-reliability-of-the-new-testament www.bethinking.org/is-the-bible-reliable/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament

[@jonlanier_]

If you are always looking for possiblities. Check out apologeticspress.org/

[@MBarberfan4life]

I'm an atheist too. I read the book, and it's pretty good. I already came into the book knowing that some of the arguments for God's existence (like Aquinas's arguments) are more powerful than what some people would have you believe. I think that there are certain facts about the world that render God's existence more probable than it would have been otherwise. In other words, I do think there is some evidence for God (yes, even as an atheist). But I also think there is evidence against God.

[@Kyle-hn1vl]

Fantastic interview. I have read the first chapter of "Five Proofs for the Existence of God" by the Interviewee, Dr. Edward Feser. It is fantastic writing, rigorous logic and exhaustive in answering objections to the proofs.

[@michaelmolaka111]

Just ordered his book. Thanks for bringing him on.

[@bromponie7330]

Mind giving me your thoughts about it? It'd be of great help.

[@John-lf3xf]

Brom Ponie Clearly he minds lmao. But it is an excellent book

[@djcardwell]

So awesome to see philosophy on your show. There's a good chance that I am the only philosophy major that watches your show at my university. We need more bright people like Ben Shapiro who have beliefs in a God and who have non-leftist ideologies.

[@danieljackson3619]

Derek Johnson Amen! I'm planning on majoring in philosophy when I get to university (wherever and whenever that may be). Isn't it nice to see Ben engaged with philosophical ideas and not just politics?

[@derekcardwell9237]

Sure is! I love it!

[@gabesmokeymartatom]

Thor the Creator - nobody is saying that the subordinate theoretic laws don't work, just that the foundational pre-suppositions they rest on are faulty. Like a house standing on a poor foundation. You can live in it comfortably for perhaps a very long time and everything seems OK. But the day will come when that house falls apart because of the lousy foundation. It doesn't mean that the rest of the materials of construction are defective or built badly. Just the foundation, which will ultimately cause the demise of the entire system.

[@HisShadowX]

You know Ben is really enjoying himself when he is quiet. Typically when Ben goes on another show he takes it over I remember when Crowder had to repeatedly repeat Ben’s name to stop him lol The only other person who can make Ben shut up is Mark Levin. If you ever watch Ben trying to interview Mark Levin well Ben will go into silent mode as he is in awe of the great one

[@sophiagomez5619]

The Great One lol

[@tessysingh1327]

God bless Ben Shapiro and Dr. Feser!

[@mrPottz]

Great guest. This is how the idea of a "God" existing should be presented. It has to be done philosophically not through holy books or blind faith.

[@RealSnail3D]

Sure, I can make it easier. Take a deep breath in, and release it. Why are you able to do that? Because you are allowed to, empowered to, and not stopped from doing so. Welcome to your reality, that of which many (perhaps most) people choose not to see. Matthew 13:13. The truth is God loves you more than you can possibly fathom, so much so that despite being your creator, he gives you the free will to accept the very fact that you are special.. or not, completely unimpeded. Can you imagine a more selfless act than undeniable and total free will? I can't, you have an awesome God Jack.

[@Mike-pf1ru]

The Catholic Church teaches that the existence of God can be known with CERTAINTY by the use of natural reason alone. We don't need blind faith. We need reason. Once we have the certainty of the existence of God established in reason, not emotion, then the claims of Jesus Christ - that He was and is God Incarnate - can be weighed. If this claim is true, then the Church He founded, the Catholic Church, has the authority to teach infallibly in His name on all matters of Faith and Morals. All other religious claimants of authority can therefore be safely be rejected.

[@ErictheCleric1]

Im a huge fan of Ed Feser and this is the last channel i had thought he would be interviewed!! Awesome stuff!! I was one of the first to buy his new book and its great!

[@LogosTheos]

I used to be a Craig fan, but now I am a Feser fan.

[@ErictheCleric1]

Why must it be separate!!??? :[[[[ I love them both but why is Craig not a thmoist? lol I wish he was, Thomism is the only metaphysics I've ever heard that actually makes perfect sense

[@ScoCoda]

Edward Feser vs. Sam Harris, make it happen

[@crystald3346]

Feser would steamroll Harris

[@ScoCoda]

@@crystald3346 I think Harris would be able to at least hold his own better than Dawkins.

[@TheBusttheboss]

Harris is a philosopher so it would be more interesting than if it was Feser vs any of the other 4 Horsemen.

[@joshuaphilip7601]

@@TheBusttheboss Harris is not really a Philosopher.. at least not in the sense that I expect him to be familiar with anything to do with classical theism/scholastics

[@TheBusttheboss]

@@joshuaphilip7601 Agreed.

[@danieljackson3619]

Feser's my favorite modern philosopher & apologist, I've been trying to spread his name for quite some time now, because he's superior to people like Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox, William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'Souza, Frank Turek, etc. He has a fantastic blog, too. I'm reminded again how smart Ben Shapiro is - I remember him citing some particular philosopher ages ago, so it's nice to see he's still studying the field.

[@LogosTheos]

Yes he is. I wish I heard of him back in 2008 when New Atheism was at it's peak. I only discovered him in July of this year. So far I only have two of his books: TLS and Five Proofs. I am slowly transitioning from theistic personalism to classical theism.

[@juliesteimle3867]

People who argue against free will either want to control you or they don't want to take responsibility for their choices.

[@MaisieDaisyUpsadaisy]

Julie Steimle That's a nice logical fallacy. How about this: people who argue in favor of the existence of God just have daddy issues and want to be sexually dominated.

[@philochristos]

I don't think that's true, Julie. I remember when I took high school physics, and we were doing free body diagrams and applying Newtonian physics to them, it occurred to me that everything must be determined by initial conditions plus the laws of nature. I wasn't trying to rid myself of responsibility, and I wasn't trying to control anybody. I was just taking my early physics education to its logical conclusion. Anybody who thinks the universe is all that exists, and that it operates according to laws, ought to deny free will. There are some people who deny determinism on the basis that some quantum events are undetermined, but that doesn't leave room for free will since quantum events are spontaneous and are not willed at all. So it could be that there are rational reasons to deny free will that exist independently of sinister motives to deny free will.

