I love how Eric always brings up his points without sounding like he's arguing with the other person.

I'm so tired of the objective morality argument. I always wonder precisely why anyone would insist it's a necessary or profound point. Time and time again, when pressed on what their version of objective morality actually is, they typically say something overly general like "god's will" or "what the bible says". When asked how they can identify any objectivity when countless people have vastly different interpretations of morality based upon scripture, they dismiss it as their ideas are right and all those others are wrong, then proceed to equate moral subjectivity with outright nihilism.

@natanaellizama6559

5 жыл бұрын

You're confusing moral ontology vs moral epistemology. Regardless of whether we agree or not on morality(epistemology) there needs to be a foundation for morality itself(ontology). On atheism there is not basis for morality(there is a basis for why we have certain behaviors, just like any other animals, but there's no moral dimension to it). You're also not addressing the issue. Saying you don't have a morality either does not solve the moral issue.

@smallerthanlife7664

5 жыл бұрын

@@natanaellizama6559 Can morality have a societal basis? That's what I see when I look at the world-regions of people with similar moral values.

@natanaellizama6559

5 жыл бұрын

@SmallerThanLife Depends on what you mean by morality. Some atheists try to do away with the issue by re-defining morality as to just mean "a code of behavior", and from that it's clear that our code of behavior is influenced by society, and society's moral code would be what works for that society(with some imperfections, of course). Yet, what people mean by morality is right and wrong, not just HOW we act(not even WHY, because why implies agency, and under naturalism we don't even have moral agency). I don't care how the pedophile is pre-configured biologically and socially if it leads him to act his sexuality out, I care about the moral dimension of his action, not the biological explanation because that has no moral dimension. If pedophilia would not be wrong in a society that does not enforce punishment towards pedophiles(say, if you want, the religious catholic community not punishing pedophile priests), then under morality based on a society's standards, then it would follow that it would not be wrong. That's a moral issue because it's so prima facie wrong that it just doesn't satisfy. Now, why should an individual follow a society's rules? Should an atheist NOT be an atheist in a muslim country? Should a gay person act straight in a society that punishes homosexuality? The only way you could say no to that, and say yes to the pedophile is if there is a standard beyond society's that a person SHOULD act upon. That is, morality is prescriptive, not descriptive.

@smallerthanlife7664

5 жыл бұрын

@@natanaellizama6559 I'm a moral relativist. As far as I can tell, societies decide what is right and wrong and have been doing so for all of history (religious societies included). I don't believe that what is right or wrong can be described in an objective sense. There's a relativistic nature to every moral question I've so far encountered. For example: What constitutes justifiable homicide? A purely pacifist society's answer might be nothing. Another society might justify homicide in defense of self or sovereignty (war). Another might approve of conquest. There is also the question of the death penalty. And you can imagine that a prison society might have its own ideas about what constitutes justifiable homicide. Lastly, we can look to the animal world to see what moral values we find there. This idea of an objective moral truth-I look around the world, and I don't see it manifested. Yes, I do notice patterns across societies and within species, but that doesn't prove an objective moral truth. And what would be the basis for one?

@natanaellizama6559

5 жыл бұрын

@SmallerThanLife What do you even mean by morality then? Just the description of societal rules? There is no prescriptive reality to morality? I think that's a redefinition of morality which is unfamiliar and a hard sell for anyone. Do you mean that the pedophile is wrong only because society deems it wrong? Does that apply to homosexuality and atheism? > What constitutes justifiable homicide? Again, that's moral epistemology. It's like saying there is no objective truth of what lies inside a black hole because physicists have different ideas. There is a truth to the matter, even if we don't know what it is. > This idea of an objective moral truth-I look around the world, and I don't see it manifested. What do you mean? Again, you're confusing moral epistemology and moral ontology. Ask anyone and they will tell you that there IS a right and a wrong, regardless of what we think, agree or disagree. That is a universal moral sense, and even moral relativists(those that I've known) act that way. They don't truly act as if morality were relative, they act as if it were objective, and when they are wrong, they don't just say "I don't like this", but they say "it's wrong". It's a innate moral sense, and why doubt it's true? We may not know it yet(or maybe we do, I'm not much interested in discussing epistemology), but we all act and perceive an objectivity to morality. But more importantly, moral relativism leads to amorality. You may act in accordance to a society's rules, but you're not doing it for moral reasons, you're doing it for practical reasons. You like the benefits and don't want to suffer the consequences. It's pure selfish interest. Or at least, pure selfish interest is the more rational course of action. If moral relativism is true, why should someone EVER ask: "is this right or wrong", instead of "does this benefit me or hinder me"?

