I have faith in that the Bible was just a collection of stories, that has been manipulated over the years. I need no evidence to know that GOD does not exist.

and he was completely right.

Faith is where reason goes to die.

@@kennyrogers3602 cope

​@@kennyrogers3602 yeah am thats not how reality works sir

then blocking Alex without warning.

@@airplayrule what are you saying that Matt Dillahunty blocked Alex after making that remark in the debate? I wonder if it was because of that or something else that happened, that’s crazy.

A miracle would move me closer to being a theist. Something like a Damascus road experience.

When god takes me for a beer. Then I'll believe he exists.

@@RichardDuncan-ju1xk God has done a lot more than buying you a beer (which God wouldn’t have to pay for)… God has sent his only begotten Son to offer you eternal life. You must accept the offer, however!

@@michaelderobertis5456 I must have slept in that morning. Can he do it again for us that missed it?

@@michaelderobertis5456, writes _"God has done a lot more than buying you a beer [...]"_ So you say, but since you can present no good evidence for your claim you sound disingenuous, ignorant, or deluded.

Maybe, just maybe, what the Atheist suggested was unreasonable? And it says something about atheism if you can say is "suggests something" instead of an actual point.

@@3yearsbeatthem-jg4nc Then here's an actual point. Personally, I'd take Jesus' followers being able to perform miracles like , and greater than, those of Jesus himself. I'd be convinced if you could show me that whenever two or more of Jesus' followers get together, God gives them what they ask for. I'd say the very word of Christ seems a reasonable point to start from.

Pretty much

@Brian Farley Always? What about transubstantiation?

In other words, atheism of the gaps

@@Marontyne You mean the process that uses bread, wine, and a man from the natural world?

@@jdotoz The miracle isn't making the bread or the presence of priest. It is true that God often uses natural elements and transforms them into something new, but that's not what Brian claimed. Brian claimed there is ALWAYS a natural explanation for God's miracles. Aside from exceptional miracles, there is no natural evidence to show that the bread and wine become Jesus' body and blood. It's something we believe by faith. It truly is the body and blood of Jesus, but it retains the physical form of bread and wine. That's an example of a miracle that transcends the natural order and cannot be "seen" in the way he described.

"Science hasn't an answer yet, but it will."

"Science is the study of what God has created"

@@Con.Air.78 there's actually a singular term for exactly what you described: scientism

@@vaderetro264 which is a faith based claim - something they refuse to admit.

@@mugsofmirth8101 Yes, it's a faith claim, especially because it excludes the idea of a non-naturalistic answer. It would be much better if the claim was 'one day science may prove whether Gods exists'. That's a possibility, in my opinion, for God has created the universe and its laws according to a rational plan, the physical architecture of which is still largely unknown to us.

If you're to take the hypothesis of the Christian God, rather than the mere Abrahamic God, you wouldn't say that we never got to meet Him. And if the priesthood was simply a way to make money, why is it still practiced today, when there are infinitely better ways to make money and with most priests living very simple lives?

@@henryvdl3692 Um, yes I would say there's no sound evidence we ever got to meet the Christian god. All we actually have is an old book, written mainly by anonymous authors, none of whom we can confirm actually met the mythic Jesus figure about whom they wrote. It is 100% hearsay, and none of the hearsay exceptions apply. It's not a reliable story. We might give it some credence if it contained no supernatural elements. But it overflows with claims of miracles. I'm not against miracles. I just don't see anonymous, unverified storytelling as a valid way to show they happened in the real world. And even if you could show they all really happened, you still don't know it was the work of a 'god', or simply unexplained science. As for priests, etc., I will grant they aren't all Joel Olsteen money makers. So? Many of them are. I live next to a church like that. There is a ton of money in it for the right skill set. Still, there are others who aren't in it for the money. They just want to be close to a god. What's in it for them? Potentially many things. Power. Status. Personal peace of mind. The narcissistic belief that they understand reality better than the nonreligious. All of those things are very human reasons why priestcraft is still practised today. Humans naturally want all those things. They are not evidence for the alleged reality of an invisible superbeing, whether Jesus or Yahweh or Thor.

@@homealoneuniverse1221 I wasn't focusing on the evidence, although there is plenty of that (I would refer you to this video: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/d5aZd7F93dO7hoE.html). My point was that it sounded as if you claimed that the Christian worldview says that we are "ordinary folk who never actually get to meet this deity". No reasonable Christian has ever said that, or anything close to that. Forgive me if I've misunderstood. Once again, power and status can be acquired through other, much less costly means, as can narcissistic satisfaction. I sincerely doubt that people would give up marriage, sex, and other privileges to gain something that can be found through easier methods. Those people are in the minority, which you would discover for yourself if you were to meet a decent number of priests. The vast majority are genuinely kind and generous, which are not traits of a narcissistic or greedy person. Also, I never said that the practice of priesthood is proof of God's existence. I am saying that it heavily implies a sincere belief in God and good intentions, rather than a desire for the alternatives you suggested.

@@henryvdl3692 Ok, first, I do not intend to generalize on motives of clerics of any denomination. There are also Buddhists, Rabbis, Baptist preachers whom I know have chosen near poverty because they think they are doing good. So I don't think we need to argue about that. My original point is perhaps best understood in an evolutionary context. In our early days we needed religion or something like it to survive a hostile environment. It's a social power amplifier. So even though you may get people with good intentions becoming religious leaders, you can also see how it would be attractive to another category of people. All professions attract some narcissists. But what better place to be a narcissist than a man who claims he speaks the very words of deity? And I have seen it enough in my long life to know it is NOT a coincidence. As for your first point, I do think you have misunderstood me. So to clarify, I totally get that the Christian worldview claims humanity has met deity in human form. So what? Scientology claims everybody is infested with ancient disembodied aliens and you have to pay their 'priests' a boatload of money to get rid of them. They are both equally nonsense, until and unless a sound evidentiary case can be made to support the claim. Which is why I responded to the above video in the first place. Claims, by themselves, don't mean anything. But a claim of deity is even worse, because it is probably impossible to support, due to the difficulty formulating a theory of evidence that would work in that special case. I hope that clears things up. Peace.

I would recommend trying to understand what theists mean by God because that would clear up a lot of your misunderstandings and problems. I think a lot of atheists tend to have a narrow, simplistic view of the God of the Bible because he has been painted as a ‘supreme being’ that isn’t too dissimilar to pagan gods. This is not what most believers understand God to be. I recommend this video to start with: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z-B9mcJpzdGnlJc.html Peace.

No better apologetics than the bible. People want to read every other book besides scripture..not assuming that's you just something I notice.

