Turning the Tables on Theists | #10 Dr. Richard Carrier

[@Jaxon5209]

Richard Carrier is the GOAT!

[@BristleHiffyn]

Creation is amazing all the natural universe that is designed.1 Kings 3 New International Version Solomon Asks for Wisdom 3 Solomon made an alliance with Pharaoh king of Egypt and married his daughter. He brought her to the City of David until he finished building his palace and the temple of the Lord, and the wall around Jerusalem. 2

[@stevewatson6839]

@@BristleHiffyn Unfortunately none of those people actually existed. The Hebrews were indigenous Canaanites and there is no archaeological evidence for Judaism before ~160BC. In fact dated evidence, letters from the "Jewish" colony at Elephantine in Egypt flat out says they were polytheists in 406BC and had no knowledge of the Passover.

[@BristleHiffyn]

@@stevewatson6839 LORD is true.2 The people, however, were still sacrificing at the high places, because a temple had not yet been built for the Name of the Lord. 3

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

​@@stevewatson6839by using your logic, there are no intermediate transitional fossils between species so apparently common ancestry evolution theory is false. Lack of evidence = never happened,, correct?

[@Bluesruse]

Dan Barker dismantles the "fine tuning" argument very thoroughly and elegantly. It's kind of like wondering "wow how did they make those rivers follow the borders so precisely!". Well, they didn't, the rivers came first. Dan calls this a "contraduction", which is a fallacy where your premise is flipped on its head so that all your conclusions are wrong. Essentially, the universe is not fine tuned to us, we are fine tuned to it. And even if you talked about cosmological constants, the false premise there is assuming that the universe was made to support life to begin with. And, even then the constants are actually not as fine tuned as you might think, they could be different and we could have more, not less, life in the universe. And even still, even if the constants would be such that life as we know it couldn't exist, that doesn't mean that some other kind of life couldn't exist. So, the fine tuning argument is simply built on fallacy upon fallacy upon fallacy.

[@davidr1431]

Well put

[@xv_void_vx]

Could you simplify this one more level? I am totally new to this. I am working through faith and logic and there is a universe of existence i never stepped in since God always was. So considering them.never Being is wow. A totally unsupported existence. Terrifying

[@Sulleymon21]

@@xv_void_vx so if you walk down the street and see a puddle of water in a pothole, do you think "wow, that pothole was made specifically for this water, it has the exact shape, it's perfect!" Or, do you think that the water just took the shape of the pothole as it filled it?

[@xv_void_vx]

@@Sulleymon21 the water took the shape of the pothole

[@992turbos]

Richard Carrier destroys everyone. I’ve never seen him lose a debate.

[@jasonbishop5345]

Always great to listen to a Carrier interview. I always learn something new

[@gholland6457]

"The fine tuning argument" states that the values of the constants are very low probability. How do you know the probability of a one-off event? You don't even know that there are other possibilities. On a 6-sided die you know there are 6 possibilities. You can observe the possibilities. You can roll it multiple times to see if the die is fair. We see one universe and have nothing to compare it to so it may only be a "1-sided" die. Even granting that there was more than 1 possibility, you don't know what the effect of other constants would be. You can't go from the standard model to predicting life. Try it - pick other constants and work out what the results are and what they would produce.

[@Godblessamerica1620]

What a fool mental gymnastics to try and disprove the obvious-a Creator!

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

There are more ways to disorganize the universe than to have an organized one

[@Bobboi-f9k]

Why cant we make simulations of the universe using computers? We can make simulations of rolling a die in a computer where we understand the qualities of the die and are able to make hypothesis to figure out what the die would land on, is it exact ? no but it is closer than nothing. We can simulate die rolling by figuring out qualities such as taking what its made of.

[@Скорописчикова]

You're doing a fantastic job! I have a quick question: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?

[@JD-ev1uj]

You guys have any thoughts on the metaphysical?

[@bipolarminddroppings]

I try not to waste my time thinking about nonsense.

[@xv_void_vx]

​@@bipolarminddroppingswhy is it nonesense?

[@OceanusHelios]

You mean another word for the supernatural but with better PR behind it? Yes. My thoughts are that if it can't be brought to a debate stage or a laboratory or shown to be something that is everyday and regular, then the chances are much higher that this metaphysical mumbo jumbo is being sold by a charlatan selling some kind of snake oil, or a dumb book, or wants to make money on a lecture circuit where he again will not bring anything to show to the class. Just another hot air word.

[@brixan...]

