One question atheists can’t answer

[@genevieveponce9634]

"For those with faith, no evidence is necessary. For those without it, no evidence will suffice." - Thomas Aquinas

[@sre2341]

I have faith in that the Bible was just a collection of stories, that has been manipulated over the years. I need no evidence to know that GOD does not exist.

[@manolgeorgiev9664]

and he was completely right.

[@kennyrogers3602]

Faith is where reason goes to die.

[@genevieveponce9634]

@@kennyrogers3602 cope

[@kevoncharles4619]

​@@kennyrogers3602 yeah am thats not how reality works sir

[@ronjohn575]

I would’ve watched a 20 minute video that was just cutting back and forth from Matt dillahunty agreeing with Alex O’Conner and then saying that Alex O’Conner is unreasonable

[@airplayrule]

then blocking Alex without warning.

[@GuyonYouTube173]

@@airplayrule what are you saying that Matt Dillahunty blocked Alex after making that remark in the debate? I wonder if it was because of that or something else that happened, that’s crazy.

[@michaelderobertis5456]

I've spent years reading about and listening to a lot of folks discuss this issue - what would convince a non-theist that theism is likely true - and this has to be one of the finest resources in this context.

[@charliethecoyote2896]

A miracle would move me closer to being a theist. Something like a Damascus road experience.

[@RichardDuncan-ju1xk]

When god takes me for a beer. Then I'll believe he exists.

[@michaelderobertis5456]

@@RichardDuncan-ju1xk God has done a lot more than buying you a beer (which God wouldn’t have to pay for)… God has sent his only begotten Son to offer you eternal life. You must accept the offer, however!

[@RichardDuncan-ju1xk]

@@michaelderobertis5456 I must have slept in that morning. Can he do it again for us that missed it?

[@fred_derf]

@@michaelderobertis5456, writes _"God has done a lot more than buying you a beer [...]"_ So you say, but since you can present no good evidence for your claim you sound disingenuous, ignorant, or deluded.

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:17 🤔 God of the gaps objection claims that arguments for God's existence fail by relying on gaps in knowledge. 01:11 🌌 Atheists avoid supernatural explanations to explore unknown natural ones; some Christians share this approach. 03:56 🕊️ Atheists propose hypothetical scenarios as evidence for God, but they may still commit "God of the gaps" fallacy. 06:12 🔄 Some atheists dismiss classical arguments for God, yet present their own hypothetical evidence. 08:45 🤷‍♂️ Asking what would convince someone of God's existence relies on feelings more than rational discourse. 11:17 🔬 Science seeks natural explanations; proving God's existence requires philosophical reasoning. 13:48 🤝 Being convinced of something doesn't necessarily make it reasonable; focus on rational discourse. 15:12 🤔 Can a person rationally believe in God? Acknowledge philosophical arguments and varying perspectives. 18:40 📚 Encourage critical examination of arguments for and against God's existence to approach truth.

[@jdotoz]

It's the "nature of the gaps" argument: I can't explain X, but I know it has a natural explanation.

[@Marontyne]

Pretty much

[@Marontyne]

@Brian Farley Always? What about transubstantiation?

[@elgatofelix8917]

In other words, atheism of the gaps

[@jdotoz]

@@Marontyne You mean the process that uses bread, wine, and a man from the natural world?

[@Marontyne]

@@jdotoz The miracle isn't making the bread or the presence of priest. It is true that God often uses natural elements and transforms them into something new, but that's not what Brian claimed. Brian claimed there is ALWAYS a natural explanation for God's miracles. Aside from exceptional miracles, there is no natural evidence to show that the bread and wine become Jesus' body and blood. It's something we believe by faith. It truly is the body and blood of Jesus, but it retains the physical form of bread and wine. That's an example of a miracle that transcends the natural order and cannot be "seen" in the way he described.

[@vaderetro264]

Trent mentions Dietric Bonhoeffer. I would urge anyone to read his book The Cost of Discipleship, an extraordinary read which shook me at a time when I was still an atheist.

[@christislord4608]

Thanks I'm gonna put his book on my list and read it once I have read all my other books 😭. And since I'm German I will buy it in original Deutsch 👌

[@DavidGarcia-vd3jg]

I listened to this last year. It was so raw to me.

[@csongorarpad4670]

Thank you for the recommendation!

[@Rosarymaker]

As a Protestant convert to Catholicism I have read much by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. His story is fascinating. It pleases me so much whenever I meet a Catholic who knows about Bonhoeffer!! Yay!

[@joachim847]

It is good. It's a tough read, but good.

[@rhwinner]

I have always found it fascinating that imaginary numbers, which do not exist in the material realm are yet a necessary ingredient in modern physics for explaining the natural universe.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

Imaginary numbers are in two dimensions. In three dimensions, they cease to be. It's just a convention. Properly, all numbers are imaginary.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

Can you give an example ?

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@mugsofmirth8101 Numbers only exist in the ideal plane. One, two, three, they are just abstract constructions.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd my question was for the OP

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@mugsofmirth8101 Sorry!

[@Klee99zeno]

People often use the "atheism of the Gaps" If we have difficulty explaining something, the person will say that it is definitely caused by something that exists in a purely non-theistic world.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

LOL. Perhaps Trent should reconsider the appropriateness of catchphrases. Understanding that mechanism leads to skepticism.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd atheism is not skepticism

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@mugsofmirth8101 I did not claim that it was.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd many atheists think so

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

@@mugsofmirth8101 Skepticism is not taking anything for granted, much less what seems obviously contradictory. The need to use critical thinking to build each concept and let reality be the final judge of certainties.

[@homealoneuniverse1221]

Ok, fair question. I am an atheist, and I have no idea what sort of evidence would definitively demonstrate the existence of any deity. You cited several examples, and I myself have contemplated the specific example of the stars being rearranged to spell words. I didn't know anybody else had ever proposed that lol. But my problem is, at several levels, I cannot find a means by which even that event would demonstrate deity, as that term is probably being used here. To me, the biggest single problem is defining deity. You can't do an experiment to find something you can't define. Let's take the rearranged stars problem. What eliminates the possibility that some very advanced species is projecting us as a hologram, and our entire universe could be rearranged at will? Theists raise this kind of superpower for their deity all the time. But what precludes the possibility of some natural being much greater than us, but much less than absolute deity, being able perform such an act? Or take the hologramming out of the equation. Now you have a being who simply has such a profound understanding of physics they know how to deploy enough controlled energy to rearrange stars as a form of communication? So what? That does NOT necessarily demonstrate deity per se. Which gets us back to our definition problem. Only by arbitrarily redefining deity to include some power X, and arbitrarily exclude all other beings from having said power X, can we formulate a test for the existence of this version of deity. The problem is this utterly collapses as a way to specifically demonstrate the Abrahamic deity. It was once widely believed that only the gods could generate lightning. So if you saw lightning, you were seeing evidence of deity. Thor, Zeus, whoever. Virtually any deity could be substituted into this definition. So the 'power' theory of defining deity can never provide closure. Raise somebody from the dead? Advanced biology perhaps, but not necessarily deity. Manufacture a local universe? Fantastic. Definitely a being to be feared. But deity? The absolute source of all reality? How do you get there? I don't think it can be done. Yes, I know about Kalam, and the modern variants of Kalam. I think they all have unfixable holes. So at the risk of sounding like I'm just throwing my hands up in despair, well, I am. I do not know of a single thing that could be done to show the existence of deity as that term is normally used by Abrahamic theists. Yahweh to me is nothing but a tribal war god subservient to a higher deity, who then got an unexpected promotion and now runs the whole show from a remote place that can't be detected by any of the reliable detection methods humans normally use to detect things. The other word for that being 'unfalsifiable.' 'Fictional' also works here. Now I understand that atheism can be misconstrued as 'nature of the gaps' or 'science of the gaps.' But as you stated early on, we have literally no choice but to start with what we know and work from there. What we know first and foremost is the data our brains receive from the outside world on physical paths of perception. We see color, we hear sound, we feel the weight of our own body as we struggle to learn how to deal with gravity. In that sense, 'nature' or 'science' are proxies for things we experience in our shared physical reality, things we can do experiments on. For example, I can convince my flat-earth friend (and I do have one) the earth is a globe using science, and based on nature. Could I convince him by simply asking him to imagine the world is a globe? Because he could also imagine the world was a cube, or a dodecahedron, etc. If he preferred to believe the world was not a globe, how would I cure the gap in his knowledge? I would have to resort to evidence we both share, evidence we could test. His imaginative remaking of the earth could be falsified. But how can I do that for an alleged entity for whom the only 'evidence' is a brain state? Where there is no impact on physical reality that can be tested? Where I have no ability to show whether this alleged being exists only in this person's imagination, versus existing in some unreachable state beyond the reach of physics? At the end of the day, it seems all too convenient that this alleged being has priests and imams and preachers all running around telling us what they think he thinks, but push come to shove, like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz, the actual deity is always hiding in some unreachable place, always out of reach of our ability to verify. A sorry mess for us ordinary folk who never actually get to meet this deity, but a great way to make a living for the guys who run around pretending to represent him.

[@henryvdl3692]

If you're to take the hypothesis of the Christian God, rather than the mere Abrahamic God, you wouldn't say that we never got to meet Him. And if the priesthood was simply a way to make money, why is it still practiced today, when there are infinitely better ways to make money and with most priests living very simple lives?

[@homealoneuniverse1221]

@@henryvdl3692 Um, yes I would say there's no sound evidence we ever got to meet the Christian god. All we actually have is an old book, written mainly by anonymous authors, none of whom we can confirm actually met the mythic Jesus figure about whom they wrote. It is 100% hearsay, and none of the hearsay exceptions apply. It's not a reliable story. We might give it some credence if it contained no supernatural elements. But it overflows with claims of miracles. I'm not against miracles. I just don't see anonymous, unverified storytelling as a valid way to show they happened in the real world. And even if you could show they all really happened, you still don't know it was the work of a 'god', or simply unexplained science. As for priests, etc., I will grant they aren't all Joel Olsteen money makers. So? Many of them are. I live next to a church like that. There is a ton of money in it for the right skill set. Still, there are others who aren't in it for the money. They just want to be close to a god. What's in it for them? Potentially many things. Power. Status. Personal peace of mind. The narcissistic belief that they understand reality better than the nonreligious. All of those things are very human reasons why priestcraft is still practised today. Humans naturally want all those things. They are not evidence for the alleged reality of an invisible superbeing, whether Jesus or Yahweh or Thor.

[@henryvdl3692]

@@homealoneuniverse1221 I wasn't focusing on the evidence, although there is plenty of that (I would refer you to this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/d2HMdYGCrdKKjK8). My point was that it sounded as if you claimed that the Christian worldview says that we are "ordinary folk who never actually get to meet this deity". No reasonable Christian has ever said that, or anything close to that. Forgive me if I've misunderstood. Once again, power and status can be acquired through other, much less costly means, as can narcissistic satisfaction. I sincerely doubt that people would give up marriage, sex, and other privileges to gain something that can be found through easier methods. Those people are in the minority, which you would discover for yourself if you were to meet a decent number of priests. The vast majority are genuinely kind and generous, which are not traits of a narcissistic or greedy person. Also, I never said that the practice of priesthood is proof of God's existence. I am saying that it heavily implies a sincere belief in God and good intentions, rather than a desire for the alternatives you suggested.

[@homealoneuniverse1221]

@@henryvdl3692 Ok, first, I do not intend to generalize on motives of clerics of any denomination. There are also Buddhists, Rabbis, Baptist preachers whom I know have chosen near poverty because they think they are doing good. So I don't think we need to argue about that. My original point is perhaps best understood in an evolutionary context. In our early days we needed religion or something like it to survive a hostile environment. It's a social power amplifier. So even though you may get people with good intentions becoming religious leaders, you can also see how it would be attractive to another category of people. All professions attract some narcissists. But what better place to be a narcissist than a man who claims he speaks the very words of deity? And I have seen it enough in my long life to know it is NOT a coincidence. As for your first point, I do think you have misunderstood me. So to clarify, I totally get that the Christian worldview claims humanity has met deity in human form. So what? Scientology claims everybody is infested with ancient disembodied aliens and you have to pay their 'priests' a boatload of money to get rid of them. They are both equally nonsense, until and unless a sound evidentiary case can be made to support the claim. Which is why I responded to the above video in the first place. Claims, by themselves, don't mean anything. But a claim of deity is even worse, because it is probably impossible to support, due to the difficulty formulating a theory of evidence that would work in that special case. I hope that clears things up. Peace.

[@berserkerbard]

I would recommend trying to understand what theists mean by God because that would clear up a lot of your misunderstandings and problems. I think a lot of atheists tend to have a narrow, simplistic view of the God of the Bible because he has been painted as a ‘supreme being’ that isn’t too dissimilar to pagan gods. This is not what most believers understand God to be. I recommend this video to start with: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6uwl5JundB2msU Peace.

[@Scheermama]

Talk about cutting through the fat to get to the meat! This is why I tune in as soon as Trent uploads a video. I raise my coffee mug to Mr. Horn😊

[@nickmedley4749]

Exactly! St. Thomas Aquinas' wisdom does shine in his statement, "To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." As St. John Henry Newman rightly recognizes in his concepts of real assent and informal inference, belief in God and Christianity comes from the accumulation of probabilities. To those insufficiently attentive to the instincts of natural religiosity there is nothing really to say. You need ears to hear.

[@nickmedley4749]

@Roger Mills I would say faith in a personal God. Claims about God are distinct from philosophical arguments for God. One can be affected by feelings as Trent points out and then there’s logical discourse.

[@ThePaull3d]

This comment is 2 years old but maybe you will respond anyways: So what if people do not have those instincts for religiosity? What if they are born blind so to speak, and just can't see? How is that fair or a free choice?

[@nickmedley4749]

@@ThePaull3d Some distinctions would need to be made. The natural human instinct is to be religious, but if that instinct is hampered or has become twisted in some way due to things beyond a person’s control such as an illness that affects their mental state then Catholicism allows room for that. God doesn’t hold people responsible for things that are impossible for them to do, that would be cruel. He isn’t bound by anything though and can present Himself in really particular ways. If one is willfully blind or sees the truth of faith and refuses to submit to it, then that’s a different matter.

[@bk2524]

Wow this argument just blew me away. I'm absolutely stunned. We all either live by faith or we dont. I have heard it but this is the first time I have ever understood it logically. You just changed this Pastors life

[@hiimdominic3780]

Trent has taught me so much on how to defend our faith!!! 💙💪 I love his non aggressive approach. I've tried it and most protestants don't know how to react to kindness lol BUT I have actually been able to talk to aggressive Protestants and through kindness we have been able to have civil dialogue 😊 God bless! 🙏❤️💙❤️🙏✝️🛐

[@pcm7315]

Wish I could say the same; but, I'm working on it.

[@hiimdominic3780]

@@pcm7315 lol it's not easy because they are almost always in defense mode and ready to throw scripture at you. So I understand that going in and I try to get them to just have a normal person to person conversation with me. Then I ask questions and they 9/10 just have misconceptions or just uninformed about the Catholic faith.

[@Deto4508]

@@hiimdominic3780 this is very true for me too lol

[@KronStaro]

your first mistake is being religious. god is not religious, there is no one true religion that explains god better than the other, there is no one religion that god prefers over the other. based on these facts, you should make a logical conclusion.

[@Deto4508]

@@KronStaro There’s history and facts about certain Religions and their accuracy

[@Con.Air.78]

The "God of the gaps" argument has always been interesting to me and I sometimes find myself catching my reasoning favoring it. But, on the flipside, I find a notable amount of atheists, both big name atheists and your run-of-the-mill atheists, follow on what I consider the Atheist equivalent of the fallacy it's what I called the "Science of the gaps" fallacy; the notion that everything can be explained away in the realm of science and anything outside of the science is outlandish hogwash.

[@vaderetro264]

"Science hasn't an answer yet, but it will."

[@Con.Air.78]

"Science is the study of what God has created"

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@Con.Air.78 there's actually a singular term for exactly what you described: scientism

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@vaderetro264 which is a faith based claim - something they refuse to admit.

[@vaderetro264]

@@mugsofmirth8101 Yes, it's a faith claim, especially because it excludes the idea of a non-naturalistic answer. It would be much better if the claim was 'one day science may prove whether Gods exists'. That's a possibility, in my opinion, for God has created the universe and its laws according to a rational plan, the physical architecture of which is still largely unknown to us.