@@tony1685 huh?

@@Cogi00 What's your view on owning another person as your property? Is that moral or immoral? Assuming god exists, is it moral for god to punish a person for sins they did not commit? Assuming god exists, would it be moral for god to prevent someone from doing something and then punish the person for not doing what god kept them from doing? Assuming god exists, would it be moral for god to punish a person if that person had no way of knowing they were doing something wrong?

@@cnault32441) No, to me it's not. It's how you treat the person that decides if you're being immoral or not. 2) God punishes sinners, not the saints 3) yes 4) I had an understanding of right and wrong at 5 years old so i can't speak for everyone BUT if they truly did not know wrong from right ( haven't met that person yet) i suppose it would be immoral wouldnt it?

@@Cogi00 So your response to my 4 questions asking you for your opinion is: 1) owning a person as your property ( in other words, slavery) is OK 2) I said nothing about saints, you didn't answer the question that was asked 3) whatever god does is OK with you, god can treat people as his toys to do with as he pleases ( so much for free will) 4) if they truly did not know wrong from right ( haven't met that person yet) i suppose it would be immoral wouldnt it? So you are saying it would be immoral for god to punish a person if that person didn't know they were doing something wrong? Yes or no?

it shows how very special their special pleading is.

Usually, when you are solving a problem, you solve the first question first "Is there a God?", If you are certain that there's a God then you go to the second problem "Which God is true?", You don't jump around each problem without solving the first objection like it's some kind of Gotcha.

You say that, but I’ve found that the typical atheist conception of God is the bearded man on the Sistine Chapel touching Adam’s finger; the so-called Ancient of Days. They will even refer to him mockingly as ‘sky daddy,’ which is a fascinating, but wholly accidental peek into how limited their conception of God is. They are projecting their conception onto others and saying “we must be talking about the same God, and you just happen to be wrong about that character’s existence.” Listen to Dawkins and tell me he isn’t talking about a bearded man in the sky. The typical atheist’s rightful sparring partner are fundamentalist Christians, because they are talking about the same entity.

Thanks I'm gonna put his book on my list and read it once I have read all my other books 😭. And since I'm German I will buy it in original Deutsch 👌

I listened to this last year. It was so raw to me.

Thank you for the recommendation!

As a Protestant convert to Catholicism I have read much by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. His story is fascinating. It pleases me so much whenever I meet a Catholic who knows about Bonhoeffer!! Yay!

It is good. It's a tough read, but good.

LOL. Perhaps Trent should reconsider the appropriateness of catchphrases. Understanding that mechanism leads to skepticism.

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd atheism is not skepticism

@@mugsofmirth8101 I did not claim that it was.

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd many atheists think so

@@mugsofmirth8101 Skepticism is not taking anything for granted, much less what seems obviously contradictory. The need to use critical thinking to build each concept and let reality be the final judge of certainties.

Imaginary numbers are in two dimensions. In three dimensions, they cease to be. It's just a convention. Properly, all numbers are imaginary.

Can you give an example ?

@@mugsofmirth8101 Numbers only exist in the ideal plane. One, two, three, they are just abstract constructions.

@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd my question was for the OP

@@mugsofmirth8101 Sorry!

@Roger Mills I would say faith in a personal God. Claims about God are distinct from philosophical arguments for God. One can be affected by feelings as Trent points out and then there’s logical discourse.

This comment is 2 years old but maybe you will respond anyways: So what if people do not have those instincts for religiosity? What if they are born blind so to speak, and just can't see? How is that fair or a free choice?

@@ThePaull3d Some distinctions would need to be made. The natural human instinct is to be religious, but if that instinct is hampered or has become twisted in some way due to things beyond a person’s control such as an illness that affects their mental state then Catholicism allows room for that. God doesn’t hold people responsible for things that are impossible for them to do, that would be cruel. He isn’t bound by anything though and can present Himself in really particular ways. If one is willfully blind or sees the truth of faith and refuses to submit to it, then that’s a different matter.

Natural being (e.g. pantheism) = _internal_ of time and space. Supernatural being (e.g. theism, deism) = _external_ of time and space.

@@hhstark8663 If the multiverse theory were true, any other universe would be outside the time and space of *our* universe, but contain its own space-time. Would it be natural or supernatural? What about the multiverse matrix they spawn from? Would that be natural or supernatural?

@@hhstark8663 thanks, but this is not totally satisfying because you’ve only explained it in the negative, i.e. what a supernatural being is NOT (not in time and space). The atheist would say, we can only know things that are in time and space, to say otherwise is nonsensical

@@RustyWalker In multiverse, multiverse can be both true and untrue. In multiverse, Elvis is both dead and living

@@thomasnoone5426 'Outside or beyond time and space' is not negative. My unconscious mind can know things that are beyond time and space. I not know it now but I can be conscious of it in the future. PROOF: some of my past dreams which became reality

People do not favor teaching critical thinking for different reasons. But the result is that it does not figure in the teaching plans to teach to think correctly from childhood. One can guess what would be the benefits of having a population unable to discern intentional or false information in public or private discourse.

Millions of years of human history prove that nature does not " devolve" .

@@snowflakemelter1172 congrats on demonstrating your inability to read.

It isn't. It could be neurological for some miraculous events.

@@RustyWalker Correct. I know of a person who, having grown up in a predominantly Christian society, became religious because of 'out of body' experience, which he attributed to God. Which god? The Christian one. He went into the ministry. He was the pastor of my church-school when I was a teenager. When he had the out-of-body experience, nothing supernatural was happening at all. He was a drummer in a rock band. We understand the neurology of that experience very well, and it's repeatable -- no god required. We know what parts of the brain shut down under what conditions, we know why the brain has trouble locating itself as a result. But Average Joe doesn't know. It's a gap in his / her knowledge, and experiences that aren't understood get labelled supernatural.

miracles don't happen. you're mistaken.

​@@stephengalanisThe problem Happens when no neurology can explain the events or conclude what happened :/ This is why personal testimony of some skeptical atheists is rather profound. Its impossible for them of being highly Skeptic of Jesus and yet by all means despite their skepticism said that they couldn't deny what they felt and experienced.

Part of the problem with miracles is understanding probability. What is the difference between an improbable event and a miracle. Take a recovery from illness that any given person would have to live for a million years to experience. If you encountered it you might well call it a miracle. However the human population live for 8 billion years every year, so 1 in a million events occur 8000 times a year, or about once 65 minutes. In populations with low scientific literacy and a embedded religious culture it's very easy to see how credible tales of miracles arise, which in turn give credence to fantastical tales of miracles.

atheism is a modern belief system based on the confrontation with the outdated Christian belief system. Modern science is no different what religion was in the MIddle Ages.

