6 Proofs of God's Existence - DEBUNKED

socrates once stated that we should follow the argument wherever it leads when we look at the most profound question of life does god exist we should certainly follow his advice when we do we'll find evidences that show us god is real let's look at six proofs that show god exist why hello my fellow weeps i'm stephen woodford and as kyle butt of world video bible school just stated we are today digesting six proofs of god's existence now you might be thinking what god vishnu odin osiris i mean different people in different parts of the world and at different times believed in all sorts of gods and that's a great question that you'll find comfortably swept under carl's carpet hence we have to proceed with a very vague notion of god shall we number one the universe must have a cause the most fundamental law of science is the law of cause and effect and it says that for every material effect we see there is a cause that came before it or was simultaneous to it and that is greater than it i don't know about you but when i first heard of this law of cause and effect i had a case of the rock's eyebrow and when carl stated what the law is i smelt what can only be described as divine excrement if you copy paste carl's so-called most fundamental law of science the most fundamental law of science into google you'll find eight results four of which are mirrors of carl's script three atheists quoting carl's video and one is to an inaccessible site simply put carl conjured it out of nothing just as he claims his god conjured the universe out of nothing what's more notice that the definition that carl gives us is of classical causation plus some suspiciously convenient words and that is greater than yet no carl even in classical physics a mere pebble can cause a colossal avalanche and funny enough effects are overwhelmingly the result of a congregation of causes not one oh and don't think that you're adding the word material material slipped us by i'd say good try but it wasn't the universe is a material effect so what caused the universe now that's a bold claim i hear you all say what evidence does kyle offer to support his assertion that the entire universe is an effect let alone that it's exclusively a material effect well he misrepresents the big bang which we'll get to in just a moment first i want to emphasize that by defining the universe as an effect carl is assuming his conclusion of the universe having a cause he's begging the question he's trying to prove that the universe has a cause all while assuming that the universe is an effect that's what is popular today that there was some type of singularity that exploded in something called the big bang but then when you try to get down to the bottom of what's a singularity well what we hear from the scientific community that suggests to us the the cosmologist they say well a singularity was something that popped into existence from nothing except they don't though do they kyle you're making things up again aren't you carl as the theoretical physicist sean carroll person we use the phrase the big bang to refer to that earliest moment of the history of the universe where we don't understand what is going on it's a placeholder for our lack of understanding thus we don't get to call the grand cosmos an effect since we simply don't know what happened before the big bang proof number two design demands a designer it is a truism that everybody recognizes that this universe looks designed in fact when we see the various different aspects of nature and we see birds and squirrels and trees and parasites and cancer and birth defects and billions of uninhabitable planets in a vast universe that's overwhelmingly deadly to all known living organisms yeah it never ceases to irritate me the proponents of teleological arguments ignore the abhorrent designs of life for they contradict an omnibenevolent omnipotent god look at the trees they say not the zombie fungus upon its branches that's been lovingly designed to infest living creatures to split their body open where does design originate what you and i both know is that when you see things that function and they're complex that design comes from an intelligent designer big explosions just simply don't bring about order they don't cause things that are functional and complex to come into existence but putting aside the abhorrent designs notice that this is william paley's watchmaker analogy it's the whole a painting requires a painter a building requires a builder and therefore a human requires a human maker it's the claim that complexity complex requires a creator now i've said this before and i'll say this again if i live before charles darwin published the origin of species there's a very high chance that i would be a deist explicitly due to how convincing teleological arguments were before the publication of this masterpiece there's a reason why the paradigm shift of darwin is recognized as one off if not the most important in history evolution by natural selection explains exactly how unconscious natural forces can and have produced exceeding complexity furthermore it perfectly explains the vile as well as the beauty and the near perfect as well as the catastrophic failures god on the other hand is and will always be an argument from ignorance we don't know therefore god the trees are beautiful therefore god the glomerata wasp reproduces by forcibly injecting its lava into caterpillars therefore uh let's just get to the next proof proof number three life demands a supernatural life giver you see in the material world we have come to understand that there is a law of biology called the law of biogenesis law of biogenesis simply says this that in this material natural world life comes from previously existing life of its own kind shall we shall we google carl's definition yeah two results one of which being a mirror by a presbyterian church and the other being a quote of carl's video now when we look at how people used to think about life they said no life can arise spontaneously from non-living chemicals and yet every single biological experiment has shown us that that simply is biologically impossible life doesn't arise from non-living chemicals back in the day aristotle and his motley crew inferred that since complex organisms emerge from such things as soil and rotten carcasses it follows that complex organisms can spontaneously arise from non-living substance but in the 19th century louis pasteur and john tyndall disproved this long established belief by demonstrating that complex organisms are the product of reproduction rotten meat doesn't produce flies the fly lava within the rotten meat produces flies creationists such as karl like to act as if this disproves the hypothesis of abiogenesis which is the natural process by which single-celled organisms as opposed to complex organisms emerge from non-living matter but it doesn't where did life originate if it doesn't arise from non-living chemicals you see the idea that there's no god suggests to us that there had to be some singularity without a cause that exploded and that explosion brought about design which we've never ever seen happen and then ultimately somewhere the non-living chemicals gave rise to life but that's biologically impossible again spontaneous generation has been disproved but abiogenesis most certainly hasn't to say that it is impossible that single-celled organisms emerge from non-organic matter is to display one's complete ignorance of science and epistemology proof number four moral law demands a moral law giver if some things are objectively morally right and other things are objectively morally wrong then there must be a god i recently created a response to carl butt's colleague eric lyons who expressed this same sentiment and just as eric defines moral laws as divine edicts so too does kyle you see if we evolve from primordial slime over multiplied millions of years at what point did objective moral values arise we don't look at a dog and say that that dog objectively morally violated some rule when he steals a bone from another dog we don't say hey he violated a objective moral value we just don't say that while objective moral frameworks exist the type of objective moral framework that carl insists upon divine command theory doesn't if divine moral laws did exist then by virtue of them being divine it would follow that a god exists but again they don't even among those that claim that they do their so-called objective morality has historically demonstrated itself to be every bit as whimsical and subjective as any other moral framework at one point divorce was objectively condemned now not so much unbaptized babies went into limbo now they're in heaven and women were once objectively less than men but now they're just different proof number five free will exist the atheistic idea that there is no god is founded on the idea of materialism the idea that this material world is all that there is all that there was and all that there ever will be because of that atheism has to suggest that you as a person don't really have free will ah jesus christ what a load of gesh gallop first carl fails to define what type of free will he's referring to is it libertarianism or compatibilism because compatibilism is compatible with materialism whereas libertarianism is not second atheism is not the idea that there is no god indeed is not an idea at all it's a lack of being convinced of the idea that at least one god exists and third atheism is not founded on materialism there are plenty of atheists that believe in all sorts of supernatural non-materialistic things from astrology to ghosts to telekinesis to libertarian free will and beyond this is just an unfortunate common straw man from carl and proof number six human reasoning you see we reason on a regular basis we understand abstract ideas if we were products of blind chance random processes over multiplied millions of years reasoning and the laws of reasoning simply would have no explanation but that's the thing about natural selection isn't it it's not blind chance and random genetic mutations are random but the process by which they survive natural selection is determined being able to understand the dangers that envelop us and consequently make decisions based on that understanding gives us a very obvious advantage that the unconscious process of natural selection would promote if two ancient humans saw a herd of charge in mammoths and one had the inclination to consider stepping out of their path then she would have a higher chance of surviving to pass on her genes of having reasoning capacity and yet we reason together on a regular basis from where does reason arise it's got no naturalistic atheistic explanation it doesn't have an atheistic explanation agreed just as it doesn't have a non-stamp collecting explanation but contrary to carl's assertion there is a naturalistic explanation natural selection that not only accounts for our successful reasoning capacities but also our failures such as has been embodied by carl here anyhow thank you kindly for the view and an extra special thank you to my wonderful patrons and those of you who have supported the channel via other means i really appreciate your support especially during these hard times thank you

