It's impressive Mr. Hart makes this admission. I have a lot of respect for people who can be honest, even when the point goes against their hypothesis

@@LouisRoss It is always refreshing to listen to honest prominent theist philosophers like Hart, Swinburne, Van Inwagen. Unfortunately they are rare.

Me, too. And divive hiddeness.

​@@LouisRossHe is acting. He's the most arrogant & biggest blasphemer of our time who hijacked our Eastern Orthodox identity, a false American idol

☦Don't quote American idols please, repent

@Luca Duca What the fuck are you even on about? 😆 Saying you dislike gays and thinking they shouldn't have rights "they already have" (your words) is bigoted and homophobic by definition. You just need to decide whether to embrace what that label entails. What did my comment even have to do with the subject? The fact that you felt the need to bring up LGBT rights on a completely unrelated topic suggests to me that you have some deep seated issues. Get help.

I can relate to that a lot!

@Luca Duca oh I figured you were a fundamentalist Christian since you're so homophobic. I hope you can move on and grow in love instead of getting left behind in your own hatred

Curious, what evidence did he use to convince you?

So you went from wanting proof of a supernatural deity to setting all,logic and critical thinking aside to believe in a magical sky daddy? Thats tragic.

Sort of. I remember his book _Atheist Delusions_ being pretty uncharitable. Likewise, I see people like Hart being a kind of first step towards atheism. When I was first transitioning to atheism in my mid-teens, the brand of abstract Christianity that Hart is a proponent of was what I initially went to.

He's not an apologist.

Honestly, the same could be said about many atheists who attack religion without knowledge and constantly mock believers. There are little atheist thinkers able to face the consequences of their claims.

I will definitely grant you that. He is quite tolerable to listen to. Most bible thumpers are quite hard to take. Much less take seriously. I think I would enjoy a conversation with this guy. I am quite a non-believer, but this guy is at least respectable in his manner. Whew! I never thought I'd see it.

@@samuelstephens6904 I find the opposite , as he was my first step back

convincing people that they are sick and you have the cure is a very effective sales technique. Hence conmen have used it for a very long time.

@@KonradZielinski Are you suggesting that the Genesis of religion is somehow magically convincing healthy people they’re sick?

@@chanting_germ. Nah, you’re right I wasted my time replying.

This makes no sense. Why does evil require love? Why does love require vulnerability? Why must evil exist for vulnerability to exist? If god is all powerful, then yes, he absolutely could create and maintain love without evil.

I am more concerned about the problem of hell than about the problem of evil. God created a world in which the penalty for sin is eternal conscious torment. Is that a loving God?

Hart is a universalist, so for him that’s not a problem. In fact, he uses that very argument against the notion of an eternal hell.

If a truly omnipotent and omniscient God existed, he would be able to create a world where you could still experience vulnerability and feel love - evil would not be necessary. Why does God permit children to suffer and die of cancer? Why does God permit entire villages of decent people to be wiped out in an instant through natural disasters? Why does God allow serial killers to deny life and dignity to their victims? Where is their (the victims) free will to live a life without being tortured or killed? Sorry, but your argument is very weak. The problem of evil cannot be resolved if God is to be viewed as omni-X, benevolent and just.

Because that one is pretty much it. There are no real arguments FOR atheism, besides the problem of evil. Everything else in atheism is merely critiques of theistic arguments.

​@@markdaniels1730 And critiques of theistic arguments, if they work, is all that's required to move towards deism And deism is as good as atheism in terms of fun The moment we get proof that entire swathes of humans are burning in Hell forever at this very moment is the moment we should all give up having empathy and become more selfish than ever before No sane human would give away their salvation for another No sane human would concern themself with actually loving God in any sense that is viscerally relevant Instead, "loving" God would essentially be us trying to figure out what we have to do in order to not get tortured forever in Hell All this philosophical discourse, but if, hypothetically, it couldn't be shown that Jesus actually rose from the dead, or that the Quran is actually inimitable, or that Moses really did speak to God Hypothetically, if none of this could be shown to be true, then there's no need for these complicated theologies and odyssies What's an argument for atheism? Well, if someone can explain all this stuff without the need of any God/gods, then we'd have reason to reject theism since theism would just be, assuming the atheist explanation works just as well as the theistic explanation, postulating unnecessary entities Do we need God/gods as an explanation? I think Bernardo Kashtrup's analytic idealism is sufficient I think pansychism works well too I think deism works too And oh boy, deism sweet deism How do we prove that God cares? That seems pretty difficult

That’s not true in the slightest, but I’m sure you wish it was that way so you could easily dismiss theism

@@gotallon5761 Okay, who do you think is a really good apologist and name a really good, compelling argument they’ve made.

@@sledzeppelin I mean David Bentley Hart, the dude above, seems to make compelling points about the argument from contingency in his book “The Experience of God”. He’s not so much of an apologist as He is a religious scholar. William Lane Craig, although being a theistic personalist can be good. Edward Feser is usually pretty decent, many of those types of figures. Not saying you have to like or agree with everything they say but it’s usually deeper then “I just want this to be true at the end of the day”.

@@gotallon5761 The argument from contingency is simply declaring there needs to be some unmoved mover, without actually supporting why such a thing would be necessary. To make it worse, apologists generally then, incorrectly, try to argue they know the attributes of this unmoved mover, and further that it’s clearly the god of the Bible. It’s just fallacy after fallacy, unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion. Like every single argument for a deity I’ve ever heard. Craig at least has the decency to admit he lowers his standard of evidence because he so badly wants Christianity to be true. Tell me your best argument for the existence of a deity.

@@sledzeppelin I mean I could sit here and generalize every single atheist argument against God so I just conclude atheism is illogical but I don’t think that’ll do either of us good. There needs to be an unmoved mover for ontological reasons, as it is the transcend source of all being. Without it there is no source or grounds for existence at all. I promise you the experience of God book discusses this deeper if you would take the time to read it.

