Contingency argument. Though I have a hard time of thinking of how to defend the PSR (Principle of Sufficient Reason). The PSR is just intellectually intuitive to me.

@J w Why can't the "something that just existed with no cause" just be the universe?

@@tomandrews1429 The universe does not have the properties of something that is without cause. From what we can tell, the universe is explicitly contingent on other things at every point.

@@julio7656 How can you tell the universe is explicitly continent on other things?

@@tomandrews1429 At what point is it not?

I don't know why you people's calculations suddenly stop at "God" as the creator. Creation itself is an illusion we've had since birth, since we haven't always thought about, or known the reasons for many events to happen around us. The most logical reason is that the universe is going in circles, because you can keep asking the question "what caused this?" when applying the principle of sufficient reasoning. If something created the universe, then that something must also have had a cause, you can ask that question to infinity, and infinity itself, is something that's going around in circles.

@@Danskadreng it doesn't go in circles because no one created God. God is in everything and created also created time so if God existed 'before' time there's no need that something has created Him.

@@Danskadreng that is the most stupidest explanation I have ever heard and I'm not even religious. Are you really gonna challenge the reason of creation by thousands of esteemed philosophers with that explaination of yours?

@@sebastiao_cf There is literally no logical reasoning behind that. I don't know where in existence you can find any logical explanation for the existence of a creator? You come up with a lot of claims that has no ground in the principle of sufficient reasoning, cause and effect.

@@Alan_is_here Esteemed philosophers haha, to whom? The religious plebs? Come on. Instead of smearing, you could perhaps ask questions instead, and try to point out to me where the logic in my theory fails.

Jaydan Kisinger gods attributes are clearly made up to give it the power to create the universe, but which of the gods are they giving the credit to. Christians will say it’s the god of Jesus or the bible, the Jews don’t agree with the Christian god yet they wrote the Old Testament, the Muslims also don’t believe in the Christian version of god nor do the Hindus agree with the other three gods.

@@rodneysettle8106 Not really, no philosopher would argue that, rather that God's nature is deductable by starting with the prepositions of universe and working backwards to the 'first cause' that preceded time, space and division, meaning the first thing was uncreated, eternal and unlimited in both actuality and potentiality. It would have to be. As to its 'personhood' ??? the only known mechanism in philosophy that can create without initiation or internal interaction is consciousness. Now lets spend the rest of our lives arguing over this! :-)

@@rodneysettle8106 Hindu can and many clearly do. Atleast Hindu mystics do.

We don't know if x, y, z caused the universe, so it still falls back to "The universe was caused, the universe is x, y, z, we don't know what caused x, y, z, therefore it was God".

I don't know why you people's calculations suddenly stop at "God" as the creator. Creation itself is an illusion we've had since birth, since we haven't always thought about, or known the reasons for many events to happen around us. The most logical reason is that the universe is going in circles, because you can keep asking the question "what caused this?" when applying the principle of sufficient reasoning. If something created the universe, then that something must also have had a cause, you can ask that question to infinity, and infinity itself, is something that's going around in circles.

@Tellios And this pseudo intellectual nonsense is evidence for...which god again?

@@hitman5782 Do you genuinely believe that Gottfried Leibniz was a psuedo intellectual?

@@jakelloyd8440 That is not what i said, i am simply no fan of "arguments from authority". An argument is either good or bad no matter who said it, and this argument is just bad, it doesn´t make anything any more real, let alone a specific god who likes to make virgin girls pregnant with himself to sacrifice himself to himself.