Channel: Rationality Rules

Views: 203,788

Rating: 4.8444796 out of 5

Keywords: proof of god, 6 proofs of god, kyle butt, kyle butt proof of god, rationality rules, stephen woodford

Id: AXarxMt4rqk

Length: 11min 44sec (704 seconds)

Published: Tue Nov 03 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/c0d3rman]

Here is my recommendation as an atheist. You say you are a Bible believing Christian already. Why are you a Bible believing Christian? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like it's not because of these arguments. It's a bad idea to start with your conclusion and then try to go find arguments to prove it, because not only is it a logical fallacy, it also won't help anybody - even if someone disproves all your arguments one day, it won't change your belief, since your belief was never based on those arguments in the first place. The point of arguments is to figure out what the truth is, not to reassure you that what you think is right. So an argument that doesn't affect your beliefs whether it's true or false is a useless argument.

So why are you a Bible believing Christian? Really ask yourself that. Why do you believe? Why do you believe in the Bible, and not the Quran, or the Book of Mormon, or the Vedas, or the Avestas?

[u/[deleted]]

Hi!

First, I strongly, strongly reccomend you watch this video first: This is a brief video explain the argument: https://youtu.be/4PDKNNq6siQ

So I will try to help illuminate just one of the arguments, as I am not well versed in them all. I would like to address the “first cause argument.”

So, first we have to be clear which one we are referencing because there are a few cosmological arguments that might be termed “first cause arguments”. There are Aquinas’ arguments, the Kalam and the contingency argument. Let’s focus on the contingency argument.

The contingency argument uses a variation of the principle of sufficient reason, which was first articulated by Gottfreid Liebniz. It states that everything that exists must have a cause for its existence. The variation used by the formulation of the argument I defend doesn’t rely on everything having an explanation for it’s existence, but only that someone could possibly have an explanation for its existence. Let me state the argument as a formally syllogism.

1. If a contingent type - call it c - exists, then it is possible there exists something that explains C’s instantiation.

2. At least one contingent type exists.

3. Therefore, it is possible that there exists something that explains c’s instantiation.

4. Explanations for c’s existence must be either i) logically necessary, or ii) logically contingent.

5. Explanations for c’s existence cannot be logically contingent.

6. Therefore, possibly, a logically necessary explanation exists.

7. If it is possible a logically necessary cause exists, then it is necessary a logically necessary cause exists.

8. Therefore, a logically necessary explanation exists.

This syllogism doesn’t beg the question in any way, and I haven’t mentioned anything about the Big Bang or physics. Rationality rules hasn’t raised any significant challenge to this argument in the video.