"There is no evidence for God"

[@EatHoneyBeeHappy]

It's pretty obvious people mean that a lot of terrible little anecdotes and unfalsifiable claims don't add up to one good piece of evidence.

[@georgenorris2657]

Well some of the anecdotes are pretty good.

[@JesseSelbert]

@@georgenorris2657what’s the best one?

[@toby9999]

​@@georgenorris2657I have not encountered a good one.

[@HahaDamn]

most claims about the world that people make are unfalsifiable. Stop leaning on Popperian bullshit.

[@soleo2783]

​@@georgenorris2657 Anecdotes are evidence only for the original person, not anyone else.

[@adamwhite4858]

I think most people mean “no compelling evidence” when they say “no evidence”. Seems like delving into semantics when we say, “well there is bad, unconvincing evidence for a god, but it IS evidence!”

[@ryanthenormal]

I'm not even convinced that those incidental evidences stack due to their lack of compulsion.

[@mc-x4l]

A common argument used for god is "if an art is made by someone, then everything must be made by someone ", i.e. by god. If we will use the same logic for other things, we will get wrong conclusions. If an eagle flies, then everything must fly. If an apple is eatable, then everything must be eatable. If water satisfies thirst, then everything must satisfy thirst. If the Sun shines then everything must shine. And so on. We can't take a property of some object and attribute it to everything, and then we can't take property of an art (design) and attribute it to everything, the whole universe and say that it was made by god

[@dmon728]

I mean.. how can personal "spiritual" experience can be compelling evidence, when its not evident. Do you think Christians or Muslims believe Buddhists when they share supernatural experiences about reincarnation, multiple deities or whatever they believe in that contradicts their beliefs? of course they don't accept it as evidence, why should atheists ?

[@mc-x4l]

​@Nicholas Time I mean, everything isn't edible in the same sense as an apple is. Even if we take your understanding, then light is not edible, space and time are not edible, the Sun isn't edible, God and angels are not edible even if they eixst. Even if you try

[@eronpowell6008]

I’m not a philosopher so big caveat here, but my understanding is that in philosophy they don’t distinguish between bad and good evidence. That’s not how they analyze evidence. Something either is evidence for a proposition or it isn’t. There absolutely IS evidence for God. Even the best atheist philosophers like Graham Oppy agree with this. It’s not about whether evidence exists it’s how much that evidence persuades you. For most atheists, the response should be “I find the evidence against God more compelling than the evidence for God.”

[@Danny451]

Why doesn't this "omnipotent" god character just come down and settle this once and for all?

[@davidevans3223]

If you could see God you'd have no free will you wouldn't care about progress as you're not here long

[@shadowpriest2574]

He did 2k years ago.

[@kevh6948]

@@davidevans3223 you believe you have free will?

[@chrisgascoyne2958]

@@davidevans3223 Why would God care about us 'progressing'? Seems beneath an omnipotent, omnipresent, timeless, being.

[@Solutionsarejustcompromises]

​@@davidevans3223so? Whats the problem with that?

[@Ma55ey]

The thing that I find interesting when people say things like this is clear evidence of God, is why isn't that clear evidence of Zeus?? or Odin, or Ra, or quetzalcoatl, or Siva?? The list is endless. Why does the Christian god get all the credit??

[@samdg1234]

You > *"Why does the Christian god get all the credit??"* Let me guess - evidence means nothing to you. Else, how do you make this claim, that the Christian god gets all the credit?

[@dominickcastillo2419]

Most of the time when arguments are brought up to defend theism, they are only concerned with providing evidence of a monotheistic God. These arguments never claim to prove which particular religion or version of that God is true. For instance, the Kalam is used by several Christians in an attempt to prove that the universe has a cause, even though it was originally conceived by Islamic scholars. Alex made a video where he addresses this in greater detail: kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3itomh5btyosM0 For the record, I personally do not find the Kalam compelling. I'm just saying make sure you know what an argument is attempting to prove before you criticize it for not accomplishing what it never claimed it could. Also, it is worth noting that many theistic arguments (such as the argument from motion) attempt to prove the exitance of a single, infinite, all-powerful creator who is purely actual, lacks potential, is divinely simplistic, and cannot be divided or contained. This rules out polytheistic gods which do not meet these criteria. For the most part, these arguments, if successful, prove the existence of an all-powerful monotheistic god which greatly limits the number of religions that could be true.

[@gatlinogle1562]

-When people say that an argument is “clear evidence of God” they don’t mean the God of a singular religious sect. They simply mean it’s evidence of some sort of creator.

[@samdg1234]

@@gatlinogle1562 Even this athesit, kzbin.info/www/bejne/naCZnmCBg7qgfZY acknowledges (seemingly without knowing it) the reasonableness of God. He apparently thinks he got off the hook by calling Him a "special computer" If one is looking for the truth about God's existence, it seems good to begin with establishing His necessity before demanding His exact identity. God is necessary. Whether he be called a "Flying Spaghetti Monster", a "special computer" or any other identity. Was it Shakespeare who rightly declared "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

[@Uhdksurvhunter]

@@gatlinogle1562 That definitely depends. There are tons of religious people that would scoff at your suggesting that their evidence endorse Allah just as much as the Christian god and vice versa.

[@finleymorris04]

I think our standards of evidence and standards of a successful argument should be very high for a claim such as the existence of a higher power, even more so a god of a specific religion

[@martha-schalleck]

Why should there be no high standards of evidence for the claim that everything came from nothing for no reason?

[@johnendalk6537]

"No considering what's at stake, we should even lower it to the ground" -WLC

[@somethingeasy333]

@martha-schalleck Because that's not what people are saying. What the Big Bang model proposes (as far as I'm aware) is that we can account for things back to a certain point (a.k.a. the Big Bang), which is where the things we consider time and space began. It's incoherent to ask what came temporally before, because you're asking the question "What came before the very concept of 'before' made sense?" What came causally prior, well, I don't know. But just because I don't know doesn't lend any credence to another proposal that is not founded on any kind of empirical data or evidence beyond an ancient book. We do maintain our standards of evidence. But when nothing meets those standards, we don't go "well, this thing in this book which has both accurate and inaccurate claims written long before we knew much about the universe sounds true if I read it in a very specific way (which many people who have read the same book disagree with by the way) so let's accept it." We just say "I don't know, we may never know, but we'll try to figure it out."

[@martha-schalleck]

@@somethingeasy333 Whatever makes you happy to believe or not care about. It´s a free decision to want to search for God or not.

[@unduloid]

@@martha-schalleck Why should there be no high standards of evidence for the claim that some god exists for no reason?

[@GospodinStanoje]

Wow. I rarely hear something new on this topic. This is... amazing. I don't remember the last time I've been moved by a video. I haven't thought of cumulative arguments, ever. Thank you for your thinking and sharing these thoughts with us. Also you have very precisely described how people, Christians at least, think about the evidence/faith. I really don't say this lightly, but after watching you throughout the years, I genuinely think you are *the* sharpest mind I've ever heard speak. You don't have any aggression/resentment within yourself and you have honed the art of disagreeing with anybody and healthily pushing on those little points, without making it a fight or debate, but keeping the conversation within the realm of a true discussion imbued with mutual respect. That is truly remarkable. Thank you. Greetings from Serbia.

[@Magic_M_Hayashi]

I'm a theist, but I absolutely believe that Alex O'Conner is a brilliant, humble, and sincere seeker of truth. I also understand and respect his reasons for not being a theist, even though I disagree with him. If we could all be a little more like him, I honestly believe the world would be a better place.

[@ahgflyguy]

Hold on then. If cumulative augmentation can increase the credence we would give to the existence of a god, then it can also reduce that credence. Take for example the cast of Eric the god-eating penguin. I assert that Eric exists. And he eats gods, all of them. If whatever god at one time existed, it no longer exists, because it was eaten by Eric the god-eating Penguin, by definition of Eric as being god-eating. Now, if you want to say that Eric doesn’t exist, that’s fine, but whatever argumentation you use to say that he doesn’t exist will also apply to your god, equally as strongly. So however much your credence in your god’s existence, this argument about Eric will have reduced that credence. Because arguments against Eric’s god-eating nature / existence will work against a god’s existence equally as well, so by just that mechanism credence in Eric and whatever god should be equal (other arguments for a god may still apply only to a god). But Eric’s nature as being god-eating thus makes any god less likely to exist. So the net effect is this argument about Eric has reduced the believability of all god-claims. Thus, if argumentation about god-claims can increase our credence in the existence of a god, it can also decrease that credence, using the silliest of examples that do not reference the real world at all. Now, I’d you want to reference the real world, in that way, you can find evidence support argumentation against the existence of particular types of gods. For example, suffering means there is no god that is both benevolent and all-powerful.

[@Solutionsarejustcompromises]

@@ahgflyguy I for one welcome our new Penguin Overlord 🥳 hail Eric

[@ahgflyguy]

@@Solutionsarejustcompromises Eric the god-eating penguin is not an overlord. He will eat those, too, I’m told.

[@Solutionsarejustcompromises]

@@ahgflyguy hungry fellah 😮

[@misterocain]

Should we confuse "arguments for" with "evidence"? Also how do we gauge when "evidence" has exceeded 50?

[@HarryNicNicholas]

what evidence is there? this is new to me.

[@eronpowell6008]

Philosophers use evidence just to mean anything that justifies a belief. There is a difference between scientific evidence and philosophical/epistomological evidence. Arguments for are evidence in as much as those arguments are valid and sound.