Dude I'll be honest, I didn't like this show at first but I kept watching and now i'm digging it! Keep up the good work :)

Everytime mirror neurons get mentioned publicly, somewhere in this universe a neuroscientist cries out in agony!

Well. You just need to understand that we are social creatures that have an objective need to survive. In order to survive we need to behave in a social way. Thus we can objectively state that well being is an objective social goal. From there you can begin to build a complete set of moral rules.

I love making the theist demonstrate that objective morals must come from a god.

People - particularly religious people - need to understand that morality evolves. What Christians in the Middle East thought was moral and what Christians in the US think is moral today is typically very different. When slavery was abolished there where Christians on both sides and both claimed the Bible supported their side and even though it is clear the Bible allows slavery it is no longer how most Christians think about it. The religious texts are very often resistant to change, so that especially fundamentalists slow the evolution of morals. A large majority of Christians in northern Europe are now LGBTQ friendly, but in the more fundamentalist USA there is still a long way to go. I bet that in a 100 years Christians in USA will think that the religion has always been pro LGBTQ rights.

@adampower9757

Жыл бұрын

Nicely explained

Yes it can.

quote. there is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes like the wooden idols of long ago they are the work of human hands. and what man has made man can destroy .good and evil do not exist----except within the bounds of personal preference and perception.

There can absolutely be OBJECTIVE morality, although what it is is somewhat dependent on context. Like Matt likes to say, if the context is human well-being then it is objectively wrong for me to drink battery acid. If the context is a chess game, it may be objectively right for me to sacrifice a pawn now because it will lead to me being in a better situation later. What Jon is really angling at is what I'd term ABSOLUTE morality, as in some things are just right or wrong innately (or because God says so), no matter what, and that's nonsensical. I wish you guys would draw that line. Trying to define both of these concepts as "objective" really muddies the water.

@smallcutepuppy

5 жыл бұрын

See, that's the point I'm trying to make here. If it's ABSOLUTE the context doesn't matter. There's a difference between Objective and Absolute and I think it's an important distinction in these morality discussions.

@smallcutepuppy

5 жыл бұрын

I disagree. I think there are three categories: Subjective, Objective, Absolute. Subjective, I think we agree on. Different minds can reach different conclusions based on personal experience and background, etc. The way I see it, Objective is mind-independent but still context dependent. Such as in the chess metaphor: In the context of the chess game it is objectively preferable to win. Therefore certain moves can be objectively good or bad to make. In the context of survival it is objectively better to live than to die. Therefore drinking battery acid is objectively bad and no opinion on the matter will change that. I think that this is probably how our concept of morality evolved in the first place. The people who didn't "drink battery acid" are the ones who survived to reproduce. Absolute morality (which is nonsensical) suggests that certain things are Good or Bad regardless of a mind OR context. Like it is ALWAYS wrong to steal, or lie, or whatever. And I think this is what most theists really mean when they refer to "Objective" morality, whereas I make a distinction there.

With as many times as these theist call and ask this question, i wish you guys would ask "so what are you wishing you'd be able to get away with if you didn't believe in god?"

Am I unable to derail the trolly by the timing of the lever pull.

Claire is awesome!!!

The only reason for the objective morality argument is that there would be some higher authority that could judge right and wrong. And since this higher authority never shows itself, there will be humans there to interpret the mind of the authority. Let's talk about well-being instead. If your actions affect others well-being, then your actions may be wrong. Right or wrong is situational and cannot always be determined as entirely right or entirely wrong.

I've never understood the theistic need for black and white morality that cannot be questioned. The world is complex. To expect that there's a simple one-size-fits-all moral code that's applicable regardless of variables or extenuating circumstances is illogical and unreasonable.

