Two years ago, as an atheist, I began searching for logical arguments that would put theists on the defensive. Thereafter, I became a theist.

@Reason_over_Dogma

8 жыл бұрын

Interesting. I became an athiest.

@spencerjames9417

7 жыл бұрын

Funny. I also became an atheist

@kasparov937

6 жыл бұрын

Reason over Dogma Good on you, it's part of your free will.

@ambassador_in_training

6 жыл бұрын

UPutTheGayInGangster what exactly convinced you to completely change your mind and accept theism?

@goddamnfaith6607

6 жыл бұрын

Alex Lasco dude that's a four year old comment lol

Sir, Several years ago a kid of mine caused a car accident that took his life and the life of a young lady in another car. I was completely and utterly devastated. I fell into a deep depression. That depression worried my wife intensely. She sought out help for me. I went to a camp. And in that camp were some very smart theological counselors who where psychiatrist as well. The whole time I was there I really couldn’t sleep very well. One night I quietly got up not to disturb anyone else and walked outside. I thought I had walked far enough away from the camp that no one would hear me. But one of the counselors heard me crying. He asked what troubled me. I told him and in the dark I could see him nodding his head understandingly. His answer shook me to my core and still does to this very day. “Why do you assume he was your child, alone? You and your wife made the physical body, now I ask you, where did his soul come from? It takes three to make thee.” Then I asked him not really expecting an answer, “He took another life and I am worried about the soul that God made.” His answer came without hesitation, “Who are you to question how, why or when anyone is called home.” By the time the sun come up I was on my way to recovery. Some may call this a incomplete answer. To which I would say, perhaps. But it was enough for me then and it still is enough for me now. Sincerely, Robert

A wise kind incredibly honest and one of the greatest philosophers of our current time.

@rstevewarmorycom

5 жыл бұрын

Jotun Heim You fail to realize your own theist ignorance and so applaud him for being as stupid as you are.

@rstevewarmorycom

5 жыл бұрын

Only NUTBALL christians think that.

@georgedoyle7971

5 жыл бұрын

rstevewarmorycom its wishful thinking to believe that reality and the debate between theism and atheism is that black and white. You only have to look at the great philosopher Anthony Flew who rejected atheism after 50 yrs of developing the best arguments against theism. I think that a lot of people are not aware of, or choose to ignore, the political, cultural and historical context required to give a truthful account of the value and validity of religious experience and belief. Whilst there are sophisticated epistemological and ontological arguments from both sides of the argument there is equally a lot of bigoted misinformation out there on both sides that people choose to take as factual. Sadly, history shows us that there have been examples of great evil and stupidity on both sides of the argument. Hence the creation of things such as the atomic bomb by mad scientists and communist atheist Russia under which millions died and terrorism by religious fanatics, crusades etc. Should we judge the atheist belief system and all atheists by the actions of atheist Russia.. Off course not. We will continue to nake the same mistakes as our ancestors unless we respect each other and are able to have honest debate and informed choice and freedom. People have the right to choose a belief system that they feel gives them meaning purpose and a sense of joy in life as long as it does not impinge on other peoples human rights We need more understanding and humility in the world not more ignorance, bigotry and prejudice.

@rstevewarmorycom

5 жыл бұрын

@@georgedoyle7971 Flew became dotty or senile. It was sad to see all his previous arguments vanish in the disorder. His turn of stance didn't deal with any of his previous arguments from when he was younger, it was as though he had forgotten them altogether. This is what is sad. -- Religion is all made-up shit. It is as though we had invented a pleasing fable, but then we forgot that it was we who had invented it, and began asking one another whether it was real and where it had come from. And we still have all the beauty and humility and understanding in the whole world even if we had never invented that fable. You're wrong, people do NOT "choose" their belief system, instead they are threatened into it. And we make all meaning for our lives, no imaginary fable actually does that. Russia was demonized by the western capitalists as the touch stone of their brainwashing of youth and their propaganda in the west. In point of fact, according to poll, most Russians today long for most of the benefits of that society that they have lost. And it was never atheism that Russians dispensed with, as many as 55% of them LIKE atheism and are atheist to this day. Only the old and ignorant, uneducated and potty have lamely revived the orthodox church. Atheist Europe now does not suffer from any lack of tolerance, but perhaps far too much of it.

@marlinbundo2409

5 жыл бұрын

@@rstevewarmorycom You arent going to win many hearts and minds by being so abrasive. I mostly agree with you but you are being a massive dick about it

When good things happen to Men, its God the first they forget, when bad happen to Men, its God the first they blame.

@jimgell9057

7 жыл бұрын

Zatoichiable Atheists do not blame something that they don't believe exists, that would be ridiculous

@kennorthunder2428

7 жыл бұрын

"blame"? Yes! at minimum, they criticize "believers" for believing in a God that allows evil, etc.

@sitemountain

7 жыл бұрын

Alternatively when good things happen to Men, its God the first they credit, & when bad happen to Men, its God they are least likely to question. “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” Epicurus

@ZaktanVR

5 жыл бұрын

Logic / Reason / Evidence Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. First of all, if God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then it would be true that he is not omnipotent. But this would mean that he is not the God of the Bible since the God of the Bible does whatever he desires to do (Eph. 1:11). Second, Epicurus offers no definition for evil. Therefore, how can his assertion be validated? It can't. How would someone, say an atheist, define evil and also justify the definition as being the right one? Is evil unnecessary suffering? Is it murder but not stealing a paperclip? Is it a famine, an earthquake, bad thoughts, and/or wrong motives? Again, without defining what evil is, the validity of the statements cannot be properly assessed. Third, after a definition is offered, and hopefully justified, we can then ask to what degree ought God prevent evil? Should God prevent mass starvation, but not the theft of a paperclip? Who decides where the boundary is drawn? What about a person's evil thoughts and intentions? Should God prevent those from occurring as well and thus violate a person's free will? Is that okay? If so, why? If not, why not? Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. This objection presupposes that if God can prevent evil, then he should. But why ought God stop evil (all evil?) from happening? Just saying so does not make it so. Furthermore, the second assertion presupposes a kind of moral absolute; namely, that evil ought to be prevented by anyone who is able to prevent it. We must ask, from where is such a universal moral absolute obtained? Is it made up by people? Is it voted on? Or is it just assumed, by faith, to be true? This is important because this second assertion presupposes a moral absolute. So how do we validate the moral assertion? Is it by intuition? If so, how do we know the intuition is right? Is it by logic? Then what logical syllogism or deduction is used that necessitates such moral obligation? In addition, there are questions we would have to ask that are related to this second assertion. Could it be that God can use evil for a greater good, as would be exemplified in the evil of the crucifixion by which people are redeemed? Could it be that the freedom God allows people to have also means that they must have the freedom to choose to do what is bad? This would mean that he desires people not to do evil, but that he also desires that they be free to do that which is contrary to God; namely, evil. Also, could it be that God would have reasons to allow evil that we do not understand? After all, he's greater than us and he understands things in a way that we do not, and we are not privy to his scope of knowledge. Therefore, it is possible that he could have reasons to allow evil that we cannot understand. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? If God is both able and willing to stop evil, but chooses not to stop all evil, that means God has allowed evil to exist. As is stated above, there are many aspects to this issue of allowing evil, including free will, the degree of evil, the definition of evil, how much evil ought God stop, etc. Biblically speaking, evil originated in the heart and mind of Lucifer who decided to rebel against God. It was he who acted as though he "lacked belief in God," when he did not trust in God's wisdom and declarations but instead behaved in a manner that is consistent with independence from God. Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? We should call him God because he is God. Also, as is stated in the previous paragraphs the issue of ability and willingness to prevent evil should not be taken as isolated assertions without context, further examination, or establishing some moral contexts (definition of evil, levels of evil, kinds of evil, how much evil to prevent) by which the assertions can be properly evaluated. Since this fourth assertion is built upon the previous three, and the previous three are in no way conclusive, then the fourth cannot be trusted as being a valid couplet.

@marlinbundo2409

5 жыл бұрын

@@ZaktanVR preventing evil would both preserve and prevent free will. If god stops a man from raping a woman, he protected her free will at the cost of his free will, for a net free will of zero. Apart from that, your argument doesn't address "natural evil" god could prevent, like plagues and floods

This is crazy. Plantinga is awesome.

@samueljoseph773

3 жыл бұрын

@Van Smack Just like your comment.

@samueljoseph773

3 жыл бұрын

@Van Smack is this an argument against Plantinga's argument?

@samueljoseph773

3 жыл бұрын

@Van Smack anyone in the scientific community? Hard to chew bro.