[@Wertbag99]

" Also how do we gauge when "evidence" has exceeded 50?" - Subjectively. It's up to each individual to say whether they are convinced, and what convinces one person may not convince another.

[@eronpowell6008]

@@Wertbag99 exactly

[@eronpowell6008]

@@Wertbag99 we do this every day. When our wife tells us dinner is done we do this. Subjectively but we do.

[@davebowman760]

Alex is a better apologist for Christianity than Christian apologists

[@Insane_ForJesus]

Literally everything he said in this interview was said by other Christians before. If all you watch is Cosmic skeptic you would think that

[@Unnamed7964]

The evidence of god is insufficient

[@mkano7434]

I like your podcasts Alex, but i gotta say, i like your appearances at other channels more. Everyone can do a podcast where they are the ones guiding the conversation but you have a rare capability of anwsering questions insightfully which is very satisfying.

[@Knaan-ro6eo]

He’s such a brilliant guy

[@yoweedmofo19897]

I couldn't agree more. I think my favorite though has got to be the way he destroyed Piers Morgan on his own show, not letting himself be interrupted him and exposing the special pleading in the monarchists' apologia at every turn.

[@marcvanleeuwen5986]

Sorry Alex, even without listening further than 1:20, I can say that arguments do not alter the probability that some proposition is true. Arguments may convince you that some (known) evidence increases the likelihood you ascribe to a proposition, but all that the argument does is elucidate the connection; even then, the change of likelihood is caused only by the evidence, not by the argument.

[@Mere-Theism]

That's right, arguments are best viewed as formal methods of articulating the connection between some evidence and a target proposition. And that's exactly what theistic arguments do.

[@Narikku]

Prior probabilities are just knowledge assessments. To affect your knowledge is to affect the probability: it's the same thing.

[@goodquestion7915]

Wholeheartedly and wholebrainly 😀 agree. Superconcise and clear, kudos.

[@goodquestion7915]

What do you think about the proposed redefinition of "Evidence" I posted in the "comments" for this video?

[@goodquestion7915]

@Narikku so greatly put. One huge mistake I see made by all parties is to call "probability" to the subjective likelihood of guesses, shaky hypotheses, claims, arguments, and plain nonsense. We have to remember that probabilities are ALWAYS a statistical summary of proven facts (redundant for emotional effect).

[@stueyapstuey4235]

The problem with this framing of 'a cumulative case' is that it is essentially claiming you are able to argue a thing into existence. You can build successive notions that lower the probability of a thing existing or, not, and that probability can eventually be convincing to you. This does not - in any way - change the ontological status of the thing itself. Changing your own frame of reference as to 'what constitutes evidence' is not the same as arriving at definitive proof!

[@barnesen]

One has to ask why we keep asking about God. Even if a God exists, he's made it quite apparent that he is not interested in us.

[@maryamshahbaz9725]

If he exists than it's Him that made us keep asking about him which means he is interested.

[@darkking9528]

Your statement presupposes that God isn't interested in us, when the belief systems you're so casually dismissing hold the exact opposite view. In Islam, God is seen as the most merciful, most compassionate, and all-knowing. He has given us guidance in the form of the Quran, sent prophets to teach us, and even given us free will so that we can make our own choices. That doesn't sound like disinterest to me.

[@PROtoss987]

@@darkking9528 Nope, God's disinterest is not presupposed but derived from an obvious glance at our world. So God isn't interested in Japan, Australians before 1700 and everyone before Muhammad?

[@zverh]

It depends on how you define the word "evidence". It is usually defined as "good reasons" to believe, but this is vague. What counts as "good", some go a step further and qualify it further with _enough_ and make it "good enough". But even this is vague and subjective. What counts as good enough, and who gets to decide how good is good enough? It all boils down to the vagueness of language.

[@ajax1472]

Atheist: “There is no evidence for the existence of God. Belief in God is irrational.” Muslim: “That’s an interesting assertion. Before we continue, can I ask you, do you believe that you have rational faculties? In other words, do you believe you can reason?” Atheist: “Obviously. Any rational person would deny God. There’s simply no evidence.” Muslim: “Okay, great. So can I ask, how do you explain your rational faculties under atheism?” Atheist: “What do you mean?” Muslim: “Well, do you believe all phenomena can be explained via physical stuff? And do you believe that there is no supernatural?” Atheist: “Sure.” Muslim: “Physical stuff is just blind and non-rational. So how can rationality come from non-rationality? How can anything arise from something that does not contain it or have the potential to give rise to it? How can we form rational insights based on blind physical processes? In this light, how can you explain your ability to reason?” Atheist: “Well, we have a brain that has evolved.” Muslim: “Okay, and according to atheism an evolved brain is based on physical stuff too, no?” Atheist: “Yes, but our brains have evolved to be rational, because the more you know about the world the more likely you are to survive.” Muslim: “That’s not true; holding non-rational beliefs about the world can lead to survival too.” Atheist: “So what? We both assume reason to be true, so it’s not an issue.” Muslim: “Well, for me it isn’t. But under atheism your ability to reason does not make sense. Atheism has invalidated the very assumption that it claims to use to deny God. So it is absurd to be an atheist since atheism nullifies reason itself.” Atheist: “No, you have to prove God to me first.” Muslim: “That’s a cop-out, because your use of the word ‘proof’ assumes your ability to reason. However, you are not justified in making such an assumption because rationality is nullified under atheism. Rationality cannot come from non-rationality. From this perspective, atheism is irrational. However, rationality can come from rationality. This is why Islamic theism explains best why we can use our reason, as it came from the Creator Who is All Seeing, The-Knowing and The-Wise.

[@dmon728]

With religion you really need to start with "some" evidence before we go to enough, and no, "I heard a voice and saw a light" doesn't count as evidence, because its not evident to the rest of us.

[@Wertbag99]

@@dmon728 Surely it doesn't have to be evident to the rest of us? If evidence being an individual and subjective thing is the way it is, then that seems fine.

[@keithnicholas]

@@Wertbag99 no, not sure it is, I think evidence is when you have some facts and those facts lead to a particular conclusion to the exclusion of any other explanation. So even if you have some kind of personal experience, I think you can apply some robustness to it. The problem is if something is overwhelmingly emotional one tends to be not too critical. When you have this, you only have a part of what qualifies for evidence, you just have the fact that you experienced something quite intensely.

[@phoqueewe7230]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a new presidential candidate. You just talked circles around a circle. A logical fallacy looks to you for advice on how to be a better fallacy!

[@dillanklapp]

I think what people really mean when they say there is no evidence for God, is that there is no empirical evidence. The only “evidence” for God I’ve ever been exposed to are philosophical arguments, and I find these to be a particularly weak form of evidence.

[@baileybartley2463]

Change out God for morality and ask yourself if morals exist

[@stueyapstuey4235]

@@baileybartley2463 yeah -but there's empirical evidence for morals... lots of it.

[@baileybartley2463]

@stueyapstuey4235 morals are based on feelings that people have. There is no physical measure to morals therefore no moral facts

[@whitehavencpu6813]

@@baileybartley2463 the golden rule existed prior to gods and religion, plus was present simultaneously across different regions, even continents.

[@dillanklapp]

@@baileybartley2463 depends on what you mean by exist. Morality is a word used to describe a subset of human thought and behavior. So in that sense it does exist as a phenomenon. But I’m assuming you are asking if it exists objectively as some kind of abstract object or objective universal law. To that I would say no. Morality is subjective and based on humans action and opinion.

[@tjblues01]

Putting together bad evidence results in... bad evidence. Just like in 0x0=0.

[@elias8141]

So zero is a bad answer?

[@tjblues01]

@@elias8141 It means that cumulative bad evidence for god is still a bad evidence. "Zero" in not a bad answer. It is just an answer. Facts don't have feelings... We start with a hypothesis. Then we look for evidence that support it and *evidence that contradict it.* If we can't find any good evidence to support this hypothesis it means that it is wrong. If the hypothesis cannot be falsified - it means it has nothing to do with scientific method; In both cases we need to reject or modify this hypothesis and start over from the beginning. edit: typos

[@avishevin1976]

@@elias8141 Are you a theist?

[@elias8141]

@@avishevin1976 yes

[@elias8141]

@@RafalLabuda777 yeah but my answer is a one god and one is grea than nothing

[@triumphTLG]

Interesting that my favorite bit of conversation with Cameron is one where he barely says anything. He must have learned you can't be bad faith if you don't speak

[@daniel-panek]

Bingo ahahahahahaha

[@fuckamericanidiot]

So everything he says is in bad faith.....but then he chooses to say nothing because he knows that's not in bad faith. Interesting perspective. Why would someone who speaks in bad faith want to "learn" to act in good faith?

[@kkounal974]

​@@fuckamericanidiot He might be just intimidated, he doesn't have to want to learn anything. To me he just seems like a grifter.

[@fuckamericanidiot]

​@@kkounal974 That sounds like a bad faith interpretation to me. Where did I say he has to learn anything? The OP: "He must have learned...."

