Peter Atkins - Fallacies in Arguing for God?

For more videos and information from Peter Atkins click here bit.ly/1CCxuHC
For more videos on fallacies in arguing for God click here bit.ly/1GSsrG9
Are there fallacies in the traditional arguments for the existence of God?

[@merrybolton2135]

Many people do not like the way Peter says it, BUT my god he is right

[@JnWayn]

He's harsh but right on point

[@albertreyes5298]

Maybe your god is satan because you believe in the lies of peter atkins. Don't you know that satan is the father of lies? - John 8:44.

[@jamesjordan5214]

Peter Atkins is one of my heroes for the interpretation and perpetuation of reason.

[@TBOTSS]

+James Jordan But he has lost every debate he has ever been in.

[@rossini55]

+TBOTSS Why, has god appeared in all his debates? Theists seem to he hung up on trying to 'disprove atheism'. This is a step off the issue and is a departure from the main argument. To 'disprove atheism' prove god!Want to 'disprove a-Superman-ism' prove Superman!

[@ricksanchez9288]

James Jordan Mine too!!

[@Chrisplumbgas]

You mean his reasoning facalties that are based on an unexplained consciousness based on a brain based on billions of pure evolutionary accidents starting from swampy stardust mud , which came from absolutely nothing ? I dont trust a word he said.

[@nedmoore3697]

The idea that anything can create itself, out of nothing, including our very universe, is a pretty damn good argument for a higher being of some kind. Otherwise, name one thing that creates itself. It’s hardly non-thinking to come to the conclusion that everything in this world needs a creator.

[@francisdudero5022]

7:48 I really thought Doctor Atkins would sing at that point. Lol.

[@andrebrown8969]

The comments section has quite a salty theists foaming at the gills.

[@cliveadams7629]

They know they have no come-back. You can't refute reality.

[@ultrasignificantfootnote3378]

Always ask what they mean with "God" when someone speaks about it, just to try limit confusion.

[@albertreyes5298]

Isaiah 46:9-10 - Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. 10I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say, 'My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please. Deuteronomy 32:39 - " 'See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no God with me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand. Psalm 90:2 - Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the whole world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God. I AM PRESENTING TO YOU, MY GOD OF THE BIBLE!

[@ultrasignificantfootnote3378]

@@albertreyes5298 Every person is different ,we can all say there is none like me, so that doesn't mean much . And what does it mean if God says " I kill " are all deaths caused by God ?

[@albertreyes5298]

@@ultrasignificantfootnote3378 Although God cannot be completely explained by man, the Bible help us to understand some things. Understanding The Sovereignty Of God, Isaiah 46:1-10. God clearly states that He is the only true God and none other. He also informs us that His counsel shall stand and will do all His pleasure. Matthew 10:29-31 - Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father's care. 30And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31So don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

[@ms14electronic]

Just a matter of time my dear fellows let this life end . We will know for sure every reality.

[@Tom_Quixote]

You won't know anything after you die. There won't be a you to know anything.

[@khaledsarwar8130]

why is peter atkins speaking about fallacies when he’s admitted he believes philosophy is useless?

[@MendicantBias1]

"Because religious beliefs are rooted in faith and understood to be an expression of faith, there is little expectation that they will abide by the constraints of observed reality. The content of faith can thus be held as true within the mind, sealed off more or less hermetically from the broader context of cognitive understanding and daily experience." Ben Abelow

[@albertreyes5298]

Hebrews 11:1-3 - Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2This is what the ancients were commended for. 3By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. The word "assurance" in this verse refers to a feeling of certainty or confidence. It is a conviction that something is true. Noah built the ark because of his faith in God. Even though he faced ridicule and disbelief from those around him (Hebrews 11:7). Imagine building his boat on land and without the sea. He will really be rediculed. He was branded as crazy by those around him.This teaches us that faith involves trusting in God's Word and following His instructions, even when others do not understand or agree. ben abelow the expression of faith always abide of observed reality. The faith in God is always broader than the context of cognitive understanding of man. 2Timothy 3:16-17 - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

[@rjgood1]

He describes the belief in God as abnegation of intellect. He also states his belief that if given enough time we will eventually be able to explain extremely complex emergences with a logical scientific answer. That may or may not be but that belief, or put another way, faith, that we will arrive at an answer seems no more or less an abnegation of intellect than believing in a supernatural force.

[@Tom_Quixote]

This just seems to be a word game about the meaning of the word "belief", which can mean different things in different context.

[@jamesjordan5214]

In all my comments on religion, it should be noted that I never capitalize the word god, thereby never lending credence to something that does not exist and therefore regarding it as not worthy of comment in any discussion.

[@TBOTSS]

+James Jordan I will translate your comment for other posters. "I have no arguments for atheism. WLC, John Lennox and others are handing prominent atheists their intellectual arses time after time. Therefore for my self esteem I will go nanananana to any argument. If I actually listen to an argument I might learn something. so I will not listen".