I can proof i will die committing suicide, not any other way. Liars don’t listen to other truths because of fear they can contaminate their minds or shake their faith, that the believer consider a virtue to keep unfaltering when tested against the evidence or truth, or because in their arrogance they can not accept to be wrong or think they know enough. The discovery of the nature of God, our own miraculous nature, is an achievement for psychology, the study of the mind, who we are, as living for the wellbeing of God prevent and treat mental health problems like addiction. I think therefore i exist, therefore i was created or always existed, and the creator was created or always existed, therefore an impossibility possible, a miracle, an uncaused cause, God exists. If i exist i was created or i was not created, therefore i was created or always existed. Creator is precursor, what is necessary in order to bring something into existence. Steel is made mixing iron and carbon so they are creators. Which God i am talking about? I have written the first theory on God not based on faith ever, that once is known would provoke a collapse in mortality rates as evidence of a miracle and the existence of God. Humanity oppose to saving lives. I challenge any atheist or religious person to put down my argumentation. For the friends of the evidence who meticulously scrutinize the truth to object and believe the lie without question I will say that addiction is not a brain disease, addiction is the psychology of a liar. Drugs don't cause addiction and only liars get hooked and only honesty gets freedom. I will explain my theory, step by step, establishing milestones of agreement. I don’t want my argumentation to be dismissed as a whole for the sake of not conceding “you are right”. Atheists embrace the Big Bang creation theory without question ignoring the elephant in the room, if creation started from an explosion of matter where did the matter come from? Or did the matter always exist?, while asking ‘and who created God?’ when is pointed out that the universe had to be created by a creator. If everything came from something, or existence, or every creator was created, then i would not exist because there would not exist a beginning. I would not exist if my parents didn’t exist and my parents wouldn’t exist if my grandparents didn’t exist, so on so forth eternally. The egg wouldn’t exist without the chicken and the chicken wouldn’t exist without the egg, so on so forth eternally. If to be A needs to exist B and to exist B needs to exist C so on so forth infinitely there would not be existence, because the beginning to exist need another beginning. Therefore in order to be existence there must be miracle that always existed or was created from non existence. If nothingness created something nothingness would be something impossibility possible miracle God, therefore God, everything and nothing, life and death, time, has always existed. Everything is everything else, creation and destruction is transformation. Everything is created from the transformation of the same substance, matter, energy according to the law of conservation of mass-energy. The atoms that are part of me always existed and even if matter was created or destroyed the result would be part of the same transformed God impossibility possible miracle, that is existence and non existence. Cloud is rain, that is food, that is excrement, that is fly that is everything else. I am my parents, that are my grandparents, that are everything else. I am the product of infinite interactions that resulted in me. I was created by my parents and i always existed, impossibility possible miracle God. I was created and i am the creator that always existed and is changing self. My God is not a religious God external to us. The miracolous entity that always existed is life and death, us, the universe, existence and non existence, time. Think of God metaphorically as a miraculous Lego game with existence and non existence pieces morphing constantly as nothing is like before. I was created by my parents and also i am the same pieces that always existed, impossibility possible miracle God. Because I am my parents, that are my grandparents that are everything else, same substance, matter, energy transformed. Science can not explain the origin of a miracle that was not originated because always existed. We are an infinitesimal part of infinite God. God is one and multiple, same and different, impossibility possible miracle, i am God and i am an infinitesimal part of God, that is infinite because an infinitesimal part of infinite is infinite. God could be thought metaphorically as a wonder beyond imagination person that always existed, with an eternal and mortal life or mind, an infinite and finite body, and every living organism as an organ within God. God is the perfect life or game, each living organism with free will is a player and when we die we would know how wise or foolish we were as we would know, experience, understand everything, past, present and the not known yet future, impossibility possible miracle God. There are no secrets because God know and understand self impossibility possible miracle. The more we hurt ourselves or others the more foolish or ignorant we are and the more we improve the wellbeing of God the wiser. God is ignorant and know everything impossibility possible miracle, we are born ignorant and learn as life goes on, and we would know everything when we die. Past is present and future, impossibility possible miracle God. Myself yesterday is myself today and would be myself tomorrow, same and different impossibility possible miracle God. Even getting older and changing we are still the same person impossibility possible miracle God. God is a perfect living entity and removes addicts or liars who go against self, hurt others or self, who cheat not honouring or respecting the truth, natural laws, our psychology, who don’t like the game of life and death. God is perfect for being imperfect, impossibility possible miracle. God don’t know the future because living knowing everything, being perfect, is death, like living without will, with a righteous predetermined behaviour, like playing tennis knowing the trajectory before hitting the ball. Death is resurrection impossibility possible miracle God, but being the past of God we would lose the power to transform ourselves. Only the present of God can decide and model the future. We have to live in the present remembering and learning from the successes and failures of the past. The history of God is terrible, with continuous wars, famine, lying, diseases, death because humanity is ignorant of our miraculous nature.

Imagine the creation, the universe, us, the natural laws that rule the order, equilibrium of life and death, was a perfect painting that was alive changing self on an infinite canvas, like a video showing the story of a life. Religious people would argue that the perfect painting had to be created, because every creation need a creator, by a perfect miraculous painter who was not created and always existed called God, and atheists would argue that there is not evidence of the existence of the perfect painter therefore doesn’t exist. I argue that the painting is the painter, impossibility possible miracle God, the uncaused cause that always existed. Science can not explain the origin of a miracle that was not originated because always existed.

What?

@Nicholas Kayban How are they different from being ignorant of causes?

Yeah indoctrinate them, don't teach them to think openly and skeptical. So the cult can continue.

@@lava_za I'm a teen. I came here by myself. I was never indoctrinated, and I grew up in a loving household that I regret ever taking for granted. I was agnostic years ago until I opened my mind and researched things because of doubt. Truly, _everything_ makes sense with Him. Also, said cult has stood for so long and will do so much more than you and I ever will for the world.

@@mara_cleia3959 what has religion done for the world that wouldn't have happened otherwise? Everything that has helped people that I can think of has been done in spite of religion. I was a born again Christian for three years and reading back on the bible, everything it teaches is to believe in spite of evidence. And of the Bible is the word of god, why are their so many contradictions, or things that are just plain wrong like the description of the earth in relation to the cosmos?

@@alexanderdenney6255 Hey, there! We have to take the Bible with context, whether it be the culture at the time or the difference in translations. This is why I'm Catholic - for centuries, there only has been synonymous interpretations in the writings of the Church fathers, saints, theologians, etc. The Bible isn't just up for self-interpretation, and self-interpretation will make you lose your mind when you start reading literally.

@@mara_cleia3959 The Bible being translated from Hebrew to English is an interpretation itself, a lot of words especially when they're philosophical don't have a direct equivalent in certain languages because that word was invented for a specific aspect of that culture, so in translation to English, they find the closest English equivalent, which is an interpretation itself isn't it?

And what do you know about him?....and where do you get this information?

G William so you are going to believe in a god no matter what?

@@thehoennregi8486 It is pretty silly. Believing things without sufficient reason (i.e. faith) is by definition silly to put it lightly. Whether this belief is necessary to provide purpose or meaning is a separate conversation and is typically equally divided. We may live in a purposeless universe. Necessitating purpose doesn't make something true.

@@richardcates8918 Oh boy I sure hope a band of ancient writers don't confirm what the Bible says

I agree. If he universe came from nothing or was an accidental, I would still believe in God because that doesn't disprove his existence. Science isn't a tool to prove or disprove God because he is a metaphysical/supernatural being.

Hey mate. I can't promise to respond but I'd be more than happy to check out your response. Thanks for engaging!

Please make your video

I've used fine tuning argument before, but I no longer now because even if it ends with a cosmic fine tuner, it wouldn't lead to the God understood by classical theism.

Yeah but the first thing should be to define god...if it's just "the thing that created everything" then fine...but it's not helpful, truth is people who claim god exists usually also claim to know the nature of god.....that's where I call bullshit.

@@nakkadu The nature of god as the first thing, as someting that preceded time and space would be someting eternal, infinate and consisting of ultimate potential...where I have trouble is when people add the last definition 'personable'.