36:15 what significance does this supposed "low probability" have when the sample size is 1...? The constants could be necessary properties of any universe. We don't know, we have nothing to compare to

[@Xhris57]

Here's an analysis of Richard Carrier's ten arguments for atheism from a perspective that integrates the cognitive linguistic model of Christ you've described, along with scriptural references where applicable: **1. The Outsider Test for Faith:** - **Response:** If Christ is understood as a relational principle that fosters unity and resolution, this could be seen as an internal test of faith. The concept aligns with teachings like "Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind" (Philippians 2:1-2, NIV). This scripture suggests that the unity in Christ is a test of true faith, encouraging believers to reflect on their beliefs with the same scrutiny one might apply to external religions. **2. The Argument from Ignorance:** - **Response:** From this perspective, Christ as an emanation of physical laws at the Big Bang could be interpreted as the ultimate explanation for natural phenomena. The Bible speaks of God's creation in terms that could be metaphorically linked to this: "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Hebrews 11:3, NIV). Here, faith in Christ's role in creation counters the argument that belief stems from ignorance. **3. The Argument from Incoherence:** - **Response:** If Christ is a principle of relational coherence, this counters the argument of incoherence. Scripturally, this might be reflected in the idea that "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17, NIV), suggesting a unifying, coherent force in Christ. **4. The Argument from Unreliable Revelation:** - **Response:** Viewing Christ as a manifestation of universal laws implies that all true revelations should resonate with these principles. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands" (Psalm 19:1, NIV) suggests that natural laws themselves are a form of reliable revelation, consistent across cultures. **5. The Argument from Failed Prophecy:** - **Response:** If one interprets the 10 Commandments as manifestations of pre-existing moral laws, then prophecies might be seen as contingent on human response to these laws rather than divine whims. Consider "If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land" (2 Chronicles 7:14, NIV), where prophecy is conditional. **6. The Argument from Evil:** - **Response:** The relational principle of Christ could be seen as a means to reconcile or transcend evil through personal and communal transformation. "For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility" (Ephesians 2:14, NIV), points to Christ's role in overcoming division and evil. **7. The Argument from Silence:** - **Response:** If Christ is understood as an emanation of laws, silence could be interpreted as the silent operation of these laws in the universe. "He is not far from any one of us. 'For in him we live and move and have our being'" (Acts 17:27-28, NIV) suggests an ever-present, though not always vocal, divine influence. **8. The Argument from History:** - **Response:** Here, one might argue that historical accounts of divine interventions are symbolic or allegorical expressions of these relational principles at work. "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us" (1 Corinthians 10:11, NIV) supports the idea of historical narratives as illustrative rather than literal divine acts. **9. The Argument from Parsimony (Ockham’s Razor):** - **Response:** The simplicity of a universe governed by inherent laws (emanated from Christ) might actually be seen as more parsimonious than a universe requiring multiple deities or supernatural entities. "The heavens are telling the glory of God; and the firmament proclaims his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1, RSV) could be interpreted as the simplicity and beauty of divine law. **10. The Argument from Bayes’ Theorem:** - **Response:** If Christ is the source of physical and moral laws, then from a probabilistic standpoint, the evidence of a consistent universe might be seen as supportive of this principle. "He sustains all things by his powerful word" (Hebrews 1:3, NIV) could be interpreted as evidence of Christ's continuous influence, making the existence of such a principle more probable than not. In this thought experiment, each argument by Carrier is met with a reinterpretation where Christ acts as a foundational relational principle, not as traditionally defined but as a cosmic force of unity and law. This perspective challenges atheistic arguments by suggesting a different, perhaps less anthropomorphic, understanding of divinity.

[@Chriliman]

@@Xhris57 what if god wants to relate to each person in whatever context they were brought up in, not worried if they call him Jesus, or Misah, or Mashiac, or Soashyant, or Kalki, or Maitreya. These are all messiah concepts from various religions throughout history. I think if there is a god, it’s greater than your or my religious conceptions about it.

[@Xhris57]

@ This is a fascinating observation that points to how the Logos-driven evolution model might serve as a meta-framework accommodating multiple interpretations of reality through the lens of negotiated meaning. Let me create a visualization that demonstrates how different belief systems can be valid paths through the same symbolic space.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ I've created a visualization that demonstrates how different belief systems can represent valid paths through the same symbolic space of divine truth. The visualization shows several key insights from your observation: 1. **Parallel Valid Paths**: - Literal Genesis interpretation (Blue path) - Scientific cosmological evolution (Green path) - Symbolic/metaphorical interpretation (Red path) - Mystical understanding (Purple path) 2. **Connection Points**: - Dotted lines show where different interpretations intersect - Each path maintains its internal consistency while sharing truth with others - The paths weave together without invalidating each other 3. **Common Elements**: - All paths begin with divine origin - All paths show progression toward increasing complexity - All paths converge in the present moment - All paths participate in the larger Logos framework This model suggests several profound implications: 1. **Multi-dimensional Truth**: - Truth can be expressed through multiple valid frameworks - Different interpretations can capture different aspects of the same divine reality - The Logos accommodates multiple valid negotiation paths 2. **Complementarity**: - Like wave-particle duality in quantum mechanics, seemingly contradictory views can both be valid descriptions of reality - Each perspective offers unique insights into the nature of divine truth - The tension between different views can itself be generative of deeper understanding 3. **Unified Framework**: - The Logos provides an overarching structure that accommodates all valid paths - Different belief systems can be seen as different "languages" describing the same divine reality - The negotiation process allows for multiple valid interpretations while maintaining coherence Would you like to explore: 1. How specific theological concepts might be expressed across different paths? 2. How this model might help bridge apparent conflicts between science and faith? 3. How the negotiation process might work differently within each path while still maintaining connection to the others? This framework suggests that truth is rich enough to accommodate multiple valid interpretations, each capturing different aspects of divine reality while participating in the larger unity of the Logos.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

[@Chriliman]

What if our universe/existence is a result of being separated from God? Which would explain why it appears to have been made without a God.