[@botousai]

"There are some people who deny determinism on the basis that some quantum events are undetermined, but that doesn't leave room for free will since quantum events are spontaneous and are not willed at all." I have tried to convey this point to many people to no avail. Adding some randomness to the mix doesn't get you to free will. It is the same as inserting a "soul". It's just another thing that influences your decision in some way that you have no control over.

[@davidjonathannn950]

masonmmaspecilist atheist have a problem when they can't beat someone in a debate they go straight to insulting I am sorry your mind cannot comprehend I higher power but anyways quit trolling. And if you ever wanna debate I will wipe the floor with your had on knowledge atheism is a religion as well so deal with it.

[@botousai]

So if we created a robot that argued against free will and knew it didn't have free will, it would be presenting the same arguments, and you would respond the same way. Of COURSE it feels like everyone truly is the arbiter of their own decisions, and people base their beliefs about will solely off of this perception. Also, people who argue AGAINST free will didn't choose to be born with rational minds that even CARE about the issue, or the personality type that engages with others on the internet, or the random emotion to RESPOND that welled up on day X that might not have welled up on day Y because of some issue in life(ALL of which would have affected their "Choice" to respond and all of which are outside of their control). But the moment you think deeply enough and ask yourself "Why did I choose X over Y" enough times, you get to the point where you just don't know, which means the final choice wasn't made in your conscious mind. Also, there are experiments that very accurately predict if someone is going to choose left or right, 2-5 seconds before they themselves are aware of their decisions, which leads to the likely possibility that your unconscious mind makes the final decision and then the conscious mind becomes aware of it, which is felt as the subjective experience of "I am choosing left over right"

[@justinrice9228]

Book purchased. Thanks Ben, and, of course, Dr. Feser.

[@bromponie7330]

Would you be as kind as to give me your final thoughts on the book? It'd be much appreciated.

[@hugoyoutubechannel]

I mean, I don’t know much about philosophy and all this things, but this people(Feser...) make me want to discover as much as I can about philosophy, religion, humanism breefly...

[@cynthiafeick]

Brilliant! Edward Feser exhibits a too-rare combination of attributes: intelligence; humility; and wisdom. Leaving immediately to go buy, "Five Proofs of the Existence of God"! Great interview!

[@randysl7664]

I'm not religious but this is pretty interesting

[@flyingmonk6599]

A lot of people commenting angrily here probably didn't even watch the vid. Feser gives a short outline of an argument for God's existence that you won't hear usually (it s not a god of the gaps) and he tackles interestingly the issue of free will. Whatever your stance may be this guy contributes to the whole discussion.

[@dylansablan9103]

Two of my favorites! More of these topics!

[@firasbouhamdan9917]

Shapiro found an equally intelligent man

[@fanwee5048]

colbfan report I take offense to that, cause that nigga ugly

[@philipspires5781]

Look at all of the books!

[@michaelmccarty1327]

Dr. Feser's kids go to my old high school. His son is in my brother's class.

[@mordec1016]

Very glad that you brought him on the show. I've been reading Feser for years and his clear and didactic style is extremely helpful for understanding philosophy, especially aristotelian and thomistic philosophy. His work on God's existence, philosophy of mind, nature and ethics are all top notch. Other authors I'd recommend, for those who are interested in these issues, are David Oderberg, John Joseph Haldane, and Alexander Pruss.

[@MBarberfan4life]

Pruss is awesome.

[@TheWeirdSyndrome]

Keep going, all of you!, until you come to Christ. God kept it 100% and sent His Son to earth. Jesus Christ did not compromise in telling us the TRUTH to spare our wicked feelings. God bless.

[@tommore3263]

I've been reading Dr Ed Feser for years. He nails down reality... the true nature of things.. why we have the natures and gifts that we do, and why we have wonderful reasons to celebrate our lives that are based upon rigorous argument and facts. His work is very reliable .. but he writes to your common sense and proper use of reason. God frankly ..becomes obvious, and that's a really good thing. You'll wonder why nobody ever told you about Aristotle , Aquinas and their proofs from every day reality.

[@shazzylogo]

great guest!

[@warewolven]

I personally believe in God and don't believe this world is an accident of nature. But I can understand why atheists doubt it. My advice would be to study, keep asking questions. Hopefully either way you find the answers you are looking for. Peace!!

[@NequeNon]

I love Ed Feser's work. Really excellent and very intelligent. Daily Wire is really bringing the game up above the usual garbage the MSM (and also alternative media) provides. Most times they say people won't tune into philosophy or aren't interested, only to be fed THEIR philosophy and relativism. Well done guys, keep it up!

[@VxV631]

Loved this! Totally going to try and get his book!

[@danieljackson3619]

Vulxanis Viceroy Hope you enjoy it! He has a blog, too, so be sure to check that out: edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/?m=1

[@fvgywehiudouyvgrf]

I took this mans class last year good guy, im a athiest and was not swayed by him but i think its fair to say that if you are going to argue for the existence of a god mr. feser does a great job

[@tommore3263]

Hi Alex. That's interesting. I was able to study this classic western metaphysical foundation Feser talks about and found it unavoidable. What caused a problem for you? Just curious. Incidentally I usually find the problem rests with epistemological premises..like Hume on causation or Kant.. which I find really incoherent. Cheers.

[@kingbaldwiniv5409]

Yay Ben! Having on Dr. Feser really helps to nail down why Catholics get so frustrated with Sam Harris and his straw-manning of all theology and philosophy.

[@galeanorodriguez9668]

seeing ben shapiro learn is fascinating

[@johnt-r6133]

I am hoping this and other interests might cause a much needed revival in Scholastic philosophy and theology, its got a lot to offer as an antidote to post-modernism as well as in its theistic form. Plus (some of) the most relevant scholars in recent centuries have been American, which is deeply under-celebrated. More Dun Scotus and Peirce!!

[@chinko1953]

Was this an infomercial for Dr Feser's books?

[@gosselinluke]

Ben should try to debate somebody. Other than college students. You go Ben!

