Without God, We Can’t Have Science…

[@cadenorris4009]

I agree completely. The only thing I will add is that as an engineer, our mathematical understanding of reality is not an accurate representation of reality, but accurate enough to be useful. It's completely possible that there are real scenarios in which our models break down, which has happened over and over again (the precession of mercury's orbit being where Newton and Kepler's model broke down). So it's hard to say we have much "true knowledge" at all, even though we can predict events well before they occur with a surprising level of accuracy.

[@r2371-n8e]

well said Science is the current state of the myth -somebody Math is true, but not real; science is real, but not true -me

[@dallassegno]

It's called entropy. Save everyone some time next time.

[@GustavoMaldonado42]

@@dallassegno lol chill

[@jaquaistaylor3794]

Beliefs do NOT require justification. The only thing beliefs require are the suspension of disbelief. Once you are willing to to accept a belief you will use whatever justification to keep that belief consistent

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Ok then we can logically be theist without reasoning behind it because beliefs don’t require justification.

[@arspsychologia4401]

I suppose you believe that.

[@jaquaistaylor3794]

@@Esch-a-ton3 I think we’re saying the same thing but only differ on the idea that justification is a prerequisite. I think the suspension of disbelief is the prerequisite and the justification happens after.

[@andrewburke2534]

@@Esch-a-ton3 Yes, you can be theist logically (beliefs can be from logical thinking) however that doesn't mean it is true; logical != truthful.

[@toasty_b3_vibing49]

​@@jaquaistaylor3794 By that logic, why not follow Jesus? Why stay suspended in the echo chamber of atheism that perpetuates hopelessness and meaninglessness when there's hope, joy, purpose and true love to be found in relationship with God?

[@MachineElf_Official]

4:30 It's not a contradiction for a flawed mind to have accurate predictions using the descriptive idea of math. Especially if there is trial and error involved, and human minds are evolved for pattern recognition and internal consistency. Our brains are pattern-seeking machines, not truth-seeking machines. The universe being non-random does not really say anything about whether a god exists. The universe is whatever its gonna be like, and the human mind is evolved to navigate and interact in that universe. The universe can either have predictable patterns or it can be random, and if it was random life could not exist. Randomness could be the work of god, or order could be the work of god, theres no way to actual know because we dont know the other possible ways the universe could have been like, we only have one universe to sample from.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Non-random means not caused by chance. Not caused by chance means it's intentional. Intention is caused by a mind

[@lucyferos205]

​@@Esch-a-ton3 Way to assert the consequent in your premises there like every other "logical" argument for God.

[@peepeepoopoovdbhxvbcc6683]

@@Esch-a-ton3 Not necessarily. Although an interesting premise. We will say that a puzzle set on a table fits together perfectly. You point at it and tell me it has a creator to make each piece, like the rules in the universe, converging and agreeing with every other piece around it to form a beautiful mosaic. And I would agree, this puzzle was created by somebody to fit together nicely. But then, I could take a plate, and smash it apart, and although I may smash it apart in many different ways, one could say that given a certain measure of force on a certain part of the plate it will always produce the same result (chaos theory aside, if you would like I can elaborate on why I don't speak about this here). I will demonstrate that the break in the plate, while erratic, will always be predictable given lots of calculations, and can always be reassembled perfectly into the plate. The parts still make up a whole, not because they were designed that way, but because it is the only logical path that makes sense, given the properties of the plate. You could tell me that, yes, I was the one who broke the plate, but I could similarly demonstrate the phenomena with a shattered stone found in an untouched forest, or a cracked patch of ice on a winter lake. Therefore, it makes equal sense that, given these bounds, the universe could have an internal logic that was by design or by the requirement of its existence as a whole of many parts.

[@Noneattachment]

​@@Esch-a-ton3what a leap of logic you got there😂

[@TheOuterDrive]

i can find the chapter about quantum mechanics in my Bible..

[@jcmgc]

If we accept your argument, then we have to accept our knowledge of God can’t be right because we can’t have knowledge of anything because we tend to see illusions. If you accept Spinosa definition of knowledge versus information, you would understand that knowledge is something directly experienced or is something you heard from someone else .

[@tomiedollie]

That’s not what his argument is. He’s saying that our knowledge is limited due to our limited cognitive abilities as humans. Therefore we need God, as He is a mind with no limits or flaws.

[@diethster]

Enter divine intervention, divinely inspired scripture being the chief of it

[@mattis50c13]

this is the first time someone i have actually made me think for a bit when someone is trying to prove god. There are some things that i don't agree with what you said but overall there where some really good point you talked about. Great job.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Thanks man! Glad to have you watching.

[@saftheartist6137]

You nailed it, “nothing” does not exist (ø). There is always something (1), when everything is inversely squared at differing positions.

[@abox-si6wv]

PLEASE CHANGE YOUR CHANNEL NAME, IT LITERALLY CANNOT BE FOUND ON KZbin😢😢. I've tried so hard to find it, if not for me subscribing, I wouldn't have seen this

[@gatlingmode]

Just subscribe at this point😂

[@gatlingmode]

Oh wait- I humbly apologize🗿

[@imjustwatchingyoutube8725]

You have to search with space like this: Esch a ton

[@juhadexcelsior]

I agree 🤣 I've tried finding it through search and its literally impossible.

[@batagur4233]

Just put hyphens in between the words…

[@jerpif]

Great content as always. One technical suggestion: turn down the sound effects relative to the narration. Swooshes and typing sounds were overpowering the message. Otherwise killing it!

[@Esch-a-ton3]

@@jerpif thanks man! I appreciate those types of criticisms because I'm just starting to learn editing. Thank you

[@ArcherSnowSpark]

@@Esch-a-ton3 yeah, I liked the pixelated letters and the typing sounds were satisfying but they made it hard to listen to what you were saying, reduce the typing sounds or something next time maybe. Good video overall tho :)

[@saftheartist6137]

I’m surprised that many don’t ask this question instead: about purpose. “When does something become purposeful?” We already know the reason behind it if we really think about it. For example, why is there meaning behind everything? Well, because both something and nothing are entities (things); therefore, things hold value and mass. So the question again goes back to our perspective on purpose: “When does something become purposeful (valuable)? [It’s always there]”

[@lexou4852]

Something becomes purposeful when you give it purpose. We do not discover meaning, we create it-which is equally if not more beautiful in my opinion.

[@saftheartist6137]

@@lexou4852 Hmm 🤔 that’s an interesting response; I have to agree to an extent. From my perspective, we didn’t start the world; we simply influence the rules while we are here. Yes, we give the world “meaning,” but it’s relative, not absolute. For the most part, we discover meaning through what we find most suitable in our current lives here on Earth.

[@GundaniumSkeleton]

Awesome as always. I don't want to stroke your ego too much, but you're a criminally underfollowed creator. Keep it up, God bless.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

I really appreciate it. Glad you enjoyed.

[@g6_mojoarts216]

100% ive been trying to put my friends and family onto these videos. These are such insanely thought provoking videos so I hope some of my more skeptical friends think about what esch a ton says in these and it helps guide them in the right direction.

[@firecloud77]

4:43 "Begs the question" doesn't mean "raise the question." If you want to be taken seriously you don't make the same mistake that so many modern journalists do.

[@ImchautzuCHAUTZU]

If you want to be taken seriously, you don't call out small mistakes in the usage of language, and act like THAT MISTAKE, is what completely removes all credibility from what someone says Oh my goodness, my Grammer is prolly all fucked up rn since im on the Internet 😱oh nooo, nobody's gonna understand what I'm trying to say😟 Can we just stop trying to nitpick every single little thing🤦🏾‍♂️

[@firecloud77]

@@ImchautzuCHAUTZU Aristotle would not consider it a "little" thing; nor would modern scholars.

