Whereas the other kids in my (Roman Catholic) high-school had their "Dawkins edgy atheist phase" I instead had an "edgy Plato phase" - so I suppose I never REALLY turned away from the idea and implications of a God and what was beyond being. Here I am 20 years later more Christian than ever :D

@newglof9558

2 ай бұрын

Way cooler phase you had

@almcdermid9669

Ай бұрын

20 years, and you still can't demonstrate the truth of what you believe.

@asamcbrez4930

Ай бұрын

@@almcdermid9669 He only made a comment not to demonstrate anything to you or me.

The only positive claim I as an atheist have ever made is the positive claim that I am positive that none of the super natural assertions surrounding any religion have been compelling enough for me to believe. I'm sorry if in my case no religion has ever overcome it's burden of proof but that's not my problem now is it.

@clquo_222

Ай бұрын

but do you believe in supernatural things or paranormal activities?

@asamcbrez4930

Ай бұрын

Well you're the one who has to come to your own conclusion. As an old friend of mine used to say is "who are you trying to convince?"

@RobertSmith-gx3mi

Ай бұрын

@@asamcbrez4930 "Who are you trying to convince?" Funny that I say the same thing about the leaders of the confirmation bubbles with crosses on top of them that have their indoctrination sessions occurring multiple times each week

@theonetruetim

2 күн бұрын

@@RobertSmith-gx3mi amen

@theonetruetim

2 күн бұрын

@@clquo_222 Granting this - does NOT entail what u claim as victory, therefor. It may explain why hard core materialism rules [its not my preference. But it deserves more regard] your false house.

3:50 No, you're wrong, atheist doesn't think the universe doesn't need a cause in the same way theist say that about god. How do you know something is created? You compare it to something you have previous knowledge of. We have enough information to know how a tree grows or how a galaxy formed, but we don't know how the universe was before the big bang, but as far as we know the default state of the universe seems to be existing insted of nothingness. You have to prove that the default state of the universe is non existence and then you also need prove that god is the one nedeed to change it state

What came “first” exists in a linear view of existence. Once you look at existence in a circular perspective it changes many things. Black Elk Speaks was one of my first reads that changed my outlooks.

I view myself athiest and approach matters as such, but where I do approach theism is that I believe that if there is a god I find it highly unlikely it is anything like what historical and modern religions paint it as, and that any being that could fill in the signifier of god is well beyond humanity's capabilities for understanding, rendering religious inquiry as a kind of false start. leaving me skeptical of religous thinkers and institutions and completely disinterested in pursuing my own notion of god.

@anastasiya256

2 ай бұрын

But religious folks typically don’t put much weight on _understanding_ God, but rather on experiencing God… through mysticism

@scottmcloughlin4371

2 ай бұрын

@@anastasiya256 There are a whole bunch of topics to untangle. First, we are obligated to understand what gods meant to polytheists. That's a matter of language and context. We can accomplish that task. The only goofy part of Christian monotheism is the monotheism part. Why? What made that compelling roughly 2,000 years ago? Platonists figure into this. Zoroastrians figure into this. In different respects, Buddhists figure into this. There's an obvious but confusing relationship between experience and language. "Transcend" is an everyday word. Weights, measures and counts transcend our individual "experiences." Reading through the Pythagorean Sourcebook makes all of these matters pretty open to examination. Pythagoras gave us our term "Philosophy" and he was both a Boxer and a Mathematician. Later, Plato was a Wrestler and a Mathematician. Body and Mind were and remain programmatic disciplines. Not ontological disputes.

@kingkommashow

2 ай бұрын

@@anastasiya256 I can appreciate that, and in my experience that modestly is more prominent in historical religions which I tend to to respect more than the absurd narcissism found in new age religion

@Mr._Anderpson

Ай бұрын

@@anastasiya256 I suppose the question is are people experiencing god through mysticism, or are they having experiences and calling it god?

I want to watch how your journey proceeds, roll on ,,, brother.

Yeah. Every time i read metaphysical philosophy. It's just theology in new clothes as millerman points out. Its all anti-realism nonsense.

@beorntwit711

2 ай бұрын

​​​@Pseudo-numenienwhile I won't argue that there's nothing immaterial (i.e. numbers), what makes you think thoughts are immaterial? They may be (we have no way of knowing); but we can at least see them acted out in the physical world (say a brain scan). We absolutely have no such 'intervention upon the physical' for any of the imagined spirits, gods, etc, that humanity has borne out.

@beorntwit711

2 ай бұрын

@Pseudo-numenien I've never seen a reason to think thought except happening in the brain. What you mean by 'simply negate all that is not thought'? Quite to the contrary, the only thing we should think, based on evidence, is that thoughts exist only within brains, as a function of brains.

Loving these short thought videos. Gives me somthing to ponder while making dinner.

I really appreciate your sharing your personal journey. I was raised Catholic and was always very attracted to mysticism and the life of prayer. I went back and forth for some years between faith and unbelief, but then i began reading Idries Shah studiously, wrote and asked for instruction and as a result had a spiritual awakening. Now almost 40 years later i am happier than i have ever been. I would now say that what religions say about God, some of it, makes sense in terms of my own experience, not in terms of a traditional conception of deity. Re traditional proofs for existence of God, i believe the only genuine, convincing proof can be from personal experience. I do find the argument frim design convincing tho but i think it proves the existence of intelligence in the universe, not a traditional deity idea. Other proofs strike me as too "forensic," like a detective trying to prove whodunit from inadequate evidence. They are merely speculations and are more useful for their inspirational and devotional value. Continue meditating on Being. It can only help!

I had an experience where I looked at the moon one evening and knew in my heart that the consistency of the sunrise and set and the geometrical shape of them could not have been without a maker. I started to notice signs of creation everywhere after that. I thought the Truth must be within Christianity but I could not accept the Trinity or that our Creator has a Human as a son. I read the Quran after learning a bit about Islam and upon reading it I submitted to Muhammad PBUH being a messenger of God and the validity of what is written within the book. I was a Nationalist for a decade prior to my conversion to Islam and as you can imagine I didn’t want it to be Islam but it was. 112 Say He is God, One, God, the everlasting Refuge, He does not beget, nor is He begotten, and comparable to Him there is none.