[@beatlecristian]

I’m Catholic and some of the worst arguments I have heard regarding God’s existence is that they know God exists because “I feel it in my heart.” On the other hand, I can’t articulate well but I see atheists using fallacies in their arguments against God all the time, someone mentioned the “science hasn’t explained that yet but it will” which is a faith claim, which they appear to be against.

[@KronStaro]

atheism is a modern belief system based on the confrontation with the outdated Christian belief system. Modern science is no different what religion was in the MIddle Ages.

[@beatlecristian]

@@KronStaro what would convince you that God exists?

[@KronStaro]

@@beatlecristian ive already convinced myself of it, just not through deceiftful religions.

[@celestethisandthat8887]

" I feel it in my heart" is unacceptable to explain God but people say the same thing about romantic love.

[@Belovedfire]

@@celestethisandthat8887what about seeing Jesus appear to you. He has appeared to many. You do not receive because you don’t ask. And when you ask but don’t receive. It because you asked wrongly

[@markpaalman275]

Putting the “God of the Gaps” shoe on the other foot was insightful. In spite of their frequent attacks on believers, it’s crucial to approach atheists with respect and love. Well done as always, Trent!🙏

[@brunorhagalcus6132]

He really doesn’t put the GotG on the other foot. More importantly, it’s plain religious narcissism that you think you’re the victim here. Christians incessantly argue atheists can’t be moral and will suffer for eternity in a frying pan if they don’t gullibly believe the way they do.

[@stephengalanis]

We non-believers are meant to say how we might know an unknowable thing. But Trent claims victory.

[@tylerjones3514]

@@brunorhagalcus6132 If a Christian says that atheists can't be moral, then I would say they are wrong. But, instead, atheism has no basis on how something is objectively good vs evil (which many will acknowledge there's good and evil, just are unwilling to say it is objectively, even when they act like it is). This is how the argument goes; 1. It takes a mind to create morals 2. If there's no mind prior to the human mind, then the human mind creates right and wrong 3. Morals would vary depending on which human mind you are talking to (relativism) 4. Instead objective morals exist 5. Therefore God exists. And on the topic of eternity, the only truly definite thing we know about hell is that it will be separation from God. In other words, hell is God's greatest compliment to human dignity/free will.

[@brunorhagalcus6132]

@@tylerjones3514 objective morality exists because god exists and god exists because objective morality exists. That’s circular and none of it demonstrates a god which means you’re “acting like your moral code is objective”. Also, which of the 50,000 morally-conflicting Christian denominations holds the objective knowledge? And which person within that denomination holds it? It must conveniently be you, right? You can’t demonstrate a god exists. You can’t demonstrate hell exists.

[@tylerjones3514]

@@brunorhagalcus6132 That's not how I put it, is it? But go ahead and twist my words so you don't have to think too hard on it. But I wouldn't say it is confined only to me having the objective moral code. Instead, I'm convinced that each and every person has a conscience that ties them into moral absolutes. Though I should clarify, there are some relative morals as well, but I would say when you see justice being violated, you don't sit back and say, "That person has a different set of morals, therefore they're right for themself." Instead, you become agitated because you're conscience informs you that real evil has been perpetrated. Now, how do I know there's going to be a heaven and a hell? Only because I consider Jesus Christ to be trustworthy, so when he talks about a heaven and a hell, I take keen interest.

[@JasonMcCarley]

Hey Trent, we met at the CCv1 conference last year and I bought and really enjoyed your book Case for Catholicism. Really appreciate all the work you do in your ministry. I'm planning on getting the books you recommended at the end of this video, but was wondering if you have had any other request for an Ultimate Apologist Reading List part 2? I am always looking for book recommendations from leading catholic apologist such as yourself, and would love to get an update to the list you created a few years back. Anyway, keep up the great work and God bless!

[@Cogi00]

No better apologetics than the bible. People want to read every other book besides scripture..not assuming that's you just something I notice.

[@Ark_bleu]

@@tony1685 huh?

[@cnault3244]

@@Cogi00 What's your view on owning another person as your property? Is that moral or immoral? Assuming god exists, is it moral for god to punish a person for sins they did not commit? Assuming god exists, would it be moral for god to prevent someone from doing something and then punish the person for not doing what god kept them from doing? Assuming god exists, would it be moral for god to punish a person if that person had no way of knowing they were doing something wrong?

[@Cogi00]

@@cnault32441) No, to me it's not. It's how you treat the person that decides if you're being immoral or not. 2) God punishes sinners, not the saints 3) yes 4) I had an understanding of right and wrong at 5 years old so i can't speak for everyone BUT if they truly did not know wrong from right ( haven't met that person yet) i suppose it would be immoral wouldnt it?

[@cnault3244]

@@Cogi00 So your response to my 4 questions asking you for your opinion is: 1) owning a person as your property ( in other words, slavery) is OK 2) I said nothing about saints, you didn't answer the question that was asked 3) whatever god does is OK with you, god can treat people as his toys to do with as he pleases ( so much for free will) 4) if they truly did not know wrong from right ( haven't met that person yet) i suppose it would be immoral wouldnt it? So you are saying it would be immoral for god to punish a person if that person didn't know they were doing something wrong? Yes or no?

[@joshuacooley1417]

Regarding reasonableness and convincing and the difference between them etc. I think a lot of what Trent is saying here is the practical application of the realization that human beings, left to their own nature, are not truly rational creatures. What I mean by this is as follows... We have the capacity for reason. We have the power of Intellect. Just like we have the capacity of physical strength and the power to run. However, if a person does not train strength, or train running, they will never be really strong and never be able to run really fast or really long distances. Nature, left to it's own devices in a fallen world does not develop, it devolves. This is just as true in the realm of reason and intellect as it is in the realm of athletics. In order for man to truly be rational, he must be trained properly. That has always been a rare thing. However, contrary to what most people think, it has actually become MORE rare in the modern world, not less rare. I have personally never met a single person who was rigorously trained intellectually to root out contradiction in their own views, and to scrutinize their own views for logical consistency as much as they do the views of others. The few people I have met who do this, developed the skill on their own, usually as a result of reading old books. If a person is not trained in this way of thinking, then it is virtually impossible to convince them of anything by purely logical / rational argument. This is because what they believe is ultimately not based on logic to begin with. It is based on emotion, sentiment, and other accidents of life. To these people logic is only ever a tool to justify what they believe and to attack opposing beliefs. It is not a means of discovering truth or knowledge. If you are perfectly content to believe contradictory ideas, no amount of logic can ever convince you not to believe those contradictory ideas. The simple reality is that despite man being the "rational animal" the vast majority of human beings are not governed primarily by reason, and never will be. This idea is an illusion that the modern world has bought into, largely to our detriment. This is also why the "age of reason" and the political and social outgrowths of it are currently proving themselves to be such massive and complete failures.

[@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd]

People do not favor teaching critical thinking for different reasons. But the result is that it does not figure in the teaching plans to teach to think correctly from childhood. One can guess what would be the benefits of having a population unable to discern intentional or false information in public or private discourse.

[@snowflakemelter1172]

Millions of years of human history prove that nature does not " devolve" .

[@joshuacooley1417]

@@snowflakemelter1172 congrats on demonstrating your inability to read.

[@coolguy4179]

Trent hits the nail on the head at about 10:52. Perfect explanation of the problem with just about every atheists' objection to God.

[@jb31969]

"I'll believe a supernatural being exits if you can prove it is a regular part of the natural world that we observe." That isn't what I would consider to be a "Perfect" explanation because it leaves you open to limitless claims with regards to the "Supernatural". Examples include quite literally any and everything, ie. Ghosts, Santa, Tooth-fairy, Elves, Witches, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, the list goes on.

[@coolguy4179]

@@jb31969 You are correct. It isn't perfect. My mistake. Of course, there is no perfect argument, even in science as Popper's principle of falsifiability demonstrates. The very fabric of reality can't be known 100% for certain; there is no absolute proof we are not in the Matrix, so again, great point about it not being a perfect argument. But it is a damn good one. If the job of science is to explain natural phenomenon, then it is wholly unsuited to explaining supernatural phenomenon. We must then use other tools of determining which supernatural phenomenon are credible, and which aren't. And we have those tools; logic, reason, and metaphysics. For example, logic dictates that if we went to the top of Mt Olympus, we won't find giant divine beings arguing. But logic also dictates that there must be an external cause to the universe, a first mover if you will. Reason would argue that the flying spaghetti monster is a made up because we can separate it into three constituent parts and identify where each of the three came from, whereas we have no idea where the concepts of spirit, divinity, or other metaphysical terms comes from. We can not divide these phenomenon into constituent parts and explain how humans put it together, which suggests at some point they must have been experienced as a distinct phenomenon.

[@Paradoxonification]

It's pretty silly to think that atheists wouldn't concede on the existence of the supernatural when there is an expectation for how the natural world works and how the supernatural would change it as described by holy books. If Jesus himself should up in the modern world and started preaching and healing the sick with his touch I wouldn't say that this is just some "natural undiscovered power", since this is something that would be consistent with what the Bible describes. But none if that matters because all you need to disprove the popular concepts of benevolent gods is the myth of free will paired with sin and hell, and the problem of natural evil/disasters.

[@davidreinker5600]

@@jb31969 The point is that proving something is a part of the natural world means it isn't supernatural, by definition. Therefore, it can't be done.

[@jb31969]

@@davidreinker5600 Sure, the problem is if you use that metric, you can't say the tooth fairy isn't real, or Santa, or ghosts etc

[@asaevans874]

Let’s goo! Trent Horn finally gettin spiffy with the edits. In all seriousness, I enjoy all your videos. Thank you Trent!

[@ZyroZoro]

I'm an atheist. The best argument for the existence of God is the fine tuning argument. It really is quite convincing. If one of the couple dozen or so physical constants were different by a mind-boggling minuscule amount that we wouldn't be here. My biggest problem with it is the water puddle story from Douglas Adams. The environment around the water puddle isn't "fine tuned" to give the water puddle its shape. It's the other way around, the water puddle conforms to its environment, that's what gives it its shape. Similarly, perhaps if there were different physical constants there wouldn't be life or the universe as we know it, but maybe there would be a different kind of universe with a different kind of life that arose out of those different physical constants. Also, we don't even have a full grasp on the physical laws of our own universe, so talking about what a different universe would be like with different physical laws and constants is speculative at best. Edit: I forgot to include that the multiverse is also a candidate explanation for this. If there are an infinite number of universes then there are bound to be some which support life, and that's one we find ourselves in. The multiverse also seems like a more likely explanation than God because it's a logical step that's been made and verified by science multiple times. We discovered there are other continents with people than just the ones we live on. We discovered there are more planets than just Earth. We discovered that the stars in the sky are the same as the Sun. We discovered there are billions of galaxies besides the Milky Way. Now we have the universe, and it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility at all that there may be a multiverse with many, if not an infinite number of universes. (End edit.) Another edit: We also don't know how much variation the physical constants could possibly have. Yes, if they were different by a mind-boggling minuscule amount then our universe as we know it wouldn't exist and we wouldn't be here. However, it might be the case that the possible variation is even smaller than that, or it might even be zero, in which case the argument fails. (That would bring up a different set of questions and arguments, but the fine-tuning argument would fail. End edit.) I do really want God to be real. I'd like to be a Christian. The community, meaning, love, having a higher purpose, etc., is very appealing. I don't like it that nihilism, in my view, is correct. One day I'll be gone, everyone I love will be gone, humanity will be gone, the Earth, Sun, and galaxy will be gone, and all that'll exist for infinity is cold, empty space devoid of absolutely anything at all. However, my feelings, what I want, what is appealing, what I don't like, etc., has exactly zero bearing on what is true. I can't just make myself believe something, I have to be convinced that it's true. Unfortunately, I believe the truth is that we live in an ultimately meaningless universe.

[@onestepaway3232]

So are you a nothing person or something on the origin of the universe? Specifically what is the source of your existence?

[@ZyroZoro]

@@onestepaway3232 I'm not sure what you're saying. I am composed of atoms. Atoms come from the universe. Where the universe comes from is unknown.

[@voltekthecyborg7898]

Let me put it to you this way. Would a multiverse disprove God, or would it further prove His omnipotence and infinity? I say, it would prove His omnipotence and infinity, as now we have several multiverses, and these multiverses still operate under the same rules as our universe, with some variation that is still not drastic enough to break what we know. However, what we have to keep in mind is that science proving God really only scratches the surface of Who God is. How do I mean? Science proves God as Creator, that much we know, but if that's all He did, then, Who IS God? We see that God is more than a Creator. For instance, God created Humans in His Image, and we share three attributes, with one being well known, the other being less known, and the other completely unknown. The Body is what we know through biology. The Body breathes, it digests, it feels, tastes, smells, looks, hears, and balances. The Soul is the least known, and all we really have to show for the Soul is emotions and complex/abstract thought. The conscious, if you will. The Spirit is the attribute we do not know anything about, even Christians are on the fence of what the Spirit is, and many people say it doesn't exist. But to get to the meat of Who God is, He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, The King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. God also loves you. It may sound empty, but it really isn't. God created you, and God loves you. He loves you so much, He created you one of a kind, and created you to not be a robot. God loves you so much, He waits for you with open arms. God loves you so much, that He gave His only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die, not for the white man, or the Jew, but for the sinner. The sinner is you, and the sinner is me. The sinner is the Buddhist and the Muslim, the atheist and the pagan, the apostate and the believer. God died for ALL of us, for every single one of us, and resurrected so that whoever believes and puts faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, surrenders to Him, and requests for His love, they will not die, but receive an eternal life, free of pain, of sickness, of suffering, of tears and of sin, forever. Name one other god whose love is so great, they did all of that for their creation. Exactly, there is no pagan god that has done that. Those false gods want your good works or animal/human sacrifices. But what does God want from you? Your faith. For it is grace through faith that saves a sinner for an eternity.

[@macroman52]

re: God of the gaps. Apparently the Catholic priest Lemaitre, who found the solution of GR where everything expanded from a singularity, advised the Pope not to make the "big bang theory" (not was it was called at the time) a dogma of the church. Because Lemaitre, a scientist as well as a priest, knew science advances, and the theory may turn out to be wrong or incomplete.

[@Garrison169]

The big bang theory is incomplete. No one understands what happened in the first femptosecond. The theory of relativity is incomplete; so is the theory of evolution. But plenty of technology and medicine depend on what is known about those theories.

[@Hawka23]

I've watched that William Lane Craig part about 25 times already... 😀

[@mugsofmirth8101]

It never fails to disappoint 😂

[@mike-cc3dd]

He needs the pixilated sunglasses to come down onto his face

[@gerry30]

There's something satisfying ironic about a smug atheist showing contempt for Bill O'Reilly's admittedly sub par argument and making a foolish response. He contemptuously says, "Maybe it's Thor on Mount Olympus." I would've asked him just to be nit picky, how the Norse god of Thunder wound up on the top of the Greeks' Mountain of the Pantheon.

[@blayneconroy3035]

Love the editing in this video. 10/10 😂

[@bobbyr2361]

Bro, I’m a reformed Baptist and this was absolutely brilliant and hilarious😂 my man trent is low key a comedian😂

[@Grantthecatholic]

so true. we love trent! you should definitely become catholic man… check out his book the case for catholicism if you’re interested. very helpful to my conversion

[@joostvanrens]

No don't become a Catholic, become an atheist. It's fun!

[@Compulsive-Elk7103]

​@@joostvanrensno

[@BornAgain223]

atheism is lame and pointless

[@bobs182]

@@BornAgain223 God is a meaningless answer to a meaningless question.

[@ArchibaldRoon]

I’m a bit late to this, but as a I’m currently an Atheist I’m happy to address your question. I think the fine tuning, kalam and other philosophical arguments are not very good arguments for the Christian God. For most of these dilemmas a “I don’t know and nor do you” answer is the only honest answer. If you ask a physicist for example, what causes the BiG Bang, they might have hypotheses based on available information. But the answer to which hypothesis is correct is always “I don’t know”. And the hypotheses is Never God because there is no data to back that up. It seems quite arrogant to say it was definitely God that created the observable universe. That is why Atheists sometimes argue that if you do postulate it is God who created the observable universe, that you are committing the “God of the gaps” fallacy. And this kind of reasoning applies to most philosophical arguments for God. So unfortunately for me I guess, I would only be convinced there is a God, if there is some scientific proof presented. Something you say is impossible because God is Supernatural. If God is real though, he can enter the natural world as he did in the form of Jesus. So I might be convinced if I ever met Jesus version 2. But I can’t be sure. To be fair though, I’m a scientist and I do trust the scientific process generally. If I was born in a different culture or place or time, I’d probably believe in God. People are just easily convinced generally about something being true if the majority of a population believe it to be true. I’ve just been lucky to grow up in a country where most people don’t tend to be brought up (indoctrinated) to follow a particular belief.