[@ImchautzuCHAUTZU]

@@firecloud77Kendrick has a Pulitzer and his music is being taught in colleges. One Piece, a "goofy pirate manga", is being taught in Japanese schools. I'm certain that Kendrick isn't the most poised nigga on this earth, and I'm sure Eiichiro Oda(Author of One Piece) isn't a philosopher like Aristotle(or even someone within the same field like Takehiko Inoe), but both are deemed worthy enough to be taught in modern academic curriculums. If you think all that matters is what "Aristotle" or some random ass scholar(both of which you've NEVER MET) says, then the last thing you need to be thinking about is m whether or not there's a god. Ironically enough, you treat everything those "scholars" as the word of God🤦🏾‍♂️ Words are just words, you are looking WAYYY too deeply into it man. I almost wonder how you enjoy anything at all, off all you care about is what's technically correct Genuine question, If all you do is judge something's value based off what someone else says, how do you derive meaning? My fault, now I'm looking too deep into it. Maybe I'm the biggest hypocrite of 2024🤷🏾‍♂️ Unfortunately for me, I just misquoted that line, so now the joke is dead💀 You get my point yet? Literally NOBODY would care that the guy in the video got ONE WORD wrong You know what he meant and that's all that matters🤦🏾‍♂️ Get off your high horse

[@MidwitObservations]

Not sure if your saying God is logic or dictates/creates logic. But the concept of God being logic is what turned me to the search. I find it intresting that Jesus claimed to be the truth, and was described as the logos. Also 0÷2=1+(-1)

[@jeusmarcomascarina4102]

define or not define it doesn't matter if does'nt really understand that is why I don't to create an argument over critically claimed things.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

I think its both! This is where the Trinity comes into play. I have a video called “ the Christian God isn't who you think he is” it kinda explains the Trinity in these terms

[@TheOuterDrive]

Saying god is logic is a lazy way to escape what's written in the illogical Bible....

[@MidwitObservations]

@@TheOuterDrive says you

[@MidwitObservations]

What if I said logic is my god. Instead of God is logic. Isn't that just the same god as yours? Silly athiest

[@saftheartist6137]

The universe resembles a business on the grand scale of existence; no single person or being sustains, determines, or creates it ALL THE TIME. Instead, we all participate in this system. We can influence what shapes us and vice versa, although the ease or difficulty of this influence varies in different states, which is definitely true. (I agree with Roger Penrose’s perspective on cyclical cosmically. Every cycle spirals in a way that preserves enough order to even existed in the first place. 🌀)

[@juhadexcelsior]

Simply put a concept cannot explain itself as that would mean concepts preclude what they are describing which is ridiculous. How can a concept of food exist without there physically being food in existence? Doesn't make sense. Concepts exist to contextualize things that first exist objectively.

[@codyschock7752]

That interestingly sounds similar in principle to the argument from desire by C.S Lewis. Something to note. I know it’s not the same but it almost brings it to completion. How can the concept of food exist without there actually being food in existence. And then, why am I hungry for food if it does not exist both conceptually and therefore actually. Woah.

[@ALEXANDERATTACK]

This guy is insane. This video was perfect. Thank you.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@justinr.2389]

Your videos rock dude. Keep it up

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Glad you like them!

[@cjones3907]

Long story short. The laws of physics and the way the universe operates existed long before humans had the ability to understand it or could even begin to understand it. Which, if we agree on that, then it's more likely than not that there is an astronomically high amount (no pun intended) of mathematical equations that govern the way the universe operates and our understanding of it that we are unaware of and may never be aware of.

[@Personincrowd]

6:38 hard to believe but dropping religion helped me lose a lot of stress and depression. I can appreciate reality for what it really is.

[@79mnq]

is this argument a blend of involving Indeterminism, chaos theory, 3 body problem, and argument from design? If so, couldn’t you just refute all of this by accessing the universe from an external vantage point of which no effect lies by doing so, and measuring the universe’s causal mechanisms? Please help me understand.

[@khanyisaqhuba6659]

Truth is a degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. Reality is that which can be directly observed or indirectly ascertained. Positing a God just for the sake of its usefulness in explaining what we don’t have evidence for is disingenuous in essence, and Occam’s razor disqualifies that argument anyway. It also doesn’t advance human knowledge by 1 bit, but on the contrary adds more complexity and mystery, if we grant that God exists (with all the non existent evidence) it would be incumbent to ask where he came from, add infinite regression, so in the quest for truth it is not helpful to make such presumptions, especially if it is to wield it to your own personal advantage, that is the beginning of dogmatism

[@toasty_b3_vibing49]

1. Occam's razor favours theism depending on how you look at it, so I wouldn't make assertions using it in this regard. 2. The argument here is that the existence of God explains the existence of what we know just as well as what we don't. 3. To say that there is no evidence for God is ignorance. 4. God is an eternal being, an uncaused cause, and without Him there is infinite regress.

[@khanyisaqhuba6659]

@@toasty_b3_vibing49😂i get where you’re coming from, but there’s infinite regress either way, introducing God, doesn’t advance the argument in any way, it adds more complexity. You can’t just Go ahead and make unwarranted assertions about his nature too, because they’re unfalsifiable, so it’s not a sound argument to begin with, there’s know way you could possibly know that, but you’ll use that argument because it reinforces your premise, on what grounds though???

[@jyjjy7]

Gödel doesn't apply to constructive/algorithmic mathematics, and reality IS a process, it is constructive. QM describes iterative discrete interactions/transformations, a finite state machine. It does not possess the issues of self reference and infinities inherent to continuous stateless mathematics Gõdel pointed out suffer from incompleteness. Emergence as a concept belies your claim that the rules by which reality operates are dependent on a rule maker. Fluid dynamics is dependent on the underlying molecular dynamics, fluid dynamics being the statistical properties of too many molecules to count interacting with each other. The scientific understanding of reality is exactly that, layers of interconnected dynamical systems dependent on scale of size/energy/time, with the statistical properties of smaller, faster, higher energy density systems (a bundling of the degrees of freedom) governing the dynamics of the larger/slower/lower energy system above. These layers of dynamics are interconnected via feedback loops and as such are not reductive in nature; if you don't understand the dynamics of the ocean, your understanding of the dynamics of the water molecules it contains will be incomplete. Your argument here is just the typical "Something exists? Well then someone must have made it", which is true of almost nothing in the universe apart from certain objects here on this planet made by humans. It's taking a perspective that is demonstrably false for almost anything you might attempt to apply it to and inserting it at the core of reality, where it is safely unfalsifiable. The motivations for doing so are admittedly psychological in nature, something you point out yourself in the middle of this video. You aren't after the truth, you are after some comforting lie that instills extrinsic meaning to your life and allows you to think of yourself as more than just a mammal trying to survive and replicate its DNA. Unless the conscious goal of this video is social engineering you need to stop coming to the study of reality with an attempt to prove your chosen/inherited mythology rather than with the goal of truth/actual understanding. If you seriously had to look up the inverse square law as you claimed... please read a book about something that's actually going on and step away from the centuries old philosophical speculation and apologetics. Only ill motivated preconceived fantastical notions need apologies, reality needs and offers none.

[@LetterToGodFromMeToYou]

This is the same argument as the god of the gaps. It's literally talked about all the time and dismissed, because "not knowing the defnitive" isn't the same as "knowing the contrary".

[@alexbuswell3500]

Nope. He explicitly explained the difference, and why atheism’s “chaos of the gaps” is even less logical.

[@julianpowers5272]

The thing about that though is that atheists don't just believe chaos created everything we believe that the systems described in the video and others formed the universe we live in similar to how mountains and rivers are formed without a clear designer as well. Sure we don't know exactly where those axioms like light dissipation came from or even how the universe came to be but we aren't claiming to. Its your lot claiming that you know the origin despite knowing just as little about the universe as us. So even if the current argument for atheism was a circular argument and wrong you STILL would not be able to say that there is a designer because there wouldn't be enough evidence.