@@KronStaro what would convince you that God exists?

@@beatlecristian ive already convinced myself of it, just not through deceiftful religions.

" I feel it in my heart" is unacceptable to explain God but people say the same thing about romantic love.

@@celestethisandthat8887what about seeing Jesus appear to you. He has appeared to many. You do not receive because you don’t ask. And when you ask but don’t receive. It because you asked wrongly

It never fails to disappoint 😂

He needs the pixilated sunglasses to come down onto his face

😂So epic😂

He really doesn’t put the GotG on the other foot. More importantly, it’s plain religious narcissism that you think you’re the victim here. Christians incessantly argue atheists can’t be moral and will suffer for eternity in a frying pan if they don’t gullibly believe the way they do.

We non-believers are meant to say how we might know an unknowable thing. But Trent claims victory.

@@brunorhagalcus6132 If a Christian says that atheists can't be moral, then I would say they are wrong. But, instead, atheism has no basis on how something is objectively good vs evil (which many will acknowledge there's good and evil, just are unwilling to say it is objectively, even when they act like it is). This is how the argument goes; 1. It takes a mind to create morals 2. If there's no mind prior to the human mind, then the human mind creates right and wrong 3. Morals would vary depending on which human mind you are talking to (relativism) 4. Instead objective morals exist 5. Therefore God exists. And on the topic of eternity, the only truly definite thing we know about hell is that it will be separation from God. In other words, hell is God's greatest compliment to human dignity/free will.

@@tylerjones3514 objective morality exists because god exists and god exists because objective morality exists. That’s circular and none of it demonstrates a god which means you’re “acting like your moral code is objective”. Also, which of the 50,000 morally-conflicting Christian denominations holds the objective knowledge? And which person within that denomination holds it? It must conveniently be you, right? You can’t demonstrate a god exists. You can’t demonstrate hell exists.

@@brunorhagalcus6132 That's not how I put it, is it? But go ahead and twist my words so you don't have to think too hard on it. But I wouldn't say it is confined only to me having the objective moral code. Instead, I'm convinced that each and every person has a conscience that ties them into moral absolutes. Though I should clarify, there are some relative morals as well, but I would say when you see justice being violated, you don't sit back and say, "That person has a different set of morals, therefore they're right for themself." Instead, you become agitated because you're conscience informs you that real evil has been perpetrated. Now, how do I know there's going to be a heaven and a hell? Only because I consider Jesus Christ to be trustworthy, so when he talks about a heaven and a hell, I take keen interest.

It is not necessary for every biblical account of the "risen Jesus" to be a hallucination. All it would take is one person to hallucinate a brief apparition of Jesus, or one case of mistaken identity, or one lady to stumble across the wrong tomb and find it empty (or make the mistake of thinking there *was* a tomb, given crucified victims were typically left out to rot). Any *one* of those events or any combination could set easily off the rumor mill such that, decades later, there would be dozens of sensational stories on the oral record for the gospel writers to pick up and write down. This does not make it reasonable to explain away every possible experience as a hallucination. If I believed every story in the Gospels was absolutely experienced *exactly as described* by someone, then it I would doubt they were hallucinated. The descriptions aren't all of things that are common to hallucinate, and it'd be strange for that many to all hallucinate independently and at different times. Peter, however, hallucinating a 30-minute conversation with Jesus, perhaps absolving him of the guilt he felt for denying his teacher and running away, is exactly the kind of thing that can happen and exactly the kind of thing that would set the rumor mill going.

So are you a nothing person or something on the origin of the universe? Specifically what is the source of your existence?

@@onestepaway3232 I'm not sure what you're saying. I am composed of atoms. Atoms come from the universe. Where the universe comes from is unknown.

Let me put it to you this way. Would a multiverse disprove God, or would it further prove His omnipotence and infinity? I say, it would prove His omnipotence and infinity, as now we have several multiverses, and these multiverses still operate under the same rules as our universe, with some variation that is still not drastic enough to break what we know. However, what we have to keep in mind is that science proving God really only scratches the surface of Who God is. How do I mean? Science proves God as Creator, that much we know, but if that's all He did, then, Who IS God? We see that God is more than a Creator. For instance, God created Humans in His Image, and we share three attributes, with one being well known, the other being less known, and the other completely unknown. The Body is what we know through biology. The Body breathes, it digests, it feels, tastes, smells, looks, hears, and balances. The Soul is the least known, and all we really have to show for the Soul is emotions and complex/abstract thought. The conscious, if you will. The Spirit is the attribute we do not know anything about, even Christians are on the fence of what the Spirit is, and many people say it doesn't exist. But to get to the meat of Who God is, He is the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, The King of Kings and the Lord of Lords. God also loves you. It may sound empty, but it really isn't. God created you, and God loves you. He loves you so much, He created you one of a kind, and created you to not be a robot. God loves you so much, He waits for you with open arms. God loves you so much, that He gave His only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, to die, not for the white man, or the Jew, but for the sinner. The sinner is you, and the sinner is me. The sinner is the Buddhist and the Muslim, the atheist and the pagan, the apostate and the believer. God died for ALL of us, for every single one of us, and resurrected so that whoever believes and puts faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, surrenders to Him, and requests for His love, they will not die, but receive an eternal life, free of pain, of sickness, of suffering, of tears and of sin, forever. Name one other god whose love is so great, they did all of that for their creation. Exactly, there is no pagan god that has done that. Those false gods want your good works or animal/human sacrifices. But what does God want from you? Your faith. For it is grace through faith that saves a sinner for an eternity.

I'd say no, as God operates outside of the rules of nature. Even were He scientifically proven (which I do not think can happen due to the nature of science), He would still not fit into natural phenomena, as the rules and natures of the natural world would not affect Him, rather, he would be seen as that which originates the natural world in itself, being above it, supernatural.

@@DerPinguim First off, you're assuming we understand the rules of nature, which we probably don't fully. You're saying he doesn't fit into "natural phenomena", but that's our current understanding of natural phenomena, which could change. Second, science is the pursuit of knowledge, not the study of natural phenomena, so if god is proved in ANY way, it's still scientific. He obviously just hasn't been proven in any way yet

Super or beyond our known dimensions (nature) is the FIFTH dimension and higher which are Natural.Godly.

"I'll believe a supernatural being exits if you can prove it is a regular part of the natural world that we observe." That isn't what I would consider to be a "Perfect" explanation because it leaves you open to limitless claims with regards to the "Supernatural". Examples include quite literally any and everything, ie. Ghosts, Santa, Tooth-fairy, Elves, Witches, Flying Spaghetti Monsters, the list goes on.

