How NOT To Prove God To Atheists
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 апр 2025
- Don't forget to like the video, comment, and subscribe to my channel!
Responding to: • How to Prove God's Exi...
My Twitter: / professor_plink
My patreon page: / professorplink
My Teespring store: my-store-ebd94...
My Bluesky: bsky.app/profi...
background animation:
provided by Videezy.com
Send art or business inquiries to:
dumpsite82@gmail.com
Quoting the bible to an atheist is like taking an accordion with you when you go hunting.
But deers LOVE accordion tunes!
@@melangellatc1718 I like your pfp
An accirdian would have uses with hunting, like stopping bears. The Bible is way more useless.
I like that Jim.
I often wonder if Christian apologists would find the Hindu Vedas convincing, if someone quoted from them.
Would they be capable of understanding that they are doing the same thing?
@@UTU49just like us, they understand that it's obviously just wrong, but they don't look inwards and try and think if they're wrong, and if they do they trick themselves into believing it's true so it's a useless thought experiment for them
Would a Christian find it convincing if a Hindu came up to him and said: "Our holy scriptures say that you already know that Vishnu is real, so that proves he's real" ? I doubt it.
Christians: *_Our Scriptures are based on Ancient Jewish Scriptures! They're older, so they must be more accurate._*
Hindus: Our Scriptures predate Jewish Scriptures by millennia ( _iirc_ ). 🤷♂️
@@AnnoyingNewsletters,
urc.
Christians know god doesn't exist, they just lie to themselves because they want to be the good guys in a cosmic battle of good and evil.
Lol. I just said the same thing.
@@UTU49 Ah, but who said it first? That's how we prove which of you is more correct when saying the same thing.
He haven't even attempted to prove I pooped the universe into existence, so we already know he failed miserably.
Leaf be upon you, O great omnicolored one
Well did you though? Don't leave us hanging man. And how would you like to be addressed your divine sphincterism?
Moor Hen!
My response when a believer says "I'm going to prove it." I respond "I doubt it, but continue.".
So your mind is closed before you even hear the beginning of the proof? No wonder you can't accept it. ( /s ) xD
@irrelevant_noob lol nice sarcasm
@@irrelevant_noob i'm pissing myself from how funny that was
@@irrelevant_noob That's certainly not what they meant. You ever heard Einstein's definition of insanity? What about "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?
When you hear the same B.S. over and over, you start to doubt the credibility of the people who are saying it. It doesn't mean OP isn't open to actual proof.
I say that in general when people speak
He doesnt attempt to convince atheists of anything. He knows he's wrong. He's just reaffirming the believers who watch his videos and praise him.
I don’t feel comfortable saying “he knows he’s wrong”. Feels too similar to “atheists know there’s a god”. I’m not going to pretend like I know what’s going on in someone else’s head.
@Savannah_Simpson I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. Do you want me to call him stupid instead?
@@cClutchless Why not both dishonest and stupid?
@@freddan6fly You know what? That's a nice middle ground.
@@cClutchless Yes actually, never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence
No, Christians, YOU are denying the existence of Shiva because your hearts have been hardened.
No, Hindus, YOU are denying the existence of Yahweh because your hearts have been hardened.
If you cannot see the complete failure of this argument, you are not qualified to hold the opinions you claim to hold!
It is an incomplete argument. It doesn't explain the point at all, which is, you will think that Christianity is bogus until the Holy Spirit decides otherwise.
Well said.
@Asgaardiangatekeeper You can have a complete argument, but without evidence to support it, you have nothing but a feeling, just like the Hindus.
I'm open to a god existing, but because I value truth I cannot believe until there is a good reason to. And because I understand the nature of evidence I require a high standard of evidence.
Something something maximally great pizza
Something something pizza hell for the unbelievers
@@d_camara Hahaha! Beautiful...
Kalam cosmological argument:
1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. _Undemonstrated assertion requiring a presumption_
2) The universe began to exist.
_Undemonstrated assumption used to base bald assertion_
3) Therefore the universe has a cause.
_Undemonstrated assumption founded on a undemonstrated assertion and undemonstrated assumption_
4) If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal creator of the universe exists.
_Unsupported assumption jumps to unsubstantiated assertion_
5) Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator exists.
_Empty assertion based on empty assumptions_
This argument is as useful demonstrating a god as a screen door on submarine is in keeping sailors dry.
I love this one, in my head it plays out like an ironic saga where someone spends weeks "prooving" that nothing can exist without a cause, with the intention of using it as an argument for their... Uncaused... God...
Like bruh, no one thought to proofread it? You spent 4 steps proving god doesn't exist (to your satisfaction at least) to just say in step 5 he does
@@d_camara It's just a failed induction: everything we know is x, so... there must be something that is not x. It just don't work, and it's based only in we being uncomfortable with infinites.
It’s not an absurd conclusion to say everything that begins to exist has a cause?
@Thedottedhalfnote-ui1wj Only if you know the conditions at the beginning of the universe or that there truly was a nothing which in itself sounds like a human construct. You can’t demonstrate nothing so assuming nothing is an empty presumption.
The theist isn’t saying there was a nothing. Just that something that begins to exist cannot come into existence without a cause. Therefore there needs to be a cause of something that begins to existence
My favorite refutation of the Ontological argument is the "maximally great burger." Same "it's so awesome it must exist" logic then add on that it materializes in the hands of people who like burgers and ask for one. Can't argue against that since a burger that comes to you when you want it is "greater" than one that doesn't.