They are two different categories of existence. One (the Universe) we know of, can play with, can put under a microscope or Large Collider. These observations have revealed a Universe which cannot be non-contingent. Why? Because we have discovered that everything we consider 'matter' or even 'energy' in our Universe do not derive their existence from themselves but always some external agent. From that observation (arguing from what we know of existence); once you define what type of reality would have to exist to create a contingent Universe as we experience it; then you will find yourself describing what most call God. Just try and make a list of what could possibly bring a contingent Universe into existence while itself is non-contingent. Attributes like: eternal, simple (Thomistic sense), omnipotent (just means always more powerful than what it creates); etc. We could both make this list, agree with it until we come to one sticking point that would divide us: this non-contingent reality must be omniscient (intelligent). What I find amazing is that whatever science throws out there as a description for this non-contingent reality; it can be as weird and extravagant as our minds can imagine; except it CANNOT be Intelligent NOR personal (even though we experience these things in our reality). I would ask; if you firmly believe that intelligent life could evolve from a material soup over 4 billion years; then what kind of intelligence could evolve within whatever substance that exists for eternity; of which our Universe is only a meaningless blip?

Due to the nature of contingency and the 'ontological poverty' (to use a phrase by David Bentley Hart) of all things physical. The universe includes: composition, dissolution, extension, space, time, divisibility, geometric properties, topology, matter, limits, mutability, etc. All these things cry out for an explanation beyond themselves. They could have been otherwise. Therefore, when you trace things down to the deepest explanation, you'll arrive at something that is pure actuality (no potentials or limits), absolutely simple (non-composite), Actus Essendi Subsistens (the subsistent act of Being itself - not 'a being' among other beings), absolutely necessary, and the transcendent mind at the foundation of all things. These are all just different ways of describing the Unconditioned Reality that is God - which is the path that reason naturally takes you. Just positing that the universe or its ultimate constituents is 'everlasting' would be to endorse a kind of 'absolute contingency' or a 'existential necessity.' It just happens to exist for no rhyme or reason (as a brute fact) and it doesn't seem to explain itself better than any other contingency. However, that would violate the principle of sufficient reason. It's also no good to say that God would also be an unintelligible brute fact, because by virtue of divine simplicity, God's attributes are identical to God himself, and therefore God would be subsistent Reason/Intelligence itself.

Depends what one means as god. God is usually a mental concept which is contingent on us. Who would even know a god if we didn’t exist?

The universe is made of material things that change and go in and out of existence. In fact it itself always in motion and changing. Yet we know that every single thing that changes or moves, does two other things also: i) Comes into existence due to some cause outside itself; and ii) Ceases to exist at some point. And we have no logical reason to believe that both these properties do not apply to the Universe as a whole. Thus, the Universe itself has an outside cause and will cease to exist at some point. It's simple as that.

@@39knights _"These observations have revealed a Universe which cannot be non-contingent"_ No, they haven't. _"everything we consider 'matter' or even 'energy' in our Universe do not derive their existence from themselves but always some external agent."_ False. The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created, so no "external agent" required.

Trent Horn has dealt with this topic quite extensively in his books and KZfaq videos. You should be able to find plenty of videos of his that deal with these questions.

"it makes no sense that the universe just came from no where". Why does it make no sense? You don't know for a fact that the universe didn't "come from nowhere". Maybe God created it, maybe there is no God, but either way, these are assumptions, not facts.

@Qwerty Indeed so, Q; and they would be right - I am 'nothing' to them, so I both do and don't exist in their worldview (in so far as they are willing to perceive 'me' at all) .. though, of course, they are some 'thing' to me (in so far as I perceive them, to 'be' them). The dire effects of such fanciful non-existent-being ideologies were splattered politically and calamitously across the twentieth century - not least in Marxian Socialist dialectic. If this notion had been limited to airbrushing out the non-beings from existence in photographs or histories the last hundred years might have been just a little less bloody (in the body count).

@@TheLeonhamm _"I've never really understood why there is a problem with 'God'."_ There isn't. There's a problem with a lack of evidence that supposed "god" things exist.

@@AsixA6 And it is certainly good, right, and proper to question whether 'that supposed "god" things exist'; or rather if 'they' do exist, then how to deal with what they 'are' (illness, phantasms, us, demons etc). The - God - of Christianity, or more accurately of Catholicism, does exist, in fact - He - must exist; all the empirical and logical evidence demands it. Now whether many Catholics today do still 'believe' in .. as Aquinas might say .. what Christians call 'God', well, that is a different kettle of disputable fish (the demonstrative evidence points to the negative, especially where the senior clergy are concerned e.g. they seem only to believe in themselves, the inner light, Pachamama idolatry et al).

@Qwerty _"theists provide evidence all the time"_ No, they just keep claiming they're providing evidence.

@@TheLeonhamm _"all the empirical and logical evidence demands it."_ No, it doesn't. Please provide the very best supposed "evidence" to support your assertion.

Technically, if the pink is really infinitely sharp and the ball perfectly balenced, it will not fall without outside influence.

On the contrary. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." Ecclesiastes 7:29 KJV

2000 years and we just got to the moon in the past 70 so tragic technology, science and philosophy must evolve like everything else lol

Watch the video

@@ob4161 they point out that there has to be a necessary thing out there, but it didn't specify what that thing was

@@sebastiansantolalla9184 Sure. But they did not state anything like "I don’t have an explanation for the ultimate origin... so I will assume it is my God".

@@ob4161 yes

@Qwerty Are cause and effect necessarily temporally distinct? If so, then God acting simultaneously with the effect doesn't make sense. "Whether such a being can exist can't be a matter of speculation because if he didn't exist then the universe wouldn't exist". How do you know this to be true? You obviously can't test what a Godless universe would be.