@marcreiter5675

5 күн бұрын

Not to change or even attempt to change, your direction of beliefs... But, with respect to your experience of the moon and ponderings of the sunrise and set, and their geometry... If we consider nothingness, true nothingness, whereas even the concept of nothingness can not exist... It is from this point, that as soon as anything whatsoever comes to exist... Be it a unit of space, a quanta or photon of light, a particle of mass, God Godself, or so much as a thought... It is at this very moment of existence, of anything existing at all, that the concept of one of a point... Exists... It then follows, to add another one, and another... Begets the line... Therefrom these ponderings, we can recognize the whole of geometry itself, from which mathematics emerges... Must exist upon anything at all existing... Thus, they are obligatory and compulsory, with or without a God... And... Not even an all powerful creator God has the power or authority to alter their conceptual properties... They can be recognized as tools available for that God, in that God's toolbelt... Back to the geometry of gravity, which is what you spoke of... Whereas 3-dimensional geometry has the primary figure of a cube, it's preferred shape is that of a perfect sphere... Neither of those shapes obviously, overlap the geometries of gravity... However, I've figured out genuine 4-dimensional spatial geometry, for which I've worked the past 7 years so far toward it's 350+ paged final presentation to be readied for presenting unto the world... And I can tell you this... 4-dimensional geometry overlaps gravitational fields perfectly... The shape of a planet or blackhole, their accretion disk (moon plane, planetary plane and galactic disk), and their poles... What compels the space as the canvas in the form of gravitational effects and the energy as the medium in the form of mass, to follow such geometries? Of that, I know not... But these are certainly shapes that can follow with or without a God...

I'm undisturbed by arguments about whether God created the universe or not. I think it is possible to form sensible ideas and make claims about such things, but it's not anywhere that I would dream of starting the conversation from. Rather, what fascinates me about God, the primal force that drives me to God, is the power of dreams and conscience. To me, God has everything to do with wishes and goodness. From there, we can circle back to the character of the universe itself, and then we could go to a conversation about "did God create the universe." But I would never start at that point, which I believe quickly hits a dead end. Everything for me begins with dreams, hopes, aspirations, goodness, as well as fears, evil, consequence, and conscience. God for me is a label for the good. And the atheist I worry about is not the atheist who has doubts about how the universe began -- for me, the atheist to worry about, is the atheist who does not believe in the good. In fact, I'd take an atheist who believes in the good, over a God-fearing theist who holds the idea that the character of God is evil, any day.

I never read the book and never rebelled against or for religion, I don't consider myself atheist either. The reason why I became a mild brand of anti-theist, was the arrogance in telling others what a god/s think, it's also a terrible description of a possible, higher power. I hope there is something more, but have no evidence of anything other than a naturalist form of reincarnation and based on what is said by physicists, that is beyond our understanding. We are not "gods" but for me, this situation makes humanity and everything connected to it, sacred and we have a hell of a lot to learn, evidenced by our lack of respect for what's in front of our eyes.

Derrida pulling your sleeve: that 'of different kind' you're invoking has metaphysical story in it already. Eg: we don't of anything that is not connected to anything else in order to be of 'true different kind'. That 'of different kind' is the 'outer' determining the 'inner'. The 'whole' bigger than the sum of its parts etc. The story doesn't end with the atheist argument. Neither with the 'of different kind' argument. The story goes on :)

From Russia, 23 y.o. I had the same story with Engels's book "Anti-During" like 3 years ago.

I absolutely 100% share your experience of reading a book with one intention and come out with the absolute opposite position. I repeatedly read the Bible cover to cover to strenghten my belief in God, and I now have ended up as an anti-theist atheist. Just wanted to point out that this goes both ways. And it's a pretty big percentage of atheists who have read the respectively holy scriptures of their former religion and come out atheists, and even anti-theists. Thank you for your video!

Interesting, my own journey began with an non-religious family, but there was a sense that my parents were raised in a traditional religious setting but raised my brothers and I with very little influence in that life. Any critical instruction was left to the public school to teach. I was involved and attentive, developing an atheistic mindset due to the evolutionary mindset of the world, loving to argue these points with religious classmates. But when university came, I experienced an existential crisis, and all that was offered to me by my parents was get a job and make money. So my rebellion against this pitiful solution was to turn to mysticism, which was always flashing here and there in my deep conscience. The awareness of self, and the thought that my inner being can not just vanish, no longer exist, simply could not be. I jumped in headfirst into a Christian life, gave up everything to change, and began to pressure myself to conform to church expectations, and entered seminary with the thought that to be the best I could be, I needed to begin a life of a hardened, disciplined instruction and then to teach and evangelize. But then I hit a new wall, politics within the church. Man was that depressing, and into the abyss I fell. Since, I have not forsaken that mystic calling, but now I rely on experience and instruction to guide my path, and to test what comes my way through philosophy and wisdom. That's why I enjoy this channel. Thanks Michael.

@anastasiya256

2 ай бұрын

There is politics present in any human endeavour where you have to collaborate with other people….. If you try to do anything as a job, the experience will make you hate it. That’s one conclusion I came to during my college existential crisis. 🙃 which is another reason why “getting a job” (like people suggest) cannot provide adequate meaning in life…

@rizwanrafeek3811

2 ай бұрын

Two Americans asked God for guidance from their heart in whole sincerity, it was Allah who answered their call, one man came from Jewish family and other man came from U.S military family. Both men came to Islam for the miracle their experienced, true story posted on YT, unbias reports, both men started to hear Islamic call-to-prayer Azan in the middle of nowhere, both men reported same incident. Both men were former """enemies""" of Muslims. If it were NOT for the miracle, they wouldn't have bother with Islam, both men were truly longing for God and guidance. If your heart is pure, this could be you in the next, you cannot fake your supplication to Allah. Your Creator knows about you, more than you know of your own self inside and outside.

great intro

Atheism is just “I’m not convinced and you can’t show me god”. The same argument can work for the easter bunny, superman, and big foot.

@BarbarraBay

2 ай бұрын

i am posting here to educate people.

@theodorewilkinson5637

2 ай бұрын

Watch the final half of the above video. The Easter Bunny, Superman, and Bigfoot are all discrete entities of mundane “being.” They are not ontologically in the same category of God or God’s being.

@garlic_greed

2 ай бұрын

The same can be said about Religion. "I'm not convinced and you can't show me proof" so what do you wanna tell us besides the point that you see Atheists as fools just because we don't believe in the same thing as you?

