The Best Argument for God's Existence - TruthCraft

[@diadhuitgaming]

We're multiplying.

[@getinthevan9958]

9:25 you confirmed my argument!!! The philosopher you were crediting says yeah not everything has to have a cause. So why does the universe have to have one too??? I believe in the Big Bang btw, plenty of evidence to currently support that theory, but the difference between my argument and this one is that I will willingly change my mind if there is a more conclusive argument to be made about the creation of the universe. However to flat out say that god is the simplest answer to life's greatest mystery kinda hits the wrong way, especially when the philosophers argument can be used against itself.

[@getinthevan9958]

2:34 flaw in this argument is that time isn't constant. Cause and effect are present in our universe, but without a universe, cause and effect could also, potentially, not exist. The flaws with theists is they look at the world around us and assume that everything has been the same forever. The universe is expanding at different speeds at different sections, completely uprooting our common understanding of space time. The difference is that science understands there are always flaws in an argument while religion shuns disagreement

[@getinthevan9958]

In conclusion to my rant. I'll say this: the 4 driving factors keeping religion relevant in the scientific era we reside in are as follows: 1: fear of change and being wrong 2: comfortable knowing you have the answers, life satisfaction 3: the human necessity to identify as part of a group 4: the inflated ego of the human mind accepting that they're the main character, contradictory of most religions themselves. I grew up catholic and became atheist when I woke up. The only differences between Greek mythology and modern religion is their concurrent following. If people stop believing in allah or Yahweh, do their accompanying religions become mythology? Why haven't there been any religious sightings of miraclework in the last thousand years? Why are churches institutions? Why do they demand power and influence if their primary purpose should be to inform? Why do most creationists have creationist parents? Religions are uniquely emotion-based, Shouldn't they be evidence-based? Let me know what you think.

[@TruthCraftYT]

Hi! I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts. There are a lot of them haha--I wish I had time to respond to each. Your overall points seem to address religion as a whole, which was not really the point of the video. In the future I plan to get into the nitty-gritty on religion and Christianity in particular. I hope you stick around so that we can dialogue about those points when they come up. I'm a big believer in simplicity and clarity, and while I know that many things in the world are complicated, oftentimes the right answer is the simplest one. At the very least, we certainly should not reject something because it is the simplest answer. I answered some of your other points in other replies, if you're interested in browsing through them.

[@loganmontague117]

Interesting points brought up here. I find it interesting how a misconception against God’s existence is how you can’t physically sense him, even though it seems if you could, that it would imply that he is limited to his creation, and therefore wouldn’t have the ability to create it, so it seems to make more sense that to be as powerful, all knowing, and omnipresent as God is, you wouldn’t be able to detect him directly with the senses given to us by him, unless he limited himself in some form.

[@ilonachan]

none of this makes sense. there are things that we can't "physically sense" and still have evidence they exist, god is just not one of them. If you do assume that god exists and has the power to make himself completely undetectable, fine (you'd still have to present a good reason for assuming that) ...but now you still have to grapple with the divine hiddenness thing. Also you don't in fact know that something contained inside the universe couldn't have caused the universe, because there might be weird timeloop shenanigans going on, you literally can't know.

[@loganmontague117]

@@ilonachanI’m not necessarily saying he has some “divine hiddenness”, I guess I’d compare my point to something like gravity or magnetism, we can see, feel, and calculate their effects even though we can’t literally see, taste, etc those themselves.

[@TruthCraftYT]

I think it's a good point. An omnipotent God would surely be able to cause us to sense him, but it's plausible to think that he could not be not be sensed by us according to our natural capacity, since he is of a different nature.

[@ilonachan]

@@TruthCraftYT but you believe he's omnipotent, right? then he COULD make himself be sensed by us, our "different nature" be damned. WHY DOESN'T HE? That's Divine Hiddenness, and if you don't see the problem with it, you need to think about it more. It's not that it's necessarily an argument against the existence of such a god per se, it's more that in combination with all the other claims Christianity makes it's ultimately a contradiction. Like the problem of evil. You'll need to let go of omnipotence, or omniscience, or omnibenevolence, or logic, and the latter you are NEVER allowed to do.

[@getinthevan9958]

3:13 "everything we do on this earth follows this line of reasoning" argument. Once again, a universe was never formed on earth. The simple answer is we don't know definitively what happened to create a universe. To say you have "earth logic" would make the aliens mock us.

[@peeb5101]

This is an arguement that makes tons of assumptions. There is so much we don't know for sure and we don't even know if our perception is objective. Anybody with any kind of slightly advanced base in modern physics/cosmology/astronomy can easily see countless holes covering this.

[@markpavel5552]

Can you please elaborate? I believe myself and others could greatly benefit in this conversation if you provide concrete examples of constructive criticism.

[@getinthevan9958]

7:24 ok so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Infinity is obviously a concept that has plagued mathematicians for centuries and the field of infinites is still hot. But just because our brains cannot comprehend a visual of infinity doesn't just mean we can't wrap our heads around these concepts. The scientists pouring thousands of hours into it seem to be just fine. Was physics also this same way until newton came?

