Debunking All Arguments For God's Existence

Unless you're raised in a Baptist Sunday school, you probably think that if you believe in God, you should be able to explain why. Luckily, Christians and other philosophers have been answering this question for over 2,000 years. You have failed conclusively. It's over, and there is nothing that you can do here in this room that can turn that around. Hello everyone, I'm Professor Plink. I respond to various theological and ideological questions and claims from a rationalistic and naturalistic approach.

failed conclusively it's over and there is nothing that you can do here in this room that can turn that around hello everyone I'm Professor plink I respond to various theolog iCal and ideological questions and claims from a rationalistic and naturalistic approach

In an effort to give and explain the opposite viewpoint and help to balance the conversation, today we're hearing again from Redeemed Zoomer. Last time we checked in on him, he was attempting to debunk all atheist arguments for the non-existence of God, which ended up being a fail considering that atheism doesn't strictly offer arguments against God per se, but instead debunks attempts to argue for the existence of God. Then he further shot himself in the foot given that most of his supposed atheist arguments ended up being anti-Christian counterarguments that any non-Christian could make, including members of any other faith. But you often can't expect believers to accurately characterize or actually steelman atheist positions because they so rarely understand atheism at all. It's like watching someone trying to translate a different language that they themselves don't speak. But this time, RZ made a video that is attempting to explain in short form all arguments in favor of God's existence. And since this time he's talking about something from his side of the philosophical aisle, there's hopefully a better chance that he will actually be able to get it right this time around. And he's going to be powering through these in short form with relative surface-level explanations of them, so I thought I'd give the scaled-down surface-level counters for each of them just to, as I want to do, balance the conversation. So let's dive in and hear about RZ's take on the traditional apologetic approaches for proving God's existence. But before we get to that, if you end up liking what you see in this video and would like to help out the channel, make sure to subscribe, click the bell so you'll always be notified when new content comes out, check out my social media including my Patreon and Twitter, all linked in the description, and of course like this video, pop in a comment. All that goes a long way towards pleasing the YouTube algorithm, that neighborly normalizer of non-belief navigating the never-ending neighborhoods of nonsensical Nero Wells and no-goodnicks may keep my channel motoring along. Now on to today's video.

non-existence of God which ended up being a fail considering that atheism doesn't strictly offer arguments against God per se but instead debunks attempts to argue for the existence of God then he further shot himself in the foot given that most of his supposed atheist

Evidentialism tries to argue for God by giving evidence of supernatural events. For example, a lot of Christians think the resurrection of Christ can be historically proven because there were a lot of eyewitnesses who all died for their faith, and generally people don't die for something they know isn't true. Sometimes people give evidence of supernatural things like demonic possessions where people start speaking in languages they don't know or near-death experiences where people see things outside their body that they shouldn't have been able to see. Okay, the first argument in favor of God: evidentialism. And right off the bat, a lot of these are going to be very Christian-centric, much like all of RZ's videos are, which is all fine and dandy if you're attempting to validate Christianity. But when your title of your video is "All Arguments for God Explained in 10 Minutes" instead of "All Arguments for Christianity Explained in 10 Minutes," one would think you should generalize your points so that they could be applicable to non-Christian theologies as well. But RZ doesn't do that, for example with this one, which is focused entirely on proof in the form of evidence from the Bible of accounts of people who supposedly saw miracles like the resurrection of Jesus. Except the Bible does not contain any accounts of eyewitnesses to the resurrection. It only contains claims that there were eyewitnesses to the resurrection written by authors who themselves did not witness the resurrection, like when Paul wrote about these supposed 500 eyewitnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus, which would be like me writing that a bunch of my friends saw Bigfoot but I won't give you their names, let alone any direct accounts of the events, but just trust me, this totally happened and they really did see it all. Actual evidence be damned. And accounts of demonic possession are even worse because to claim that someone was speaking in a language that they didn't know, well, they would need to establish that A, they actually were speaking in a real language and not just spouting gibberish that the person listening mistook for a language that they also don't speak, and then B, that the person speaking it actually and truly didn't know any of that language when they could have easily picked up a few phrases in just about any language by spending 10 minutes reading a book or by Googling it.