[@Doc-Holliday1851]

I would love to go through a scientific exercise with you. But we would need some ground rules. We must adhere to the scientific method, any conclusion we come to must be based on available evidence, and any evidence or conclusion may not be undermined by the promise of future and contradictory evidence which is not yet known. That is pretty standard practice for the process of scientific inquiry, can we agree on this?

[@thomasnoone5426]

This is my favorite video you’ve put out, Trent. Thank you! I do have one follow up question - what is a characteristic that would distinguish an entity from being in the category “natural” vs. the category “supernatural”? You (rightly) accuse atheists of demanding a natural token of evidence to prove a supernatural entity. But I’m not sure that I’ve clearly heard a definition of “supernatural” in the first place. It seems like we can only grasp the supernatural through philosophy and abstract thinking. And for the record, I am Catholic 🙂 just one with questions.

[@hhstark8663]

Natural being (e.g. pantheism) = _internal_ of time and space. Supernatural being (e.g. theism, deism) = _external_ of time and space.

[@RustyWalker]

@@hhstark8663 If the multiverse theory were true, any other universe would be outside the time and space of *our* universe, but contain its own space-time. Would it be natural or supernatural? What about the multiverse matrix they spawn from? Would that be natural or supernatural?

[@thomasnoone5426]

@@hhstark8663 thanks, but this is not totally satisfying because you’ve only explained it in the negative, i.e. what a supernatural being is NOT (not in time and space). The atheist would say, we can only know things that are in time and space, to say otherwise is nonsensical

[@junacebedo888]

@@RustyWalker In multiverse, multiverse can be both true and untrue. In multiverse, Elvis is both dead and living

[@junacebedo888]

@@thomasnoone5426 'Outside or beyond time and space' is not negative. My unconscious mind can know things that are beyond time and space. I not know it now but I can be conscious of it in the future. PROOF: some of my past dreams which became reality

[@wishlist011]

God of the gaps or Naturalism of the gaps arguments do seem to suffer from the same weakness. But I find that the conclusions of these arguments are usually different. "Science can't explain X, but it might one day". If the argument were typically "God doesn't explain X, but it's possible He might ..." then I wouldn't be nearly so sceptical.

[@Rickywright91]

I'm an atheist and I can answer the question 'What would prove to me that god exists?'.. If he showed himself, like he is reported to have done in the bible, but to a large group of people and there was video evidence of it. That would prove to me that this ridiculous, narcissistic control-freak of a being exists. And then I'd have a lot of questions for him to answer.

[@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921]

Here's some evidence: Please watch and share my four brief videos, which present examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible. These facts could not have been known to the writers thousands of years ago without divine knowledge given to then by God. And scientists today agree with these scientific facts!

[@Rickywright91]

That isn't evidence, that was a request to watch your videos. Send me the 'evidence' please

[@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921]

@@Rickywright91 Richard: I hope you will at least watch my first video, which contains examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible. In the meantime, I will provide you with one example of a major scientific fact in the Bible: The writers of the Books of the Bible lived thousands of years ago and could not have known that the scientific facts they wrote down were true without divine inspiration given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. Example: Moses was an isolated sheepherder who knew absolutely nothing about the geologic history of the Earth, which occurred over billions of years by time as we experience it here on Earth. Yet, Moses wrote correctly in Genesis that during the Earth’s development there was a time when it was totally covered with water and then the dry land appeared in one place (the supercontinent that existed before tectonic plate movement began, of course). Scientists today agree that the Earth was once covered with water and that land initially appeared in one place, just as the Bible says. Here are a few links to scientific sites that agree with the Bible that the Earth was at one time a water world: astronomy.com/news/2020/03/ancient-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world-without-any-dry-land news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/harvard-scientists-determine-early-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world/ www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/ancient-earth-was-water-world www.livescience.com/waterworld-earth.html You asked for evidence. Let me know if you want more. Thanks, and take care.

[@Rickywright91]

Still waiting, pal

[@thetruthaboutscienceandgod6921]

@@Rickywright91 Richard: I hope you will at least watch my first video, which contains examples of scientific facts contained in the Bible. In the meantime, I will provide you with one example of a major scientific fact in the Bible: The writers of the Books of the Bible lived thousands of years ago and could not have known that the scientific facts they wrote down were true without divine inspiration given to them by Jesus Christ / The God of the Bible. Example: Moses was an isolated sheepherder who knew absolutely nothing about the geologic history of the Earth, which occurred over billions of years by time as we experience it here on Earth. Yet, Moses wrote correctly in Genesis that during the Earth’s development there was a time when it was totally covered with water and then the dry land appeared in one place (the supercontinent that existed before tectonic plate movement began, of course). Scientists today agree that the Earth was once covered with water and that land initially appeared in one place, just as the Bible says. Here are a few links to scientific sites that agree with the Bible that the Earth was at one time a water world: astronomy.com/news/2020/03/ancient-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world-without-any-dry-land news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/04/harvard-scientists-determine-early-earth-may-have-been-a-water-world/ www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/ancient-earth-was-water-world www.livescience.com/waterworld-earth.html You asked for evidence. Let me know if you want more. Thanks, and take care.

[@JaySeamus]

I love the improvement of the channel Trent (don't stop), but seeing you in HD 1080p is sooo weird lol

[@shantheman9922]

I've always found it strange that the debate centers around "proving the supernatural". I see the problem in a different way than most from what discussions i've seen, which is that, a lot of theists say you can't prove the supernatural because it's outside of nature, and therefore out of the reach of science. But, if the "supernatural" was ever confirmed, wouldn't it just become a part of the natural? To me it seems like supernatural is just a way to describe yet unexplained phenomena. Once it's explained, it's not supernatural anymore. If we ever found out god was the explanation, he would just be natural at that point, right?

[@DerPinguim]

I'd say no, as God operates outside of the rules of nature. Even were He scientifically proven (which I do not think can happen due to the nature of science), He would still not fit into natural phenomena, as the rules and natures of the natural world would not affect Him, rather, he would be seen as that which originates the natural world in itself, being above it, supernatural.

[@shantheman9922]

@@DerPinguim First off, you're assuming we understand the rules of nature, which we probably don't fully. You're saying he doesn't fit into "natural phenomena", but that's our current understanding of natural phenomena, which could change. Second, science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the study of natural phenomena, so if god is proved in ANY way, it's still scientific. He obviously just hasn't been proven in any way yet

[@peterscherba4138]

Super or beyond our known dimensions (nature) is the FIFTH dimension and higher which are Natural.Godly.

[@barrydupont9744]

I'm a Nonduality Theist. This is a great episode and this channel is IMO one of the better, well thought through channels that covers this type of subject matter.

[@macrologic7221]

The argument "God would know what would convince me" implies that God would deprive them of their free will and force them to believe.

[@Nai61a]

Macro Logic: What do you mean by "free will", exactly?

[@Summer-uq1vr]

so hes going to punish me in blue flames for all eternity because he made me a person who wouldnt believe unprovoked and then refused to prove himself to me because he wanted me to be free to live as the nonbeliever he created, die as the nonbeliever he knew i would be, and suffer for eternity because... why, exactly, remind me?

[@Prime_Legend]

@@Summer-uq1vr He doesn't punish you and sends you to hell, rather you go to hell of your own free will.

[@Summer-uq1vr]

@@Prime_Legend then why is hell a threat😂😂 only Christians in hell then?

[@chocolatestraw3971]

@@Prime_Legend Why would God create a place of infinite torture especially since he would know that not all people would believe in him? Watch, I'm about to be more moral than the Biblical God. I'll be playing the role of God. * ahem... mememememe... * "Don't believe in me? I don't want you to suffer through unending agony because I'm not sadistic therefore, you're annihilated instead." And... scene! Not necessarily the perfect scenario, but infinitely better than the Biblical system.

[@ianchisholm5756]

Trent: What would convince you, atheist? Atheist: >suggests something< Trent: No, that's no good. There might be a natural explanation. Have you tried just believing?

[@3yearsbeatthem-jg4nc]

Maybe, just maybe, what the Atheist suggested was unreasonable? And it says something about atheism if you can say is "suggests something" instead of an actual point.

[@ianchisholm5756]

@@3yearsbeatthem-jg4nc Then here's an actual point. Personally, I'd take Jesus' followers being able to perform miracles like , and greater than, those of Jesus himself. I'd be convinced if you could show me that whenever two or more of Jesus' followers get together, God gives them what they ask for. I'd say the very word of Christ seems a reasonable point to start from.

[@fynflorentine2512]

@@ianchisholm5756 He already responded to that What makes you think that there's just no natural explanation to it?

[@haitaelpastor976]

@@fynflorentine2512 Trent is not advocating for the existence of God here. He's just saying that there always will be gaps in our knowledge, which is quite obvious. In the end, he's just saying that God exists because potato.

[@mashah1085]

We have constantly, over the centuries, seen phenomenon that were originally given a supernatural explanation, replaced with a scientific and rational explanation. We have YET to see a scientific and rational explanation for a phenomenon replaced with a supernatural one.

[@Tatiana-cp1fc]

This was definitely one of your best videos. Excellent presentation. Thank you Trent.

[@hiimdominic3780]

For sure!!! 👍

[@cnault3244]

Excellent presentation? The question is: "What would prove god exists?" The question is moot until the person asking that question has presented a clear definition for the god. To be a clear definition for the god for the god, it cannot contain: - vague attributes - logical fallacies - unproven claims An example for an unproven claim would be to say god exists in a realm outside our universe without first proving the existence of a realm outside our universe. When a theist does not clearly define god and asks the question "What would prove god exists?", the theist is saying I won't tell you what god is, but can you tell me what would prove god exists?

[@cnault3244]

This video's "one question atheists can't answer" is: "What would prove god exists?" The question is moot until the person asking that question has presented a clear definition for the god. To be a clear definition for the god for the god, it cannot contain: - vague attributes - logical fallacies - unproven claims An example for an unproven claim would be to say god exists in a realm outside our universe without first proving the existence of a realm outside our universe. When a theist does not clearly define god and asks the question "What would prove god exists?", the theist is saying I won't tell you what god is, but can you tell me what would prove god exists?

[@MichaelLevine-n6y]

It may have been worthwhile to note that Dan Barker's previous career was as an ordained pastor. His book, "Godless" recounts his leaving the ministry and Christianity. Well worth reading.

[@IllogicalMachine]

Remember that time God performed numerous miracles in direct sight of Pharaoh but because his desire for worldly power was so great each time it only hardened his heart to God more?

[@richardgregory3684]

According to a story in the bible. Of course, the bible also says that Pharaoh was about to release the Israelites, but God harnded his heart..I guess the Angel of Death has pretyt big cancellation fees, or God just gets off on seeing kids get killed?

[@IllogicalMachine]

@@richardgregory3684 Ya Pharaoh was going to release the Israelites in the midst of the latter plagues, but when each plague ended Pharaoh changed his mind again to keep them captive. It’s not complicated. As soon as he wasn’t being directly impacted by God’s power his heart was hardened and he resisted God again. This wasn’t God removing Pharaoh’s free will, it was God knowing and telling Moses that pharaoh would resist Him. God doesn’t change His mind and God doesn’t remove people’s free will, if you think so please find me any other examples. Also, you can’t say ‘according to a story in the Bible’ to dismiss me and then cite the exact same story from the Bible to make your case. How does that work? Lol

[@richardgregory3684]

@@IllogicalMachine Exodus 9:12 "And the LORD hardened the heart of Pharaoh" Exodus 10:1 "And the LORD said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh: for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him:" Exodus 10:20 "But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of Israel go." So the bible story makes it absolutely clear beyond doubt, that *GOD* hardens Pharaoh's heart. That is clearly interfering in free will. Moreover, the story openly admits that God did this for the purpose of causing Pharaoh to continue to refuse to release the Israelites so that God could then "show his signs". In other words, God was deterined to inflict the plagues on Egypt and when it looked like Pharaoh was about to submit, God interfered to ensure he had an excuse to carrying on punishing Pharaoh for disobedience (which God caused). And of course, punishing the Egyptians too, even though they were innocent and had no say in the matter. Even we mere humans have outlawed "mass retribution", that is, punishing a whole population directly for the actions of a minority of it. _Also, you can’t say ‘according to a story in the Bible’ to dismiss me and then cite the exact same story from the Bible to make your case. How does that work? Lol_ It works because it exposes the way the bible presents self-contradictions, and exposes the lie that "God doesn;t interfere in free will", which is the excuse Christians invariably quote when asked why God doesn;t stop a maniac from shooting a dozen kids with a machine gun. Of course the whole thing is nonsense and this is but one example of Christianity's internal inconsistency.

[@Kattbirb]

Hi there, atheist here. I greatly enjoyed the video and appreciate the even handed approach. I must admit that I have to hang my hat on the first two arguments that you provided. I've said before that testable, repeatable evidence that proves a deity to the exclusion of other explanations, though I do admit that I don't know what that would be. Philosophically speaking, I could personally see a possibility of a sort of guiding hand in the development of life. Something like nurturing spirits, albeit rather impersonal ones, giving different species little nudges here and there. Now, I could not believe that this would point towards a "Capital G" God, or even an intelligent one, and I also know that this is just an argument from improbability when one boils it down, but the question was for what I thought was best. I really don't find any of them very compelling, to be honest, since one can't argue the sky into being a different color nor can you simply argue a god into existence, and both would almost certainly require a leap in logic (let alone faith) to get to a God. Thank you again for the video and thank you for the invitation to share my thoughts.

[@beatlecristian]

I’m Catholic, we take it on faith and using logic, we can reason that God exists based on observations in nature. Forgive me for my ignorance but wouldn’t it be more accurate for an atheist to say that they are agnostic?

[@kf5bau]

@@beatlecristian an atheist can be gnostic (knowing) or agnostic (lacking knowledge) that a particular god exists. For example, if your god is the sun, that it brings life, etc. I would be a gnostic theist. I have evidence the sun exists and that plants use the sun for photosynthesis. But if the sun required praise or performed miracles, you would have to present evidence for those claims. I am a gnostic atheist when it comes to Chiron. I know there could not possibly be a half human half horse animal, so I know for sure Chiron is not a god. I am an agnostic atheist when it comes to a Christian god because it could be possible, but I haven't see sufficient evidence to say that the Christian god exists. What evidence would prove the Christian god exists? Something better than has been offered up in the past 1600 years because everything that has been presented so far, does not prove the existence of the Christian god.

[@littleredpony6868]

@@beatlecristian no it wouldn’t. Atheism/theism addresses beliefs. Gnostic/agnostic addresses knowledge. There’s gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists

[@Samura1313]

@@littleredpony6868 Most people who call themselves atheists are actually agnostics

[@legospaceskeleton]

As an atheist, before showing me evidence of any god, you would need to provide me with an explanation of how exactly I am supposed to believe in something beyond space and time when I define existence as being within space and within time at some point. There was no time before the universe, so how can something have existed before the universe in order to create it? You could just say that it is a simple truth that God is beyond spacetime, but that's not the problem. I find the mere idea of something existing beyond spacetime to be inherently nonsensical, incoherent, and inconceivable.

[@luxither7354]

So then did time always exist, as an infinite point, or was it necessary inevitability? If these two positions are false or illogical, then we come to a third choice: a first mover. One that created time that has no origin and exists by necessity itself. Its also not really that hard to comprehend. We can think of abstract ideas that have no bounds in the physical universe, such as numbers. Yes, there's the description we give of it that are human construct, but it doesn't matter if it is called 'I,' 'one' or 'uno,' its numerical value is still '1,' and our universe has been found to follow many rules according to numerical values, such as the Universal constants. However, these numbers themselves hold no tie to spacetime themselves, and thus are something not bound to time, space and perception.

[@legospaceskeleton]

@@luxither7354 Time has always existed in the sense that it has existed for all time, but time has not existed for an infinite amount of time. Why can’t time exist by necessity itself? I can imagine whatever I want, but I can’t conceive of something existing outside of time and space in a way that is logically consistent with what I consider the concept of “existence” to mean. It may be that our definition of existence is one that we have created as humans, but that doesn’t contradict the fact that I can’t see how one could believe in something “existing” when it doesn’t fit our definition of existence without employing some form of doublethink. Therefore, for me to understand how something can exist without conforming to our definition of existence, someone would have to give me a new definition of existence that both permits God to exist and also remains consistent with our empirical observations of the universe. If such a definition exists, please provide it to me.