[@jamesjordan5214]

TBOTSS What can you learn about of something that does not exist? Would a discussion on the existence of the tooth fairy bring to light any iota of knowledge? Use your brain to think sensibly with, not ruminate on nonsense.

[@TBOTSS]

+James Jordan Ah reduce to the tooth fairy. A.C. Grayling tried that with William Lane Craig and got eaten alive. The debate was so one sided that Grayling lied (he said that it never happened) and blamed it on his memory when the debate surfaced. Dawkins (the man who shits himself when ever William Lane Craig comes to Oxford, as well as having his arse handed to him by John Lennox and Rowen Williams) did the same after Rabbi Botech humiliated Dawkins in a debate. Dawkins pretended it did not happen right up until the time the audio was released. Lennox, Craig, Plantinga and so on, have all heard the tooth fairy line before and have demolished the intellectual pigmies who think that it is an argument.

[@jamesjordan5214]

I would gladly debate any religionist and revel in reducing them to their evolutionary beginnings as slime mold.

[@rossini55]

+TBOTSS OK you don't like to tooth fairy, lets choose Zeus, or Vishnu or Krishna. The argument still stands. I saw a debate recently and William Lane Craig got his arse handed to him by Hellenists when asked to prove that Zeus and the dodecatheon don't exist. He couldn't even do it hahaha!!! You and WLC are just atheists who will find out that the Gods DO exist when you are strapped to the side of a mountain while a giant eagle eats your entrails everyday for ETERNITY! Then you will believe!! But it will be too late for you! Bwaahaahhaa!

[@ingenuity168]

Yes, this is a true atheist.

[@colindowson7615]

Disorder or Chaos is unstable,Nature strives for stability,hence matter emerged! Beyond that,we simply don't know why energy and matter exist at all,but that ignorance doesn't prove God!!

[@bonnie43uk]

I agree with Peter Atkins, we Taureans are generally right about these things, Robert Lawrence Kuhn came across as a typical Aquarian with his questions.

[@Chrisplumbgas]

bonnie43uk ok you believe in zodiac signs not God?

[@SagaciousEagle]

Given the benefit of the doubt that God exists, how do you know which one is the right one?

[@ManForToday]

How do you know who is the right suspect? How do you know which is the right political persuasion? How do you know which is the right philosophical or scientific position? It’s the same reasoning process. Simply investigate each one appropriately and figure it out.

[@sefaaydemir8657]

This "Explainism" of the good professor doesn't sit well with me because it puts forward the notion that "If there was a Creator, they wouldn't have made the workings of the universe so clear, rational and comprehensible to us. We wouldn't be wondering and learning, amazed at nuance; but we would be basking in our nebulous ignorance due to incomprehensibility of the universe." , which is just silly. The existence of a Creator is still an extremely valid topic to ponder, and a discussion to have. Because despite his outright denial, I bet 10 bucks that Peter Atkins still contemplates a Creator's existence, perhaps every day.

[@cliveadams7629]

No it isn't, there's no creator and no discussion worth having. I'll see your 10 bucks and raise you 1,000.

[@dannyleo4791]

I'm agnostic. I'm not sure why he is so sure they're isn't a god though.

[@AJD09FB]

Presumably, the lack of even a shred of evidence for such an entity?

[@johnlovestosing04]

Danny Leo It’s because he thinks he’s wise, but he can’t see the most simplistic things regarding God and his own existence. He is prideful.

[@Pheer777]

I think he sees it as a sort of insult to the scientific process, even if it's a valid theory. The fact it was born out of wishful thinking, in his mind, immediately grants it a second class status.

[@samuelarthur887]

A problem with Atkin's thinking is that while it relies on/uses reason (Oxford Dictionary defines reason as ' a cause', 'justification' - that's, logical progression: this leads to that, to that, to that, etc.) - He abandons this (reason) when it comes to the universe or DNA, or life. That's probably not the most noteworthy challenge with Atkin's thinking, it's the denigration of philosophical criticism which tests truth-claims for rigour.

[@whade62000]

Samuel Arthur Certainly you could not have heard that out from this discussion? If you think it is relevant to this topic still, that statement could certainly use a little more clarification.

[@rossini55]

+Samuel Arthur I didn't get that impression from this interview. But even if he did, as you say 'abandon reason', this is the basis for religious argumentation defined. Religion uses faith, which is the excuse people give when they DON'T have good reasons.

[@samuelarthur887]

Atkinson uses the logic of cause and effect until it comes to the universe. He "believes" the universe came from nothing. He rejects the value of philosophy. He adopts faith, without knowing he has and engages in philosophy without knowing he has. Philosophy can be critical for assessing the validity of truth-claims.

[@rossini55]

Samuel Arthur So do you agree that believing things 'by faith' is not a good way of knowing?

[@Chrisplumbgas]

I think the interviewer is using this guy to affirm his belief in God.