[@sophiagomez5619]

*mentions Duns Scotus * *internally fan girls *

[@danieljackson3619]

Foreign Grid I have a paper copy of Scotus' De Primo Principio with the original Latin facing the English translation, with a lengthy commentary at the end ;) But I was a buffoon and broke the spine in one spot, whoops.

[@sophiagomez5619]

noooooo howcouldu jk That sounds awesome! 8D

[@hotstixx]

i don`t find either position persuasive enough to commit.The ingenuity of the intellect to come up with arguments for any position continues to amaze.If there is a rhetorical god,it will always be mans projection of his finer virtues,a kind of vanity in the end - man`s presumption of centrality.Truth is we just don`t know..all we have is argument,claim and counter-claim.

[@johnma8697]

Ben, can you feature Alvin Plantinga as well please?

[@gippywhite]

I really enjoy hearing discussions like this and I admire the thought and analyzation it took to get to the points that he's making. The only problem I have is not with his views, but rather that it took him so long to get to this point. Not that he's slow or anything like that! I understand that everything is always evolving, but he is a professor that most likely spent years, if not a decade or two, spreading a message to easily malleable minds who, more likely than not, took the professor's views as brute fact and are now living their lives with this in the backs of their minds, even though now the professor himself knows he was totally wrong. Again, I really do admire philosophers and the thought that goes into their views. I just wonder if they ever look back once in a while and say, "Oh shit, I probably I screwed up a bunch of people for life because I was spreading a view that I didn't realize was in its infancy. It had no legs even though I sent it off running." Just a thought.

[@maggiethompson8222]

GippyWhite a few things I'm thinking on your comment here. Dr. Feser is a child of God like any of us, not just a professor. Between God's calling and free will, Dr. Feser came to his beliefs in God's perfect timing. God loves the doubting Thomas's too! Even so there are those who don't believe and never will. But, I charge that it is His calling and our free will that allows for either belief or disbelief, including Dr. F's students; they have their own free will, too. I also appreciate the academics who do all the hard work on proving things I believe on faith alone! 😉

[@danieljackson3619]

GippyWhite It's a fair thought. I was just thinking a few hours ago how it's interesting that converts (or reverts, in Feser's case) often possess unparalleled zeal in defense of their faith. Why is that so? Well, God brings good out of every evil, and those who've sinned by leading others away from Christ (as Feser did during his initial teaching career) must make up for the wrong they've done, and I think Feser's certainly doing that now with the aid of God's grace.

[@oldterry9356]

See “Knowing with the Heart: Religious Experience and Belief in God” by Roy Clouser who IS an expert in Philosophy of Religion.

[@timmyquintos6467]

I would love to see Dr. Feser and Dr. Jordan Peterson have a conversation about God's existence.

[@Shroudedleaves]

What would you do if you found your creator(s) and they turned out to be the aliens from xcom 2. Would you covert to advent or fight your creator?

[@victorpanzica261]

The discussion of Libet's experiment and free will is spot on. Sam Harris makes the strange argument that one neuron 'firing either way' can determine our actions is a huge howler. As committed Darwinists people like Harris or Dennett should realize that nature would never yield such a kluge of 'design'. Most free will regards the suppression of choice inside the CNS or we would not have free will if the potential choices were not actualized first. All Libet proved was that the subject actualized the choice. The real free will may be on the part of the scientist who set the potential for choice, not the subject who was being paid fifty bucks to please the scientist?

[@colquest]

I would pay good money to hear Prof. Feser on Sam Harris' podcast

[@loop3416]

Damn I missed it

[@EternalRecursion]

Two subjects addressed here. 1) The existence of God: The existence of God can be experienced at different levels. A) One may experience the existence of God as an awareness of Transcendent Awareness in contact and communion with individuated awareness. B) One may experience the annihilation of individuated awareness and pass into a state of Absolute Awareness. 2) Free Will: There is no proof for, nor is there proof against, Free Will, but we have no choice but to act as if we have free will. There's a paradox for you. Is it possible to choose to be something other than self?

[@CollectvlyUnconsious]

What about reaction time, how much of that time is the time it takes for the thought to translate through the language center of the brain. For that matter, how do they know the neurological activity isn't simply the process "what should I do" state?

[@ericbess5917]

Exactly - the argument is based only on a concept that the brain IS the person. Does consciousness come from the brain or is there some other element and the brain is a tool of our consciousness in much the same way as the computer I am typing on now. Obviously control of the brain being on a subconscious level, but I believe the analogy holds pretty well. If neurological activity is the brain processing implications of various possible outcomes and then the consciousness decides which choice best fits in terms of both benefit and ethics, than free will is fully preserved.

[@ericbess5917]

No free will because the brain is functioning is sort of like saying that someone sitting at a computer has nothing to do with how a computer works because there is activity on a keyboard before the browser goes to a website. The brain and subconscious cannot process the implications of a choice before a choice is actually made?

[@sovietsandvich8443]

Eric Bess unless human brains rely on quantum mechanical phenomena, which depend on probability and cannot be concretely predicted

[@Maximus5798]

WTF this isn't live..

[@adnenothmani4630]

why we need an actualizer outside of the physical world since most systems in microscopic level of our world are closed circular systems (that actualizes itself) and if we suppose that there's an actualizer why it has to be a being , why it cant be something else that our brains fail to understand giving the fact that this something only have one mission and thats to actualise everything inside the physical world by the way im religious too but i wanna have stronger argument then just trying to bend philosophy

[@namapalsu2364]

"Why we need an actualized outside the physical world" - Because the physical world undergoes change. "Why this actualizer must be a being" - Because the changes in the world, which requires the actualizer, also happen to beings. Especially it happens to their thoughts, minds etc. To change thoughts/minds this actualizer must also be a being. Not only that, but an intelligent being.

[@AndrewErwin73]

Hey! Don't diss Kant! He is pretty much my favorite philosopher!

[@josephhsu3221]

No, nobody wants there to NOT be God, Heaven sounds Freaking Awesome

[@mpleandre]

Even if it sounds crazy, but there's ACTUALLY people who don't want there to be a God. When I ask some anti-theists "if christianity was true, would you become a Christian?" they say a hard NO.

[@ts8960]

matter cannot be created nor destroyed. So did it poop itself into existence?