[@DarkArcticTV]

@@legospaceskeleton "I find it the mere idea of something existing beyond spacetime to be inherently nonsensical, incoherent, and inconceivable." Where is the contradiction? What makes it nonsensical? "Why can’t time exist by necessity itself?" If you claim that the past is not infinite, and also claim time exists without a first mover and is by necessity, then you've found yourself in a metaphysical absurdity. How can time be caused if there was no time to cause it if atheism is true and there is no mind to move it? Who's "us"? What do you mean by "our definition"? What you're saying is not clear. Existence is the the ontological property of being. Empirical observations are not the only way to understanding truths about reality, and to assume so would be begging the question for naturalism, and would also be self defeating.

[@legospaceskeleton]

@@DarkArcticTV Thanks for the reply. I’m currently on holiday and so will be busy for the next few days, but I’ll try to get back to you about all this at some point soon.

[@zeraphking1407]

@redeye5440 So time is an eternal reality?

[@ryanthenormal]

My take away from this is that the question "What would convince an atheist that God exists?" simply has no value. If it can't be answered to your satisfaction, stop asking it. A better question might be "What question exists that once had a fully satisfactory naturalistic answer, has had that that answer improved by replacing it with a supernatural one?"

[@Terence.Tristan0806]

Someone who says nothing would convince them, is someone who thinks they know everything and are closed minded to learning.

[@Womb_to_Tomb_Apologetics]

I never truly understood how epic Craig's clapback was until now. I had no idea Parsons believed the Hallucination Hypothesis. That's funny!

[@somexp12]

It is not necessary for every biblical account of the "risen Jesus" to be a hallucination. All it would take is one person to hallucinate a brief apparition of Jesus, or one case of mistaken identity, or one lady to stumble across the wrong tomb and find it empty (or make the mistake of thinking there *was* a tomb, given crucified victims were typically left out to rot). Any *one* of those events or any combination could set easily off the rumor mill such that, decades later, there would be dozens of sensational stories on the oral record for the gospel writers to pick up and write down. This does not make it reasonable to explain away every possible experience as a hallucination. If I believed every story in the Gospels was absolutely experienced *exactly as described* by someone, then it I would doubt they were hallucinated. The descriptions aren't all of things that are common to hallucinate, and it'd be strange for that many to all hallucinate independently and at different times. Peter, however, hallucinating a 30-minute conversation with Jesus, perhaps absolving him of the guilt he felt for denying his teacher and running away, is exactly the kind of thing that can happen and exactly the kind of thing that would set the rumor mill going.

[@arnoldripkin1]

Atheism makes no "claim" of anything. It's up to theist's to prove their claims. How silly would be for a court of law to require the defendant to prove his innocence? Ridiculous!

[@elgatofelix8917]

Last time I was this early, it wasn't criminal to rely on our immune systems to fight illness.

[@elgatofelix8917]

@Roger Mills Since the dawn of human existence there's always been deadly viral infections. Yet all of a sudden Branch Covidians feel empowered to infringe on the rights of every human being by imposing draconian and unconstitutional mandates which the Supreme Court just rejected on a federal level.

[@-J-H-]

To answer your question in a philosophical way: 18:21 ( ( Imagine God is like a videogame developer ) ) A videogame developer created a digital 'universe' within our universe. The 'universe' the developer made, also has 'characters' . Just like humans in our universe. And just like humans; The characters are able to learn from- and about their 'universe'. But, the videogame developer had a goal in mind for the characters : "Reach a certain 'score' to advance to the next level." To get a score they need to complete objectives; By walking through levels, breaking down barriers, overcoming obstacles, helping a friend, helping a stranger, etc. But the characters can also lose points; By not completing levels, stealing, demolishing property, murder, adultery, swearing, etc. Now, there's one troublesome part : THE CLOCK !!! - If a character doesn't get a score high enough to "advance to the next level" in time, the character gets to 'Restart Game' and start with a second "life". - If your score is high enough : You get to meet your 'Developer'. ( "Escape Reincarnation" - is the name of the game 😂 ) I guess this is very relatable. Farfetched; yet plausible. Concluding : It's not weird to think we are in a created universe : just like the characters in the game.

[@hrvad]

Your example is fine, and I also think that people who believe we "live in a simulation" might as well be saying God exists. The Developer is God. Philosophically I can't see the distinction, except for one thing: the simulation folks run the risk of infinite regress... unless they arrive at the Grand Order Developer at some point.

[@jamescrovo1374]

So it's not weird to think that we live in a videogame because you came up with some hypothetical game and arbitrary rules and objectives that can vaguely resemble morals. This is just brainrot

[@casparuskruger4807]

APOLOGIST GUIDELINES FOR CHRISTIANS WHEN DEBATING ATHEISTS ( 1 ) Never accept “Atheists lack a belief in God” as the acceptable definition of atheist. The definition of atheist is someone who claims God does not exist. It is obvious God exists. The atheist has the burden of proof and is required to prove God doesn't exist. ( 2 ) If an atheist asks you a question, never provide the information he is asking for. But don't let the atheist lead the show. The best things to do here is either ( a ) answer what you think his follow-up question to the question he is now asking you or ( b ) answer his question with a question yourself. If he keeps asking you the same question tell him he's not answering your questions either. ( 3 ) (a)If an atheist insists you answer his question, tell him you have already answered his question. (b) If an atheist answers a question you've asked and it's an answer you don't want to hear, explain some things that are wrong with his answer, then keep asking the same question until he changes the subject. ( 4 ) Constantly remind the atheist that atheism is a religion; and that ( a ) you don’t have enough faith to be an atheist ( Turek ) and that ( b ) an atheist cannot show atheism is true ( Craig )and that atheists hate God. ( 5 )Never accept any explanation an atheist provides as his basis for morality ( 6 )Never accept any evidence an atheist provides for evolution, abiogenesis and The Big Bang.And remind the atheist all three of these are just “theories” Always remind the atheist that all atheists claim the universe came from nothing--despite whatever the atheist may say otherwise. ( 7 ) If an atheist accuses you of committing a logical fallacy, an untruth or sloppy explanation, immediately accuse him of the same things. ( 8 ) ONLY pay attention to what another christian says about christianity, the bible, science, logic or atheism. NEVER pay attention to how an atheist explains anything about christianity, the bible, science, logic or atheism. And NEVER admit you are wrong when debating an atheist. ( 9 )If an atheist ever explains to you why your logic or scientific argument is flawed, immediately discredit the veracity of logic and science as reliable methods of verification. If the atheist persists with science and logical explanations, simply inform them that both logic and science come from God with as much condescension as you can muster.. Remember, only by our Holy Faith in His Spirit can we be led to Our Lord's Truth. (10) If an atheist ever quotes any scripture that appears to shed any unfavorable light on God's word or appears to contradict what is said in some other biblical passage--immediately appeal to the atheists misunderstanding of that passage; that the atheist is taking the quote out of context--or that any seemingly incriminating word is a mistranslation from the original text.

[@korbendallas5318]

How is it obvious?

[@casparuskruger4807]

@@korbendallas5318 How is WHAT obvious?

[@korbendallas5318]

@@casparuskruger4807 Don't you know what you wrote?

[@charlesudoh6034]

Very well articulated and presented video on this issue. Especially the part were you said most atheists keep assuming theistic arguments are from an unknown phenomenon to God. That frustrates me a lot. They consistently fail to understand that classical theistic arguments proceed from known facts about nature to God using deductive reasoning and philosophy.

[@anthonydesimone502]

I don't see that as happening. People engage with the arguments they receive. There are plenty of philophers and philosophically minded atheists who address the classical arguments. But the average theist doesn't present a classical argument. So the average atheist isn't necessarily going to address them.

[@bobs182]

There are no facts about God only beliefs.

[@EspadaKing777]

As an Agnostic Atheist, let me take a stab at it. You're right, of course, in that any given physical standard you set runs the risk of just having a natural explanation. I suppose the difference between "guess what is written on the card" and "re-arrange the stars in the sky to form clear and legible words" is mainly one of scale; but I think the fact that the latter contravenes several known laws of physics, whilst the magic trick (obviously) does not is a vital distinction. For that reason, if you could demonstrably break known laws of physics at will under laboratory conditions, that would certainly help with getting me to believe there was a supernatural dimension, and from that position I might be more open to arguments for the existence of supernatural entities. The problem with "demonstrating philosophically" is that it is extremely hard to put the argument to bed. All 3 examples Trent listed (existence of other minds, objective moral truths and numbers as abstract objects) have quite long standing philosophical traditions that deny those things exist. I myself am not convinced external, objective moral truths exist; and numbers as abstract entities, I think, exist only in so far as they are instantiated in a mind. Personally, I have been forced to scrutinize whether I am guilty of a sort of "metaphysical chauvinism" that discounts the existence of metaphysical objects precisely because of their nature as non-physical. So in the name of honest inquiry, I've simply been attempting to do as Matthew 7:7 suggests: "Ask, and it will be given you. Seek, and you will find. Knock, and it will be opened for you". To date, my attempts to make some form of personal contact with God, Jesus or anything else for that matter have failed; despite asking for and receiving advice on exactly how to go about doing it.

[@joecardone4887]

Praying for you! I love that you’re looking for truth as we all should! Don’t give up! I’ve never been an atheist but if I could give you one piece of advice I would suggest learning to pray the scriptural rosary and just pray it for 40 days. It takes about 20 minutes a day.

[@raygrasso1612]

There is no such thing as an agnostic atheist. Please stop living in a fantasy world with made up words/phrases.

[@EspadaKing777]

@@raygrasso1612 Sorry to correct you, but as Theist/Atheist is whether or not you believe in a God, and Gnostic/Agnostic comes from "gnosis", meaning "knowledge"; so it means whether or not you think you know one way or the other. So a Gnostic Atheist would be an atheist who thinks they know beyond a doubt that there is no god, and an Agnostic Atheist doesn't claim to know for sure, but doesn't believe there is a god. Does this distinction help?

[@EspadaKing777]

@@joecardone4887 I appreciate the positive response, and I do own a Rosary (I thought it wrong of me to make judgements without trying it); but I've found it hard to both remember what to say and meditate on whichever mystery I'm on at the same time. I'll keep trying but it normally takes me longer than 20 min to get through it properly without making mistakes! xD

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@EspadaKing777 wrong. Stop repeating this dogmatic nonsense

[@cactoidjim1477]

Whaddo You Meme is pretty funny. Enjoyed the clip from "The Dillahunty Dodge"

[@RealAtheology]

Great video. Totally agree about the importance of engaging in philosophical argumentation and reflection when it comes to debating God's existence. For those interested in some relevant Atheistic works that look at the issue of competing explanations, I'd recommend J.L. Mackie's _The Miracle of Theism_ , Gregory Dawes's _Theism and Explanation_ and Jason Beyer's _A Comparison of Judeo-Christian Theism and Philosophical Naturalism as Explanatory Worldviews_

[@christianf5131]

Do you have thoughts on the “limb from nothing vs universe from nothing?” I suppose that doesn’t matter so much as you engage in philosophical discussions that Barker just hand waved away

[@christianf5131]

And for that matter, Trent’s discussion about a miracle being used as proof for a person, but the most “rational” option being something naturalistic?

[@Nai61a]

Real Atheology: Important to remember that philosophy of religion is an invention of the fertile, human imagination. As such, it has much in common with the stories told by our comparatively primitive ancestors. The "stories" of philosophy of religion are more complex, more sophisticated, sure, but they are still a kind of story. The philosophy of religion is essentially making stuff up about stuff that's made up. I say this because philosophy of religion has become the refuge of the thinking theist. They have somehow persuaded themselves that philosophical arguments can bring "Gods" into existence in the real world, which is absurd, of course.

[@karlazeen]

This is actually a pretty accurate description of theology.

[@Nai61a]

@@karlazeen Yes, it fits and I often lump them together, especially when I am told that I am theologically ignorant, which happens from time to time. Like philosophy of religion, theology - the study of "Gods" - does not bring "Gods" into existence in the real world.

[@elgatofelix8917]

Anytime a prominent speaker makes a video titled "atheists can't answer this question" some fedora tipper will make a response video trying to debunk it. So brace yourselves boys for the incoming cringe...

[@antoniogarcia259]

Hahahahaha, I was thinking that. Bet they are upset

[@noahhounshel104]

It's an assertion that provokes a response. If you believe strongly that God exists and someone says "This single fact disproves God" I'm sure that you, or one of the many many evangelists out there would try to rise to the challenge. In fact, you would be right to. The answer to his question really is easy or hard, depending on the particular "God" you're talking about. The God of the Bible as described in the bible is at best unfalsifiable and thus unprovable, or at worse proven false a hundred thousand times over. If you define God to be all of the Omnis then he's proven false by contradiction. If you define him as unknowable then he's definitionally not provable. Whatever Theist you are has to be addressed before the question can be answered, which seems impossible enough for you guys to figure out. For some versions of God there are no proofs possible. After all what would convince you that 2+2=7 for all values of 2? I doubt anything could, or indeed should convince you. Why should we have to come up with a way to prove something we've demonstrated to be false? How or why would it be reasonable to demand I come up with a way for 2+2=7 for all values of 2 just to give you something to prove?

[@chocolatestraw3971]

I've often found the responses back and forth to be illuminating. After all, he used videos of atheists to help make his points.

[@hooligan9794]

Are you ignoring the hyper-cringe of titleling a video "One question atheists can't answer". There has never been a video so titled that didn't contain cringingly bad arguments.

[@dogsandyoga1743]

I guess I'm what you call a "weak atheist". Some have even argued that I'm not atheist at all. I'm not convinced that a god doesn't exist, I'm only convinced that there is a HECK of a lot of stuff I don't know. That said, with all of the information I HAVE been made aware of in my 46 years, at the moment, it seems more likely that the gods I am aware of, were created in the minds of men, and not the other way around. I FULLY acknowledge that the fact that a god may or may not exist is completely independent of whatever belief I happen to hold on said god. With that out of the way, I can happily cite things that, while not providing 100 undeniable evidence, would definitely slide me along the scale, and even push me into the realm of belief. If the main arguments were a bit more convincing (I could give a few examples) or undeniable biological or geological evidence. Not the creation museum stuff...but this is the kind of stuff people have been debating forever, so I don't really want to get into that. As far as a personal, physical act that would convince me, it wouldn't even have to be ultra fantastical or break the laws of physics. I would simply beed to weigh the event, and recognize that while there MAY be a naturalistic explanation, it's more likely to be intervention. A quick example I just thought of would be me, with an open mind, a d hopefully a sincere heart, ask (capital G since this is a Christian channel) God for a sign, and a series of 5 earth quakes hit, each for the same duration, at the same interval, and the same level on the Richter scale. Now, that COULD be the result of a lot of things. Freak 1 in a billion, (but natural) event. Fracking under my backyard, climate change, a new weapon by the military etc....but I would consider the facts, both that I asked for a sign, AND a completely unique, but not against the laws of physics occurred right as I did. I would accept this as good enough. With me, it's always been about what is more likely...

[@csongorarpad4670]

There's many reasons as to why people become atheists and even die-hard atheists, at that. Some of those main reasons are pride and arrogance, as I recognize myself in these aspects, during the 7-year period when I had lost my faith, or reject it, more appropriately speaking. It wasn't until I let go of my pride (which is an on-going battle) and let myself be humbled by Christ, that I was able to ascertain him to be the living truth and way. Atheism is a blindness and in most cases, it's a willfull blindness, veiled in pride and arrogance. You could write several books on the topic and still have material left... In the end, it is inevitable that one turns to Scripture and see the eternal wisdom of God: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools" - Romans 1:22

[@lovinit45454]

Aren’t you expressing massive amounts of arrogance in just this text?

[@csongorarpad4670]

@@lovinit45454 How come? It'd be more helpful if you gave an example and more of an explanation as to why you think that. As I see it, I am speaking frankly as somebody who was an anti-theist, basically. It is the unfiltered truth of what it entails to be a self-professed atheist. Identifying as agnostic is reasonable, but being an atheist is simply ludicruous because it is a senseless position to hold if it were true i;e: Theism and theists are the saving grace for atheists to identify as atheists, in the first place.

[@chocolatestraw3971]

"Everyone is just like me," says the person who has gotten over his arrogance.