@Qwerty "A godless universe would be nothing because nothing begets nothing, for the universe to exist there needed to be something" I asked how you know this to be true. Just asserting it proves nothing. "The floor, but the floor doesn't act upon you once it's both the cause providing the effect, continuously and simultaneously" Incorrect, the floor (the molecular forces resisting your movement) is acting upon you at a delay equal to the speed of light. If you removed the floor from underneath me, I would begin to fall after a length of time equal to the time it would take light to travel from the floor atoms to my body atoms. In the same way, if the sun ceased to exist, the earth would continue to orbit it as if nothing happened for 8 minutes (the time it takes for light to reach the earth), then it would fly off. So, your idea of simultaneous cause and effect are just illusions due to imprecise science.

@Qwerty "contact happens at the speed of light? where did you get this? do you have a peer reviewed paper that can confirm this so I can believe you?" There isn't one paper on this since it's so intrinsic to modern physics but I'll link an article to an expert aswering questions about this "helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html" Read question 6. "Frankly these objections are becoming more and more obtuse" My objections haven't changed, cause and effect are necessarily temporally separated.This is a scientific fact that makes a timeless being nonsensical. "when did gravity caused you to be pinned to the floor?" As I've already said, gravity pinned be to the floor at a time in the past equal to the time it would take for light to travel from the floor atoms my body atoms. "or is it reasonable to say that gravity is the cause for an effect that's happening to you simultaneously as long as both of you exist?" No it is not reasonable to say this.

Hey, Tom. Even though we might be on differing sides of the whole theism debate right now, your passion and fire are great to see. (We Catholics tend to find lukewarm people a bit annoying. :-) ) You seem to be looking for intellectually satisfying answers to serious questions -- and I hear you loud and clear. To that, just in case you’re interested, I can recommend two books, just off the top of my head, that might be interesting, just in case you haven’t already checked them out. The first is “Answering Atheism” by Trent Horn; and the second is “New Proofs for the Existence of God” by Robert J. Spitzer. Both are well-reasoned, and both are available on Amazon. Be well, man!

Qwerty How can god exist outside of time? Wouldn’t god need time (which means he is contingent) in order to do anything? Explain how god can maneuver in absolute 0.0000 to infinity seconds? If there was no before creation, creating and after creation, how can anything be done when there is no time?

Wizards and magic? What are you talking about?

Glad to see you here! I hope you’ll keep digging. It’s always impressive to see people willing to look at questions they think they’ve already answered. It’s a rare quality, I find.

@Jesus God_Savior I'm a atheist, all religions Christianity, Islam, Judaism and every other religion and their God's are all fake, I was born into Christianity, and was once a believer until I started to read the Bible for myself. Why did God say that the light was good? If he wasn't finished creating the sun, moon and stars?

Jesus God_Savior; I gave you 31 Quotes/sayings from your Bible, I made sure that I gave the Books, the Chapters and the verses, so Christians can't accuse me of making things up, anyone can open the Bible and read these Quotes for themselves, so that you cannot say that I'm taking it out of context, I thought you that you would give me the correct context, instead, you're telling an atheist about Jesus and Muhammad about the Bible and the Quran/Koran, these two came from Judaism, and they are all fake, go back and read those 31 Quotes and try to give a rational and logical answer. why shouldn't I quote a part of a verse? that's what Christians did when I was a believer, that's what the preachers always do, Quoting verses from the Bible. once you start to read the Bible for yourself and ask questions, you too will stop believing in supernatural magic.

That’s a cheap copout to avoid the argument, sure that could be true, but we should make claims based off what we know and is supported, not based off an idea that the laws “could” have been something completely different

@@monkeymode7529 we don't know. So we don't know. Period. Anything else is merely assertion. Your agreeing with me and you don't even realize it. Cop-out? Get real. Saying we don't know is as honest as you can get.

@@monkeymode7529 to assume the laws behaved the same before, that we 100% understand them now, or to assume they existed at all before the universe formed are all foolishness. You have to do one of those things or something akin to it when you speak as of you have any conception of before the big bang.

@@monkeymode7529 No, just more consistent and honest

A badfaith strawman of the theistic position. The theistic position is that God exists necessarily, ie, his essence and existence are united/the same. He is the foundation of all being. He could not have not existed because he is the foundation of all reality. So an unknown explanation for a unconscious universe is not better than God being the ultimate foundation of reality. The universe doesn't have any feature that necessitates it to exist.

Why would you put philosophy in a science class?

@@monkeymode7529 philosophy gives us the question. Science gives us the answers.

@@ant9925 science can’t give us the answer to something not physical, science is the study of the physical world, just as science can’t prove or disprove moral concepts it can’t do it with God, because those are outside of its purview. In conclusion, read Cho Kanma

@@monkeymode7529 how do you know "god" isn't physical? Science is the study of the natural world not "the physical world". You don't have the authority to say what science can or cannot prove. Moral concepts can be investigated using the scientific method so again I don't think you've thought this through.

@@ant9925 sci·ence /ˈsīəns/ Learn to pronounce noun the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Not practically though. We need a why to our what.

Whether that's the best argument or not is simply a matter of opinion. But let's look at the other side which says, their best argument for God's nonexistence is due to: 1- nothing exploded 2- the "nothing" that exploded turned into clumps of dirt 3- it rained on the dirt 4- dirt became alive 5- that life form now thinks and writes KZfaq comments This argument boils down to an argument from ignorance where you then assert "billions of years did it" because many like it the best and no one can prove you wrong. This REALLY makes me sad.

As children we ask "why", the question must always be answered one if two ways in the end, "just because" or "because God caused it" if we are to answer "just because" we are saying that the universe is inherently illogical, that it's laws do not in fact apply, for things which are in it, and are bound by it's laws, violated them, for in no other way do you avoid infinite regress. If we are to answer "Because God caused it" we are saying that a being outside the framework of our universe, whose existance is not bound by those laws which he made, made them. The second seems far more reasonable, for if nothing within the laws of a thing can explain a it, as is true for reality, then only a cause outside of said thing can have.

