Thanks for admitting this, I know many atheists who always die on a hill for the sake of concretely asserting they are right about everything - specifically on this issue.

Simply if we said that God was in motion, that means he has a cause and was put in motion by another being (following the arguement), just by imposing the same process on every being who comes just after the previous being and since i would argue that the infinity sequence of causes is logically impossible i can conclude that this series of causes has a beginning, which implies the existence of an unmoved mover. We define God as an unmoved mover (along with some traits i can prove like being omniscient, omnipotent and conscious) I hope i can get your reply.

@@HoneybunMegapack Actually no, the "universe" as a thing doesn't exist outside, there is no such thing as "universe" itself, its a word we use on everything visible that exists, in case you meant the big bang thats also a no since the Big bang was in motion.

@@HoneybunMegapack oh the "motion" thing has a wider concept, since it was changing from status to status (getting bigger for example) that means its in motion, also i wonder what do you mean by " a valid object"

@@HoneybunMegapack Does the universe (as a thing) exists independently just like the big bang? And no its external status doesn't change, just think about it The big bang changed in its essence by getting bigger, what would change IN god as himself if he created anything?

Exactly

You get two thumbs up 👍👍

Sean Carroll thoroughly destroyed Kalam in his debate with William Lane Craig. Check out that debate if you are curious.

That's not an argument, it's semantic wankery. When the wood reaches the particular arrangement we call a chair, that is when the chair "starts to exist". So if you've made a chair or been to a chair factory, then you've seen a chair begin to exist.

@@jayjeckel The point is "a chair" is just a concept in our minds. In reality it is just a certain arrangement of matter. And the arrangement of matter changes all the time. A chair starts existing only in our mind, because the notion is only in our minds. That's the whole point of this argument.

So why listen to you then?

@@PieJesu244 Why not? Am I saying something complicated?

As a software developer, I second this. The complexity of our role is in how simply we can write a piece of high functioning and robust code that maintains testability.

@@waterfrodo4304 To him, it is.

lol This is great

It’s so ridiculous that there are many directs from which to attack that argument.

Hmm, not bad. I'll give that some thought but I like it.

@@Leith_Crowther yeah, like when I respond to any unsupported assertion with the equally unsupported "false". It works just as well haha.

This is the Monty python reply… therefore 👍👍

thanks for sharing, sounds bulletproof

You’re a saint!

@@TheDizzleHawke, I'm not a saint. I wouldn't touch God with a barge-pole. We're not speaking. And I boycott both Heaven and Hell. “The only explanation for the creation of the world is God's fear of solitude. In other words, our role is to _amuse_ Our Maker. Poor clowns of the absolute, we forget that we act out a tragedy to enliven the boredom of one spectator whose applause has never reached a mortal ear. Solitude weighs on God so much that he invented the saints as partners in dialogue. ¶ I can stand up to God only by confronting him with another solitude. Without my solitude I would be nothing more than another clown.” - Cioran

@@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy I’m using the term ironically. I always appreciate people who take the time to timestamp videos in the comments. I call them KZfaq angels.

@@TheDizzleHawke, I know you didn't mean this literally. But it carries that bad taste. May you be well. You might like my playlist on the best of atheism:

@@TheDizzleHawke, kzfaq.info/sun/PLIacjWbHUdUCucW9wcQZKKtvUP0lklDU1

"But how could something as beautiful as Stephen Woodford come about through purely natural processes? " Beauty does not exist in the object; it is a judgment that relates to how it might enhance your survival and reproductive opportunities.

@@thomasmaughan4798 So basically you're saying that @The Spirit of Hegel is into Stephen Woodford? 🤣

Stephen is a witch and has cast a spell on you. No god needed.

@@thomasmaughan4798 Are we supposed to believe that without any back up? 😆 No, beauty is imprinted, casted in Steph's.. see how easy to assert the opposite? 😆✨

@@omkarnaik2758 correct… do you blame him?

The probability of life occurring on its' own is not statistically improbable, but statistically impossible. Cells have a 30% replication rate if there was to be a "primordial slime". Many scientists believe in God, and can't find a way science disproves God. Instead, how God is proved.

why would they stop after having used debunked arguments for 2000 years?