[@jamesnordblom855]

Has anybody considered that we might simply have to re-define our understanding of what God is. Why couldn't It be a much higher and older intelligence that has observed and used the universe far longer than we. Perhaps It includes us in It's observations and possibly even interacts in some way. It isn't the creator of the universe, but It certainly is a Higher Power. There is Something, folks, or we wouldn't be arguing about it all the time.

[@alexandracalistru7433]

He's too big to be grasped with a human mind. But we are free to try.

[@cristopher.ah.]

innerlocus Hahaha :) ...another irrelevant objection...

[@alexandracalistru7433]

innerlocus Really? Wow, you are so smart.

[@jamesnordblom855]

Masoume Shagerdi I agree Masoume, that believing is more rational. My concern is that my "religious" beliefs have been completely thrown to the wind. So...though I believe with all of my heart....I seek to understand exactly what It is that so captivates my spirit. Why do I have a spirit at all? Why am I so drawn to understand That which has been part of me all of my life? That is what I seek to answer. I don't believe that any religion on the planet has the answer because I fear they will never ask the right questions or even permit question at all. But, there is Something........

[@alexandracalistru7433]

You weren't being honest, you were just parading your 5th grade knowledge in front of people you know nothing about and trying to be funny. Next time you want a serious conversation, stop acting like a child. My little cousin can make objections such as yours. Lel, what do you know about about "my god" and my beliefs? Nada. Keep being "honest" and supposing.

[@indiefemmeteam8385]

What are the specific fallacies? Ten minutes - didn't name one. The supernatural is incomprehensible to him and an abnegation of the intellect? ... ThasiT?

[@mjl7810]

Reminds me of Psalm 14:1

[@adejokeloye]

You are right

[@wilpertz]

Aspirations! John Cage talks about aspirations in “Lecture on the Weather”.

[@micc6462]

Zero evidence means zero evidence a hunch a deep feeling an inclination sorry simply not evidence

[@Chrisplumbgas]

Intellectual pride and ignorance come before the fall. The claim of being some great scientific thinker, with the same data as his counterparts, and then coming to a different and opposing conclusions, and then calling everyone elses conclusion stupid, with no counter arguments, makes him appear, well, more stupid.

[@gavinhurlimann2910]

Chris White: Well said.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Chris Wright He isnt pompous.. read his beautiful Books...all Religions can easily be shown false..God has no explicatory power!

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Gavin Hurlimann He isnt pompous.. read his beautiful Books...all Religions can easily be shown false..God has no explicatory power!

[@WimbledonEngland]

'they MUST all be fallacious BECAUSE THERE IS NO GOD'. and then he calls the believer ignorant. he is begging the question by assuming what is open to debate: whether or not god exists.

[@mycount64]

crap I thought he was debating the nonexistence of the tooth fairy or santa clause or easter bunny... oh wait he is just under a different label god.

[@wulphstein]

There must be a God. Afterall, how do you explain how we got here?

[@supershipsupernaut758]

You think your way through problems? Then think your way through evolution. Its not a science, there is no math behind it, is that an abdication of your intellect?

[@snoopster77]

Assert that God does not exist in order to declare that all arguments for the existence of God are fallacious. Oh the irony.

[@JeffreyLiss0]

Yes, that was priceless. From there it was one blithe wave of hand after another. In other words, standard atheist drivel.

[@snoopster77]

Yeah, he states "can you detect the fallacy". Yes Peter, I can.

[@bobs182]

Simon, perhaps you can think of a non fallacious argument for god.

[@MioszMichaowski]

I think it was a warranted assertion - there's no proof or even a shred of a good reason to assume there is a "god" (by the way, which god, how do you define it etc.?). We don't (and hadn't) go about making medicine, calculating marsian probe trajectories or theorising black holes with asserting god's existence at the gate. Not one theory (and its practical implications) required to have god asserted anywhere. Why should we make an exception for the origins of the Universe? Is it because the last gap that a god can hide in? We didn't need god thus far - we had proposed theories and accepted those that explained our observations. No god was ever needed, because it's an empty word in terms of content/information. Also, all arguments for the existence of god are fallacious since there is no proof or reason for god in the first place. God/god is always just a prosthesis for saying "I don't know", so let's put a magic being there. Those arguments are always build like this: "How do you explain this and this? Oh, you can't! So it proves that it must be God/god". If you say that god/God created the universe, then show the evidence for your claim and explain it. If you want to assert god, then surely you can put forward a hypothesis that would describe god and what should we look for in our observations that would prove it/him and what would disprove him/it as a theory, right?

[@paultorbert6929]

i was under the impression that you have to possess Faith/Belief that GOD exists...... so, he lacks Faith..... how does that harm me and my Faith ????? his lack of faith cant eliminate GOD. we can ALL have personal faith...... in a way, we ALL Do...........................

[@SuperLeonti]

poor peter!

[@templarseries]

There is no god, just listen to Shermer at Oxford.