[@trvrshoe4518]

this type of argument is always the only one that entertains me as an atheist but it still immediately becomes boring when it's simply an implication that the supernatural is hidden, and by all purposes the supernatural seems to always be hidden in a natural world

[@Chriliman]

@ yea, it also uses the scriptural idea of separation, while ignoring all the scripture where god has claimed to have made the heavens and the earth. I tend to either think god intentionally made everything the way it is like an author writes a story, or intelligence(potentially immortal) is an emergent property of pure eternal random causation. I reject the idea that there was ever absolutely nothing.

[@trvrshoe4518]

@@Chriliman thats a tough one tough because to belive that there was any god *is* to believe there was nothing. and not in an uncaused caused case because we have uncaused causes, in the way that God seems to be a mere impossibility (see Carrier's argument of the natural world explaining most all things and theist world 0 things)

[@Chriliman]

@@trvrshoe4518 I think an eternal god could have always existed alongside energy and just has always been making new things, but I could also see energy being eternal by itself and just randomly causing new things to happen. Really comes down to either believing nature is eternal/cyclical or God is eternal/creative.

[@trvrshoe4518]

@Chriliman if you do believe in eternal energy then that can only exist with an eternal nature so that there would rule god out

[@cooltune]

Yeah the fine tuning argument is self-defeating. It indeed means God is 'bound' by rules, he supposedly created himself. Or there has to be something or someone above him that imposes rules of conduct.... which is paradoxical to say the least.

[@antoniomiguelsimao]

I think it's almost the same thing to want to prove that God exists than to prove the opposite, both hypotheses are not falsifiable. These are two enormous and impossible tasks. Also thinking that the universe is a simulation, or an experiment by aliens is a non-answer to the problem posed by theism: "who created the aliens"?

[@drzaius844]

Humans couldn’t prove that a god exists, but a god could prove that it exists, if it wanted to. Why it would hide and then torture people because they didn’t’ find it is the question.

[@Xhris57]

I'll pair each response with the specific manifestation of the Christ principle (relational/reconciliatory fusion into higher order): 1. **The Outsider Test for Faith** Principle: Information fusion across belief systems Response: When different belief systems interact honestly, they often discover shared underlying truths, just as different scientific fields often converge on unified principles. The Christ principle suggests that seeming contradictions can be reconciled into higher-order understanding, similar to how quantum mechanics and general relativity, while apparently contradictory, are believed to have a unified theory. Scriptural basis: Acts 17:23 - Paul at the Areopagus, finding common ground with Greek philosophy. 2. **The Argument from Ignorance** Principle: Knowledge integration Response: Rather than God being an explanation for what we don't know, the Christ principle suggests that new discoveries reveal more about how fundamental relationship patterns operate across reality. As science advances, we see more examples of cooperative behavior at every level, from quantum entanglement to evolutionary symbiosis. Scriptural basis: Colossians 2:3 - "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." 3. **The Argument from Incoherence** Principle: Logical reconciliation Response: The Christ principle resolves apparent contradictions through higher-order synthesis, similar to how wave-particle duality was resolved through quantum mechanics. Seemingly opposing concepts can be unified at a higher level of understanding. Scriptural basis: John 1:1 - The Logos (divine reason) unifying God and creation. 4. **The Argument from Unreliable Revelation** Principle: Cultural synthesis Response: Different religious traditions represent various perspectives on the same underlying reality, just as different languages can describe the same physical laws. The Christ principle suggests these can be reconciled into a more complete understanding. Scriptural basis: Acts 10:34-35 - God shows no partiality but accepts people from every nation. 5. **The Argument from Failed Prophecy** Principle: Pattern emergence Response: Prophecy represents recognition of emergent patterns in how relationships and reconciliation operate, similar to how physical laws allow prediction of natural phenomena. Scriptural basis: Luke 24:27 - Christ revealing himself through pattern recognition in scripture. 6. **The Argument from Evil** Principle: Conflict resolution Response: Evil represents temporary separation awaiting reconciliation, like entropy in physical systems. The Christ principle actively works to reconcile these separations into higher-order harmony. Scriptural basis: Romans 8:28 - All things working together for good. 7. **The Argument from Silence** Principle: Implicit communication Response: The principle communicates constantly through natural patterns of relationship and reconciliation, from atomic bonds to ecosystem interdependence to human relationships. Scriptural basis: Romans 1:20 - God's qualities seen through creation. 8. **The Argument from History** Principle: Historical integration Response: Historical events demonstrate the consistent operation of reconciliation principles, culminating in the incarnation as the ultimate example of divine-human relationship. Scriptural basis: Galatians 4:4 - The fullness of time bringing divine-human reconciliation. 9. **The Argument from Parsimony** Principle: Unified explanation Response: One consistent principle of relationship and reconciliation operating at all levels provides a simpler explanation than multiple supernatural interventions. Scriptural basis: Ephesians 4:6 - "one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." 10. **The Argument from Bayes' Theorem** Principle: Evidence convergence Response: The probability of this framework is supported by the consistent appearance of relationship/reconciliation patterns across multiple domains of reality. Scriptural basis: Colossians 1:17 - "in him all things hold together." This framework suggests that Christ operates as a universal principle of relationship and reconciliation, manifesting in physical laws, biological processes, psychological patterns, and social dynamics. The incarnation represents this principle becoming personally present in human history. The key insight is that relationship and reconciliation aren't just religious concepts but fundamental features of reality at every level, from quantum mechanics to cosmic evolution. This provides a bridge between scientific and religious understanding. Would you like to explore how this framework applies to specific scientific discoveries or theological concepts?