Then simply hold your hand out in the air, say you want a burger and show why you can't define things into existence.
I just go with, "Wouldn't it be maximally greater if a god could do those things without having to exist?"
Every human already knows that the maximally great burger is their god, for the great burger already inscribed its identity upon their soul, and proven its existence to them in such a way that none of them can ask for proof of its existence.
I would abandon my epistemological principles and go looking for the maximally great burger if it also came with fries. Fries that the burger threw into the fryer while promising me salvation. I would gladly step over that salty low bar.
@@rembrandt972ifyPraise Viga! O, Goddess of Nothing, who creates everything by not existing!
I usually bring out the maximally great god-eater that's infinitely faster than the fastest god (because if it wasn't it wouldn't be as great) and infinitely stronger too (ditto) and retroactively deletes each god it eats from all times when it eats them (ditto)
There, ontologically proven no god exist or has ever existed
I'm sure he won't deliver the same tired old arguments we've heard countless times. Absolutely not, no way, no how. I'm preparing to be blown away.
Narrator: He indeed did deliver the same tired old arguments
@Savannah_Simpson I love that short film the western with the narrator. Sorry off topic, however it is hilarious.
A prophecy came true.
Dang, you're going to be disappointed.
@@Zero-ei8jn
I do not know if there is a single other aspect of life that is as disappointing as the catastrophic incompetence of Christian apologists.
There are smart, honest Christians, but they don't engage in apologetics, because they know dam well that there is no rational argument they can make that will convince someone. Such an argument does not exist.
Only brain washing, emotional appeals, or threats can convince someone to believe in a religious doctrine.
Before I present my evidence that God exist, you first have to accept that God exists. Once you've done that, the rest is easy.
let me guess, you're going to use creationist theories and the historical evidence of Jesus? The same Bible that can't decide if humans or animals were created first? (Genesis 1 and 2)
@@Havoccy1010 no, i was going to show you the trees.
@@tussk. Why didn't I think of that... Nobody knows where trees come from...
@@Havoccy1010 trees come from seeds
@@dom11949 yeah I know
More terrible arguments? I am shocked! SHOCKED!
...well, not *that* shocked...
And, finally:
5. The most strongest evidence based argument: LOOK AT THE TREES!
@@KinslayerOfDoom 🤣
Apologists won't believe me, but I am completely open to seeing legitimate logic in their arguments. I believe in the value of legitimate logic.
Logic has contributed to the development of computers, space travel, mobile phones, countless medical procedures, and no end of other technological advances.
Not only do Christian apologists almost never employ sound logic, but their arguments are obviously, laughably incompetent.
You can even prove this to them by using their own logic in support of Hinduism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster... or any other belief.
Well, you do have that brain thing.
@@CrownRock1 Brain thing?
you've gotta love it when apologists preempt their argument with, "if you don't believe my argument, it's because you simply don't want to" nonsense.
I'd like to say to them,
"You are absolutely right. It is completely true that I do not want to believe what you are saying. Here's what you do not understand. The REASON I don't want to believe what you are saying is that your arguments display a truly catastrophic lack of understanding of multiple concepts. Based on how well your brain is functioning right now, there is literally no topic that I would take your advice on. There is absolutely zero chance of me ever seeing you as any kind of authority on the nature and origins of the universe. You have virtually zero ability to think or debate. As a spreader of your Christian beliefs, you are a complete, total, utter failure. Go listen to other Christians who are willing to understand the atheist perspective and then you might be ready to try again."
The weird thing is, I would say a similar thing to them if I actually shared their beliefs.
No, no, that's an actually good point - to believe it you have to want to believe it. Lack of wanting to believe it makes it unbelievable.
@hayuseen6683
I have evidence of alien abduction......
if you don't believe in alien abduction after I give you my argument, then it's because you choose not to believe.
see how this works?
Either the evidence or argument stands on its own merit, or it isn't compelling and unworthy of acceptance.
One needn't evoke bias preemptively against someone who already says they're open-minded and wish to hear evidence and logical arguments.
If you have to preface your argument with a disclaimer or the like, then you already acknowledge the evidence or argument is weak and not compelling.
It's not hard to understand this.
"I'm right because I'm right," basically.
@@hayuseen6683No. If there's actual evidence I believe.
I want to believe I'm a millionaire. I really really want to believe.
However when I look at my bank account guess what? There's NO evidence.
The obtological argument can be defeated with one statement: My god can beat up your god. It just feels like a playground argument is not a good way to try and prove anything.
I don’t think you understand the ontological argument.
The ontological argument is "deriving an is from an ought" - a logical fallacy.
It basically boils down to "God ought to be real, therefore God is real."
@@YorkieBoris go on then, explain it to us, show how it's sooo different
@@YorkieBoris You can't define things into existence. It's as simple as that.
It doesn’t though
Every time I hear the "you really believe" claim, I turn it around on them: You don't really believe. Deep in your heart, you know you don't. You just want to sin and have convinced yourself that some magical overlord will forgive you rather than seeking the forgiveness of the people you wronged in the here and now. All because you're too scared to face the potential consequences of your actions. And what's worse, you've convinced yourself that somehow you're the aggrieved party and it's everybody else who are going to be tortured for eternity.