[@kkounal974]

@@fuckamericanidiot You asked: why would someone who speaks in bad faith want to learn to act in good faith? The answer is kind of obvious, he is trying to cultivate a respectable image for himself, it helps as his targets are naive people in general. I just don't think he is any good at even pretending to be good faith, he may just be intimidated since he isn't behind a screen this time. I don't know what exactly you mean by "bad faith interpretation" but yes i don't have any respect for him if that's what you are referring to.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

Sorry, but speaking as a scientist, right from the first words, I don't think Alex is using the word "evidence" in a standard way. An argument, from a scientific perspective, is emphatically *NOT* evidence! Maybe a philosopher might consider an argument sufficiently compelling to believe it, or accept it as provisionally true, but it's not evidence. Evidence is something tangible, observable by the senses whether aided by instruments or not, and is reproducible under identical circumstances. There's nothing remotely like that for the supernatural in general, let alone any of the thousands of anecdotal deities! Philosophers need to be kept on a shorter leash!.

[@davidreinker5600]

Would you consider the emergence of life as something that could be supernatural?

[@rickybobby5153]

@@davidreinker5600 if it had evidence

[@MrPointness]

@@davidreinker5600 I think first we should define what does it even mean for something to be supernatural. Especially in the context of science. Is something supernatural just when we don't have a solid understanding of it? When we haven't been able to observe it in a satisfactory way? Maybe something like black matter, for instance? But we are able to measure it's effects. We know it's there, so in a way it has been observed. Maybe a process that we've yet to pose a working model for? Then, in the past, would it have been fair to call the birth of a solar system the product of a supernatural force, just because it wasn't understood? I think that every time someone invokes the supernatural to explain something it's because they have given up on looking for a testable explanation. When they are limited by either their creativity or the technology of their time.

[@eronpowell6008]

Philosophers use evidence just to mean anything that justifies a belief. There is a difference between scientific evidence and philosophical/epistomological evidence. Arguments for are evidence in as much as those arguments are valid and sound. Look up evidence in the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

[@eronpowell6008]

And this is a very silly argument anyways. If someone isn't a materialist they will not agree to this. You have to use philosophical evidence to get to materialism in the first place. The same thing with scientism. In the context of science we usually mean something concrete and tangible but scientism itself is predicated on reasons outside of science that lend credence (IE are evidence for) scientism. If you only used scientific evidence almost all philosophers agree you couldn't justify scientific evidence in the first place.

[@cathyharrop3348]

Isn't 'Bad Evidence" really just not 'Evidence'?

[@sheyarjames4904]

"Bad Evidence" doesn't sound like a legit phrase in the first place.

[@zombiesingularity]

No. Did you not listen? Bad evidence could push you .01% of the way towards the threshold of "likelier true than not", as opposed to good evidence which might push you 5 or 10%. Both still push you towards accepting the position, and are therefore evidence.

[@dmon728]

@@zombiesingularity So far "bad evidence" have pushed me minus 90% into believing in any kind of deity, the number just rapidly keeps decreasing.

[@thebuddercweeper]

@@zombiesingularity I would argue that most people have a threshold of "convincingness", which, if evidence fails to achieve, then it just does not count. It's hard to imagine someone becoming christian because you simply throw 501 arguments at them, all of which are only 0.1% convincing. I think that Alex is not drawing a distinction here where he should - the example he gave of the tail bone is *supplemental* evidence, it couldn't stand as evidence on its own, but does stand when considered alongside something significantly more convincing.

[@unduloid]

Indeed. Pushing insufficient evidence as actual evidence is just sophistry

[@argeurasia]

Why Craig and those people pretend to believe based on 'non-personal evidence' and logic? They just believe in it because it makes them feel good etc. Like most people, they are just brought up with something and believe it. Then they work backwards from the conclusion, if they can...

[@tylermaddux5209]

This is silly. There’s no GOOD evidence is what people mean when they say that. It’s like we are just watering down the conversation with semantics here.

[@dongeonmaster8547]

I feel argument and evidence are being conflated here.

[@TgfkaTrichter]

Sadly philosophers love to do this and the older Alex becomes the more he gets caught in this.

[@oliverdimartino7194]

What’s the difference between argument and evidence, then?

[@360.Tapestry]

@@oliverdimartino7194 consider the problem of evil

[@farrex0]

@@oliverdimartino7194 Imagine someone says "I am friends with the president" and someone says "I do not believe you, show me evidence". Evidence is a picture, his phone, witnesses, etc. But if the person says "Well the president has friends, I also have friends, therefore it is probable that we both have friends" That is an argument. Let's use then, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It claims that the Universe began to exist, that is a claim, not evidence. The argument for that claim is that it is intuitive, because the Universe cannot be infinite. They say that it is illogical for time to be infinite and give plenty of arguments for it. But they are just that, arguments. Evidence would be to find something that points out that the Universe began to exist. OR even better, to be able to travel back in time and study the Universe beginning to exist. Now, that doesn't mean arguments are bad, a lot of arguments can be very convincing and logically sound. But without evidence, they are just that, arguments. And when an atheist asks for evidence, it is dishonest and unproductive to make more claims or arguments. When they are asking for a different thing.

[@ericm9495]

@@251rmartin Why don't you just tell him what you think the difference is instead of giving him a puzzle? "Present a sound argument for which its soundness doesn't rely on demonstrable evidence" This is ambiguous. What do you mean by "rely on" here? Is that an epistemic relation or an ontic one? If it's an ontic one then, here you go, one of these arguments must be sound: A1: P therefore P A2: Not P therefore Not P. A1 and A2 are both valid. and at least one of them must have all true premises since Either P or not P must be true. Therefore at least one must be sound. P could be a proposition for which there is no evidence whatsoever, and whichever of A1 or A2 is sound would be so regardless. If by "rely on" you mean "known to be sound via demonstrable evidence" then to me you seem to be saying that arguments are only known to be sound via evidence. Ok. great. thats plausible. but how would that help me understand the difference between arguments and evidence if I didn't know the difference already?

[@JohnCamacho]

If someone believes in Thor and then also believes that lightning and thunder come from Thor, is it not reasonable for them to say that during a storm, evidence for Thor is being constantly displayed?

[@coreybray9834]

John Camacho 1 day ago If someone believes in Thor and then also believes that lightning and thunder come from Thor, is it not reasonable for them to say that during a storm, evidence for Thor is being constantly displayed? ------Because you used the word “Thor” above, the atheists will probably say, “No!”, but if you replace every use of the word “Thor” above with “nature”, they will probably change their minds and say “Yes!”

[@ChristianIce]

It depends. First one has to define "god". Starting with "he's out of space" or "out of time" ends the argument right away. Nothing is out of space or out of time, those are just words in line, but they don't mean anything, First you have to prove that it's possible to be outside spacetime, and when you're done (never) you've already defined something that can't have interactions with us, because we are in space and time. Truth is, "god" is a very silly concept that we keep on treating seriously without any valid reason.

[@rty1955]

Evidence must be calculable, repeatable & predictable in order to be true. Feelings don't matter

[@wilfullness]

In scientific enquiry there is qualitative and quantitative. Both/And. Both are utilised as valuable at obtaining different types of data for analysis. Patterns emerge from both for sure. Both fit your description. Yet qualitatives are subjective and are therefore not cathected to any of the stated criteria. Subjectively. That is to the advantage of the mature researcher. Outliers are essential for breaking new territory.

[@edwardzachary1426]

But also, truth doesn't care if you can see it. We'll get there eventually though. Let's hope we don't all die in the meantime.

[@dominiks5068]

probability theory has nothing to do with "feelings". this comment just shows that you are philosophically illiterate, just like most new atheists are.

[@LeanAndMean44]

No, the human experience, part of which feelings can be evidence. Because they are all those things you described.

[@wilfullness]

@@edwardzachary1426 love that. Truth is empirical. Axiomatic. The field of the moment is experiencing in its very self. I think therefore I am is a ruse. Thinking appears and disappears to the I Am. What we do then know empirically is I Am. It's already beautiful and lacks nothing. Arguably ⚪🔴

[@k2datrack]

Everything we humans "know" about God has been told to us by somebody else except God himself. There lies the problem.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

Long ago, I decided that if Jesus is real and wants me to worship him, he'd come and tell me personally. No knocks on my door yet!

[@patrickdixon7202]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki🤡

[@atomicclockagency]

The reason people choose religion over atheism is patience. They don't have the patience to listen to a 3 minutes, very well articulated point on the standards of evidence needed to ascertain whether one argument is more valid for another. They'd rather just go for "god did it"

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

That one made me laugh out loud! :)

[@rl7012]

That is just your narrow minded and judgmental assumption that you then fool yourself into thinking is a fact. This is what atheists do all the time, they mistake their assumptions and their projections for fact. You just make something up and then you believe it to be true. That is seriously deluded.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

@@rl7012 Sweetiepie, the only folk deluding themselves are you bible-thumpers.

[@farrex0]

I would say, there is a difference between evidence and argument for. Apologists often confuse the two, and or use them interchangeably. While atheist rarely do. And it seems Alex feel into the that trap. The argument is the reasoning, and the evidence is the evidence for the reasoning. So for example, the Kalam Cosmological Argument, is an argument and not evidence. Evidence would be to say the argument and then show evidence that the argument is true. So, if an apologist claims that the Universe began to exist, saying that it is intuitive is not evidence, that is still an argument only.... For it to be called evidence, is to show that the Universe actually began to exist. Let me give you an example, of why using both words interchangeably is actually problematic and dishonest. Let's suppose there was a murder, and in a trial, the defense lawyer says "there is no evidence against my client". So the other lawyer says "There is in fact two main evidence... the first evidence is that he had a motive. The second evidence is that humans are capable of murder". See, how arguments do not and SHOULD not, constitute as evidence. Now arguments might be convincing without evidence.... but that is not the point. No one is saying there are no arguments for God. They are saying there is no evidence for God, which is an EXTREMELY different thing to say. And to list arguments as evidence is dishonest.