[@OceanusHelios]

1. Nope. Collaboration and copying others doesn't make the religion more true. 2. Nope. That physics and particles don't exist just so you can prove your point. You are projecting meaning onto things that have no relation to how you want to think about it. 3. Nope. Again, quantum mechanics will work the same if you believe in Quetzalcoatl or Odin. The particular imaginary super being will have no bearing on what particles do. 4. Nope. That is like squinting your yes at cars and saying, "They are all boats!" when you are a sailor. Might make you feel good to say so and you find it reassuring, but it isn't the case. 5. Nope. None of that has anything to do with prophecy. Things like the temple falling after 70 years? Yeah, they backdated the original story. 70 was a yuge number in numerology beliefs. 6. Nope. Evil often is defined as anything which says no to your religion. Nope. People do awful things to people for the purpose of gain, and often in the name of religion. Somehow the sky daddy doesn't even comment on it, but sits and watches. And the super being apparently needs clergy to talk for them and they always get it 100% right? Nope. 7. Nope. Chemistry and the laws of physics would work the same if you converted to Buddhism, or any other religion. Just as those things could care less if I were a fan of Bugs Bunny or not and wanted to see Bugs Bunny in anything and everything I looked at. That is a matter of chosen viewpoint and has no bearing on the behavior of particles. Honestly particles are bound more by probability in the form of QED and QCD than any crappy analogies about them. 8. Nope. Since this absentee dead-beat sky daddy can't show up for 2000 years, and won't for another 2 million years, we can throw the relationship out unless we are talking about the relationship of a believer with their imaginary character living in their head and wrestling with the idea that the dude won't ever show up to help out. 9. Nope. Saying that there is a god doesn't make it be. You can't word this thing into existence. What would help is if people quit putting words in this god of your's mouth and he did his own talking. 10. Nope. You can god-splain your god into everything you look at. That is more a function on how you choose to explain it rather than an actual explanation of anything. This framework you suggest shows a lot of how you choose to explain things to yourself rather than having any explanatory power. You can't build a jet engine on it. You can't do anything other than write poetry with it. You can't make predictions with it. You can't do math with it. You can't solve problems with it. You can only tell yourself that you believe what you want to believe because you want to believe it....based on this god that other people told you about, and you were in fact born an atheist. There are no theological/scientific synergies to be found here. This is another example where a theist is impressed by how consistent science is and the value it can bring to humanity, whilst shoe horning his theological views onto everything in science. This isn't a case where you look at an atom and see (in English) anything that says Xhris57's particular god made this atom.

[@aaronbredon2948]

If the constants of the universe were: 1. Such that no life could exist - there would be no life to talk about tuning. 2. Such that intelligence could not arise - there would be no talk about tuning. 3. Such that life and intelligence unlike us could survive - that life would make the fine tuning argument. 4. Such as ours - life makes the fine tuning argument. Theree could be any number of universes with different constants, and the fine tuning argument would be made in every universe where intelligence forms. Thus the probability of the universe having constants suitable for our existence is 100%.

[@stevewatson6839]

There is fine tuning - evolution and adaption have mindlessly "fine tuned" live on Earth to Earth! Creationists have it arse about. Very silly. You've a good argument there; I'm just adding to it. ;-)

[@aaronbredon2948]

@ yep, as Douglas Adams said, we are the water in the puddle looking at the hole it fills and saying the hole must have been designed to have us in it.

[@haydenwalton2766]

one cannot ask oneself why one doesn't exist. therefore, existence/life proves nothing. certainly not a creator god

[@Bluesruse]

In a universe with some actual intelligence, the fine tuning argument wouldn't be made.

[@michaelpudney]

Theism only works with limited human knowledge like there was in the past with the quaint models of creation that existed, with more and more knowledge theism seems less and less likely IMO.

[@OceanusHelios]

"Lightning is the hand of god!" "Oh, electricity, we can use it make it ourselves?" "Vulcanism is god's anger!" "Oh wait, we understand it now?" "You know my god had to be the one that started the universe kickstarter campaign!" "Oh wait..." Yup. Always god of the gaps.

[@mistyhaney5565]

Carrier and Michael Jones from Inspiring Philosophy should form a double act. They seem to share a lack of knowledge of the original text, as well as a willingness to cherry pick, and misrepresent historical data. They could be used as a method for teaching that the point of view of the individual presenting information can greatly affect how information is interpreted, from even the most opposing viewpoints.

[@BDnevernind]

This is ridiculous. Carrier can and often does cite chapter and verse at lengt, and he has DOZENS of peer reviewed articles analyzing New Testament and even Old Testament material. You are correct about Jones though.