[@FrankyOtt]

The very existence of God has to be actualised according to your example. Dr. Edward.

[@danieljackson3619]

Franky The Fox No, you ought to go read a book for once. God has no potentiality, he is actus purus.

[@FrankyOtt]

Or he simply doesn’t exist.

[@SwangBley]

Franky The Fox Do you know what shifting the goal posts is?

[@sovietsandvich8443]

Franky The Fox there must be a purely actual actualizer.

[@zgobnartz1131]

Hi Ben, you really should engage ROGER SCRUTON and particularly his 2 books The SOUL OF THE WORLD (carefully nuanced argument against materialist reductionistic view of reality) and his FOOLS FRAUDS AMD FIREBRANDS (his critique of the Marxist left).

[@Tdisputations]

This is so awesome. I actually challenged Ben Shapiro on whether healthcare is a right based on Edward Feser's work a few weeks ago at Politicon. lol

[@danieljackson3619]

owchywawa this is awesomeness overload! Feser's utterly fantastic, it's great seeing him get more recognition (he deserves it more than other apologists I can think of). Do you have/know of footage showing your debate with Shapiro?

[@Tdisputations]

Daniel Jackson Yeah, it's at 27 mins in this video: watch?v=bxxwjwH5c4I

[@Tdisputations]

Daniel Jackson it wasn't really a debate. He just said he accepted John Locke's view of rights. I would say that Locke's view is missing the natural ends present in the world, but I think maybe Ben sees this now after reading Edward Feser.

[@liberval9425]

Anyone notice how Ben is making more and more comments about God and religion? He agreed to do Sam Harris' podcast, so I think that's a sign that he'll start debating atheists soon - similar to Dinesh D'souza. I'd love to see him go against Matt Dillahunty, since they both have the same kind of analytical, "debate-on-the-street" style. I love Ben dearly, but finally, a debate he can lose!

[@AdviceFromArron]

The problem I have is the idea of thinking that a higher power is "God" I have no issue believing that there is a unknown power in the universe that connects everything. I have issues with defining within our own comprehension of reality what that power is.

[@AdviceFromArron]

Michael Van Wie Jr. I know, I was stating I don't like the associations we make towards the power. Omnipotent, omniscient and the most annoying to me is omnibenevolent.

[@AdviceFromArron]

Michael Van Wie Jr. We don't know if it is any of these things though that is my issue, I'll admit something is probably there I will not assume the qualities of it or the limitations

[@AdviceFromArron]

Michael Van Wie Jr. A black hole isn't bound by space and time either.....if something is outside of our comprehension then we should accept it as such and move forward.

[@AdviceFromArron]

Michael Van Wie Jr. No, a black hole doesn't exist in a space or time it effects space and time.

[@R3fug333]

That's a nice shirt, Ben. Please don't tell me you're wearing a t-shirt underneath it.

[@meesterdinglefritz2064]

R3fug33 he’s married.

[@gabesmokeymartatom]

Cliff Hanley - I'm so glad you finally settled that thorny little question. I've been agonizing over it for a long time. Your brilliant explanation put all my concerns to rest. Thanks for that Cliff!

[@michaelflores9220]

14:23 this has been compared to saying "The appearance of the tooth fairy is a necessary action for the appearance of a coin under your pillow, but the tooth fairy didn't really put it there.".

[@michaelflores9220]

@Actus Purus That's an Ad Hominem attack, not a rebuttal.

[@legron121]

I see no valid comparison.

[@MissPopuri]

Is "brute fact" related to "brute force"? Issac Newton might have something to say on this, too.

[@danieljackson3619]

MissPopuri Not familiar with the concept of brute force, but a brute fact is something considered to be true in an unintelligible manner; something is true (or it exists), but has no rational explanation, we cannot look into it any further. If I ask you why a is true/exists, and you say "because b", and I ask why b, and you reply with c, then I ask why c, and so on and so forth... at some point, you may no longer be able to reply with "because", and would choose instead to say it's a brute fact. Bertrand Russell (the dude Feser referenced), referred to the existence of the universe as a brute fact, a truth having no further explanation (whereas Copleston - Russell's interlocutor - wished to argue that the universe was not a brute fact and could be explained by God having created it [God is not a brute fact, because we can explain his existence]).

[@danieljackson3619]

Sorry about not being able to tell if they're related, I'll leave it up to you to determine if they're related concepts.

[@MissPopuri]

I see the giant circle jerk and the obvious pitfalls in the use of a to explain b and so on. The facts could be anything made or done by art or science. A force might be replaceable in human terms to facts, but I would have to ask myself how a fact/force is equal to mass times acceleration.

[@JBlackjackp]

Brute fact is a kantian notion

[@andrewaguas3672]

Watch David Wood debate Heina Dadabhoy here on KZbin to see why atheism is completely incoherent.

[@Wolfmasterpixel]

MagiCal HD It is true. People often say that mathematics defines the universe, but this is contrary to the fact. Mathematics is how we observe the universe - whether the universe follows our system of mathematics is unknown.

[@danieljackson3619]

lu impy "I do prefer mathematical logic to philosophical logic"? What kind of idiocy is that? Logic is universal and both philosophers and mathematicians utilize it, it's just that philosophers deal also with words, which requires things like modal and doxastic logic.

[@andrewaguas3672]

lu impy Yes. I am implying that it is more logical to believe in a God than to not. Watch the debate for yourself and see if you can refute the arguments presented by Dr. Wood. There is an extremely high chance you cannot.

[@Blake4Truth]

Come on man, how about a link?

[@HaecceitasQuidditas]

I think Ben should have David Wood on his show. Wood is pretty good on atheism but he really excels on topics related to Islam.

[@letsallgetreal3582]

So as a huge fan of Ben Shapiro, and having struggled with faith and continuing to struggle with faith, I have a question... Ben, with all due respect, why do you require a body of evidence when dealing with issues of racism but not ANY when it comes to the issues of God? I don't want to be tribal about this and I have no dog in the fight. I just want to know what seems more correct. I really enjoyed listening to Dr. Feser, but I've heard you condemn Deepak Chopra for saying ostensibly the same thing and you called it "word salad". You have changed my mind on a good number of issues, though admittedly I've always been a conservative on most issues. You have a unique "cut through the crap" style and I'm curious about your thoughts on this apparent ideological dichotomy. I also hold people like Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan in high esteem and have been very much swayed by their arguments.