You would get laughed at, and the "pearls before swine" quote, would get thrown in your face. I believe in something greater than anything you could ever comprehend, and I know it makes you furious to know that. Some snotlord on Reddit, isn't going to be the person to defeat the Godly faith. It is hilarious to see you guys try. You are always so smug about it too.
@Asgaardiangatekeeper See, you prove my point. Rather than atone to the people standing directly in front of you, begging them for forgiveness, you claim some magical overlord has blessed you and that somehow you are the injured one.
You know there is no god. You're just too cowardly to take responsibility for your own life.
@@Asgaardiangatekeeper deep down in your heart, yk God isn't real. You're just scared of death.
@@Asgaardiangatekeeper it's funny how you take such pride in believing a fairy tale. And act like you are better than everyone else.
@@Asgaardiangatekeeperif it is not the unbelievers turning the believers away from the faith - then it must be the believers. Because clearly faith fades. That is what makes believers mad. They know they are fighting a loosing battle...Shooting their own.
Eric's reply:
"Someone sees you taking a bite out of something, to see how it tastes. Wham! You're labelled a freaking god devourer!"
Babies do it all the time too!
That's what happened with sharks. Most shark attacks are the result of them taking a tasting bite out of an animal they don't recognize; i.e. us; and everyone thinks they're actively hunting us like Jaws.
I always love the Futurama clips, highlights the Professors logical explanations.
Always love the scene that perfectly displays how theists have been moving the goalpost for as long as science has existed.
All glory and worship to Eric, the god-eating penguin! 🙌🐧
Wait a second.. if we start worshipping Eric wouldn't he become a god? And if he's a god he'd have to eat himself.. and if does eat himself wouldn't he cease to exist? So rather than worship him I'll just say "Thanks" for eating those pesky gods. I hope YHWH didn't give him indigestion.
A Penguin Oroboros?
Well, he certainly convinced me! Except that first cause I will call Odin.
@@enlacostaizquierda Unexpected set theory.
@@enlacostaizquierda YHWH gives everyone indigestion.
To a maximally great being, wouldn't existence and non-existence be equally great?
Premise ?: A maximally great being is necessarily self-sustaining.
Premise ?: A maximally great, self-sustaining being is necessarily free of wants, needs, or desires.
Premise ?: To a maximally great being, existence and non-existence are equal.
Premise ?: It is equally great and as likely for a maximally great being to exist in NO possible worlds as to exist in ALL possible worlds.
Yes, these "premises" are flawed, but if I see no reason to believe that existence is actually better than non-existence, you're never getting me to "therefore god" this way.
Jup. A maximally great being would have no reason to create a universe as it has no desires.
The thing is that "greatness" is not determined by the being's opinion, because the ontological argument wasn't shitty enough yet, it's kinda assumed to be determined by existence itself like it's some objective thing (rather, they brush this problem off and act like it's just _obvious_ what a maximally great being would be), and everyone also assumes existing>not existing for no reason
Equal, no. See, things that exist are subject to wear and decay. Even if it's just _aging_ it would imply "God" is getting further and further from a "maximally great" state of being in _some_ form, whatever "maximally great" even means. Is older more maximally great? Then younger isn't, and so forth.
So the only winning move is for "God" not to play and not exist.
Another flaw with the Cosmological argument is that it equivocates on what “begins to exist” means. When we say that most things “begin to exist”, we mean they are assembled from existing material, but then apologists try to say that the universe “began to exist” ex nihilo-from nothing.
It’s worse. We have no reason to believe that properties of things within the universe extend to the universe. Assuming they do a composition fallacy.
We don’t know that the universe did “begin to exist”, so we have a sample size of zero universes to draw inferences from. We have no information at all about how universes begin, and word-weaseling won’t change that.
I mean there are clear examples of things that began to exist. People for example didn’t always exist
@Thedottedhalfnote-ui1wj People are part of the universe. That people began to exist within the universe composed of matter that already existed within the universe says nothing about the universe itself which does not exist within the universe, nor is it composed of matter that already existed within the universe.
Our intuition developed within to universe is worthless when applied to the universe as a whole.
@Thedottedhalfnote-ui1wj And that's an example of the first case of "begins to exist"
“All effects have causes, therefore there must be one that doesn’t.”
Like…what did you just say bro?
He worded it poorly. He just said that there's an effect (which by definition, has a cause.) that doesn't have a cause.
He meant to imply an uncaused cause, or an origin to everything. That, in which, he assumes is his God.
Eric, the God eating Penguin is my new hero.
"Falls apart faster than a Cybertruck in a rainstorm."
I just love that one.
I prefer Clortho, the god-eating Octopus, who after devouring all possible gods, starved to death, which is why you cannot find evidence of Clortho, as Octopi don't have bones to leave behind.
The Holy Fairies ate Clortho, the deity eating octopi and then died of food poisoning.
Ok, i love this one.
Oh, the infinitely fast infinitely hungry octopus that retroactively deletes a god from all times when it eats them with its infinitely big mouth? That's like, the maximally greatest of all octopi, therefore it exists!
@@johnburn8031
I thought the crocs ate them... after they ate all the sharks
I prefer Un'Kth'Thu the almighty spider god
When he mentioned empirical evidence, I was expecting a 'look at the trees' argument. This was worse in some ways.