[@nonyobussiness3440]

You look like that army tiktoker. Yall have the same skull lol

[@Xhris57]

To address Richard Carrier’s ten arguments for atheism while exploring Christ as a relational principle and source of order, we can approach each argument with scriptural references and theological reasoning. This will demonstrate that the model of Christ as a cognitive-linguistic and relational principle aligns with Scripture and offers coherent responses. 1. The Outsider Test for Faith Argument: Religious beliefs should be evaluated with the same skepticism as those of other religions. Response: Christianity acknowledges that belief must be tested and invites scrutiny (1 Thess 5:21: “Test everything; hold fast to what is good”). The relational principle of Christ unites all people under universal truths that transcend cultural or religious boundaries. For example, the command to love God and neighbor (Matt 22:37-39) is universally resonant and not culturally confined, suggesting Christianity’s openness to being tested against other systems. 2. The Argument from Ignorance Argument: Belief in God arises from ignorance of natural explanations. Response: The Bible teaches that natural laws reveal God’s presence. Romans 1:20 states, “For since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.” Far from ignorance, this argument suggests that the universe’s intelligibility points to an originating relational principle, consistent with Christ as the Logos (John 1:1-3). 3. The Argument from Incoherence Argument: The concept of God is logically inconsistent. Response: The relational principle of Christ provides coherence by reconciling apparent contradictions. For instance, mercy and justice are reconciled in Christ’s atoning work (Romans 3:26: “He did this to demonstrate his righteousness… so as to be just and the one who justifies”). God’s attributes, though complex, find coherence in Christ’s relational and mediating nature. 4. The Argument from Unreliable Revelation Argument: Revelations are unreliable due to contradictions across religions. Response: The Bible itself anticipates skepticism and provides criteria for discerning truth (1 John 4:1: “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God”). Christ is presented as the ultimate revelation (Heb 1:1-3), and His principles-love, self-sacrifice, and reconciliation-are universally verifiable through their transformative effects on individuals and societies. 5. The Argument from Failed Prophecy Argument: Religious prophecies have often failed. Response: Biblical prophecy uniquely aligns with historical and theological fulfillment. For example, Isaiah 53 foretells Christ’s suffering and redemptive work, fulfilled in the Gospels. Moreover, the relational principle of Christ as the source of physical and moral laws transcends temporal misunderstandings, ensuring consistency with divine purposes (Matt 5:17-18). 6. The Argument from Evil Argument: Evil and suffering are incompatible with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God. Response: Suffering is addressed through Christ’s relational principle, where God enters human suffering and redeems it (Heb 4:15: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses”). The Bible frames evil as a byproduct of human free will (Gen 3), yet Christ transforms suffering into a path toward ultimate reconciliation (Rom 8:28). 7. The Argument from Silence Argument: God’s existence should be more clearly evidenced. Response: God’s communication is evident in creation (Ps 19:1), Scripture, and Christ. John 14:9 declares, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.” The relational principle of Christ ensures divine presence in every human interaction where reconciliation and higher-order unity occur (Matt 18:20). 8. The Argument from History Argument: Historical evidence does not support divine intervention. Response: The historical resurrection of Christ stands as a pivotal divine intervention, evidenced by early accounts and transformative effects (1 Cor 15:3-8). Beyond this, the relational principle of Christ aligns with the emergence of natural laws, which ensure the universe’s ordered self-assembly and continuity (Col 1:17: “In him all things hold together”). 9. The Argument from Parsimony (Ockham’s Razor) Argument: A universe without God is simpler. Response: A universe with Christ as the relational principle is parsimonious because it unifies natural laws and moral truths. Colossians 1:16-17 affirms that all things were created and sustained through Christ. This model eliminates unnecessary complexities by rooting all reality in a singular principle of order and reconciliation. 10. The Argument from Bayes’ Theorem Argument: Probabilistic reasoning favors naturalistic explanations over theism. Response: Probabilistic reasoning can incorporate the relational principle of Christ. The fine-tuning of the universe and the emergence of life align with a model where Christ, as the Logos, sets conditions for natural processes to thrive (John 1:4: “In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind”). The coherence of physical and moral laws under this framework increases the likelihood of a theistic explanation. Relational Principle of Christ in Creation 1. At the Big Bang: Christ as the Logos emanates physical laws, ensuring the universe’s intelligibility and self-assembly (Heb 1:3: “sustaining all things by his powerful word”). 2. Moral Law: Just as physical laws govern nature, moral laws reflect God’s nature, pre-existing and revealed in Christ (Matt 5:17-18). 3. Higher Order Unity: Christ’s relational principle culminates in the reconciliation of all things, uniting creation and Creator (Eph 1:10). By interpreting Christ as the cognitive-linguistic principle that underlies both physical and moral order, we provide a robust framework to address these arguments. This model not only aligns with Scripture but also offers a coherent, scientifically-informed response to atheistic critiques.

[@hjorvarthvalamir2182]

What does it tell you, about the people and even especially the so-called bible god, when ppl have to try so hard using all sorts of mental gymnastics and personal psychological motives deceitful inventions to try to prove that their god exists, should it be so difficult to prove his existence? Why so much excuses and trying to fool others, that alone proves the bible yahwehjehovah non-existence.