@@nagranoth_ 1°- Make an argument 2°- See that argument get debunked 3°- Ignore that debunking because you are obviously right, or because only a fool says in his heart that you are wrong, or something, don't know...

@@tsinquisition3455 slight change to the order of things 1 -decide what you believe 2 -make an argument leading to your beliefs 3 -ignore any criticism because you of course were right in the first place 4 -profit!

@@nagranoth_ 2000 years? Not exactly. In fact that's actually one of few arguments they've made many of us still believe. The Bible in its current form is most certainly *NOT* 2000 years old. I think it's closer to 700 years old actually if your counting when it was put in one collection.

@@uninspired3583 I don't think people can decide what their beliefs are 😉

Why thank you kindly

As someone who lived close to the original i think it's an awesome choice

@@Fistrike the -jesus- JeeBZuZ painting

I now tend to see it as a portrait of Ray Comfort.

Came to the comments just so I could thumbs-up whoever said it first haha

"look at these atheists repeating their daily prayers" or just commenting on KZfaq videos. (1) Find a youtube video about religion. (2) post the same comment you have posted on all previous youtube videos on religion. (3) Go To 1.

@@thomasmaughan4798 No U

None that I know of would, because it doesn’t acknowledge the argument at all , and most would recognize your ad-hom ATTEMPT . Because atheists KZfaqrs argue from emotion over any “ seeking truth claims”

They'd really have to twist the semantics of "prayers". But they're experts at that.

We'll have to try to make them as catchy as "our father" and the rest.

And do not forget to eat a banana, the most perfect fruit in nature

Theists love to claim that atheists can't justify their morality, claiming that it must be subjective without God. My favorite response to this fallacious reasoning is to point out that morality is based on the fact of nature that suffering is undesirable. This is not a subjective opinion, every living creature in existence follows this pattern. Thus, objective morality without God.

Aye that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

That's basically how I rejected all theist arguments faster than RR did :p I just say that I reject fallacies as arguments. Done.

@@loveableheathen7441 suffering is a subjective state experienced by living creatures to indicate to that damage is being done or some need is not being met. This is a description of a biological system, it is not a moral claim. Living things do not like being harmed is just an observation. Pain experienced is just a series of electro-chemical reactions in the nervous system. How is this fundamentally any different from any other chemical reaction. How is this any different from a computer throwing up an error message, or slowing down because it has malware? Just because creatures do not like pain is not grounds saying it’s wrong to inflict pain on others.

@@swihun8930 "This is a description of a biological system, not a moral claim" Suffering itself is not moral or immoral, but the concept of suffering is the basis of morality.

It isn't DNA. The genetic code involves a coded information processing system. There isn't any evidence that nature can produce coded information processing systems. There isn't even a way to test the claim that nature can. There is ONE and ONLY one known cause for producing coded information processing systems and that is via intelligent agency volition.

@@sombodysdad idk what your last sentence is a definition for, but in a materialist (naturalist) perspective isn’t all systems we do have, that fall under the coded info systems, natural?

@@HoneybunMegapack 😂

The problem us that their idea of 'codes is a misrepresentation of DNA. Biologists appropriated a linguistic term to describe a process that more closely resembles using a template. Code is more precisely used in terms of linguistics.

That doesnt make it false lol you atheist need a lesson in logic and reasons itsl seems

I think this is based upon the universal quality that all living creatures have, that they tend to avoid suffering and seek pleasure. This is the basis of our morality

When humans lived in small tribes, everyone that was able to was expected to contribute towards the needs of the tribe. Those that were selfish, thieves, or murderers would most likely be killed or abandoned. Thus they wouldn’t reproduce. Only people who contributed to the tribe’s well-being would. These days, unfortunately, the immoral individuals are put on a pedestal instead of being punished. Sometimes they are even worshipped by the ones that suffer the most from their actions. I don’t know what’s to become of this world.

The evidence counters your own reasoning though. Evolutiona could create objective morals, it could only respond to them. In much the same you have evolved to 20c a comfortable temperature

@@st.michaelsknight6299 I don’t understand the structure of your sentences. Please elaborate. What I stated is not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the latest research and some of the leading researchers in evolutionary psychology and anthropology

@@billkeon880 What I mean is this. Evolution didn't create cold, but it did give polar bears a nice warm fur coat to deal with the cold. Morality is the same way in humans, evolution didn't create morals, but it responded to the moral reality. We can prove this with rape. From a naturalistic evolutionary perspective, rape is quite effective in spreading ones genes. But yet we find it utterly repugnant, and rightly so.