@@philm12 Wow... so the "best argument from the non-existence of god" is an argument that no one on that side ever makes, which grossly misrepresents actual scientific theories and ideas, and demonstrates either profound dishonesty or ignorance in the one presenting it... ... A strawman that you can beat on does nothing to support any other claims, and only makes you look like an ignorant, dishonest fool. Don't use this sort of "argument". That your counter to a post that wasn't even against god is to lie about and misrepresent some random opposing idea is amazingly pathetic. I encourage you to actually look at what other people say before pretending to present their words and to look at how logical arguments and logical fallacies work, if nothing else, so that you won't make all other Christians look like bungling fools by your example.

@@EcclesiastesLiker-py5ts _"As children we ask "why", the question must always be answered one if two ways in the end, "just because" or "because God caused it"_ - *Or... and this is just an idea... it could be answered by showing them the evidence and teaching them about the actual how's and why's of whatever they were asking about.* *...and then there's always the honest answer of "I don't know", which people seem to be afraid of for some reason.* _"If we are to answer "Because God caused it" we are saying that a being outside the framework of our universe, whose existance is not bound by those laws which he made, made them."_ - *Except that you are setting them up to lose their faith if they ever look into something which you asserted was caused by God, and it ends up actually being caused by something entirely non-miraculous. The old example is attributing lightning to gods.* _"The second seems far more reasonable, for if nothing within the laws of a thing can explain a it, as is true for reality, then only a cause outside of said thing can have."_ - *Based on what exactly? (Just to play devil's advocate here) What reasoning or evidence leads to this sort of statement?* I'm just saying that if you just attribute things to God without solid reasons, or when there are other reasons that are understood, you are building your house on sand and setting up the children you are talking to for failure. Saying just "because god" is a good way to make inquisitive, intelligent children question their beliefs, so you had better have good answers beyond "because god" if you don't want to risk them leaving you behind.

and this is why so many different religions exist. People are creative.

@@allstarwatt7246 Everyone has their version of the god con!

Who are they?

Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens guys like them. I’m not an Atheist, but I love Catholic Apologetics and defending Christ’s Church against the evils of Atheism.

@@cecilchapman7550Two good debates on utube; Fred Copleston vs B Russell and Hitchens VS John Haldane give some insight, also Dawkins vs John Lennox.

Yes, check out his channel: Counsel of Trent KZfaq. He has a playlist showing prior debates, including ones with atheists

Its consistent with out observations that things (as far as we know them) which constitutes an incredibly little amount relatively speaking,tend to have them

"You can also state that the universe and God are one and the same."----- Again, you have disregarded distinctions. One can argue that God is Existence, but you cannot argue that all that exists is God.

@@andrewferg8737 I think it would be meaningless to call the universe ''God''. Because all we would really be doing is giving it a new name.

@@allstarwatt7246 "to call the universe God''---- This is not what it means to say that God is Existence or Being. The universe is a creation. God is not created. God simply IS. God is not "a" being. Rather, God is Being in and of Himself. Existence in and of itself is the singularly self-evident argument. This can be demonstrated logically as well as theologically. Existence itself is the prerequisite for any and all discourse. It becomes logically incoherent to postulate existence to 'not be' or to have a beginning or end. From this foundational axiom one can arrive at some knowledge of God via deduction and rational inference, including His beneficence, unity, and person-hood. Peace be with you.

Actually even physical objects are the products of minds. Things that we see, smell, hear, touch, taste... are all captured by our senors then interpreted(generated) by the brains. Dreams are a proof that the existence of physical objects is not necessary required for our brain to generate sensations. Then in essential space-time-mass-energy actually are values acted as records of continuum. Reality is a simulation is not a new concept.

This is demonstrably false.

@@BARKERPRODUCTION On the contrary: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Romans 1:18‭-‬21 KJV (for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel. Romans 2:13‭-‬16 KJV

@@franciscoscaramanga9396 There are literally billions of people who don't believe your god is real.

@Jesus God_Savior Uh, no. I didn't say I was greater than God; you said that. At this point in my journey I'm an agnostic. The Christian can't prove God exists and the atheist can't prove that He doesn't. The atheist who says: 'there is no scientific evidence of God. Therefore there is no God.' is extremely presumptious. But back to your comment about me: my wife will tell you I'm arrogant and full of myself sometimes, but do I proclaim myself greater than God? Not at all. I wish you well; really.

@Jesus God_Savior I don't mean to be a nitpicker, but I don't deny that God exists. All I'm saying is that I don't know if God exists. Thanks; actually I wish I did believe in God; then I could go back to the Catholic Church - but I don't and can't pretend I do.

Jesus God_Savior do you think that people who “deny god” are being arrogant as well as ignorant. Are you saying that god requires of us validation and his devotion? These are very much human experiences don’t you think?

I think the notion of the universe simply being a brute fact has been abandoned even by serious atheists. The overwhelming evidence that time-space-matter-energy began with a 'bang' means that the universe is not contingent and needed a creator-thing to do it.

"The overwhelming evidence..." well, no it doesn't. All we can know, really, is that the universe began with a "bang," which was proven a few decades ago. We can speculate that it needed a creator, maybe we can hope that it needed a creator, but speculation and hope are not science. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the universe is not contingent," as it would seem to support my position, not yours. Anyway, I'm glad we can have a civil discussion, which is why I'm now on a Catholic site and not a fundamentalist Protestant one. I'd be careful with the word 'brute'; nothing brutish about the universe just existing; it's existence is neutral..@@qetoun

"The secret of the arising and ceasing of the world and the way leading to the ceasing of the world is to be found in the nature of the mind itself.”---- This formulation is common to both Hinduism and Buddhism. It is not so much incorrect, but rather incomplete. It is true that "mind" is a foundational principle. However, the argument as stated in your post becomes an over-generalization apart from God. For we all recognize that we did not create our own minds and that we are are aware of other minds also not of our making.

@@andrewferg8737 There is no need for the mind to be created. It is just a concept of our dualistic way of thinking.