Perhaps the conversation fell outside your area of optimal advancement?

You & Hart are some of the biggest blasphemers in this world. Repent please🙏❤

I haven't seen a full version of the interview, but I know of a lecture he gave on suffering last year: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rtVlaNqIsKidYqM.htmlsi=U6K-kEoTznPnOgYG Hope that helps!

Ah, the gap in the God escape hatch fallacy that fuels denialism and egotism. Doctrine-inspired expectations project "brokenness," which is unjustified in the first place and clarified by science itself and constructivism. Meanwhile, "original sin" and "evil" appear in historical standards, theistic ones, adding "anachronistic" to theodicy´s fallacies. "Evil" comes from biopsychosocial inclinations to abuse power and reject the love commandment and associated spiritual teachings in the Moses-Jesus sequence, and Jesus´ legacy. That is one of science´s great spiritual insights, basically.

@@robinhoodstfrancis You probably think the number 7 is synonymous with seven objects.

@@justchilling704That´s an odd assumption by you about me. But, you are projecting something. Perhaps you think God is nothing more than an abstract number, or alternatively, isn´t di-polar as AN Whitehead and Process Theology have insightfully proposed. And inferred, really. Whatever your hangups, it is about the distinctions and the necessary and sufficient empirical and/or philosophical realities. There are reasons Jesus prayed and meditated, saying, "Humans don´t live by bread alone," and didn´t just propose an esoteric God like Aristotle´s First Cause. In fact, FD Roosevelt´s codifying a vision and legacy of UN human rights, and sustainability later, make such talk a little more than crucial in their implications.

Yes, Hart the biggest blasphemer of our time is an Epicurus

Yes, this man has no answer for why kids die.

bonnie43uk there is no natural mechanism that turns life from non life. I agree with you on evolution and diversity but evolution creates nothing.

Michael Reynolds to be giving life everlasting we must die. Death is a transition to immortality for those who want it.

@@onestepaway3232 I don't think you'll find many atheists who believe that life comes from non-life, so I'm not sure why I keep hearing this from Christians such as yourself OSA, evolution has nothing to do with life coming from non-life, evolution describes the process of how living things diversify and adapt to different environments. Evolution *does* create new species, but it's not something you will witness because of the time involved.. it can take tens of thousands of years, and obviously, we only live about 70-80 years, which is the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms. Good to see you on this video comment... small world :-)

bonnie43uk it’s change of species not creation of a new. Evolution is a process of change. We see this in bacteria. It either dies off or adapts/changes and continues on. It is still a bacteria so not sure what was created. The bacteria already exist. There is no natural mechanism to get from non life to life. You don’t have evolution without life. So essentially getting from inanimate to animate just does not happen naturally. That is a fact. It’s the reality we live in

Sorry your statement is not only a oversimplification, it is completely wrong!! The problem is that you think the term 'Supernatural' has meant the same throughout human history and it hasn't. There was no divide between the natural and Supernatural in the ancient world when people believed in ghosts and spirits Yet, ironically in a world of scientific rationalism theoretical physics all the time talk about the 'Supernatural' i.e universes that exist beyond time and space.

@@andrewrussell6299 Perhaps the better term would be "notional", meaning dependent on individual preference, rather than objectively real and demonstrable. And your last sentence is undoubtedly true.

Great. And? Some people are violent and others aren't. Some people like music and some don't. And? What's your point? You're basically just telling us "water is wet".

@jessrevill1852 I agree with sledzeppelin: your statement is nonsensical and informs no one of what is Truth or not. atheism is silly, toddler-tantrumish nonsense: atheists put blind faith in their notion that a nonprogrammed, unguided accident can provide them with "truth." I don't have enough blind faith to be an atheist.

Because the older ones are stronger. There's a difference between probabilistic and deductive arguments.

@@metro2197 There is simply no answer for a good God against gratuitous suffering.

Well said..was just about to type the same thing.

That's a fallacy, imo. Since you assume atheism is the standard position to have, which is as fallacious as a Christian assuming his position is just correct, and he has to be convinced otherwise. A better positioning would be to ask the question of which position seems the most convincing, and then both religion and atheism have the burden of proof.

@@Bob-wr1md Not being convinced of something isn't fallacious, please explain how it could be. Atheism is simply a term invented by believers in gods. Is there a term for non believers in horoscopes?

@@DavidFraser007 goof point, yet you still come from a place of normalcy. If you were in a majorly Christian environment and everyone is Christian by standard, you'd probably have to make an argument why youre not a Christian. As for horoscopes, I think it's easier to explain with astronomy why horoscopes and star signs are wrong, than to debunk the philosophical point of god's existence. Philosophically there are good points for both cases, I believe. I am a Christian, but I'm much more decided to believe that God exists, because i believe there's no certainty at all. I don't know if some term as a devoted agnostic Christian exists, but I'd probably be more accurately described with that, than someone who argues that God is 100% real

@@Bob-wr1md I don't know what a goof point is, it's not a term used in the UK, but it sounds dismissive and impolite. I asked you why not being convinced of something is fallacious, you didn't answer that. I didn't ask you to debunk Horoscopes, only stated that there isn't a term for non believers in Horoscopes. You are right, I don't live in a Christian environment, none of my family, neighbours or friends go to a church, that is normal for most countries in Europe. As for having to explain why I'm not a christian, why would anybody care what I believe or don't believe?

He meant from the perspective of the animals which were evolving: e.g. a million years for us a billions in cat-years.

He could be like the majority of theist who actually accept the science on this matter, instead of like the creationist who try to deny all the science.

@@blargblarg7875 So you are suggesting to be on the side of science??🤣 What science is it that suggests that life has been around for hundreds of billions of years so that it could evolve? I thought the science suggested that the big band happened < 14 billion years ago. Anyhow, the original comment was just an innocent laugh at a funny mis-speak.