[@csongorarpad4670]

@@chocolatestraw3971 You've clearly got quite a long way to go still if that's your takeaway lol

[@chocolatestraw3971]

@@csongorarpad4670 "I don't have a cogent answer so I'll just say you're wrong," - the person who has gotten over his arrogance and totally has an answer for everything.

[@rattlersix]

I agree that the answers to the question "what would prove that God exists?" are often bad but half the problem here is that the question is nonsense. A lawyer doesn't get in front of a jury and ask what would convince them that the defendant is guilty or innocent. They lay out the actual evidence, not ponder made-up evidence the jury wishes existed. "What would convince you" just forces a person to invent some otherworldly scenario that can't be anything but God, but it doesn't matter because those things aren't happening anyway. The only sensible answer to "what would convince you?" is "whaddya got?"

[@wishingwell12345]

Bad analogy. Juries are carefully selected to minimise any possibility of bias for or against the defendant. The vast majority of atheists have a massive emotional bias against the idea of God. Don't believe me? Talk to some.

[@rattlersix]

@wishingwell12345 You missed the point. The point is that the question is basically "right now, on the spot, come up with a fictional scenario that would prove the supernatural." It's completely useless. Whether a juror is biaser or not doesn't matter, all you're doing is testing whether they're able to come up with a cool scenario on the spot. Some will be good at answering the question and some will be bad. But there is no point whatsoever to the question to begin with.

[@robertmcelwaine7024]

Speaking personally as an Atheist, nothing could convince me that God exists. Because the whole concept of there being an all-powerful being that is omnipotent and infallible and whose word is absolute strikes me as logically irrational. Particularly when it comes to morality which can be subjective. Therefore it would be a pointless question to even bother asking me.

[@korbendallas5318]

Seems like you are a non-cognitivist, which many people would not include in the box labeled "atheist".

[@robertmcelwaine7024]

@@korbendallas5318Well, they would need to familiarise themselves with what the word atheist means. *atheist* *noun [ C ] RELIGION* *UK /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/ US /ˈeɪ.θi.ɪst/* *Add to word list* *someone who does not believe in any god* *or gods, or who believes that no god or *gods exist:* *As an atheist, I do not accept this *religious* *argument.* *His father was an atheist.*

[@robertmcelwaine7024]

@@korbendallas5318 Not necessarily. I said morality *can be* subjective. I'm not saying it can't ever be *objective.* Logically speaking no one can be infallible. I mean if I thought morality was never objective then I could then potentially make an argument saying murder and rape were just fine and dandy, which I of course wouldn't. Therefore I deny the suggestion from you that I am a non-cognivitist.

[@pattip2788]

I’ve had two atheists tell me, separately, during two different discussions, the only thing they can’t explain is from emotions come. They said it would be our emotions that would lead them to believe there is a God. It shows they are thinking, and they made a good point.

[@beatlecristian]

So then, are they really atheists? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say they are agnostic?

[@Enaccul]

@@beatlecristian from what I understand agnostic is a subset of atheist, but then people have really varying definitions of atheist and agnostic. Always best to ask what definition they use I guess

[@ojgfhuebsrnvn2781]

@@Enaccul It's not exactly subset of atheists but generally it is more often brought up as such. Think of it this way., if we think of Santa Claus, your can't really prove or disprove his existence, therefore you are agnostic towards him but at the same time you don't have enough evidence that he exist and it sets you to default position of not believing in extraordinary claims, therefore while you can't disprove him (agnostic) you don't believe he exists (atheist). Same with god, we can't with 100% confidence say he doesn't exist but we believe he doesn't because believing otherwise is irrational. Some religious people think we don't want to believe. No (we don't really bother with it), we are not able to believe even if we wanted to. If i say you to believe that there is floating invisible cup in front of you, i doubt you can force yourself to believe it.

[@Enaccul]

@@ojgfhuebsrnvn2781 Yes very true and well said, I still feel like if someone asked me if I believed in Santa Claus I'd say I didnt believe in him, but that specifically I was maybe agnostic towards him. I like what you said about how because you CANT disprove either God or Santa it makes sense to be agnostic towards the idea. Personally im an igtheist. I dont think the idea of God is a coherent one to begin with, otherwise ya I'd be agnostic probably. (But I consider igtheism also under the umbrella term of atheism kind of like agnosticism) But I know different people hold slightly different definitions and views towards these ideas

[@paulrichards6894]

did those 2 atheists tell you that you have an imaginary friend??.....they would be right

[@Subeffulgent]

Nice video. This reminds me of something I thought of a while ago where a person experiences a miraculous event it's undeniable in every aspect of the event that it was from outside source. This is absolutely no way that you can convince anybody else around you that this truly was miraculous. I like to sum it up by saying miracles aren't transferable. I really like these videos keep up the good work and may God bless you and your family 👉✝✝✝

[@RustyWalker]

It isn't. It could be neurological for some miraculous events.

[@stephengalanis]

@@RustyWalker Correct. I know of a person who, having grown up in a predominantly Christian society, became religious because of 'out of body' experience, which he attributed to God. Which god? The Christian one. He went into the ministry. He was the pastor of my church-school when I was a teenager. When he had the out-of-body experience, nothing supernatural was happening at all. He was a drummer in a rock band. We understand the neurology of that experience very well, and it's repeatable -- no god required. We know what parts of the brain shut down under what conditions, we know why the brain has trouble locating itself as a result. But Average Joe doesn't know. It's a gap in his / her knowledge, and experiences that aren't understood get labelled supernatural.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

miracles don't happen. you're mistaken.

[@ignipotent7276]

​@@stephengalanisThe problem Happens when no neurology can explain the events or conclude what happened :/ This is why personal testimony of some skeptical atheists is rather profound. Its impossible for them of being highly Skeptic of Jesus and yet by all means despite their skepticism said that they couldn't deny what they felt and experienced.

[@theother1281]

Part of the problem with miracles is understanding probability. What is the difference between an improbable event and a miracle. Take a recovery from illness that any given person would have to live for a million years to experience. If you encountered it you might well call it a miracle. However the human population live for 8 billion years every year, so 1 in a million events occur 8000 times a year, or about once 65 minutes. In populations with low scientific literacy and a embedded religious culture it's very easy to see how credible tales of miracles arise, which in turn give credence to fantastical tales of miracles.

[@kevinshirley9344]

An atheist here, "What would convince me of god?"... Well, two things would have to happen... 1. Theism would have to be represented in the universe in argumentation (every argument for god is not theistic in any way). The thing is is that theism is unnatural in that the only way one would come to know theism (or a specific god) is by example a talking burning bush, disembodied voice, voices/words in head, apparitions, scripture, prophets, divine dreams etc... etc... These things are all unnatural revelations, theism is NOT able to get itself out of that box as no natural revelations exist. Theism requires the unnatural to be known! If no natural revelation exist in that no theistic argumentation is present then theism cannot EVER be rational. For example, if I saw a talking burning bush, it would be impossible to deny what was happening in front of me, however, there would be NO WAY, under the laws of logic, that it would ever be rational or coherent understanding in belief or knowledge. It would then mean that god put me in an irrational position regarding rationality and coherence in logic, simply because the universe HE designed is not pro theistic in nature (that would be god's fault theism isnt rationally possible). Any time type of natural revelations at best would be deistic but not theistic. So theism would have to show itself to be naturally possible in the laws of logic in a universe were theism had natural revelations that are not deistic (since deism and theism are at odds). Apologist, even famous ones, like to use deistic argumentation to show theism yet deism is closer to atheism in every way (literally no difference between an agnostic deist and an agnostic atheist yet plenty of differences between an agnostic deist and an agnostic theist). 2. The second thing is that Theism would have to prevent presuppositions from being used in arguments for god for theism to be rational. Theism would also have to avoid arguments such as the beginning of the universe argument, or Fine Tuning, or the First Cause arguments since neither the theist or the atheist can correctly justify any stance regarding it. This is why presuppositions are the enemy of rationality. You cannot form a justification from presuppositions other wise it becomes a "god of the gaps" type of argument. Its why atheist correctly dont presuppose a godless universe, they dont have to in order to justify atheism. All they have to do is justify their non belief in order to justify atheism.

[@daviddeida]

Atheist do require a presupposition .It presumes a 3D reality confined to the concept of time/space cause effect is the only reality

[@kevinshirley9344]

@@daviddeida That is false... confining reality into a concept of time and space is not a presupposition only available to atheist. The reason is because no one knows the nature of reality itself or the universe so neither the theist or the atheist is required to presuppose anything about its nature beyond what we know.... It isnt required for atheism to be justified. The only thing an atheist needs to justify in rationality and coherence is not being convinced a god exists. Theist like to presuppose that atheist must presuppose to justify atheism yet they fail to understand that that is bad philosophy and bad epistemology. Saying that atheist must presuppose the nature of the universe to justify atheism is no different than saying that theist must justify the nature of god... They cannot know the nature of god so any presupposition regarding Him would be irrational and unjustified. That is kind of the point about presupposing being used to justify a stance is bad philosophy 101.

[@kevinshirley9344]

@@daviddeida I will give you another example... When theist say that natural revelations of god exists such as the trees, the grass, the sunsets, and all of the earths beauty, show a natural revelation of god... that is wrong as it requires one to presuppose god as a prerequisite to that conclusion. It means that without that presupposing, the "beauty" of the earth does NOT show a natural revelation of god. It would then be in the eyes of the beholder. Its where presupposing leads to irrational/unjustified conclusions. The fact remains that the only way to know theism is by unnatural revelations such as a talking burning bush, disembodied voices, scripture, prophets, divine dreams etc...etc... There are no objectively defined natural revelations of god, only unnatural which is a problem because the grounding of theism in general is rooted in presuppositions that require one to presuppose a presupposition... that is horrible philosophy.

[@rdabdao3535]

This video is so rich with good thinking. Thanks for this.

[@messinwithzacksquatch]

This is just a fantastic video through and through. I'm so grateful for outstanding content like this on KZbin.

[@thargunitoth8389]

If you don't know something, there can be millions of explanatuons, but ok you can also believe in some dude in heaven, an say he was it. And this dude can be the explanation for anything... Very comfortable...

[@Lreystudios]

Wow this awesome! Love the way you explain things so easy to follow.

[@derre98]

Honestly, I also don’t know what it would take to convince me of supernatural things, because at the end of the day the ideas just don’t make sense to me and I find plenty to object to in all the arguments I've ever seen. I don’t think we can demonstrate minds are immaterial things whatever that would even mean. We also can’t demonstrate existence of minds other than our own and even then it is questionable to talk about demonstration when knowing our minds exists is an immediate individual state of affairs rather than any meaningful reasoning. I’m also not aware of any moral truths existing. Morals seem just stability points connected to our evolutionary history and they are associated with a kind of homeostasis with our environment. Very much a material state of affairs. Numbers then again I don’t think exist as such, rather they are just names given by humans to particular aspects of the process by which information is handled by this universe. I believe in expectation values, strategies I discover and by which I can expect to be able to play the game better than otherwise. I’m not sure I believe in anything else at the end of the day really. I find it unlikely the universe came from nothing or came at all in any meaningful way, more likely it’s just misguided human taste for causes and reasons when it comes to fundamental existence which may not have anything like that at all. We know of only one state of affairs evolving into another state of affairs in this cosmos of ours. Generalising from that doesn't really get you very far and perhaps there is nowhere to get to.

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

"I find it unlikely the universe came from nothing or came at all in any meaningful way, more likely it’s just misguided human taste for causes and reasons... we know of only one state of affairs evolving to another state of affairs." Well, that is Aristotelian Formal Causation then, which is fundamental to understanding causation. Explanations and causes aren't just "human tastes". There's a reason why when a set of particles (such as 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom) form, that every single time they form a water molecule. Never do they wind up being something different, it literally never changes, nor evolves. They are true to "form" of their essence, every single time. It literally never changes. The very essence of what they are causes them to be a water molecule every time, never a petroleum molecule or aluminum oxide. Acorns always wind up forming into something that is within the realm of their essence (even if it's badly mutilated), it will be some sort of plant, never a rock or a bird. This is formal causation. Cause and effect, and explanations, are absolutely provable, and absolute fundamental metaphysical reality. They are as provable as 1+1=2, every single time, and if true, God exists. Denial of cause and effect, and that things have explanations, to me is like denying 1+1=2. This sort of argument sounds like Sean Carroll or someone.

[@derre98]

​@@thegreatcornholio7255 Generally speaking there is essentially nothing to prove in "1+1=2". Conceptually it's an arbitrary definition made by humans for practical reasons and physically it refers to trivial state of affairs. "Cause and effect, and explanations, are absolutely provable, and absolute fundamental metaphysical reality." As exemplified by Münchhausen trilemma, nothing is absolutely provable or at the very least humans don't currently have any grasp of such matters. If you think otherwise, I'm confident you have failed to understand the essentials of logic. "There's a reason why when a set of particles (such as 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom) form, that every single time they form a water molecule." To be exact H2 and O atoms don't necessarily form water molecule and are quite happy to exist among themselves as separate atoms in large quantities as well. They form water when set on fire, but they don't need to burn otherwise. I'd also like to stress that in nature there are a great many often unlikely ways things can evolve and in a large set of things many of these unlikely ways happen all the time. Even particles aren't any unambiguous things when looking at the scale of quantum fields. However, that's probably not the point you tried to get across so I'll respect the principle of charity and ignore this particular issue. Never the less getting back to your point, how would you in general know there is a reason for the arbitrary state of affairs in nature? What would that reason be, how would it work, what would be the reason for that reason? Generally speaking following back the route of how nature evolves from one state of affairs to another does not seem to allow humans to reach any meaningful and unambiguous conclusion to such questions so it seems humans know nothing of such things. Humans simply observe the current state of affairs and how they evolve. Physics is only descriptive, it makes simplifications to build models based on those observations and then people use those models to make pragmatic predictions to play the game of expectation values so to speak. These explanations are fundamentally only useful fiction since we can't verify their correspondence to absolute truth. At no point do we reach a thing like first cause for anything. We only see evolution of state. Luckily that doesn't matter, we can still play the game, but it really does seem to be all we know and do. Observation is not a proof, it can act as a demonstration that may or may not support expected usefulness of a particular model. Only in mathematics and logic are things proven in a more strict sense and even then the proofs only tell that from assumptions a certain set of conclusions follow, but the assumption are still uncertain and ultimately the provability of formal axiomatic theories is quite limited as demonstrated by Gödel's incompleteness theorems and of course in the end in more general sense due to observations like Münchhausen trilemma.