@@shuabshungne8043 "There is no need for the mind to be created. It is just a concept of our dualistic way of thinking."---- This is a self-referential argument in human terms. It can only be true of God. That is, in order to posit "mind" or any argument, one must first posit existence. Existence is the Biblical "definition" of God. Existence is not dualistic. Nothingness is not the opposite of Existence, but rather its privation. Nothingness, presupposes Existence. It is logically incoherent to posit Being itself to not be.

@@andrewferg8737I understand that you are clinging on to the idea of your God. What presupposes what, and what is logically coherent and logically incoherent is just mental wanking. It is our own collective mind that has created our world we live in and it has also gradually created the concept of a monotheistic god. Everything we see and experience is but a display or expression of our mind. That the world is so tangible and firm is due to our habits of solidifying everything through fixation and clinging. The outer objects, however solid and real they may seem, possess no real matter. They are not made up of small indivisible particles, but are merely mind. Since they do not exist as outer matter, we must turn toward the mind itself and examine its true nature.

@@shuabshungne8043 Reality check: "When tenderness is detached from the source of tenderness, its logical outcome is terror. It ends in forced-labor camps and in the fumes of the gas chamber.” (Flannery O'Connor)

That's not the definition of faith at all! Jesus never asked that people had faith in him just because he claimed to be God (though he appreciated it). He performed miracles and rose from the dead, for everyone to see and believe. And we do have lots of evidence for at least some eternal, uncaused cause for the universe. Entropy winds the universe down, therefore it must have been wound up at some point, time space and matter have a beginning. To say "we don't know" sounds noble, but we kinda do know.

​@@Pyr0Ben Historically, the Synoptics are not definitive in whether Yeshua considered himself divine or not. His earliest followers eventually attributed exalted divinity in some aspect to Yeshua. It was their pr attempt to explain Yeshu's failed messiahship. There is NO PROOF of any god's existence. If you believe in your god, leave it at that - faith REQUIRES nothing more than to say I believe.

@@jacuz169Jesus definitely makes divine claims in the synoptic gospels and there is zero consensus even among skeptics textual scholars about this point. In fact, if you read one skeptical textual scholar, they will say the divine claims are there, but were added in later versions of the synoptics, while other skeptical scholars will say the divine claims aren’t really divine claims, but something just short of that (funny how that works). Biblical textual criticism is a free for all and the theories match each persons prior religious or non-religious commitments. It’s certainly the weakest ground for non-Christians to make compelling claims about the Christian faith. It’s like Descartes (I think) said about philosophers. There’s no philosophical idea so silly that some philosopher at one time hasn’t argued for it. Jesus had a twin, ‘swoon theory,’ Jesus never existed, blah blah blah

@@JS-ln4ns ​You're wrong. In the Synoptics, far more reliable historically than John, it isn't definitive that Yeshua considered himself Fod, or divine. His followers later give his movement street cred by hinting that Yeshua was divine. As a Jew, Yeshua would not have even entertained the idea that he could be God. Yeshua was a Law-abiding Jew. Additionally, Yeshua's movement did NOT need him to be a god or divine for his message to have validity. Yeshua and his movement could stand on its own without the crutch the christian doctrine has used - divinity, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.

More like consistent within our severely limited observations

"need not be anything that is contingent. Everything may be necessary"----- You have misrepresented the distinction between necessary and contingent.

"Why does something exist? Why are we here along with everything? Why are things a certain way? Why is something a certain way and not another way?" Because it is? Because it does? "Even if the universe was an accident or came from nothing, that doesn't mean God isn't real. " Doesn't mean he is either, does it? " Science can't prove nor disprove his existence because he is a metaphysical/supernatural being." And you're not. So explain to me how exactly you're able to perceive something that is encapsulated entirely in your mind, and how we can determine if it's real. "Science studies the material world and how it works. I think God isn'ta material being." Then we have no real way of determining if he is real, do we?

@James Henry Smith Who what when? I'm so confused.

@James Henry Smith , I agree with you.

@James Henry Smith I'm not even sure what you're saying. Best I make out is you're saying the anti-christ is here. Not sure you're aware of this, but everyone says this about everyone and everything these days. Hell people have accused Obama of this and how he would end the world during his presidency.

No it isn't

@@170221dn that would make u a false Christian and not a real one

@@mikeytrn709 What?

Agreed - even the simplest of single celled organisms are complicated enough to where it doesn’t just *happen*

To a certain extent, some of what you say makes sense, while other parts are, to be a bit blunt, flat out incorrect. “No matter how rudimentary there must be a chain of survival that requires things above and below…,” for example, is simply false. Present even today are organisms that do not depend on such a system, such as archaea, which are often found in extreme environments, and may be much more similar to early life than other modern organisms. That being said, I myself am not an expert, and though KZfaq doesn’t like external links, I would highly recommend you read Britannica’s article on abiogenesis; it’s not exhaustive by any means, but it at least gives an introduction to plausible explanations for how life might arise from non-life. It’s really not nearly as far-fetched as some may make it seem.

@@homotheticwren Interesting. But this is a unique extreme so maybe it is more accurate to say that the vast majority (instead of "all") of the food chain, by it's nature, has an interconnected structure that taking pieces out of the middle or from either end disturbs the entire system? It reminds me of the fascinating study about how re introducing the wolves into Yellowstone Park dramatically changed (and healed) the eco system. They played a key role that was part of a fine tuned system so in that way their is intelligence in how it all works together even when we don't see it.

@@wishIwuzskiing To be sure, interdependence is a huge part of ecosystems, and a very interesting field of study in its own right. What I wanted to push back on a bit was what I interpreted as the implication that as (some) biological systems do require this interconnectedness, that some creator would have had to jumpstart the process by creating a system already functional enough such that organisms could rely on predation and still evolve, which is not necessarily the case. That is to say, no creator or system necessary, life could have begun from compounds forming organic molecules and assembling into self-replicating structures on their own, which isn’t to say that any agency is at work either, merely the laws of physics doing their thing. TLDR: I thought you were implying the necessity of some creator/agency for the formation of life, which is not, in fact, necessary.