@@samdg1234: He did say that. He probably meant to say "millions" rather than "billions", but it's becoming increasingly evident scientifically that the big bang hypothesis is blatantly false and that the universe is static, eternal, and infinite; well, mainstream science still hasn't gone that far even though it's true, but even mainstream science is now eager to more than double the accepted age based on all the evidence that has accumulated over the past century, culminating in the most recent JWST evidence. So ultimately there probably have been beings suffering in the way he describes during a continuous and eternal process of evolutionary change (even hundreds of billions of years is still just a negligible blip of time in the context of eternity), perhaps not here on Earth, but in an infinite number of other worlds throughout space and time.

​@lukeabbott3591 that was a good one 😂

Singham is a theoretical physicist, and he doesn't know that proper nouns (e.g., God) are capitalized? Yet, we expect grade school students to know that.

@@savio807 Your statement has nothing to do with his viewpoint on God. It’s called a red herring when someone makes a valid argument and you change the subject with grammar. Google logical fallacies

Is it really the theologians fault that mr. Singham doesn't understand what sophisticated theologians and philosophers are talking about? One could make the same argument about any sufficiently advanced field of knowledge. Let's try rephrasing what he said: "One has to struggle to understand what they are talking about because what these sophisticated physicists imagine to be quantum physics is so far removed from what any ordinary person thinks that I have long suspected that they are actually Newtonians struggling to find a way to salvage belief in something quantized that would not be seen as manifestly anti-science or otherwise ridiculous in the circle of intellectuals amongst whom they move." There. Just demolished quantum physics.

​@@gre8 Oh my goodness, exactly! Natural phenomena constantly evade and transcend the logical categories and definitions we try to fit them into because the natural world as revealed by science is a mystery. Every physicist knows this. Yet so many of these same scientists are confused and offended when believers say God is more mysterious and ineffable than all His creation, and talk about Him accordingly.

See: Jordan Peterson. His entire schtick is finding a way to call literally everything god.

I think he intended to say millions referring to the evolution of animals.

*adjusts glasses*

You can hear that he says "or" very quickly ("hundreds or billions of...").

He did say that. He probably meant to say "millions" rather than "billions", but it's becoming increasingly evident scientifically that the big bang hypothesis is blatantly false and that the universe is static, eternal, and infinite; well, mainstream science still hasn't gone that far even though it's true, but even mainstream science is now eager to more than double the accepted age based on all the evidence that has accumulated over the past century, culminating in the most recent JWST evidence. So ultimately there probably have been beings suffering in the way he describes during a continuous and eternal process of evolutionary change (even hundreds of billions of years is still just a negligible blip of time in the context of eternity), perhaps not here on Earth, but in an infinite number of other worlds throughout space and time.

Oh, my. A person with a useful brain. And just when I thought I was all alone.

rejection is a claim

@@ronaldosanimalio5826 Rejection of what? The first claim being made. If I say to you "xzououapoy doesn't exist" you have to wonder first of all what xzououapoy is. But you brought up xzououapoy in the first place.

"Atheism makes no claims" is a claim. So we can assume it's not an atheist claim, since atheism makes no claims (whatever the hay that means).

@@mypublicchannel3884 Useful for what? Did Igor break all the bottles again?

There is no reason to be an atheist. You're not required to make life "hard" on yourself. Religious people are overall happier according to numerous studies. Religious people overcome harsh realities of this world by faith in God. Prove that "religion is self-deception." You can't.

​@@scabw You just stated that "studies" prove the happiness of the religious. That's fine, but I would argue that happiness IS self deception. Moods come and go like the wind. It's choosing to exist within one modal neurochemical state over another. It's passively or actively ignoring the suffering that takes place in the world all around you every moment of every day. It's selecting an object of consciousness that occludes all which does not reify it's own state. I also, much prefer happiness to the alternative, but I don't delude myself into believing that my happiness has anything to do with the fundamental fabric of reality, and so why would I invoke the existence of a god or lack thereof in relation to my happiness as proof of anything? This, to me, along with faith, are the height of self deception. Faith is simply what's left when one has said "I can go no further, and so I will make a choice". But the choice proves nothing. The choice is merely that. Why is it that so very many humans have convinced themselves that our minds have any ability to grapple with the infinite complexity of the cosmos? If you want my version of faith, it's that we will never have answers to these kinds of questions; that the mystery that existed before your birth will be the same mystery that meets you at your death.

I guess you're not a cradle atheist then. The stories you are made believe as such...stunning. It takes time, bravery, intellectual honesty, and lots of effort to untangle all the logical inconsistencies and gaping stupidity of the atheist worldview.

"Being an atheist is hard and it takes courage to admit having doubts and no ultimate answers." As an atheist, what is it I doubt?

@@scabw "Religious people are overall happier according to numerous studies." Some of us aren't able to choose our own reality in order to maintain a juvenile fantasy about going to a happy fun place when we die. Some of us actually care if things are true or not.

Right, because its method excludes non mathematizable things. But, as reality includes many other aspects, it is undoubted that science itself arises frontier questions that tend to point toward the methaphysical reflection, because of what it deals with, as well as its own method depends and relies on many philosophical assumptions like the universe is intelligible, and, of course, to control ethically it.

Nor can any religion.

Science doesn't have to. It's up to religion to prove that there is a God --- and considering the thousands of years it's had to make that case, they aren't doing a very good job.

@@Whippets You haven't read Aquinas, have you?

@@lukeabbott3591 I certainly have read him ... and what's your "point"?

As Hart says the argument does not necessarily destroy the ontological logic for the Absolute(God) it destroys the logic of why you should worship him. I think you should have faith that the reasons for the suffering in the world will ultimately be made clear, when we finally get reconciled to him

​@@mburumorris3166The ontological argument(s) aren't really compelling.