@samueljoseph773

3 жыл бұрын

@Van Smack Existence of GOD.. yea. thats hard. I cannot prove your existence. I have to accept you exist solely based on your comment. is this a bot on the other end? Speak to me Bot.. Speak. No Its not a bot, but its Van Smack tryna smack sam. I have to believe you exist on the other end of the communication and now can argue your existence based on solely what you have communicated to me? I am not you. So, i have to prove that you exist cause i know experientially now that you exist. And one more thing. If you send me your picture or, if you just visit and meet me and say that you are Van smack and you leave. I have to write a book about you to skeptics and other people who wish to know you with the available tech that i got and share it with the world of Van smack haters and lovers. replace Van smack wth Christ and you get the Christian msg.

@samueljoseph773

3 жыл бұрын

@Van Smack wait let me pack my boxing gloves. Tell me where do you live?

I find it sad to see so many angry comments that seem to purely dismiss this man, and anything he has to say. I do know that he is widely respected among professors of philosophy, and not just among those philosophers that happen to have a belief in God. It seems that a more sensible form of argumentation would be to list a point you disagree with, and then explain why. It seems there is just a lot of unreasonable dismissal and derogatory name calling happening. It is very sad to see because it makes the discussion go absolutely nowhere.

@sevven1

10 жыл бұрын

He's angrily dismissed by most because none of his answers were worthy of anything but ridicule and scorn. It's as simple as that.

@Voyaging123

10 жыл бұрын

sevven1 So you've read his work? Have you read Warranted Christian Belief? Please give me a careful examination of his concept of "warrant" and why you think it isn't valuable.

@sevven1

10 жыл бұрын

Voyaging123 I couldn't care less how well written his book is or how eloquent his arguments may be, because, ultimately (and obviously), they're poisoned with superstitious and delusional thinking. Lol! His position might as well be that the tooth fairy is real! I can therefore dismiss "his work" as meaningless religious drivel and be completely comfortable with it.

@sevven1

10 жыл бұрын

***** LOL! Yes, I most certainly can, and will, dismiss his "work" because it's religious (superstitious) in nature!! And, no, I don't need to address any arguments he makes for any superstitious belief system being factual and true!! And.. I've already shown why I think they're not "sound" by explaining that he's arguing for superstition!! What is it about this that you're not getting?? And what is it with this "you need to" shit?? I don't "need to" do anything. I'm not making any incredible claims. I'm merely sticking with reality, and that which can be proven as fact.

@sevven1

10 жыл бұрын

***** No, it is you who doesn't understand how logic works. If the question is: Does god exist? Those who assert a god does exist, must provide evidence for having made such an extraordinary claim. Those who do not believe such a being exists need not provide any explanation for their skepticism. After all, if it were the other way around, one would be forever burdened with trying to disprove the existence of every imaginable sort of fantastic and non-existent creature.. If you cannot realize and/or accept that religion is superstitious thinking, that's your problem, not mine. Just as I can assume the ancient Israeli mountain god that christianity co-opted and transformed into an invisible sky god doesn't exist, I can also assume unicorns, werewolves, vampires, leprechauns and fairies also do not exist. My assumptions are based on rational thinking and the reality that surrounds us all, not superstitious thinking - which is at the base of all religions. I pity you. It must be awful living in such a warped and unpredictable universe..

There's a ton of edgy people here in the comments.

@rstevewarmorycom

5 жыл бұрын

You must mean normal people, not deluded religious idiots?

@rstevewarmorycom

5 жыл бұрын

@Little Delicious Oooooh, edddgggeeeeeeey.

@CallMeJAR1

5 жыл бұрын

@@rstevewarmorycom I am someone that thinks there are hardly any "normal" people out there. More likely ignorant and sinful people are out there.

@alwaysflat7996

4 жыл бұрын

@@rstevewarmorycom How did you reach this conclusion then? So normal people comes from the "norm" which in turn comes from social construct, so the normal people are those who believe in God, so you just stupidly shot yourself in the foot, didn't you? Second point, what is it that you think you know that a religious idiot doesn't? Name one thing. Normal: Is an expected behaviour, many studies that were carried out confirmed that it is natural and healthy for us to believe in God, what you meant to say is the normal people vs the twisted little abnormal so called atheists who don't even have one argument to support their own belief, who are driven by their emotions and psychologically bruised. Some atheist was asked what if you met God after you die, he said, I will tell him to go to hell, if that's not an irrational and emotional reaction I don't know what is, this is what I call an idiot and you seem to subscribe to the same ridiculousness as this guy, which shows that 99% of your arguments are emotionally driven and that's why you always result into insults and aggressive behaviours, name calling etc.. It's because you're insecure in your own belief.

@hegel5816

4 жыл бұрын

rstevewarmorycom typical atheistard...

When we had God “in our face”, either as a wondrous sign, or in the flesh as in Jesus, we still rejected him. We don’t have a lack of belief because of lack of evidence, we reject him because we are sinful and fallen. We want to think we can have the moral authority to dictate our lives and or we love our sins too much.

@wilhelmlorenz5852

2 жыл бұрын

I 👉 Absolutely 👈Agree with you!!! You've said it basically in a👉Nut👈🙏👉She'll👈🙏🤗👋❣️🌹

@wpankey57

2 жыл бұрын

I would have to respectfully disagree. There are instances of "non-resistant, non-believers" (I include myself here) who genuinely wish to believe in God but cannot because the evidence for his existence isn't compelling enough. See J.L. Schellenberg's Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason. (1993)

@Autobotmatt428

2 жыл бұрын

Well said man

@Autobotmatt428

2 жыл бұрын

@@wpankey57 the only thing stopping you is you. No matter what we say only you can change your mind.

@ncooty

2 жыл бұрын

@Christian: No one thought Jesus was a god until after he died, when people had to explain how it could be that that supposed "anointed one" (a returning king of the Jews) had been publicly humiliated via crucifixion. There's no record of him having been buried, especially not in an individual tomb, given that the common practice at the time was to leave the bodies on the crosses for several days, then dump the cadavers in a mass grave, thus depriving them of a proper Jewish burial. You believe in myths constructed long after Jesus died.

speculations don't bring you closer to truth they just leave you in a fog of uncertainty. You realize God through the one thing that is most intimate about you that is related to God, and that would be your consciousness because truth is something realized not seen.

@jjt1881

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I feel him, he is my friend, therefore, my imaginary friend exists. Great argument... NOT

@williamburts5495

3 жыл бұрын

@Chris Eggleton Yes, when John said, "your word is truth " it begs to question, what is the nature of truth? Since truth can be defined as " that which is realized to be true " and since realization depends on consciousness the foundation of truth is consciousness ( I AM ) and being a supreme absolute person God must be the ultimate realizer of truth.

It is really encouraging to see intellectual intelligence people defend faith.

the reality is a lot of people don’t want god to exist. We don’t want an authority over us. Is it reasonable to not believe in god, of course. But if you are truly honest with yourself and listen to the rational logical arguments you should come to possible conclusion he exists, whether you want it to be true or not. All the atheist comments seem to be angry bitter people who won’t listen to any argument because they don’t want god to exist.

Grateful for this great Christian thinker.

I was expecting a perspective affirming life's spiritual dimensions... :-/

At 11:15 Kuhn asks Plantinga "Do you ever have any doubts?" Am I the only one who finds Plantinga's answer really really unsatisfying, even evasive?

@dannym8934

8 жыл бұрын

His arguments are not circular, because his argument's conclusions are not "There is a God." Most times, his argument's conclusion is that belief in God is rational, or something like that.

@Reason_over_Dogma

8 жыл бұрын

+Danny M I don't know if its rational, but its entirely human to want to believe in a higher power that somehow makes amends for the tumultuous life we experience. A bit deluded, but I can see why humans would believe in such a thing.

@rstevewarmorycom

4 жыл бұрын

@Ruben Rojas Imaginary problem with an imaginary god, sounds like a psychotic delusion.

@rstevewarmorycom

4 жыл бұрын

@@dannym8934 Distinction without a difference.

@fantasypgatour

3 жыл бұрын

@@dannym8934 This challenges the definition of the word rational for me. If there's no god then belief in a god isn't rational. If the argument is you had an individual experience of god and that makes your own individual belief in god rational only to you I can understand this but then what bridges the connection between individual experience and rationality, that is what makes one individuals experience of god to themselves more rational than anothers individual experience of being abducted by aliens or another individuals experience of vishnu or another persons experience of a ghost? I need help.

Interesting discussion.

Mr Alvin Plantinga simple doesn't have any argument at all.

We can't see the point of why God would do X, but without a doubt we can be sure about all of his characteristics as long they're the ones we like........

So he just says all arguments that are inconvenient are “not much of an argument.” That’s handy. I don’t really see the purpose of arguing for the existence or non existence of God, since it’s unfalsifiable.

@DarthMakroth

2 жыл бұрын

I'm guessing you don't see any arguments for the earth being flat as much of an argument, does that mean it's unfalsifiable and we shouldn't care about it? Well we could do that if everyone believed the earth was round but not everyone believes that. It's the same with God.