[@letsallgetreal3582]

Sorry, I think that might have been Sam Harris that actually made the comment about Deepak Chopra.

[@sinisamajetic]

I knew that, it's logical, almost Reza Aslan like. :D

[@FrankyOtt]

Or the universe without God could just be as inevitable.

[@rwatertree]

It's turtles all the way down until you get to the brute fact.

[@truthseeker7463]

Are we filling the thirst for the world by making even more thirst? Fill the void inside, live clean and happy! Watch and join: kzbin.info/www/bejne/j5-7e6KKhZtnqqs

[@xnoumenon]

Hi Ben, I am interested in these arguments in favor of God, but I am struggling to understand why the leap from unmoved mover to God is necessary. I don't disagree at all with the idea of the unmoved mover, and in fact have my own opinion on exactly what it is and how it works. Where I diverge from you and Dr. Feser is in labeling it a being, or God. To me, the defining characteristic of a being is intent. The reason we don't call gravity a being is because gravity has no intent, it only has a function which is a result of certain conditions, even though it can cause change which might be misunderstood as will or intent. In this video Dr. Feser mentions that neurologists are making philosophical assumptions that they don't actually substantiate regarding free will. I unfortunately have to make the same argument against Dr. Feser's apparent conclusion. While it seems rationally observable that there is an unmoved mover, nothing mandates that the unmoved mover has to have intent. To attribute that intent to the force provided by the unmoved mover seems to me to be an innocent personal bias and not the conclusion of any particular thought experiment I can identify. It seems reasonable that the unmoved mover can not be the mere product of conditions, like gravity, because it must be present before conditions exist. In fact, the unmoved mover is itself the condition of existence. From this you might gather it has to be different from the material universe and the forces it contains. I don't disagree, but an easier explanation than God would be a form of pansychism that does not require intent. The mind, or consciousness, does not require intent to exist on an elemental level. I believe as humans we often associate consciousness and the mind with the brain, but I don't believe that to be the case and it would appear your belief in the unmoved mover being God also disagrees with that assumption. Otherwise God would have to have a brain in order to be the unmoved mover, because intent separates a being from an elemental force, thought is necessary to have intent and thought is generated in the brain. Neither one of us is picturing a giant brain causing existence, that's silly. My own personal model of the unmoved mover is closer to the concept of an observer in metaphysics and quantum physics. An observer does not have to be alive, or possess intent, to generate or collapse potentials. Simply put, imagine an elemental state of consciousness which is observing nothingness. Within the relationship between the observer (consciousness), and the observed (nothingness) exists the potential for all things. Without going into detail, nothingness is interacting with consciousness (observation) and also with itself (potentials existing within nothingness that differentiate themselves from each other such as 0 = 1 - 1, similar to virtual particle pairs in quantum mechanics). Now, all of existence can then be effectively "simulated" within the elemental consciousness as observed interactions between mere possibilities that exist within the observed nothingness and also within the nothingness reflected by the consciousness. In a sense, all consciousness needs to do is hold a mirror up to nothingness and thus create interaction and observe it, allowing for time and space to be actuated and recorded within elemental consciousness. What I fail to understand is, where in this model does the elemental consciousness require intent? Without intent, how is the elemental consciousness different from any other force of nature like gravity or math? All it does is provide the platform for existence to interact with itself as an expression of the infinite potentials of observed nothingness. Intent, and therefore "being" isn't required, which means the unmoved mover isn't God, it's just an element of nature subject to the laws of the universe contained within itself.

[@Falcon988]

Cole Ferrell , 6 month old post - Did you figure it out by now?

[@josephhsu3221]

#fireAndrewKlavan

[@kristyann9912]

Jehovah is a beautiful God.

[@williammcenaney1331]

Maybe Ben and Prof. Feser should have defined the phrase "brute fact." When something is a brute fact, there's no way to explain it even in principle, There's no explanation for one because there could never be an explanation for it. If there are brute facts, no one could know that they were brute facts because that knowledge would mean that they were explainable. God's existence has an explanation because his existence is an essential property. All caused events have explanations. But some explanations are non-causal. If God is the uncaused cause, the answer to the question "What caused God?" is no one and nothing.

[@josephhsu3221]

didn't convince me, ancient philosophers didn't know that science says all things have a cause,

[@sovietsandvich8443]

Joseph Hsu the metaphysical arguments start with premises that science must presuppose. He didn’t formally lay out any of the arguments here, but you can find lectures on KZbin where he does go through the arguments.

[@JBlackjackp]

The argument has nothing to do with all things have a cause it has to do with change and such

[@johnstewart7025]

He says that nothing is explained by saying that everything has a cause. In other words, if the atheist speculates that the world has always existed, "we have not really explained anything." Well, perhaps we haven't explained anything, but we have created a story about the world that fits very well with our everyday experience. Turtles all the way down. This is giving metaphysics a bad name. Metaphysics -- speculating on physics outside of the physical universe -- is a contradiction in terms. Either we are discussing something that exists or something that doesn't. God does not act in the universe, which appears to act according to natural laws. In our minds, we can speculate about metaphysics and we can talk to God. But this all looks very much like we are talking to ourselves. It must be added that the history of "talking to ourselves" is a fascinating one, including the history of religion. I also see much to be admired in this history, as well as some scandals and horrors. But, I don't think we can live without such "talk."

[@johnstewart7025]

It does seem as though the Big Bang is like God in that they are "brute facts" with no scientific explanation. I mean the Big Bang happened, but can't be explained through natural law (from within the universe).

[@angelofwrath1206]

The whole neuroscience argument for determinism is a Post-hawk propter hawk fallacy

[@NaZtRdAmUs]

Either God exists or doesn't either one is scary.