Nah, you're not saved. You're just an ape.

No you don't. You think you do, but you don't. 😅

"Where's my pizza?" Waiting for you at Caesar's. It might be getting cold by now.

The whole pizza examples has been debunked. It's intellectually dishonest and doesn't even make sense within the ontological argument. It's impossible for the greatest pizza to exist because there is no objective definition of what the greatest pizza would be. It's incoherent. So it doesn't follow the first premise which is "is it possible?" because no it's not.

@@VileVendetta The same accusation van be levelled at any "greatest possible anything", up to and including god. Doubly so, because not only is there no coherent definition of greatest "X", I've yet to see a coherent definition of god.

@@ceceroxy2227 What a condescending comment!

@@randomperson2078 what was the comment by ceceroxy?

Would love to :)

That's because the flip side of the coin is *still the same coin* and your beliefs are as likely strongly held as anyones.

@@rationalityrules there is an Israeli religious KZfaqr that would love to have a talk with you, if you are interested- I'll hook you up.

He really should.

Unirocially yes

It's a miracle that you were born. Women are born with a few million ova and cannot make more. Men produce several million sperm each day. That one particular egg chanced to be fertilized by one particular sperm to result in you is miraculous. But wait... Since only 30% of fertilized ova make it all the way to baby-most of the rest failing to implant or being miscarried-your existence is even more miraculous. That you failed to be stillborn, suffer SIDS, die from a childhood disease or accident, and so on, and lived all the way to the point when you made this comment is a miracle of staggering proportions. However, your existence does not prove the existence of any god. You were not "chosen" to exist. Your existence is the chance result of an infinite craps game in which you managed to repeatedly avoid throwing a seven, at least up until your comment. Remember that "miracle" doesn't solely mean "the work of divine intervention," but also "a highly improbable event." Your existence is a miracle, a highly improbably event, but it does not prove that any god exists.

Yup. That was a strawman.

@@u_phil and he addressed exactly that. Everything that began to exist is a more recent version.

@@dmitriy4708 It's not recent, it was always this version bro. I've never heard of a historical Cosmlogical argument that had such premises, because they obviously aren't dumb to consider that.

@@u_phil Ok. It does not make this argument less fallacious. Inductive argument structured as deductive (begging the question fallacy here), fallacy of composition, equivocation fallacy for 2 types of beginning to exist (ex materia and ex nihilo), lies about the Big Bang cosmology, lies about Guth-Vilenkin theorem, lies about impossibility of infinite regress being established, omission of this argument's reliance on A theory of time, disregard for Einstein's relativity, complete non sequitur about timeless, spaceless, immaterial, powerful, personal creator as a result. It is a ridiculuosly flawed argument.

I really enjoy his videos as well. They open my mind to things I’ve never even considered

You might also want to check out "Appropriating Morality" and "Creating Sickness" by TheraminTrees

The probability of life occurring on its' own is not statistically improbable, but statistically impossible. Cells have a 30% replication rate if there was to be a "primordial slime". Many scientists believe in God, and can't find a way science disproves God. Instead, how God is proved.

Why are you an atheist?

He wrote this entire debunking with a pencil...A f***ing pencil.

The "fucking" did it for me

Explanations aren't entailing.

Aquinas argument isn't looking for the "first cause" because he is not using a modern interpretation of "cause". As pointed out in the video a "cause" is only a certain type of explanation, Aquinas is actually using a different one. The cosmological argument in Summa Theologica is made based on Aristotle's causality. To compare the two: The modern version of cause and effect as developed in famous philosophical work "The Matrix Reloaded" can be described as the necessary connection between an action and reaction. You eat the sex cake and you have an orgasm. Aristotle's causation differs in that it has to do with the logical priority of efficient causal relations. It my vulgar terms, it is looking at a cause and effect hierarchy not a cosmological causational chain. For example, in Aristotelian causation, gravity is the cause of plant life, because gravity is necessary to form the planet in the first place for the plants to grow in. For black swans to exist, there would need to be the "form" of a swan first. If "nothing" is a human abstract concept, then what made possible abstract thinking? This is also why potentiality and actuality are key concepts, it is ordering things in terms of what makes things possible, he is not actually considering the timing of the cause. If a cause is a certain type of explanation, you could say that Aquinus is looking for what's the "top" explanation of the pyramid of explanations, not the first cause in a causation chain. This means Aquinas is NOT presupposing that everything must have an a cause that came first, its not necessary in this version of causation. In fact, the only thing he presuppose is that nothing (except for God) can cause themselves. Aquinas would probably actually would agree that you don't need a "first cause." but you do need the top one.