The problem I have with with Gods morality is you cannot judge him as you have to accept anything and everything he does or says as being good and right. So if I am told by God to kill woman, children and babies because he says they are evil I have to accept this as a good and necessary thing for me to do even though I might not agree with it. As an immoral atheist I would question this and refuse to do it based on: 1. I would be very disappointed that was the only (horrific) solution to the problem that a loving, righteous and all powerful God could come up with. 2. If this was the only solution to the problem why can’t God deal with this horrific thing himself instead of making me do it and then me having to live with the nightmares I would have of bashing baby’s heads in with clubs and rocks. 3. If God thinks this is the only (disgusting) way for me to prove my love and devotion to him so I can go to heaven I would rather worship the devil and burn in hell for all eternity. Damn my bloody morals for getting in the way of me being a good robot Christian and living in paradise with God for all eternity!!!

@thelightrevealstheplace6361

5 жыл бұрын

Terry Riley Everything you said convinces me you already do worship the devil. You lunatic.

@terryriley8963

5 жыл бұрын

TLRTP+ Thankfully I do not believe in the devil but because I do not believe in God either. As far as Christianity is concerned this by default pigeon holes me as a devil worshipper. So do you think it’s right for God to order people to do his dirty work of killing children and babies instead of dealing with it himself because this is the kind of cowardly attitude I would expect from the devil.

@Julian0101

5 жыл бұрын

According to the bible, god has caused more deaths and suffering than the devil. So.. yeah, if the devil exist then he is way more moral than the rapist christian god.

@johnh226

5 жыл бұрын

Your argument fails as you are superimposing your moral standards as if they were God's moral standards.

@johnh226

5 жыл бұрын

@@Julian0101 Your argument is faulty. John 10:10.

Good why does it have to be good? Why isn't it simply co-beneficial?

I've recently de converted and already I'm a part of a conspiracy... Neat. Hope I'm ready for the clensing...

I get pissed off to think that Christians even think about asking such questions. How arrogant!

Eric what you said about your story I am the same way but I have told my son and now I am making a video for my friends they are going to freak out some that I told said they would pray for me but the big reveal will be maybe financial loss as well as friends. I do a lot of work for Christians so we will see I am just going to be me the guy they now but be honest share my heart.

Nope, no one can, and so what?

Is it just me..or is Jamie starting to look like white Jesus?

Because we are social creatures I don't want to be killed so I don't kill.

Is it not possible to objective measure if something is morally good according to a set of subjective moral values?

@wunnell

5 жыл бұрын

That's pretty much what Matt Dillahunty says all the time and it's not even specific to morality. If you and I were to decide that we wanted to take a holiday to Paris, it would be possible to evaluate any action in relation to that and decide whether it was good (it helped us achieve our aim), bad (it hindered us achieving our aim) or neutral (had no effect on our ability to achieve our aim). If we decide that we want to live in a society that maximises overall well-being then we can evaluate aby action to determine whether it is good (promotes well-being), bad (impedes well-being) or neutral (has no net effect on well-being). We can obviously argue about what promotes well-being and what doesn't but we still have a standard we can measure things by.

@petrockspiracy3120

5 жыл бұрын

wunnell Well-being is the standard I would use too. There could be disagreements about whether our trip to Paris would be positive or not, and if so by how much. Whereas we can objectively measure the volume of a glass of water, we can't (at least as easily) measure a holiday's impact on well-being. And whereas our understanding of the trip to Paris could differ from person to person in terms of its effect on well-being (both in terms of their evaluation of the problem and the actual impact it has on them), the same could not be said for the glass of water -- that is the same for everyone. Some people would rather never work a day in their lives, others enjoy going to work. Some people really like beetroot, others are repulsed by it. Some people dread injections, others, such as myself, view them indifferently. My question is then how do we deal with these situations -- is it only possible to measure well-being of one person at a time. And is it possible to measure that well-being as we would the volume of a glass of water. If we said pain and pleasure are the main quantifiers of well-being, for example. To be clear, I do tend to agree with you, I'm just interested in a response to these questions.