@@jb31969 You are correct. It isn't perfect. My mistake. Of course, there is no perfect argument, even in science as Popper's principle of falsifiability demonstrates. The very fabric of reality can't be known 100% for certain; there is no absolute proof we are not in the Matrix, so again, great point about it not being a perfect argument. But it is a damn good one. If the job of science is to explain natural phenomenon, then it is wholly unsuited to explaining supernatural phenomenon. We must then use other tools of determining which supernatural phenomenon are credible, and which aren't. And we have those tools; logic, reason, and metaphysics. For example, logic dictates that if we went to the top of Mt Olympus, we won't find giant divine beings arguing. But logic also dictates that there must be an external cause to the universe, a first mover if you will. Reason would argue that the flying spaghetti monster is a made up because we can separate it into three constituent parts and identify where each of the three came from, whereas we have no idea where the concepts of spirit, divinity, or other metaphysical terms comes from. We can not divide these phenomenon into constituent parts and explain how humans put it together, which suggests at some point they must have been experienced as a distinct phenomenon.

It's pretty silly to think that atheists wouldn't concede on the existence of the supernatural when there is an expectation for how the natural world works and how the supernatural would change it as described by holy books. If Jesus himself should up in the modern world and started preaching and healing the sick with his touch I wouldn't say that this is just some "natural undiscovered power", since this is something that would be consistent with what the Bible describes. But none if that matters because all you need to disprove the popular concepts of benevolent gods is the myth of free will paired with sin and hell, and the problem of natural evil/disasters.

@@jb31969 The point is that proving something is a part of the natural world means it isn't supernatural, by definition. Therefore, it can't be done.

@@davidreinker5600 Sure, the problem is if you use that metric, you can't say the tooth fairy isn't real, or Santa, or ghosts etc

It took how many miracles and a resurrection to convince the apostles? We need miracles and maybe a resurrection, too. It's only fair. Stories will just not cut it.

Wish I could say the same; but, I'm working on it.

@@pcm7315 lol it's not easy because they are almost always in defense mode and ready to throw scripture at you. So I understand that going in and I try to get them to just have a normal person to person conversation with me. Then I ask questions and they 9/10 just have misconceptions or just uninformed about the Catholic faith.

@@hiimdominic3780 this is very true for me too lol

your first mistake is being religious. god is not religious, there is no one true religion that explains god better than the other, there is no one religion that god prefers over the other. based on these facts, you should make a logical conclusion.

@@KronStaro There’s history and facts about certain Religions and their accuracy

His name is Trent Horn

I don’t think that anyone who subscribes to dogmatic presuppositions and tries to wrap every thought around those presuppositions can be intellectually honest.

@@wesley3300 How come?

@@alecfoster5542 because anything accepted as dogma must either reject or assimilate new information into its mold. If one rejects new data that is factually correct, then they are choosing to believe in untruth. If, on the other hand, one assimilates new data into itself, then the truth of the data is made serviceable to the held dogmas, which requires a certain amount of dissembling. At best, the dogmatist finds data that simply fits easily into their model; at worst, they fabricate reasons for contradictory ideas to fit within their dogma. That is the business of theology: dissembling and interpreting the data of reality to feed their particular dogmatisms. To be fair, I think if we’re all honest, none of us is as intelligent as we want to think we are, let alone intellectually honest.

@@wesley3300 sounds like the dogma of scientism which has become the religion of secular leftists

@@wesley3300 I appreciate what you are saying, but I think Trent would readily admit the limitations of dogma and suppositions. In other words, he can't ultimately "prove" everything. That's why they call it "Faith" after all. In this sense, I would not label him as intellectually dishonest.

I would love to go through a scientific exercise with you. But we would need some ground rules. We must adhere to the scientific method, any conclusion we come to must be based on available evidence, and any evidence or conclusion may not be undermined by the promise of future and contradictory evidence which is not yet known. That is pretty standard practice for the process of scientific inquiry, can we agree on this?

@Roger Mills Since the dawn of human existence there's always been deadly viral infections. Yet all of a sudden Branch Covidians feel empowered to infringe on the rights of every human being by imposing draconian and unconstitutional mandates which the Supreme Court just rejected on a federal level.

For sure!!! 👍

Excellent presentation? The question is: "What would prove god exists?" The question is moot until the person asking that question has presented a clear definition for the god. To be a clear definition for the god for the god, it cannot contain: - vague attributes - logical fallacies - unproven claims An example for an unproven claim would be to say god exists in a realm outside our universe without first proving the existence of a realm outside our universe. When a theist does not clearly define god and asks the question "What would prove god exists?", the theist is saying I won't tell you what god is, but can you tell me what would prove god exists?

This video's "one question atheists can't answer" is: "What would prove god exists?" The question is moot until the person asking that question has presented a clear definition for the god. To be a clear definition for the god for the god, it cannot contain: - vague attributes - logical fallacies - unproven claims An example for an unproven claim would be to say god exists in a realm outside our universe without first proving the existence of a realm outside our universe. When a theist does not clearly define god and asks the question "What would prove god exists?", the theist is saying I won't tell you what god is, but can you tell me what would prove god exists?

I don't see that as happening. People engage with the arguments they receive. There are plenty of philophers and philosophically minded atheists who address the classical arguments. But the average theist doesn't present a classical argument. So the average atheist isn't necessarily going to address them.

There are no facts about God only beliefs.

so true. we love trent! you should definitely become catholic man… check out his book the case for catholicism if you’re interested. very helpful to my conversion

No don't become a Catholic, become an atheist. It's fun!

​@@joostvanrensno

atheism is lame and pointless

@@BornAgain223 God is a meaningless answer to a meaningless question.

So then did time always exist, as an infinite point, or was it necessary inevitability? If these two positions are false or illogical, then we come to a third choice: a first mover. One that created time that has no origin and exists by necessity itself. Its also not really that hard to comprehend. We can think of abstract ideas that have no bounds in the physical universe, such as numbers. Yes, there's the description we give of it that are human construct, but it doesn't matter if it is called 'I,' 'one' or 'uno,' its numerical value is still '1,' and our universe has been found to follow many rules according to numerical values, such as the Universal constants. However, these numbers themselves hold no tie to spacetime themselves, and thus are something not bound to time, space and perception.