@@SOLOcan Thanks for your comment.

No all it means is that the cause which brought the universe and time or spacetime into existence, must necessarily exist outside of time. Because the cause that created time cannot exist within time. So time which, ""began" with the big bang" and by implication the causal paradigm does not apply to the cause, not the effect.

A necessary unlimited being must exist to explain all the contingent limited beings. Therefore God exists.

@@SunlightSentinel I’m not gonna listen to the fact all of my arguments have BEEN debunked because I’m right! In my own mind! Also why?why does it need an “intelligent creator,”?

@@accountlol7409 nobody has "debunked" my arguments. Atheists mostly become epistemic nihilists when they see the arguments are sound and thereby concede to the debate. If I continue I guarantee you'll do the same. My favourite atheist line- "But we can't know" or "Arguments aren't evidence" lmao

@@SunlightSentinel What do you mean by contingent?

@@spongbobsquarepants3922 To answer your question it's something that could have failed to exist. Like you or me. Something necessary can not fail to exist it's necessary. It exists in all possible worlds.

Some people claim to be abducted by aliens, have personal experiences with god telling them to behead infidels, etc.... Do we accept their personal experience as evidence? If we do, then we must accept many contradictory evidences (different contradictory religions). If we don't, we must expand that to our own personal experiences.

@@cdp1529 : What is directly controlling energy? We humans can only manipulate energy by proxy of matter, often at a dreadful efficiency if referencing relativity from physics. That one question burns me as an atheist.

@@cdp1529 : ​Nice demonstration of a strawman fallacy, assumtiveness, which is a trait of a bigot, and siloed thinking. Cool, but a bit sad to see from someone who I assume has been watching RR for some time... Who said there was an overseer in command of it? You did. Who Brought up magic and spells? You did. I asked a rhetorical question which indicated no overseer, no magic, no spells; only something I do not understand. W-H-A-T is controlling energy? It was a bit foolish to try that since I posited an objective, rhetorical question which sadly gave you the rope you hung yourself with by forcing your limited. one-track-minded scope into it. Since you also can't grasp the term 'by proxy', either, perhaps I should ask such a question to someone who is actually rational...

@The Philosophy GuyThe fact that you need to strawman what i say points to you being a theist. At no point i said that their experiences are false. Just pointed out that personal experience isn't a reliable way to come to the truth.

@The Philosophy Guy : It appears to me you are just the second person I have conversated on this thread with who is interested in having a real conversation about this. Beside the point here, it is both amazing and disappointing how many people who watch RR aren't apparently interested in conversation, but just pretending to be the smartest one in the room.

Even Kierkegaard said "You can't prove God, so stop trying" and he was a hardcore Christian.

@@hisjoeness you can't disprove either.

@@Eng_Simoes Not the point. I was quoting Kierkegaard.

@@Eng_Simoes I mean, you can't disprove the _"Invisible Pink Realicorn rainbowpooping the Universe into Existence"_ either, soooo...

I really like those words They sound great, their meaning is very understandable and they are terribly useful

@Dewyu Nohmi They have to resort to bad philosophical arguments because they dont have any empirical evidence.

Unnecessary and pointless, but, they gotta protect snowflake's feelings. Big mean viewers shouldn't dislike it if they like it. Something along those lines, I'm sure.

I'm not a fan

@@acrazedtanker1550 Someone at KZfaq's HQ said they made the decision in order to protect small youtubers from targeted dislikes, and made the point that other social media platforms eg. Instagram, Twitter don't have dislike buttons but in my opinion that's obviously a pretty shitty example because KZfaq is unique, in the way that it is also a search engine, we come to KZfaq specifically to seek information at times, and if that information is false I'd like to be able to observe a like to dislike ratio on a video to determine whether or not I think it may be a waste of my time ...