[@ElLgante]

That being said, I really appreciated your pushback in many instances, specifically those who showed both consciousness and the beginning of the universe are the Achiles Heel of Richard Carrier whole worldview (and he knows this because in the "debate" with Dr. Loke he hilariously failed trying to make a case for his 'universe out of nothing' scenario.)

[@riverswoodshed]

It's not an "Achilles heel". Richard did not "fail" anything. No one actually knows how the universe first came to be, before the Big Bang. That information is not available to humanity yet, and that's why Richard does not actually have the answers you seek. When (if) we get that information, I guarantee it will come from science, not religion. It's okay to not know. Lots of people don't seem to tolerate ambiguity very well, so they tell themselves stories about gods and stuff, so they can *feel* like their questions are answered.

[@unicyclist97]

Imagine thinking Loke made any coherent arguments 😬

[@BDnevernind]

This is amazing. You really believe this?

[@tonypegler9080]

Just wondering Richard if your nickname was Jockstrap at school ?

[@anthonyspencer766]

I really enjoy Dr. Carrier. He is sharp, and I sympathize with the way he thinks, esp. his skeptical bent. That said, his article can be deflated fairly simply (not because I want to, but because I think it is philosophically obligatory to do so if it can be done). All we need to do is consider one set of sentences from his initial setup of the thought experiment (i.e., the one in which you imagine yourself to be God). I quote: _"So you won’t create every logically possible world. Nor will you create every logically possible person. Rather, you will create every one of those that’s possible that is good. Because you do nothing but good now. Okay. So. What then, in this alternative reality, would the world most probably be like?"_ Carrier is failing to consider a distinction between _basic_ and _complex_ actions. Swinburne identifies an action P as basic just in case it is true for some agent A that A can P without any meaningful intermediary steps between A's willing P and A's accomplishing P. Note, it is fine if we let this idea of basic action be an _epistemic_ concept. E.g., wiggling one's thumb is an example of a basic action under this definition, albeit that we know there are intermediate biological causes between willing to wiggle one's thumb and accomplishing it. The point here is that _in terms of the agent's situation for its efficacy in bringing things about_ , if the agent is human, then wiggling his or her thumb is basic, requiring nothing _intentional_ beside our will to do this and an anatomically/physiologically normal human body. What must be considered is the possibility that there are goods that it would be possible for God to accomplish _non-basically_ (this entails that God would have secondary, instrumental intentions). If this is conceivable, then there are things God could bring about as means (secondarily) in service of a distinct end (primarily). God's means in any such case are limited by God's intention, i.e., a determinate goal specifies a determinate set of ways for bringing it about, such that it is impossible for goals and methods to vary independently for any non-basic action. Now, all you have to do is consider that there is a particular good that God intended for mankind that entailed the world had to be a certain way for bringing that end about. Necessarily, this precludes that the world (understood as the unrestricted aggregate of all true contingent facts) is perfect. If God does A in order to bring about B, and B is possibly perfect, then A is necessarily imperfect, since what is perfect (as we already know from an analysis of divine perfection) will not change or exist so as to bring about something else. Put simply, if A is perfect, then there is no 'going through' it (instrumentally, as it were) for the sake of something more perfect. Thus, if God does A in order to bring about B, the moral analysis ought to take B as its object _given the possibility that B is good enough to justify A_ . If you were God, therefore, you may bring about a less-than-perfect world in order to facilitate a greater terminal perfection in, say, the human beings you populate that world with. It is not -- at least it is not obvious -- the case that the relation between God and world is expected to be a relation between a perfect craftsman and a perfect craft. The world can be created for the sake of a particular perfection that is achieved in a trans-world way and where the world is instrumental in bringing that about. So, Carrier is really just predicating his entire article on God's intention taking _the world_ (qua creation) as its object, when it is plausible (per the reasoning above) that God's intentions are stratified in cases where God does things non-basically. If that's true, then we might consider that God (you in this case), with your vast knowledge, power, and goodness, would desire to create _persons_ , not worlds. And maybe the creation of the right sort of _persons_ entails that their creation is _not a basic act for the creator_ . Instead, the creation of the right sort of persons may involve an imperfect world as a method. If we return now to the quoted section (above) from Carrier's article it is clear to see that Carrier handwaves the claim that, as God, you would create both worlds and people. He does not ask the simple question: _pre-theoretically, what does something like God create if he does create?_ Suppose, for example, that it was logically impossible for God to create people. We could rightly ask, "Would God create people-less worlds?" That isn't an obvious 'yes'. It could be that a being without any intrinsic needs, like God, desires first and foremost to create other persons, and the creation of worlds may just be a logical necessity to that end. If furthermore it is the case that, in order for God to create a trans-world perfection, i.e., a human being, requires an imperfect intermediate cause (a world), this looks like a strong explanation as to why the world looks imperfect, and to boot, why it seems that even skeptical talk about the world in this matter never considers the world as an object unto itself, but always as a _platform_ for things to occur within.