@minetime6881

2 жыл бұрын

How is it unfalsified? If people disproved the the universe of beginning, that would have to disprove the creator of universe. Also if people could show if god is logically impossible that would also falsify.

@j3cruz1

2 жыл бұрын

@@minetime6881 You can’t disprove the existence of a god. That’s common knowledge. Even the most ardent atheists (e.g. Richard Dawkins) agree that there’s always a possibility, but they don’t believe there is evidence of its existence. But as scientists know, the lack of evidence is not evidence of nonexistence. You can never be 100% sure about it, or anything else for that matter. For example, life can be a simulation and everything you’ve ever experienced could be fabricated. You would never be able to know that it is or it isn’t, because all of your data would be potentially compromised. Therefor, questions like this aren’t worth arguing about. Other things are worth arguing about, because they function within the observable universe where predictions can be made. The notion of the existence of a god does not necessarily meet that criteria.

@minetime6881

2 жыл бұрын

@@j3cruz1 I disagree with Richard Dawkins. If the universe was confirmed to be eternal then that would disprove that there is a God that created one dimensional time at one point (e.i. The current understanding of what the bible says.) Ok, I agree that we can’t be 100% sure of anything (except that at least one thing exists). By falsifiable I mean beyond a reasonable doubt. 99% sure. There are plenty of things we can say would be the case if God exists. We would expect to find a begining. We would expect to find people yearning for something spiritual. We would expect to find a great deal of apparent design in the universe. I would say that’s what we see. I agree that we should not discuss unfalsifiable things in a way as if we could, but I think God fits in the category that he could probably not be proved with certainty, but enough to believe that He probably exists.

A "wish" is a desire. We desire what we believe we are missing and when attained will make us more complete. If God does exist and our essence is a part of God, then it would he natural for us to "desire" to reunite with God, where this "desire" is built into us...

@rstevewarmorycom

4 жыл бұрын

And if god is a stupid abusive fantasy, then our desire is stupid.

@lobstered_blue-lobster

2 жыл бұрын

@@rstevewarmorycom I agree but "stupid abusive fantasy".....wow! Did you learn these big big complex for first time that you are using it? That sentence literally makes absolutely no sense.

What is your argument exactly?

Towards the end even Plantinga acknowledges the force of the argument Called the problem of evil.

@alpacamaster5992

3 жыл бұрын

Is this true: Spice exists An all sugar being would eliminate all spice Therefore an all powerful all sugar being does not exist

@louisuchihatm2556

3 жыл бұрын

@@alpacamaster5992 thats a strawman...thats not the problem of evil.

@louisuchihatm2556

3 жыл бұрын

@@alpacamaster5992 spice & evil cannot be equivocated. False equivocation fallacy

@alpacamaster5992

3 жыл бұрын

@@louisuchihatm2556 an all good being would do what ever it can to create as much good even if allowing some evil;an all good being can allow evil to create good

@louisuchihatm2556

3 жыл бұрын

@@alpacamaster5992 an all powerful being can create a world where good is experienced without evil!

Be suspicious of anyone who says you have to die before you get to meet their god in person.

If you don't mind me asking, who in your opinion is not a hack philosopher? And why?

What is the point of bone cancer in children?

A summary:it be like it be.

but if something has to be logically possible in regards to God (he mentions, God cannot create a stone that big that he (an omnipotent being) cannot lift), doesnt that mean that he cannot be God because he is restricted by logic? if logic is a "higher realm" than God, than God by definition is not God.

@mda6600

2 жыл бұрын

It's that the so called logically impossibly things aren't actually things at all. They don't have a being, an existent. They're just a mix of words that doesn't refer to anything at all. Imagine a square circle. What is it? So we're not actually saying that there is something that God can't do. It's just our language deluding us into believing that there is something (whether it actually exists in reality or not) called square round.

I don’t think of God as an individual being but more a property of the universe. Why does evil exist? It doesn’t, it’s just a concept of man.

the spirit is real.

@paulbrocklehurst5873

5 жыл бұрын

What's your best reason for believing that & what is a 'spirit' (please don't dodge that question by simply saying what it ISN'T or simply what it DOES).

Manages to use two arguments that directly contradict one another in a three-minute span. Why would God create a universe that seems so vast, inefficient, and random? 7:45 "Arguments of that sort all presume that the arguer knows what God would like, or what God would want to be the case... and there's no reason to think that we know those things." How do we know believe in God isn't simply wish fulfillment? 10:13 Maybe it is, because God "would want us to know about him" and maybe wish fulfillment is just the ticket to get us to believe. So we can't know what God wants (which is why it's no problem at all believing that an all-good, all-powerful god created a world that contains horrifying, pointless suffering) until we can (because he would definitely want us to know about him, even if he has to take the bizarrely oblique route of literally tricking us into believing the truth through - once again - intense suffering). Mehhh

Many of these arguments are regarding a particular type of God, not God

@rstevewarmorycom

4 жыл бұрын

martin smith There is no such thing as some one god.

@examiningkubrickphilosofia1530

4 жыл бұрын

No it assumes God as traditionally defined - all powerful and all good.

@ryanoliveira4562

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah, for a Hindu there is no "Divine Hideness" problem, this is only make sense against Christians and Muslims

If being alive and well are miracles from God then, all people are alive and well but homeless, poor and sick are blessed with miracles. If all evil deeds are God allowing free will, then evil people are certainly exercising their free will to the full extent. If having to accept all of the above, then what is the use of prayers because praying to get out of poverty, illness and evil doesn't work.

"[T]o be omnipotent ... is to be able to do what's logically possible [from a perception and reason focused epistemological perspective?]" (5.14 s)

I would say this presenter asks all the right questions.thanks to him

@martinkent333

6 ай бұрын

No education eh?

If god really did plant knowledge of himself in all humans, why did he make this knowledge so vague that the vast majority of humans that ever lived worshiped the wrong gods. Being omniscient, one can only conclude that for some bizarre reason he wanted it this way

@PrimitiveBaroque

Жыл бұрын

Saying that the knowledge of God is so vague just seems to suggest that it could be anything. It doesn't seem to be bizarre that God had reasons to be present everywhere in Nature. It's simply one doesn't acknowledge its logical possibility.

@natanaellizama6559

Жыл бұрын

You can see it similarly to reality. We all have knowledge of reality but we model reality differently.

Great video! Just one suggestion: Rename it to "Alvin Plantinga dismisses atheist arguments". Cheers

Alvin plantinga’s fav words “and the like”

Perhaps we know of no minds other than those embodied by brains, but we also know of God through the embodiment of creation.

Ask Willy Craig these questions..

@Kipchoge475

3 жыл бұрын

What exactly are you implying?

No doubt the variety of life is good

The problem of evil is not really a problem. If God should stop all evil, the next question would be, where would he draw the line? By definition, God is all holy, so that line is drawn next to pure righteousness. Hence, God allows evil for a limited time with the gift of free will to deny doing it ourselves.