My take on likes and dislikes selection, is that it should be about me being able to signal to the algorithm God which type of content I prefer to see or not. If I like a type of video I get more choice for that. If I don't like it I get less of it. It should not, in my opinion be a censorship tool. If I think something is dangerous or very offensive to me, I should be able to report that through the reporting system for further vetting. There will always be minority taste that can earn the creators a platform. But these don't buy the buttons on the the next exec suite so they have to go. If dislikes meant people didn't get that stuff presented to them they would have to spend their entire life searching to be offended.

Have you played it? I bought it but I haven't had anyone to play with, so I don't know if it is good.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g72Gpcx63bK-hpc.html here’s a link to continue on your journey. Merry Christmas

@@PGP2 that analogy doesn’t work though because grace is freely given. There’s no subscription fee to pay.

@@PGP2 We don't have to pay anything. I'm a protestant church attendee btw. I tithe but that's giving through a church not to a church. As in, our resources to the poor through a true church goes further than by myself. There's no requirement for any tithing or how to. I get the suspicion of all things through money, or all things through the lens of power, but let's remember martyrs during times of our cynicism. They're the seeds of the church.

@@PGP2 The "contradiction" as you call it, I would say "distinction" is that it comes from voluntary giving. Out of an over flowing love of Christ that flows out to the rest of creation. So your local homeless are being served by christians out of a love of Christ.

@@PGP2 Ha yes but it's not a subsription fee. It's like me saying whatever charity you're into is a scam, like BLM. And you say no, I voluntarily donated to it. And I say ah ha! You did give it money! See they're a scam! But its even more reductionist because the church is not merely a charitable organization. It's just one of 3 main things the church does- worships God, evangelizes, and serves the poor.

Tbf you could turn that around. If the rebuttals are still being used centuries later without success, then there's something wrong with the rebuttal (as far as the audience is concerned anyway).

Yes they do, these arguments have been responded to several times and the arguments have been modified several times, if all philosophical positions could be defeated by rebuttals found in a highschool textbook then there would be zero philosophical or theological research, yet people still study it.

@@benholroyd5221 point taken, so the conversation should be zeroed in on the specifics of arguments, rather than their ability to convince. Otherwise, flerfers' arguments are valid.

I look at these rebuttals as mainly for the undecided. Since theists didn't reach their beliefs through logic it is not going to be very effective to convince them to change. Most people incorporate held beliefs into their identity, Admitting you were mistaken is not possible for some.

@@faustzxc true. I've never been a fan of any emotional appeals but we can't ignore their power.

Nah, don't spend your time on that. Just remember if you die tonight, you're not saved.

Nothing in this video is about Jesus or any religion whatsoever. No one (somewhat intelligent anyway) has ever said that arguments for the existence of god prove Christianity or any other religion

@@bigfoot3763 Christians use Cosmological to prove a god must exist and they have no doubt that it's theirs.

@@earlofdoncaster5018 Christians use the cosmological argument to prove A God exists. They then use other arguments in conjunction with this one to prove Christianity true. Your creating a strawman and applying it to the general Christian community as if we as a whole say the cosmological argument then proves Jesus died for our sins.

@@bigfoot3763sorry your wrong. The video depicts a image of the christ opposite the narrator. Most modern day theists are either Christian or muslims, so indirectly this video is directed at Christians. ( go to Ecce Homo (Martinez and Gimenez) Wikipedia for proof of first statement.

@@bigfoot3763 the second half of your comment is correct. Evidence of a god or gods existence wouldn't validate Christianity or any other religion. Logic dictates that only one, if any set of spiritual beliefs proposed by humanity, from any point in history, could be correct but all human spiritual concepts could be wrong. Therefore evidence of a god/ gods existence wouldn't necessarily please the followers of the bible .

What is he meant to say its obviously stupid he cant defend it

It’s not ignorance to ask if our universe has a cause when causality is a self evident thing for everyone

@@uekvowzkaebbzuvrgipqxhemmwbhe agreed more or less

So you can have your own beliefs as long as there not God related!