I wonder if your mysticism inquiries ever lead to exploration with psychedelics? I found them quite beneficial after a lifelong intellectual journey that was primarily focussed on creativity and reading about myth, spirituality and trying to understand human nature. Psychedelic, means mind revealing and it does reveal the contents of your unconscious for hours at a time and that's very useful project. I really appreciate your content and contribution.

I read the book at least 30 years ago and didn't provide me with anything more than snippets for arguing with theists. My intent at the time was to disqualify opponents. It was very immature of my part: I was desperate to win. I should read it again under a different light. But it was one of these little stumbling blocks that allowed me to differentiate between being logic from being rational.

Hi there nice video! Not quite like you describe but i come from the same background and came to believe in God studying philosophy. It was especially through reading Dostoyevskys "the possessed", where i felt he showed the emptiness of a totally humanistically atheistic position. Also through reading Georges Bataille i came to believe stronger in God. Ended up with Kierkegaard in my bachelor tho! And now I am a priest in the lutheran church in Norway. Im following ur channel mostly because of my interest in Dugin. My wife is also russian. But she dont care for etiher philosophy or politics ;P Daniel.

Fair point. I would've like to hear more of what you make of "being" in this context.

Heidegger took me to the Being in everything. He took me to the Water-Being in all of us. Water is Creation, we are the Creators of everything. IT IS the New Paradigm for the Earth. Thank you Michael for all your work!

@drummersagainstitk

2 ай бұрын

But something (GOD) had to create the WATER. Amen.

@aMoEbaNoos

2 ай бұрын

@@drummersagainstitk "The book of Genesis has so much to do about Water. It tells about the creation of the heaven and the Earth, the light and all of life. But nowhere does it mention the creation of Water ITSelf! We are just "given an image" (mirror image) of the spirit of god hovering over the Waters. It seems that this comes to highlight that Water seen as a primeval element that precedes the creation story as we know it. And I think that what underlies that is the recognition that Water has no form. Water is formless. And in a way IT includes all forms, Water can take upon any form. Formless taking upon form!" ~ Rabbi Yakov Nagen

@drummersagainstitk

2 ай бұрын

@@aMoEbaNoos Just bec God doesn't mention the creation doesn't ELIMINATE HIS creating it. The Rabbi is wacked.

@marcreiter5675

5 күн бұрын

​​@@aMoEbaNoos not to rain on your parade, but... Water, is a combination of hydrogen and oxygen, elements of the periodic table... Becoming clearly incorrect... Fundamental physics shows very logically, existence as we know it is ultimately and foundationally composed of : 1. Space as the canvas of existence... 2. Energy as the medium painted upon said canvas, which translates into all mass and light, as distinct forms of energy... 3. Geometry as a blueprint which everything seems to follow... To the point, space and-or energy, I could completely get behind as being this "formless water" you speak of... As both are infinitely entwined in a dance, both always in motion, changing, influencing and being influenced by each other... PS. And I should add, potentially more fundamental than that... Consciousness... It is called Idealism, that consciousness was allegedly truly the catalyst of all that exist by having willed existence into existence... This is as opposed to Materialism, by which it is assumed consciousness somehow just arises from collections of matter...

Is comparing the kind of being of any god and the universe workable? If we want to use the kind of being of God as a comparison, the god must be demonstrated rather than merely imagined, leaving us back at the beginning. While I get the Aquinas first mover idea, it doesn't lock us into belief in a god because there is no guarantee whatever force, set of conditions, or god which nudged the scales billions of years ago still exists. It certainly doesn't lead us to a benevolent god who cares what we had for breakfast or in which ancient tongue we murmur. The ex-nihilo argument is just "God of the Gaps", but in Latin. It is disappointing how many people still don't understand atheism. They like to say atheists believe in nothing or they believe there is no god. No. Atheists simply say the burden of proof hasn't been met. Is there a god? Who really knows? The ones who claim to know one way or the other are full of themselves. All I can say with certainty is modern religions & most especially fundamentalism aren't it. Virgins don't conceive. Nobody can stop the sun from moving across the sky by raising his arms. There are no magical flying beasts to have carried Mighty Moe to Jerusalem. The idea of the ascension of Christ depends on a firmament for him to escape. Hic Rhodus. Hic salta. (Apologies for the long response. Just because I don't see it the same way doesn't mean I hate you or think you're an idiot. You're obviously thoughtful, which is all that may be asked.)

I take "Things that never happened" for 500. And, of course, "Me not bright, so gawd" for 1000.

It depends on how your being (dasein) reflects on, sees, or merges with the idea of God or the Universe as beings themselves. The former seems immaterial and not reachable by the scientific method, while the latter is concrete and potentially understandable by the scientific method. This may explain, at least in part, the gap in the analogy.

Michael, this was very interesting. Thank you. Thoughts on Harry Neumann. Student of Strauss and friend to Harry Jaffa.

@BarbarraBay

2 ай бұрын

hello. cannot we please avoid stacking this discussion with thinkers from the same tribal group. thanks

Now demonstrate how you know that "God" is a different kind of being, the explain which god you mean.

what not beleiving a claim without evidence gets wrong? how can you be wrong by reserving belief until their is evidence to warrant a belief?

My 5¢ on God the Creator of the Universe. First, Universe means "all there is", so that includes God - whatever that is. In this scenario, if God created all there is, then he necessarily created itself too. But this is contradictory: to create itself, it first has to already exist. But if it already exists then it cannot come to existing again. Second , if we exclude god from the universe of "all there is", and go ahead to claim that god created "all the rest of what there is", I refute it by pointing out that my parents created me, and neither of them is God; Pizza chef created the pizza I am having, potter created the pots...and none of them is God. I can go on an on and itemize "all there is", and show that "none of what there is" is God's creation, and actual causes of everything there is can be identified (theoretically of course, in practice that's hard to do for lack of time). So, god is not the creator of the universe. Third: Happy Waisak Day, and on the occasion, let me paraphrase the Buddha: The Buddha described the Universe as follows: >>The world; the cause of the world; the cessation of the world; and the way to the cessation of the world have all been declared by the Tathāgata as appearing within the six-foot-long living body with perception and mind.