The shroud or turin along with the face cloth of oviedo are the best empirical evidence. No one has been able to explain the image. Lots of theories, but a million dollar reward to whoever reproduces it with 14th century methods. No one's collected yet.
@seasquawke No.
The exact opposite is true.
I would love to see it if it's been explained and reproduced.
Never mind that carbon dating proves them to be centuries younger than 2000 years.
@ianfallon326
Carbon dating can be contaminated. Even a simple Wikipedia search can show you that this is a problem making items appear hundreds of years younger than it is. The latest 2022 findings which used a different dating method involving x rays, showed the item to be consistent with being 2,000 years old.
I mainly watch these because I like Plinks voice. I know there wont be new theist arguments but Plinks voice is enjoyable. Otherwise I wouldnt torture myself with this.
I’m always amazed that he can enunciate so clearly, with his tongue always hanging out, and that horrible dentition.
Horrible dentition? It's gotta be so much easier to floss.
Sorry plink, not even your soothing voice would be enough to make me watch a Kent/Eric Hovind response. Only excuse you have to respond to him is if you're on whack an atheist, otherwise he's a snoozer of a one trick pony
No. Arguments are of course evidence if the premises are true and the conclusion follows from the premises
@Thedottedhalfnote-ui1wj ok. Be good if they presented any where the premises were actually true. They never do though.
Imagine if an atheist said “Hey, theists, you’re wrong because you know you’re wrong.”
We all know they don’t really believe they just pretend they do because it’s what they have always done and change is hard.
I've seen atheists do that exact thing, motivated by the belief in a secular objective morality.
"You already know you're wrong, you just want to do objectively immoral things, so you've invented your religions to make yourself feel justified."
Apparently, not only theists are susceptible to the "you just want to sin" line of thought.
👏👏👏🍀🍀🍀
@@СергейМакеев-ж2н As a lifelong atheist I don’t subscribe to the ideation of sin or objective morality. I support the social construct called law and a cooperative morality.
@@СергейМакеев-ж2н
That really depends on who is being spoken about. Plenty of religious leaders knowingly violate their own religion for power and profit... they're con artists, though, not the masses of believers. It may be a generalization mistake where an athiest paints the whole flock as wolves. But yes, religion didn't invent this, humans will insist people know or can do things regardless of the person they are talking about. Happens a lot with disability.
I love it, when apologists prove their own holy book wrong by repeating the lie that everyone know their god is real.
Gets out the popcorn this will be funny, theists are insane
Popcorn and beer 🍿🍺
Cheers 🍻
Not all
i disagree
@Raspberry_Annihilator Really ? an imaginary iron age friend is rational ?
This should be ...the usual heap of garbage from the theist.
A prophecy came true:
Your post.
you have to love the fact that theists never use the scientific method to prove their mythical deity exists. they use illogical arguments to try and sound smart while proving that they still lack any premise.
Why would they? Science is like the plague to them.
You can say the same about atheists. Where is that scientific evidence proving God doesn't exist?
@@Asgaardiangatekeeper You can't prove a negative.
@@Asgaardiangatekeeperwhich god?
The bible god? There are lots, google it
Just a general gaseous concept of god? People have better things to do than to disprove something that doesn't even have a definition or a shape
@@Asgaardiangatekeeper we don't claim that god doesn't exist.
We just claim that we lack a belief in a god.
Also if there was evidence, it wouldn't be called a belief. It'd be called fact, reality.
Bender's response is what I do when a thiest tells me that I need to respect christianity.
Shiny AND metal …
The buy bull is not proof of anything. I don't care what your fictional story book tells you. This is like me saying, "Snow White tells me not to eat apples."
These people actually think "the bible is the word of God because the bible says it's the word of God." And they don't think that's a circular argument fallacy.
I just love to point to other holly books and see as they try and prove all other religions false before I then use their own arguments against them
@lockedonlaw, "buy bull"? Weird, I just saw a whole series of comments and replies here about how shocked people were that this religious guy regurgitated the same old talking points. I guess consistency is no longer a part of rational thinking. It's all just anger and ridicule.
And everyone clapped for the bargain bin snarky athiest comment that thirty others did on the same video. Are the likes worth the slowly withering mental capacity?
I don't know which snow white you saw but it teaches you about self destructive envy and how awesome polycules are, not apples bad.
@hayuseen6683 you woke up on the wrong side of the bed
"This maximally great being must exist because if it only exists in our minds then it would not be maximally great" I guess a solution to the halting problem must exist too since if the concept only existed in our minds it would not really be able to tell you if a program terminates.
Yeah but there's no religion based around computational problems...
Unrelatedly no one "argues" ontologically, cosmologically, etc. about computational problems...
Wait a minute, i think there's a correlation, mayhaps a causation here...
@@d_camara A god based around proofs and computational problems would at least explain how such a god could have no cause, be beyond time/space, and be involved in literally everything, even other potential universes if such universes exist since the same applies to the rules of logic, proofs, and tautologies. The algorithm for how this god's mind works could be a logical tautology in the same way the halting problem is a logical contradiction.
We'll call our new religion 1/137. Since a logical tautology (that for some reason is a concision algorithm) is the only way (I can think of to) explain why anything exists, I assert it must be true as their can exist no other explanations that my mind just did not consider.