Words of courage, i see

The 2 arguments for not being a god I hear are. 1)There is no evidence.2)If there is a LOVING god why does evil exist.If you are perceiving reality through duality,what evidence can be presented of that what is not in duality and not bound in time/space. If there is duality then non duality also exist..As love is beyond good and evil this cannot debunk the existence of god.If you have not perceived that understanding you have not faced your belief .

God is already shows up, sadly humans kill the God. 😢

@clashcon11 how do humans kill an all-powerful being?

@@briannyob7799 Do you even think human able to do that? Since The God is still alive.

LOL. You atheists are funny. How did morals come into existence?

@@truthrevealer771 How did the Ten Commandments come into existence? Hint: Neither the Hebrews nor their god invented them.

Diogenes lamp so where did the Ten Commandments come from according to you. Also provide evidence that proves this statement.

@@truthrevealer771 There are at least seven ancient law codes that predate Mosaic law, the priestly rules we know as the biblical commandments. The oldest for which we have documentary evidence is the Code of Ur-Nammu from about the middle of the 20th century BCE, which is at least 10 centuries prior to the biblical law code. Among the Ur-Nammu laws that survived are rules against murder and robbery (=coveting your neighbor’s goods). The Laws of Eshnunna from the 19th century BCE have rules against theft and bodily injury. The Code of the Nesilim from the 16th-17th centuries BCE also has explicit laws against theft and bodily harm. The best known is the Code of Hammurabi from about the 18th century BCE. The idea of the monarch being the shepherd of his people was a common theme in the ancient Near East for what should be obvious reasons and we see that echoed in the Bible. Laws 1-5 in the Code prohibit bearing false witness; 6-25, coveting and stealing property; 127-194, murder and adultery, among other things. It even follows the principle of _lex talionis,_ the “eye for an eye” principle found also in Mosaic law. In other words, the biblical commandments reflect legal concerns that had been common to many of the peoples living in the ancient Near East, concerns that had been extant for over a millennium before the Hebrews produced their Mosaic law. There’s nothing unique about the latter in this respect. Even the source of the laws follows existing forms, where the laws were said to be given by a god to the human lawgiver.

​@@truthrevealer771I'm late to the comments but I think morals come from evolution and society/culture which explains how morals can differ across time and around the world

Ok

Yes, everything is self-contained. No external non-material, non-interactive being exists.

That's what happens when they reify NOTHING. 😏

My favorite answer (to the version with the story of walking by the sea) is: "Did you notice that you chose a watch and not a stone, a branch or a shells? Why not?" Very quickly they explain by themselves the difference between natural things and unnatural things, and realize that this is what is really behind the story (and not the complexity)

Well, a lot of behavior does tend to be shameless, and without some steering, children naturally head towards the more shameless acts as they grow older. That's why more young adults are interested in showing how drunk they can get rather than how many books they can read.

Explain it correctly then. I’m sure it’ll be rock solid when you explain it 🙄

The question is,we know duality exists,can we know the existence of non duality.

you are an atheist now. stop being attached to islam.

@@batman-sr2px who said I'm "attached" to Islam? I enjoy learning about all myths, Islam included. Plus this video isn't about Islam specifically anyway, relax😉

Quran:-86:5-7 says that sperms comes from spinal chord is it true?

@@proscreed6189 actually it's more specifically coming from the backbone of the man, and the ribs of a woman.... So it's hopelessly wrong

@@thenun1846 Thanks man btw can you tell me a website where I can read Quran for free (I like to read this stuff so I could annoy theist people )

I personally think it is the greatest argument you literally can not refute it unless your calvinist in which there is one way to refute it

Can you rephrase this? I have no idea what you mean and I feel stupid

theism=universe???

@@pedrov.8087 Apparently 😂😂😂 probably the most rare theistic argument: existence, therefore God 😂😂😂😂

​@@ZackMaddox-gd1zk its more logical to believe in God than in whatever bullshit atheists want to believe

@@Albania_Footballatheists dont “believe”. it is the lack of belief

And why this is a problem in itself?

@@norelfarjun3554 It's no problem at all...to a rational person. It simply demonstrates that the notion of linking complexity to intentional design is utter nonsense.

I thought it was the pope...

Can you timestamp them?

@@blausgschpangschtvohindere2210 Sorry, I just saw this. Is it possible to timestamp an entire video?