[@emmanueloluga9770]

This is Atkin just polemicizing about the scientists who believe in GOD lol

[@JustAnswers359]

First, theorizing the beginning of existence laws does not justify them. That's because mathmatically, there is no number that cannot have 1 added to it except infinity. Even if you rationalized infinity, you would still have to answer why infinity instead of phi (or nothing) . So trying to catch God through leads and science has been proven useless and impossible. Second, saying morality is an emergent survival phenomenom still does not explain why it is there. It's rather the answer to why you survived to develop emotional intellegence and cognition for just morality. Also, if all humans settled with no afterlife, evil would conquer the world. Who the heck said humans on their own are that great and just to each other? Most of the world who lived in adverse conditions would sientifically, physically and mentally have no option but to be evil to each other to want to survive. Mr Peter is talking out of his tiny-minded first world ass

[@MioszMichaowski]

I'm not a mathematician, but my mathematician friend introduced me to the Hilbert paradox, which shows there are various types of infinities like in the infinity hotel thought experiment: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i5uWkH6noK5skNE. Therefore you can add "1" to infinity and have a set of infinity +1, which is bigger than the initial infinity. "Second, saying morality is an emergent survival phenomenom still does not explain why it is there" - of course it does, but you have to understand that Evolution doesn't have a mind of its own and it doesn't plan towards a goal. The gene's goal is to duplicate/pass on thus surviving. History shows that evolution is not a perfectly linear process. There were dead ends, new beginnings and so on. We can observe "progress", but primitive organisms are still around today and doing well (like viruses for example). The mistake you're making is assuming an anthropocentric perspective and projecting it onto the natural world. Back to morality. We observe morality in animals and the reason for its existence is simple: it improves the chances of survival for animals living in herds. Just like hunting together is more efficient and effective for the survival of the group so is moral behaviour. " if all humans settled with no afterlife, evil would conquer the world" - that's so stupid that I won't even comment on it.

[@rlittlejohn2772]

A nation so preoccupied with prejudice that artist were unable yo use their natural birth names.

[@carmelpule6954]

Morality is all based on having enough sensors with a sensitivity strong enough to feel pain and pleasure in oneself, then having a brain developed enough to process the thought that pain in any form should not be projected to other people while if one can give some pleasure or enjoyment to others would be the best philosophy of life when it comes to people living together. That is the basics of morality. Unfortunately, nature and evolution being what it is not everybody can feel pain and pleasure with the same intensity and there are handicapped people who went through some unfortunate incident where they ruptured their spine and they have no feelings in their lower part of their body and so they cannot feel the heat and they could easily get burnt while a normal person with sensitive heat sensors would pull away from his leg. People who are born handicapped of physical and mental sensors to detect absolute pain or pleasure like people with different IQ or different performances at schools and universities well they have to be told of the existing morals and way of life, by other people who sense it. That is basically the situation and religions and education are a case where handicapped people void of physical and mental sensors to feel pain would not be in a position to learn and feel by themselves and so they would find it difficult to follow morals as written on a piece of paper or preached by others. I consider people like Hitler, Stalin, and their henchmen and others went the other way and it is surprising how an intelligent nation like Germany was gullible enough to believe Hitler whom I consider to be both physically and mentally sick and was devoid of any sensitive human sensors which measure pain to himself and to others. The problem with the real world these days is that for political correctness we are not allowed to say to a sick man," YOU are sick in body and mind!" and somehow he can take over in politics to distribute so much immorality through the pain inflicted on others. Being kind to handicapped people who cannot sense pain with their own human sensors, is not always advisable as one must suffer the consequences. It seems that some people reach management positions because of this drive-through lack of sensitivity to the pain of others and some even call it, " Personality and leadership!"

[@billygundum]

✅

[@jasongotera4755]

Atkins is so narrow-minded in his reductionism it's irritating to listen to him.

[@rossini55]

+Jason Gotera Reducing assertions to what can be demonstrated is a positive step. Cut away the fat.

[@buzzc5219]

Jason Gotera OMG you lose so hard....maybe you can sell pencils on the sidewalk

[@buzzc5219]

Jason Gotera I actually feel bad for you. Cheers!

[@michaelmckinney7240]

Atheists invariably argue against archaic definitions of God and not an evolved conception of God. He's totally lame in his explanation.

[@sparkyy0007]

If God exists, everything is evidence of his work of creation and here is no evidence the universe created itself from nothing.

[@larsthurgood811]

When will you stupid fucks stop embarrassing yourselves? medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/a-mathematical-proof-that-the-universe-could-have-formed-spontaneously-from-nothing-ed7ed0f304a3 kzbin.info/www/bejne/bXrQp5-JbbV_f9E

[@sparkyy0007]

@@larsthurgood811 Quantum vacuum fluctuations are only observed in a pre-existing universe where space time already exists. Some are now trying to say its a proof, but Krauss (the author of the idea) admits he made no claim. See reference below: blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/ Krauss: John… first, I didn't make any definitive claims.. and I get offended when people claim I make such.. second I tried to indicate how much has changed in the last 22 years.. that is the purpose of the book.. things are dramatically different than they were then, and I went through a very careful analysis to describe these changes..... the analysis of fluctuations in the CMB, the discovery that the universe is flat.. these are REAL empirical discoveries that both impact upon and add credence to many of our ideas. Indeed, even if what you referenced were true, it in no way challenges the OP.