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

@@derre98 Well, I guess I'll respond, but the point is that when you said that humans want to assign causes, and explanations to things; it is for a very good reason. It's because everything has causes and explanations. That's what things like science are about and just assume (unless you're into modern scientism, atheist stuff, then you rely on the principle right up until the point it disproves your atheist world view and then dump it). "speaking there is essentially nothing to prove in "1+1=2"." -In mathematics in logic, we have what are called "mathematical proofs" and "logical proofs". " Conceptually it's an arbitrary definition made by humans for practical reasons and physically it refers to trivial state of affairs. " -This means you are in the nominalist view of philosophy, which most mathemticians and the greatest mathematical physicists on earth like Penrose, Vilenkin and others, disagree. However, I agree with you, but either way, descriptive or real, never do mathematical laws change, and never is 1+1=8 for example. " If you think otherwise, I'm confident you have failed to understand the essentials of logic. " -I don't thinks so. "To be exact H2 and O atoms don't necessarily form water molecule and are quite happy to exist among themselves as separate atoms in large quantities as well. " -Yes, that's correct, and Aristotle, and every aristotilean, thomist and whomever came after, explains that in detail. These are called "potentials" and for some reason every substance must adhere to a set of potentials. H20 combined has the potential for water, and maybe some other potentials by themselves (as you exaplaiend). But the point is, when H2 and O are combined, they MUST be the actualization of some potential, according to their form. Threre are zero times, when a H20 combine in large enough numbers, and it forms into a goat, or into oil. That fact never evolves, it never changes. It forms into water, or one of it's other potentials, every single time. This is a formal cause. All the science stuff you explained about H and O, I'll take your word for it, but that's simply not important. The point is, this is true of everything that exists that can change, it has a set of potentials, and it when it changes, it will always actualize into one of those potentials. This is Formal Cause. "I'd also like to stress that in nature there are a great many often unlikely ways things can evolve and in a large set of things many of these unlikely ways happen all the time." -Never outside of their potentials. It could be that it changes to *something else* that has new potentials, but it, in and of itself, will never change to something that is beyond the potentials of its essence. "What would that reason be, how would it work, what would be the reason for that reason? Generally speaking following back the route of how nature evolves from one state of affairs to another does not seem to allow humans to reach any meaningful and unambiguous conclusion to such questions so it seems humans know nothing of such things. Humans simply observe the current state of affairs and how they evolve." -Ok... Well, that's empericism. I'm not a strict Empericist, but that's how humans know most things. And there's other epistemological modes. How we form things like "proofs" in mathematics. We can prove them conceptually, then we can see that they are applicable to real events in nature. This is what Kant referred to as "synthetic" reasoning. We can take logical constructs, and verify them in the material world, as though immaterial abstract reality has some magical connection to the material world, and the material world must obey them. And in science "theories", and the conclusions are often very unambiguous, and very clear. In the real world, we have many experiential reasons to have beliefs (like I'm sitting in a chair right now typing and that I exist). All of these seem very reliable, and there are very good reasons to believe that they are true. There's certainly more reasons to believe that they are true, than the negation which just seems to be pure skepticism, intellectual nihilism. "Physics is only descriptive, it makes simplifications to build models based on those observations and then people use those models to make pragmatic predictions to play the game of expectation values so to speak. " -See Nominalism above. I agree, but this does nothign to disprove, or bring doubt to cause and effect, and explanations (aka The Principle of Sufficient Reason). "These explanations are fundamentally only useful fiction since we can't verify their correspondence to absolute truth. At no point do we reach a thing like first cause for anything." -"fiction"? That's a huge assertion, which you certainly haven't given any reasons to support. Well, I think people who believe to the contrary give *very* good reasons. These include people like Aristotle, St Aquinas, Gottfried Leibniz, Kurt Godel, and they explain in detail, why you are wrong about that; and I feel they are extremely convincing. If you feel there is no "first cause" of anything, you need to bgive reasons you believe some of the assertions you have been making (with no supporting reasons so far, just assertion, just as people like Carroll who I mentioned and other scientism atheists). Understanding cause and effect (including formal cause) IS the purpose of the scientific method, and other areas of epistemology. If you think it doesn't exist, or it's "fiction" or at some point it just quits being true, then I think you need to be able to explain when it stops being true, and how you came to know that. I'm just being honest here, usually when I hear people make these sort of grand assertions, about cause and effect being "fiction", or that they've upended all of human reason, so they can now support a meaningless universe that "just exists, without explanation", it's always just that, a grand assertion, with very few reasons given. Can you give a single example of something that changes, and scientists think there's no reason as to why, or where they've decided there'll be no explanation? I challenge you to find *anything*, apart from mutli-verses, "quantum soup universes" or something else that helps them support their atheism? A SINGLE thing that isn't needed to support their atheism, that they say "there need not be an explanation for that, it's a 'fiction' that everything must have some cause or explanation". As William Lane Craig points out, this is a gross example of Special Pleading. Anyhow, thanks for sharing your points. Most of my questions are rehetorical, because I may not have time to keep reading responding (bc of my work requirements).

[@derre98]

​@@thegreatcornholio7255 "The point is, this is true of everything that exists that can change, it has a set of potentials, and it when it changes, it will always actualize into one of those potentials." It seems circular or down right void of meaning to say "things do what we observe them to do" or at least that's what I hear you saying there. Yes, obviously, that's just using words to say nothing. We all know this, it's a trivial tautology. "And in science "theories", and the conclusions are often very unambiguous, and very clear." As a physicist (my day job) I would disagree in a sense that all theories are just approximate models built upon limited statistics, a set of useful fiction waiting for a better theory to arrive upon better statistics. The word fiction is of course there to highlight the uncertainty associated with all existing models, theories and knowledge, not to say that nothing matters, in fact a good theory has predictive power and predictive power is valuable to humans and thus matters to them in the time they live. "There's certainly more reasons to believe that they are true, than the negation which just seems to be pure skepticism, intellectual nihilism." Certainly, most models built upon daily observations can be tested and gambled with and this is normal practice everyone does. Same does not apply to first causes, gods and similar concepts and postulates which essential cannot be tested and only exist in a category of unnecessary ones let alone if they are nonsensical in some ways. "...this does nothign to disprove, or bring doubt to cause and effect" Principle of sufficient reason is in my opinion very bad example as we have no experience of any first causes whatsoever. Therefore we have nothing established to disprove. We only have experience of things evolving from one states of affairs into another states of affairs by "differential rules or differential equations" which we have built as approximate statistical models based on observations. "If you feel there is no "first cause" of anything, you need to bgive reasons" In the previous I gave many such reasons. I do not believe in the first cause because there is no reason to postulate such a thing, there exist no statistics and no observations that would benefit from that postulate. Postulating a first cause would explain and predict nothing, quite the opposite. All causes we know of are nothing more than continuous state evolution, rocks rolling down a potentially infinite hill of which we only know of a small finite slice. There is in general no other reason required not to believe something other than the fact that a postulate proposed by someone has not been justified sufficiently. "Understanding cause and effect (including formal cause) IS the purpose of the scientific method" Scientific method has no purpose, it's just a name given to a method we apply to build useful models, it is the best method that accomplishes this and is followed by humans doing science, humans like me. There can be nothing better than science, because whatever is known and whatever works best is science. Theories are constantly updated to match the latest observations. We build rockets that fly to the moon. Success of a theory is ultimately confirmed by success of our devices and the game itself. "so they can now support a meaningless universe that "just exists, without explanation" I don't care about such things. I do not know if the universe just exists, if the universe has meaning or what is fundamentally true of nature of existence, but what I do know is that I'm not aware of any rational way a "first cause" could be logically consistent or that universe could have a meaning. Meaning is a subjective human concept to the best of my understanding. The only thing about the universe that is obvious is that it exists, it has a state and that human (at least my consciousness) experiences temporal evolution of state which has included being able to build useful models. Human experience of state evolution may be correlated in a complex manner to the state of the universe and thus it is very difficult to say anything unambiguous about matters such as origin of the universe. "Can you give a single example of something that changes, and scientists think there's no reason as to why, or where they've decided there'll be no explanation?" I might as well ask you to give me a single example of something that changes and we know why this change occurs. As explained earlier, we don't know why change ultimately occurs, we only know how it occurs, so pretty much everything we know of falls into the category you ask. I'm not asserting there is no explanation, there might be or there might no be. Although depends also strongly on what you mean be explanation. Scientific explanation typically means a description, a model, a how, something like a map or a painting corresponding to observations. However, a painting is not a cause, its at best an image of a state. I'm simply saying humans don't know of any why, we only know of how. We know of how things approximately evolve from one state to another because of observations and statistics, not why they evolve, how time evolution started or how the first state came to be if there even was a first state or if it even came to be rather than some other "state of affairs" being the case. We simply lack the understanding and/or imagination for such matters and the alternatives proposed by people to these questions are simply nonsensical. It's better to acknowledge what doesn't make sense and what we don't know than to pretend otherwise. I'm not an authority believer so many of the names you mention don't concern me, but in general William Lane Craig and his arguments don't really get respect from me. I've hear many of them and addressed them in various contexts. I've also personally debated a PhD theologian once, that too didn't impress me very much. The others you mention may get some respect from me depending on the context, but not in ever context, some of them more than others of course, Gödel and Carroll more than others. Ideas matter, truth matters, people and especially their beliefs not so much except beliefs in a sense that people should strive to hold as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible. Everyone may have good ideas as well as bad ones, and they do. I think for myself rather than accepting what others have done. If I arrive at the same conclusion as someone famous, cool, if not, that's cool too.

[@thegreatcornholio7255]

​@@derre98 So, it sounds like you think that the fact that H20, when combined, will *never* be oil, and a seed when planted , if it changes, it will either be a plant, or it'll rot, those are its only potentials, and there are zero other options, 100% of the time is a "circular tautology" lol. Ok, fair enough. I should just leave it at that then. It has nothing whatsoever to do with us observing them do something "therefore that's what they do". It's that something is true, and therefore we will observe it, 100% of the time". If you have some principle that is true, then you'd expect that everything adheres to the principle. If you think it is possible for H20, given enough time, may or may not form into oil, then you reject the metaphysical principle. If H20 combines and forms any other things than water, it is because these are one of its potentials, and depending on the the other things acting on it, will actualize one of those potentials. ALL of science just takes Aristotelian causation for granted, and is utterly underpinned by it, and most scientists are utterly oblivious one way or the other, and don't remotely understand it. The only time people try to make exceptions to it is when they're trying to maintain their atheism "cuz science", and then they dump every single principle necessary that underpins their science, and then they start appealing to "patterns" and things without causes, and things they think doesn't require causes, but are completely oblivious to the fact that they are just giving examples of other kinds of Aristotelian causation. If you think that H20 will NEVER form into oil, then you accept the principle, but you can still try to argue against it til you're blue in the face. Rather you agree with the principle or not, the people who do have VERY good reasons as to why they do. If you want to study the subject further to better understand it, that seems like it'd be a good option, if not, that's ok too, it's easier to be an atheist that way. And really, I will just leave it at that.

[@omnikevlar2338]

The issue I run into is what evidence would convince you to switch over to another religion? If you say nothing you don’t care about truth.

[@ThePjakes]

There is the case of the French writer Émile Zola who apparently witnessed a healing miracle in Lourdes, France, of "Marie Lemarchand who was afflicted with three seemingly incurable diseases: an advanced stage of lupus, pulmonary tuberculosis, and leg ulcerations the size of an adult’s hand. Zola describes the girl’s face on the way to Lourdes as being eaten away by the lupus:"(The Crisis Magazine) The Lourdes skeptic still refused to believe in miracles.

[@Enaccul]

Love the videos Trent, especially the style! You are so respectful and it's refreshing to see! I have a problem with what you're saying and I hope you read this because I belive you belive what you're saying. Atheists are not being hypocritical when they seemingly give an example of something that would convince them of God's existence. Everybody has some experience that might convince them, even atheists. They are not saying however that its proof of God's existence, in the same way a theist uses their experience as proof. Its simply what would convince them personally. They pick the most far-fetched or seemingly impossible thing to happen because It takes something as far fetched (and man some of them get really far fetched, like the planets rearranging themselves) and seemingly impossible as that to invoke a seemingly impossible and far fetched cause. Because an atheist doesn't think God exists they have to give an example that could ONLY be explained by God, as anything else would be more reasonably explained by a natural event. Its another way an atheist says God doesn't exist by giving am example of a crazy unlikely or impossible event that would have to happen in order to convince them. The fact that they HAVE something that if they personally experienced would not be hypocritical as you say, because often their examples are impossible. Remember that if you're issue here is that atheists use God of the gaps for what would convince them of God, really your issue is that in order to believe in God, someone must by necessity experience something that can only be explained by God or is most likely to be explained by God. You can't ask an atheist what would convince you, and NOT expect them to give a God of the gaps example because if there was even such a thing as proof of God they'd say that. In fact if that was possible there wouldn't even be atheists, but as you know God is unfalsifiable. There cant be proof of something that has the same traits as something non-existent. Not saying God doesn't exist, but it feels like you're hearing atheist show the problems with God of the gaps reasoning, then asking what would convince them of an unfalsifiable God that can't be "proven" and when their example of what would convince them (not proof) is inevitably god-of-the-gapsy as a theists answer you're crying about them being a hypocrite. Long answer short (sorry!) Seems to be that your problem lies in the very nature of evidence for God, not the atheist themselves. When answering this question, atheists must first "allow" the assumption God exists to even answer or give an example. Its within this hypothetical scenario they give their hypothetical answer. And remember you probably don't want to point out that "atheists are doing the bad thing too!" Maybe just stop using the God of the gaps instead of crying when you ask what would convince an atheist of God, and look at that they seemingly HAVE to resort to using faulty logic to even talk about God. Your issue is with the nature of God and his evidence not that atheist. Be grateful of any atheist willing to go along and give an answer other than "nothing, because God is incoherent and impossible" They're trying to connect with you! Don't then immediately say they're being a hypocrite because they'd agree with you lol. Its why they DONT believe in God. It would ONLY be hypocritical If they DID believe in God and complained about the God of the gaps argument, OR they didn't belive in God, but applied it to other things they do believe, which atheists (largely) do not. Not when they're playing the game of what would convince me, because any answer other than nothing will be "hypocritical" if presented as proof rather then what would convince them personally. Sorry I hope that made sense, love the videos Trent ♡

[@DoubleDee382]

The video rubs me the wrong way because it basically takes two separate scenarios and asserts that the same line of logic was used to come to both conclusions regardless of what was observed. It also uses strict parameters on what a "God" and "supernatural" is. Having an interaction with an intelligent being that consistently demonstrates it can manipulate natural laws outside our human understanding in a seemingly intelligent manner and conferring with other humans that they see the same thing is not the same thing as looking at the universe and saying "well...a God MUST exist because how else could this get here?" Even if they are both WRONG and the former scenario was simply parlor tricks on a crazy scale, different methods of observation and testing were used to come to the wrong conclusion. Even if I were to admit there is no way to determine FOR SURE that said intelligent being was intelligently manipulating nature, I can still be CONVINCED that they are doing so depending on my standards of proof. The doctrine of Scientific Method vs Faith has always been the level of proof to verify a claim. Testing and observation vs feeling. Questioning...vs OBEDIENCE. And if you have a problem with that last statement, ask yourselves how many religions punish you for simply following the wrong human preachers and choosing the wrong God?

[@DivinaeMisericordiae77]

My own sister said Even if God came down from heaven on a cloud that she wouldn't believe!!?? I have learnt now to just pray for her as every time I mention God she gets really upset

[@luggzy-e3s]

Same thing dawkins said

[@francischaves2357]

For me, if a being appears to the entire world (shown in all the news therefore not a hallucination), and demonstrates that it has all the claimed attributes of god (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence) then I would believe that it exists. If Thor of Marvel appeared to the world, I would not believe still that he was the claimed god because Thor is neither omniscient nor omnipresent.

[@FuddlyDud]

So your standard for belief was if everyone believed it and saw it, it’s real? I don’t know, that just sounds like the ad populism fallacy from people relying on the same God of the Gaps fallacious reasoning. :/

[@IronFreee]

Asking "what would prove god exist?" is like asking "what prove someone is guilty?" and the answer is: Good enough evidences. If you want a more precise answer, you have to ask a more precise question. What god are you talking about and what are his properties? Because every believer has his own version of god(s). So, you first have to agree on what we are trying to prove to define how we can test it or demonstrate its existence.

[@IronFreee]

@LEEK "Pretty sure we in the church have basically had the same definition of God since the inception of our dogmas for the most part." What you are describing is your version of the Christian God. This is not the only one, there are other gods claims. But Muslims, Jews, Protestants, Anglicans... have a very different opinion on this. Even Catholics have changed their view of what should be taken as allegory or literally in the Bible. Vatican 2 was one of those major revisions to the character of God. Do you think there's good irrefutable evidence of its existence?

[@pinoysarisari7374]

every evidence given would only end up as hallucination as an explanation if an atheist encounters a supernatural event...that's the problem... it will not convince them no matter what...

[@NoName-rs1sg]

@@IronFreee Atheists admit our universe appears designed, but insist that it isn't. Atheists admit that DNA looks like a language or code, but insist that it isn't. Atheists say it appears like we have free will and agency to make choices, but we don't it's an illusion. Atheists say it may seem like there is an objective moral law, but there actually isn't it's an illusion.... Again. Atheists admit that people seem to think thoughts (including themselves), but insist that this is... Can you guess? That's right! An illusion. Atheists admit that there's no observable evidence of anything creating itself from nothing. But insist that our universe is the exception. Atheists admit that it seems as though objective truth exists, but it dosnt. Truth is all subjective. "A universe with a God would look quite different than a universe without one"- Richard Dawkins. Atheists are in denial.

[@IronFreee]

​@@pinoysarisari7374 "if an atheist encounters a supernatural event... it will not convince them no matter what" What is a supernatural event? Thunder was supernatural until we understood what it was. Are you talking about things like God stopping the Earth in the old testament or resurrecting dead people? Then, maybe, but I would have to see it first :D Even if you saw something like that, how would you know YOUR God did it and not another God? What supernatural event did you saw? And is that what made you believe in your God? Because most people I know who believe in God never saw any proof. They just believe in what they were told as a kid. But if your God is real, he knows what would convinced me, doesn't he?

[@pinoysarisari7374]

@@IronFreee you won't be convinced no matter what...If you see actual resurrection...You will say it's hallucination...you probably ate something which caused you hallucination...this is the Atheist of the Gaps....