@wunnell

5 жыл бұрын

Petrockspiracy, firstly, you misunderstand my example about the trip to Paris. My point was that, in order to determine whether something is good or bad, you first have to establish a goal. Anything that helps achieve that goal is good and anything that impedes achievement of that goal is bad WITH RESPECT TO THAT GOAL. If we want to go to Paris then my donating $100 to a charity is bad because it means that we're $100 further from being able to pay for our tickets. If we first establish maximum human well-being as the goal then any actual can be evaluated as good, bad or indifferent with respect to that goal. Theistic morality is the same. The things that Christians claim are good are only good if your aim is to make their god happy and get into their heaven, assuming such things exist. If your aim is to spend eternity in hell then going against Christian edicts is good. Your example of someone not wanting to work is a good one because it helps illustrate a point. The goal is not for A human being to be well but for human society as a whole to be well. To that end, people not working a day in their lives is obviously a bad thing. Human society needs people to work in order to make things better for everyone. Society is, by it's nature, cooperative and thus anyone who isn't cooperating is behaving badly. There are two tools that immediately come to mind when trying to determine which way to go when making moral decisions in relation to well-being. Firstly, there's the principle that benefit and detriment are not always equal. Depending on the situation, taking X from person Y and giving it to person Z can mean that Y and lost more than Z has gained and sometimes it can mean the opposite. For instance, if we were to tax the rich more and use the money to provide for the poor, the poor have most likely gained more than the rich have lost. If a person has 10 houses and now can only afford 9 while 100 people can now get reasonable health care, I know which side of the moral spectrum that falls on. Interestingly, much of the Christian population of America falls on the side of the rich on that one. The other tool is the veil of ignorance, i.e. designing a society where you don't know what role you will play in it. For instance, some people might claim that slavery is OK because it is detrimental to some while being beneficial to a greater number. Anyone with that attitude would generally assume that they would be the slave master rather than the slave though. If you told someone that they had to design a society without knowing what role they would play in it, they'd likely be much more reticent to implement slavery in that society. People might say that they want to do something and therefore it's OK in a society based on well-being but if you want to know how they really feel, ask them whether it would be OK for others to do the same and affect them the way their desired actions would affect others. For instance, people might say that they want to steal and kill but very few are going to say that they're OK with being stolen from or killed, so they actually believe that stealing and killing are wrong.

@wunnell

5 жыл бұрын

Petrockspiracy, despite their protests, it's worth noting that theists care about human well-being as well. If you were to ask a Christian what part of their god's morality doesn't contribute to human well-being, I doubt that many would/could point to anything. It's clear that they believe that Christian morality makes for the best human society so it's clear that they would still aim for that as a goal if they were to discover that their god really doesn't exist.

@petrockspiracy3120

5 жыл бұрын

wunnell "The goal is not for A human being to be well but for human society as a whole to be well. To that end, people not working a day in their lives is obviously a bad thing" Yes that makes sense, I see. This idea that one would assume the role of a slave owner in a world where slavery was legal reminds me of how people often put themselves in the position of the victim or close relative of the victim but rarely with the criminal or a close relative of theirs. "It's clear that they believe that Christian morality makes for the best human society so it's clear that they would still aim for that as a goal if they were to discover that their god really doesn't exist" Christians can definitely care about human well-being as well, and many clearly do just from listening to this show. They seem to take the position that morality (often with respect to modern conservative or sometimes liberal values) is itself derived from and a direct extension of Christian teachings or God himself. Even though this clearly isn't the case as atheists and those belonging to other religions tend not to deviate much from this, especially if they live and have integrated into the same society. Yet I think I could confidently make logical arguments for treating other human beings with respect, from a purely selfish point of view. For example, if I shot my neighbour because he annoyed me, society would see me as a threat and, in the case of this society today, put me in prison. Generally it makes sense for even the most narcissistic people to just obey the rules of society. That said, I do find it quite sad that people think that their religion is what keeps them from committing atrocious acts. Surely they must realise that they care about their families outside of a Christian world.

Most people think that murdering your only begotten son is immoral. Most people think that eternal torture is immoral. Most people think that slavery is immoral. Most people are wrong.

@thegrouchization

3 жыл бұрын

Wait, are you saying that all of these things are moral in your eyes, or was that a repeated typo?

@tedgrant2

3 жыл бұрын

@@thegrouchization I was referring to the eyes of the god of the Hebrews, not my eyes.

@thegrouchization

3 жыл бұрын

@@tedgrant2 Sorry, that didn't really come across in your comment. For clarity, you do think those first 3 are immoral, right?

@tedgrant2

3 жыл бұрын

@@thegrouchization The god of the Hebrews determines what is moral or not. He murdered his only begotten son to save us from sin. That was good. Likewise, with the other two.

@tedgrant2

3 жыл бұрын

@@thegrouchization To be clear, my opinion is not relevant. I don't determine what is right and what is wrong !

Wtf is objective about morals anyway wtf is an objective moral.