[@alexbuswell3500]

@@julianpowers5272 how mountains and rivers are formed (where did the set order come from) is the question here. And atheists say it formed from chaos. Which is almost entirely illogical. Nearly 100% illogical. And “God” is much more logical, as this guy explained.

[@andrewburke2534]

@@alexbuswell3500 Nah they are equally logical. We simply don't know how it started/if it started. Therefore we don't know the truth, and logic can't help us here unless we had more information on things that we currently can't see/observe.

[@alexbuswell3500]

@@andrewburke2534 by mathematical standards, they aren’t even close to equally true. The universe “being” from randomness IS the greatest odds we could ever calculate. It IS THE MOST UNLIKELY thing to happen. And like this guy stated, theism doesn’t have that problem. It’s a closed loop of logic that supports itself. Yours is open, and is frankly just dumb.

[@franciscobenedict007]

Please make the background music and those typing sounds louder!! I can still hear your voice!

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Ya, so I edit this from my laptop without headphones so it's hard to get a good sense of the sound. My bad

[@Tajjwar]

What do i play against the staunton gambit when i'm playing the dutch defense?

[@johnrowe1918]

Confused by the assertion at 17:04, atheism isn’t a belief system, it makes no claims about the nature of the universe.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

It doesn’t make the claim that the nature of the universe is godless?

[@randomguyoninternet1183]

@@Esch-a-ton3 No, it doesn't. Non-belief requires no claims. If it did, how would you justify your non-belief in 7 legged blue pandas?

[@kamigami0299]

@@Esch-a-ton3we assume nonexistence until we have proof. everything needs to be proven to exist, i.e. innocent until guilty. theism is a positive claim, adding something to the universe. while atheism is a neutral claim, making no addition to what exists in the universe.

[@peepeepoopoovdbhxvbcc6683]

I will say that this is an extremely well crafted, reasonable, well-sourced and logically excellent argument… for agnosticism. Your citing that there are forces at play in the universe that predate us, where we have yet to prove, or sometimes even acknowledge the existence of, rings very true. However, your follow-up that, based off of subjective individual experience, you can conclude that there is a helpful god present in your life, can be disproven. There are many newfound atheists that cite their departure from a previous religion as freeing and relieving. From the perspective of such an Individual, the church could often have been an empty thing, full of individuals who could range from subtly impolite or hypocritical in their application of faith, to fully malevolent or purely self-serving through use of religious guilt and power structures. The absence of godliness in such a place could sway said individual to associate the ideas of religion with emptiness, limit, shame, etc. the same way that a person of god might see the views of atheism as representing the exact same. Their decision to become an atheist would therefore be as freeing, gratifying and helpful as that of another to follow, say, Christianity. Given this, we cannot simply say that, because god, in a utilitarian sense, makes the life of some better among others, he exists. I would rather argue that, in stride with your argument about completeness, there is no way discovered to prove or disprove the existence of a god, and therefore one should refrain from stating definitives for or against said existence. I would also like to point out that you may have referred to the atheist in parts where you would be better suited describing an “antitheist”, as “a-theist” merely implies the lack of meaningful participation in any “theology” or religion, and “anti-theist” is more along the lines of your description of a materialist, being usually someone who rejects all religion in place of the idea of a sterile universe where belief is fully illogical. I make this distinction given I myself might describe currently as an agnostic atheist (subject to change, of course!) As well as this, I agree with your idea that it is absurd to reason that life “got lucky” and barely met the right criteria to exist without also acknowledging that the mere implication of a criteria for life to exist implies a mysterious greatness to the universe. I personally agree with this and have come to my own conclusions as to the formation of life that you may ask about if you are interested (it is getting late for me!)

[@Esch-a-ton3]

That's for the thoughtful comment! They are rare here on KZbin lol but yes I do want to know your take on the origin of life!

[@HoboTickler]

So if everything evolved from stardust and everything is physical and there’s nothing outside of the physical realm, wouldn’t that cause the immaterial to be considered material due to the fact that it’s all ultimately just a bunch of chemical processes? If that’s so, don’t you think it’s pretty contradictory that you believe everything is physical but you still have a sense of the non-physical?

[@riyadhalbasri]

Amazing argument! I must say though; The crucial difference between Science and Religion is that science doesn’t claim to be ultimate truth and is subject to change with evidence. Unlike religion where they are immortal facts never to be changed or disproven.

[@khanyisaqhuba6659]

Also known as the fatal flaw of religion, a friend of mine called it stagnant science, it was the first attempt at explaining the universe, it just didn’t leave any room for improvement

[@EthanDan]

Great video but the sound mix was really distracting. Turn down the sound effects in future videos

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Ya, that's my bad. I edit from my laptop without headphones so I can't hear the sound mix as accurately as a I should. Will fix in the figure! Thanks for bearing through it

[@supaflyspy.]

mathematics is a language that conveys process.

[@ericthomas6726]

And we can't have God without a foregone conclusion based on feelings.

[@EdgarRoock]

The sound effects in this video (typing, woosh) are too loud compared to the voice.

[@llamacraft2454]

Gotta say, even as an athiest, this is probably the best argument for theism I've ever seen. I still don't agree with your conclusion, but fantastic video regardless

[@lucyferos205]

Really? As another atheist, this video feels like bottom of the barrel drivel to me. It reminds me of CS Lewis's "Argument from Reason" or that time Leibniz tried to formalize the ontological argument. It's just embarrassing.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Thank you, I'm glad you at least enjoyed it even though we don't see the same thing from it.

[@khanyisaqhuba6659]

😂 really?, this was one of the worst attempts at logical gymnastics to me.

[@khanyisaqhuba6659]

@@lucyferos205i agree, this was a shameful attempt, I can see how this could be impressive to the non discerning mind though.

[@ameliaweresmintgreen]

Would love to hear your thoughts on the tree of knowledge being a representation of psychedelics

[@paulmoss4378]

Of course I know what the inverse square law is

[@croutendo2050]

Matt Walsh's homunculus is out here claiming that the argument from reason is something people dont talk about. And besides, you're a catholic. How are you gonna make the leap from "a higher mind exists because reason exists" to "the trinity exists, thinks I'm special, and has a vested interest in this world"? Maybe it's called faith for a reason and trying to "scientifically" (lmao) prove it strips away any beauty from the thing.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

I've actually covered this before in other videos. Maybe check those out.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

@@croutendo2050 also, this isn't a proof. It's an argument. It can only point you in the right direction. I'm planning to make another video on how God cant be proven, only argued for.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Honest question, I can only assume you're some sort of evangelical Protestant so forgive me if I'm wrong. What is it about reason that makes Protestants so uncomfortable? The furthest I can come up with is that if reason is reliable at least to a degree, we can objectively have a unified faith which would undermine the ability for everyone to have their own faith and be correct. Psychologically this a scary because it means that you'd have to submit your will and own reason to a higher authority which negates your own spiritual autonomy. At the end, if if it was just “faith alone” your still have to use reason to determine what is the “best bet” to place your faith in. Which is why you'd be of one faith and not all faiths equally.

[@HideyoshiR]

Yessss. Atheists never realize this error in their chain of thinking. It's completely backwards and nonsensical. Like putting the waggon before the horse (or shall we say, humans before God, the logos..). And yes, like 'apple', God is firstly a term or symbol as well, and a highly misunderstood one at that... Atheism has nothing to do with logic but everything to do with emotions. "In the beginning was the Word (Logos, or dare I say math..?), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." 🙌 Also, the fact that human beings can understand the logos, the intrinsic truths of our universe, is simply because of 'imago dei'. The fact, that we are literally made in God's image.

[@khanyisaqhuba6659]

😂 this is embarrassing, fallacious at the very least, do you actually believe what you said here? I got second hand embarrassment just reading it.

[@ShukenOfficial]

At this point i can just say i don't know whether God exists or not.