Hehe. I've been planning on watching this garbage for weeks, but it's a tough watch. I couldn't make it past 2 minutes.
Thanks for the moral support Prof. I really don't think I could have watched this whole thing without some help...
The things I would have said in his comments section. Whoosaa
"I'm gonna explain how you as a christian can prove to any Atheist that god exist" 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
We could certainly use some comedy in these confused and troubled times. Go for it. 🤣😅🤣😅🤣
*_It's a bold strategy, Cotton..._*
The educational system fails us in soo many ways.
Private* educational system.
@kennybachman35
both are really
No. Just religious books and creationists..
@@manamanathegreat only public schools in the ghettos, but they’re intentionally unfunded so it’s not a legitimate comparison. Public schools in blue states are pretty decent. Public school teachers are the hardest working most underfunded and under appreciated public servants in this country. That’s why DOGE is investigating them for “waste, fraud, and abuse” instead of the pentagon or police.
@@kennybachman35 my school doesn't tell me humans came from dirt
Damn, Prof, less than 10 minutes in and I can see you are in fine form. Your thoughts mirror mine so succinctly so far this looks to be a fun ride. Love how well you express how I feel. Wanted to make sure to get a thumbs 👍 up in before I got too engrossed. Great work so far. Maybe more later but I might well forget. Sorry.
it's disturbing how an apologist would say "every reason must have a cause" and then follow it up by "therefore there is a first cause that has no cause of its own (and thus what I said before is invalid making my whole argument nothing more than an irritating movement of warm air)" no, it is true that nothing happens on its own, even if we can't see the cause, we can always reasonably conclude that there is one, but that just proves the idea of a cyclic universe, that either exists in a time loop, or in an true infinite true ouroboros state.
if anything, that only makes god creator even more impossible, and, ultimately; useless, as there is a simple explanation to why it's so inconceivable to us (humans) that true infinity exists: we are not meant to comprehend it, yep, that's it, we evolved to survive on earth, not to understand how our universe functions on every level and thus our inability to understand how there doesn't have to be a "first cause" doesn't prove that it's impossible that there isn't
Theists are not saying every reason has a cause. Only things that begin to exist have a cause
@ genuinely, I have no idea if you are a human or a comment bot, that just goes to show how immensely dumb what you just said is
How is it dumb? Things that begin to exist have causes right? Theists are not saying everything has a cause.
@Thedottedhalfnote-ui1wj if they are not saying that everything has a cause, then they are dumb, as, by the law of causality, everything does have to have a cause, which also makes any "1st cause" impossible, as everything must have a cause
The law of causality is just in nature every change requires a cause. That’s not the same thing. Everything must have an explanation but an explanation is not the same as a cause. Something that didn’t begin to exist cannot by definition have a cause. No philosopher wheather atheist or theist has defended this principle you claim is obvious. If no philosophers have defended this veiw it’s probably not obviously true!
I love it when theists can just be creative and give new arguments. Arguments aren't proof and arguments aren't evidence. They are just claims that need evidence to back them up.
When's the last time you heard a theist give a new argument? Three thousand years ago? More? And even then all it was ended up being "Believe or I use this really big stick on your face".
Uh there are new and recent arguments
@Thedottedhalfnote-ui1wj Whoops. I ment to put can't.
@@EdwardHowton I forgot the " 't ". I ment can't.
New arguments? Show me these new arguments! I want new arguments!
12:10 My favorite part of this entire interaction is that if you ask this guy if Arceus, Mewtwo, Mega Rayquaza, or Ultra Necrozma exist, you would be laughed out of the room. Even though they are insanely great being in the minds of gamers all around the world. But replace it with a bearded man in the sky, and you're just a christian
That reminds me of Sam Harris saying that George Bush Jr. claimed to ask God for guidance every day. Harris pointed out that had he said he talked to God through his hair dryer people would think he was insane, but if he says he communicates telepathically it's considered normal. He then asked how the addition or removal of a hair dryer makes Bush's claim any more or less reasonable.
Well ain't that darn, he had the usual brainwashed lies.
Love your videos, thanks for everything you do!
"I can prove God all day but I can't make an atheist believe" is a great way of saying "I'm incapable of proving my God exists"
Then again, people can demonstrate that Evolution is a fact all day, but can't make some religious people accept it.
However, yes, you are correct.
@@pineapplepenumbra
They often do accept it though, but don't understand some parts (namely, the earth has been around for millions of years and small incremental changes leads to big developments) and reject the idea that humans aren't special creatures. The whole micro macro evolution distinction. Or say god caused evolution as a design. God has the ability to slip through any crack.
@@pineapplepenumbraI hate that this is right 😂
@@Not_An_EV I kind of agree with you there.
@@pineapplepenumbra interesting that _some_ religious people DO accept it. ^^
Big part of the issue is there multiple concepts of what truth even means. You go by the correspondence theory of Truth. Truth is that which corresponds to reality as adjudicated by predictive power. This is the concept of Truth used in science that has allowed for every scientific advancement in history. This stands in direct contradiction with the "truth maker" theory of Truth. Where truth is grounded in that which is "real" usually presumed to be God.
I like mine better.