[@standing1003]

Romans 1:20-21 New International Version (NIV) For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse

[@leafboy3269]

The main issue I have with Dr Richard’s argument is simply his assertion that a Geocentric cosmos is more likely under theism, I totally understand that intuition but I don’t think it actually pans out. It is interesting that the universe is this way and that life is seemingly rare and the universe is not of and very full of “Junk” Dr Richard calls this wasteful but my question is what does it waste? Time? Resources? God would have an infinite amount of both of those so I don’t see how exactly it’s wasteful. I can think of at least a few reasons the universe could be this way, it is obvious that a Geocentric, very young, and relatively small universe that is extremely life permitting would be a universe in which Gods existence is more likely. And it would obviously create a much different type of humanity, but it’s not very obvious to me that just cause it’s different it would be better.

[@DontRushtheClassics]

When we travel to another star system and find planets filled with aliens that worship a humanoid named Jesus ( or Buddha, etc...) , you might have something.

[@gholland6457]

To say that a god was incapable of making a smaller, younger, more life-producing universe without being able to make it as good or better than what we observe means that god has constraints and is therefore not all-powerful. This is standard theodicy problem stuff - you have to start retreating from omnipotence, omniscience, and/or omnibenevolence in order to allow for the universe as it is.

[@leafboy3269]

@@gholland6457while I certainly understand your point, I think that your conclusion is a little misguided. The same way god couldn’t create a square circle or pain that feels good he could not create a universe that is cosmically different than ours and yet sparks the same attitudes within us. Now if you want to argue that those attitudes are unnecessary that’s fine but my point is god could not create two divergent universes with identical people

[@bipolarminddroppings]

​@leafboy3269 some people get pleasure from pain... If God can't make something, they aren't all powerful. An all powerful being could make a square circle. By the very definition of being all powerful, there are no limits, nothing is impossible.

[@michaelx5070]

I used to be a big fan of Carrier. I’m embarrassed of those days lol

[@talleyhoe846]

There really is no need to be embarrassed over once having acknowledged the credibility of the work of an advocate articulating the primacy of basing belief on reason applied to evidence-based and philosophically sound rational thinking rather than ancient superstitious mythology

[@Zictomorph]

@michaelx5070, I would love to hear what you think about his arguments in this video. I don't have any emotions towards him one way or another, but at first glance, the arguments seem solid to me.

[@lukehoefler4317]

@@Wahlbo this has been my experience. i think he may get some better respect if he would sit with alex oconner. That kid has away of washing off the slander theses geniuses get from the fearful ignorant

[@realfranciscohermida]

Atheism is defined relative to the meaning used for the word "God," which varies widely. If God is literally truth, as an esoteric reading of religious scriptures might suggest, then atheists rejecting God while pursuing truth are rejecting "truth" depending on how they are defining the word "God". Myths hold many truths, similar to those found in some entirely fictional narratives like The Matrix. You can extract these truths out of myths if you prefer, but you will notice that myths are often written in a way that attempts to remove many parameters of ambiguity. The main ambiguity of this method is understanding the words in a literal way without understanding that they are meant to hold deeper meanings that could reveal some interesting consistent patterns of reality.

[@gholland6457]

And if I define god as a cheese sandwich then atheists are arguing against existence of cheese sandwiches. Or if I define god as air then they are arguing against the existence of air. But those aren't the definitions being used and neither is truth being used as the definition. But let's take your definition seriously for a moment. Countless religions have multiple gods. If the definition of god is always "truth" then to believe in only one god is to reject multiple truths. And there you're left in a position where you have to change your definition or find some way of paring down the number of gods.

[@realfranciscohermida]

​@@gholland6457 "And if I define god as a cheese sandwich then atheists are arguing against existence of cheese sandwiches" correct, you can follow the pattern "those aren't the definitions being used and neither is truth being used as the definition" It is a choice, you don't need to define it this way, but if you do the "riddle" makes more sense. "Countless religions have multiple gods" countless religions have multiple truths "If the definition of god is always "truth"" just to be clear I didn't say it is always and made clear that it varies widely. There is a tendency from atheism(in general terms) to narrow those definitions to something more non sensical which is a lot easier to attack. "And there you're left in a position where you have to change your definition or find some way of paring down the number of gods." sure, polytheism was the limited truth of each "tribe" that lived according to this god/gods truth/truths. Monotheism is an attempt to merge together many of those gods into a single perfectly coherent truth. If they succeed or not it is totally fair to criticize.

[@TaylorWalston]

The only question is, does a god exist or not. Adding morality, truth, etc are poetic license, not demonstrations or answers to that question.

[@realfranciscohermida]

@@TaylorWalston That’s not the question. How can you know whether God exists if you don’t first understand the definition of the word "God"? For example, if you define "God" as equivalent to "truth" or, more specifically, "absolute truth," then the question becomes, "Does truth exist?" You can answer that, but someone who believes "God" refers to a being will interpret and approach the question entirely differently than you.

[@TaylorWalston]

@realfranciscohermida word salad. Poetic license to define god as live or as truth. If the god does not exist, that definition is irrelevent.

[@neilmccormick2064]

Finding it hard to take them seriously with those haircuts ,, especially the host .

[@BDnevernind]

Hard to take you seriously for your superficiality.