@@luxither7354 Time has always existed in the sense that it has existed for all time, but time has not existed for an infinite amount of time. Why can’t time exist by necessity itself? I can imagine whatever I want, but I can’t conceive of something existing outside of time and space in a way that is logically consistent with what I consider the concept of “existence” to mean. It may be that our definition of existence is one that we have created as humans, but that doesn’t contradict the fact that I can’t see how one could believe in something “existing” when it doesn’t fit our definition of existence without employing some form of doublethink. Therefore, for me to understand how something can exist without conforming to our definition of existence, someone would have to give me a new definition of existence that both permits God to exist and also remains consistent with our empirical observations of the universe. If such a definition exists, please provide it to me.

@@redeye5440 "I find it the mere idea of something existing beyond spacetime to be inherently nonsensical, incoherent, and inconceivable." Where is the contradiction? What makes it nonsensical? "Why can’t time exist by necessity itself?" If you claim that the past is not infinite, and also claim time exists without a first mover and is by necessity, then you've found yourself in a metaphysical absurdity. How can time be caused if there was no time to cause it if atheism is true and there is no mind to move it? Who's "us"? What do you mean by "our definition"? What you're saying is not clear. Existence is the the ontological property of being. Empirical observations are not the only way to understanding truths about reality, and to assume so would be begging the question for naturalism, and would also be self defeating.

@@DarkArcticTV Thanks for the reply. I’m currently on holiday and so will be busy for the next few days, but I’ll try to get back to you about all this at some point soon.

@redeye5440 So time is an eternal reality?

As a response to your first question i would say; "i dont know, i leave that for the christians". For your second question; "No, because im not a Christian, i dont believe that god exists and therefore looking for evidence for his existence would be kind of crazy". For your third question; "Of course it would, please tell me where to start and i ll be the first to do it."

@@dimitrispap777 you'll leave your subjective standard for belief to other people? Cringe. You just played yourself

@@mike-cc3dd you ignored the first part or my answer. I dont know what would convince and nobody does because nobody has ever observed the supernatural and therefore noone has proof of the supernatural. By saying i ll leave that for christians i meant (and should probably have phrased it better) that when they come up with something they consider evidence for the existence of god i ll be happy as every atheist to evaluate it. Until then i cant judge something to be or not be good evidence or proof of god.

@@dimitrispap777 well one doesn’t have to be a Christian to be a theist. You’re looking for something because you’re here. Here is a decent start. I suggest that you Keep listening to Trent and others like him. We will pray for your spiritual prosperity. God bless and peace.

@@dogwoodtales and i will think for your mental prosperity

You must be New to the free will you have… you can choose to seek God… It literally says if you seek you shall find… not if you read half heartedly you shall find or if you read narrow mindedly you shall find…. Let your guard down and just read the gospels and re evaluate God Bless,

@@Mojojojo335 if an all-knowing god with infinite knowledge exists that means he knows every single thought and action that i, or anyone else makes then it would be impossible for me to act with a will that wasn’t already predetermined. if i have free will god isn’t all-knowing.

@@Mojojojo335 i would have no way of acting freely of the script. all my choices would be determined by him beforehand. if i have no choice in the matter, then how can i have free will?

Just because it's possible that God can convince you at a snap of a finger, that doesn't mean he has good reason to, it may not be feasible to do so.

Maybe the God of the Universe only reveals himself to The Chosen so if you don't know Him, it's because you don't fit the bill.

God is paranormal

*ghosts:* paranoia or shizophrenia *hauntings:* paranoia or shizophrenia *being possessed:* paranoia or shizophrenia

"I find it unlikely the universe came from nothing or came at all in any meaningful way, more likely it’s just misguided human taste for causes and reasons... we know of only one state of affairs evolving to another state of affairs." Well, that is Aristotelian Formal Causation then, which is fundamental to understanding causation. Explanations and causes aren't just "human tastes". There's a reason why when a set of particles (such as 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom) form, that every single time they form a water molecule. Never do they wind up being something different, it literally never changes, nor evolves. They are true to "form" of their essence, every single time. It literally never changes. The very essence of what they are causes them to be a water molecule every time, never a petroleum molecule or aluminum oxide. Acorns always wind up forming into something that is within the realm of their essence (even if it's badly mutilated), it will be some sort of plant, never a rock or a bird. This is formal causation. Cause and effect, and explanations, are absolutely provable, and absolute fundamental metaphysical reality. They are as provable as 1+1=2, every single time, and if true, God exists. Denial of cause and effect, and that things have explanations, to me is like denying 1+1=2. This sort of argument sounds like Sean Carroll or someone.

​@@thegreatcornholio7255 Generally speaking there is essentially nothing to prove in "1+1=2". Conceptually it's an arbitrary definition made by humans for practical reasons and physically it refers to trivial state of affairs. "Cause and effect, and explanations, are absolutely provable, and absolute fundamental metaphysical reality." As exemplified by Münchhausen trilemma, nothing is absolutely provable or at the very least humans don't currently have any grasp of such matters. If you think otherwise, I'm confident you have failed to understand the essentials of logic. "There's a reason why when a set of particles (such as 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom) form, that every single time they form a water molecule." To be exact H2 and O atoms don't necessarily form water molecule and are quite happy to exist among themselves as separate atoms in large quantities as well. They form water when set on fire, but they don't need to burn otherwise. I'd also like to stress that in nature there are a great many often unlikely ways things can evolve and in a large set of things many of these unlikely ways happen all the time. Even particles aren't any unambiguous things when looking at the scale of quantum fields. However, that's probably not the point you tried to get across so I'll respect the principle of charity and ignore this particular issue. Never the less getting back to your point, how would you in general know there is a reason for the arbitrary state of affairs in nature? What would that reason be, how would it work, what would be the reason for that reason? Generally speaking following back the route of how nature evolves from one state of affairs to another does not seem to allow humans to reach any meaningful and unambiguous conclusion to such questions so it seems humans know nothing of such things. Humans simply observe the current state of affairs and how they evolve. Physics is only descriptive, it makes simplifications to build models based on those observations and then people use those models to make pragmatic predictions to play the game of expectation values so to speak. These explanations are fundamentally only useful fiction since we can't verify their correspondence to absolute truth. At no point do we reach a thing like first cause for anything. We only see evolution of state. Luckily that doesn't matter, we can still play the game, but it really does seem to be all we know and do. Observation is not a proof, it can act as a demonstration that may or may not support expected usefulness of a particular model. Only in mathematics and logic are things proven in a more strict sense and even then the proofs only tell that from assumptions a certain set of conclusions follow, but the assumption are still uncertain and ultimately the provability of formal axiomatic theories is quite limited as demonstrated by Gödel's incompleteness theorems and of course in the end in more general sense due to observations like Münchhausen trilemma.