@@mburumorris3166 If you're going to create a separation between the God and faith to it, then I would consider that as an even bigger tell that the entire scheme is more unstable than initially thought. As for suffering, the entire universe is in the process of constant entropy and mitigating this process is the best we can do. But it really begins with being honest with ourselves.

@@fishoutofmind4943: Turns out there is a creator deity; but turns out they're evil! Yikes!

It's a toughie for sure.

Would "free will" be impacted without entropy? If natural laws were altered by God to fit his ideal (for example: in a renewal of the earth), would that be detrimental to freedom as we know it? If a need to fight can be replaced by another need would that enslave your will in any way? In a theistic ideology God is the standard of all things, and everything fall on his design. "Evil" can only have meaning from a religious perspective.

So that means that God does not have free will?

metallica4169 No because God exists outside the universe, outside of the physical realm. No physical constraints. It is indicated that God created non-physical minds before the physical universe. The issue with this is that they were not truly free as they would be too influenced by the programmer, God. Therefore a physical universe was constructed to create minds that were not directly programmed by God... hence the silence of God. It is also indicated that if you go through great lengths to not live for the physical world, you can then hear God.

nice-new The physical universe is a mechanism to create a “free as possible” mind. The goal is not our physical self, but the active “will” component of minds. We must actively choose to stop executing our biological programming (basically anything that results in a dopamine hit or “good monkey” response). Our will must decide and sacrifice it’s physical rewards to be good to others, to intentionally choose the good. I think free will has been attempted without a physical universe, without entropy, but the minds created this way were not truly free from Gods influence. The will was not truly free. Yes, without theology there is no evil. There is just the natural process of the physical world. Theology frames the natural world for us, informs us that living for self is entropic or detrimental to others. If we live for the good of others we start practicing this thing called love that is anti-entropy. We stop becoming enslaved by our animal minds and start pursing a non-physical existence.

Keith Strang you said that you cannot have free-will without “the availability of evil.” God does not have that availability. Therefore, he cannot have free will according to that premise. Why did you respond with so much random jargon?

Were borrowing his consciousness and bodies/matter and were immortal souls not fleshy meat sacks so maybe its just tough love and a wiser understanding of eternity

Who/what can know "God"??

Another possibility is: there were two Gods and the bad won the battle. The consequences are 1. The good God (Lucifer, which means Light) was banned and is since then discredited as the pure evil. 2. Anyone that denies the existence of just one God is condemned to hell. 3. Not the ones are favoured that are morally good and are doing good no matter of their beliefs, but those who are worshipping the jealous and selfish God. "Thou shalt not kill" comes only at 6th place, the first commandment is "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have any strange gods before Me." As an atheist I don't believe I this stuff, but I find it amusing, because there are so many places in and outside the bible you can use to backup this story. Would be a good plot for a film or novel too ;-)

If God is so good, why does he let children die. Works in mysterious ways is unacceptable to me.

@@leonreynolds77 If You are Omnipotent, You must to allow evil to be for allowing Free will to exist ... In a sense, You're as Good to allow infinite Bad to Become manifested .... or Your causeless Mercy allows that everything becomes manifested ... It doesn't matter If that is evaluated as Bad or Good by Contingent Entities. ... If You constrain Existence to Only ,"Good" ... Then, You will disable existence of deploying its own will ... Therefore, Not Freedom.... Plus, "good" and "evil" are not objective terms ... Example, If my daughter get a hurtful terminal disease, I will suffer my self ... But People that Hates Me and/or My Daughter would feel Good by our suffering ... Therefore, Good and Bad are not objective phenomenon ... Just perspectives from local entities.

Hart admitted the problem of evil was a very serious objection to Christianity, so I don't think it's right to say he presented nothing but straw men. You're mostly right in what you say about atheism, but it seems the word "atheism" has become conflated with "scientific materialism," which does entail positive beliefs about the universe, not just the absence of God.

☦Yes, Hart is a very sick false prophet & blasphemer

No one is claiming that he is a serious philosopher in any sense, but he is an undeniable expert in evolution. Most of his books are tackling evolution, only the God Delusion is purely about religion. But tbh, you don't need to be the greatest philosopher to refute religious claims, and he has made many good points about religion.

When you speak about something, you must be better informed. Francis Collins is also an expert on evolution who knows simple notions of philosophy and that is the reason why he is well respected by his mates.

@@davidlara993 I would agree indeed. My birthday is less than a week away, and I've asked to get The Origin of Species or some Dawkins' book, preferably The God Delusion, as a birthday present. If I'll receive that, I'll examine it carefully with an open mind to see if I can find issues in the book.

@Ψ No, the question what created God assumes that a methaphysical entity which is obtained by regressive argumentation, for example, needs an explanation beyond its own nature. It does not only show that you have not understood the concept or the arguments about the essence of the existence of such entities, but that you are commiting many fallacies to fit a question that itself is a strawman. Then again, if someone is about to speak about a topic, in the case a philosophical conception, must know what that topic is, at least. By the way, there are much many problems on the book, including maths, ontological and philosophical mistakes. If you look for propaganda and you are not interested in the trustworthyness of them, just likely to repeat them to widespread the ignorance displayed, then it might be a readable book. If you know something (and not necessarily a lot) about both philosophy or science...