[@Ziltoid_Knows]

I couldn't disagree with you. More, cumulative evidence without any explanatory power is not evidence to speak of it at all.

[@tma2001]

aye even for an atheist this is a piss poor argument. even worse is using % metrics (% of what?).

[@happym5717]

Could you give an example of evidence of God which was as strong as vestigial traits? The tale bone is a pretty minimalistic view of the fact we share almost all bones with other mammals as well as many other physiological traits? I genuinely have never heard a piece of evidence where I've thought, that's more likely than the explanation of 'we don't know why that is that way yet'. Inserting God has always felt like saying no evidence against = evidence for, but I'd love to see a different example.

[@rl7012]

Abiogenesis. Science has no clue how life started and also abiogenesis goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

@@rl7012 Wrong and wrong. You bible-thumpers don't understand entropy, which is surprising considering how daft your arguments are. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't say "order is impossible." It says the disorder of a closed system must always increase. The universe is the closed system in this case, so far as we know. Doesn't mean order cannot increase in local places within the system, like the sad sack you call your body. Otherwise icebergs wouldn't exist. Idiot.

[@therick363]

@@rl7012 abiogenesis is a hypothesis. That’s admitted. Please share how it goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics

[@happym5717]

@@rl7012 that isn't an argument for God from my perspective. It's an unknown question, if this is why you believe in a God I have differing views of evidence (absence of evidence is not evidence of something else). Also, abiogenesis doesn't at all contradict the second law of thermodynamics, it's just not even in the same area. It's like saying home runs in baseball disprove marking a man in basketball?

[@PROtoss987]

Vestigial traits are an awesome evidence of evolution and one that makes the Christian God deceitful in one way or another. Another miss from Alex.

[@gregzade5202]

Does this also apply to tooth fairies & flying spaghetti monster?

[@phulcq6716]

Perhaps I'm just an old stuffed shirt, but I always thought one of the greatest advances in epistemology was the realisation that there is no evidence **for** anything. We have only theories, most of which have poor explanatory power. The more primitive theories that comprise what we think of as "evidence" can be anywhere from readily compatible with, to highly problematic for, our higher-order theories. But "evidence" never "supports" a claim. Most religious theories simply lack explanatory power, which in my book is all any theory needs to be disqualified from serious consideration, evidence or no. That's not to single out religion as especially bad for this either - most theories (including sophisticated-sounding academic ones) are similarly weak. They just tend to be materialistic in nature and therefore sing to the modern mind.

[@toonyandfriends1915]

metaphysical scholastic has explanatory power, they are just not strictly ''religious''. Religious theories do not really claim anything about physics, neither the bible.

[@toonyandfriends1915]

depends if you mean ''theory of making prediction'' because if i'm arguing for the lack of free will, i don't know if i'm predicting anything

[@JAMESCARNEY273]

This is simply untrue. A serious and objective, real deep dive into the intricacies of the human genome and the sheer impossibility of it`s having self-organised is serious evidence in favour of a designing, intelligent agent. If you don`t even cover that in your videos then your position becomes rather weak.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

Exactly what makes you think modern genomes haven't arisen completely naturally through evolution, acquiring additional complexity over time, but required magic to make them complex? Oh yes, it's your atavistic need to believe in god(s). That's pretty weak argument for god(s). How many do you believe in, anyway? So many genomes... a god for each one, maybe?

[@rl7012]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki The genome is packed with information. Even the very first life needs masses amount of information. Where does this information come from? You think by accident millions of just the right type of molecules assembled themselves into something more complex and genius than anything man can make even today? If is so easy to create life, then why can't the best scientists with an unlimited amount of money and the best equipment and over 70 years of constant research, why can't they build even the simplest of cells from non life?

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

@@rl7012 Sweetiebuns - I call you sweetiebuns because you apparently weren't given a real name - The first life wouldn't have needed much information, because it would have been very simple compared to life as it exists 3.5 billion years after it started. In fact, it would probably have been just a simple chemical cycle. Why don't you give scientists 3.5 billion years to replicate it? Oh, that's right, because you want to justify your religion today. And sweetiedoodoo, no-one thinks a cell with modern complexity just assembled itself in an instant. That's a stupid caricature of theories of abiogenesis. Complexity of this sort is accumulated over umpteen billions of cycles, more that you can count to even using all your fingers and tootsies. It's just that you desperately want to believe in whatever loonie god - most likely Jesus - you want to believe is real. Show me EVIDENCE for this god of yours. You want to believe in magic. So show me some.

[@JAMESCARNEY273]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki well your argument here is clearly not serious. A need to believe in God??? Come on now..I`m talking about evidence that leads to it. for decades there have been leading mathematicians as well as those working in molecular biology, now in organic chemistry all telling us that the billions of years over which life has formed is only a fraction of the time that would be needed for something as complex and high functioning as the human being to form. All the time you can find atheist scientists in fields from biology to cosmology and physics becoming believers in a creative agent because what they find in the details makes atheism impossible for them.

[@JAMESCARNEY273]

​@@Leszek.Rzepecki another problem with your point is the idea of assigning magic as you say it. You can go to ancient Egyptian, Vedic and Jewish knowledge and you have detailed and logical explanations for what God is and how God creates. If we only had magic to fall back on then Christianity would have failed a long time ago. Rather it is the world`s largest religion, the Bible the world`s best selling book, and the thousands of testimonies to near death experiences never involve meeting Buddha, Vishna, Mohammed or any other, only Christ. That isn`t woo-woo, that is empirical evidence.

[@ejcrist]

Regarding the 'fine tuning' argument...did god create these constants or was he bound by them when creating the cosmos? I continually ask why did god setup these fine tuning constants? In the light of a belief that god can create 'miracles' and defy or suspend these laws, he didn't HAVE to create these constants, right?

[@captainzappbrannagan]

personal experience should not convince anyone. hallucinations are surprisingly common, we are unstable creatures.

[@atheistcomments]

Gods only exist as imaginary characters. That is why they are only talking about it. Cameron is right there on camera and understands he can't actually demonstrate Yahweh in reality in real-time so he doesn't even try.

[@quiddam]

For the "fine tuned constant" to be an evidence of the existence of God, you have to be able to connect it logically, step by step, to such God. I can't see the mere existence of something as evidence of a creator of the universe without an explanation to the steps in between. There's a huge jump from A, thus B here.

[@LittleMAC78]

The fine tuning argument also lacks a vital piece at the start - intent. Cause and effect are often detailed - we exist so we must have had a cause. There's nothing wrong with that suggestion but there's nothing in it to suggest the cause was borne of intent. None of the arguments provide compelling reason to suggest that if an intelligence is behind our inception then that intelligence intended for things to progress exactly as they did. The example I use is if I were to knock a glass of water off a table to the floor and it smashes, I am indeed the initiator of the events that led to the pieces of glass and water spread across the floor but I am not directly responsible for the specific arrangement in which those elements fell. There's nothing in the fine tuning argument, other than 'god of the gaps' that satisfactorily details the intent of the 'Prime Mover'.

[@geraintwd]

Unfortunately, most of the "evidence" for the existence of God is only compelling to someone that already believes a God exists. Apologetics is there to help the faithful feel warm and happy about their belief; to reassure them that it is perfectly rational to believe in God. For those of us that don't start with the assumption that a God exists, the "evidence" is not only unconvincing, but is often so trivially simple to pick apart, especially where the claims being made clearly contradict known and demonstrable facts, that it genuinely baffles us that any rational human being could be swayed by them.

[@MrDzoni955]

It's kind of the same with atheistic arguments and complaints. Most people on both sides don't change their views because of what somebody wrote or said. Good examples are religious people that actively watch atheist content online but never end up changing their minds because those arguments also seem weak and easy to pick apart

[@kentclark9616]

@Alex. Would you consider having Steven Meyer on?

[@RicardoMorenoAlmeida]

@Alex, you should check your microphone. There is a noticeable beeping sound in the background only when you're speaking.

[@koenigkorczak]

My understanding of evidence is that it can only be classified as such when it's clear that the thing it's trying to prove is actually true. If some of my skin scales are found on the neck of a person who got strangled to death, but it's otherwise been conclusively and irrefutably proven that I wasn't involved in the murder, then my skin scales on the dead person's neck are merely evidence for me having touched the neck at some point before or after the murder, NOT evidence of any margin that I commited the murder.

[@smilloww2095]

No, it is evidence that you did the murder, just very weak evidence on it's own. Like Alex basically said, evidence is any piece of information that increases the likelihood of a proposition to be true. The proposition "koeningkorczak murdered person x" will increase in probabilty when your skin cells are found on person x's neck versus when they are not found there. You seem to be saying that something can only be called evidence after something has been demonstrated to be true? So how do you go about demonstrating that something is true? Because how i would do it is by collecting evidence, but you are suggesting this is impossible before the truth of the matter has been demonstrated making the process of demonstrating impossible?

[@scambammer6102]

nope that is backwards. evidence is any fact that, if true, tends to prove or disprove a claim. (ie, relevance). the validity and weight of evidence is only determined after the evidence is identified. you can't determine the validity of evidence a priori.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

My understanding evidence is the Tolman model which is anything that supports the warrant of a conclusion or hypothesis.