@@derre98 Well, I guess I'll respond, but the point is that when you said that humans want to assign causes, and explanations to things; it is for a very good reason. It's because everything has causes and explanations. That's what things like science are about and just assume (unless you're into modern scientism, atheist stuff, then you rely on the principle right up until the point it disproves your atheist world view and then dump it). "speaking there is essentially nothing to prove in "1+1=2"." -In mathematics in logic, we have what are called "mathematical proofs" and "logical proofs". " Conceptually it's an arbitrary definition made by humans for practical reasons and physically it refers to trivial state of affairs. " -This means you are in the nominalist view of philosophy, which most mathemticians and the greatest mathematical physicists on earth like Penrose, Vilenkin and others, disagree. However, I agree with you, but either way, descriptive or real, never do mathematical laws change, and never is 1+1=8 for example. " If you think otherwise, I'm confident you have failed to understand the essentials of logic. " -I don't thinks so. "To be exact H2 and O atoms don't necessarily form water molecule and are quite happy to exist among themselves as separate atoms in large quantities as well. " -Yes, that's correct, and Aristotle, and every aristotilean, thomist and whomever came after, explains that in detail. These are called "potentials" and for some reason every substance must adhere to a set of potentials. H20 combined has the potential for water, and maybe some other potentials by themselves (as you exaplaiend). But the point is, when H2 and O are combined, they MUST be the actualization of some potential, according to their form. Threre are zero times, when a H20 combine in large enough numbers, and it forms into a goat, or into oil. That fact never evolves, it never changes. It forms into water, or one of it's other potentials, every single time. This is a formal cause. All the science stuff you explained about H and O, I'll take your word for it, but that's simply not important. The point is, this is true of everything that exists that can change, it has a set of potentials, and it when it changes, it will always actualize into one of those potentials. This is Formal Cause. "I'd also like to stress that in nature there are a great many often unlikely ways things can evolve and in a large set of things many of these unlikely ways happen all the time." -Never outside of their potentials. It could be that it changes to *something else* that has new potentials, but it, in and of itself, will never change to something that is beyond the potentials of its essence. "What would that reason be, how would it work, what would be the reason for that reason? Generally speaking following back the route of how nature evolves from one state of affairs to another does not seem to allow humans to reach any meaningful and unambiguous conclusion to such questions so it seems humans know nothing of such things. Humans simply observe the current state of affairs and how they evolve." -Ok... Well, that's empericism. I'm not a strict Empericist, but that's how humans know most things. And there's other epistemological modes. How we form things like "proofs" in mathematics. We can prove them conceptually, then we can see that they are applicable to real events in nature. This is what Kant referred to as "synthetic" reasoning. We can take logical constructs, and verify them in the material world, as though immaterial abstract reality has some magical connection to the material world, and the material world must obey them. And in science "theories", and the conclusions are often very unambiguous, and very clear. In the real world, we have many experiential reasons to have beliefs (like I'm sitting in a chair right now typing and that I exist). All of these seem very reliable, and there are very good reasons to believe that they are true. There's certainly more reasons to believe that they are true, than the negation which just seems to be pure skepticism, intellectual nihilism. "Physics is only descriptive, it makes simplifications to build models based on those observations and then people use those models to make pragmatic predictions to play the game of expectation values so to speak. " -See Nominalism above. I agree, but this does nothign to disprove, or bring doubt to cause and effect, and explanations (aka The Principle of Sufficient Reason). "These explanations are fundamentally only useful fiction since we can't verify their correspondence to absolute truth. At no point do we reach a thing like first cause for anything." -"fiction"? That's a huge assertion, which you certainly haven't given any reasons to support. Well, I think people who believe to the contrary give *very* good reasons. These include people like Aristotle, St Aquinas, Gottfried Leibniz, Kurt Godel, and they explain in detail, why you are wrong about that; and I feel they are extremely convincing. If you feel there is no "first cause" of anything, you need to bgive reasons you believe some of the assertions you have been making (with no supporting reasons so far, just assertion, just as people like Carroll who I mentioned and other scientism atheists). Understanding cause and effect (including formal cause) IS the purpose of the scientific method, and other areas of epistemology. If you think it doesn't exist, or it's "fiction" or at some point it just quits being true, then I think you need to be able to explain when it stops being true, and how you came to know that. I'm just being honest here, usually when I hear people make these sort of grand assertions, about cause and effect being "fiction", or that they've upended all of human reason, so they can now support a meaningless universe that "just exists, without explanation", it's always just that, a grand assertion, with very few reasons given. Can you give a single example of something that changes, and scientists think there's no reason as to why, or where they've decided there'll be no explanation? I challenge you to find *anything*, apart from mutli-verses, "quantum soup universes" or something else that helps them support their atheism? A SINGLE thing that isn't needed to support their atheism, that they say "there need not be an explanation for that, it's a 'fiction' that everything must have some cause or explanation". As William Lane Craig points out, this is a gross example of Special Pleading. Anyhow, thanks for sharing your points. Most of my questions are rehetorical, because I may not have time to keep reading responding (bc of my work requirements).