[@ronwapossibly]

for something to exist it needs to occupy spacetime, i.e., it needs to occupy some amount of space for some amount of time. for something to start existing, there needs to be a time before it's existence. but as far as we know, the universe has existed for all of time. there was not a time before the universe. there's a finite amount of time that the universe has existed, but that's because there's a finite amount of time where time has existed, which is about 13.8 billion years. there's nothing before that. and i mean nothing. no space, no time, no gods or universe. there was simply non existence. the universe has existed for all of time, therefore, the universe doesn't necessarily need a cause. as for the absurdity argument, all three choices presented are pretty absurd to me. either the universe has existed for as long as time and wasn't caused, or it was caused by an infinite regression of causes, or it was caused by something that exists outside of space and time. no matter which way you slice it, it seems pretty absurd to me that we're even here in the first place. also, im not entirety sure if i just misunderstood something but i dont understand how the concept of infinity being absurd necessarily means that the universe began to exist. but i can admit that i might have just missed your point. anyways, not trying to tell you what you should believe in or anything, just wanted to give my thoughts.

[@ronwapossibly]

@elimbag5372 well, yeah kinda? numbers, logic, languages, etc dont exist in reality, they are abstract concepts we created to define reality. that doesn't mean we cant use them tho, that's literally why we created them. also patterns do exist, sorta. at least, some things we describe as patterns do exist in spacetime, like a checkers board.

[@RamenLlama]

@elimbag5372 You can't really prove that anything exists outside of your own perception. So their argument isn't wrong. That also means yours isn't wrong either.

[@ronwapossibly]

@elimbag5372 they're imaginary concepts we use to describe things, so no im not gonna admit that im wrong when im not.

[@ronwapossibly]

​@elimbag5372they are. that doesn't mean we cant use them, we created them for a reason. but outside of us they do not exist. they do not exist in reality, they are describing reality. trees exist but we gave them their name, yknow.

[@TruthCraftYT]

Hm, some of this may need to be the subject of another video. As the response to your comment showed, there is a debate here about what exists and what it even means for something to exist. As you may know, this is an ancient question going back at least to Plato and his world of "forms" or "ideas." The Middle Ages also saw a revival of this question from Nominalist philosophers and theologians. My point about the absurdity of infinite regress has more to do with the nature of matter as we know it. From a scientific perspective, there is nothing in matter (or in any observable phenomenon) that gives us reason to believe it could have existed eternally, since matter is not self-sustaining. It is more internally consistent to believe in a creator-God because by his very nature God is self-sustaining and eternal. Therefore there is no inherent absurdity there. Obviously that doesn't mean God does exist, simply that it is not rationally inconsistent as I believe the eternality of matter to be.

[@getinthevan9958]

8:36 let's say that everything you said up to this point is factual. The fact that god is the simplest answer to life's mysteries highlights religion's absurdism. Highlighted in biblical texts? That's because biblical texts were typically written, ready for this, a long time ago. These people did not write these scriptures with scientific knowledge or any scientific method or basis for testing a hypothesis. They wrote about what "visions" had come to them, about their "eyewitness" accounts of miracles. To reference a holy book in the creation of the universe creation is like asking a kid why they think the sky is blue. They might have a great idea, but you're right to be skeptical if they fabricate their evidence as they most likely went off observable characteristics. We didn't know anything before science, it was 100% guess work. These stories were written to give us answers, and now that we can observe our own answers, the guesswork of biblical works is irrelevant.

[@RamenLlama]

I don't believe a good argument is to base your main point off of one philosopher's interpretation and claim that any disagreements with it are legible to "run into absurdity". I respect the train of thought but I don't agree with that method of thinking. Feels closed-minded to immediately shut down any opposition and leave no room for others' perception. If this is the belief of the cosmological argument then I do not subscribe to it whatsoever. The way you presented it here is no more than saying "I believe it has reason, and therefore it is true," While I cannot confirm or deny the existence of a god/s, I do personally believe in the forces of the universe such as karma, coincidence, manifestations of positive/negative energies etc. Whether or not one considers those to be the will or creation of a god is not something I really care to factor into my own belief system - it makes no difference on my outlook. All that matters is I be a good person and treat people with love, respect and kindness, and to urge others to do the same. That's enough for me. I'm grateful to the universe that I exist, and if this "universe" does happen to be a god, then I'm grateful to it/him/her/them either way.

[@TruthCraftYT]

Thanks for your thoughts! I certainly don't think that we should shut down opposition, or disagree without careful thought. I am simply sharing the position I have come to after weighing the different options. If you or another person disagrees then I am glad to have further dialogue.

[@getinthevan9958]

4:04 yes, while there are rational causes for the world and universe, such as the Newtonian laws of physics and such, we were able to use the scientific method to identify those causes. If the scientific method can't test a hypothesis, there might be a problem with the question you're asking. It's the absurdism that there is some sort of mythical being (with zero hard evidence) that leads science away from, in your case, Christian mythology. We cannot use the scientific method to determine if any being such as this is remotely plausible, feasible, realistic, etc. Gravity can be tested, can be measured, can be recorded. Radiation, star formation, things we can observe, are fair game. Show me a planet forming with life in 6 days with 1 day of rest and then we can actually implement science in this argument.

[@getinthevan9958]

8:05 once again. You're using our universes rules to apply to a "time" (also which wasn't relevant because time might not have existed before the universe) "before" the universe. There was most likely an event to start the universe and to start the rapid expansion of space time. But to say without a shadow of a doubt that our knowledge of our current universe 110% applies to an event that predated the universe is equally as absurd as walking into a room and having your coffee filled.

[@ffgg-566g]

Cringe