[@coreybray9834]

@koenigkorczak 6 days ago (edited) My understanding of evidence is that it can only be classified as such when it's clear that the thing it's trying to prove is actually true. --------Not quite, but here is the way it is generally thought of in a first course in logic. Evidence is certainly what we use to try and prove things are true, but evidence isn’t always strong enough to prove something is the case. This is why we distinguish between evidence that satisfies a necessary set of logical conditions for suggesting something is true, versus evidence which sufficiently proves something is true. So, when evidence only shows that an insufficient set of necessary conditions are the case, it is generally seen as insufficient by definition to prove the thing we want to show is true, but it is still evidence that part of what we want to show to be true is demonstrated as being the case. For example, if my car runs, then there is gas in the tank, my engine works and I have the right key to turn the engine over with. I might have the right key to turn the engine over with, so a piece of critical evidence is satisfying a necessary condition to getting the car to run, but I might learn that I don’t have any gas in the tank or worse my engine might be blown. So, I have some evidence which suggests my car should run, but I do not have enough evidence in hand to sufficiently demonstrate that all the required conditions are met to guarantee my car will run.------ You continue: If some of my skin scales are found on the neck of a person who got strangled to death, but it's otherwise been conclusively and irrefutably proven that I wasn't involved in the murder, then my skin scales on the dead person's neck are merely evidence for me having touched the neck at some point before or after the murder, NOT evidence of any margin that I commited the murder. -------Well, it is certainly easier to show the inconclusive nature of the evidence after you are cleared, but not so easy to show the evidence is inconclusive before you are cleared in the investigation. So, evidence can be conclusive if it satisfies enough conditions to nail you as being the murderer, but if it does not reach that high standard, it could still be relevant evidence in an ongoing investigation, although not necessarily strong enough evidence to be conclusive evidence. So, we could have a lot of evidence that evolution happens, but if it is not possible for the universe to mechanically engage in a completed act of Abiogenesis, then the evidence will suggest that our universe is not producing and evolving life from a precursor ofAbiogenesis, but instead, we observe life existing and evolving because it was intelligently designed to exhibit these features-hence further suggesting that the evolution we observe is itself directed, rather than undirected, evolution as well from a model of life that is Biogenesis centric. And since we know how to do selective breeding to get certain traits we desire out of animals, we know scientifically that it is quite easy to direct evolutionary processes by way of an intelligent breeder, for example. So, there is a lot of good evidence suggesting that life and evolution on our planet is by intelligent design, but nothing to really suggest that nature could give rise to life on our planet all on its very own. This result is further attested to by the fact that 100% of the time, we only ever see life arising from something already living, giving rise to the Law of Biogenesis in Biology. So, without any evidence that shows conclusively that nature can generate life from nonliving, self assembling chemical processes to completion, we have no reason to conclude that an atheist can exist inside their own model of a natural universe. Yet, the fact that life exists anyway and we always see life arising as a result of Biogenesis, rather than from completed acts of Abiogenesis, it suggests that we are far more likely the product of a living God.

[@koenigkorczak]

@@coreybray9834 oh lord...

[@goodquestion7915]

@CosmicSkeptic The dictionary definition for "Evidence" allows nonsense to be considered evidence. Do you agree the following could be a better definition? (closer to a legalistic one) Fact accepted by all parties or by a group of experts to increase or decrease the trustworthiness of a contested claim. If it's not accepted, it remains a fact but can't be called "Evidence."

[@Ixnatifual]

Those who usually make that claim tend, in my experience, to mean that they haven't been exposed to any evidence that would nudge their belief towards a god existing. For example, someone might be 98% convinced a god does not exist and 2% convinced a god does exist. You tell them the fine-tuning argument and their beliefs remain 98% not convinced and 2% convinced.

[@TheAxeter]

If i was 98% convinced a god does not exist and 2% convinced a god does exist, hearing the fine-tuning argument would increase it to 99% and 1%

[@anonymousman4419]

​@@TheAxeter Lmao

[@edgemint]

1:35 Disagree on fine-tuning. "God and universe" is an inherently more complex scenario than just "universe", making the former less probable. It does not move the needle in the direction of true, not even marginally.

[@ShellacScrubber]

Wearing the: "Promise of an eternal afterlife in paradise " spectacles is going to massively skew a persons perception of what constitutes "Good" evidence.

[@ryanwhittal6246]

Thanks Alex, I like your style and quest for the truth, even though I'm on the other side of the 50%. Your videos are good for me as it gives my personal faith a rigorous workout.

[@somerandom3247]

why would the constant of the strong nuclear force make god more likely to exist than without that consideration? The strong nuclear force doesnt appear to require a gods involvement at all. Im not sure how you think it strengthens the case for god. The cumulative case is nonsense, You can keep adding 0's (like the one mentioned) until the end of time, you will still never reach a god.

[@huxleybennett4732]

Exactly, something that works perfectly fine for one hypothesis AND a completely opposite and incompatible hypothesis is NOT evidence for either. Evidence for a given hypothesis over another requires it to only work (or in some cases arguably just overwhelmingly so) for that hypothesis.

[@robertpalin5878]

Absolutely! Ignorance of a better explanation is not in any way evidence FOR a proposed explanation. To say "we don't know why this happens, so it must happen this way" is fundamentally flawed.

[@baileybartley2463]

The strong nuclear force is something that just happens. Something caused such laws of force to exist, the question is what created such laws

[@matanorland1]

Preface: I’m an atheist. I think your point is much larger than just the strong nuclear force. A lot of the arguments for god are of the form “well just look around”. This is like the fine tuning argument. Where we have the specific set of parameters for life to exist. To which my reply has always been: “what would a universe not created by a god look like?”. Which leads to the definition of a valid argument - it has to be falsifiable. If one cannot describe a nature without a god, then one cannot claim that how nature is is proof of a god. If the nuclear force was twice as weak, and we wouldn’t exist, would that be strong evidence against a god?

[@dimbulb23]

@@matanorland1 Look at that tree... See! therefore God. I think that's Category Error. We know who created the Strong Force. It was some scientists. God isn't even a candidate for creating anything until she is proven to be exist Herself.

[@SiKay3000]

It’s the variety of different religions around the world that make me such a sceptic. If humans across the globe that classed theirselves as “religious” and all believed in the same god without ever having met each other I’d think there might be something in this GOD thing

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

Indeed, that same thought has occurred to me. There's only a single science the world over that gets taught in every school, but religions can vary from one valley to the next! I mean if a god really wanted to be known by all, surely he wouldn't have made such a hash of it!

[@PROtoss987]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki And even in mathematics, which is in some ways more arbitrary than the sciences, similar paths have been trod and retrod between China, India, Greece, Europe etc.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

@@PROtoss987 Exactly, basic truths don't differ from culture to culture. Gravity works the same way all over the world. Beliefs in magical sky-wizards vary in a crazy way!

[@noahgrose7988]

Charles Taylor writes of how the underlying conditions for belief in God have shifted in the west over the past 500 years. Would love to hear your thoughts on that Alex, or what your own conditions for belief might be, in God or any foundational worldview. Great conversation here, I appreciate the distinction between personal and public evidence

[@therealzilch]

Nicely reasoned on both sides. The difference is that one side was informed largely by the Bible, the other side by the real world. I've looked deeply into both. The real world wins.

[@OfficeASUUC]

False dichotomy. The bible is basically a straw man.

[@therealzilch]

@@OfficeASUUC How is the Bible a straw man? I'm aware that there are other beliefs about gods, but the Bible was the topic here.

[@montagdp]

The issue I have with the "personal evidence" or "witness of the Holy Spirit" is how one could ever know this experience was real and not just a figment of their imagination or confirmation bias? In fact, the only way to be objective is to ignore these experiences as evidence. If the publicly available evidence points away from your belief, you should reject your belief, unless you're like Dostoyevsky and care more about your belief than truth.

[@VoidTakeMe]

I wish everyone thought this same way. We would rid ourselves of so much unnecessary baggage. People must understand that subjective experiences, when not paired with natural phenomena, are wholly unreliable and unusable especially when used as excuse to bolster a claim for a belief which itself has not even evolved into a hypothesis and for which there is no evidence because it is an unfalsifiable proposition in the first place. The belief in a god is so vague and broad that quite literally anything that the brain experiences, from existence and consciousness to non-existence and unconsciousness can be put forth as "evidence" within a philosophical context.

[@123duelist]

​@@VoidTakeMeCan you give me an example of a subjective belief that is paired with natural phenomenon?

[@Jonathan-tw4xm]

Let me ask you a question how can you prove something that is spiritual? If it isn't possible then the existence for God proven is whether or not Jesus died and restricted from the cross. (For christianity) . Others for other religions. If he did die and rose again then that should be undeniable proof. However we were not there so do we 1 deny historical evidence. 2 consider it to make a judgement. Edit: I saw this to you because I believe that the only proof for God is Jesus resurrection. If he did not resurrect then he isn't God and we don't need to believe it. The best proof for something is not video or audio since it can be faked. It's actually testimony. Obviously if you reject that plainly because it can be falsified that does not mean it is always so let's consider them. What kind of scientist rejects something blindly (or on the basis that it can be false) rather we should consider what is likely false and what is likely true.

[@soleo2783]

@@Jonathan-tw4xm testimony can also be faked tho, it can also just be genuinelly mistaken, even video and audio wouldn't be enough, and testimony is worse than both of those.

[@montagdp]

@@Jonathan-tw4xm do you believe everyone who says they saw an appearance of someone who was dead? There are many examples both in ancient and modern times. To be clear, I don't know if Jesus rose from the dead. It seems like something unusual must have happened, but that's not enough evidence to believe that a miracle happened. Jesus himself taught that the way of salvation is good works, helping the poor and oppressed, and humility. I don't see why, as Christians, we need to add faith claims that were developed after his death and can't possibly be known with any certainty to that message.