[@davidutullakatos637]

I think rhe Best answer for this question is that,if god is all knowing,he knows the best way to prove himself to us. Simple answer

[@philosophicaljay3449]

Going to be honest, I came into this video thinking it was just going to be another low effort video that shows ignorance on the subject. Was pleasantly surprised to see otherwise.

[@dukeofdenver]

Fantastic video. Thanks

[@pauljasmine353]

Scientific evidence, the Shroud of Turin, Eucharistic miracles, the tears of our Lady of Akita.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

All debunked

[@pauljasmine353]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu Not debunked. Real.

[@StudentDad-mc3pu]

@@pauljasmine353 I beg to differ and so does the scientific community.

[@pauljasmine353]

@@StudentDad-mc3pu Testing on the tears and blood from the statue of Mary at Akita Japan. The first tests on the samples of blood, tears, and sweat from the statue were performed by Professor Eiji Okuhara, a Catholic physician in the Akita University Department of Biochemistry and a former Rockefeller Foundation fellow. Professor Okuhara, who had witnessed the weeping statue himself, also passed the samples on to a non-Christian forensic specialist, Dr. Kaoru Sagisaka. The scientists confirmed that the samples of blood and tears were of human origin. Bodily Fluids from the Statue are Scientifically Tested This type of miracle - involving bodily fluids inexplicably flowing from a non-human object - is called a lachrymation. When a lachrymation is reported, fluids can be examined as part of the investigation process. Samples of blood, sweat, and tears from the Akita statue were all scientifically tested by people who weren't told where the samples came from. The results: all of the fluids were identified as human. The blood was found to be Type B, the sweat Type AB, and the tears Type AB.

[@topper009]

they also have plenty of atheism of the gaps. Example 1A being the unobservable and unprovable multi-verse, their only response to the fine tuning argument (which is based on observable evidence)

[@mattsmith1440]

Actually, not all physicists agree there _is_ fine tuning, and not all philosophers agree would even be a good argument if you could. But I'd agree any multiverse notion that doesn't make any testable predictions is useless other than as a thought experiment or fantasy. The reason why so-called 'fine tuning' is also useless is because nobody can yet demonstrate the fundamental forces could have been any different. The notion that _if you varied the gravitational constant_ or whatever else, depends on that possibility, of which there is no observable evidence whatsoever. I'd also argue that nobody knows the effect of varying *all* constants and forces (magnitudes, directions) at the same time - there may be many feasible physical universes that operate on _totally_ different laws altogether. It's too much like cherry picking to say if you varied (only) the gravitational constant in this universe you wouldn't get stars. If they could vary (unproven) then there's no good reason to base your conclusions on changing any one particular change at a time. 'Naturalism of the gaps' is also a silly accusation to level, by the way. As if you'd never heard of induction.

[@chocolatestraw3971]

Oh, there are plenty of responses to the fine tuning argument. The first one being that you can't prove that if the universe's "fine tuning" was slightly different, a different form of life couldn't exist in it. At this point the multiverse concept - actually concepts as there are several different ideas on what could construct a multiverse - is just that - concepts to be explored. No scientist is saying, "Hey, here's a phenomenon. It happens because of the multiverse."

[@mirandahotspring4019]

It's a stupid argument, "What would prove to you god exists?" First I'd ask "Which god?" Seeing a Viking tearing across the sky in a chariot with thunderbolts flying from his hammer might convince me that Thor exists.

[@istvansipos9940]

it shows how very special their special pleading is.

[@ungas024]

Usually, when you are solving a problem, you solve the first question first "Is there a God?", If you are certain that there's a God then you go to the second problem "Which God is true?", You don't jump around each problem without solving the first objection like it's some kind of Gotcha.

[@JS-ln4ns]

You say that, but I’ve found that the typical atheist conception of God is the bearded man on the Sistine Chapel touching Adam’s finger; the so-called Ancient of Days. They will even refer to him mockingly as ‘sky daddy,’ which is a fascinating, but wholly accidental peek into how limited their conception of God is. They are projecting their conception onto others and saying “we must be talking about the same God, and you just happen to be wrong about that character’s existence.” Listen to Dawkins and tell me he isn’t talking about a bearded man in the sky. The typical atheist’s rightful sparring partner are fundamentalist Christians, because they are talking about the same entity.

[@awsambdaman]

I talked like you when I was 14..edgy militant atheism is not cute

[@mirandahotspring4019]

@@awsambdaman Cope harder!

[@johanaberg173]

I think that very few people are convinced by arguments for or against the existence of God,. Because they evaluate the arguments from the position they already have. I think that the road from atheism to theism goes through the practices of theism. For example prayer, worship, taking part in the life of a theistic community. Wich means that the road is chosen.

[@williamcurt7204]

This is an excellent framing of the question. Some of your best apologetics work to date.

[@phoult37]

I completely agree. Trent really attacked their inconsistent premise.

[@juice2307]

I think that this bias exists because they ultimately do not want Him to exist. They do not simply lack belief, that would make them agnostic. They actively do not want Him to exist, likely because they sense that they would have to change their lives and order them around Him.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

They don't want any god to exist, yet for some reason they focus almost exclusively on trying to debunk the Christian conception of God rather than the myriad other deities of polytheism or the Pantheistic God. Occasionally, they make an argument against Allah but that's the only exception I've seen and it's quite rare since most New Atheists are very politically correct and don't want to appear "Islamophobic" by criticizing the Muslim faith.

[@r.g.7200]

I came to this conclusion also, when i was Half arsing my beliefs. Even if jesus came back and sat on the throne, militant atheists would reject him, because it would mean they'd have to accept and obey Christian morality.

[@dalex60]

Christianity has many flaws, one of which is how deeply rooted in Paganism it is…

[@warptens5652]

You saw him teleport the card into the orange, there's no other explanation, yet you deny it happened, you say it's the unknown natural. So let me ask: what would convince you that he magically teleported the card? And it can't be repeating and investigating the magic trick, because that would be science (10:10), and science can't prove magic (10:28). It seems your materialism might be unfalsifiable :s

[@ramigilneas9274]

People who think that reality tv shows are "real“ have much more serious problems than just a broken epistemology.😂 Everything you see in those shows is fake, all of the people you see are actors who only pretend to be amazed by the mysterious magic trick. I saw enough "behind the scenes“ videos that made me question if there are any shows left that aren’t 100% fake especially those highly produced magician shows.

[@mike-cc3dd]

@@ramigilneas9274 hey. You're just wrong. Source, magician who knows more about how the show is produced.

[@Joliebebe2001]

You are so smart. That proves God's existence to who wants to open up to God. Cause you Trent can't be an accident. Well done. 🙏🏽

[@istvansipos9940]

so smart that he chose NOT to define the g0d. If he defined the g0d, sane adults would ask him what the g0d is. Then the dude would make some claims, and then sane adults would ask him: "How do you KNOW that?" and then he would make some more claims, he could not demonstrate anything. Knowledge can be demonstrated. The g0d isn't even defined yet. (we have CLAIMS about the g0d)

[@crusaderACR]

@@istvansipos9940 God has been defined. He wouldn't respond with a claim, but an argument. I don't know why I'm replying to such a silly post

[@SNORKYMEDIA]

​@@crusaderACRChristianity has over 1000 denominations they can't even define him when they do believe

[@crusaderACR]

@@SNORKYMEDIA Our disagreements aren't about what God is. That's very clear, even if many of my brothers and sisters wouldn't be able to put it into words. We disagree on how the Church should look like, how it works, etc. Some about the nature of predestination, how salvation works (not how it looks, our lives end up looking the same we just interpret the why's and how's differently) Are you a Westerner? How come you don't know even the basics of Christianity?

[@SnuffHoover]

This fallacy assumes the burden of proof is on the people not making the claims.

[@daviddeida]

No,its asking how have you come to your conclusion.

[@SnuffHoover]

@@daviddeida No, the answer the atheist can't answer is "What would be convincing evidence". Unfortunately the speaker said it himself the religious deal with the super natural and not the natural. Since the super natural has never been proven its not on the non-believer to disprove as first you would have to prove the super natural. What you are saying is is akin to me saying leprechaun's are real. You saying you don't believe they are and me asking you to prove they aren't. The burden of proof lies on the one who is making the claim not the other way around. That line of thinking would thus make anything anyone says or believes "real".

[@branchleader73]

Great video, I'm an Agnostic and I'm always stumped by this question 'what would it take...' I never know, I usually say 'anything that convinces me' but I'm not sure what that would be. I do feel like most Theist arguments are God of the gaps to varying degrees and am more than happy to explain why I think this for each of the ones I have heard and thought about.

[@VACatholic]

How is the contingency argument a God of the gaps argument?

[@lukehayner3202]

Argument from morality???

[@branchleader73]

@@VACatholic can you explain the argument for me?

[@branchleader73]

@@lukehayner3202 What about it?

[@lukehayner3202]

@@branchleader73 You said you’d be happy to explain how it is a god of the gaps argument.

[@mike-cc3dd]

This is such a great argument here

[@SavageShooter93]

I used to be a "militant atheist" I read the bible, New and Old testament and even the Quran to have ammunition during theological debates and I would highlight all of the crazy, irrational, vicious and nonsensical things that happen (especially in the Old Testament) I would say "if that's how it works I don't want any part of it" and honestly I still feel that way about a whole lot of religious texts and religious Dogma. The Catholic church is especially easy to criticize due to their history but Islam, other sects of Christianity and Judaism have a hell of a lot to make up for as well. More evil has been done in "the name of God" than for any other single purpose in human history but that is not a fault of religion, its humanity that is flawed, the evil will be there no matter what religion is just the tool evildoers have found most convenient to use. Blaming religion is a reductive and fundamentally flawed argument and the last 150 years or so is absolute proof that people don't need a religion to excuse that type of behavior. Religion doesn't even make it any easier to justify your horrible actions any ideological system works just as well and it doesn't have to be logical, rational, reasonable and it doesn't have to avoid contradicting itself every other sentence which is another easy criticism of most religions, tail swallowing gaps in logic seems to be a fundamental flaw in human nature and any ideology. The rules and nonsense that religions have come up with that are essentially arguing over procedural correctness in prayer and the historical and modern examples of corruption, violence, hypocrisy tainting religions are still absolutely a turn off and I don't think that any organized religion is even close to being correct in terms of the "meta narrative". The point is that they don't have to have all the answers what they do offer works a lot better than the systems that people have come up with when they throw the baby out with the bathwater and "start from scratch". The problem was is that I was attributing all of those really horrible things to religion but the more I have learned about human history, specifically 20th century political history and the things that people do without religion prove that religion is not the problem, people are the problem. And at least if you have some standard set of morals that are socially/culturally reinforced through something like an organized religion there is at least some restraints on the type and amount of hell the flawed human species can and will unleash on each other. Who would you trust if things went to hell? A group of people with no rigid concept of morality/ethics because they think they are naturally good/pure. Or a group of people who say that people are inherently evil if they have no foundation and the best way to fight that tendency to evil it is to abide by these rules of behavior so you don't fall prey to your baser instincts. Only a fool would trust the people who think that they are born "good" and who think that their concept of "morality" does not come from Judeo/Christian values that are so baked into the culture they believe its human instinct. Ironically even though I see the point of religion and its value and I know its better than anything else we have come up with I cant actually join a church because it would be disrespectful to the people who do have the "gift of faith" since I don't actually believe what they do I would just be in it for the "membership bonus" so to speak. I guess that is my "Karma" for being such an ass when arguing with religious people for so long. Thats another thing 99.9% of people who claim to be "atheists" will say that they do believe in Karma I know because I have asked countless people this question and I can only remember one person saying they don't believe in Karma or "cosmic fairness" and that person was an actual Nihilist so they didn't believe in anything at all except disbelief. They were also a thoroughly depressing person to be around. But I digress. The closest I have ever come to hearing a conception of what God is that I actually agree with and seems logical and reasonable comes from a science fiction author Robert Heinlein. I will paraphrase "Its said god notices every sparrow that falls, but really it should be said that god cant help but notice because that sparrow is God" That doesn't mean that the individual sparrow is God it means that all life is an aspect of God, whatever it is that turns carbon based/organic chemistry from a self sustaining reaction to a living organism and a pocket of distorted entropy is "God". Put into different terms that notion is perfectly orthodox to the vast majority of religions/sects including Eastern Religions.

[@samanthaannfuchsgruber]

This is such a fascinating comment. I am struck deeply by, "The closest I have ever come to hearing a conception of what God is that I actually agree with and seems logical and reasonable comes from a science fiction author Robert Heinlein. I will paraphrase "Its said god notices every sparrow that falls, but really it should be said that god cant help but notice because that sparrow is God. That doesn't mean that the individual sparrow is God it means that all life is an aspect of God, whatever it is that turns carbon based/organic chemistry from a self sustaining reaction to a living organism and a pocket of distorted entropy is God." Wow. This is just.... wow! I don't have words. All that I can say is that I'm interested in Robert Heinlein. 💭🌌 Moreover, I think that blaming "religion" for evils is extremely reductive and you put it beautifully. You are a very respectful person who truly represents your atheistic side kindly. I am personally a Christian theist (soon to be converting to Catholicism), and perhaps you might feel compelled toward Christianity even though you say "... but I can't actually join a church... since I don't have the gift of faith." If I were in your shoes, I think I would look into this more. For most of my life, I was a Christian and sometimes went to church... but I didn't feel much. I didn't feel like I belonged there; I felt like an imposter. I didn't know if God was real. Certain life events happened to me... and slowly but surely... I found God working in my life. It was profound and soul-changing. I have not been the same. There are just certain courses of events and the way things have panned out for me that are not in my imagination. They are in my reality, and they happened. I call them "God hugs" or "moments God sees." We live in a world full of so much chaos and evil. I was done trying to hold it all on my own, and even though it took a long time, God was there. God. Was. There. And He still is for me. "Our Lord prefers to wait Himself for the sinner for years rather than keep us waiting in an instant." -St. Maria Goretti ✨ As a kind suggestion for you, I would a few church services with a person of faith that cares for you. Or even go alone for yourself as the development of faith is profoundly personal. I have had the most beautiful experiences in a church 1) during Catholic Mass, 2) during worship services apart of my college ministry (not always in a church) and 3) when I am standing in a church, chapel, or cathedral alone. Just in silence. Just feeling. Looking around me and what is happening in my soul. Sometimes I will focus on my precious, finite body. Being present with God. I do not think it is a coincidence that humans' religions can truly be a profound force of good in the world, source of meaning, and deep love for them. My Christian faith in God is certainly that- and it does not even come close to the magnitude of any of my other beliefs. I can not believe it is something I solely constructed in my mind, therefore, I truly believe God is out there. When I look at the tininess of the Earth... I am not filled with nihilism. I am filled with awe. Look at the vastness of the universe. The sheer, incomprehensible size. I am convinced someone even more vast... created this vastness. Sometimes, when emotions get complicated in my life, my soul and my feelings feel bigger than the universe. I sometimes think that if I could take the soul from my body, it could reach both sides of the universe without effort. So, I see this vastness in the universe... and I see this vastness inside of me. My thoughts and my soul would go on forever, if only my body would not one day get old and die. And then I think of just a short sentence. "Made in the image and likeness of God." I will allow you to take from this what you will. 🌌 And yet, I am okay with saying, "I don't know." But this Christian life is a beautiful way of living. I am a psychology major. The health effects of believing in God are... just fully in favor of it! And not only in my personal life-but as seen as philosophical/theology arguments-I feel like there are solid reasons for why this is a beautiful life... that exists outside of just me. I believe in God, so I act as though He truly exists. I inspire others to believe in Him. What am I inspiring them to do? Atheists will say I am intentionally leading them down a road of delusion because I believe in a Jewish space zombie and a magical space Dad who strung the world together in 6 days and is tyrannical. Kind of insulting and reductive to my entire worldview, but I take it with humility. (1 Peter 5:6-7 NKJV - “Therefore humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time, casting all your care upon Him, for He cares for you.”) ✨ In reality, when I inspire others to believe in God, I am inspiring another human being to believe they are made in the image of God that loves them unequivocally, there is a God that came to earth and sacrificed his life, that nothing can take away that person’s worth, God will always use their pain for redemption, and that they have a soul that will pass into eternal life with God at the end of their human life. Again… I have many theological explanations for this, including Aquinas’s Five Ways, the Kalam cosmological argument, the ontological argument, the argument from efficient causality, the existence of moral intuition, and the notion that materialism is reductive to all human experiences (we seem to intuitively know we are more than cells, organs, blood, and oxygen). 💕 What I am proposing is a message of hope and truth- not certainty. There are limits to our human knowledge. At the end of my life, I will never truly know if there is any of this. God. Christ. An afterlife. (This is related to Pascal’s Wager). But as I take my final breath, I can promise you that there will not be a single moment I gave to God that I regretted. 💖 Not a single moment. ✞

[@SavageShooter93]

@@samanthaannfuchsgruber Thanks for such a well thought out and heartfelt reply, I am going to bed now but will read and respond fully tomorrow. If you are interested in Heinlein Id start with "Stranger in a Strange Land" lots of good philosophy in that book and that's where I paraphrased that quote from. Have a good night.