[@fvgywehiudouyvgrf]

Also im a athiest who supports trump somewhat alt right please people dont fall for he lie that if ur athiest u have to b on the left and vice versa thats horseshit, props to ben for bringing this up nice break from politics

[@davidjonathannn950]

Almost all atheists claim that, because (supposedly) there is no God, their own worldview is not a religion. Many of them would argue that they have a “nonbelief.” One of the definitions of religion in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, however, is this: “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Atheism certainly fits that definition, and many of its adherents are quite zealous about their faith system. Atheists have an active belief system with views concerning origins (that the universe and life arose by natural processes); no life after death; the existence of God; how to behave while alive; and so much more. Honest atheists will admit their worldview is a faith. Atheism is a religion! One candid atheist wrote, “My attitude is not based on science, but rather on faith . . . . The absence of a Creator, the non-existence of God is my childhood faith, my adult belief, unshakable and holy.”1Actually, however, there are no true atheists-just those who claim to be. The all-knowing God of the Bible informs us that He has made it evident to all people that He exists, but that unbelievers try to suppress that knowledge (Romans 1:18). While atheism is a blind faith, its followers will still cry out, “We are not part of a religion!” Why do they plead this? First, if atheism were identified as a religion, atheists fear that their views might get kicked out of public places, like government-run schools. Second, these secularists will be less likely to be able to deceive children into thinking that their teachings (supposedly “neutral”) are not in conflict with the religious beliefs of students.and

[@ghostbeetle2950]

Wait, that can't be the whole of the argument: "God is self-explanatory"! The crucial question would be just HOW god is supposed to be that and you've completely left that out of this video! Without knowing what kind of answer Dr Feser has for that I'm not sure it would be worth it to buy his book. I mean, I think I agree with his basic argument as far as it goes here, but so far that really seems to be nothing more (or less) than a rephrase of Spinoza's concept of 'God' and I am not sure how that is supposed to bolster the smugg sense of superiority of any religious-minded person, who might be interested in something like that. I mean, if you want to get on board with a completely naturalized, immanent version of god, who couldn't care less if your praying to him or not, following "his" "laws" or not, etc, then be my guest! I mean, even I'm on board with that - Let's all join in intelllectual love of the universe, in all it's scientific grandeur! Did anybody bring the 'Shrooms?

[@SunnyFly100]

Proof of God contradict free will. If proof existed there wouldn't have been a free will to accept the God

[@AnkushNarula]

The "brute facts" argument is a straw man representation of naturalism. The naturalist is more likely to tell you that our understanding is *currently* limited but always growing and it is *possible* that we will reach a cognitive upper limit. Specifically, we *currently* don't understand what happened before cosmic inflation (the big bang). It's *possible* that we will be limited by the laws of physics. It's also *possible* that humans or some future evolution of humans will develop more advanced senses and cognition - leading to more sophisticated answers (and questions). It's also *possible* that humans, as a species, will come to realize that meaning cannot be found in knowledge. None of this necessarily refutes the existence of a prime mover but doesn't require one either.

[@AnkushNarula]

Michael Van Wie Jr. I’m not sure I understand. Are you suggesting that all deterministic systems must have a purpose that’s meaningful to humans? Are you conflating determinism with teleology? Isn’t that a little too anthropocentric?

[@deepashtray5605]

The book must have a lot more, because Feser didn't even come close to offering a god as an explanation for anything here.

[@cellomon09]

Nor did he purport to do so.

[@deepashtray5605]

Nor did he give a reason to think his book goes into anything other than more god of the gaps arguments.

[@cellomon09]

“Nor did he give a reason to think his book goes into anything other than more god of the gaps arguments.” Burden of proof is yours to show that they are god of the gaps arguments, not on him to show otherwise.

[@deepashtray5605]

There is nothing here. He has offered nothing to suggest he has anything but more god of the gaps arguments in this interview. All he has here is his own opinion.

[@cellomon09]

So Feser doesn’t suggest he has anything but god of the gaps arguments in an interview (which, by the way, didn’t purport to outline the content of the book)...therefore Feser must not have anything more than god of the gaps arguments? See when theists do this, it’s called an argument from ignorance. I know it’s hard to believe, but some people present content in places other than KZbin videos. Like books.

[@Luissv72]

I claim that it is possible for a creator to exist, but I'm not going to waste what little time I have in this world chasing some deity or some corrupt monsters who claim to understand its word

[@floppyfeet426]

Luissv72 something to think about is you're going to be dead for a much longer time then you're going to be alive. I think trying to pursue the ultimate truth on life after death is a worthy pursuit of one's life especially when it impacts one's eternity. But this is America you have the right to live whatever way you like.

[@Luissv72]

Brian Gendron True, and I never said it wasn't a bad idea. But seriously, if any deity or being in the afterlife believes that me living this existence to the absolute fullest is a problem, or somehow a violation of their rules, then they can kindly go fuck themselves

[@floppyfeet426]

Some things to think about. So you have every right to believe whatever the heck you want. I am merely just trying to have a thought provoking discussing :) - “if any deity or being in the afterlife believes that me living this existence to the absolute fullest is a problem, or somehow a violation of their rules, then they can kindly go fuck themselves” This is interesting thought but just wondering what defines life to the fullest? It is different for every person I’m sure. But should God have not have rules for anyone then? just in case it gets in the way of them living life to the fullest? Should people be able to live how they please even if it might hurt other people? Shouldn’t a moral God be concerned with how his creation treats one another and lives there lives? Also if we are supposing a God that knows everything then do you think that maybe God might know how to live life to the fullest or maybe how to live life a better then we do as people. Or maybe he might provide better answers to living a moral life then we humans can even if we might not get it? You said “ I'm not going to waste what little time I have in this world chasing some deity” I would challenge you not to waste your eternity by ignoring these questions. You right life is short but death is long. And in my humble option a person should be dam well sure what they believe before they die. Now I’m not trying to like yell at you or whatever I am honestly just giving you my opinion so that maybe some good discussion might come from it. Also remember you did post a public comment so any religious weirdo like me can comment on it :D

[@Mike-pf1ru]

The Catholic Church teaches that the existence of God can be known with CERTAINTY by the use of natural reason alone. We don't need blind faith. We need reason. Once we have the certainty of the existence of God established in reason, not emotion, then the claims of Jesus Christ - that He was and is God Incarnate - can be weighed. If this claim is true, then the Church He founded, the Catholic Church, has the authority to teach infallibly in His name on all matters of Faith and Morals. All other religious claimants of authority can therefore be safely be rejected. The stakes are eternal damnation away from God, or eternal bliss in His presence. It's not a waste of time considering what's at stake.