[@etherealstars5766]

Street Epistemology really expands on the meat of the conversation from the half way point of the video to the end. Very illuminating to watch videos on it here on YT.

[@ck58npj72]

Unfortunately Anthony Magnabosco is no longer making videos here on youtube, but you have to ask yourself why you believe something to be true.

[@S0n0fG0D]

Bro i am literally right here. Im the son of the bastard, you think this aint enough?

[@alisonabrooks]

dang i guess im a christian now

[@S0n0fG0D]

@@alisonabrooks cool, wanna crusade on furry conventions?

[@OriginalquietKid]

@@S0n0fG0D yes but can I bring my fur suit

[@S0n0fG0D]

@@OriginalquietKid a furry killing furries, doesn't make sense.

[@alisonabrooks]

@@S0n0fG0D kill or convert

[@LeanAndMean44]

Alex, could you Interview Patrick McNamara? He‘s a neuroscientist studying the purpose of religion, and the research he has made with his colleagues suggests it’s more than terror management.

[@letsomethingshine]

"There is SOME evidence for Unicorns and Santa Clause and the FSM... and jealous Yahweh...and the Goth and Visigoth "historical founder" deity called God/Gott/Gaut/Goth." ~ Alex O'Connor defense of CapturingChristianity's dislike for the phrase "There is no evidence for God."

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

Yeah, it boils down to saying that the evidence for god is "look at the birds, look at the trees..." It's the god of the gaps that we have "evidence" for. If we can't explain something, why, there must be a god that dunnit.

[@paul715]

There is no conclusive evidence for a creator. However, an infinite universe would make god unnecessary. It's easier to believe in an infinite universe than a god who exists outside of time.

[@Justas399]

So you believe that the mindless-purposeless forces of nature are responsible for your body? You have far more faith than any Christian.

[@aaron_vdp]

interesting, I would personally find it harder to believe an infinite universe didn't have a creator than a finite one. How can you have infinite anything without an infinite force behind it? Wouldn't the infinite force have to be infinite in all areas including power, intelligence etc. for it to be truly infinite?

[@sirrevzalot]

⁠@@aaron_vdpI think you’re god smuggling and perhaps equivocating on the word infinite. Creation from nothing is a theistic proposition. Science makes no claims about where the cosmos comes from. All we know is our instantiation of space time appears to have had a beginning, but this has nothing to do with the material that comprises the cosmos. An infinite cosmos that just is isn’t as simple and satisfying as saying a god did it, but it also doesn’t presuppose a god (or a “force”). An infinite cosmos doesn’t appear to require a god in order to work.

[@PROtoss987]

@@aaron_vdp who was the creator of the god responsible?

[@aaron_vdp]

@@PROtoss987 the argument for God says there was no creator before God. That’s the point, there has to be something that exists with no cause because we are here. Was the first thing to exist complex/conscious or basic and everying sprung forth from that? My intuition tells me it is more likely the latter but I don’t know the answer Forsure.

[@willemvanderdoe]

0:50 deductive argument = conclusion must be true inductive argument = conclusion is probably true

[@austinhernandez2716]

Deductive is purely logical argument

[@APaleDot]

Here's a more nuanced version: deductive argument = conclusion is true if premises are true inductive argument = conclusion is consistent with available evidence abductive argument = conclusion is more likely than other explanations

[@KLRBugeater]

Personal evidence should not convince: How would someone attribute their experience to a supernatural without presupposition? Have they ruled out everything else? How do they know they are not mistaken?

[@coreybray9834]

@KLRBugeater 6 days ago Personal evidence should not convince: How would someone attribute their experience to a supernatural without presupposition? Have they ruled out everything else? How do they know they are not mistaken? -------Well, in Daniel chapter 2 in the Bible, King Nebuchadnezzar chooses to refuse to tell his astrologers and magicians and such his dream from God, but instead decides that if he tells them they will lie to him and then he won’t know if it is from God or just a fancy ideas slipping through his mind on a warm summer’s night. So, on penalty of death, he threatens the wise men of his court to tell him his dream and its interpretation. So, in that case, God chose Daniel to tell the king his dream and its interpretation too, so that Nebuchadnezzar would know where that dream truly came from. Secondly, the prophetic aspects of that dream came to pass, and although Daniel never lived long enough to see it all happen, the kingdom of God was set up in the time of the fourth kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream many centuries later. Maybe you heard of this kingdom. It’s called Christianity, and true to Daniel 2’s vision, it has been filling the earth and has outlasted all four of the collapsed world empires of Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greecia and Rome as Daniel 2 predicted. That’s reasonably impressive that Daniel was able to predict future events which started in Nebuchadnezzar’s day and continued fulfilling on past the collapse of Rome in 1798. Certainty that God is reaching out to humanity is very convincingly found in fulfilled prophecies. Just like Daniel 9. Daniel saw the coming Messiah, his crucifixion and the Roman invasion which came upon Jerusalem many years later where the city and the sanctuary were destroyed in AD 70. What is interesting about Daniel’s vision is that Daniel never lived to see the temple he was prophecying about being rebuilt, nor did he see its later destruction, so he didn’t have any guarantee that any of his prophecies would come to pass concerning these events which were shown to Daniel centuries in advance.

[@tomnanD3]

Certainly, there is no sufficient, compelling evidence for god.

[@joannware6228]

“Faith is the key that puts every other truth into its proper place. Triumphs become opportunities for gratitude instead of pride. Tragedies become opportunities for growth instead of despair. Life just makes more sense and our faith in God gives us joy even when we face what can feel like insurmountable trials.” -Matt Fradd, p.96

[@eliasjakemoran6434]

Hope does the same thing without blindly obeying and changing your whole life to fit around a long set of rules

[@joannware6228]

@@eliasjakemoran6434 Hope does not reassure.

[@eliasjakemoran6434]

@joannware6228 It actually does. Perhaps not as much as faith, but it still can. I did say almost everything

[@macmac1022]

I say there is no empirical evidence for god, am I wrong?

[@reeseexplains8935]

No.

[@macmac1022]

What is the evidence for god?

[@kevh6948]

Which god?

[@reeseexplains8935]

@@macmac1022 I said you are not wrong in saying there is no empirical evidence for god.

[@joshs3066]

Alex is being very patient with the interviewer and the term “Evidence” - there is zero empirical evidence for any God.

[@rjskeptic5273]

Ah. For goodness sake. Life is too short to consider the existence of an immaterial, conscious mind.

[@stephenlesliebrown5959]

Watching this video makes me think I'm walking past the open door of a sophomore college dorm.

[@karenryder6317]

Yes, these two are perhaps a bit too philosophical here, but more compelling to me is objective, down-to-earth occurrences we read of everyday of life where innocent children are starved, beaten or raped. When is there ever any good reason for that to happen? (This is not even mentioning the horrific degree of the protracted, years-long pain and terror that occurred in the Holocaust.) So, I think there is a huge body of compelling evidence AGAINST the existence of a loving, omnipotent God and only a little subjective rationalizing FOR his existence.

[@pavld335]

It's really bad.

[@LanceDobson]

This is a fucking beautiful conversation. Well done.

[@joshwhitaker5453]

“The plural of anecdote is not data” -Barbara Drescher

[@dalex60]

Arguments don’t conclude facts.

[@mrbungle2627]

Worthless statement. At the level of scientific inquiry I’m at in molecular biology and organic chemistry, we can only make inferences. I take it you guzzle the cum of science? The standard you’re asking for cannot apply past anything extremely fundamental.

[@Jay-kx4jf]

Yes they do

[@TheWTFcakes]

Maybe not yours...

[@TheWTFcakes]

1. Socrates is a man 2. All men are mortal 3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal The conclusion is a fact given the truth of the premises

[@inquisitiveterrestrian]

@@TheWTFcakes That was a deductive argument, I feel like the commenter was talking about inductive arguments. Good point though.

[@thewackenpilgrim]

Somone needs to make a good video on a theory of evidence as a concept and the relationship between evidence and an argument or different forms of argument - i feel in most of these discussions people are talking past each other

[@cheetah100]

Seriously Alex; if there is evidence for the Christian God could you outline what it is? Is there anything you can point to? Anything. ANY THING!

[@chefchaudard3580]

What's funny is that, in French, the word 'evidence ' does not exist. (Well, the exact same word do exist, but it has a different meaning) We have 'clue', ' proof, "elements of proof' when several elements are considered together to make a proof, but no 'evidence'. Consequently, French Christians consider the Kalam, the watchmaker... arguments as proofs. For us, this boils down to a semantic rather than philosophical debate on what constitutes an evidence. Two people that try to shoehorn a word where what's important are the proofs, the reasonings and arguments that tend to demonstrate that some proposition is true or likely true.

[@sandrajackson709]

There is a difference between evidence and proof and I suspect when someone says there is no evidence for god what they actually mean instead is that there is no proof of god.

[@rodbrewster4629]

Capturing Christianity's level of evidence is still far short of being good enough to justify basing laws off it's writings.

[@robinrobyn1714]

Not according to the legal precedent of Accomodationism.( This is the first time you have even heard of that concept,yet it goes back hundreds of years in American history).

[@robinrobyn1714]

Atheist dictator Josef Stalin agreed with you. He managed to have millions murdered under state enforced atheism in Russia.