I don’t read about religious or non religious things. I don’t care how life started, I don’t care what happens after life. I care about what happens in my life, for me and the people I care about. I don’t try and make those who care about religion change what they believe. I hope they would respect my thoughts also( usually not), and if not I just keep quiet to not upset people I care about. I don’t talk about politics either. My thoughts are my thoughts.

I can't say I've experienced that with a book. What I can say however is that the question "what do you mean by being" is what started my journey towards God. People often take Jordan Peterson to task because this is how he answers the question "Do you believe in God", and they are annoyed with the answer "What do you mean by God" and "What do you mean by believe". It might be annoying but when you're talking about fundamental truths and first principles, these definitions are actually of uttermost importance, as annoying as it may be. I realized at that point that every "bible justifies slavery" or "sky daddy" arguments that I would use to criticize Christianity were hilarious strawmen arguments. I had to humble myself and realize that I actually had no idea what Christians actually believed, or what the idea of God meant to them. It was Peterson's "Introduction to the idea of God" that made me accept that I should at least take it seriously instead of dismissing it religion as "the opiate of the masses" because that's just too much of an easy answer. It's easy to notice that science and religion are polar opposites in terms of how they work. But I find that typically, the mistake that we modern people do is to conflate both with respect to which questions those discipline try to answer. I'm no academic, but to my knowledge, the proper way to critically analyze a text is to first and foremost ponder about the intention of the text. This is where I find that most atheists miss the point. The point of a science textbook's is to tell me about how the universe works. The bible doesn't care about that; while it might provide an account of how God created the universe, that's not really the point of the book now is it? So what could it be? If science gives me information about the "how", I don't think it's absurd that the bible give me information about "why". Why am I here? What's the point of living? Why should I love others? Why shouldn't I sin? Why is Jesus the framework for a sinless life? What does it mean to live a sinless life? These questions cannot be answered by science because they are not scientific questions.

@beorntwit711

2 ай бұрын

I find Peterson ... less than impressive. But why did you turn to religion for the 'why' questions? Were you unable to find any secular answers? There are many. Peterson (especially convinced of this after his recent Alex O'Connor interview) seems to be desperately in need of religion to give him some sort of 'objective' (he says canonical) grounding. I don't know: never had such problems finding (very similar) secular answers. Also, why Bible? Why not say Bhagavad-Gita? I would argue that your dismisal of the 'opiate of the people' (do read the full quote if you haven't it is one of the most beautiful pieces of writing I ever saw) might be the source of the issue: religion is described rather similarly (compendium of wisdom, or some such). Does not knowledge of how inform us about the why? Does a naturalistic explanation of Jesus' body allegedly missing from the tomb not change the answer to why questions? Every 'why' question, to my mind, can only be answered by having a more complete 'how' picture. And if that picture should show that there's no plausible reason to believe in god, will the why answers disappear? I don't think so.

@marcreiter5675

5 күн бұрын

As to religion and science, being polar opposites, I must intervene... Religion (following from your post) speaks of God, the creator, the artist... Religion asks "Why am I here?"... Science speaks of nature, the creation, the art... Science asks, "What is this?"... These "polar opposites" are hardly polar opposites... They are in fact, the yearning of the long division answer (religion), and the process of showing the work to bridge the gap (science)... Ultimately, it can be recognized, that upon science running it's course... It will essentially shake hands with God and ask the only question left to ask, "Why?"... In conclusion, perhaps... "Why we are here, is what this is... And... What this is, is why we are here"...

@beorntwit711

5 күн бұрын

@@marcreiter5675 but what shall you say if instead of shaking hands with God science finds no one home in the sky? That there never was 'The Artist', that these are ancient INTUITIONS, born from a simplified worldview available to early agriculturalists whose fates were ruled by natural forces, which we inherited and projected onto the sky to create illusions? When you find that you don't have any evidence for an artist, nor any explanatory need for one? Cause that's where I think we're not just headed, but have arrived. No need for gods, no evidence for gods, etc. Do you 'lose meaning', or something? I think not.

If Monotheism is the same as claiming that one principle explains all that is then i ask back which one is it? Is it causality? Is it chaos?

Since the beginning of history, mankind's concepts and ideas about what exists in the universe have been challenged by facts. Our imaginations have proven, countless times, incredibly poor when faced with reality. Neither theists nor atheists can solve the infinite regress: and this counterargument fails to point out WHY the universe (or any other, non-theistic concept) would have to correspond to our imagination (for the necessity of the First Principle). I don't understand why religious people (including 'sophisticated philosophers') have the chutzpah to think their imagination is sufficiently developed to dictate to the universe what it can or cannot do/be. Which of these sophisticated philosophers thought that the Earth was 4 billion years old? None. Nobody. Why? No human could have thought of that (except perhaps as a joke), before we had the evidence that demanded such ridiculous theorizing. Because reality delivers with a shrug what imagination can scarecly conjure. And then to stand on this rock of ignorance and shout 'my thinking tells me that this concept we don't know enough about, which is already more wonderous than philosophers could have ever imagined, and which with lots of evidence we still cannot comprehend, cannot in any circumstance have such and such properties as another imagined concept' sounds ... Well. So very, very human. And when you take that first step, whats a few more characteristics added to this imagined Creator? Why not make him good, and worried about you, and so on and so forth. This is like Star Trek; a lot of technobabble, but in the end, still about parochial, human drama with a different set dressing.

Brilliant! I love this.

Michael, I'm new to your channel. You ever listen to Oxford Prof. John Lennox? I think you'd like him.

@millerman

Ай бұрын

No but thanks for the recommendation

Nice. Raised in cliche midwest American Christianity and rebelled after reading the first half of genealogy at 15

I know the Smith’s book well. “Credo quia absurdum.” I believe it because it is absurd. Bought it through Laissez-Faire Books in the late 1980s. From him to Murray Rothbard, and from him Rand and then to Robert Nozick. I actually discovered Carl Schmitt through a book by Leonard Peikoff titled, “The Ominous Parallels.” Thank you for commenting on Smith’s book.

May I ask what position you take on religion now? Do you follow one?