someone trying to translate a different language that they themselves don't speak but this time RZ made a video that is attempting to explain in short form all arguments in favor of God's existence and since this time he's talking about

Like for instance, "Ahem, oleum, mumus." That was Latin, a language which I do not speak, hence my horrible pronunciation. And as long as Google Translate was accurate, what I just said was "I am Legion, for we are many." Now my friends and family know that I do not speak Latin, but if I had a mental breakdown tomorrow and started having a fit while screaming that phrase over and over, my parents might think me possessed in speaking a language that I didn't know. Well, my parents wouldn't because my parents aren't idiots. And even if these things could be established with no possible rational explanation for them, at best that gets you to some kind of supernatural influence. It doesn't get you anywhere near a god. Hell, it doesn't even get you to demons actually existing when it could have easily just been a spell cast by a very human magic wielder. But even if you did prove actual demonic possession, all you've proven is demons, not God. Perhaps demons actually exist, but God doesn't. Stop trying to prove God by unsuccessfully attempting to prove things that aren't God by claiming that those non-good things couldn't possibly exist without God based on nothing but blind speculation.

thought I'd give the scaled down surface level counters for each of them just to as I want to do balance the conversation so let's dive in and hear about RZ take on the traditional apologetic approaches for proving God's existence but before

And then you mention near-death experiences. Well, near-death experiences have been debunked countless times. People near death imagine things that simply didn't happen. And when they sometimes accurately report things that did happen while they were unconscious, such as things the doctors said or did while working on them, it can be chalked up to some intermittent awareness of their surroundings enough that things around them incorporated themselves into their dream before dying, like how sometimes your alarm clock going off can become a part of your actual dream. That doesn't indicate anything supernatural.

including my patreon and Twitter all Linked In the description and of course like this video pop in a comment all that goes a long way towards pleasing the YouTube algorithm that neighborly normalizer of non-belief navigating the never-ending neighborhoods of

The moral argument is basically: objective morality is only real if God is real, but objective morality is real, so therefore God is real. Question is: cannibalism, good or bad? I think it's good. I think it's bad. I think it's good. I think it's bad. Which one of them is correct? Now I'm assuming you agree with this one. If you don't, please stay away from me. But how do you know that he's actually correct? How do you know that these aren't just different opinions? Our little friend here can only be objectively correct if there's a supreme authority that says cannibalism is bad, and that supreme authority is what we would call God. You keep using the word. I don't think of me. What do you think it means? I would agree that cannibalism is bad subjectively, so objective morality does not exist. Objective morality cannot exist. This argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between objective and subjective. All morality is based on value judgments declaring something good or bad, right or wrong, positive or negative. These are all value judgments, and all value judgments, I repeat, all value judgments are subjective. There's no such thing as an objective value judgment. All value is assigned. All value is based ultimat...

because there were a lot of eyewitnesses who all died for their faith and generally people don't die for something they know isn't true sometimes people give evidence of super Supernatural things like demonic possessions where people start speaking in languages they

don't know or near-death experiences where people see things outside their body that they shouldn't have been able to see okay the first argument in favor of God evidentialism and right off the bat a lot of these are going to be very

Christian Centric much like all of RZ videos are which is all fine and dandy if you're attempting to validate Christianity but when your title of your video is all Arguments for God explained in 10 minutes instead of all Arguments

for Christianity explained in 10 minutes one would think you should generalize your points so that they could be applicable to non-Christian theologies as well but RZ doesn't do that for example with this one which is focused entirely on proof in the form of

evidence from the Bible of accounts of people who supposedly saw Miracles like the resurrection of Jesus except the Bible does not contain any accounts of eyewitnesses to the resurrection it only contains claims that there were eyewitnesses to the resurrection written

by authors who themselves did not witness the resurrection like when Paul wrote about these supposed 500 eyewitnesses who saw the resurrected Jesus which would be like me writing that a bunch of my friends saw Bigfoot but I won't give you their names let

alone any direct accounts of the events but just trust me this totally happened in they really did see it all actual evidence be damned and accounts of demonic possession are even worse because to claim that someone was speaking in a

language that they didn't know well they would need to establish that a they actually were speaking in a real language and not just spouting gibberish that the person listening mistook for a language that they also don't speak and