[@StaggersonJagz]

This is one of the strongest arguments for atheism I've ever heard.

[@TruePT]

For or against?

[@StaggersonJagz]

@@TruePT For.

[@mike-cc3dd]

Sounds like your cognitive dissonance just kicked in

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

Matt's inconsistency about veganism demonstrates that he's largely basing his opinion on emotion, which is very normal. The issue is when we cling to the idea we're 100% rational, which of course makes us less rational.

[@junacebedo888]

GK Chesterton said " the absolutely crazy person is absolutely convince that he is not crazy". He added that the normal person has healthy doubts

[@colmwhateveryoulike3240]

@@junacebedo888 Yeah. Also in the time one expert takes to state the best advice cautiously, a thousand fools will contradict it with confidence. Populations are frustrating lol.

[@MegaVincenzo13]

Assuming reasonable is bad, because one mans reasonable is not the same as another mans reasonable. One man can see the intelligence and beauty of nature as reason for the belief in God, while another considers natural law as the reason for everything. IMO if one could prove God's existence, then what merit would faith provide?

[@scooby3133]

All gods exist as imaginary characters. Man creates gods. That has been demonstrated thousands of times.

[@robinrobyn1714]

All atheism is imaginary. Man creates atheism. This has been demonstrated thousands of times.

[@scooby3133]

@@robinrobyn1714 take a picture of the god you like. Post it on the internet. Oh, what's that? You can't for whatever reason you come up with? Right, because it's imaginary.

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@scooby3133 You mean the God that you are obsessed with? That's only one specific God. Your atheism is imaginary?! Thanks for admitting that!

[@scooby3133]

@@robinrobyn1714 you should take my challenge. Ready to put your money where your mouth is? If you can demonstrate the god of your choice in reality in real-time, I'll give you $10k. You give me $10k for every failed attempt. The judges for this challenge are every non-believer of your religion. I assume Christianity/Yahweh. The claim is an invisible sentient god being, who can be a human and interact with us, is present in reality. Take my challenge and demonstrate Yahweh in reality because right now he only exists as an imaginary character.

[@360Roko]

Creating a deity that puts strict rules on your behaviour, and harsh punishments for breaking those rules, doesnt seem like something humans would do.

[@tommy-nk7ce]

Atheism is not a falsifiable claim because it's not actually a claim it's a rejection of a claim we don't have to prove a negative.

[@petegarvey9224]

A very common Clickbait title. If an atheist can't answer a question, big deal: it doesn't follow that a theist can.

[@daviddeida]

It simply is asking an atheist how it comes to its conclusion

[@guitarspadeschess6908]

If an omnipotent, omnipresent God that created the universe existed he would know exactly what evidence it would take to convince me

[@Mojojojo335]

You must be New to the free will you have… you can choose to seek God… It literally says if you seek you shall find… not if you read half heartedly you shall find or if you read narrow mindedly you shall find…. Let your guard down and just read the gospels and re evaluate God Bless,

[@guitarspadeschess6908]

@@Mojojojo335 if an all-knowing god with infinite knowledge exists that means he knows every single thought and action that i, or anyone else makes then it would be impossible for me to act with a will that wasn’t already predetermined. if i have free will god isn’t all-knowing.

[@guitarspadeschess6908]

@@Mojojojo335 i would have no way of acting freely of the script. all my choices would be determined by him beforehand. if i have no choice in the matter, then how can i have free will?

[@DarkArcticTV]

Just because it's possible that God can convince you at a snap of a finger, that doesn't mean he has good reason to, it may not be feasible to do so.

[@celestethisandthat8887]

Maybe the God of the Universe only reveals himself to The Chosen so if you don't know Him, it's because you don't fit the bill.

[@vinceporter228]

There are lots of questions atheists can't answer. That's why we're atheists. What we refuse to do is make up silly answers for complexities currently beyond our grasp.

[@brightonhansford3926]

So you just read the title and didn't watch the video. Nice. Very rational. Not silly. 😂

[@cacatr4495]

Not knowing the answers is agnosticism, not atheism. That being the case, you're an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists believe there is no God.

[@vinceporter228]

@@brightonhansford3926 semantics and erudite language, which seem to be all there is to religious belief, just sound rational to the impressionable.

[@nelidascott6917]

I’m saving this post! You are a brilliant apologist! God bless❤

[@Glasschin2.0]

What do you think was brilliant about it?

[@baskeptic1161]

I am not sure it would prove a God exists but if intercessory prayer worked to heal the sick I would certainly pray and attend services. I would pray to Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Oden or any other God if I could cure sick people. Sadly, all empirical analysis shows it works at the rate of chance. Just one of the many reasons I remain a non-believer.

[@mike-cc3dd]

The Emprical analysis is bunk. Because. Its never a double blind study and you can never take out the agency of one of the agents involved. The reason you remain a non believer is your inability to understand simple concepts in science. But rely on science as the foundation of your belief system. Cringe

[@baskeptic1161]

@@mike-cc3dd Which scientific concepts would I need to understand to become a believer? If scientific knowledge leads to God belief why are scientists generally less religious than the broader population? Are atheist kids taking evolutionary biology courses and becoming theists? Nope, just the opposite. You should reach out the Templeton foundation and help them fix their study. It would be great if we could show that prayer worked so we could use it to help people. I don’t think it does work but would love to be wrong on this one.

[@tuav]

Another big problem that tends to come from their mouths is that even if we were to demonstrate that God exists, they still wouldn't convert to Christianity because they think the God of the Bible is an "immoral thug". Even Matt Dillahunty and Pinecreek admit they still wouldn't convert to Christianity even if they were wrong and would rather go to hell than heaven. I think talking about the apathetic pride that some of these KZbin atheists have should be an excellent video to talk about after this one. It seems to me that they can't accept God because of their emotions or because they have pride.

[@chrisdecafasmr]

As an atheist, I gotta tell ya, the last sentence of your answer is as reductive as it would be if an atheist said that Christians only believe in god for the "fire insurance". Don't paint us all with one brushstroke.

[@tuav]

@@chrisdecafasmr My last sentence referred to the KZbin atheists I mentioned, such as Matt Dillahunty and Pinecreek who are on record for saying what I typed above. And about Christians believing in God for fire insurance is similar but not exact. Because I could grant that perhaps I believe in God because I don’t want to go to hell or want fire insurance, but believing in God for those reasons (albeit semi-poor reasons) doesn’t invalidate the belief in God itself or that God exists. All it would demonstrate is how I came to form the belief in the first place. With regards to Dillahunty, Pinecreek, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Dan Barker, its a bit different since they would concede even if Christianity/theism is true, they still wouldn’t become Christians or be religious. That to me is very alarming because imagine if a person like myself or other Christians said “If atheism was the true worldview, and not Christianity, then I’m still not going to concede and will refuse to become an atheist”. Every secular person would throw their hands up in the air and would paint us as arrogant, stubborn fools. If atheism were true and not Christianity, of course I would immediately become an atheist! Because like David Hume said, “the wise man bases his beliefs on the (greater) evidence”.

[@chrisdecafasmr]

@@tuav But surely you can grant that, supposing an atheist found themselves in a position to accept the supernatural, they might still have reason to reject Christianity on a basis other than pride or emotion? What if they convert to Zen Buddhism or Islam or Hinduism or Unitarianism or Wicca? Or adopt a more generalized Deistic outlook? You may believe those to be false religions or whatever, but they're still legitimate forms of spiritual expression. For me personally, as an ex-Christian, I mostly take issue with a number of the bible's claims, moral positions, etc. and wouldn't be able to reconcile those, since I've already come to terms with that decision. We don't need to get into a whole debate about the specifics, but do try to understand that it's a lot heavier than just garden-variety arrogance for most of us.

[@tuav]

@@chrisdecafasmr I’m sorry but at that point if its granted that Christianity is true then it logically follows that all other religions are false. Because if Christianity is true, then it logically follows that anything opposed to what Jesus of Nazareth says, is false. Because Jesus claims to be the only way, the truth, and the life, and eternal life cannot be found anywhere else besides Him. On the moral positions, it would also logically follow that if Christianity is true, then everything came according to plan in God’s infinite wisdom and knowledge, in order to save the world through the blood and sacrifice of His Son. On the commanding of killing the Canaanites, it would mean that God didn’t command anything immoral and enacted righteous justice against the Canaanites because they practiced cultic prostitution and burnt infants and committed infanticide. If Christianity is true, then it also logically follows that when Jesus of Nazareth says the Bible is the Word of God, then it also means that the Bible cannot err, for God by definition, is perfect. And due to the Bible saying God cannot sin, tell lies, is perfect and cannot command others to rape nor would He ever command a person to offer their children as a burnt offering (Jeremiah 19:5), then it simply leads to the conclusion that the God of the Bible is the only Perfect Being that deserves praise and worship. Believing in things that are true is a virtue itself. If you decide to not believe in something that is true, then it isn’t an intellectual problem, it would have to be an emotional problem. As for atheism, if it were true, then morality and the meaning of life would be subjective and pointless, so to even critique the morals of God is self-defeating, since there is no foundation of morality under atheism and it would just be preferences. The reasons why I would say it would be an emotional problem to still reject Christianity if its true, because at that point no logical reason can be offered to combat it. You would have to demonstrate why it isn’t necessary to obey and follow Jesus when He is the same Individual to die for the sins of everyone, demonstrated His power and authority in Israel, and rose from the dead to confirm His teachings. I cannot possibly conceive how a person would still reject the Messiah if the whole thing was confirmed to be absolute fact. To quote C.S. Lewis, “Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.” To sum it all up, a wise man believes in things that are true, regardless of emotions and feelings or even gut instincts, because what is true, remains true eternally. Emotions and feelings is of no relevance when it comes to truth.

[@RustyWalker]

As an atheist, I think that the stories that paint God that way are all literary, not historical, and thus shouldn't be used as a method to determine the moral compass of a God. Of course, if a theist _insists_ that the stories that describe God as a moral monster are historical, we have a problem. I have to ask why they are worshiping a moral monster and claiming it is "good."

[@martinholt8168]

I deeply appreciate the fact that Trent agrees that saying 'the answer is unknown' is not the same as 'the answer is God.' That is refreshing. As for the question, 'what would it take for me to believe in God,' the answer is simple: God shows up. That's it. God appears and says, 'here I am. Do you believe in me now?' To which I would have to say, 'yes. I do. Now... I have some questions...' Is this an an acceptable answer to the question, and why or why not?

[@luxither7354]

Not really, because what would stop you from saying that is a natural phenomena of life, such as a hallucination or forgery, rather than a real experience? Its the same thing as the many Philosophical prepositions for God and most people's rebuttals, in that there could be an alternative explanation, such as the Ontological argument or Cosmological arguments or fine tuning argument? Or the fact that God has shown himself to others, with that being waved off. Why should it suddenly be real when it happens to you?

[@martinholt8168]

@@luxither7354 Because it happened to me, that's why it would be real. Personal revelation is by definition proof only for the person who receives it. I wouldn't expect my personal experience to be believed at face value by anyone else. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be accepted by me personally. And yes, I suppose I could ignore the visitation as a hallucination or forgery. After all, hallucinations and forgeries do occur, and a lot of religious followers have religious experiences regardless of the specific doctrines, which would imply that religious experiences are based on internal mental states more than outside influences. However, in the Bible, God has zero problem making His existence known. He shows himself to believers and nonbelievers, apostles and apostates. His miracles are so obvious that even His enemies believe that they are real. So why would a direct revelation to me be any less profound. If God can convert Saul, a murderous enemy of Christ, by blasting his eyes, why couldn't do the same to me , a mere nonbeliever? For that matter, why doesn't God simply reveal His presence to all the nonbelievers like He did in the Bible? When Thomas announced that he would not believe that Jesus had risen from the dead until he'd examined the wounds himself, Jesus let him examine the wounds. He provided proof to Thomas. Why can't he provide proof for little old me?

[@luxither7354]

@@martinholt8168 This is denying that no other evidence can prove or at least give significant evidence his existence, which is not true. You also seem to think that God just did these things, within scripture or church revelations, because he just arbitrarily thought to do so. In the example with Thomas, Thomas was a friend of Christ as his Apostle, you'd be a bit annoyed if your friend rose from the dead and didn't come to see you. He reveals himself to Paul to stop his early persecution of the Christians because he was a pious Hebrew outside of it. This also puts forth that God needs to validate himself to you only through your hoops. Would a being of divine nature and divine Law create a non-provable miracle that he exists that completely threw away free will as a motive and simply make faith an obligation do so. He has shown himself that Faith is expected of us, so why do you all of a sudden fall privy to be the exception? Its arrogant to say that. Its like expecting the President to write you a letter to personally tell you to pay your taxes: he doesn't need to do that, he's given enough information through the tax system and government systems to explain to you what you need to do to pay your taxes and the necessity of it. So how about we look beyond our own experience and look at the experience of others, the philosophical evidence for God, the historical evidence, the miraculous evidence that exists today.

[@martinholt8168]

@@luxither7354 That… is quite the dense paragraph. I’ll break it down and try to answer as best I can. ‘This is denying that no other evidence can prove or at least give significant evidence his existence, which is not true. ‘ I’m open to any evidence. What I’m saying is that the best evidence would be for God to just show up. ‘You also seem to think that God just did these things, within scripture or church revelations, because he just arbitrarily thought to do so. In the example with Thomas, Thomas was a friend of Christ as his Apostle, you'd be a bit annoyed if your friend rose from the dead and didn't come to see you. He reveals himself to Paul to stop his early persecution of the Christians because he was a pious Hebrew outside of it.’ I gave no motivations to God at all. I just pointed out that, in the Bible, God wasn’t shy. So why is He shy now? ‘ This also puts forth that God needs to validate himself to you only through your hoops.’ On the contrary, I don’t expect God to validate anything. Because I strongly believe that H doesn’t exist. If He shows up, I’ll be surprised. ‘ Would a being of divine nature and divine Law create a non-provable miracle that he exists that completely threw away free will as a motive and simply make faith an obligation do so. ‘ How does proof of His existence remove free will? Satan KNOWS that God exists. Does Satan have free will? If so, then knowledge of God’s existence has nothing to do with free will. If not, then everything Satan did was not his fault, because he had no choice. ‘He has shown himself that Faith is expected of us, so why do you all of a sudden fall privy to be the exception? Its arrogant to say that. ‘ How is it arrogant to ask someone who supposedly wants to have a relationship with me to introduce Himself? Again, I’m not the one chasing after the Big Beard in the Sky. But if He exists and wants me to know about Him, it would take literally ZERO effort on His part to show up. ‘Its like expecting the President to write you a letter to personally tell you to pay your taxes: he doesn't need to do that, he's given enough information through the tax system and government systems to explain to you what you need to do to pay your taxes and the necessity of it.’ The IRS routinely sends out reminders for people to pay their taxes. I routinely see the President on TV. Can I get that level of evidence from God? Please? 'So how about we look beyond our own experience and look at…' Here we go… ' …the experience of others…' Personal experiences are, as I said before, necessarily subjective. All religions have personal experiences. All they prove is that human brains do weird things sometimes. '…the philosophical evidence for God…' In other words, tired rehashes of Aquinas, Anselm, Paley, and Pascal that have been addressed ad nauseum. Been there, done that. '… the historical evidence…' For the Bible tells me so? Give me a break. '… the miraculous evidence that exists today…' Examples? Again, I’m open to any and all evidence. If you have some, I’m willing to listen. But none of it would be necessary if God would just show up, like He does in the ENTIRE BIBLE.

[@concretesandals4501]

Trent is almost self aware here. Any supernatural explanation is unreasonable because anything can be posited as supernatural. Something that explains anything ultimately explains nothing

[@TheThreatenedSwan]

Anything can be posited as anything. Any question can be posited as a scientific one, but not all questions are answerable through science. The point is scientific materialism can't explain everything

[@mugsofmirth8101]

@@TheThreatenedSwan good point. To the secularist "muh science" explains everything so according to the OP science ultimately explains nothing.