[@larsthurgood811]

@@sparkyy0007 ''in a pre-existing universe where space time already exists'' ''here is no evidence the universe created itself from nothing.'' Sorry, what the fuck do you think was there before the ''universe''? Nothingness? If you seriously believe in the Ex Nihilo model (universe came from ''nothing''), you're clueless. Oh, btw, there is no evidence implying that God created everything either.

[@sparkyy0007]

@@larsthurgood811 1) Yes, nothing material. 2) clueless, you would need an argument to make that claim...adhoms don't count. 3) The entire universe is evidence of the metaphysical. Naturalism proves 2 things, matter cannot be eternal without experiencing entropic heat death and matter cannot be created or destroyed by any physical process.

[@larsthurgood811]

@@sparkyy0007 You know what, you're even more stupid than I thought. ''1) Yes, nothing material.'' Totally ignoring mass/energy conversions, I see... 2) clueless, you would need an argument to make that claim...adhoms don't count.'' kzbin.info/www/bejne/hH_HqKdnnN5orq8 < this guy explains it simply. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJjTp3auebFqp5Y < Sean Carroll's explanation. Listen from 5:11 for the actual subject. factmyth.com/factoids/the-universe-is-mostly-empty-space/ It may shock you, but Stephen Hawking was wrong about that ''there was nothing before the Big Bang.'' ''3) The entire universe is evidence of the metaphysical. '' 🤣Nothing is the evidence of the metaphysical. ''Naturalism proves 2 things'' Naturalism suggests that universe can be explained by natural laws & it disregards supernatural/spiritual claims. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. ''matter cannot be eternal without experiencing entropic heat death'' 1) That is only relevant for isolated systems. 2) Matter can convert into energy, which can also convert back into matter, and so on through the eternity. ''matter cannot be created or destroyed by any physical process.'' You just said matter would experience entropic heat death (like that would ''destroy'' it) and then you said it cannot be destroyed. Going by your logic, if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then I can safely assume that the matter is everything, it is eternal & it has always exited (although having no basis, it would still be stronger than your retarded claim that God is eternal & has always exited, for at least we can observe matter but not your imaginary friend.) Matter is not a conserved quantity, but ''mass'' is. Matter can be easily created or destroyed (from and to energy) by purely physical processes (i.e particle accelerators) but mass is conserved. Seriously dude, either get a brain or make some research.

[@tonybklyn5009]

Atkins - What a nasty, arrogant, pompous, close-minded, benighted fool. Dr. Kuhn should have countered Atkins somewhat. He seemed to smile & nod in acquiescence. A poor entry in the series.

[@iankelly6632]

#evolution did it 🤫

[@Thewonderingminds]

7:07 // No prelife, no after life, ??? Look at a single wheat seed of sow and harvest cycle, then explain in scientific basic terms why the human life cycle of consciousness, should be any different?

[@joehinojosa8314]

Reason,logic,rationalism are GOOD in certain contexts. But we DONT actually Live life 100 percent logically. For example I like buttered popcorn BETTER than caramel. Do I have any logical syllogisms to DEFEND this? No. In the same way I prefer the God theory ,that the universe has an ultimate goal towards Deity, rather than just ultimate destruction.

[@darkknightsds]

This guy seems rather closed-minded

[@jlinus7251]

I feel like he did himself a disservice by dismissing the idea of god. Like he doesn't prove god doesn't exist by just saying he doesn't. That's like a theist saying god exists because. From an agnostic perspective I feel like both sides don't give any real points. This is why I'm prepetually on the fence😑

[@johnlovestosing04]

Jlinus Atheism has no resolution for the condition of the human heart and human needs for meaning. Atheists steal from believers in order to justify their world view but have no logical reason why it matters to do anything significant. Your heart yearns... you need meaning in life. Only God can remedy that.

[@veharikrishnan1883]

if i say that i can fly, it's my responsibility to prove it. there is no way you can prove that I can't fly.

[@karimtabrizi376]

See a physician good point

[@MikeJunior94]

The God of the gaps objection is a fallacy itself. Just replace God with nature and you can say a naturalist is not justified in coming to conclusions that has nature doing something in the past, simply by sayin: "nature of the gaps!"

[@cristopher.ah.]

innerlocus Hahaha :) Just name "Santa Claus", "fairies", and "unicorns" and suddenly God doesnt exist... So predictable from atheists...

[@cristopher.ah.]

innerlocus Yes, is so obvious :)

[@cristopher.ah.]

innerlocus If God exists (conditionally), then God is the source of all life... If God exist and you reject God, you reject life, if you reject life, you die... If you die, you dont exist anymore... If God exist, to know God is a benefit for ourselves...