Debunking theistic gOD outside of time and outside of space:
*Premise 1 (P1)* : *Temporal Determination of Action* - Actions, as we understand them, require a sequence of events (a before and after). If a being exists outside of time, there is no temporal progression for actions to unfold. Therefore, a being outside of time cannot perform actions, as there is no temporal framework for action to occur.
*Premise 2 (P2)* : *Spatial and Temporal Determination of Causality* - Causality requires a temporal and spatial relationship: a cause must precede an effect, and there must be some spatiotemporal connection between them. A being outside both time and space would have no temporal sequence to allow causality to unfold and no spatial connection to connect causes with effects. Without time or space, causality becomes impossible.
*Premise 3 (P3)* : *Decision-Making and Time/Space* - Decision-making requires time for deliberation, but it also often requires space in the sense of having options or choices within a context. A timeless and spaceless being would have neither temporal continuity nor spatial context in which to make decisions, rendering decision-making impossible for such a being.
*Premise 4 (P4)* : *Existence, Continuity, and Location* - Existence, as we understand it, involves persistence through time (continuity) and location within space. A being outside of both time and space would neither persist in time nor occupy space, meaning it could not "exist" in any meaningful way. It would lack the basic conditions of existence that we recognize in the universe.
*Premise 5 (P5)* : *Interaction and Relationality* - Interaction, as we know it, requires both temporal and spatial dimensions. A being that exists outside of both time and space would have no means of interacting with anything else, as there would be no shared temporal or spatial framework in which interaction could occur.
*Conclusion* : A being that exists outside of both time and space cannot engage in action, causality, decision-making, or existence as we understand it. The idea of a timeless and spaceless being is logically incoherent, as the necessary conditions for action, interaction, and existence all presuppose the existence of both time and space. Therefore, the concept of a god that is both outside of time and space is philosophically impossible.
This extended argument takes into account both the lack of time and space, showing how such a being would be completely disconnected from the fundamental aspects of reality-action, causality, existence, and interaction. Just as a timeless being fails to engage meaningfully with the world, a spaceless and timeless being cannot meaningfully exist or act either.
29:08 Seems like we can kick the can further too. If the physical world is grounded in the supernatural, then what is the supernatural grounded in? The hypernatural? And the grounding for that?
It seems easier to say that the grounding for, for example the rules of logic, is the empirical evidence that they work and we've never seen anything that breaks them. Come the day that happens, we'll need to revise those laws.
Super ultra hyper quantum omni natural ad infinitum...
This seems like an audition tape - maybe he's hoping for a place with AiG?
Perhaps some sufficient evidence that demonstrates the truth of the God claim, independent of mind and context, would suffice.
How can you have evidence independent of mind?
@thefactoryratgenius4659 the evidence needs to demonstrate that the existence of God is independent of mind and context.
How about that evidence also being verifiable?
@@thefactoryratgenius4659Evidence is a concept from our mind. A human creation, just like truth, time, colour and religion.
@@MrYelly one: time is a concrete force, not a concept.
two: if you are going down this rout, then prove to yourself that I, your computer (or whatever you use to go onto YT) and the Sun all exist, well, you can't, in fact, you may think you are not having an argument and this is all just in your head, same as I may never know if you, my computer, or these pants I am wearing have ever existed
3:08. I knew it wouldn't be long before this meme would be required lol.
Yeah, this dude waves his bible around like it's going to convince anyone of his religion. And when that doesn't work, he just waves the term objective standard around like it's the intellectual nuke of atheism.
In philosophy "possible world" does not usually mean some really existing alternate universe out there somewhere. "Possible world" is usually used to refer to some fictional world that is logically consistent. It's a way the world *could have been,* not a claim about reality. "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world" is a tautology under the usual notion of "possible world" in philosophy.
I find it laughable that a Christian can conceive of an eternity of life in heaven in the future, but not eternity in the other direction.
This is someone who made a video where he said God giving children cancer is completely okay, because *there is no one in the world who DOESN'T DESERVE to get cancer*
it is completely ok, though
Every apologetic is bad.
I have never encountered one that was convincing.
This guy is particularly inept.
"Here are some proofs you can use to prove to atheists god exists"
Also him:
"To be clear, I do NOT recommend using the first three types of "proof," because they aren't really proofs."
That second one is literally his own pinned comment.
Here’s my favorite “logical proof” that a ham sandwich is better than love:
1. Nothing is better than love.
2. A ham sandwich is better than nothing.
3. Therefore a ham sandwich is better than love.
Chock full of fallacies, but you’ll find all those same fallacies in Christian arguments.
At least the ham sandwich exists.
Oh I'm so glad someone covered this guy. His problem of evil video is WILD.
Then there's Frederick The Invisible Blue Leprechaun Queen. He doesn't need a god to exist and is therefore better than any god...
I just wrote on a piece of paper that “theists don’t really believe in god, they just think they do.” I just disproved all theistic religions.
PP, how do you avoid brain trauma from all the head-desking when watching the type of videos you comment on?
duct tape a Hello Kitty plushie to your forehead before watching apologist videos ;)
I guess skills and therapy
Every number has a number that is one less than it: 5 has 4, 4 has 3, and so on. Therefore there must be some lowest number.
No there musn’t …
@@dennish.7708 That was sarcasm!