[@-Ahmed8592]

15:20

[@PickleRickGSF]

oh god....these fools brought up the WORST arguments that has easily been refuted by people like Dr. Graham Oppy

[@FrankyOtt]

Dr. Edward doesn’t understand a simple atheist argument. The argument is used to refute the claim which when presented: “What or who created the universe?” Suggest there should be a cause for it but not for your God. Based on what Dr. Edward? Why can you say what should and shouldn’t have been created?

[@cellomon09]

Asked and answered. Read the book.

[@flyingmonk6599]

The argument is not about who or what created the universe. Aristotle who gave the argument thought that the universe existed forever.

[@FrankyOtt]

This is an issue of time rather than whether it was made. From a world line perspective you can say the universe is static and/or infinitely inevitable. Considering such a perspective even exists. The issue is (and this is to refute DR. Edward’s God of the gaps counter argument as well.) is claiming that it has to be created or is designed for purpose because it according to theists the universe simply can’t exist by itself is a god of the gaps argument. It is easy to just put a deity there which doesn’t follow any of the rules and can’t be refuted anyway to solve the problem of how…

[@Math_oma]

This is one of the worst objections an atheist could make. Read the book.

[@cellomon09]

“It is easy to just put a deity there which doesn’t follow any of the rules and can’t be refuted anyway...” Indeed, which is why Dr. Feser does no such thing, nor has any other defender of the traditional arguments for God’s existence. Read the book. Or short of that, watch the damn video.

[@greenbeans7573]

Both Ben and his guest are assuming reality is intuitive by asserting that activity demands a beginning. Time could be stretched out to infinity or it could even be circular (Big Bang, big collapse, repeat). If Science has taught us anything it is that reality is anything but intuitive. As to the interviewee’s argument that it’s a form sophistry to use the god of the gaps argument and assume a hard bedrock fact, I would say that there is no need for a hard bedrock fact. Science, unlike religion, can admit it doesn’t know everything and therefore has no need to fill the gaps with bedrock facts. Science simply accepts that there’s is more to be learned. In response to Ben’s argument that free will is a foundational concept for our society, he is right. However, that does not mean free will exists. A society can still have free will as a foundation without actually having free will. I would argue that we still hold people accountable for their actions regardless of whether or not they have free will because obviously holding people accountable is a stabilizing force for society. In other words, free will should still be practiced as a foundation for society for practical reasons even if it doesn’t exist. However, given a clear understand of determinism we should have more compassion for people who are victims of their own mind by providing more pleasant prison conditions closer to Norway’s. This is one of the implications that a determinist society would have, and we could do this while simaltaneously running a society where people will subconsciously believe they are in control of their mind.

[@greenbeans7573]

+Michael Van Wie Jr. How is wave-particle duality intuitive? It isn't. How is one particle occupying two places in space at once intuitive? It isn't. The Quantum World is not intuitive, that is "what on earth (I am) talking about."

[@greenbeans7573]

+Michael Van Wie Jr. Common sense, by it's very definition, is an ad populum fallacy. Just because something is commonly understood, or basic, or intuitive, that does not make it true. You are right to say Science is founded on axioms, but those axioms do not include intuition. The foundation of science is evidence based theories, not intuition. We make predictions, test those predictions with experiments, and see whether our predictions are correct. If at any point our predictions are incorrect (very often) then by definition our intuition is not reliable. Intuition is only useful in so far as it can help us guess at predictions which we can test. The only thing we can rely on is repeatable evidence. There are no ways to square many quantum phenomena with common sense. The most obvious example of this is having a particle be in two places at once. No one can seriously claim to see this as intuitive. I think it wrong of you to assume that our instincts can realize the truth in all contexts. Our brains were evolved to survive in the wild. It just so happens that our brains can also understand much of how physics works, but that does not mean we have the instinctual capacity to understand all of physics. This does not disprove the science I claim to support, it simply means that some of what science shows us is beyond our comprehension.

[@Scottit]

No cause for a god? Makes sense -- NOT!

[@tennis5126]

Because my friend you lack critical thinking and humility. When I was agnostic, I would consider myself to be rather arrogant and closed minded, I still am but it has decreased dramatically now that I'm a Christian and accountable for every thought and action I have. Read up on the nature and ontology of God. God is omnipotent, omniscient,omnipresent, eternal,etc. You'll realise that He is a uncaused cause kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z3jafYGhjJiInrc. Just like there's actual infinite and potential infinite.

[@bricksaccomplice3004]

60 people are going to hell

[@zeem7999]

Sadly he doesn't belong to the same Church as St Thomas Aquinas. The Vatican II sect is not Catholic.

[@fluffyisyermom7631]

As long as you let me believe that I'm an anime character. You can believe in your mythological creator.

[@michaelcooper3304]

fluffy isyermom that makes no sense

[@fluffyisyermom7631]

It certainly does. If you believe in an invisible all powerful being that can do anything. Why can't I identify as an anime character? Certainly doesn't seem less nonsensical than believing in a legendary creator being we have no proof of ever seeing.

[@faithbreathes9598]

fluffy isyermom This is America, you can believe in whatever you want, but belief does not change the facts. For example, just because you believe there is no God, it doesn't change the fact that He exists. However, if I believe there is a God and there isn't, it doesn't change the fact that there isn't. However, neither side can disprove either which is why there are both atheists and theists in the world. The issue arises when one side is easily disprovable, such as the fact that you want to be an anime character. It is easily disprovable that you are not, so I can say with certainty that you are not. However, you cannot say with certainty that there is or isn't a God, so that remains up for debate. Hope this helps :)

[@-Ahmed8592]

@@fluffyisyermom7631 Is God a light-emitting or reflective object? No? Then why say invisible?

[@TheZachary86]

His potential to actualise argument is bullshit. It still means causation. And god isnt immune to causality argument. You dont get a special pass

[@LogosTheos]

It's bullshit because you didn't understand s*** about actuality and potentiality.