​@@thegreatcornholio7255 "The point is, this is true of everything that exists that can change, it has a set of potentials, and it when it changes, it will always actualize into one of those potentials." It seems circular or down right void of meaning to say "things do what we observe them to do" or at least that's what I hear you saying there. Yes, obviously, that's just using words to say nothing. We all know this, it's a trivial tautology. "And in science "theories", and the conclusions are often very unambiguous, and very clear." As a physicist (my day job) I would disagree in a sense that all theories are just approximate models built upon limited statistics, a set of useful fiction waiting for a better theory to arrive upon better statistics. The word fiction is of course there to highlight the uncertainty associated with all existing models, theories and knowledge, not to say that nothing matters, in fact a good theory has predictive power and predictive power is valuable to humans and thus matters to them in the time they live. "There's certainly more reasons to believe that they are true, than the negation which just seems to be pure skepticism, intellectual nihilism." Certainly, most models built upon daily observations can be tested and gambled with and this is normal practice everyone does. Same does not apply to first causes, gods and similar concepts and postulates which essential cannot be tested and only exist in a category of unnecessary ones let alone if they are nonsensical in some ways. "...this does nothign to disprove, or bring doubt to cause and effect" Principle of sufficient reason is in my opinion very bad example as we have no experience of any first causes whatsoever. Therefore we have nothing established to disprove. We only have experience of things evolving from one states of affairs into another states of affairs by "differential rules or differential equations" which we have built as approximate statistical models based on observations. "If you feel there is no "first cause" of anything, you need to bgive reasons" In the previous I gave many such reasons. I do not believe in the first cause because there is no reason to postulate such a thing, there exist no statistics and no observations that would benefit from that postulate. Postulating a first cause would explain and predict nothing, quite the opposite. All causes we know of are nothing more than continuous state evolution, rocks rolling down a potentially infinite hill of which we only know of a small finite slice. There is in general no other reason required not to believe something other than the fact that a postulate proposed by someone has not been justified sufficiently. "Understanding cause and effect (including formal cause) IS the purpose of the scientific method" Scientific method has no purpose, it's just a name given to a method we apply to build useful models, it is the best method that accomplishes this and is followed by humans doing science, humans like me. There can be nothing better than science, because whatever is known and whatever works best is science. Theories are constantly updated to match the latest observations. We build rockets that fly to the moon. Success of a theory is ultimately confirmed by success of our devices and the game itself. "so they can now support a meaningless universe that "just exists, without explanation" I don't care about such things. I do not know if the universe just exists, if the universe has meaning or what is fundamentally true of nature of existence, but what I do know is that I'm not aware of any rational way a "first cause" could be logically consistent or that universe could have a meaning. Meaning is a subjective human concept to the best of my understanding. The only thing about the universe that is obvious is that it exists, it has a state and that human (at least my consciousness) experiences temporal evolution of state which has included being able to build useful models. Human experience of state evolution may be correlated in a complex manner to the state of the universe and thus it is very difficult to say anything unambiguous about matters such as origin of the universe. "Can you give a single example of something that changes, and scientists think there's no reason as to why, or where they've decided there'll be no explanation?" I might as well ask you to give me a single example of something that changes and we know why this change occurs. As explained earlier, we don't know why change ultimately occurs, we only know how it occurs, so pretty much everything we know of falls into the category you ask. I'm not asserting there is no explanation, there might be or there might no be. Although depends also strongly on what you mean be explanation. Scientific explanation typically means a description, a model, a how, something like a map or a painting corresponding to observations. However, a painting is not a cause, its at best an image of a state. I'm simply saying humans don't know of any why, we only know of how. We know of how things approximately evolve from one state to another because of observations and statistics, not why they evolve, how time evolution started or how the first state came to be if there even was a first state or if it even came to be rather than some other "state of affairs" being the case. We simply lack the understanding and/or imagination for such matters and the alternatives proposed by people to these questions are simply nonsensical. It's better to acknowledge what doesn't make sense and what we don't know than to pretend otherwise. I'm not an authority believer so many of the names you mention don't concern me, but in general William Lane Craig and his arguments don't really get respect from me. I've hear many of them and addressed them in various contexts. I've also personally debated a PhD theologian once, that too didn't impress me very much. The others you mention may get some respect from me depending on the context, but not in ever context, some of them more than others of course, Gödel and Carroll more than others. Ideas matter, truth matters, people and especially their beliefs not so much except beliefs in a sense that people should strive to hold as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible. Everyone may have good ideas as well as bad ones, and they do. I think for myself rather than accepting what others have done. If I arrive at the same conclusion as someone famous, cool, if not, that's cool too.

​@@derre98 So, it sounds like you think that the fact that H20, when combined, will *never* be oil, and a seed when planted , if it changes, it will either be a plant, or it'll rot, those are its only potentials, and there are zero other options, 100% of the time is a "circular tautology" lol. Ok, fair enough. I should just leave it at that then. It has nothing whatsoever to do with us observing them do something "therefore that's what they do". It's that something is true, and therefore we will observe it, 100% of the time". If you have some principle that is true, then you'd expect that everything adheres to the principle. If you think it is possible for H20, given enough time, may or may not form into oil, then you reject the metaphysical principle. If H20 combines and forms any other things than water, it is because these are one of its potentials, and depending on the the other things acting on it, will actualize one of those potentials. ALL of science just takes Aristotelian causation for granted, and is utterly underpinned by it, and most scientists are utterly oblivious one way or the other, and don't remotely understand it. The only time people try to make exceptions to it is when they're trying to maintain their atheism "cuz science", and then they dump every single principle necessary that underpins their science, and then they start appealing to "patterns" and things without causes, and things they think doesn't require causes, but are completely oblivious to the fact that they are just giving examples of other kinds of Aristotelian causation. If you think that H20 will NEVER form into oil, then you accept the principle, but you can still try to argue against it til you're blue in the face. Rather you agree with the principle or not, the people who do have VERY good reasons as to why they do. If you want to study the subject further to better understand it, that seems like it'd be a good option, if not, that's ok too, it's easier to be an atheist that way. And really, I will just leave it at that.

Aren’t you expressing massive amounts of arrogance in just this text?

@@lovinit45454 How come? It'd be more helpful if you gave an example and more of an explanation as to why you think that. As I see it, I am speaking frankly as somebody who was an anti-theist, basically. It is the unfiltered truth of what it entails to be a self-professed atheist. Identifying as agnostic is reasonable, but being an atheist is simply ludicruous because it is a senseless position to hold if it were true i;e: Theism and theists are the saving grace for atheists to identify as atheists, in the first place.

"Everyone is just like me," says the person who has gotten over his arrogance.

@@chocolatestraw3971 You've clearly got quite a long way to go still if that's your takeaway lol

@@csongorarpad4670 "I don't have a cogent answer so I'll just say you're wrong," - the person who has gotten over his arrogance and totally has an answer for everything.

People who think that reality tv shows are "real“ have much more serious problems than just a broken epistemology.😂 Everything you see in those shows is fake, all of the people you see are actors who only pretend to be amazed by the mysterious magic trick. I saw enough "behind the scenes“ videos that made me question if there are any shows left that aren’t 100% fake especially those highly produced magician shows.

@@ramigilneas9274 hey. You're just wrong. Source, magician who knows more about how the show is produced.

I’m Catholic, we take it on faith and using logic, we can reason that God exists based on observations in nature. Forgive me for my ignorance but wouldn’t it be more accurate for an atheist to say that they are agnostic?

@@beatlecristian an atheist can be gnostic (knowing) or agnostic (lacking knowledge) that a particular god exists. For example, if your god is the sun, that it brings life, etc. I would be a gnostic theist. I have evidence the sun exists and that plants use the sun for photosynthesis. But if the sun required praise or performed miracles, you would have to present evidence for those claims. I am a gnostic atheist when it comes to Chiron. I know there could not possibly be a half human half horse animal, so I know for sure Chiron is not a god. I am an agnostic atheist when it comes to a Christian god because it could be possible, but I haven't see sufficient evidence to say that the Christian god exists. What evidence would prove the Christian god exists? Something better than has been offered up in the past 1600 years because everything that has been presented so far, does not prove the existence of the Christian god.