@Ψ First of all, your very first premise is incorrect, and it is easy to understand, although so many people fall in this mistake. No single theist (from Aristotle to Platinga or Feser)has ever defended an argument that claims "whatever exists has a cause", because, first, the cosmological arguments don´t try to offer aspects of the whole existence, but aspects that go along with regress methaphysical. And secondly, it is just absurd if, precisely, those arguments try to defend a methaphysical, immaterial and eternal reality. Then, again, the problem lies on, first, thinking that without having made the proper philosophical study of the arguments you (generically, not you specifically) are in an intellectual position to object anything and, of course, it continues with the intellectual floppy tradition to change the arguments, which is not only fallacious, but an insult to their own self respect. And, by the way, if you claim that something has no cause, then it should arrange several attributes that are avoided by the laws of physics, precisely, because any single scientific statement depends on the very first existence of mechanisms to be studied in dependece with those laws (maths also involved), so it has potentialities to be actualized and, then, it is not simple and not at all inmutable or necessary/ self-explanatory.

ClumsyRoot I actually think most of these fall from grace stories have to do with our transition from hunter gatherers to farmers. There seems to have been an entire different mode of living before agriculture and that’s what they are referring to.

Ronald Jordan the advent of agriculture didn't mean there was a material change in the pain and suffering experienced by humanity? It increased for some and reduced for others. Plus different cultures transitioned from hunter-gatherers to farmers at different points in time, some even as late as last century

Xain'd Sleena If you are talking about ‘natural evil’ the yes and no. Socially it seems to have been a much more harmonious time, with women enjoying more equality than in the Neolithic. They ate better, worked less, and viewed themselves more as a part of nature than separate from it. Sure bad things happened, but I think psychologically speaking, they were better off than later farmers and herders, and I think that’s what many of the origin myths are about.

@@hypergraphic You can argue either way. Agriculture brought major improvements in quality of life through a reliable food supply and greater surplus food. These in turn allowed specialization of labor and cities which brought greater advantages in terms of protection, wealth, knowledge etc.

@@hypergraphic according to the skeletal rests of paleolithical men, one third of the population died from omicide.

Howard Sobel

Depends on the Buddhism

@@tysmith9309 Not really. All Buddhism is based on the four noble truths which are about suffering, the cause of suffering and how to stop the suffering.

Nihilist cult

@@HIMYMTR It's a practical way to reduce suffering and increase happiness.

Daoism doesn’t posit a fallen world either. The Dao is the transcendent source from which reality springs, but everything is part of it; there’s so schism between good and evil, since those are human concepts. Philosophically, it’s closed to Spinoza’s conception of god.

If people are raised with the concept of a God existing their whole lives, it is only natural they would turn to this force that they think would be capable of saving their lives if it were in grave danger. If a polytheist were in the trenches, they would probably pray to multiple deities specific to their beliefs. Unfortunately you argument is very a weak one that falls down on some honest reflection.

It is not an argument, it is a quote. I would find it very difficult to argue with anyone who could not disprove something I believe in,@@InPursuitOfCuriosity

Not true. Read Primo Levi, committed non-believer and Auschwitz survivor.

@@jameswood4344 No thankyou.

I'm not challenging or anything but do u think that as an atheist, that there may be a burden of proof on the belief or assumption that there is a natural or physical explanation for reality? I think it's fair think that a theist has a burden of proof in a debate but it is equally the case that the naturalist, who holds that nature is all that exists, would equally bear the burden of proof.

There are many things in nature we don't understand. Either we can investigate and find answers, this is the scientific method, or we have to be honest and say "we don't know". I don't see any burden of prove as long a it is not well defined what super-natural even means.

vonkruel the problem is truth is real. You cannot be neutral or do nothing. But you have in fact done something. You have a worldview.

Spot on. :-)

@@nevnad4587 : Theist ; God/s exist. Atheist : I don't believing what you're saying is being true? @Nevnad : Explain on how not beliving in an person making a claim carries a burden of proof, i don't understand?

He wrote a whole book on the topic if you're curious. It's called 'The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami?'

What atheist arguments you find compelling? Argument of evil. It seems to me that he answered

@Quantum Decoherence but the question wasn't "explain why the strongest argument against God is wrong" if it's strong it's strong for a reason.

He did. Unless you mean he just gave one. He said the argument from evil.

he answered that he found Argument of Evil the most convincing argument. How do you mean it wasnt answered? I appreciate he treats this argument with the respect it demands.

U dnt no tho

I hurts every Christian brain to hear the filthy blasphemies of this pseudo Orthodox arrogant гаt

I'm sure he's say more to explain it if asked. I think he's got a book on it

There's human freewill isn't there.

Of course it is illogical. God is omniscient and always chooses right Genesis 18:25 Simply by withholding omniscience from man's point of origin God designed man to sin (miss the mark )." They perish through lack of knowledge of Me the only true living God". God created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and called it very good. God created evil Isaiah 45:7 and taught even Jesus obedience through suffering Hebrews 5:8. God is a subjector and will in the fullness of time subject all things to himself 1Corinthians 15:28.The Truth is what sets free, God is The Truth and as King His will will be done and until His subjects obey completely all will not be free. Men's captive wills are being are in the process of being freed. God is the originator or creator of all things and conforms all things according to the purpose of His will Ephesians 1:11 God could have made man with a free will like Himself incapable of sin and man would hardly be a robot unless God himself is.

@@Mrm1985100 "There's human freewill isn't there." Is there?

Because theists haven't answered it. Not convincingly anyway. There haven't been any syllogism that responds directly to it.

@@mihaimoldo Existence with evil is better than total non-existence

@@mrepix8287 how so? Better for us?

@@mihaimoldo Existence is a privilege. That which has being is more desired. However, there is literally nothing to desire in nothing

@@mrepix8287 given we haven't existed for billions of years before our birth you're argument is to me a post ad hoc rationalization since beforehand you cannot advocate for existence I also agree it's amazing we get to experience the universe and be conscious about it as well nonetheless.

Oh stop!! Why does there have to be one way to look a god to have a real discussion? Something so complex needs to be look at from all angles.

He's Eastern Orthodox.

@@blackscreennoiseforrelaxat1517 Because God is not complex. He's all powerful, all knowing, perfectly good and has a plan. That's the God believers believe in. One way to know this is there would be no problem of evil otherwise.