[@saftheartist6137]

A.I God 🤖 Simulation World 💻 Internet Consciousness 🛰

[@joshsinclair539]

Have you been changing the title?

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Ya.

[@yadurajdas532]

Nice ! 👌

[@Daetelus]

Just from looking at the description of your video. Your arguments seem to contain several false dichotomies. "Is math a construct or a discovery of an intrinsic order in the universe?" According to my evaluation, neither. Numbers are a fundamental and objective aspect of reality whether it's orderly or not. ". . . question whether logic and math are merely human inventions or reflections of a deeper, universal order." Again, neither. While the axioms of logic could be regarded as a kind of order, that order is generally taken to be fundamental, not a reflection of something deeper. "[W]e consider whether the order we observe is an illusion or a hint of something intentional . . . ." Not really sure what an "illusion" of order is, but just because something is not an illusion doesn't mean it's a hint of intention. And, at this point, your argument is starting to seem like a teleological argument, which has been extensively talked about. "[H]ow do we account for our capacity to grasp abstract, universal concepts that reach far beyond basic survival needs?" Quite easily, actually. Cognitive abilities that improve our chances of survival allow us to do more than just survive. It's going to take a lot more than poking holes in the theory of evolution if you want to convince a believer to reject it in favor of magic. Starting around 12:37 in the video, you circle around the point that math, logic, and science all start with unprovable assumptions and that this practice is no different than starting with the unprovable assumption that God exists. While that is, at least in some objective sense, technically true, the very real difference is that the choice of starting assumptions tends to be assumptions that seem obvious and undeniable to "everyone". The existence of God might seem obvious and undeniable to some people but not everyone. 14:36 "[L]ogical relationships in the universe such as the gravitational relationships just are. We can't explain them and that's why they're axioms. They just exist." If by "gravitational relationships" you mean the inverse-square law, that is not an "axiom". It is merely an empirical law. And, yes, we don't know why it's a law, but that doesn't make it an axiom. An axiom is an unproven assumption that a line of reasoning begins with. 15:43 "The reason we have order is because order is just what works." 16:20 "Order works because order works. Here the materialist becomes just as circular as a theist . . . ." Did you actually read or hear these exact words from someone? Because, if not, then you might be just putting words in peoples mouths, and you might be the one making them circular. I believe you are attempting to paraphrase multiple sources and have confused an indirect admission of ignorance, in the form of figurative speech, with a direct circular argument intended to be taken literally and seriously. They may look or sound similar but are not the same thing. 16:38 "In a circular system, every part connects back to the starting point, creating a cycle that explains itself." 16:56 "It's a self-contained explanation where each part supports the others, forming a closed loop." Pretending to have all the answers doesn't make it so. Admission of ignorance is the bedrock of responsible reasoning. 17:33 "In other words, the complexity we see does not simply arise out of random possibilities but instead relies on the foundational laws of physics, mathematics, and logic that guide how things interact with each other. This suggests that the order we observe in the universe isn't an illusion or a byproduct of chaos but rather reflects a deeper structure or framework that enables complexity to develop in a consistent, predictable way, . . . ." I'm in agreement so far. 17:56 ". . . emerging from a mind that wills it that way." Disagree. "Order" does not equal "mind".

[@ki3657]

The real question is: did the intelligent designer get to this universe by design? Or random chance? Of course we can't know that, which kinda throws a wrench through deeper investigation. All we can say is something forces a universal truth. But whether that thing is intelligent or not is difficult to impossible to determine from within the system.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

@@ki3657 you should watch my video entitled, “this argument for God causes mental terrorism” it argues why God has to be intelligent and personal.

[@danielleonard5572]

Nice Going with the inverse square example! After you said u didn't know either while I was waiting on you to catch up, I was kinda proud of myself, for real! I was like m/d² or m²/d⁴, oh hell I get a prize!? A subscription, I Bet there's not even a fee To Join. Screw it, I earned this subscription myself, so I will do what I want with it.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

😂

[@senerzen]

The keyboard sounds are too loud = annoying, distracting from the message.

[@karolgajko]

A very interesting video

[@dursty3226]

i want to share the info in this video SO BADLY, with EVERYBODY!! but do you know how impossible it is to convince people to watch a 20-minute video, let alone an actually educational and informative video??? i mean, i'm still gonna share this video on my socials anyway, even if only for a fool's hope that someone might actually watch it.

[@MrBud667]

False dicotomies aren't going to cut it. And neither is coming up with fairy tales to help you feel better about life. With mental gymnastics like yours, you could possibly win gold at the next Olympics.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Is this an argument?

[@MrBud667]

@@Esch-a-ton3 nope.

[@thegamecast7700]

idk but if we consider that there is only the type of material universe that we live in and consider that god is some form of energy doesnt that means that there could be a way to kill god and even if god exists and you kill him somehow what happens after that?

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Energy can't be created or destroyed tho it can only be transferred

[@LBoomsky]

ur videos look so cool :O

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Thanks!!

[@GingerWaste]

3:50 nope, the law's of reality predate matter and any-other thing, they are law's or more so the detention of ''what the medium exits by'', it give's the ''tension to the fabric'' without it, it simply unwinds as if it never was, numerical analysis (math) is the most basic way to describe any ''thing that isn't by itself; and nothing can be by itself without a distiction from what it is not'', i know this is very hyperbole, but it's closer to reality. our understanding and language to describe thing cam from us. (thing of set theory), we are IN reality, a part of it, and so, we can never see it all

[@prestonyannotti7661]

Watch the whole video bud

[@DD-tt8ub]

Help me see if I am understanding this correctly for the Godel statement. He converted mathematical statements and proofs, that were meaningful and precise, into numbers. He then outputs from that 'This statement cannot be proven'. Is that the entire 'statement'? That output is gibberish and not meaningful. There is no claim that can be proved or disproved (ie what is 'this statement' referring to?). It is a meaningless output from meaningful inputs, similar to a first gen chatgpt output that you would just toss out. What am i missing?

[@Esch-a-ton3]

It's proving that the idea math is purely descriptive is false. That not all truth exists just as a discursive unfolding but can exists as an unprovable pure truth

[@DD-tt8ub]

Thanks for the response. I'm still not sure I'm getting it, but are we essentially saying that we can't have perfect knowledge? That would of course be true based on our individual physical limitations... and as far as the self existing, my questions to you are: what is the definition of the self. What is the definition of existence and non existence? I don't presuppose I exist, I can demonstrate that to you in the now. So what evidence would it take for you to believe that I exist? Does me typing this to you demonstrate my existence? If I see you in person does that demonstrate it? How can I not exist?

[@DD-tt8ub]

I comment on KZbin, therefore I am?

[@andrewburke2534]

6:30 Just because people can't find purpose in a material/natural world doesn't mean that God(s) is the truth. And also just because something happens for evolutionary survival doesn't make it the truth, it just makes it good for survival. That's why so many people are religious. Because it literally helps them survive, it is an emotional response. However just because someone isn't religious doesn't mean that they don't have an emotional response for survival, they have a different one. They live for something that isn't God(s)/religion. If you are looking for the truth, I think the most reasonable thing to believe is either deism or atheism. Neither know what is correct. Theism is the least reasonable to believe with sufficient understanding of the world. It is furthest from the truth. Theism claims a creator(s) exists and interacts with this reality. We have found no proof of this, so again, for the most reasonable conclusion, unless better proofs are discovered, atheism or deism seems to be reasonable beliefs, they know they can't know what is the part of the universe that we don't know. It's an assumption about the "dark universe" and that's that.

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

Thank you for summarizing. This video makes so many mistakes in reasoning, it's exhausting to listen, let alone to point out.

[@oflameo8927]

You can prove intrinsic disorder in the universe too by looking for gaps in logic.

[@joshuaparsons887]

Example?

[@Esch-a-ton3]

All that proves is the incompleteness theorem.