The book you keep referring to, I think it is "Atheism: The Case Against God" by George H. Smith from 1974. While that book had some things correct, the First Cause debate has moved passed what was being thought of back then and more evidence has shown that between 0 and approximately 10^-36 seconds we have no current model that details what exactly happened at this time. There are many working hypotheses, from quantum fluctuations (current highest supported possibility) to cyclic universe. This is the very tiny amount of time that one could propose a god, except that is a God of the Gaps fallacy. The First cause argument is also a Cosmological Argument which is debunked by the simple question of 'Is the universe is in fact contingent?' We have no idea whether this universe “had” to exist or not, nor whether it is in fact the only one and not just one of a potentially infinite number of different universes in a “multiverse” for example. Why God should be considered a “necessary being” and inexplicably exempted from the argument that everything has a cause. If a God exists to cause the universe then, by the same argument, this God must itself have a cause, leading to an infinite regress unacceptable to most theists. Simply asking "does God have a cause of his existence?” therefore raises as many problems as the cosmological argument solves. Even if one accepts that the universe does in fact have a beginning in time (as the generally accepted Scientific Theory of Big Bang Cosmology suggests), the Cosmological Argument does not explain why there could not be more than one first cause/mover, or why the chain could not lead back to several ultimate causes, each somehow outside the universe (potentially leading to several different Gods). Neither does it explain why the something which is “outside the universe” should be “God” and not some other unknown phenomenon. There is no compelling reason to equate a First Cause with God, and certainly Aristotle did not conceive of his Prime Mover as something that should be worshiped, much less as the omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent God of later Christian, Jewish and Muslim tradition. The whole concept of causality and time as we understand it is based entirely on the context of our universe, and so cannot be used to explain the origin of the universe. Causal explanations are functions of natural laws which are themselves products of the universe we exist in, and time itself is just an aspect of the universe. If there is no “time before” the universe, then the whole notion of “cause” ceases to apply and the universe cannot sensibly have a “cause” (as we use and understand the concept). Indeed, perhaps there IS no “cause” of the universe. Claims that if there are “laws of nature”, then this implies the existence of a lawgiver, or God. However, the analogy of social order based on man-made laws does not extend to scientific or natural laws, because nature's laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. As an atheist myself, I do not think any god that has been defined and presented to me is even possible, most if not all of the definitions that I have been presented with are internally inconsistent, full of nonsense or are mostly improbable, thus I am justified in rejecting them all until such a time as where good evidence is provided. This video did not change that.

@hellucination9905

2 ай бұрын

Stop framing God in the category of causality - start approaching God phenomenologically in the perspective of 'the question', 'the secret', 'the mystical non-ground' and 'love'. This will help you more than this endless "logical" debates, which are just going nowhere.

@ClearLight369

2 ай бұрын

I think the Proofs for Existence of God are really just a way for us to explore the paradoxes that result from trying to rationally comprehend the Totality of Everything. The results are similar to what you get in Set Theory.

@ClearLight369

2 ай бұрын

​​@@hellucination9905I love what you just said, tho I don't think our atheist friend will be interested or convinced. ❤️

@AnotherViewer

2 ай бұрын

@@hellucination9905 " Stop framing God in the category of causality - start approaching God phenomenologically" This just boils down god to a concept only. As this only explores theist's experiences of awe, transcendence, communion, or encounters with what is perceived as the divine presence, this has nothing to do with a being which is able to do things independent of the mind that is thinking about the god. This method does not determine that a god objectively exists as a separate entity. " in the perspective of 'the question', 'the secret', 'the mystical non-ground' and 'love'." Everyone has questions, but a true answer is better than a false answer. So, until you have a true answer, the only valid position to have is 'I do not know'. The secrets are in the same spot as the question. It is better to have a true answer to a secret than to have a false one, thus again 'I do not know' is still more valid than a made up answer to the secret. While experiences of the mystical non-ground can be deeply meaningful and significant for individuals, they often lie beyond the realm of empirical verification and may be understood primarily through subjective experience and interpretation. Thus it is flawed as it suffers from many kinds of bias, including interpretive bias, confirmation bias, cultural bias, psychological bias and even subject to desire for meaning fallacies. "This will help you more than this endless "logical" debates, which are just going nowhere. " Yeah, they go nowhere because of all of the various issues with the phenomenological approach inability to separate reality from imagination.

@AnotherViewer

2 ай бұрын

@@ClearLight369 Most arguments for god end up just being a "god of the gaps" argument. So, yes, even if the answers tend to be wrong, they are still answers that someone can grab onto.

I grew up in a very catholic rural area in Germany, and as far back as I can remember, no one ever came up with a convincing argument to believe in any God, let alone the biblical version of it. I've read the bible, and I can appreciate it as a historical book of wisdom on which our culture is founded. I've also read atheist literature from Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins. Over the years I developed from an "you must be kidding"-style nonbeliever into a "dawkinsean edgy atheist" and finally into an agnostic who sometimes leans a bit more toward one side and sometimes to the other. I think it's one of the great questions of humanity whether there is a God, or not, and with open minded and tolerant people it's great to discuss this. My basic persuasion is, believe whatever you like, as long as it doesn't have a negative impact on the lives of others. Once your belief poses any rules on me or denigrates me in any way - f*ck off.

1:32. That's not God, or the 'Creator', it's the character Urizen, the symbol of pure Reason.

Cool !More please!

72 years "Catholic" For me, in my humble subjective opinion, Christianity and my faith is "Practised ". not " Debated". Get up each morning shoulder your cross and climb your 7 story mountain. The first stanza Nicene creed " I believe in one God. Father almighty. Maker of Heaven & Earth." If someone want's to argue about first principles and actuality. If It is all total BS. Do I care? am I bothered? No. Arguments on the matter are to me ; pure narcissistic dilettantism. on either side . Go and do something for someone else. " Loose yourself" and you may find the answer in " Not self". "Pax Vobiscum" .

You should talk to Jonathan Pageau, you will have a interesting conversation.

Great video

Yeah book that I read that changed my mind was..wait for it...Bible. one of the most horrible and horrific books ever put together by men. Main character is sadistic, narcistic dictator who demands love and worship or else you shall shower. oo he also curses whole family line because of 2 people didnt know right from wrong and no one had taught them that. So because of that he cursed their line. Best part is that then he needed human blood sacrifice of his own son to forgive what he had done in the beginning, yet somehow that wasn't enough and people are still called sinners and sin is in the world somehow still. It's like the blood magic failed. Ou and he loves incest, so much that at one point in the story he drowned all but 8 people and then those 8 very old people repopulated the earth again. Ain't that a lovely story I tell you. So full of goodness and happiness and forgiveness that it makes me weep for joy. *sarcasm*

I don't really get why a god would be more likely to be uncaused than a universe. I think perhaps you're saying something like your god lacks any substance, so in a sense they're less than physical things, and closer to nothing? But it seems to me that if they had the power to create physical things, then they would have to be just as much something as physical things are.