​@@stephenlawrence4821 Your definition does not apply to Eastern Religions' understanding of God.

How do you know what god says, or that it even exists? Because of an old book? Why would you find that convincing?

God created the world and put a penalty of eternal conscious torment. Is that a good god?

So the Nazi holocaust, cancer in babies, war, rape, torture and so on are all just “god testing us”? Wow, you really are deeply misguided and horribly indoctrinated.

Isn't it potentially selfish to act according to God's will because you were promised a better afterlife?

Why the need to test us? If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he would know immediately whether we believe in him or not. He would know immediately before or at the time of our creation that we are evil and going to torture/kill lots of people, or if we are going to live a righteous life. You are promised a "paradise" so you will be compliant and easy to control by religious authorities. What determines closeness to God? Because Mohammed said "this is the way to be close to God" when God himself could easily have told you directly if he existed.

Cool. And what is the evidence for any of that?

@@sledzeppelin if you’re expecting people to prove karmic psychology in a lab then ur looking in the wrong place and asking the wrong questions. Not everything needs to be justified in the reductionist eyes of positive science

@@Everyone321 How have you proven karmic psychology?

@@sledzeppelin go read ab karmic seeds

@@sledzeppelin karmic seeds are a metaphysical phenomenon that produce conscious experience which relate to formed habits that lead to suffering, their justification could only really be proved negatively (u cannot go out and find them). Also through the inner expereince of uprooting karmic patterns for a more successful rebirth

The concept of evil is incoherent on naturalism, and thus evil is evidence for theism. “In a world where physics fixes all the facts, it's hard to see how there could be room for moral facts.” Alex Rosenberg, Atheist's Guide, p. 94-95

@@les2997 Naturalism doesn't say physics fixes all facts, just all physical facts - which precludes morality. Even if it was moral facts, it would just mean that theism posits moral truths that God then violates which is just as effective and perhaps even more damning - perhaps it makes God logically impossible.

ClumsyRoot maybe true, but generally speaking, most non-philosophers aren’t as outspoken in their answers to philosophical questions as Dawkins

I think that Dennet is somewhat respected

@@astrol4b Dennet is also a philosopher. He's the only one of the four horsemen of the new atheism who is. I'm pretty sure he's also one of those philosophers who goes around proclaiming his own discipline to be dead because he thinks science can account for everything. So, you might say there's one new atheist who is somewhat respected, but that one holds an unpopular view that appeals to angry teenagers...and Bill Maher.

@@tchristian04 it's worse than that, he claims that just Darwinism explains everything :-) I read "Darwin dangerous idea" and that was the core argument, but it's a good book, the metaphysics chapter is very weak, but enjoyable.

astrol4b have you read anything by Alvin Plantinga? His book “Where the Conflict Really Lies” engages with Dennett’s book

How could there be a second Lord, a power outside the grasp of the will of a good God?

@@stevenherran3962 Good question. My understanding is the devil holds dominion over this world and is allowed to by God.

@@ant0n_xp491 It's not a question of why a good and all powerful God allows evil and disease and misery. We live in this universe, not in heaven. It is not God's intention to intervene here.

@@moonbeamskies3346 Why would a perfect all loving God do that? That is the problem. Your point doesn’t help in answering that. If you think God is not perfectly all loving, then life is more or less as meaningless with or without God.

@@xtaticsr2041 Something had to put all these trillions or quadrillions of stars here. Scientists have no clue how they got here. God put them here. If God interfered then life would truly be meaningless.

God knows, the anti God nature of humanity. It is the free will. Don't expect free will of humanity, to desire obedience, though some will.

I hope this isn’t your pathetic attempt at making some sort of atheistic argument.

That doesn't make sense. Knowing that answer is not the only criteria to being considered a god.

Kalaam Cosmological argument for God.

@@Mrm1985100 go ahead and explain why you think that's a good argument --- thanks

But maybe that is the essence of theism: That it is beyond cold rational arguments.

@@ob4161 I know the answer now: „I am God“. That’s actually more simple than I expected. So I don’t need to spend money

well all cultures have a religion or god.So yes god is man made. Their argument is based entirely on faith.Basically just BELIEVE and have faith in the scriptures. Not a good argument...... EVER

You have to differentiate the notion of God from all man made descriptions other than simply a creative being/force that has agency and whos existence transcends space and time. Was it this God or that God? Is a nonsensical question in my opinion when relating to a theistic argument for our universe being created by God.

the fact that you have failed to advance your thinking of God past the crudest human physical levels, as some sort of finite being bound to the confines of your emotional and conceptual imaginings, tells me quite plainly that the best evidence in the world could stare you in the face and you would not recognize it out of your intellectual immaturity. And to say that man created God is also to say that man created goodness, love, life, creation, and being, which all of a sudden appears to be absurd, doesn't it? The questions you are posing are answered in the simplest beginnings of theology.

@@sambyassee9132 - So you are saying that humans have not/cannot create gods? Or maybe you are just saying all gods are man made fiction except the one that you happen to believe in. Why doesn't god talk to us the same way we talk to each other (audibly)? Why doesn't god appear to us visually - the same way that we all see each other? Is it because he can't or won't? I have read the bible but am no an expert. I am also not an expert on Islam, Mormonism, Buddhism, Scientology, Numerology, Astrology, Bigfoot or UFOs. I don't need to be an expert on those things to know they are nonsense. BTW - just what is the best evidence in the world for a god?

Neil Cates The only God that is real is the one that created the universe - that makes no claims about his nature or who believes in him or not. But we would not exist if not for a God, so there is God. Also, God is not a thing in the universe. That’s why he doesn’t communicate with us as humans do, because he’s not a human. God is not a creature, but rather the source and end of all being. God is outside our understanding of the world (or else God would be limited, because we are all limited), so it makes perfect sense that God is not found in the dimensions of our limited human communication. The greatest evidence for God is not some human proof, but rather our own existence. When you talk of proving God you risk reducing God to a finite thing fully understandable in human terms. Only God can fully understand God, so only God can prove himself, and he proves himself to us in Jesus Christ.