No. Atheism has no beliefs or comments to make on morality of any kind. Nor does Atheism say anything about Creation or Evolution, or how to make apple pies. Atheists as human beings however can have opinions on any of those things, but their opinions do not come from Atheism, but from their own views as the people they are. Objectively the clear evidence is that our moral behavior is relative to the particular circumstances and is derived in great part genetically from us being in a social species. Also, some of it comes from purely artificial social indoctrination, such as not wanting to have BBQ'd dogs and cats for lunch. Humans are weird creatures.

The ancient Greeks believed that the gods of Greece told them how to be moral. Modern Greeks believe that the god of Israel told them how to be moral. Bananas are always yellow. Discuss.

@SNORKYMEDIA

2 жыл бұрын

bananas are sometimes green therefore no god

@tedgrant2

2 жыл бұрын

@@SNORKYMEDIA But that's just your opinion

If you believe evolution is true. Evolution runs on "survival of the fittest". So actions that promote your speices fitness is moral and what restricts that fitness is immoral. Don't see what's so difficult about that.

@aierce

5 жыл бұрын

Because that can lead to evil, there is more to morality than that. You argument lead to the incorrect conclusions such as "killing cripple people is moral because it benefit the species"

@ecocentrichomestead6783

5 жыл бұрын

@@aierce that is assuming you know everything. Killing a cripple person may not be best for the species. I'm talking general traits like not killing each other,

@aierce

5 жыл бұрын

@@ecocentrichomestead6783 the point is, don't bring evolution into morality. What is good for evolution isn't always moral

@ecocentrichomestead6783

5 жыл бұрын

@@aierce I say morality is an evolutionary adaption you say it's the sky daddy. At least my claim has evidence to back it up.

@aierce

5 жыл бұрын

@@ecocentrichomestead6783 you said actions that promote your speces fitness (aka natural selection) is moral.

I want to like you guys but Jesus Christ it takes you forever to answer a question and you go around and around and make it so difficult by using terrible analogies, multiple terrible analogies. I want to encourage people to use their minds and recognize science and reasoning and drop religion and dogma but I’m not sure if appearing as weak as possible is the best way to do it. I get you’re trying to be different than MD but you need some of his straightforwardness and spine. Another example, I’m glad the blue haired lady showed up, she answered directly with examples and with confidence...she didn’t spend 80% of the time asking terrible questions. You guys are sweet, but I don’t think you’re gonna change many minds with your awkwardness and lack of confidence. Just constructive criticism.

@trailmarker6154

5 жыл бұрын

Couldn't agree more. Well said.

@much_Doggo

5 жыл бұрын

I don't think they trying to be different, i think it's just the way of how they think, there have many host on Atheist Experience, but MD and Tracy are in their own league when it come to asking and answer questions, it's just not so easy to find host like that.

So far nobody has ever managed to prove any objective morality exists.

Psalm 140: 1. 【For the director of music. A psalm of David.】 Rescue me, Lord, from evildoers; protect me from the violent, 2. who devise evil plans in their hearts and stir up war every day. 3. They make their tongues as sharp as a serpent's; the poison of vipers is on their lips. 4. Keep me safe, Lord, from the hands of the wicked; protect me from the violent, who devise ways to trip my feet. 5. The arrogant have hidden a snare for me; they have spread out the cords of their net and have set traps for me along my path. 6. I say to the Lord, "You are my God." Hear, Lord, my cry for mercy. 7. Sovereign Lord, my strong deliverer, you shield my head in the day of battle. 8. Do not grant the wicked their desires, Lord; do not let their plans succeed. 9. Those who surround me proudly rear their heads; may the mischief of their lips engulf them. 10. May burning coals fall on them; may they be thrown into the fire, into miry pits, never to rise. 11. May slanderers not be established in the land; may disaster hunt down the violent. 12. I know that the Lord secures justice for the poor and upholds the cause of the needy. 13. Surely the righteous will praise your name, and the upright will live in your presence.

@theavenginghandoflight9658

5 жыл бұрын

the light reveals the place "This is Major Tom to Ground Control / I'm stepping through the door / And I'm floating in a most peculiar way / And the stars look very different today" - 'Space Oddity' - 'David Bowie

@thelightrevealstheplace6361

5 жыл бұрын

Andrew Lynch David Bowie sold his soul. NASA is run by Freemasons. Do you actually know ANYTHING?