[@dallassegno]

Acceleration of knowledge but not understanding.

[@jamesstaggs4160]

I'll not argue for or against in this comment but I will say that science is used to explain amd understand the natural world. It makes a poor tool to explain the supernatural. It that is to be understood a different way of knowing would need to be used. Logic and reason can only explain the peripheral aspects of the supernatural. They can't be used to understand things that primarily exist outside of logic, reason, time and space (spacetime if you must be pedantic).

[@Esch-a-ton3]

I agree. Which is why no argument is a “proof” of God.

[@ITSSKUDDUMMY]

If logic came from god, holy books would make logical sense

[@ForrestTheChad]

It's like saying if music came from birds, sheet music would sound like chirping. The source of something doesn't dictate the form it takes when humans try to capture it.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Ding! And they do!

[@Esch-a-ton3]

There's a difference between not making sense and you not being able to understand them.

[@chronickpain]

⁠​⁠@@Esch-a-ton3let’s be real, it’s not about not understanding them. It’s about them having clear contradictions that can’t exist if they are strictly logical.

[@alexbuswell3500]

Says who? And who’s to say the book isn’t logical?

[@scholarforpeace]

Maybe the only reasonable "knowledge" that we need to know is how to take care of the world around us. Adam only needed to learn specific things about the world and not everything there is to know about the world. Advancements in science and knowledge mean nothing, the more we know the more we know that we don't know too much. What we know is a drop in the pool of knowledge that God has. God is the source of knowledge and therefore we are limited by God in what we know, learn, or even understand. If He wills that we do not comprehend Him, then we will not comprehend Him. We do not need to know too much or learn. We only need enough knowledge to acknowledge and testify that the world has a Creator who fine tuned it.

[@kamigami0299]

complacent in your ignorance. if everyone followed your advice, we'd still be making people bleed out if they had the flu

[@Doodoomonger]

I agree that atheism uses circular reasoning as no matter how much you explain the natural world it never explains its own creation, but I think the same could be said about many forms of theism, unfortunately. Yes, the natural world points to the innate existence of logic, but it doesn't point towards the creation of logic being by God. That being said, there is still a neat argument to be made here. In John 1:1 we have the famous statement. In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God. If you look at the original Greek for the Word you get the Logos which may be more accurately translated to reasoning. This is the word we derive logic from and it's existence is strongly implied to be real. If you deify the logic of the universe and claim it to be God then you have proof of God. That all being said it would seem likely that this passage takes great influence from an earlier Greek belief in the form of stoicism.

[@Doodoomonger]

Also a very minor nitpick that won't mean anything to anyone except me, I think that there is an immate truth to the success of any adaptation. Its like asking in a duel whos strategy was correct. It would be the winners. That of course is very different from being morally correct.

[@Doodoomonger]

You could also argue, I just realized, that although the Stoics had there belief recorded first this was simply a technique to reach out to the Greeks and only deemed important to mention after humans discoveres the notion.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

I really hope you stick around, because my main study of theology is logos theology. I just made a video about what mythology reveals about Jesus and I think you will like it. It goes over the connect between our logic and conceptualizations and Gods

[@Doodoomonger]

@Esch-a-ton3 ooo soundas fun ill check it out soon

[@notisnt8405]

I am not exaggerating, I was about to unsubscribe cause I thought the videos where voiced by AI and it bothers me even though I love how well scripted they are. I don't know if you slow down your voice when you are not talking on camera, but it sounds very robotic. Especially when listening with headphones. Regardless, keep up the good work,yYour content is amazing!

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Thanks man! Not sure why it sounds like that, I run my voice through adobe audio enhancer because it makes the quality a bit better. That might be it

[@Diego_6rando]

"Logic is proof God!!" I totally Agree! What a great blessing Allah, or Vishnu, or Some Egyptian God, or Some Greek God, Or One of the Trillions of Gods, has blessed us with. Logic is not proof of God, even it was, which god does it prove?

[@Daily-PE]

The premise of the video needs God to make the universe, so any religion that does not have that can be crossed off.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

I understand this is probably the only video of mine you’ve watched, but I’ve covered how this type of God must be a trinitarian God. Also, just a tip for the sake of reason. When trying to refute an argument you don’t agree with, it progresses reason when you actually make a counter argument instead of just an assertion. Like instead of saying, “ no it does” say why it doesn’t

[@MachineElf_Official]

The reason no one talks about this argument is the same reason no one takes darth dawkins seriously. Its presuppositionalism. Everyone has unjustified presuppositions, that turn out to be circular. All presuppositons are "self-contained" in that they are axiomatic. Using god as an explanation is just adding another step into the circle. You're presupposing god to explain other things, but its still an unjustified presupposition. The only honest answer is to say "I don't know" until we can find some way of actually knowing whether god is real, if thats even possible. We have to live with certain presuppositions in order to live our everyday lives. If belief in God helps you practically, that's good (I personally believe religion evolved as a practical, psychological tool), but belief in God being a practical benefit to you, does not make god literally real for everyone else. In my case, belief in God hindered me.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

How would you explain the exist of your “self”?

[@dallassegno]

Concepts are a human concept. Ya.

[@scholarforpeace]

Maybe do not quote Richard Dawkins in a video about God. He knows nothing about God, and therefore, he would only increase your doubt and skepticism.

[@christianottley8542]

These arguments were quit disappointing i must say i expected a little more given your thumbnail and title. Firstly the evolutionary advantage t math is observable go outside or from the inside of your home use the internet or anything else, your argument that accepting a materialistic world leads to depression and suicide so therefore it cannot be evolutionarily viable is false. It assumes that accepting a materialistic view of the world leads to depression to begin with when that is not the case, many people I'm guessing yourself included, believe in math's or even evolution while also shoehorning a creator in there somewhere I'd say that's the majority in fact, so even if materialistic people kill themselves more often than not since the majority don't from an evolutionarily point of view its overlooked, similarly to how gay people exist even though most times they don't reproduce because the majority of people aren't gay or aren't strictly gay it works out. Thats giving your statement the benefit of the doubt, because in reality many people who don't believe in god live happy lives by simply assigning themselves an arbitrary purpose, I want to.. I will... I must.., just because you believe life has no inherit meaning doesn't mean you cant find meaning in life. Secondly you seem to address math's like its some unchanging mysterious pillar of wisdom when in reality math's was created and has changed since its creation to reflect what we learn about the world, this simple concept sees to be overlooked by your video. Thirdly the idea that something is complicated therefore it must be god is a fallacy that goes back to primal ages, if a knight saw a phone he'd think it was magic the world only seems mysterious yet complicated because of how much we know and how little we know which you did actually tackle in your video, the world happening to follow a logic and that logic allowing the world to exist isn't proof of god but a survivor ship fallacy, of course the universe seems meticulously made when it's the only universe we now of there's nothing else to compare it to. Fourthly, the statement god exists because the world exists and gravity exists because it just is while they are the same the secondly statement is inaccurate to actual scientific beliefs, it would be gravity exists but we don't know why, by accepting uncertainty you avoid a fallacy, I agree with you that it isn't the most satisfying answer however it is certainly a true statement compared to god exists because the world exists which assumes a creator in place of any other possible solution, we are free to have opinions and if your opinion benefits you all the better, but at the end of the day they are still opinions and cannot be used as proofs. You claim theism a closed system but by using the Socratic method of questioning you eventually arrive at the reality that there still would be questions that have the only answers of because it is or we don't know, like who created God or why? How has God always have existed if theist claim things must stem from other things, it becomes no different than your example of the atheist argument being circular, which in itself is quite the misrepresentation as I've previously mentioned, most atheists who have been atheists for some time would quicker admit to not knowing something than claiming it is how it is, your argument doesn't prove an existence of a higher power it simply displays our curiosity and lack of knowledge. Additionally, beliefs do not require proper justification to believe something there simply needs to be you and an idea. Finally, you seem unfound of the idea of mystery the conclusion but we can only judge the world from what we know, that is reality you don't know what you do not know and if you knew everything in the universe what about outside the universe, you might say there is no outside the universe but how can you now that if you only now what you know, you cant try as you might its impossible there will always be things that escape our understanding that is the nature of existence. In conclusion, you can give life meaning without believing life has meaning, math's is constantly changing, something being complicated isn't proof of god but proof of ignorance, the atheist argument for the universe is simply we don't know, the theist argument is not a closed system as it unravels into redundancy with enough questioning, and you do not know what you don't know.