@@homotheticwren I won't debate what you don't believe in categorically. For me, there are far too many very accomplished scientists in current times, in a wide variety of fields, who make the compelling cases for fine tuning, the unavoidable need for a beginning of the universe (no matter the configuration), and the fossil record no longer supporting Darwins particular map for evolution to explain the actual fossil record. In addition we have Jesus Christ in history who demonstrated mastery over nature (healing the sick, calming the sea, bringing people back to life) which provided compelling proof of the creator God "through Him all things were made"... that which He made, he has total dominion over... therefor, a created universe.

One can find, through the writings of Lucretius, a powerful yet simple Epicurean argument for matter's (factual or metaphysical) necessity. In simplest terms, the argument is that since matter exists, and since nothing can come from nothing (in the sense that everything with an originating or sustaining efficient cause needs an originating or sustaining material cause, respectively), matter is eternal and uncreated. The argument can be strengthened in light of the scientific evidence for the conservation laws, according to which it’s at least physically impossible that matter-energy is created or destroyed. And if there are no supernatural beings that can annihilate matter-energy, the latter is at least de facto indestructible. Therefore, given the uncreated, eternal, and de facto indestructibility of matter-energy, it follows that matter-energy (or if matter-energy isn’t fundamental, whatever matter-energy is ultimately made of) is at least a factually necessary being. A stronger version of Epicurus' core argument can be developed by adding an appeal to something in the neighborhood of origin essentialism. The basic line of reasoning is that if being uncreated is a property of matter-energy in the actual world, then it is an essential property of matter-energy, in which case matter-energy in the actual world is essentially uncreated. Yet stronger versions of the argument can go on from what is said above by appealing to a strong version of the principle of sufficient reason to argue that whatever plays the role of being eternal, essentially uncreated, and indestructible does not vary from possible world to possible world. But if not, then matter is a metaphysically necessary being. On any version of the argument, however, we seem to get the conclusion that the universe requires no external sustaining cause, in which case, a fortiori, God is not required to play such a role. The broadly Epicurean line of reasoning above can be seen as a cosmological argument of sorts, but one that concludes that matter-energy (or its ultimate constituents), and not an immaterial creator, is the uncaused cause of contingent, dependent, concrete reality. Let us therefore call any argument that deploys a material cause version of the principle ex nihilo nihil fit to infer the factual or metaphysical necessity of matter (or matter's ultimate constituents) an Epicurean cosmological argument. If successful, Epicurean cosmological arguments can be used to provide evidence in support of atheism over theism. For such arguments provide prima facie evidence that matter-energy (or its ultimate constituents) are factually or metaphysically necessary. But if so, then since it’s constitutive of classical theism that God is the creator of any material universe that happens to exist, then since an essentially uncreated universe exists in the actual world, and since essentially uncreated universes cannot, by definition, be created, it follows that the God of classical theism does not exist. Indeed, if, as many classical theists assert, God exists necessarily if he exists at all, then given that he doesn’t exist in the actual world, God exists in no possible world. In other words, God’s existence is metaphysically impossible.

@@maximusgarahan2066 do you know any books I can read that go into further detail on this? It sounds really interesting

@@maximusgarahan2066 I'm curious about the definition of "god", and more importantly of "nothing". That nothing can come out of nothing can be debated. An absolute nothing - no god, no physical laws, no potential for physical laws or a big bang, can by definition not spawn a universe. A nothing that's just a vacuum can. I think "god" can be explained by science that isnt fully developed yet, roughly something like pantheism, god is an infinite eternal base reality (information, probabilities, quantum fields, software, whatever) that energy and matter emerge from. And that "system" isnt conscious or acts with intention the way we think of it, thats too anthropomorphic.

Even if you concede that matter is eternal, and was always there, an option some theologians(even Aquinas) considered to not atleast be impossible. You must still explain temporality and the causation of such matter, the changes it undergoes and so on. What set's up and sustains the order of events, the laws of the universe, and time? Why should those be necessary beings? I can imagine the universe to be different than it is, and I can imagine fictional events in it. Thus it's clearly contigent, even if I assume its eternal. Thus it needs an external explanation, a transcendent everpresent cause.

So just assertions?

@@170221dn "assertions" ---- Are you asserting that "Existence Is" is somehow false? It remains incoherent to posit existence in and of itself to "not be".

@@andrewferg8737 Whatever way you define existence, claiming anything about a god that no more exists than universe farting pixies is just an assertion.

@@170221dn "a god" --- The use of the term "God" in classical theology refers to existence in and of itself: ipsum esse subsistens. Again, one does not speak of "a" existence in and of itself. Existence simply and absolutely IS and is prerequisite to all else. If you wish to use a different term to refer to existence in and of itself, you are welcome. Your term should however reflect the uniqueness of that referent.

@@andrewferg8737 So once again I repeat. Are you just trying to assert that your god exists or do you have proof?

It does. A brute fact can't be reasoned to, only asserted. That's what makes it "brute." Arguments like Aquinas' five ways that Matt likes are reasonings to a god. Therefore the PSR _does_ apply to God. The next question is are these ways actually valid?

@@sethtipps7093 You're trying to have it both ways. Either the PSR is true and everything (including God) has a reason for its existence or God is a brute fact which has no reason and the PSR is false. Which is it?

@@allans3879 So if God always existed and needs no explanation the PSR is false?

@Qwerty That sounds an awful lot like special pleading to escape an obvious flaw in the PSR with God. What sense does it make to say that God explains himself? Why can't the universe have an explanation unto itself?

@Qwerty Again, I'll ask what sense does it make to say that something explains itself? How do you know the Universe can "not be"? Maybe existence is part of the essence of the universe.

Yeah, there are countless arguments for the existence of this or that god, but iam not aware of a single good one. Can you name one that you find convincing? And please don´t give me bullshit like "nobody knows X therefore it was my god".