[@TheZachary86]

LogosTheos Its bullshit because you people dont understand the conclusions of the shit you are peddling. Dressing the arguments with flamboyant semantics. Even bens argument on god of the gaps with his strawman of hard facts. When there is a gap in understanding, thats all there is, a gap. Inserting god without evidence is not proof of gods existence

[@danieljackson3619]

YC Here you are whining in the comments when you could be ordering a copy of Feser's book.

[@TheZachary86]

Daniel Jackson Maybe you can order it for me? Rather spend my money on new shoes tbh

[@mordec1016]

YC you don't understand the argument. Forget about "God" for a minute. The issue is that in a cosmological argument such as the Aristotelean one, either there will be an infinite chain of causes actualizing potentiality, or there will be a being with potentiality that is NOT actualized somewhere along the chain, or there will be a being that is fully actual and is therefore not actualized by anything else and is the end of the causal chain. These are all the logical possibilities. The issue, however, is that an infinite chain of causes is impossible -- and that's part of the argument (Aristotle spells this out by showing how an essentially ordered series of causes can't be infinite). So it's not a tenable position. What about the other two? To say there is a mixture of potentiality/actuality that is not itself caused is, however, also impossible because it contradicts the principle of causality and/or the principle of sufficient reason (and Feser explained in the video, for instance, why the principle is true. He argued for jt). The only possible alternative, therefore, is that there is a fully actual cause that is not iself actualized by anything else, that is the end to the whole series of causes. And *this* we call God. (And Aristotle, Aquinas, et al spend many pages defending and showing why this first cause can be said to possess the traditional attributes we use for "God"). In the rationalist proof, for example, the issue is the explanation of contingent facts or beings. Given the Principle of Sufficient Reason, it necessarily follows that there must be a necessary being that holds every contingent being in existence. If you actually study and read the arguments, and follow it where it leads, you'll understand them, and will see why God exists. If, however, from the outset you turn the arguments on its head and start assuming it somehow begins with God and then has to "explain away" the existence of God, you'll never understand it. At their core, the cosmological arguments presented follow from the principles of causality or sufficient reason. They're at the center of such arguments, it's through them and their discussion that you can understand them

[@HeraldofNurgle7]

Burden of proof is on religious people to prove there is a god, not for atheists to prove there isn't. After all, religious people are the ones making such a wild claim. Just because you can debunk one atheist argument doesn't make your own argument any more credible

[@HeraldofNurgle7]

+Texan Tim It doesn't work that like my friend. Burden of proof lies on the one making a claim, not on everyone else to disprove. Every example you mentioned is a statement to try and disprove something...

[@davidmarwood775]

I believe in Thor and the Norse gods. Now prove they don't exist. I believe in Horus and the Egyptian gods. Prove they don't exist. I believe in the Hellenistic gods of Ancient Greece. Again prove they don't exist. You say people need to show evidence for why they don't believe in the abrahamic God but where's your evidence for not believing in the 1000's of other gods humanity has worshipped?

[@dylpicknic23]

HeraldofNurgle7 Atheism is a belief system. To be an atheist is to make the claim that there is no god. You have atheists confused with those who do not practice any belief whatsoever. It is the difference between someone saying, "I believe there is no such thing as a god and here is my proof" vs. "I don't know if there is or there isn't a god". The latter does not have to prove anything. Atheists, however, are making a firm claim that a god does not exist and are actively trying to prove it.

[@CarlosRodriguez-dh7mm]

It goes both ways. It all depends on who's making the initial claim in a debate and whether the claim is one of certainty.

[@HeraldofNurgle7]

+Eufamous atheism is the lack of a belief. Its literally in the name lol. I see where you're coming from though, and if you wanna play that game atheism still holds a lot more water than theism, because its arguing that there isn't something rather than is. Analogy: if theres a box, with literally anything in it, saying there IS definitely 5 marbles in there is insane. Its a 1 in a bajillion chance. Saying, however, there are NOT 5 marbles, is a 1 in bajillion chance of being right. And lets not forget about the hindus arguing theres 6 marbles or buddhists that theres 4 marbles etc. : - )

[@nejjjen]

The year is 2017. Why still so hard to give evidence of a god? And in 2117 same arguments but no evidence.

[@PizzaForkCooking]

Not impressed. Ben's brand is definitely hurt by this.

[@Wolfmasterpixel]

He is openly jewish

[@danieljackson3619]

Thomas Massengill Oh, you're an atheist troll who treats Cosmic Skeptic seriously. Noted.

[@komkom3425]

When tragedy strikes, it's important to have Santa Clause holding your hand and handing you a lollipop and a gift box while saying HO HO HO, it really perplexes me how such a smart man like ben runs around believing in such superstitions that are 3000+ years old, i thought the world has moved beyond such antique religious regurgitations and yet still such things exist even in the minds of such smart people, which is a shame

[@user-wv3ee2ec4v]

Kom Kom So do you have an actual argument?

[@truewill535]

I know right. Its always been so obvious to me how the Abrahamic religions are just rehashed versions of the ancient polytheistic Caananite religions and so on. Yahweh was just one god out of many that they chose to elevate to the highest power.

[@johnwright1447]

" i thought the world has moved beyond such antique religious regurgitations and yet still such things exist even in the minds of such smart people...." So says a man who cannot spell. Examining the evidence is a sufficient reason to accept the truths of the Christian religion, for those too hysterical or hypocritical to look at the issue purely through philosophical deduction. Moving beyond God means moving into Hell. Societies that reject God, Soviet Russia and Communist China, are the more brutal hellholes in history. Is the figure of one hundred million people murdered by your intellectual brothers and cousins insufficient for you?

[@aaronburnsbonaventurebookk595]

You act like being atheist is some kind of modern revelation. Pseudo intellectuals have been screaming the same poorly constructed arguments you’ve posted here for basically forever. Without religion, cultures collapse under the weight of moral relativism and nihilism. So either God is real or Christianity is the most accurate version of Plato’s Noble Lie.

[@truewill535]

>Examining the evidence is a sufficient reason to accept the truths of the Christian religion That's rich considering there's no evidence for God. That's why religious people have this thing called "faith". No serious Christian or Jew or philosopher would say they have evidence for God, that's absurd.