[@KanaMedia101]

The deeper misstep is treating the process of natural selection with the expectations of a conscious agent with foresight and intent. It is not that, it is simply the trivial conclusion of things which self perpetuate tending to outlast those which don't. At no point is it precluded that a presently stable system could be an a trajectory to eventually break down. Just as how human intelligence was so dominant and powerful that it has disturbed the equilibrium of global ecosystems. I am inclined agree with him on the transcendent nature of logic though

[@christianottley8542]

@@KanaMedia101 the idea that logic transcends nature, is somewhat appealing but it is a pretty weak point in favor of christianity, even if we assume it to be true that being could be a conceptual one or mechanical one or a god of no renown, agreeing with it is just less productive than staying neutral or dissagreeing with it

[@KanaMedia101]

@@christianottley8542 Yeah I don't think of it as a point in favor of religion at all. To me logic is sufficiently grounded by way of it's structure. Logical statements are constructed such that they hold in all possible interpretations, and could simply not be otherwise. Hypothesizing about the first layer principles of the universe, from which all other phenomena are derived from, is a different deal from that. Whatever this first principle is, could be said to be god, but of course any argument for a particular god character is going to be weaker than just any god.

[@nimrodszocs2795]

@@christianottley8542 i agree completely, life has no inherent meaning, life is just stuff that arranges in ways that reproduces itself, so life is not special at all, it’s just a bit different from inorganic matter, one reproduces, one does not. The meaning in life is something you find for yourself, in things you enjoy. And believing in eternal life (which is already a shitty concept) and wasting your only life is just so insanely stupid. Sad that most religious people are either indoctrinated or charmed by the claims of religion, but it all simply doesn’t make sense.

[@Teshazin]

Fine-tuning is explained by natural processes and multiverse theory, not a designer. Designer argument is philosophically flawed and contradicts naturalism and physicalism. Critics like Victor Stenger and Sean Carroll argue that the universe's apparent fine-tuning can be explained by natural processes and the multiverse hypothesis, which posits that our universe is one of many with varying constants. Our observation of a life-supporting universe is unsurprising because we couldn't exist elsewhere. This explanation doesn't require an intelligent designer. The argument that the universe's precision points to a designer is philosophically problematic, relying on a teleological argument critiqued by philosophers like Hume and Kant for its anthropomorphic assumptions and lack of empirical evidence. While the video accurately presents the idea that increasing knowledge reveals the extent of our ignorance, its use of the Socratic paradox is misleading. This paradox is more about recognizing personal ignorance as a path to wisdom, not the general limits of human knowledge. The designer argument is inconsistent with philosophical views like naturalism and physicalism, which maintain that the universe can be explained solely by natural causes and physical processes. Dismissing evolutionary explanations also contradicts philosophical views such as pragmatism and empiricism, which emphasize the role of experience and practical consequences in understanding the world.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

[@fixerlly]

just finished the video .... i can feel that one iq point drop ... i want it back ... go learn what you talking about before confusing people ... like realy learn not just hearing one or 2 lectures and think you understand the concept ... lectures are simplified so you can understand the idea but its not the full picture...

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Can you make an argument as to why the information is wrong?

[@kaptainkoffee9074]

The truth you learn today is a falsity in the making of future knowledge and growth to come. These temporary truths are not meaningless as without them how would you reach the next truth?

[@jonathanthompson5900]

What if God is existence. The axiom. The way to disprove this argument becomes whether God fails any of the requirements for being existence. If true, asking the question of God’s existence would become an oxymoron.

[@dzaesonp8599]

But the word God and any theological meaning it represents loses meaning? since if god is existence, doesn't the word God becomes redundant?

[@jonathanthompson5900]

@@dzaesonp8599 If God isn’t existence them He would be confined to existence, and therefore no longer be above all. He would no longer be God

[@m3c4nyku43]

If God is existence, then everything that exists is a manifestation of God, and God is present in all things. This blurs the line between creator and creation, and leads to pantheism. God cannot be the manifestation of bad things or beings, such as the devil. If God is just the ground of being, then how can God have the characteristics of a personal being, such as will, intention, or love?

[@Synodalian]

That's called the Ontological Argument.

[@m3c4nyku43]

@@Synodalian Ontological Argument is saying that God, the greatest possible being, is necessary to exist, not that God is existence itself.

[@ohhellno8759]

Thanks for this snack for the brain

[@ianhoulahan8474]

Man I was not expecting to enjoy this video as much as I did but thank you. This was a fun exercise in logic and epistemology

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@jkkkkkdmmmdkkkdm]

I agree with an intelligent designer. But reading relgious books, I dont see them being intelligent. They dont care about us,(Books).

[@croutendo2050]

Sfx: 100 Music: 80 Voice: 30

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Ya, gotta fix that in the future..

[@ohhellno8759]

@@Esch-a-ton3get to the vocal exercises I guess

[@ezshottah3732]

So are you implying that humans are god?

[@sbandc]

How do you know the human mind did not exist before humans?

[@Esch-a-ton3]

How could something which is intrinsic to a nature exist before said nature?

[@sbandc]

How could it be intrinsic to that nature if it did not precede that nature? Your assumption is that just because we identify the mind as human, it is therefore either exclusive to humanity or emerges from humans... Are you suggesting the mind wouldn't exist without humans?

[@josuegonzalez5576]

Very thoughtful

[@MowiWowi]

Nice

[@MykolasGilbert]

I think this guy lost me when he said the word apple is a concept when it's Not an idea, an apple is a FACT, and the word for apple is just a place holder for an actual FACT!! Unlike a belief in god that is a concept, only it's NOT backed up with even one iota of FACTS!!!

[@Esch-a-ton3]

What?

[@MykolasGilbert]

@@Esch-a-ton3 JUST WHAT? No other thought? Stay DUMB!!

[@justadude189]

@@MykolasGilbert well that's just an ad-hominum fallacy as well as an appeal to ignorance fallacy , just because you couldnt understand what he was saying , doesnt mean its false. if i am in a room and I am talking about apples , unless I have an apple in that room , its just that , a concept, something intangible, unverifiable and untestable while we are in that room

[@MykolasGilbert]

@@justadude189Your deep contemplation sounds almost intelligent if you spent you whole life in a ROOM, and you could take that one step further by questioning How do you even know your in a ROOM? OR what ever STUPID Profundity that isn't worth anybodies time contemplating awhile sitting on the BOWL, except before toilet paper was invented until suddenly A YOGI got the IDEA, yes a concept of wiping your ass on something! And that's what I think of your Great thesis! I wipe my Ass on it!!!