I wrote this as a response to Karstine Berry below, who commented on pipertripp's top-level comment, but I'll enter my response here also, as a top-level comment (edited by me to remove blank lines:) Atheists are rational people, and their claim is simply this: if God is transcendent or unknowable in a scientific way, then for all intents and purposes, the claimed entity does not exist, because the entity cannot reproducibly be shown to exist. And by reproducible, I’m referring to the scientific method, a well known and understood process for repeatedly establishing results (with acceptable margins of error, naturally, given that we live in a probabilistic universe.) Similarly, if God is immanent, and is everywhere present in the universe, then reproducible proof of the entity’s existence is a reasonable expectation, but no such proof exists. Gravity, as a counterexample, is everywhere present in the universe, it abides by certain laws, and all of our investigations into gravity have resulted in reproducible experiments with consistent results. Gravity waves, an effect of gravity, serve as an interesting collateral counterexample - they have only recently been physically proved to exist, whereas the mathematics for the proof of their existence has been available to us since 1915. Gravity waves bring up an interesting point about the scientific method. Physical proof is different from theoretical proof. Once one accepts the soundness of a theory like General Relativity, then one should - rationally speaking - accept even the most outrageous implications of the theory, like gravity waves, but we still cling to the need for physical proof, as an alternate means of corroboration. Let me be clear in saying that this physical proof is itself very abstract, and is not as cut-and-dried as the dropping of an apple, as in the classic Newtonian anecdote on the discovery of gravity. So - and the following is critical to the worldview of atheists - the non-existence of a single reproducible proof of a “god” is both sufficient and necessary for the claim that a “god” does not exist. In the event an experiment, or proof that a “god” exists was brought to atheists, then atheist scientists would do what they always do - they would run the experiment many times and in many different configurations, and they would come up with counter-experiments, etc. to challenge assumptions, and prior results and outcomes. If, after all this, the experimental and theoretical proof for the existence of the “god” were shown to be consistently reproducible, then atheists would say - they would be bound to say - that this “god” exists, and is real. But no such experiment, with the standard rigorous requirements, has yet been devised by those who claim a “god” exists. Until that occurs, it is rationally sound to say: a godlike entity is not known to exist anywhere in the universe. (When “known to exist” is equated with “I can feel god is there”, etc., rational people understand the human tendency to do this, but discard the statement for not being a meaningful argument.) As for a “god” existing outside the universe, well, given our current theories on the origin of the universe, and on the bounds of human knowledge prior to the birth of the universe, it does not make scientific sense to say we should know something that “exists” outside the bounds of universal existence. Which brings us back to Transcendence and Immanence. In the case of Transcendence, a “god” in no way touches the physical universe, so claims made by humans that a god at some point did come into the universe to inspire the events that were written in the holy books of the world rules out a Transcendent god: it would imply an Immanent god, but an Immanent material god would be identifiable and knowable to science in the universe, and again no such experiment has been presented by those who claim there is a god. (Aside: Is it possible that “god” is like gravity waves - which is why I mentioned them - and this entity will be discovered later on? No, because one of the implications of General Relativity is that gravity waves exist, and we have no similar consistent theory for the existence of a god. Is it possible that “god” is like General Relativity prior to 1905, i.e. not yet known about but a valid theory waiting to be discovered? No, because General Relativity was a response to Newton’s theory of gravity, and thus was built on the foundation of an established, reproducible scientific method of mechanics, whereas no such prior theory and experiment exist in the case of a claim of the existence of a god. Is it possible that proof of “god” is awaiting an as of yet unknown theory of the universe, as say, was the case for the world 10,000 years ago, prior to the dawn of organized agriculture and society, when science was not yet known? Yes, it is possible, but no more possible than the speculation of the opposite, that no such “as of yet unknown theory” exists, in which case both speculations are equally likely and unlikely at the same time, and neither one is favored over the other as a possible future, and so, statistically, neither one carries any more weight than the other, and in a summation of all possible futures would in each case cancel each other out. Relativity, at least in terms of speculation of its possible existence 10,000 years ago was very much more likely given that it eventually came to be built up from observations in the physical world, whereas an immaterial god requires a completely new system that also would need to interact with systems that we now know do exist, thereby lowering the probability of that likelihood, i.e. in a closed system, a greater number of dependent unknowns lessen the likelihood of an outcome being true, or provable.) Three final things: Certainty: science at present considers the universe to be a probabilistic place, and hence “certainty” holds no privileged position there. When something is proved, it is proved to be the case within an acceptable margin of error - the proof does not need to claim X is true 100% of the time. So, in the universe, certainty is not attainable and, hence, is not a meaningful expectation in terms of outcomes in the universe. Followers of religion often resort to certainty in claim X or in claim Y, and when discussing this with a scientifically trained person there will be immediate disagreement regarding the terms that are being used. In a scientific universe, certainty has no practical meaning. If you ask an atheist whether she or he is certain a god does or does not exist, you are asking that person a meaningless question, as the attribute of “certainty” doesn’t have any meaning for them. The universe, based on all of our experiments, is not made that way, whether we like that attribute or not - it is as it is. Positive statements: When you say that it is incumbent on atheists to prove that a god does not exist, then no, this is not meaningful in terms of how science works. When something does not exist, it does not exist in an infinite number of ways. When something does exist, it need only be shown to exist as one consistent, reproducible thing. A positive statement, then, is a statement about attribute Y of a known extant entity X; a positive statement is not a statement about non-existence. So it makes much more logical sense that those who believe in a god prove to atheists that a god exists, as one consistent, reproducible thing. Atheists, in turn, will examine that proof and put it through the same rigorous set of tests that all other proofs require, and should the proof be shown to be true, then atheists will accept that truth, which would, of course, be subject to the usual scientific revision and improvement over time. Miracles, for example, are sometimes given as proof for the existence of a god; however, the proofs are not reproducible, or the data (aka, “evidence”) is not always consistent, or complete, or meaningful. That is, when a proof does not meet the requirements for the definition of a proof in the scientific sense, then the proof is not a proof at all, and is dismissed. So, to date, no such scientific proof has been presented to atheists. And, until such proof is presented, there is no data with which a meaningful discussion of the existence of god can be had, which leads atheists to the statement that their confidence in the existence of god, based on data and experiment, is as close to zero as is scientifically meaningful. That is all that is required of atheists to know that a proof for the existence of god has not been responsibly presented to them. Agnostics: Their logic is flawed, because the statement “insufficient evidence exists” directly claims that “some evidence exists”, and evidence is evidence, and can only be called evidence when it can be used as input to a rigorously verifiable mechanism that is itself logically and scientifically sound. However, it appears that agnostics equate “insufficient” with “misunderstood” or “supposed”, because either we have some sound data or we do not, and sound data we can work with, without controversy. But that sound evidence, little as it might be to agnostics actually does not exist. Hearsay, superstition, myth, tradition, rumor, etc., all exist, but are not sufficient constituents of scientific data.

@ethancoffey3491

4 жыл бұрын

Patrick O'Brien all that and one like lol

@forestvvoods577

3 жыл бұрын

How you "scientifically" prove God when he's outside the natural world & science studies the natural world?

@patrickobrien8851

3 жыл бұрын

@@forestvvoods577 Use the "scientific method" to prove that a god exists, and the responsibility for this proof is - first and foremost - in the hands of those who believe in the claim of the existence of the god. It is not up to people like myself to provide that proof, but should a sound proof be provided, and peer-reviewed by others who understand the scientific method, then yes, that proof would certainly be worth further examination. Your statement of course is made up of assumptions: that your god is a "he", and that your god exists "outside the natural world." And your statement is made up of contradictions: if your god is outside the natural world, how do you even know anything about such a god? (And don't tell me that "the bible tells me so...", since this is a book written by other humans who are also contained within the natural world.) And if you say something like "well god sometimes reaches into the natural world and communicates with people" then, clearly your god is NOT "outside the natural world" - part of the god is somehow inside the natural world. So which is it, fully outside or partly outside? A different view: is it possible that some super-intelligent life-form created our universe? Yes, it is possible. Is it possible that there are other life-forms within our universe? Yes, it is possible. Is it likely that we humans are somehow special and that a book like the bible links us above all others in the universe to the creators of the universe? No - this is very unlikely. Either all life-forms on this planet, and all life-forms that might exist off this planet are equally important to the experimenters / creators of our universe (the universe is then just another experiment, right?) or no experiment is under way at all: either way, we are not special, and there isn't any "heaven" or "hell" waiting for us. We're just another life-form that has births and deaths, and nothing else, and there's nothing wrong with that.

@patrickobrien8851

3 жыл бұрын

@@ethancoffey3491 In today's world, you know that what you are saying has value when not a single person likes it. By getting "one like" I have clearly made a mistake somewhere; "no likes" would be, er, more like it.

@forestvvoods577

3 жыл бұрын

@@patrickobrien8851 😂😂😂 you snapped on this Patrick, you really did, but let's take for instance love, is there a "scientific" method to conclude it exists or quantify it or the likes? You're free to say it doesn't exist but does that mean it doesn't? Also I didn't say you had to give proof I said if we're doing this scientifically, how would that look like ... And I don't really think you've given me a method or structure since you claim this the is best way to attain God, also prophets communicated with God through visions, dreams etc, or he appeared to them through natural conduits (fire, smoke etc) they weren't him but a channel which he communicates... If you don't believe that, are you willing to say it's possible?

Unless God tell you what the purpose of evil is, the problem of evil is still a problem.

@Thomas-og1ro

Жыл бұрын

One of the great prophets Moses, said " I set before you today Life and good,Death and Evil..... Choose Life so that you and your descendants may live." ( Deuteronomy chapter 30 verses 15 and 19). God is giving mankind a choice of belonging to the evil side or the good and godly side. One day they shall be no more death or pain or sorrows. For God will wipe away all tears from their eyes. Death will be swallowed up in victory. And Christ Jesus will reign in a new and perfect earth for a thousand years. The New Millennium.( Book of Revelations) Until then evil exists and everyone has a choice for God or Satan's side. God gives us a choice. No one will enter paradise against their own will. We may not know everything but it is comforting to know one day at the second coming of Christ evil will be defeated completely. Then paradise for the faithful believers. I hope this somehow answer the question. Although I admit some things will remain spiritual mysteries. But we don't need to know everything in order to know that there is eternal life through Christ

plantinga is 87 y o. when was this filmed.

Interesting 🙏

His argument against Freud was weak.

from a photon to the overwhelming expanse of universe, an atheist's blind heart can not see His signs just as he can not tell us (out of scientific discovery) wherefrom all this came, nor has an atheist scientist been able so far to CREATE a photon out of nothing.

@Ipowne3g

2 жыл бұрын

That's neither an argument against atheism nor an argument for theism. Your comment doesn't really bring anything to the table.

@user-tf2wd1eh3g

2 жыл бұрын

I see you speak jibberish.