@thelightrevealstheplace6361

5 жыл бұрын

Andrew Lynch 'They Sold Their Souls' - David Bowie kzread.info/dash/bejne/hZqIuLuAobDVpNY.html

@theavenginghandoflight9658

5 жыл бұрын

the light reveals the place You quoted David. I quoted another David. Not my fault if your pointless fairy tale means nothing to someone that does not believe it. David sold his soul? You mean he was gay? So your a homophobe? Im also rated (edit- related) to Freemasons. So what?

@theavenginghandoflight9658

5 жыл бұрын

the light reveals the place Well good for David Bowie... Couldnt give a fuck about what he did with his life to be honest..

Proverbs 30: 11. There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. 12. There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness. 13. There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up. 14. There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.

@larrycarter3765

Жыл бұрын

religious mumbo jumbo.

can you guys look in to ''science'' with the same loop you use for ''religion'' ... find 1 fact , IF you can i'm starting to feel this so strongly , science has the same infinite looped lies as religion has , it's just absolutely ridiculous it's all theory and made up shit , same thing people DO take science on faith , how can we not ? you HAVE to , have you gone to the moon ? have you split an atom ? no ... , you haven't neither have i the more i start looking in to this , the less i find credible ! you guys should try it ....

@thelightrevealstheplace6361

5 жыл бұрын

ThermaL1102 Popular science is Satan's trickery

@thelightrevealstheplace6361

5 жыл бұрын

ThermaL1102 They reckon this moon is nearly 240, 000 miles away but a NIKON COOL PIX camera can photograph it like this. ALL LIES. kzread.info/dash/bejne/Zod3wZSydJnde84.html

@ThermaL-ty7bw

5 жыл бұрын

who cares , I AM who's there to be scared of ? but also ... >> WHO's there to worship ? YOU are god , who are you worshiping ? that's just unhealthy , no ? think ... why have a religion , if you know that YOU ARE GOD ? and throw money at the church ? for what ? for who ? all that misery , death , pedophilia rings around the world , killings BY passionate christians , rapes , murders , drowning people , burning them alive , permitted to have slaves , crusades , slaughtering entire villages , taking over peoples minds , families , way of life , money , FREEDOM , and CAUNTLESS more atrocities for over 2000+ years ... all for WHO ? for YOU think christ is in you christians say , i hope ONE DAY christians actually understand WHAT they're reading in that stupid thing religion DESTROYED THE WORLD !!! it's the gift that keeps on giving , until WE stop it !

@thelightrevealstheplace6361

5 жыл бұрын

ThermaL1102 You are very confused and uneducated on this subject like most atheists. You will be ending up in the throes of madness.

@ThermaL-ty7bw

5 жыл бұрын

yeah sure i'm the one who's confused that's the biggest joke i've ever heard in my life man , i've been awake from a very young age and been observing and noting down everything i've come across religion IS the EVIL nobody can clip a ''moral'' label on ANY holy book , and don't ACT LIKE YOU CAN , cause then YOU're the idiot , not me we all are a piece of god , we all are god don't mess about you've got ONE chance in this life , and YOU're the JUDGE you have a nice surprise ahead of you when you die , and you're gonna thank me then , that you know this info NOW i KNOW who I AM and why YOU are the only one , in 6 months of commenting on this channel , that has answered me ... still don't get it , do you ? this is what I DO all my life , helping people who are lost or have a problem they can't handle on their own it's MY purpose , always has been and always will be i MADE ME THIS WAY i'm not here to fuck about , it's way too late for that people stop this nonsense and wake the F up

Atheism demands more Faith than believing in God.

@lergeworkman5208

5 жыл бұрын

Why do you say that?

@thelightrevealstheplace6361

5 жыл бұрын

Lerge Workman Because it is true. How could nothing be behind all the beauty behind our natural world? It is insane to think it could.

@dithermotor6823

5 жыл бұрын

That's an argument from ignorance, but I digress. Let's say you have 2 universes to examine (you need a contrast in order to make your claim... you don't have one) - one is created by a really advanced form of technology, and the other a deity - how would you distinguish the two?

@dithermotor6823

5 жыл бұрын

@@thelightrevealstheplace6361 that's not a rebuttal. That's a completely irrelevant response. Please answer the question.

@kelthekonqrr

5 жыл бұрын

@@dithermotor6823 lol, apparently the question was too over the head😂