Some utter brainlets about to comment

Two Americans asked God for guidance from their heart in whole sincerity, it was Allah who answered their call, one man came from Jewish family and other man came from U.S military family. Both men came to Islam for the miracle their experienced, true story posted on YT, unbias reports, both men started to hear Islamic call-to-prayer Azan in the middle of nowhere, both men reported same incident. Both men were former """enemies""" of Muslims. If it were NOT for the miracle, they wouldn't have bother with Islam, both men were truly longing for God and guidance. If your heart is pure, this could be you in the next, you cannot fake your supplication to Allah. Your Creator knows about you, more than you know of your own self inside and outside.

It's rather interesting that you focus on a "case against god" that is really not particularly important. Most atheists I'm familiar with only comment on this argument as an example of the Special Pleading Fallacy. Theists ascribe special characteristics to a creator being, which, if there is such a being, some of those characteristics would have to apply - however, theists are unable to provide any evidence that such a being is possible nor any evidence that such a creator being is necessary for our Universe to exist. Usually theists end up in the weeds of presup nonsense - "god is because god is". The one thing always lacking is evidence that supports the claim.

Well produce this god thingey then!

@millerman

2 ай бұрын

Maybe it is incorrect to apply the lens of "production" (poesis) to the realm of the divine? Maybe we could learn by asking a simple question like "What is a thing," which Heidegger did? No? Well, who said that anything true about the god or gods would be disclosed to just anybody without some thoughtfulness?

It seems to me that the atheist's argument in Atheism: The Case Against God, by George H Smith, that you retold, is an argument for agnosticism, rather than an argument for atheism. If "The creator is a brute fact," or "The universe has always been there," or "The universe was created from nothing," are all equally brute facts, then I don't see how the argument argues for anything other than agnosticism: "These are all equally weak arguments, in terms of explanation."

The universe has never been observed creating something out of nothing or turning dead matter into life.

@arturzathas499

2 ай бұрын

which lends credence to it always being there. also, what is this nothing you talk about? - for no man can think of such a thing (if it be the lack of something or anything) also, also, "dead matter" -- that is matter. don't really know what you mean by "dead"

@goonofhazard2203

2 ай бұрын

@@arturzathas499 Relax, nobody is trying to take away from you the religion of the magical premordial soup that somehow turned rock into life. You can believe what you want! Go wild!

@bryanutility9609

2 ай бұрын

@@goonofhazard2203. Life turns dead matter into more life all the time. What do you think happens when you eat? Without consuming dead minerals your body will die.

@RobertCampsall

2 ай бұрын

@@goonofhazard2203 Your words simply reveal your ignorance of just about anything. No one believes in the "primordial soup" as there's plenty of evidence organic molecules form spontaneously anywhere there are the proper elements and a source of energy. And its not atheists who believe life came from a "rock" - we leave that to christians and their adorable story of a man made of dust and a woman made out of a rib. It's always so pathetic when a theist tries to use the term "religion" to describe what atheists believe. And it's especially amusing when you use the term "religion" as a pejorative when its theists who belong to a religion. Unlike you, I don't automatically assume that a religion is automatically a bad thing. In my view, some religions are mostly bad and others are mostly good, even if they are all likely to be incorrect. Why do you belong to a group you find so distasteful?

@scarfhs1

2 ай бұрын

Has God been observed creating something?

It wasn't a book but _persons_ who convinced me. I saw in the atheists I met or read or watched onscreen, even old ones, something like an adolescent, heady rebellion that did not feel like wisdom. Certainly there is immaturity in religious belief as well, but in mature religious people, I experienced a quality of openness, intelligence, and wisdom that felt to me the right path to follow.

There is another category between atheism and believing, that is knowing the gods exist.

@gowdsake7103

Ай бұрын

Ummm really please demonstrate ANY god exists

@magouliana32

Ай бұрын

@@gowdsake7103 eternal properties that exist within the universe have been the name of god in very few religions these are the only evidence of identities we can call gods.

@marcreiter5675

5 күн бұрын

​@@gowdsake7103 Accepted... There are near death experience accounts, such that the experiencers gave details of conversations, clothing worn, and random happenings, from during their clinically dead period... Such that were far and removed, well away from any possibility of their body senses registering anything they accounted for, which were verified... This first of all reveals, consciousness is not exclusive to a physical body... Once we recognize these verified accounts, with no "sane" logical way to explain this apparent consciousness beyond the body... We can then at least take seriously the rest of their accounts... And, other near death experience accounts can further be added to that list, given particular overlaps from our initial set of interest... These accounts include what they describe as "Source"... Thus, the divine consciousness, Brahman, God... Have a nice day 🌹

If only you had told us what page number that argument shows up on. Ah well. I guess a strawman it is then! I made a response to this, I do wonder if you will respond to that?! :D

@millerman

2 ай бұрын

I read it 20+ years ago so I don't remember the page number but I've shared with you as best as I can recall one of his arguments and why it produced a kind of a-ha moment in me about the topic of "kinds of being." Hopefully that's enough for some viewers either to read the book themselves or to follow some other thread in my remarks, like the reference to Heidegger. Thanks for watching and commenting. -MM

@DeconvertedMan

2 ай бұрын

@@millerman Right... so strawman due to memory! Got it! Man if only you had said "I don't really remember what the book said" in the video then I wouldn't have to say you made a strawman. Perhaps you might relabel this video as "I forgot what a book I read 20 years ago says and I think that makes all atheists wrong about god somehow!"