Who is the interviewer? He looks familiar?

If you don’t know evil, how would we know love?

Such an honest man.

Can see how Alvin Plantinga just repels all these arrows like a giant brick wall. That's amazing considering the context in which he has brought God back into the scene in his time where positivism and these atheistic presuppositions were all the rage.

Plantinga is arguing from hypotheticals. In other words, anything is a possibility. But hypotheticals don’t make something real. We should not judge things by some possibility but should instead draw conclusions that can be supported with empirical evidence. Possibly does not make for actuality. Hypotheticals has the tendency to exit the bounds of probability and actuality to imbue the imaginary with authenticity.

All he says is that we can't disprove the existence of god because we have no idea of what god would look like.

After listening to all of this, I'm pretty sure that we can't currently know whether Cthulu is asleep.

Warranted rejection requires reasons to reject. Rocks are atheists in the same way they "lack belief in God". The semantic game is tiring, I think you can agree. So why don't you tell me where you personally stand on the issue?

@zahedshah

3 жыл бұрын

and who told u that rocks do not believe in God, how did u make it certain given that u still do not know how the rock is able to hold its atoms together without chaotic scattering

it all depends on what kind of creature God is...

Evil is not a mystery, rather God's mercy is the real mystery-- How God turns water into wine, or our lemons into lemonade.

Whether there's a need for something or that the mind can construct something has no bearing on whether that something exists or not

@sebastiancandor8680

2 жыл бұрын

Does a maximally great being (a being that exists in every possible world) exist in some possible world? Perhaps... Is that a logically acceptable response? Because if it is, then the conclusion doesn't follow. How do we know such a being exists in any possible world?

@Phill0old

Жыл бұрын

@@sebastiancandor8680 Perhaps is a yes because it doesn't say no and therefore accepts the possiblity. The only refutation is to show that it isn't possible.

5:22 ... you see even alvin plantinga admits that for god to be omniscient is to be able to do what is only LogicallyPossible.

@MyBenaya

2 жыл бұрын

yes, i see. one of them is that god can't make 1+2=4.

@LomuHabana

Жыл бұрын

The problem is, that is itself also problematic, I mean, It is “logically possible” to create and infinitely heavy stone/ create something that oneself cannot lift, it is “logically possible” to be infinitely strong/be able to lift anything. The problem arises when you put them together, so the set of “logically possible actions” is a logically inconsistent set. What Platinga would mean is “his powers and nature are logically consistent” , or to put it differently “god can do anything that is not against his nature”. But putting this simplistically, it means “god cannot do what god cannot do”. And even claiming god is eternally logical pretty weak, the rules of logic are contingent on our universe, they are not special metatruths. So god is bound my rules he is supposed to have created? And even if you dismiss this somehow and for example claim that logic transcends our universe, why would you think that? Why do the laws of logic, which are an inherent part of our universe/world, transcend our world, but the laws of thermodynamics, which are as “true” as the laws of logic, don’t transcend our world? That is just convenient cherrypicking to save their incoherent and inconsistent concept of god. Every “omni-property” is pretty much nonsense in reality, or at least extremely poorly defined by theists.

Glad I'm a deist. Don't have to worry about these sticky moral problems.

Plantiga seems to be arguing theology rather than why I should believe in God

@tothesciencemobile4707

5 жыл бұрын

His favorite argument seems to be "well, that's not much of an argument." ...Which isn't much of an argument.

Can't see it, hear it, taste it, touch it, hear it, explain it, or reconcile it with what we know... Faith takes a lot of faith.

@yunisazizli7737

Жыл бұрын

The level difference between this video and your comment is just...

@LomuHabana

Жыл бұрын

@@yunisazizli7737 he is hyperbolically paraphrasing I’d say. His argument is, a concept which is beyond our comprehension (and therefore also cannot be proven or disproven with the means we are equipped with) is of no rational/analytical, only of sentimental use.

A maximally great being would have true scriptures, if it needed such things to convey its message in the first place. So let us do a little bible study: *Matthew 17;20* _NIV_ *20* _He replied, "Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."_ *matthew 18;19-20* _NIV_ *19* _“Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven._ *20* _For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”_ *Matthew 21;21-22* _NIV_ *21* _Jesus replied, “Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done._ *22* _If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”_ *Mark 11;23-24* _NIV_ *23* _“Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them._ *24* _Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours._ *John 14;12-14* _NIV_ *12* _Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father._ *13* _And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son._ *14* _You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it._ All of these scriptures from your bible say _"Truly I tell you."_ They are all supposedly quotes from a demigod that couldn't lie like a normal person, and since _"Truly"_ means "In accordance with fact" and it does not mean "Symbolically" or "Metaphorically" or "Allegorically" we should be able to trust what they say. matthew 17;20 puts a limit on these scriptures: *Faith.* I posit that if you believe in any of the supernatural occurrences detailed in the christian bible, you have plenty of faith. I posit that if you believe that an obviously fictional, obviously evil being as yahweh is both real and good, based on your faith, you have more faith than you'll ever need to do what comes next. These scriptures would indicate (To anyone reading them with a shred of honesty) that prayer _always_ works: _“Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven."_ _"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”_ _"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."_ _"You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it."_ They also indicate that prayer can accomplish the impossible: _"Nothing will be impossible for you."_ _“Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them."_ If these were the words of a maximally great being's demigod, they should be true, so let us test prayer: 1: Grab a christian friend _(“Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.")_ and a video camera. 2: Find an amputee. 3: Turn on the camera. 4: Both of you -Wish upon a star- Pray that this amputee regrows their lost limb/s. Be sure to pray in the name of your demigod. _(Very truly I tell you… You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.)_ I posit that a maximally great being would re-grow an amputee's lost limbs when petitioned to do so, because helping people is greater than not helping them, and a real, functioning, natural limb is greater than any prosthetic made by men. Any _excuse_ or _dodge_ is your admission that your god will not restore that poor amputee, and thus is not maximally great, and therefor does not have to exist. It would also be an admission that your demigod is either a liar that hates amputees, or (more likely) it never existed in the first place. Good luck, christians!

Leaving aside that many questions are presented in a silly simplistic way, ALL ANSWERS can be reduced to "the wizard did it!". As Wolfgang Pauli said: "this is not even wrong".

The first time we know God, it is by no means knowledge but the only way through a given meaning and under the authority of your parents and your community more. Knowledge comes from finding your well and understanding who you are in many details. I would rather know nothing but one thing and cheer the whole time and just follow along. It is impossible and meaningless and found that nothing is permanent. There is paramount importance to something that will lead to the correct answer from which you are related to God the Creator of all. The answer is why we are not born according to our will and do not want to die forgetting uncertainties but legends. We want to be as if we are more confident with the creator in the best deal in something permanently "win-win".

God is the one who introduced sin into the world....then condemns the sinner...this is drivel and bs...... And why is god considered a he? This guy is not arguing anything....he is being dismissive.

@kevinbartolen5881

2 жыл бұрын

No, he did not introduce sin into the world. To sin means „to miss the target“, in other words to reject God and disobey him. Rejecting a maximally great being means to reject goodness itself in some form which is what the first man did. All God dis was give him the ability to make a choice. As for why God is considered a he, he doesn't exactly have a gender. He is given that pronoun simply because it is more fitting for him. But sometimes he's also described through feminine metaphors, like mother bear protecting her cubs.

this video just blew my mind

@MrBoybergs

2 жыл бұрын

If you passively offer up the touch paper and the match, then that's a pretty inevitable result.

People's fear of hell and bad fortune makes them prefer to believe in a God than to believe in nothing. By believing in a God gives them at least a sliver of hope.

@thuscomeguerriero

5 жыл бұрын

Of course, the sword cuts both ways doesnt it? I could just as easily dismiss atheists ideas based on some assumed psychological profile. Thats why these things are best debated without recourse to personal psychology

Repeatedly saying: ‘that’s not much for an argument’ is the weakest argument of all

@walterdaems57

2 жыл бұрын

@Karat Kravat in that case it’s not much of a comment :)

Have any of these commenters read his God and Other Minds, I wonder?

Every philosophical argument that man has ever posed for the existence of god, fails.

@dannym8934

8 жыл бұрын

That's interesting. Plantinga did not pose an argument for God's existence in this video.

@mhmeekk3003

8 жыл бұрын

Many actually work.

@saganworshipper6062

8 жыл бұрын

Danny M By "man" I meant humanity.

@YitroBenAvraham

7 жыл бұрын

Sagan Worshipper Says you, an admitted idol worshipper. What's weirder, worshipping a single unified creative intelligence... Or worshipping a man or created thing? The answer is obvious.

@saganworshipper6062

7 жыл бұрын

Yea except my name was created long ago while arguing with a creationist and is an obvious play-on-words because I was called a satan worshipper.