@@beatlecristian no it wouldn’t. Atheism/theism addresses beliefs. Gnostic/agnostic addresses knowledge. There’s gnostic atheists and agnostic atheists

@@littleredpony6868 Most people who call themselves atheists are actually agnostics

Your example is fine, and I also think that people who believe we "live in a simulation" might as well be saying God exists. The Developer is God. Philosophically I can't see the distinction, except for one thing: the simulation folks run the risk of infinite regress... unless they arrive at the Grand Order Developer at some point.

So it's not weird to think that we live in a videogame because you came up with some hypothetical game and arbitrary rules and objectives that can vaguely resemble morals. This is just brainrot

Hahahahaha, I was thinking that. Bet they are upset

It's an assertion that provokes a response. If you believe strongly that God exists and someone says "This single fact disproves God" I'm sure that you, or one of the many many evangelists out there would try to rise to the challenge. In fact, you would be right to. The answer to his question really is easy or hard, depending on the particular "God" you're talking about. The God of the Bible as described in the bible is at best unfalsifiable and thus unprovable, or at worse proven false a hundred thousand times over. If you define God to be all of the Omnis then he's proven false by contradiction. If you define him as unknowable then he's definitionally not provable. Whatever Theist you are has to be addressed before the question can be answered, which seems impossible enough for you guys to figure out. For some versions of God there are no proofs possible. After all what would convince you that 2+2=7 for all values of 2? I doubt anything could, or indeed should convince you. Why should we have to come up with a way to prove something we've demonstrated to be false? How or why would it be reasonable to demand I come up with a way for 2+2=7 for all values of 2 just to give you something to prove?

I've often found the responses back and forth to be illuminating. After all, he used videos of atheists to help make his points.

Are you ignoring the hyper-cringe of titleling a video "One question atheists can't answer". There has never been a video so titled that didn't contain cringingly bad arguments.

The video rubs me the wrong way because it basically takes two separate scenarios and asserts that the same line of logic was used to come to both conclusions regardless of what was observed. It also uses strict parameters on what a "God" and "supernatural" is. Having an interaction with an intelligent being that consistently demonstrates it can manipulate natural laws outside our human understanding in a seemingly intelligent manner and conferring with other humans that they see the same thing is not the same thing as looking at the universe and saying "well...a God MUST exist because how else could this get here?" Even if they are both WRONG and the former scenario was simply parlor tricks on a crazy scale, different methods of observation and testing were used to come to the wrong conclusion. Even if I were to admit there is no way to determine FOR SURE that said intelligent being was intelligently manipulating nature, I can still be CONVINCED that they are doing so depending on my standards of proof. The doctrine of Scientific Method vs Faith has always been the level of proof to verify a claim. Testing and observation vs feeling. Questioning...vs OBEDIENCE. And if you have a problem with that last statement, ask yourselves how many religions punish you for simply following the wrong human preachers and choosing the wrong God?

Only to those with a pre-commitment to atheism or morons tbh.

@@TommyGunzzz Says the guy who believes in a sky daddy that grants wishes 🤣

@@basicsmoothbrain7624 Nah, just a guy who understands basic logic and philosophy, but i mean, its ok, you dont have to think, just stick to porn hub.

I completely agree. Trent really attacked their inconsistent premise.

Do you have thoughts on the “limb from nothing vs universe from nothing?” I suppose that doesn’t matter so much as you engage in philosophical discussions that Barker just hand waved away

And for that matter, Trent’s discussion about a miracle being used as proof for a person, but the most “rational” option being something naturalistic?

Real Atheology: Important to remember that philosophy of religion is an invention of the fertile, human imagination. As such, it has much in common with the stories told by our comparatively primitive ancestors. The "stories" of philosophy of religion are more complex, more sophisticated, sure, but they are still a kind of story. The philosophy of religion is essentially making stuff up about stuff that's made up. I say this because philosophy of religion has become the refuge of the thinking theist. They have somehow persuaded themselves that philosophical arguments can bring "Gods" into existence in the real world, which is absurd, of course.

This is actually a pretty accurate description of theology.

@@karlazeen Yes, it fits and I often lump them together, especially when I am told that I am theologically ignorant, which happens from time to time. Like philosophy of religion, theology - the study of "Gods" - does not bring "Gods" into existence in the real world.

So then, are they really atheists? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say they are agnostic?

@@beatlecristian from what I understand agnostic is a subset of atheist, but then people have really varying definitions of atheist and agnostic. Always best to ask what definition they use I guess

@@Enaccul It's not exactly subset of atheists but generally it is more often brought up as such. Think of it this way., if we think of Santa Claus, your can't really prove or disprove his existence, therefore you are agnostic towards him but at the same time you don't have enough evidence that he exist and it sets you to default position of not believing in extraordinary claims, therefore while you can't disprove him (agnostic) you don't believe he exists (atheist). Same with god, we can't with 100% confidence say he doesn't exist but we believe he doesn't because believing otherwise is irrational. Some religious people think we don't want to believe. No (we don't really bother with it), we are not able to believe even if we wanted to. If i say you to believe that there is floating invisible cup in front of you, i doubt you can force yourself to believe it.

@@ojgfhuebsrnvn2781 Yes very true and well said, I still feel like if someone asked me if I believed in Santa Claus I'd say I didnt believe in him, but that specifically I was maybe agnostic towards him. I like what you said about how because you CANT disprove either God or Santa it makes sense to be agnostic towards the idea. Personally im an igtheist. I dont think the idea of God is a coherent one to begin with, otherwise ya I'd be agnostic probably. (But I consider igtheism also under the umbrella term of atheism kind of like agnosticism) But I know different people hold slightly different definitions and views towards these ideas

did those 2 atheists tell you that you have an imaginary friend??.....they would be right

so smart that he chose NOT to define the g0d. If he defined the g0d, sane adults would ask him what the g0d is. Then the dude would make some claims, and then sane adults would ask him: "How do you KNOW that?" and then he would make some more claims, he could not demonstrate anything. Knowledge can be demonstrated. The g0d isn't even defined yet. (we have CLAIMS about the g0d)

@@istvansipos9940 God has been defined. He wouldn't respond with a claim, but an argument. I don't know why I'm replying to such a silly post

​@@alonsoACRChristianity has over 1000 denominations they can't even define him when they do believe

@@SNORKYMEDIA Our disagreements aren't about what God is. That's very clear, even if many of my brothers and sisters wouldn't be able to put it into words. We disagree on how the Church should look like, how it works, etc. Some about the nature of predestination, how salvation works (not how it looks, our lives end up looking the same we just interpret the why's and how's differently) Are you a Westerner? How come you don't know even the basics of Christianity?