[@coreybray9834]

Well, as it turns out, Christians have long argued that all living things arise from an already living Creator. And centuries later, science concluded something they call the LAW OF BIOGENESIS, the idea that in all observed cases, we observe life arises from something already living. So, there are billions of examples of Biogenesis across all species to use in support of the law of Biogenesis and the original claims of Christians from Genesis, but there is by contrast no completed acts of Abiogenesis observed anywhere in the scientific literature to explain how atheist come to exist inside their own model: a belief atheist take and push purely on blind faith at this point.

[@jmarch_503]

There's few people i admire & respect than alex and steven Woodford also genetically modified skeptic

[@goldenageofdinosaurs7192]

Yeah, Alex is one of those guys that really gets to the meat of the situation.

[@shassett79]

There is "evidence" of the sort that's only acceptable to people with low epistemic standards. You can call a particularly nice sunset "evidence for god" if you really want it to be true.

[@Philnapped]

I think the main problem with these "fine tuning" arguments or any argument like that is there is nothing that brings it back to a christian God, you could just as easily said it was the power of Zeus, or Odin if you believe it has to be from intelligent design.

[@nimrodsangero3753]

No, I think you completely miss the point. I truly can't think of a single shred of reality that makes the existence of god even slightly more likely than his non-existence. Biological and physical laws and compexities seem to arise quite well naturally, and I haven't heard of a single one that made me say "that looks designed".

[@pwillis1589]

An argument isn’t evidence.

[@Wertbag99]

Would it be evidence that the person making the argument believes that claim?

[@pwillis1589]

@@Wertbag99 I have no issue with a person having a god belief, but they must under no circumstances project that belief onto me or society in general. As an element of our evolution religious belief did hold some pluses for us, but again those pluses are long gone. In reality there is no evidence of a supernatural god. Religious people should just accept this and keep their idiotic beliefs to themselves.

[@ctmuist]

What evidence do you have, that arguments aren't evidence?

[@aknani3139]

it is my friend

[@pwillis1589]

@@Wertbag99 No

[@johnnybgood7442]

There is plenty of evidence for god. The evidence just sucks.

[@michaelhenry1763]

I used to think so too. I think a better way to say it is we have evidence for the belief, creation, and the evolution of God. But we do not have any evidence for God itself.

[@johnnybgood7442]

@@michaelhenry1763 yes and all the evidence for that stuff, sucks.

[@downshift4503]

There's plenty of evidence for the believers existing. That's about it.

[@michaelhenry1763]

@@downshift4503 I agree. We have evidence people believing and worshiping but we do not have evidence for the gods themselves. A god is an explanation or an idea.

[@PROtoss987]

That depends on what you mean by evidence. I'd define evidence to mean a verifiable fact which is supportive of a specific claim. By this standard I've seen zero evidence of any god.

[@hutchisonmichael1]

Atheists: "There is no evidence for god" Theists: "Everything is evidence for God" Me: "There is evidence for no god." Billions/Trillions of unanswered prayers... (beyond coincidence).

[@360.Tapestry]

sounds like evidence that people crave a god - or it's evidence that people don't know what's going on - or it's evidence that people live in desperation - or it's evidence that you think you can prove a negative

[@a.i.l1074]

That would be evidence against a God which bends to human whim, something almost nobody believes in

[@zephyr-117sdropzone8]

So you are strawmanning God into a weak gumball machine?

[@warningreligion]

@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 To be fair, the bible/Jesus did so too. You know the "If you have faith a small as a mustards seed then..." and that believing people tell us (that they think so too is unproven to me at the moment) that praying does something.

[@zephyr-117sdropzone8]

@warningreligion Not true. Jesus also thought most prayers will not be answered. Read Luke 4:23-27.

[@rickwilliams7431]

So, this by itself doesn't prove God, and that by itself doesn't prove God, but once you get a huge pile of this type of evidence you get to God. _A million zeros added up, still equals zero._

[@xensonar9652]

There is no evidence that points only to a god existing.

[@nathanduclos5045]

a bunch of bad arguments do not make a good argument.

[@Wertbag99]

But they can still be convincing, as per the vast majority of religious believers.

[@APaleDot]

That's not the claim, though. The claim is that a bunch of _good_ arguments that don't individually establish belief might add up to a _good_ argument that does.

[@Wertbag99]

@@APaleDot I guess it comes down to the subjective nature of what makes an argument good or bad. What will convince one person will be rejected by another. What one person posts on KZbin as a slam dunk argument, hundreds of others will consider to be ridiculous. People can be convinced of stupid ideas like a flat earth, so the arguments must be compelling to some level, but that doesn't make them correct.

[@sillygoose9070]

There is no evidence of a benevolent God. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence for a sadistic, cruel, narcissistic God.

[@Adaguflo]

Even the bible itself Xd

[@MrMvidz]

I think that there is a huge difference between the plausibility of a creator compared to Christianity being true.

[@arnoldripkin1]

Evidence for Jesus and the Bible, or any other organized religion is very different from saying that some kind of supernatural creator "might" have created the universe. It's the CLAIM of supernatural events of any religion that should require evidence and not be detoured into abstract philosophy where anything's possible.

[@brandish_0003]

What a legend you brought up the quote from craig!

[@Exciteddelirium1]

Humans are not made in his image, God was made in theirs.

[@eliasjakemoran6434]

Precisely

[@guillermoelnino]

y ou worship the earth. prove me wrong.

[@eliasjakemoran6434]

@@guillermoelnino How would you even know that? You don't know him

[@guillermoelnino]

@@eliasjakemoran6434 Since y ou don't understand what worship means I wouldn't be surprised if y ou actually did believe what y ou said.

[@eliasjakemoran6434]

@@guillermoelnino I am not the guy who made the comment. I don't worship anything

[@hjeffwallace]

I spent a lifetime seeking god with all my heart, followed Jesus into full-time ministry, Seminary, and 25 years of service, prayer, and Bible study. I failed to find any evidence of the Abrahamic god. I was BIASED in favor of God. Can some sort of god exist? One that plays hide-and-seek while babies die. Ok.

[@darkking9528]

Your tale of a 'lifetime seeking God' is as tragic as it is misguided. If you spent all those years expecting God to be a genie granting wishes, no wonder you ended up disappointed. See, in Islam, we believe life is a test, filled with trials and tribulations. That includes the incomprehensible suffering of innocent people. It's not because God is 'playing hide-and-seek' or being cruel, but because this life isn't the end. There's an afterlife where justice is served, and those who suffered will be rewarded. But I understand. It's easier for you to dismiss all of this, to turn your back and say 'I found no evidence'.

[@sirrevzalot]

@@darkking9528Heartless and cruel like your god. But at least I’ve gotten some inspiration for my next Muhammad cartoon.

[@darkking9528]

@@sirrevzalot my oh my, how someone manage to stoop lower every time you contribute to this conversation is an achievement in itself. You're going to make a cartoon? I'm not sure whether to laugh at the sheer desperation or to pity you for having nothing better to do. Mocking something you don't understand, in an attempt to be provocative, is simply juvenile. I hope for your sake you mature beyond your current state because this, this is just pathetic. And by the way, your thinly veiled attempts to insult me and my faith are nothing more than a testament to your own ignorance. My God, as you put it, is neither heartless nor cruel. These are mere reflections of your own misconceptions and inability to comprehend anything beyond your limited worldview. Grow up. The world isn't your playground and not everyone is here to entertain your childish tantrums.

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

Alex, I respect your calmness and politeness for maintaining a conversation with someone who has zero clue about his own internal motives.

[@jkm9332]

It’s funny when people pretend to read minds and know other people’s motives.

[@parrsaw]

They both are simply two grown men who can debate without showing any disrespect or any childish behaviour towards each other, you don't sound to be anything close to them tbh

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

@@parrsaw It's not about disrespect. It's about whether or not the conversation is worth it.

[@matfalkner]

Hey you changed the name. Good on you, man. 👍

[@tonydarcy1606]

In the case of God, I tend to go on the absence of evidence route. So far science has done a pretty good job of explaining the reality we experience, and like Laplace, I have no need of the God hypothesis. Those who claim that a carpenter "wafted" himself off to heaven, after being executed, have all the heavy lifting to do ahead of them.

[@Insane_ForJesus]

Science doesn't explain the ultimate origin of reality unless you non scientifically assume that physicalism is true

[@tonydarcy1606]

Therefore God dunnit ? @@Insane_ForJesus

[@Insane_ForJesus]

@@tonydarcy1606 I can say the same about your view. Therefore physicalism.

[@OriginalquietKid]

I am number 1 and did he change his name

[@alexcoleridge1476]

His KZbin name yeah

[@Skurian_krotesk]

No he was born with that name. His mom just named him CosmicSceptic after she realized she didn't like the first one.

[@atheneus]

@@Skurian_kroteskbro stop 💀💀🤣🤣🤣

[@OriginalquietKid]

@@Skurian_krotesk makes sense

[@thcyprus]

It depends on what you mean by "God". If by God you mean a God like the one described in the bible, then not only there is no evidence whatsoever that such kind of God exists, but there are plenty of evidence that such God doesn't exist, one of which is the fact that tons of things in the bible, which is supposed to be the word of a God, have already been debunked. Believing that there is evidence for such a God, is the same as believing that there is evidence for the existence of the Gods of Olympus.

[@elias8141]

Could you site some specific verses, please?