@millerman

2 ай бұрын

@@DeconvertedMan No. The argument is clear (go read the book). And so is its weakness. Well, clear to people who can think and understand, so not to everybody. If you are unable to consider the argument, and don't want to read the book, well thanks for watching and commenting anyway! Helps boost the channel so that people who will consider the argument and might read the book can find the video. Much appreciated. -MM

@DeconvertedMan

2 ай бұрын

@@millerman You mean the book you didn't remember enough of to give its argument from? :D Ah if only I had read the book in my video response... :D

@marcreiter5675

5 күн бұрын

​@@DeconvertedMan I don't see where you have an issue with his discussion found in this video... To myself at least, the only strawman I'm seeing, is the argument as to what was stated can not be pondered in and of itself regardless of it's original source... That source, not even being hidden or forgotten, and can be easily ordered on Amazon for cheap most likely... In the event of being that interested to do so... Otherwise, take what was stated, and just consider that... Not every concept needs citation...

Dude you can't even get the argument right and therefore failed to understand the logical fallacy. Many theists argue that the universe is so complex or that it works so well or some other thing and therefore the universe needs a creator. But when we use your logic on god, you reject your own logic. If you think that the universe is so complex that it REQUIRES creator, then your god which would be even more complex then the universe according to theists would also require a creator. That is following your logic but instead of being consistent in your logic you want to carve out a special exemption for god. This is what is known as a special pleading fallacy. BTW it's YOUR idea that the universe needs a creator, most atheists are perfectly fine with saying that they don't know how the universe formed. Also notice how I said formed and not created? I said formed because saying created implies a creator and that's a level of dishonestly that your side takes and our side doesn't. We don't know how the universe began or if it begin at all. We are actual honest enough to say we don't know while you claim that you do know but can't provide any evidence to back up your claim.

The case against atheist? At he is t. Kneel to trace picture children. G is an incomplete whole with one square angle drawn in Earth. O is a whole measure. D is a split whole with two square angles drawn in Earth. Sacrificed, Holy measured. Father, Son, Holy Spirit.

I swear if KZread deletes my comment.

@DeconvertedMan

2 ай бұрын

I feel ya man.

@marcreiter5675

5 күн бұрын

Your comment has been DELETED! 😅

Before I watch this video, I like to state that atheism doesnt get ANYTHING wrong (or right). Atheism is a POSITION, not a belief, assertion, explanation, ideology, or religion. Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented.

Atheism in the age of the internet and KZread has been battered intellectually. Especially in emphasizing science as the "rock" they stood upon. As science shifts, pivots, adjusts etc...an avowed atheist starts to follow anything that will satiate intuition. "The Athiest doesn't stop believing in nothing. They'll believe in anything" G.K. Chesterton

@LionKimbro

2 ай бұрын

That argument breaks down when we look at science as a step-wise refinement process, though. The scientist can prove that their knowledge is improving. An instance of such proof is the step-wise progress in the form of more and more sophisticated machinery, machinery that would not function if the scientist's knowledge of the natural world hadn't improved in fidelity. Intuition is only a part of the scientific process -- the other part is empirical verification, which has been done over and over and over again. I won't comment on what atheists will believe or not believe, but scientist's belief are tightly constrained by what can be verified in the empirical world.

@TheGringoSalado

2 ай бұрын

@@LionKimbroshould be constrained in a similar way journalists should be constrained. Both today seem to be anything but constrained.

@iankclark

2 ай бұрын

@@LionKimbroGood point but describing the universe won’t get you there. I believe it’s always going to be an intuitive leap based in consciousness ie being.

@McNoob5477

2 ай бұрын

Ok. I am a hardcore atheist and I believe that religion is for primitive apes that have no concept of how the world works. Atheists believe in hardcore facts. Obviously we learn more everyday, so it is my duty to find out what is fact from fiction.

@ClearLight369

2 ай бұрын

​@@LionKimbroI agree with what you say. But the problem is that Official Science has turned into a new priesthood that does not admit that it is a work in progress and that it's conclusions are only provisional and always subject to revision. Instead they like to make exaggerated claims, or leave them to be inferred.

You should look into islam brother, may god guide you to the right path🌹

So the point went right over your head.

@millerman

Ай бұрын

My point went over yours, apparently

I don't believe in God because the evidence for God doesn't convince me he exists i will also ask what Gods did people believe in 200k years ago so God is something outside of space and time

I don't see the point of a book describing the case against God until God has been demonstrated to exist.

Очень понравилось это короткое эссе, наконец понял, что Хайдегер мистик, мистицизм ближе всего поэзии. Поэтому у него восемьдесят книг и только поставленный мистический вопрос о бытии. Современная философия, вспоминая Витгенштейна, - это о взаимоотношении дисциплин человеческого знания. До появления естествознания философия и была знанием.

The difference between the universe and god is that the universe demonstrably exist. What's the point of adding a god, which you can't explain, to explain the origin of the universe? Adding a god just shifts the problem. Instead of having to explain the universe, you would now have to explain god and also how he supposedly created the universe.

@hellucination9905

2 ай бұрын

Did you even listen to the video? He spoke about this.

@ateriana5116

2 ай бұрын

@@hellucination9905 He didn't explain it. He just added a god and then said that we should accept that we can't explain god, because we can't explain the universe.

Christian's God has got a 'divine son' for a companionship in the dominion of the universe, whereas the God of OT has got non beside HIM as god. So Christians you are chasing a non existing God, who isn't the God of OT? There are seven more verses like below are found in the OT, where God says, repeatedly there is no God beside HIM. Isaiah 45-5 *There is no God besides Me* Deuteronomy 32:39 *there is no god with me* Isaiah 44:6 *beside me there is no God* .

I'm an atheist and I don't say all that crap you spewed at the start... I don't believe there are any gods. You do? Great, prove it.

like notions of creator gods, the universe is unknown. the universe also has a beginning by observation, so that requires an explanation. there's the complexity of the fine tuning, which has yet to be explained. also there is the complexity of life which will either need to be explained by addendums to current evolutionary theory or by some kind of creative intelligence, or both. god of the gaps isn't a good argument, because it's perfectly reasonable for semantic code to have a programmer rather than emerge from white noise.

@larrycarter3765

2 ай бұрын

'observation'? Just who did this observing.?

@notloki3377

Ай бұрын

@@larrycarter3765 it's inference to the best explanation of observable phenomena... if everything seems to be outwardly emmanating from a single point, the best hypothesis is one of progression. progress implies a beginning. if you've got a better idea, i'd love to hear it.