[@cristopher.ah.]

innerlocus You are totally right, if god does not exist then I lose my life... But God DOES exist, there are many reasons to think that, so I dont lose my life. Now, if you have a real reason to justify why God doesnt exist, maybe we will agree...

[@MikeJunior94]

innerlocus "Anyone lets say a girl friend who says I must love and respect them or they will hurt me, would be considered a codependent trying to be fulfilled through another person." Right, and if you would pay any attention to what theologians have to say you would know that that is a straw man...

[@slamee100]

These God deniers, who deny that their Creator exists, can spend their whole lives that God gave them, denying God, until they all drop dead, and God their Creator IS STILL THERE. So what is it that they are trying to accomplish other than their own eternal condemnation? ALL who are reading this: Accept JESUS CHRIST as your SAVIOR in a prayer to God TODAY, BEFORE YOU DIE AND IT'S TOO LATE FOR YOU. Come as you are, RIGHT NOW a sinner ( we ALL are ) in need of a SAVIOR, BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. BELIEVE that JESUS CHRIST died on the cross to pay for your sins and resurrected from the dead three days later and later ascended back into heaven so that you could have eternal life with Him and He is coming back. Tell this to God in a prayer. Pray to God and ask Him to forgive your sins Repent which means to turn toward God and away from sin and sinful life styles like unbelief Read the Bible and pray to God everyday Be a follower of Christ, a CHRISTian, accept Him as your SAVIOR and learn about His characteristics in the Bible in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. ALWAYS BE THANKFUL FOR JESUS

[@sabin1166]

Your going to drop dead someday, and you ain't coming back, ever!! God is an cosmic asshole, invented by ignorant, superstitious goat herder's. Stop wasting your time here.

[@Patrick77487]

Room 101 grad. Poor fella.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

Another priest of scientism holding double standards and making huge faith claims as if they were fact.

[@cliveadams7629]

Name one. Just one will do. I can wait.

[@TaeKenDo]

Atkin's was Destroyed in his debate with W.L. Craig and looked like a fool.

[@kst68dog]

well of course for anyone who believes in religious nonsense it would look that way, however us with actual brains that can see through your religious nonsense think not!

[@TaeKenDo]

@@kst68dog and anyone like you who resorts to ad hominems as a reply, shows how weak-minded people like whoever you are, are...loll go away, no time for dim wits with nothing to say.

[@kst68dog]

@@TaeKenDo lmao so sorry godboy

[@TaeKenDo]

@@kst68dog your mommy's calling, run !! lmao

[@kst68dog]

@@TaeKenDo unfortunately its you that has the childlike view of the world godboy

[@jamalbusnaina8001]

There are strong logical arguments for god that do not rely on the fact of ignorance. What I see here, Science IS the god of gaps for Mr. Peter. I didn't hear him logically argues for the belieft that science is capable of explaining everything other than by attacking others' psychological health.

[@Chrisplumbgas]

He is too woke to have to worry about any evidence for his claims.

[@sabin1166]

@@Chrisplumbgas Got any evidence for your claim?

[@sabin1166]

@Chris Manzi Which means you're probably the most arrogant christian making comments here.

[@FusionRider85]

Isn't this the guy that William Lane Craig wiped the floor with in a debate over God's existence?

[@jamesjordan5214]

As Peter says, there is no god, so discussion is totally unnecessary. Substitute the tooth fairy for a god and the question is not only moot but logically useless. Why debate something that does not exist?

[@andrewsvega2023]

+James Jordan Because there are still billions who believe in the tooth fairy

[@joshheter1517]

James Jordan because that begs the question.

[@jamesjordan5214]

Josh Heter The mind begs, but reality knows better.

[@joshheter1517]

Uh, sure.

[@jamesjordan5214]

Josh Heter Let's see your imaginary god. Bet you can't do it.

[@jan-peterschuring88]

The man is deeply locked into his limited paradigm.

[@jan-peterschuring88]

導引頭真相 yes on a post on Dawkins I made the following comment that try’s to articulate the blindness of the materialist mindset and worldview. What Dawkin’s worldview offers is dogma and blind conviction of a different sort. It is equally unimaginative and comes up severely short in giving a true description of our ontological landscape. Is everything a purposeless happenstance of molecules randomly interacting.? Is this experience of existence caused by brain chemicals to give us a good feeling in our mechanical flesh brain...as per Daniel Dennet’s “illusionary” consciousnesses...and all this the exquisite end result of random evolutionary processes? If you affirm that worldview-instead of one that has a teleological underpinning...is it in any way less astounding? In this scenario...you as a conscious biological entity living in a beautiful habitable planet in a hospitable universe...are you not the result of mind boggling good luck and in a very true sense a statistical miracle? Is that astounding result not somehow *Devine* in a very real deep sense..even without any metaphysical ontological explanation? Perhaps neither the physicalists nor the dogmatic theists should be so arrogantly confidant in their positions. A non-biased look into our ontological reality by quantum mechanics can change everything. It is full of mystery....a perfect stage for sentient life and even conscious co-creators. It contains action at a distance... something science is observing, but not explaining - that particles can move in concert over great distances through some unknown mechanism that exceeds the speed of light. Scripture calls creation a great dance and says that what we see is made of things we can't see. I have no doubt that hiding in its tumultuous pages are jewels of ancient shamanic insights on creation that keep pace easily with science and even exceed it. Maybe hard religious sovereignty doctrines are leftovers from the deterministic clockwork science era. Both things rendered us as disempowered pawns.