@@hitman5782 The argument from arguments is my favourite argument for God. We know there are many arguments for the existence of God. They must have come from somewhere and we call that God.

@@hitman5782 Actually, I made that up for my own amusement. I don't believe arguments can prove anything exists apart from logical things. You can prove negative numbers exist, but you cannot prove Popeye exists.

@@hitman5782 Suppose I ask you to prove my mother exists. How would you do it ?

@@tedgrant2 I am not sure if you are serious or not, but given that i heard this unreal dumb excuse for not being able to prove the existence of gods, and then asking to prove the existence of this or that human before, i will answer it. Yes, we could touch your mother, test her DNA, see her infrared, talk to her, measure her weight and so on, we could proof that she is real in literally a thousand different ways, and we can not do anything like this with gods, so please stop trying to compare the two.

The criticism comes down to “well it’s hard to do so it’s a fallacy”. Except human beings have been rationalizing and pondering since civilization began so the idea that we could “never do it” is faulty. Human imagination is the most powerful tool we have when it comes to organizing our understanding of the universe. Saying that “there are explanations we have never thought of” assumes that only one person will be pursuing the ends, but thousands and even millions of people have been debating and thinking about explanations to the universe for a long time.

@@lt3746 No, it is a fallacy because, quite literally, because of set theory. There is no set that can be constructed that eliminates that eliminates the impossible. Russell's paradox shows that every set theory that contains an unrestricted comprehension principle leads to contradictions and this is the perfect example or one.

@@tomdebevoise I admit I haven’t brushed up on Russell’s paradox but didn’t ZFC resolve it?

What’s unimpressive is new atheists attempts to skate around countering arguments that they lack the knowledge to counter, just because something isn’t proven in the way you like doesn’t mean it isn’t proven, so many wannabe scientists get the idea that all must be observed in itself physically, and fail to realize that science is in itself limited in scope to the physical, while concepts that are above the physical fall moreso into the realm of certain schools of philosophy, both disciplines are equally valuable but fundamentally cover different things, and to deny either and attempt to use one to explain something that falls within the purview of another and outside of its own purview is simply ignorant

@@monkeymode7529 The King Of Run-On Sentences has arrived! I've been waiting for you. It's not that it's not proven in a way I like...it hasn't be proven at all in any way. "Concepts that are above the physical"...great deepity. What is your proof that it is "above the physical"?

@@TheRealitarian quite simply, I’m saying God is inherently above the physical and therefore falls outside the purview of science and therefore cannot be proven via scientific means, instead, proving God falls within the purview of certain schools of philosophy, and in that way, God can be argued for very strongly, maybe not proven 100%, but that’s not because of lack of philosophical proof, it’s because of the very nature of philosophy and it’s proofs and how hard it is to say for 100% sure in philosophy

@@monkeymode7529 So for all of your run-on sentences, you agree with me? You can't demonstrate god in any way other than talking about him or defining him into existence, right? Why did you even disagree with me?

all we can really say is that it expanded from a singularity. But there is zero reason to assume that it just magically popped into existence. creationists use God to solve a problem which does not even exist. And if indeed all things need a creator - then what created God?

@@allstarwatt7246 Why do you strawman the contingency argument?

Qwerty Why would he make it?

if you've read even the first few chapters of genesis, you would know. God created the universe (and man) to serve him and love him. He made humans to have a relationship with him, serve him and glorify him. Yeah god is self sufficient, in theory he has no need for the universe. That's why in some of the most frequent catholic prayers we pray to god asking him to, well, not end everything. (Which he promised he wouldn't)

Matthew Hall Is this absolutely true? How do you know if Yahweh is real and true and not that you are wrong and the idea of God is someone else? Why should we believe the Bible? Does it support its claims? How do you know if the universe wasn’t made by a smart shmuck from another dimension?

Because God decided to create men to share with men his eternal life and love so that men can be happy with God throughout eternity, this is the answer we find in the first page of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, much better phrased than what I wrote here. It's online and free on the vatican's website.

Qwerty What do you mean by god? Yahweh?

But that wasn't the question. He was only explaining deism. To us Christians, atheists aren't even on the battlefield of truth. Atheists are still discussing where the battle must take place. Christians and other religions know God exists, but to Christians we know that Jesus Christ is God, and that's where the true debate is, and that lies at the fundamental of truth.

Many of it does, if you could just learn a bit of Metaphysics, you'll soon realise that. The others are articles of Faith however.

@@FantasticCatholic like? I’m a Catholic so I wanna know

@@monkeymode7529 I can't tell it in a comment. And sorry for saying a bit f metaphysics. God appears towards the end of studying metaphysics. Omniscience, for example. God is Pure Act, without potency. But if God does not know all, then that means that He is in potency to knowing something more. Therefore, God has to be omniscient. That's just brief. Learn the Thomistic Philosophy and you'll get to know all of them.

It’s actually logic. You should try it sometime.

@@lucasprzybyla7084 The problem is your method. It's just a straw-man. It has nothing to do with 'Natural Theology'. I suggest you look it up.

@@lucasprzybyla7084 A good general intro to the kind of argument is "How Reason Can Lead To God" by Joshua Rasmussen

@@lucasprzybyla7084 You began with the premise already in mind. That is a very popular strawman among atheists. I used to believe that was what theistic philosophers did. But then I actually started reading their work. And that is NOT how they proceed and it's also NOT what they did in this video. It is more about leaving one's presumptions and biases aside for a moment and asking what are the characteristics that a creator would have to have (if one actually exists) based upon what we can observe about the world/universe that we know.

@@hardinmichael1981 hmm, you're going to have to be more specific. When you say I began with the premise already in mind. Which premise? And premises are the startoff points in an argument. Of course you have to begin with premises in mind, which lead to some conclusion. I guess I don't know what you're trying to say. A strawman is a misrepresentation of your opponent's argument. What have I said is a misrepresentation of a theist's argument?

Is there an infinite regress if time didn't exist before the big bang?