@@dennish.7708 that's the point, this is a way to show how the "1st cause" argument makes no sense
honestly tho, how is it possible that a non-sequitur so obvious is still being thrown around so frivolously?
@@event-keystrim213 Yeah, the whole thing makes no sense. “Everything has a cause, so there must be a God.” “So what caused God?” “God is uncaused!” “Everything has a cause, except things that don’t have causes, so there must be a God?”
Aquinas' "proofs" were my furst step toward the door. By Messy'
Is that his first name or surname?
Isn't it convenient that his "proofs" are ONLY for HIS narrow version of HIS religion. He would dismiss these EXACT points as illogical if it was a Hindu trying to prove the existence of Vishnu.
Tjat's how most apologetics look like. Maybe, because those are not for non-believers but for boosting confidence of those, who allready beliefs.
About the "Western countries influenced by Christianity have done so much good"... I would assume that some may have a different opinion. In Africa for example. Or the Native people in the Americas. Or in Asia. Or Oceania.
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
You can just say "Bible says God did the things" - and I can just say "I don't give a shit what some worthless book says."
"greatness" is it totally subjective term. Great in what way? And according to whom? Is a God who always punishes people in the way they deserve greater than one who always shows mercy? Is the god who has maximal physical strength greater than one who accomplishes the same goals while being physically weak? There are countless mutually exclusive properties that any being could have that could be considered great, and so the concept of a maximally great being must be subjective and cannot exist in any objective sense
This is the most succinct and entertaining God theory takedown I've ever heard!!
I've heard all of these arguments as well, in addition to the one about Boolean math proving 2+2=5, therefore God! Unbelievable!! Thank you Professor Plink!
Any apologist who deletes opposing comments is beneath contempt. But then, his arguments are contemptible so...
The typical Christian rebuttal…..stick in the ear plugs start jumping up and down screaming _I can’t hear you_
Thanks for the class!
"Here's how you can convince atheists that God exists. Start by going ahead and letting them know that they do in fact already know that God exists and are lying when they say they don't. And then... oh wait. That's it! You don't need to do anything else! Cuz even if the conversation ends with them still saying they aren't convinced, you can always just fall back on your assertion that they are convinced and are lying! :D"
"And if that fails, tell them they can't argue against you because using logic means admitting God exists." Yes, presuppositional apologetics is that stupid.
And its straight to the scriptures...ffs brah.
This guy's delivery would bore any thinking person away from Christianity. His style matches his content.
Truth, perspective and opinion are subjective. Facts are absolute.
'You said, God! You said it. You said it. See see see. He exists'. (Infinte face palms)
Eric, the god-eating, magic 🐧
is the ultimate argument. I absolutely love it, and I love your channel! With your permission, I'd like to use the argument... though I may change the name (due to a shitty Eric in my life).
Cheers 🍻
@@VictorValiant24 go right ahead!
It’s a bad analogy
The ontological argument is about as sturdy as a soap bubble. I can imagine Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe (leaf be upon her) existing, therefore she must exist. And therefore all those other things we imagine must also exist. Unicorns? Dragons? Pegasus? Bring ‘em on!
Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe (leaf be upon her) can't exist bcoz Eric the god-eating penguin already ate her
@ true, true.
That’s not really how the argument works
@Thedottedhalfnote-ui1wj that's basically how the argument works though: that being able to conceive of God means he must exist
The argument is about the maximally greatest being. Not about a generic creator god
Plink, PLEASE respond to his "Math Proves God Exists and Atheists Know It" video. That one is funny too. The amount of projections and accusation is really off the chart in such a short video.
Can we ascend 'preaching to the choir' to be a formal fallacy already?
It's not a formal fallacy lmao
@@pythondrink I didn't say it is. I asked if we could make it one already, since it happens so often.
Afraid not, but it could stand to be promoted to an informal one
Apologists haven't gotten a new argument since Aquinas, Anselm, and the Kalam, which was originally an Islamic argument.
You'd think apologists would have abandonded such spurious and poor arguments or at least have found something more convincing by now. Hmm, maybe there really isn't.
They are only there to provide affirmation to the gullible and convinced. People that left theism or never accepted the concept look at this incoherent nonsensical gibberish as utter 🐂💩 consisting of fallacies built on fallacies.
You misunderstand their job description, they're not trying to win the debate, the debate was settled centuries ago as soon as it wasn't a capital crime to not be part of the church, god lost.
The job of an apologist is making it LOOK like the debate is still going, ACTING like there's still something to debate; how do you do that? By being as confusing and obtuse as possible, by muddying the waters every single day, by only using arguments with big words that all your converts will just go "I don't get it but i can now know there ARE arguments for god and have a clear consciousness about believing it, the professionals have me backed up"
They know they can't win, they are there only to make sure they don't lose either, because you can only lose a debate when YOU admit it, else you can just tap dance forever and ignore every point made, and that's what apologists do
@@d_camara Based on declining church attendance social media may end up being their only outlet to peddle this gibberish.
The blunt nonsense is a feature not a bug, most people do not have a well rounded philosophy conception built on critical thinking. Repeating these arguments is reinforcement training. Biblical interpretation uses the same blunt nonsense reasoning, so it makes sense if you use the same part of your mind as mystical thinking. It only wears the skin of logic.
There are better arguments though
24:00 Jewdo-Christian values look a whole lot like the values of the Greeks and the Romans. If you want to see what Jesus makes without Zuse, look at Islam.