Alvin Plantinga is among the most intelligent and capable theist philosophers of the past century...and even he can't do better than "if" and "it could be" and reliance on evidence-free religious dogmas like "sin" and "the fall." As for the problem of evil - "we just can't know if the evil we see is really evil" is a very slippery argument leading inevitably to having to accept that we have no idea if good and evil exist at all. If Dr. Plantinga can't do better than this, I'm confident no one else can...and that pretty much finishes the possibility of evidence for theism.

What other reasons do you have? 1) The possibility doesn't have to be true, it just has to be possible in order to prove non-contradiction. God could have plenty of reasons to remain hidden. 2) What in particular do you find absurd? 3) Again, the purpose is freely entering into a relationship via love. Knowledge and free will are not sufficient on their own. Actual love cannot be forced. BTW the scripture reference says the demons know and tremble (but the context is discussing faith+acts).

@obramaestradelgranyosoybar5609

4 жыл бұрын

Do you believe?

This guy came highly touted and he has nothing. On top of that he totally switches the burden of proof and the interviewer doesn't challenge it. I'll take Tielhard as at least to be taken seriously.

@jaclo3112

2 жыл бұрын

Plantinga is a classic example of an emperor with no clothes. What's interesting is that so many people almost a decade ago were impressed by the mental masturbation of Plantinga. Now more and more people see it for the irrational and illogical nonsense that it is.

Good stuff

The same sentence but we have faith, follow one and fear,deny the other only because of a name change that doesn't make sense

God can create a rock that he can’t pick up. First he creates it then he picks it up.

....so this guy believes in God but we can't say anything about him. "God is good, but when we say 'good' in God's context we don't really mean 'good'"

I have just one question: What is God? can you at least define it before arguing it's existence? I've seen many videos in this channel about this and you people talk as if it was a well defined concept, which is not.

@FreeSilio

9 жыл бұрын

That's part of the trick: they keep their definitions vague and loose enough to change them every time they generate contraddictions. Like Plantinga did with the concept of "omnipotence", which he redefined (from the classical notion of being able to do "any all thing" into just being able to do "everything that's LOGICALLY POSSIBLE") just to bypass the paradox of logics that the old concept creates (4:40). ...and by the way: claiming that god's power are limited to what is 'logically' possible, would mean that logics is superior to him.

@FreeSilio

9 жыл бұрын

***** "He can't violate his nature" Therefore he's not all powerful. Every time theists define in a less vague way their alleged 'deity' some new contraddiction emerges. By the way: If you're talking about the mass murdering god described in the bible, I won't say that he's good, nor that he acts in a logical way.

@FreeSilio

9 жыл бұрын

***** "Do you understand what "perfect" means?" It's just a term created by human minds. like omnipotence, omniscience, etc... The point is that similar concepts generate many contraddictions, like the ones pointed out in this same video. My original comment is exactly about this: those concepts create obvious logical contraddictions, and religious apologists dishonestly change the definitions of their 'god' just to fix those contraddictions. In other words: they're not even able to give us a coherent definition of their alleged deity ...let alone giving a shred of evidence about his existence! ;-) "Like I said more dead babies done by humans than by God in the OT" I could play your same 'show me the statistics' game, but that's not necessary, since even if we admit that man made aborts are more than the murdering made by your god in the bible (which i sincerely doubt about, since in Noah's times he killed every single form of life on the planet, excepting the very few ones on the arch), your god would always be the INDIVIDUAL killer with the highest murdering record in history (and quite ironically that's just in his 'Holy book'). In any case: did you know that the most of abortions are the spontaneous ones? In other words: the ones which your god operates by himself, without any intervention from human will. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneous_abortion_in_humans Not only YOUR GOD IS the greatest killer that human history has ever known, but he's EVEN THE GREATEST ABORTIONIST! :D

@TheGreaser9273

9 жыл бұрын

Jonathan Carreño "G"od is the greatest conceivable being. Think of an alien race that has more power, knowledge, presense and morally superiority than we do. Now think of an alien race that is better than that, then do it again, again and again. you will end up with an alien race that is perfect in power, knowledge, presence and morality (Great making properties). This is just a concept in order for it to exist you have to find someone claiming to be this being and compare the concept to the claim.

@dannym8934

8 жыл бұрын

Plantinga did not argue for God's existence in this video.

2.34 Which glod? On the other side of the world this sounds jibberish.

4:50 that’s called a paradox right ?

Nothing said here, brought me any closer to believing in a god.

@ch.r8285

3 жыл бұрын

Try Flaming Wings And Swords Ministry here on KZread. Maybe something said there brings you closer to God 🙂❤🙏

@ahgflyguy

3 жыл бұрын

That’s because all Plantinga is doing is sidestepping the objections. Saying that he doesn’t find the atheist objections to the various “omni” claims aren’t persuasive to him just means he’s not paying attention. Those “Omni” objections exist to show that the way the Christians use language to describe their god is incoherent. And we bring those objections to so that the Christians can come up with a more coherent definition for the things they say they believe in. Now, the hesitance of a theist to take seriously the need to have a coherent definition for the thing they say is the most important thing in the world, is very telling. It’s almost as if they know that if they try to think and speak clearly about their god, they will realize they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about, and that the only way to resolve the contradictions is to abandon some important aspect of their belief. So they REALLY don’t want to think clearly. And they don’t want others to, either.

@user-pt6ug5ug3m

3 жыл бұрын

@@ahgflyguy I note that the Muslim and Christian apologetics constantly use philosophy as thier proof of god. A good start for a theory, but it needs way more work. They still seem to jump to therefore god pretty quickly, but they also claim that the god of the gaps arguement has been refuted. Which tells me that they are desperately clinging to faith alone. I am quite happy for them to believe in god on faith alone. But they should be honest enough to admit that.

@ahgflyguy

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-pt6ug5ug3m If you can get them to be honest enough to admit that they believe on faith- that is, in spite of evidence and not because of evidence- then you could probably get them to admit that there’s no position they COULDN’T take based on faith. And then they might realize they’re deluding themselves. And I think that’s why their faith defense mechanisms evolved to always distract them away from discussing why they believe, in particular what would have to change for them to NOT believe.

@akhiljames3435

3 жыл бұрын

@@ahgflyguy I find that more Christians read atheist literature like Dawkins, Hitchens etc than I find atheists who read Thomas Aquinas, Alvin platinga or Blaise Pascal or even C.S. Lewis.

I think that by posing the questions as "What do the arguments against God get wrong?" the interviewer framed the issue as a false dichotomy. Moreover, I think some of his questions were directed at topics that are often met with arguments from ignorance (i.e., a God of the Gaps)... not that I've heard any "pro-God" arguments I think have merit.

Alvin Plantinga explain God as something mechanical, something that word can put together.

I didn’t quite understand his rebut argument for the evil part. 3:8 Can someone please explain to me what he is saying ?

@35snarf

4 жыл бұрын

My best summary is: How does the mere existence of evil prove God doesn't exist? Also, how does it show that he doesn't have a good reason for it existing? He answers with a question, because it's really up to an atheist to prove that the existence of evil implies there is no good God. As a Catholic Christian, I find it easy to understand that God gave us free choice from the beginning of our race. That choice has led our first ancestors (called Adam and Eve in the allegory of creation) to choose their own evil desires over God's desires, and that choice influenced everyone descended from them. That's "original sin." That brought all suffering/evil into the world. God did not directly cause it, but He did allow our choices to bring evil into His creation.

@Momo-yl3hs

4 жыл бұрын

Greg thank you so much 🙏🏼 for your explanation it really helps me a lot 👍🏼

@KonradZielinski

3 жыл бұрын

What he is saying basically boils down to "God moves in mysterious ways".

These arguments are disingenuous. While most people may well believe in some sort of higher power or "god", it is not the same god that Christians believe in. It's wrong to claim that your god is the one true one and everyone secretly believes in this particular one.

@silverslaya

9 жыл бұрын

Your point might be valid if he, in that particular argument, was addressing Christianity. God (singluar) would encompass, Islam, Christianity, Judaism and Deism of various kinds.

@saenzperspectives

8 жыл бұрын

I think you are misunderstanding his point in bringing that up. He also talks about the sensus divinitatis which he believes a cognitive dysfunction can impair that. Without going too much in it, if you took the time to actually understand his arguments rather than this short introductory video, it is pretty clear his views on the issue. Also, all truth claims are exclusive in and of themselves, even the claim that someone shouldn't claim their religion is true, is an exclusive truth claim someone is giving, which is self-contradictory, and arrogant, when you really think about it.

If you start with the faith you were indoctrinated into then presuppositions like god's existence and the veracity of scripture can be accepted without the slightest hesitation or skeptical thought. Presupposing god exists make it very easy to find evidence for god. If such a being depends on the perception of other minds to exist or not exist then it may be worth simply walking away from the issue altogether. Yahweh? Allah? Hanuman? Vishnu? It is likely that if you belief in one of these gods it is because you were raised into such a belief before you had reason to reject it.