@marcreiter5675

5 күн бұрын

​@@larrycarter3765 that would have been Edward Hubble and his team of astronomers between 1922 & 1929... Which included measurements of galaxies' redshifts, based on the theory of relativity and it's interpretation of redshifts... Thus, the further from our perspective here on Earth that was observed, the more increased the redshifting of the light observed, based on particular types of stars known to be "standard candles"... This redshifting of light was interpreted as increasing redshifts, means moving at increasing speeds away from us... Thus, it was noted the universe is expanding... If one simply rewinds this expansion, we get contraction... And ultimately an "observed" beginning... See?

Shame you cannot even get past fallacies Worse you assert that YOUR god exists but can never demonstrate a single thing it did

Thats right, keep on with your imaginary man in the clouds.

....and what "Theists" get wrong [oh my G-d, is this tiring] is that they Necessarily connect their revelatory proprietary historically absurd notion as the necessary default for that [granted] inexplicable. In other words they take that pagan notion of Cause and transpose proprietary God [a,b, and/or c] and all it's sectarian nonsense over that blank space - as a gotcha, done, i won. When they be babes in the woods, irl. [This wolf finds babies quite delicious. Listening to them whine as if a victorious and obvious war cry - is exhausting, tho] burp I respect what seems as potentially pandering [enabling morons, thou art, Michael] - in the face of these [modern-fail] materialist atheists' equally [but perhaps somewhat more critical] claims. Still.... its somethin that cause me to skirt the social parameter, out of curiosity rather than my typical hunger - so sayeth this Wolf. Thus spoke Tim The Wolf

God is the mystical ground or "non-ground" for me. Eric Voegelin wrote about this.

@BarbarraBay

2 ай бұрын

no. God is only an exhorter of human ethics.

best philosopher on youtube

@gowdsake7103

Ай бұрын

Wow are you honestly this dumb!

So you can't understand logical fallacies therefore god? That is pretty sad.

@itry2brational

8 күн бұрын

Your comment is a perfect example of the straw man fallacy.

@Thedisciplemike

8 күн бұрын

Did you watch the video? Your strawman is evident you didn't, or that you didn't pay attention.

@DJH316007

8 күн бұрын

@@Thedisciplemike You are just using the word strawman and don't know what it means. Perhaps you should watch and pay attention to the video.

@Thedisciplemike

8 күн бұрын

@DJH316007 i know exactly what it means. And you committed it. "You can't understand logical fallacies therefore God" was never the argument. You strawmanned the position.

God of the gaps and special pleading fallacies. You haven’t demonstrated any gods exist nor have you proven the universe required a god to begin with. You have asserted without reason that your god exists and is uncreated, which ironically debunks your idea that everything requires a creator.

Nobody actually understands what the Universe is or means. To invoke gods as an explanation sounds like a stopgap to me. Theists still have to explain why "I don't know, more research is required" is a worse answer than " I don't know, therefor god(s)".

Yes, I own Smith's book and have reed it several times. What he gets right is the futility and uselessness of calling a god "unknowable." This led me to the realization that, as an analogy, it makes no sense to say, "I don't _know_ if an 8'4" woman exists but I _believe_ she's a good person who loves avocados, hates broccoli, likes cats, dislikes dogs, gets angry at being interrupted, sad when it rains and she wants a new sofa." See the cart/horse problem? The beliefs _assume_ prior knowledge or they're just idle speculation. And those with such a _personal_ god are always going on about how their god is "good" and loves/hates or likes/dislikes this or wants this or that. This shows that they are gnostics; making a knowledge claim and have inherited a burden of objective proof, as opposed to the agnostic theist i.e. deists. Yet such objective proof has never been forthcoming so they can be ignored. What do I mean by objective proof? Imagine a loved one of yours gets kidnapped. The kidnappers demand a ransom. But before you pay up, you can demand something of them: that they _prove_ the abductee is still alive i.e. _exists._ What the theist would accept as such objective proof is the same as what atheists can demand of theists for their god.

However, if we actually understand how the universe was created, we can observe there is the wind element & heat element causing physical matter to both form and become unstable. This wind element & heat element somehow found its way into similarly created life forms, which somehow became people. The physical bodies of people are agitated by the unstable wind element, heat element, various chemicals, etc, which cause (the other inexplicable reality of) the mind to become agitated. Plus there are life instincts, which again cannot be explained. Thus the lust for life and the internal agitations cause the minds of people to do evil things. Evil is the product of an unstable violent universe. However, amongst this unstable random violence, there appear a few people with a heightened consciousness, who can calm down these erratic forces of nature. These few people are The Prophets, The Saints, The Enlightened. These people are The Angels or Gods. They teach people about the Law of Nature; how to best avoid suffering; how to best maintain well-being; despite the many challenges.

In summary, there is no God, no Chosen People of God, no Only Son of God. This is the Holy Trinity of Holy Atheists.

so many weak thoughts here; it’s not really an exploration when you don’t ever walk beyond your the margins of your lantern’s illumination

All Godly religions contradict themselves. In the Old Testament, the god created people, then killed the same people in the Great Flood because they were evil. This god literally said he "regretted his creation". In follows this god was not omniscient and not omnipotent. Similarly, the Son of God in Christianity was crucified and wept like a child: "Father Why Have You Foresaken Me". He could not even save himself, let alone save others. In Islam they try harder to be intelligent saying God is Not Born Nor Does God Give Birth (Koran surah 112). Yet the Koran has many passages saying God created this & that. There is no Creator God. Any true God is merely a human personification of the moral laws of nature.

@hellucination9905

2 ай бұрын

Stop with the omniscient and omnipotent nonsense regarding God. Your are just projecting your human will to power onto God; you are making a vulgar fetish out of God. Read some mystical theology to get an actual understanding of the intellectual problem named 'God', which is based in the phenomenonological experience of the 'un-ground' or 'non-ground' of Being. This phenomenonological experience will be open to you, too - but you have to sharpen your intellectual senses (you read right) first.

@BarbarraBay

2 ай бұрын

@@hellucination9905 Hello. No. It is you that is being vulgar. You appear to wish to preach about a god divorced from ethics. God is not any "ground of being". What you have posted is so dumb. God is never about the "intellectual". God is the Spirit of heart & conscience.

You talk claptrap; special pleading cause =god. No philosophical or metaphysical has any bearing on the truth of god`s existence. You believe claptrap, then it is real for you ,that's how it works .God has no explanatory power ;it serves just to plug the holes in your understanding how the world works.