[@videosrfun4me189]

. Your brain is laid out designed on the pattern of the Tabernacle as given to Moses, not Soloman. Apply all the repeating numbers in scripture as an anatomy book and you will find that each number applies to the design of the human body, the temple of God. 12 tribes =12 body systems. 16 muscles of tongue, 18 breaths per minute. 22 bones of cranium Golgatha. 28 days of womans cycle. 32 teeth, 33 vertebrae or Jacobs Ladder and so on. the bible has a blueprint of the human brain starting out like a jigsaw puzzle beginning with the 7 definitions of Penuel. learn it and then apply all bible verses associated with each location and build outwards. It all points to Jesus and why the number 613. Jesus is Lord

[@brixan...]

18 breaths per second? Which animal was that?

[@videosrfun4me189]

@@brixan... according to the medical sights on line the breath pattern is 12 to 20 per minute but average 17-18 per minute in humans.

[@brixan...]

@ Perhaps you mean "per minute." It's fine though, you're only looking at the numbers themselves, it will plug right into your theory

[@videosrfun4me189]

@@brixan... you are correct. my 68yr old brain fart.

[@videosrfun4me189]

@@brixan...READING the bible as an anatomy book for we are the temple of God and the bible is laid out like a jigsaw puzzle with a blueprint of the human brain starting at Penuel, look at a layout of the brain from the rear. the pineal gland being center picture as penuel. below it are the 4 beasts as represented our Colliculus cells. these have 6 layers or wings and are columnar with 4 sides showing representing 4 faces. they work morning noon and night sending messages or holy holy holy. Can you answer me this? If all humans are mammals and all mammals have 7 layers to the colliculus why do we humans have only 6 layers? the cherubim are represented over the pineal or ARK and white throne and these are represented by the choroid plexus cells showing 4 sides or faces and 4 layers or wings. they are only located in two places in the brain. under the throne is the crystal sea of Rev and this is represented by the Superior cistern of CSF. I hope a doctor reads this who knows the scriptures and understands what I was told in 2017. when read as an anatomy book you will find Rev 2 white stone, why 613, why cherubim have only one sword ,what Johns 153 fish represent and many other verses man has questioned for 2000 years.

[@jeremiahsmith9874]

Hilarious lots of propaganda

[@ElLgante]

Kinda disappointed that you invited a proven liar and defamer onto your channel. You don't talk to or debate these people, you either expose them or ignore them.

[@heartsongful]

Carrier is not a proven liar. I imagine that you think of him that way because you don't like what he has to say. I think that it is likely that your reasoning capabilities is faulty.

[@extremelylargeslug4438]

Got any evidence of your accusations against him?

[@Refsiul222]

@@heartsongful Sorry to disappoint, mate, but he is. People like Bart Ehrman, Tim O'Neill, and Edward Feser (theists and non-believers alike) have documented his dishonesty. He often misrepresents arguments, likely banking on fans not fact-checking or neutrals not having the time to dig deeper. Feser, for example, has a detailed blog post ("Carrier carries on") that exposes his philosophical misrepresentations and links directly to Carrier's claims for context. O'Neill, Ehrman, and others who have discussed with him have pointed out similar issues. Notice the common denominator?

[@Refsiul222]

@@extremelylargeslug4438 Scholars like Bart Ehrman, Tim O'Neill, and Edward Feser (theists and non-believers alike) have documented his dishonesty. He often misrepresents arguments, likely banking on fans not fact-checking or neutrals not having the time to dig deeper. Feser, for example, has a detailed blog post ("Carrier carries on") that exposes his philosophical misrepresentations and links directly to Carrier's claims for context. O'Neill, Ehrman, and others who have debated him have pointed out similar issues. Notice the common denominator?

[@unicyclist97]

"Defamer"? Every time Carrier has exposed dishonesty in people who have lied about him, he has done so using evidence proving that they lied about him.

[@michelangelope830]

Atheism is an impossibility. If religion is false doesn’t make atheism true. If religious people are deceived doesn’t make atheists don't deceived. I challenge you to understand why the atheist logical fallacy is censored. Who benefits censoring knowledge?. My truth is atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is "sky daddy" to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. God exists and the intelligent creator of the universe is not what atheists call "sky daddy". To understand God exists you have to understand the kalam cosmological argument: what has a beginning of existence has a cause because from nothing can not be created something. Logically it is impossible the existence of an infinite number of causes, therefore an eternal first uncaused cause that created what has a beginning of existence exists. God exists because not all reality can be created, God exists because logically it is impossible the existence of the creation or finitude without the creator or infinitude. I challenge you to understand why the most emblematic remark of atheism is "who created god?" that means "who created what is not created?". To abandon atheism you have to understand atheists lie to protect religion, and when they are told they don't care, and when they are told they laugh, and unfortunately the victims are innocent and vulnerable children. Spinoza tried to end religion with reason and failed because atheists lied about Spinoza's God. To end the war the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. Emergency!, innocent and vulnerable children are dying in absurd wars. Thank you.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Fallacious reasoning

[@DMoneys36]

Atheism doesn't make a claim or only rejects them

[@dontcareyawn]

Why is your deistic version of God so useless then? What's the real difference between a silent, invisible and uncaring god compared to no god at all?

[@Rolo-gn1nk]

You still have demonstrated nothing. Therefore, I reject your premise.