[@thcyprus]

@@elias8141 From the very beginning of the bible, genesis, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." this supposedly happened "the first day". Then "Let the land produce vegetation" in "the third day", and then "God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.", in "the forth day", etc. So earth existed and had vegetation before the sun existed, and the "great lights" are our medium sized star (the sun) and the our little moon. This is false (along with everything else in Genesis) and are clearly the writings of people some thousands of years ago who had far more limited understanding about our universe, and not the words of some know it all God.

[@elias8141]

@@thcyprus the bible isn't a book of science it was written for every person not only simple minded farmers nor science intellectuals so it makes sense to write geniuses in a way that "people thousands of years ago who had far more limited understanding about our universe" will understand Moreover, geniuses is not meant to be taken literally it is about the relationship between god and man (not a guy named Adam or a woman named Eve)

[@thcyprus]

​@@elias8141 What would those people "understand"? That story isn't a simplified version of truth, it is just an imaginary story that has nothing to do with reality. If people "understood" something from that story it is that the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it, and as it turns out this is totally false. The "is not meant to be taken literally" is just a cheap excuse. First of all it doesn't work metaphorically either. Secondly, it was taken literally and people were punished for not believing it, and it is only after it was debunked that Christians came up with that excuse.

[@elias8141]

@@thcyprus The bible isn't a scientific book what do you want to do?? Explain complex molecules structures??? The story is not about the origin of the universe rather about the origin of the god-human relationships And the whole this response came after this idea was debunked is silly because when you face a problem in a model you must fix your model not give up on the whole field For example: scientist faced alot of problems with the flat earth model so they searched for another model Does that make scientists liars because instead of giving up and saying oh the whole science thing is just a waste of time they fixed it Moreover, what people do isn't related to Christianity If the government was corrupted does that make the law immoral? Of course no because the law encourages people to stay away from corruption

[@Dawnseeker_Ch]

Well this snippit was underwhelming.

[@ubersheizer5398]

Well, it does have Cameron in it so underwhelming is a win.

[@jameswhittingham8027]

Why is the default position that gods exist and we haven’t yet found the proof of them? Why isn’t the normal view there are no gods unless you can prove them?

[@martymoo]

Another great discussion 👍

[@Inyaccurate]

If there were no good reasons for belief, reasonable people would not believe. But reasonable people do believe. So, there must be good reasons for belief.

[@downshift4503]

Not necessarily. Reasonable people could have been brainwashed as children and are just cruising along in life with certain habits and rituals, ie just cultural.

[@Inyaccurate]

@@downshift4503 Well, "brainwashing" is a peudoscientific concept. However, you could say that some reasonable people don't adequately reflect upon their beliefs, but they aren't necessarily the referent of the term "reasonable people" because to be called reasonable, it's implied that you are thoughtful and reflective. I did notice that I committed the fallacy of affirming the consequent in the above syllogism, though, so let me rephrase: 1. If some reasonable/thoughtful people believe, there must be some good reasons for belief. 2. Many reasonable/thoughtful people do believe and defend belief. 3. So, there must be good reasons for belief. 4. If there are good reasons for belief, then belief can be reasonable. 5. There are good reasons for belief. (Follows from 3.) 6. Belief can be reasonable. By my lights, these are valid conditional arguments that have the form of modus ponens, and I think the premises are true, so I think this is a sound argument to make in favor of viewing some religious belief as reasonable.

[@downshift4503]

@@Inyaccurate I mean the indoctrination of children as they will believe whatever adults tell them.... then just carry on in life surrounded by others who believe and leaving the religion can come at a cost. I know - I was one of them and saw many others. Later when I became an adult and being thoughtful and reflective, I realised the whole religion was BS

[@downshift4503]

@@Inyaccurate P1 is not sound. However reasonable and thoughtful a person is, they can believe for bad reasons and it does not follow that there "must" be good reasons because of it. Belief should be based on evidence, not on whether other people who believe are reasonable or not.

[@sirrevzalot]

That’s a non sequitur. The reasonable-ness of an entity has no bearing on the truthfulness of that entity’s belief(s). You might as well say 95% of people on earth believe in a god of some kind, therefore 95% of people on earth are reasonable. That’s ridiculous.

[@Bardineer]

This is spot on. Evidence can take a variety if forms. For example, there is analogical evidence, anecdotal evidence, character evidence, circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence, demonstrative evidence, digital evidence, documentary evidence, emotional evidence, empirical evidence, expert opinion evidence, forensic evidence, habit evidence, hearsay evidence, personal experience evidence, physical evidence, prima facie evidence, statistical evidence, symbolic evidence, testimonial evidence, and trace evidence. Most, if not all of these, are admissible in court _as evidence,_ whether anyone considers them _sufficient,__conclusive,_ or _compelling_ or not. They _are_ forms of evidence; and _everyone,_ self-identifying atheists included, has been presented with at least one of these. So, when people say there is "no evidence" for a deity, *they're obviously LYING.* Sure, maybe they mean, "there is no _empirical_ evidence," but then, I ask them for empirical evidence to substantiate the claimed existence of a distinct neurological state of "nonbelief,' and they lose their minds.

[@TheAxeter]

You again, still stuck with the same question about nonbelief? Forgot that you admitted that it indeed exists? I will go copy paste it if you need reminding

[@Bardineer]

@TheAxeter Do _I_ need to explain to _you_ again why expanding the concept of "nonbelief" to include situations in which the necessary conditions for the formation _of_ belief is logically fallacious? You never responded to my final challenge, which, if you recall, was the following: _I want you to answer the following question _*_without alluding to knowledge_*_ (because I'm not asking what you know) _*_or justifiability_*_ (because justifiability is not a prerequisite for the presence of belief)._ _Do you _*_believe_*_ that the existence of a deity or the non-existence of any deity is _*_more likely?_*

[@TheAxeter]

@@Bardineer im not expanding nonbelief at all, thats literally what nonbelief is. If you found my answer a vacuous truth, its because you asked a vacuous question. Stick to the subject, we can move on to your challenge after this is concluded

[@Bardineer]

@TheAxeter "That's literally what nonbelief is." 1) That's still just as nonsensical as saying that a person who has never purchased a new car has "missed" a car payment, which means it remains a fallacy of proving too much. 2) This still does nothing to demonstrate that an absence of belief among self-identifying atheists, where the necessary conditions for the formation of belief _have_ been met; therefore, it also remains an appeal to a vacuous truth, too. That's not because it's a vacuous question; it's because your point, even if I agree, for the sake of argument, doesn't demonstrate what it is intended to demonstrate.

[@isoid]

The only trouble with having empirical evidence to substantiate the existence of "a distinct neurological state of 'nonbelief'" is that evidence as related to neurology is hard to come by as it is a relatively new field ot science. Unless I misunderstand the question, I can prove at least to myself that there is a "distinct neurological state of nonbelief" by virtue of the fact that I do not believe in God. Assuming that is the belief you were referring to based on the context of this comment. If you want true empirical evidence, then you'll probably have to wait for neurology to develop enough for that to be scientifically possible.

[@pat6289]

Evidence is the bible and the person of Jesus.

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

If stories are evidence, why don't you believe in Star Wars?

[@pat6289]

@Leszek.Rzepecki Star wars is entertaining and brings out the child in you. Perhaps u believe it ?

[@Leszek.Rzepecki]

@@pat6289 No, I wonder why you believe in fairy tales about Jesus? Brings out the child in you, what you were taught at mummy's knee?

[@pat6289]

@@Leszek.Rzepecki Best you read below and try to use your open mind to understand how Christianity is evidential and a public faith that was witnessed by those living at the time. Christianity acknowledges that faith goes beyond what can be proven or disproven through scientific or empirical methods alone. It emphasizes a personal relationship with God and the transformative power of belief. For many Christians, their faith is grounded in personal experiences, spiritual encounters, and the guidance of religious texts. It's worth mentioning that Christianity has a rich history and tradition that spans thousands of years, with numerous theological and philosophical thinkers contributing to its development. Throughout history, Christian apologists have sought to provide rational and evidential arguments for the existence of God, the reliability of the Bible, and the truth claims of Christianity. These arguments include philosophical reasoning, historical evidence, fulfilled prophecies, and personal testimonies, among others. The New Testament and early Christian writings mention the deaths of several apostles, although the specific details of their deaths vary in different sources. Some of the commonly accepted accounts include: Peter: Tradition holds that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome during the reign of Emperor Nero. Andrew: According to tradition, Andrew was crucified on an X-shaped cross in Patras, Greece. James, son of Zebedee: The Bible mentions James being executed by Herod Agrippa I, who had him killed by the sword (Acts 12:1-2). John: While there are differing accounts of John's death, tradition suggests that he died of natural causes in Ephesus, Turkey, in old age. Thomas: Thomas is believed to have been martyred in India, either by spearing or by being pierced with a spear.

[@patrickdixon7202]

@@Leszek.RzepeckiStar Wars characters are fictional but Jesus is a historical figure.

[@adam-k]

Arguments are not evidence. An argument is a set of reasons to support an idea. An evidence is a set of available body of facts or information indicating that a proposition is true. You might have an argument for the existence of God (even though every argument for that I ever heard was simply an argument out of ignorance. ). However there is no evidence to support the existence of God. Also evidence is not cumulative. That is not how evidence works.

[@charleshinkley6]

Btw, a “god” wouldn’t need physical constants to control the universe (the Abrahamic god spoke things into being) so the existence of such constants is evidence AGAINST intelligent design.

[@RJGMorris]

My thoughts exactly.