* it's 'Judeo-Christian' and 'Zeus'.
PS sorry to be pedantic.
"It would be ludicrous to think that we were new to this. We do this. It's what we do." -George Clinton
Poppin a presumptive comment in, to please the you-know-what iykyk 😁
🌛🌝🌜
Ahh the lovely three phases that represent the holy one...
All Praise to the Holy Goddess 🌛🌕🌜 the RUclips algorithm 🙏👼👰
@@c.guydubois8270 the moon to the left (my humble "reverential" nod in that direction😉)
"...there is a difference between proof and persuasion."
I can prove that God does not exist all day long, but someone who is too afraid of death, and wants to live forever, is not going to accept it.
When what you say have to be conditioned with special pleading, when you have to _demand_ adherance, you should question what you are saying. If it were true, there would be no need for any demanding.
This is a problem with most religions, that the none believer _must_ be painted as a willing adversary, an enemy. Because:
"How can I be wrong about what I know. It must be them who intentionally deny the truth. They are trying to lie to me."
Don't attribute malice to what is easier explained by ignorance, or a feeling of irrelevance.
Atheists debating theists over the existence of God, is not a sign that God exists, quite the opposite.
"It is all in your head."
Good morning!
And fortuitous algorithmo tidings to you too.
Ontological argument...ffs brah.
It's the stupidest argument for a deity i have ever heard. Presup is the most annoying, but that's just because it's adherents refuse to defend their position in the slightest. But ontological? The imagination song from South Park plays in my head whenever I hear it.
@@zacharyberridge7239 Prove God isn't real then.
@@harryz81Which 'god' do you want me to prove doesn't exist?
@ There's only 1.
@@harryz81 I don't have to. You have to prove it exists. Me pointing out how stupid one of theists' favorite apologetics is in no slight or small way obligates me to prove it's negation.
The Bible is the claim, not the proof.
Ultimate first cause.
Last first cause.
People really need to look up what ultimate means before using it.
Didn't Anselm, the man who is credited with the formation of the Ontological Argument in the first place only ever mean it to be a meditation of sorts?
Anselm himself didnt see it as an argument for God, rather a meditation on the nature of God.
The Ontological "Argument" was never even meant as an argument for the existence of God in the first place! 😂
Christian: "Let me proof that God exists!" "The Bible says that everybody knows God!"
Well then, no reason for a Christian Theist to make a Video then i quess?
Cause by that logic, he would not tell us anything new then if everybody already knows. But theists like that still feel the need to tell everyone "the good Message" like no one has heard of it, almost like theists like that dont believe their Bible themselfs. So... 😜
Somebody needs to objectively prove to this kid that there's a such thing as a pop filter. FFS.
8:34 god has to exist because i imagined him, and if he doesn't, then I'm wrong. And I don't like that
It's especially infuriating when an apologist has a more professional setup, speak well, and generally produces a good quality video... then crap out the worst arguments in existence. It's like going to The Louvre in Paris and seeing finger paintings from kindergarten children (actual children, not an artist doing it intentionally and calling it high art), or watching the superbowl half-time show and it's just some dudes singing bad karaoke.
Don't theists know that Dawkins 3:25 says that all theists know in their hearts that God doesn't exist but simply suppress the truth in their unrighteousness? Check and mate theists
I thought we were meant to be worshipping Darwin, the great prophet of evolution. I'm confused now.
I honestly have never understood how theists believe that his first argument is even an argument. If everyone already believes in God, and they just don't want to, why do they need to preach and spread the word of God? Why did they need to teach the natives and the Japanese about God? If God can't convince them what makes you think so highly of yourself that you think you actually can.
I'm half convinced he's fully aware of his cognitive dissonance and just makes aggressive "haha i got those foolish athiests 😂" videos for engagement bait and views.
Guys I’ll be real, I’m atheist but both this video and the video it is attacking serve NO purpose, whilst this video does an okay job of countering the points of the Christian video, it basically shuts down any possibly of a conversation between the religious and non religious by being freaking condescending.
Both videos just serve to praise their audiences beliefs as being correct and that everyone else is stupid.
There appear to be set genres. Car Christians. Unwarrantedly confident children. Rage pastors. Etc.
and the motorcycle banana man, the true OG of youtube's digital garbage productions
@@event-keystrim213the what now? I'm gonna need more details!
The correct term for the car ones is "cartheist"
2:40 ... i can't say it with you... would need to clean my monitor afterwards 🤣
Did you really expect anything other than middle-school level apologetics from a seemingly adult guy who decorates his room like a middle-school tween?
It also looks like a bedroom with no furnishing. I honestly think it's used as a recording studio, and he genuinely wanted to hang those posters up for the camera.
@@cClutchless Entirely possible you might be right that it's simply an extra room the guy uses for recording. But dang, you'd think he'd spare some change for some actual décor instead of just sticky-tacking cheap paper posters to the walls & calling it good. That's what teenager's do. It's not like shelving & some nice knick-knacks & books are expensive at Goodwill, especially if done over a period of months if on a budget. Do your planning right, & you can make that space look cool & professional for a fairly cheap investment.
The ontological argument literally refutes itself.
>God is the greatest conceivable thing
>God cannot be contained within the human mind
>Therefore, God is not conceivable