[@kefrenferrer6777]

This guy has the most clsed and reducted mind mascaraded by "scientific tought",

[@MegaAugieDoggie]

This lacks the spiritual dimension and leading atheist phycisists are admitting there is another force, a creator, set in in motion from nothing

[@MioszMichaowski]

? Woah, what is a "spiritual dimension"? What physicists admit there is "another" (supernatural?) force? Not one scientist uses magical thinking in his science, that's why science works and produces actual results.

[@anthonyjames5474]

So sick of the lies. Evolution is a total fraud. Show one example of a species changing to another. You have nothing but lies. Disgusting.

[@joegeorge3889]

There is no god period

[@johngonzalez5722]

U R SO RIGHT, JOE !

[@jessebryant9233]

Let's count the fallacies and examine some of the other content of this video... *1. Strawman* (aka, God of the Gaps) - Seriously, who is making that argument? *2.* Atkins does what so many do, he defaults to a kind of *'nature of the gaps'* argument, due to his... *3. Circular reasoning?* Atkins is a naturalist, but he doesn't know that is true, he merely assumes it is true and uses that assumption to tell others they are wrong. He does not have good scientific reasons for believing that everything could have come from nothing all by itself... like magic! *4. Equivocation* - Using the term 'evolution' in two different ways in the same conversation. *5.* He also assumes that *evolution (in the Darwinian sense)* is true, but there is no empirically verifiable scientific evidence that so much as suggests that such fundamental changes in living things are ever possible. He believes that it is true; he cannot prove that it is true. *6.* While not a fallacy, Atkins seems to be ignorant of the historical fact that it was the theists who gave humankind scientific inquiry in the first place, and that for very good reason! ... *7.* Again, not a fallacy, but declaring those who don't share your faith that "nature did it" to be mentally ill ("visit a psychiatrist"?) is not an argument. That's more like an *ad hom* attack... (He seems to be ignoring known laws of science, basic math, and simple logic.) *8.* Even if we accept his un-argued assertion that morality is some kind of emergent property (it isn't), that hardly means that we are somehow bound to it - nor does it explain why literally nobody does adhere to it all the time. It also means that good and evil, right and wrong, are not real things - which means that they are not part of his naturalistic view of the world. _Atkins is being neither rational nor consistent... and certainly not scientific!_ *9.* Survival value ≠ morality or ought. *10.* Atkins is a clever and intelligent man... And yet he still believes in the magical power of nothing generating an orderly, rational universe and then accidentally generating living things that are capable of comprehending the natural world. I think one would rightly call that... FAITH! And blind faith to boot! Sadly, by the time Atkins is compelled to admit that God is God, it will be "a bit late"... (Hebrews 9:27)

[@sparkyy0007]

Exactly. Can Atkins really believe most of the worlds greatest thinkers and 65% of Nobel prize winners are either complete imbeciles or in need of a psychiatrist. The unmitigated arrogance of some atheists. That fact alone should make any intelligent man consider his bias as in Richard Feynman's words: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool."

[@rationalsceptic7634]

sparkyy0007 Read his beautiful Books! Most Scientists are Sceptics..the Bible is historized Fiction..so easy to show that! Evolution has millions of facts..God doesn't God explains nothing!

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Jesse Bryant Read his beautiful Books! Most Scientists are Sceptics..the Bible is historized Fiction..so easy to show that! Evolution has millions of facts..God doesn't God explains nothing!

[@jessebryant9233]

@@rationalsceptic7634 *"READ HIS BEAUTIFUL BOOKS!"* What is beautiful about them? *"MOST SCIENTISTS ARE SCEPTICS."* Did someone say they weren't? And yet so many are ardent supporters of the magical Big Bang, the miraculous abiogenesis, and the anti-scientific Darwinian mythology. (Or maybe they just claim to because they fear being punished for dissenting?) *"THE BIBLE IS HISTORIZED FICTION... SO EASY TO SHOW THAT!"* Then please do so! *"EVOLUTION HAS MILLIONS OF FACTS."* Give me 3 that you personally find compelling - involving empirically testable scientific evidence. *"GOD DOESN'T."* God has literally ALL of the facts, while you cannot be absolutely certain that you have any of them! *"GOD EXPLAINS NOTHING!"* Actually, your naturalistic faith not only explains nothing, it asserts that everything magically came from nothing! And any attempt to defend your foolish faith, only begs the question! What a predicament!