We haven't even figured out ourselves never mind what is God. We don't know. It's outside of our limited faculties.

Why is there “evil” and “bad things” in our world?? Because we are experiencing the manifestation of what mankind is capable of with our immeasurable minds, our powerful word, and our capable presence, when they are given the authority we have. It’s not that we have “free will”, we do not, however we have been given choices that delude us into this thinking (especially in the western world). We are learning “man’s ways” and when our flesh passes away and we are born into Life, we will have a testimony of the difference between OUR ways (unto “death”) and the Creators Way (unto LIFE for all!😃)… Does God “allow” it? Yes for that very reason…HIS ways are not the same as our ways. HE is the Father of all Life. We mutilate and try to destroy all of the Life He’s made…just look around. Down to 1% of the created world left in our existence.🤔🤓

Who are we to determine what exists and what doesn’t edit: compared to the magnitude of the universe we are nothing our opinions do not shape reality

@unfalsifiable9250

4 жыл бұрын

they do shape our perception of reality though, and thats important.

@bgm-sh9pe

4 жыл бұрын

good point

Was there supposed to be some proof of god's existence here? I certainly didn't hear it.

@carsongarfield6524

7 жыл бұрын

No, I do not believe that Plantinga intended to prove anything.

@stevelee7189

7 жыл бұрын

+Carson Garfield It's because he can't.

@kasparov937

6 жыл бұрын

Steve Lee Same way he cant prove you're an idiot.

@kasparov937

6 жыл бұрын

Skeptic NY No, but sounds like you love throwing that comment into any God related video.

Is evil a problem or the motivation to seek God? How do we recognise what is evil and who is to judge what is evil? Evil or death is the last enemy according to the Christian tradition. Was it not Jesus claiming to be God who did not find equality with God something to be grasped but clothed himself with humility even to death on a cross to be our redeemer from judgement of the evil in the world that we caused and continue to cause?

Okay, God "EXISTS" but if so, then what the hell is he made of? Because if he's not made of something then he's no-thing and can't exist! What is Good made of?

Thanks for sharing. Really, I honestly appreciate it. First, first. It's important to note God can desire all men to enter salvation and knowledge while purposing they do it freely through love. This possibly requires a certain amount of hiddenness, and possibility proves non-contradiction. The contradiction can only be made manifest via explicating a better method of achieving His purposes, which ultimately comes down to speculation. Have you done much looking into the Evidential PoE?

@rstevewarmorycom

4 жыл бұрын

Cameron Bertuzzi Saying "His" brands you as a brainwashed moron.

@covidmonster4195

3 жыл бұрын

Where do you get this babble from? Is it biblical or did you or someone else just make it up. This is not to say that the Bible isn’t also made up. But your nonsense isn’t even supported by the nonsense in any holy book. It’s all laughable.

@lalaeatinagotdamnburger3416

3 жыл бұрын

I don’t think it’s nonsense at all, I think he has a solid point of reasoning.

I think the real issue here is that this is being argued in a backwards fashion. Kuhn really should have asked Plantinga to present his case. The arguments against are being treated as positive claims and those are easy to refute with almost any statement b/c you really can't prove the negative claim. The way this should be argued is that Plantinga needs to make his positive claim and then back it up with evidence. He needs to justify his claim of an omnipotent, omniscient being with proper evidence. In the end he needs to show, with evidence, why his claim is true and the default position (atheism in this case) is not justified. He didn't do this in the interview, but that's not entirely his fault because he spent the entire time focused on refuting positive claims.

@karstineberry5639

5 жыл бұрын

An atheist who claims that God dos not exist , makes a positive claim...and needs to provide positive evidence for that claim.To understand this,one needs to be able to drop the tunnel reasoning that is the hall mark of atheism.Atheism IS A BELIEF..Sadly, atheists do not even know this.

@mikeguliano3159

4 жыл бұрын

@@karstineberry5639 What about agnosticism?

@karstineberry5639

4 жыл бұрын

@@mikeguliano3159 Agnosticism is the assertion that one does not have sufficient evidence to either (1) Believe God exists or (2) Believe God does not exist. Basically, agnosticism is the belief that one cannot adopt one belief or the other

@patrickobrien8851

4 жыл бұрын

@@karstineberry5639: (edited to remove blank lines.) Atheists are rational people, and their claim is simply this: if God is transcendent or unknowable in a scientific way, then for all intents and purposes, the claimed entity does not exist, because the entity cannot reproducibly be shown to exist. And by reproducible, I’m referring to the scientific method, a well known and understood process for repeatedly establishing results (with acceptable margins of error, naturally, given that we live in a probabilistic universe.) Similarly, if God is immanent, and is everywhere present in the universe, then reproducible proof of the entity’s existence is a reasonable expectation, but no such proof exists. Gravity, as a counterexample, is everywhere present in the universe, it abides by certain laws, and all of our investigations into gravity have resulted in reproducible experiments with consistent results. Gravity waves, an effect of gravity, serve as an interesting collateral counterexample - they have only recently been physically proved to exist, whereas the mathematics for the proof of their existence has been available to us since 1915. Gravity waves bring up an interesting point about the scientific method. Physical proof is different from theoretical proof. Once one accepts the soundness of a theory like General Relativity, then one should - rationally speaking - accept even the most outrageous implications of the theory, like gravity waves, but we still cling to the need for physical proof, as an alternate means of corroboration. Let me be clear in saying that this physical proof is itself very abstract, and is not as cut-and-dried as the dropping of an apple, as in the classic Newtonian anecdote on the discovery of gravity. So - and the following is critical to the worldview of atheists - the non-existence of a single reproducible proof of a “god” is both sufficient and necessary for the claim that a “god” does not exist. In the event an experiment, or proof that a “god” exists was brought to atheists, then atheist scientists would do what they always do - they would run the experiment many times and in many different configurations, and they would come up with counter-experiments, etc. to challenge assumptions, and prior results and outcomes. If, after all this, the experimental and theoretical proof for the existence of the “god” were shown to be consistently reproducible, then atheists would say - they would be bound to say - that this “god” exists, and is real. But no such experiment, with the standard rigorous requirements, has yet been devised by those who claim a “god” exists. Until that occurs, it is rationally sound to say: a godlike entity is not known to exist anywhere in the universe. (When “known to exist” is equated with “I can feel god is there”, etc., rational people understand the human tendency to do this, but discard the statement for not being a meaningful argument.) As for a “god” existing outside the universe, well, given our current theories on the origin of the universe, and on the bounds of human knowledge prior to the birth of the universe, it does not make scientific sense to say we should know something that “exists” outside the bounds of universal existence. Which brings us back to Transcendence and Immanence. In the case of Transcendence, a “god” in no way touches the physical universe, so claims made by humans that a god at some point did come into the universe to inspire the events that were written in the holy books of the world rules out a Transcendent god: it would imply an Immanent god, but an Immanent material god would be identifiable and knowable to science in the universe, and again no such experiment has been presented by those who claim there is a god. (Aside: Is it possible that “god” is like gravity waves - which is why I mentioned them - and this entity will be discovered later on? No, because one of the implications of General Relativity is that gravity waves exist, and we have no similar consistent theory for the existence of a god. Is it possible that “god” is like General Relativity prior to 1905, i.e. not yet known about but a valid theory waiting to be discovered? No, because General Relativity was a response to Newton’s theory of gravity, and thus was built on the foundation of an established, reproducible scientific method of mechanics, whereas no such prior theory and experiment exist in the case of a claim of the existence of a god. Is it possible that proof of “god” is awaiting an as of yet unknown theory of the universe, as say, was the case for the world 10,000 years ago, prior to the dawn of organized agriculture and society, when science was not yet known? Yes, it is possible, but no more possible than the speculation of the opposite, that no such “as of yet unknown theory” exists, in which case both speculations are equally likely and unlikely at the same time, and neither one is favored over the other as a possible future, and so, statistically, neither one carries any more weight than the other, and in a summation of all possible futures would in each case cancel each other out. Relativity, at least in terms of speculation of its possible existence 10,000 years ago was very much more likely given that it eventually came to be built up from observations in the physical world, whereas an immaterial god requires a completely new system that also would need to interact with systems that we now know do exist, thereby lowering the probability of that likelihood, i.e. in a closed system, a greater number of dependent unknowns lessen the likelihood of an outcome being true, or provable.) Three final things: Certainty: science at present considers the universe to be a probabilistic place, and hence “certainty” holds no privileged position there. When something is proved, it is proved to be the case within an acceptable margin of error - the proof does not need to claim X is true 100% of the time. So, in the universe, certainty is not attainable and, hence, is not a meaningful expectation in terms of outcomes in the universe. Followers of religion often resort to certainty in claim X or in claim Y, and when discussing this with a scientifically trained person there will be immediate disagreement regarding the terms that are being used. In a scientific universe, certainty has no practical meaning. If you ask an atheist whether she or he is certain a god does or does not exist, you are asking that person a meaningless question, as the attribute of “certainty” doesn’t have any meaning for them. The universe, based on all of our experiments, is not made that way, whether we like that attribute or not - it is as it is. Positive statements: When you say that it is incumbent on atheists to prove that a god does not exist, then no, this is not meaningful in terms of how science works. When something does not exist, it does not exist in an infinite number of ways. When something does exist, it need only be shown to exist as one consistent, reproducible thing. A positive statement, then, is a statement about attribute Y of a known extant entity X; a positive statement is not a statement about non-existence. So it makes much more logical sense that those who believe in a god prove to atheists that a god exists, as one consistent, reproducible thing. Atheists, in turn, will examine that proof and put it through the same rigorous set of tests that all other proofs require, and should the proof be shown to be true, then atheists will accept that truth, which would, of course, be subject to the usual scientific revision and improvement over time. Miracles, for example, are sometimes given as proof for the existence of a god; however, the proofs are not reproducible, or the data (aka, “evidence”) is not always consistent, or complete, or meaningful. That is, when a proof does not meet the requirements for the definition of a proof in the scientific sense, then the proof is not a proof at all, and is dismissed. So, to date, no such scientific proof has been presented to atheists. And, until such proof is presented, there is no data with which a meaningful discussion of the existence of god can be had, which leads atheists to the statement that their confidence in the existence of god, based on data and experiment, is as close to zero as is scientifically meaningful. That is all that is required of atheists to know that a proof for the existence of god has not been responsibly presented to them. Agnostics: Their logic is flawed, because the statement “insufficient evidence exists” directly claims that “some evidence exists”, and evidence is evidence, and can only be called evidence when it can be used as input to a rigorously verifiable mechanism that is itself logically and scientifically sound. However, it appears that agnostics equate “insufficient” with “misunderstood” or “supposed”, because either we have some sound data or we do not, and sound data we can work with, without controversy. But that sound evidence, little as it might be to agnostics actually does not exist. Hearsay, superstition, myth, tradition, rumor, etc., all exist, but are not sufficient constituents of scientific data.