[@justadude189]

@@MykolasGilbert ok great , now if you're not going to argue like a grown adult and keep acting like a little kid, then I guess I can say confidently that dark matter doesn't exist as well, as all saying it does is wiping your ass with it

[@AVeryLargeSon]

1. 6:30 this is goofy and in bad faith, even if the materialist story is true, we haven't exactly had a long time of depressed materialists killing themselves to effect our evolutionary psychology and push us away from math and science. 2. 14:05 The incompleteness theorem does not suggest an independent, immaterial foundation for mathematics. If anything, it better suggests the materialist's story against rationalism because it shows that math has holes and cannot prove true statements. I can come up with any number of proof systems that have no correspondence to reality and are incomplete. The incompleteness of my fake proof system is not evidence that it has a foundation in reality, if anything: the opposite. 3. Your argument against Descartes' Cogito at 13:40 is weird, nonsensical, and self-defeating, since the cogito (if anything) is an argument for rationalism. 4. 15:00 The materialist argument for accepting the laws of the universe as axioms is supported by observation. Your statement is not supported by observation of reality and so it should be discarded, that's the difference. The scientific view is ontological parsimonious despite having some axioms, whereas your view wouldn't be. 5. 19:15 Notably, the conclusion does not actually logically follow from the premises you laid out. I agree that math is probably the best argument for rationalism/god, because it's quite hard to explain using materialism, but it at most suggests a hole that rationalism/theism can fill. At the end, it's not really evidence for a solution, just evidence of a problem.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

@@AVeryLargeSon I’m fairly certain you didn’t understand the point I was trying to make in any of these critiques you made. 1. We’ve had thousands of years of math and science, and yet the abstraction from science that science reveals there is nothing but materialism and provides a world without meaning is relatively new idea, yet this is where we see epidemic level of mental health issues, and they typically don’t come from those who think the world is full of meaning. 2. Gödels theorem was to show that math is purely descriptive because there are truths which can’t be described. If math was purely descriptive we’d be able to describe just about anything. I’m not using to those to argue for God. 3. I’m not arguing against Descartes, I’m saying some systems, like the self, are self-referentially true, so to say just because a system refers to itself doesn’t mean it’s circular reasoning. 4. The argument from contingency is supported by observation while the opposite is not.

[@AVeryLargeSon]

@@Esch-a-ton3 1. You're confusing your own argument by blending it with another. In the video, you try to debunk the naturalistic explanation for our being good at math and science by saying it leads to nihilism, which is not evolutionarily advantageous (and I was responding to this). Now, in your reply, you are falling back on the normative argument for god: "we should believe in god because it is good for us". I think this is also faulty, beliefs are not the type of things that are formed because we "should" believe in something, but either way it is irrelevant. 2. I really don't think this argument makes sense. The incompleteness theorem is in no way in conflict with the materialist explanation for math. Also, the failure of math to describe everything is not evidence that description isn't its purpose. If my toaster makes bad toast, I don't suddenly presume that it is a microwave. 3. I would definitely say you argue against the Cogito at 13:40 since you say the "existence of the self is unprovably true", whereas Descartes says there is evidence for the self: the fact that you think (i.e. his meditations try to prove the existence of the self). Descartes thought that since he could undoubtedly prove the existence of the self, it made for a strong foundation for everything else, not because it was circular. 4. Yeah I don't really see how that could be true at all haha. What necessary beings have we observed?!?

[@Anthonythechickenman]

I still won't turn theist, even if you're right. Because I could just turn the argument around and it'd be the same bullshit. It's a bad argument.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Can you show me how you can turn the argument around and it be the same bullshit?

[@Anthonythechickenman]

@@Esch-a-ton3 just no, I believe in some supernatural stuff (not a god) myself but it'd make sense to see someone break down that argument

[@Yamil-t5j]

Does this means that angels are in the laws of (math = logic)?

[@Esch-a-ton3]

That’s what I believe

[@Yamil-t5j]

Whow that is really interesting does this means that The Holy Spirit is the in the laws of (math = logic) too?

[@liammcooper]

I appreciate the effort that went into this video, but the philosophical argument isn't well formulated. The structure, the comparisons made, even the improper use of terms like "this begs the question", are all not helping your rhetorical argument. Godel already has an argument for god, so perhaps use that as a topic for a video instead of trying to apply a mathematical-philosophical theory to onto-theology. To your point, you said this is all an argument "for" God. On the contrary, using your logic, Godel's incompleteness theorem suggests that God can never be proven, so you can't have an argument "for" God, because there are unprovable truths. God may exist, but you won't be able to prove it -- that would be a complete application of Godel's incompleteness theorem to theology in this context, which relates to what's called "Wittgensteinian Fideism". Religion is "fidestic" because it can only be criticized internally; what this means is that it can never be proven nor disproven except within the discourse community of the religion itself -- which obviously presuppose God's existence -- you must accept the theological axioms to carry on the discourse, but that doesn't mean they are "True", only "true or false within the pragmatic situation". "The existence of the self cannot be traced back to the self" is a meaningless statement. You're referring to the problem of induction, where we may know something is "True", but we cannot know whether it will be "True" tomorrow; because we can never be outside of our own consciousness, so perhaps we're filtering out "True" reality: so, if what we know is based on our consciousness, then how do we know anything is "True" and not merely a byproduct of our consciousness? Nevertheless, even if we cannot "know" anything about outside reality with certainty, we do know for a fact that we are experiencing our own subjective experience of consciousness. The entire point of phenomenology is predicated upon this fact. You're saying that we somehow can't prove the self. The self is, tautologically, self-evident. We cannot be anything other than our self. This is the entire cogito; Descartes' rationalism removed every possible thought/belief, and what he discovered was the only actually fundamental piece of knowledge that any "one" has, is that the "one" has the ability to think -- the ability to perceive itself. You could argue "well how do you know that this isn't a brain-in-a-vat, and we're all just a simulation?" Which is valid, but the point still stands: I experience myself as "a" self, in this situation we call "reality". You could also anthropologically argue that the concept of "selfhood" didn't arise until we evolved, so there is no such thing as "selfhood", but that's semantic. You're asking where the rules of logic come from -- they come from axioms. Where do axioms come from -- we set them. There are different mathematics with different logics determined by their mathematicians. In everyday algebra, 12 * 5 = 60; but you can choose axiomatic parameters that make it so that 12 * 5 =/= 5 * 12. The point isn't that "God exists is a true statement in this universe." The point is that "God exists is a true statement *in this particular situation bounded by certain axiomatic parameters*." The same can be said for religion or any discipline. So yes, you are choosing a set of axioms, and then defining God as "true" in that system -- but then you did some shell-and-game handwaving to say "See, God is True in all cases" which is not true. It's the difference between me saying "God is real in the religion of Christianity" (which I can accept as true) and "God is real." (which is highly debatable). It's a rhetorical fallacy known as "contextomy". You're not just asking "why can't we accept the existence of God as an axiom?" which goes back to the whole presupposition of God to prove the argument, you're also asking "why can't we accept the existence of God as an axiom *in the same way that we accept the existence of the self as an axiom*." The reasons are multifarious: the self is self-evident, God is not; ontology is not theology; accepting God as an ontological axiom creates absurdities (if God is a fact of our existence, then why do we have to debate whether God is a fact of our existence? etc.) So really, ultimately, this is all amounts to sophistry. You're only going to "convince" anyone who already believes in God, which obviously isn't necessary; so if your goal is to genuinely argue for the existence of God against philosophical atheists, you're gonna have to not engage in faulty rhetorical techniques and argue in "good faith" instead of playing Anselmian games of semantics.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Thanks for the well thought out comment, would you be interested in a direct conversation to sus your critiques out?

[@liammcooper]

@@Esch-a-ton3 Sorry, I just saw this response. Yea sure, a Zoom call or something would be interesting -- comment your channel's email and I'll reach out. Just to be open about my position: I think people can definitely be religious, I just think that religion is and should be an internal-mystical experience which is ultimately 'ineffable' or indescribable in words; in fact, I think that's the whole point of religion. And so a lot of these attempts to rationalize/scientify religion are harmful for multiple reasons.