Dumbest argument ever

I mean, He’s worked countless miracles that are dismissed by atheists as non evidence

@@johnwachowicz1966 The sun rose this morning, a true miracle from Quetzalcoatl

@@johnwachowicz1966 Such as?

what would he look like.... what appearance would convince you?

The logical argument goes: Whatever has finite, contingent existence does not have the ability to give existence to itself. The observable reality is both contingent and has existence. Therefore the observable reality necessarily needs an absolute to give rise to it. The absolute reality is what most theistic traditions term as God. God is a logical necessity because without the absolute the contingent would not have existence. We observe that the contingent does have existence, therefore we must infer the existence of the absolute (God). Unless you can demonstrate a positive claim that the contingent can exist without being caused by the absolute (a claim thatis in conflict with both science and logic, leaving the burden of proof on the person that makes it), the inference of God (the absolute) is to date the most reasonable attitude prompted everything we know about the observable universe.

@@dawn_salinas Okay, so you've argued there must be a cause, and you've labeled it "god". What are the properties of this god? Is it the Abrahamic god? Is it a big fluffy bunny that poops out stars? Tell me more about this god you know exists.

I don't think your criticism lands. It's perfectly reasonable to claim something is impossible to fully understand in the same way that I would claim it's impossible for an ant to understand the motives of humans, or similarly: it's impossible for humans to understand what it's like to be an ant. I'd even say it impossible for me to fully understand you, in that I cannot directly experience your own subjectivity. It may prove ultimately to be false in the long run, but it's reasonable, and that doesn't mean I'm making up the fact that you exist, or ants exist.

@@anthonymount1275 You are equivocating on the word "impossible". I have no idea if it may become possible at some point or in some way to understand your subjectivity in part or in whole. I can't make the claim that it is impossible (same with the ant). If the claim is that XYZ is actually, totally, and in all contexts IMPOSSIBLE for a human mind to understand based on the inherent limitations of human understanding...THEN, I claim, there is no way for a human to even MAKE that claim, as there would be no way for a human to KNOW it is beyond the limits of human understanding...if, indeed, it WAS beyond the limits of human understanding. There would be nothing we could say about it at all in regards to understanding it or not. (Edit: to even **make the claim** that something is beyond the limits of human understanding is to smuggle in the idea that there is a "secret" or "special" understanding that we must accept...because someone said so. Which is basically saying, "It's beyond human understanding, but our special group understands it and you don't, and there is no way to demonstrate this--you just have to accept it." It's magical thinking on steroids, and it's dangerous, as (if it is accepted) it can be used to justify anything at all.)

The concept of evil is incoherent on naturalism, and thus evil is evidence for theism. “In a world where physics fixes all the facts, it's hard to see how there could be room for moral facts.” Alex Rosenberg, Atheist's Guide, p. 94-95

@@les2997 Firstly the concept of evil is not incoherent under naturalism. Evil in this context, refers to all the suffering. Secondly this world is not a world we'd expect to find if created by a perfectly good God. That is evidence.

@@stephenlawrence4821 You are wrong on both counts. Evil provides evidence for theism, not atheism. Evil cannot exist is naturalism is true. Physicalism and determinism leave no room for evil. A perfect being can create whatever he wants.

@@les2997 Well, you've only repeated your assertions. As I say, included in evil are things like natural disasters and all the suffering in the animal kingdom. So it's not always to do with morality and often isn't. Also it's only your assertion (and quote) that there are no moral facts without God. Yes a perfect, omnipotent being can create whatever he wants. But he can't want suffering because then he'd be far from perfect.

​@@stephenlawrence4821 The concept of natural evil is nonsense. Which law of nature is evil? The same laws that brought you into existence are now evil? Sometimes they are evil and sometime they are good, right? If naturalism is true, there is no evil or good. Nature is indifferent. Evil is defined as a departure from the way things ought to be. There are no "oughts" in nature. There are no absolutes and there are no reference points.

That's weird. The God of the bible, knows the anti God nature of humanity, and it is his mercy, that the wage of sin, is death, not another life.

And believers will be cooked in spaghetti sauce.

Cool. Now tell me why you think the Quran is true.

Consider reading a book once in a while

How?

@@sandrajackson709 The logical argument goes: Whatever has finite, contingent existence does not have the ability to give existence to itself. The observable reality is both contingent and has existence. Therefore the observable reality necessarily needs an absolute to give rise to it. The absolute reality is what most theistic traditions term as God. God is a logical necessity because without the absolute the contingent would not have existence. We observe that the contingent does have existence, therefore we must infer the existence of the absolute (God).

​@@dawn_salinas How does it logicall foliw that because something is finite,, contingent, and did not give rise to itself that the only possible exip;aintion to the exclusion of any other is that a god created that somthing and that a god exists? They only want to reaain consistent with logic up until tthe point they want to startt speculating in attempst to fill in the gaps and they shoulb be aware when it gets to that point they are no longer iusing logic