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Jesse Bryant They are beautiful because they contain facts that have inspired 1000s of Students around the world..and those who want to learn about the real world! Quantum Mechanics and Relativity were called Magic once..now they accepted by intelligent people! No Cosmologist has ever said reality came from nothing..unless God is nothing.. because that claim too has no explicatory power either: Faith is belief without evidence..mocking Science when it pushes God back is irrational and disingenuous! Religion doesnt explain anything.. except Human Beings are easily deceived! God is irrefutable.. Science isnt.. Science deals with testable claims and evidence..it is probable,provisional and progressive..not Absolute Truth as Theism claims: Science can't prove anything only Maths does that! Ever wondered why no Theist has ever won a Fields Medal for proving God or a Nobel Prize for finding God?? At best, you only have Agnosticism! The Burden of evidence is on the Theist who wants some Sky God for solace or purpose, who doesnt know the difference between historized Fiction and fact: On Being: A scientist's exploration of the great questions of existence www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B005LNKUEM/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_pFwKEbYRESF4E en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology kzbin.info/www/bejne/bam5c5-art6ShdE kzbin.info/www/bejne/q33GfGaLpZ2tbcU kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6jClIGFg82bgas kzbin.info/www/bejne/g2LGkHqids-pr5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/a4SbY2Z8mN92Zs0 kzbin.info/www/bejne/l4ark62MZbifeJo. infidels.org/library/modern/quentin_smith/atheism.html godisimaginary.com/ Gospel Fictions www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B002I61F3A/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_8qwKEb7HK9GYZ Who Wrote the Gospels? www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0965504727/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_dswKEbAC9K3H1 The Bible Against Itself Why the Bible Seems to Contradict Itself www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0965504751/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_TswKEbB80ZPV6 kzbin.info/www/bejne/h6Ktp6KLbN2no7c kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3yTdIyQq8Z9gtk

[@krisc6216]

Evolution analogy: So there's a ship on the ocean, with an engine. The ship wasn't designed. It just evolved for a million years from elements of it's environment, randomly put together, no purpose involved. And suddenly the engine does a mysterious magic trick, we can't witness, measure or explain and Wooosh... there is a captain! The captain is puzzled, but he thinks for while and looks around and concludes: "I'm a ship!" Chances that life ever could exist and evolve on this planet are ridiculously small. There is a bigger chance that a tornado rushes through a field filled with thousands of aeroplane parts, and leaves behind an assembled Boeing 747, than an orchid manifesting itself out of dirt. Imagine that. Like the great Carl Sagan said: "if you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe" and also: "the beauty of a living thing is not the atoms to go into it, but the way those atoms are put together".

[@RadioactiveSand]

Lol, you are an idiot.

[@jessebryant9233]

"Maybe it's comprehensible once you're dead"? Oops! _Care-fool_ Mr. Atkins! And... it's a bit too late after you're dead? Gee, that's kind of what the Bible says! (Heb. 9:27) Incomprehensibility ≠ non-existence, does it?

[@blamtasticful]

Jesse Bryant *yawn*

[@ampm9771]

Peter Atkins must be awarded the most laughable cartoon character. What a clown.

[@martinrag2573]

indeed. what a clown. And this guy is an Oxford professor. Can't believe it. These old-school professors and scientists have to die out, and then the real rodeo begins. I can't wait.

[@mycount64]

i'll be glad when all scientists are tortured into conversion and crucified upon refuting their lies.

[@mycount64]

+martin rag burning the books and universities to the ground should usher the awaiting age of light quicker I am sure.

[@martinrag2573]

+AW Crowe did i say we should burn the books? There is a lot of atheistic-scientists who i do respect. E.g. Craig Venter. They do a lot of great work. But, among other things, i can't ignore the fact, that our brain's image processor interprets RGB data. In 21st century, in Era of supercomputers and advanced engineering, i can't accept when some biologist says, that unguided natural processes assembled an image processor capable of processing a data rate of 10Mbit/s and capable of processing RGB data input to interpret colors. I regret, i heard a lot from biologists which makes no sense, but this is too much. www.brainhq.com/brain-resources/brain-facts-myths/how-vision-works www.livescience.com/904-eye-transmits-brain-ethernet-speed.html +

[@TorianTammas]

+martin rag We do not have Hindu Physics or Mormon Physics or Methodist Physics. We have only one physic and the scientific method. It does not matter what kind of believe system a good scientist has as long as he uses the scientific method well.

[@mycount64]

hey i'll believe any invisible god you show me a picture of.

[@gerardo2360]

...or very little, he claims there is no God and no afterlife and yet calls himself a scientist? This guy wouldn't recognize God if it were as plain as the nose on his face. Belly laugh for the day......

[@forgednotcast612]

All science does is decode God's creation . Science only knows 5% of all matter in our Universe. Lol

[@selvanambi6279]

If we find everything rest 95%. Scientists will run out of job. Science is self correcting, respects ideas of humans, u can change gravity found by newton and replace it with Einstein idea on gravity. Can u change a sentence in religious text. Can u??