@karstineberry5639

4 жыл бұрын

​@@patrickobrien8851 I must start by stating that I speak for " belief in The God of The Christian Bible" , and all those outrageous , supernatural claims for which The Christian Bible is unique.Now that I have circumscribed my field, you may choose to continue in this discussion. Atheists must at the least, consider the possibility of a Spiritual, non-physical universe, in which/for which the scientific method( great as it is) , is completely useless. For one to obstinately stick with the material universe (exclusively), and demand that supernatural claims about Supernatural Beings be... " brought to the atheist" , reveals many unpleasant things.I list just two, below: 1.) Atheists are unwilling to roll up their sleeves, and actually go out in search of evidences, what ever it takes and where-ever the quest may lead them. It would appear some have never done any experiment(scientific or not) of their own.They would rather just interpret discoveries by other people, using philosophy/logic that is skewed by their world view/presuppositions. 2.) Atheists have never really understood their own very mantra of " Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence". The claims of the Christian Bible can be proven...but not by scientific methods, because , these are not natural/normal claims about natural/physical beings(realities).The Scientific Method does not apply in this situation.And yes, it is a completely different set of circumstances that greatly influence the physical universe, but are spiritual and completely different. For proof of God of The Christian Bible, follow the prescription in John 14:21 .Just remember that it is an individual endeavor. Each person has to follow the proscribed policies and procedures ( for THEMSELVES) ...As many people arrive at the the same conclusion that there is indeed a God as portrayed in The Christian Bible, this will be your confirmation that the procedure is reproducible( you seem to like that criterion) This very simple process has been repeated by every single true believer in The God of the Christian Bible.It really doesn't get any more corroborated than that! Biblical Christianity is a very simple thing to prove.In fact God designed it that way, so that we do not need years of special training, nether do we need some one else to prove it and post it on You Tube...Some times atheists insinuate that madness. Further more, Biblical Christianity is very intellectual,It is not blind faith.,The true Christian is a satisfied skeptic, not a blind believer.Just remember : There are thousands of religions out there, but only one true religion. There are millions of gods( the Hindi alone have 33 million) , but only one God. There are billions of worshipers, and > 2 billion professing Christians, but sadly, far fewer true Christians. Please, try not to get confused.Stay focused on one of them, at a time.Take my Biblical God for example, and go for Him, okay? Patrick O'Brian, may be you can to tell me this; Why is it that atheists who decline to take the John 14:21 challenge either because they never knew about it, or...they just elected not to(for what ever reason)...why do they think that Christians must " bring some proof of the atheist's choosing... to The Almighty Atheist "? I mean, think about it for a moment, will you?The Christian Bible claims that The Salvation Package is like a treasure , which a man discovers in a field.He sells everything to purchase this field.So why should I bother taking my hard-earned proof, to an atheists?Did you know that I do not have to present any proselyte in order to gain admission into heaven,? I will suggest that before you attempt to dismiss any claims made in the Christian Bible, first familiarize yourself with what the Christian Bible actually says. How ever, if you are just interested in arguing about the (non-) existence of some generic god, then you have come to the wrong person.I cannot help you with that exercise.

So he believes in a god because there is something 'wrong' with you if you don't?

The human mind created the conception of God. So far, all descriptions about its entity is anthropomorphic. The existence of God falls under Belief system. It cannot be argued. So the wise thing to do is to let the faithful live with their Belief and let the science continue to do its job so we all, believers or non-believers, can enjoy the fruits of the scientific investigations. Let both Faith and Science go about their work. Democracy and the rule of law will always try to prevent us to misuse Faith or Science.

One thing you can learn from comments is that atheists and believers can be equally dumb and rude. There's still no God, though. ;p

Jesus is risen..get over it

@rstevewarmorycom

4 жыл бұрын

Never happened.

@johnsmith9246

3 жыл бұрын

Complete BS

@webslinger527

3 жыл бұрын

He did rise from the dead the evidence would disagree with u

@webslinger527

3 жыл бұрын

@@Lamster66 actually that's not true according to most historians even atheists the story of Jesus resurrection is quite unique to him those stories that you bring up were added much later take Odin for instance Odin was out in hundreds of years after Jesus. The only resurrection that some Scholars debate about is baal from the Canaanite religion. But even then it wasn't really a resurrection I want to come to Jesus's resurrection is very unique. So yes those myths you think this proves Jesus actually don't do added much later to pagan gods and even Egyptian historians Indian historians Greek historians all agree that those myths were added much later on. You've been watching you can watch a KZreadr called inspiringphilosophy he has a whole playlist dedicated to it.

@webslinger527

3 жыл бұрын

@@Lamster66 how is it a good laugh what makes a laughing joke it's quite a serious topic grow up. Anyway Jesus to resurrect Resurrection story for Jesus was quite unique of the time you bring up how other gods resurrected well sorry to burst your bubble but that's not fully true those lips were added much later on according to most historians Egyptian Scholars who study people like Osiris raw the Egyptian gods have stated multiple times that Osiris did not resurrect nor was there no virgin birth it's a raping story. Jesus very unique according to the use of his time in the Messiah was supposed to die obviously if you read the scriptures like Paul and Matthew and all them did you understand that he did I was supposed to why did Paul and Matthew quote the Old Testament so often. Also would make any sense in them to make up a resurrection they're beaten horribly everyone was Paul was Shipwrecked for days he was beat with a Roman flag of a Taurus skin apart use cast to see four days thrown in prison we know that actually happened to Paul there's no story who doubt any of that. Also his resurrection would make sense if they lied and of course the evidence in Wind sound like they were lying Apostle consignee misunderstood Jesus and he even told about the resurrection even Paul saw Jesus went back in the old scriptures and found properties what he supposed to die and resurrect people say Isaiah 53 does not mean Messiah but it does consignee Isaiah says he will take our sins his burden he is a lamb and even Asian Jews believe that was that Isaiah 53 I can get in the more detail if you want about how Jesus did resurrect

2/2: Even if "it" carries a depersonalizing connotation (in English, by which God is evidently constrained), surely "he" also has its own baggage, which God seems eager to reinforce. God is a "father" who fixates on patriarchal bloodlines (through which sin can be passed, which also seems to depersonalize our relationships with God). (Again, I'm intentionally sticking with Platinga's presumed God, not others. Talking about all possible gods would be like trying to nail J-ello to a wall.)

Let's get to the crux of it, most people do not want to believe in God because it is more convenient to ignore his existence and not obey his rules. However when you are about to drown, or get into a bad car accident, who do you call out to for help for? Instinctively you call out to God. Now why would God listen and respond with help when you have ignored him and hist existence all your life. I believe that God's Mercy is greater than his wrath so in many cases miraculously you do survive that near death experience. But will you take the same path as before or embark on a journey to get to know God in your daily life? Does it have to come to a near death experience to change your trajectory?