[@user-td5gy2fh3p]

Yes, this is correct. To keep things simple and reduce how convoluted this concept is, the key point is that a logical system cannot instantiate itself - its point of origin cannot be itself - as this would violate its own logical nature. In this case, the external force that instantiates the current logical system we live in is God. I came to this same conclusion after discovering Gödel's incompleteness theorems. In fact, I recently left a comment relating to this on Eric Dubay's KZbin channel. Here is my original comment: That's just not how it works, bruh. Thinking that you, as a measly human being, have any power over anything, or that you have some magical power from within, is ludicrous. Look into Gödel's incompleteness theorems and you will quickly find out that we are in the logical system he describes; therefore, there is most certainly a more powerful outside force that started this. Sure, we might have an ounce of that "divinity," since we are created beings of the system, but in no way is it enough to give us the power your suggestion implies. At the end of the day, there is a creator of all this, and we are at his mercy, whether prayer works or not, or whether we like it or not. There is not much we can do. Here is the link to the Eric Dubay video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qIqvl2Wln9F-fNk

[@HideyoshiR]

I like this. Short and precise. It begs the question, how much divinity is in us really. Since it is said: we were created in the image of God (imago dei)... Well, before the fall happened, that is.

[@ShadoDiablosXD]

I get the points in the video, but please dont misrepresent depression and suicide so you can strawan against world views. Nihilism is not what makes people off themselves. There is so much more nuance into depression, self harm, and suicide that needs to be approached much more maturely than "if you pick god you wont die" moral system. That example was incredibly immature.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

I didn’t say if you pick God you won’t die, I said that if survival was the driver of evolutionary process, a cognitive process which unveils that the world has no meaning and therefore makes us kill or selfs, has no evolutionary advantage.

[@ShadoDiablosXD]

@@Esch-a-ton3 You make a comparison between religous belief offering meaning and nihilism not, and then say nihilism causes suicide, thus equating that a belief in god keeps you from killing yourself. This is incredibly ignorant to mental health.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

@@ShadoDiablosXD that assumption is backed by observation…

[@ShadoDiablosXD]

@@Esch-a-ton3 Backed by your own words. You literally state that nihilism leads to suicide, thus indirectly making the claim that religious belief doesn't, since it was a comparison. Even then nihilism doesn't lead to suicide every single time and only does in a minority of cases, again, even that claim alone ignores vast amounts of nuance. At this point just delete your comments.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

@@ShadoDiablosXD check the stats. You may not like it, but religious people have higher rates of good mental health.

[@JustCaden]

Make a video about Islam

[@Christopher_R_Gugliuzza]

The only problem with this is that jesus christ actually came and taught people the truth. And that the bible is insanely complex to the point where no person who has the right mind would argue against it. And also, there's way too much physical evidence, proving that Jesus Christ is real.

[@jaydennguyen-xk1yo]

Many people with right minds are able to argue against the bible. Nobody said Jesus Christ was fake rather his resurrection and miracles are fake

[@fabianwittmann8121]

Can someone please explain, where there is a proof in this video? He basically just says that we don't know where logic comes from and assumes, that it must have come from god. He even admits, that what he does is circular reasoning.

[@GhayelRubio]

Logic come from something we don't understand 😅

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Logic is formed by relationships, yet relationships are only determined by someone who sets up the relationship. Orderly relationships only emerge from minds and to say otherwise is unscientific because we don't observe that.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

And no, I don't admit it's circular reasoning. I say atheism uses circular reasoning because instead of admitting order can only emerge from a mind like in every other case we witness in nature, they say nature just is the way it is. THAT is circular reasoning.

[@fabianwittmann8121]

@@Esch-a-ton3 there are plenty of cases, in which order emerges without a mind behind it. You just claim, that behind those is a mind as well without any evidence.

[@juhadexcelsior]

@@fabianwittmann8121 he is talking about logic as a fundamental concept which is absolutely true. There is no way a relationship can be extrapolated between two objects or concepts unless that relationship was already in place. The fact that the relationship can be understood entails that the relationship is ordered and not random (if it was random there would be nothing to extrapolate) and nothing ordered in a highly consistent way happens randomly. Thus a intentional mind had to establish the relationship.

[@avishevin1976]

The creator of this video suffers from a common misconception about evolution and natural selection. That misconception undermines his entire argument. The hypothesis that human intelligence is geared towards survival is an incorrectly-stated position. The more correct (I'm not a scientist, so I may have some nuance wrong) formulation is that human intelligence _allows_ survival, therefore natural selection did not select against it. Evolution does not stop once a trait proves beneficial for survival. The benefit only means that it's not selected against in future generations. As long as higher intelligence does not hinder reproduction there is no expectation that nature will select against it. Whether intelligence continues to improve depends on human mating patterns more than anything else at this point.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Higher intelligence hindering reproduction by like killing themselves, having low self-esteem, low libido from depression, stuff like that?

[@avishevin1976]

@@Esch-a-ton3 There are more humans on the planet every year than the year previous, so I’d say we haven’t been hindered yet. Natural Selection works on populations, not individuals.

[@platinumbulletsniper]

I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist😂

[@TheOofster123]

Faith?

[@Esch-a-ton3]

😂

[@thenamelessnobody]

Ok, but which God??

[@Esch-a-ton3]

@@thenamelessnobody I have two other videos that go through that if you want to watch those.

[@sbandc]

You're making a large number of assumptions. I'd love to debate you.

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Always open for a debate.

[@Goofy-G]

Before I watch i have a question. Are you Catholic?

[@Esch-a-ton3]

yes i am

[@Goofy-G]

@@Esch-a-ton3 Awesome. What do you think of Pope Francis?

[@Esch-a-ton3]

@@Goofy-G I think he's the Singular head of all Christians and should be respected, but is also very confusing and may be at least materially a heretic.

[@Goofy-G]

@@Esch-a-ton3 I think the Pope has overstepped, he is a Heretic, and I don't think he should be respected.

[@PhilNBlank]

@@Esch-a-ton3 Out of curiosity: What is "material heresy" and how does it differ from plain heresy?

[@dallassegno]

Lol, how much knowledge is there? All I see is words.

[@boonraypipatchol7295]

All the horrific things in the world Reflect that..... GOD is not real...... HUMAN create GOD, An Atheist and a Scientist.

[@koalaplays8855]

2 minutes in and all I have to do is read the description to consume the video, thanks for almost wasting my time

[@MrDaftFunk]

Based!

[@gabefarris7005]

Sir, the lil thing you showed is not the scientific method, it’s the opposite. You’re supposed to disprove your theories, not affirm them. I’m not seeing why you need god if you can actually do the scientific method correctly

[@dallassegno]

Where is the mind located? They've opened many brains to find out it is not in there. Help everyone at the back of the class hear your answer.

[@gabefarris7005]

@@dallassegno you’ve never heard of like a lobotomy? Where they change someone’s mind by injuring their brain? Or did you already get one?

[@Esch-a-ton3]

There are cases where people are missing substantial portions of their brains, yet are still able to engage in transcendental things that you would attribute to a mind, like love, have joy, etc. The brain is the medium in which the mind functions within the material world. Of course, if the brain is damaged, the minds functionality is limited because it uses the brain as a tool to function.

[@cesarcorbantes856]

Too many fallacies 😆

[@Esch-a-ton3]

Which fallacies am I committing?

[@therabidpancake1]

If we are gaining knowledge why are people getting dumber ? I mean most of America says they Don't know what a woman is . I thought this was a great video and very well thought out .

[@Esch-a-ton3]

I think knowledge doesn't necessarily entail wisdom.

[@koderamerikaner5147]

It's not that they don't know what a woman is, it's that they culturally reject the distincting factors. They have the knowledge, but they apply it only in conformity with their ascribed philosophy and culture.

[@therabidpancake1]

@@koderamerikaner5147 Ya I know they do not actually believe it they are just following the crowd and can not think for themselves .

[@AMERICANZOMBIETODAY]

Evolution is a religion, based on beliefs not science.

[@TheOofster123]

Evolution is a scientific theory

[@thescott4340]

You don’t know the definition of religion you don’t know anything about evolution and you project your worldview onto others to make seem like everyone else’s is just as irrational as you are.