@@sandrajackson709 Because it's the only logical explanation. It's like having just one piece of a puzzle that has a dented curvature and half of a yellow house on it. The only logical thing to assume is that the other missing piece of the puzzle will contain the other half of a yellow house with a protruding curvature to fit the dent, not a blue airplane with another dented curve. The piece is still physically missing, but we know its attributes. The main problem I see with people who lack understanding of basic theology and philosophy is the issue of defining the concept of God in the first place. To illustrate it further, you might decide to give the yellow house a name 'blue airplane' (just like many atheists like to attribute the word 'nature' or 'universe' to a concept theists formally name God) but in the end they are still describing the same concept, and the conflict is merely a semantic one. The contingency is one piece of the puzzle that necessitates not another contingent thing as its other half, its other piece of the whole picture, but the absolute - an independent actor, a concept capable of giving existence to itself. We can also use algebra to explain this logical postulate. To use the simplest mathematics, we can say that 2+x=5. The x is technically a variable since x is hidden. But we can very easily and confidently assume that x=3, (and not , say, 10), since 2+3=5. 2+10 would give a different number altogether, and since we know that the result is 5, we know that x=3. In the same way you can confidently conclude that the attributes of the finite are that it cannot give itself existence, and since it does have existence (the result is known) it must necessarily follow that it was given existence by something that is not in itself finite, the concept which we use to define God (formal attributes of God as recognized by the vast majority of theological traditions East and West being: infinite, self-sufficient, capable of giving rise to physical phenomena while not itself being subject to it, etc.). If such a concept did not exist, it would follow that the physical, contingent reality does not exist. But since we observe that the contingent reality does exist (that our result is indeed 5, not 12), the absolute must by inference exist (the variable is indeed 3, not 10).

@@sandrajackson709 And 'filling in the gaps' and 'speculating' IS what logic, as a branch of philosophy, is predominantly concerned with. Filling in the gaps is a basic application of formal logic, just like algebra. If you've ever done an IQ test you probably know that 'fill in the gaps' is a frequent question model, and that there's a certain logic to doing it correctly.

Thank you, I always make the same point. Even though most people would agree there is evil, definition of "evil" depends on the lot of things and it sometimes differs wildly between cultures.

What if you changed "we could eat nothing but chocolate" to "not being mercilessly beaten and raped"? Would the child be correct in his assertion? I mean, since your talking about sophistry it would be more honest to give an example that is more in line with what people usually mean as "evil" in those arguments.

@@pedrovillalobos6221 yeah I don’t get the infantile nature of his comparison. Or a translation of his point Be thankful that there is love and not just rape … but rape the rape still exists.. the horror still exists. It’s a fair question

It's not sophistry when you factor in the usual attributes of God according to classical theism: Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.

@@jasonharrod8370 Do you know what sophistry means?

Are you sure it was the bowl the angel poured out, and not his bowels?

You sound like a person who has only ever listened to preachers and has never had an original thought of his own.

Hey, I know you from Cliffe's channel :-) I can't prove God doesn't exist, and by the same token, you can't prove he does. This is the impasse we are at. You say "We know in the beginning what God created was good".. that is your belief OneStepAway, if you were to ask any reputable geologist how the earth was created they would not mention God, and they'd be able to give you lots of evidence that this planet is much much older than humanity, it goes back billions of years 4.5 to be exact. And we atheists have a much better comprehension of why there is evil and suffering in the world, it has nothing to do with a God who was angry with his creation of Adam and Eve, .. that is a myth. Good to see you on this channel :-)

bonnie43uk hello Bonnie. Glad to to hear from you. I can’t prove to you what I ate last night. What we have is knowledge and what we do with that is what matters. That is what the Bible says. It is not my belief but what has been written and revealed.

@@onestepaway3232 Could the knowledge in the bible be wrong?

bonnie43uk No, because Jesus proved through his life and resurrection that it is the truth. He said Moses and the prophets spoke of his day. There is no reason to not accept it.

@@onestepaway3232 Thanks for that. Well, I can think of various reasons to not accept it. It seems perfectly feasible to me that the claims in the New Testament could easily have been exaggerated by followers of Jesus in order to make people believe in him, lets say it's true that he was crucified by the Romans ( as many people were back in those days), they couldn't accept he was gone, at some point stories were circulated that he came back from the dead, ..there is a fascinating book called "The Homeric epics and the Gospel of Mark" which goes into great detail about how a clever writer based his story of Jesus on the epic Greek hero Homer, it sounds very far fetched, but when you look at the similarities in both books, it's hard not to accept that the writer of Mark's Gospel took elements of the Greek tale, and put them in his Gospel ( the first Gospel to be written), it was also turned into a KZfaq video series by a very talented man called "TruthSurge" called "Excavating the empty tomb" in which he goes into great detail pointing out the similarities .. I'll leave a link to one of the episodes. ( this episode looks at the many instances of Hebrew/Roman/Greek Gods of history in which famous people of the day who disappeared where said to have gone above the clouds to live as Gods, ..it was a common theme a few thousand years ago). As I said, the book "The Homeric epics and the Gospel of Mark" is well worth checking out on Amazon where you can read a brief synopsis of the book and the similarities in Mark's Gospel, there are too many to simply say it's merely a coincidence. TruthSurge's video' series does an excellent job of making the same argument. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZrmenMJnpp3SZoE.html

What’s the best atheist argument?

That's truth.

Awe everything you said is straight bologna.

The methods of science find their roots in humanity’s consciousness and its inability to have peace with reality as it is and as it is experienced. Why else do we seek to interrogate the old and discover the new apart from a deeply rooted dissatisfaction with settling for anything less than the best possible explanation? You have said nothing about theology that does not also apply to science in its most generic essence. Hoping that over the past two years you’ve had a chance to fill this crater-sized hole in your logic.

Wrong, I find it to be really easy to say that I don't know the answers to many things and the only time I have difficulties or need courage is when I am surrounded by theist who might break into violence should I push to hard about their beliefs.

Being an atheist is irrational since atheism is counter-intuitive. Also, atheists aren't able to refute theistic arguments and don't even have positive arguments.

Dazed Maestro Facts

@@blackscreennoiseforrelaxat1517, facts that atheists are too dumb to understand.

@Quantum Decoherence, I watched the debate but when you have a person saying that causation can't be applied to the beginning of the Universe that person has lost all credulity.

@@dazedmaestro1223 What a mind-blowingly stupid thing to say.