then B that the person speaking it actually and truly didn't know any of that language when they could could have easily picked up a few phrases in just about any language by spending 10 minutes reading a book or by Googling it

like for instance a hemo leonam mumus that was Latin a language which I do not speak hence my horrible pronunciation and as long as Google translate was accurate what I just said was I am Legion for we are

many now my friends and family know that I do not speak Latin but if I had a mental breakdown tomorrow and started having a fit while screaming that phrase over and over my parents might think me possessed in speaking a

language that I didn't know well my parents wouldn't because my parents aren't idiots and even if these things could be established with no possible rational explanation for them at best that gets you to some kind of Supernatural influence it doesn't get

you anywhere near a god hell it doesn't even get you to to Demons actually existing when it could have easily just been a spell cast by a very human magic wielder but even if you did prove actual demonic possession all you've proven is

demons not God perhaps demons actually exist but God doesn't stop trying to prove God by unsuccessfully attempting to prove things that aren't God by claiming that those non-g good things couldn't possibly exist without God based on Nothing But Blind

speculation and then you mention near-death experiences well near-death experiences have been debunked countless times people near death imagin things that simply didn't happen and when they sometimes accurately report things that did happen while they were unconscious such as things the doctors said or did

while working on them it can be chocked up to some intermittent awareness of their surroundings enough that things around them in Incorporated themselves into their dream before dying like how sometimes your alarm clock going off can become a part of your actual dream

doesn't indicate anything Supernatural the moral argument is basically objective morality is only real if God is real but objective morality is real so therefore God is real question is cannibalism good or bad I think it's good I think it's bad I

think it's good I think it's bad which one of them is correct now I'm assuming you agree with this one if you don't please stay away from me but how do you know that he's actually correct how do

you know that these aren't just different opinions our little friend here can only be objectively correct if there's a supreme authority that says cannibalism is bad and that supreme authority is what we would call God you keep using the word I don't think of me

what do you think it means I would agree that cannibalism is bad subjectively so objective morality does not exist objective morality cannot exist this argument is a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between objective and subjective all morality is based on

value judgments declaring something good or bad right or wrong positive or negative these are all value judgments and all value judgments I repeat all value judgments are subjective there's no such thing as an objective value judgment all value is

assigned all value is based ultimately on opinion as such it can never be truly objective as all value requires a thinking agent a subject to assign it even if God exists and that God has written incontrovertible moral law that

moral law is still subjective with God being the subject who assigns it so you aren't talking about objective versus subjective morality what you're actually talking about is deity derived versus human derived morality and so now it's become a

circular argument if deity derived morality exists then a deity must exists to derive it from deity derived morality does exist therefore that deity God exists except you haven't established that deity derived morality does exist you haven't proven that an unequivocal

moral standard of any kind exists yes you and I may agree that cannibalism is wrong but I imagine the cannibal would disagree and your only defense against that moral subjectivity is to declare that the cannibal is wrong but based on

what your feelings that they're wrong that cannibalism is wrong your feelings about that well I have that feeling too but I'm self-aware enough to understand that that feeling is coming from me and my understanding of morality from my

personal subjective moral framework and I'm not so self- deluded as to think that it's being beamed down from on high and for some reason that morality beam just isn't getting through to the cannibals of the world the cosmological argument is basically

that something must have caused everything else everything that happens has a cause and that has a cause and that has a cause so where does this go does this go on forever that's not possible at some point there needs to be

a first cause of everything else there needs to be an unmoved mover an uncaused causer an unchanged changer it needs to be Eternal because if it ever starts or stops existing that's change and it can't do that it needs to be outside the

universe because everything in the universe is caused it also needs to be all powerful because if it can't be moved but it can move anything else that means it's all powerful and this is what we would call God so this is the William

Lane Craig version of the cosmological argument and it largely boils down to a lot of unproven assumptions and small-minded Le assigning aspects of our universe and how things work within it to prior to or outside of the universe firstly assuming that any kind

of first cause needs to be intelligent or have intentionality rather than even contemplating the idea of any first cause potentially being completely a natural occurrence devoid of any intellect or intentionality then insisting on things like the first cause being Eternal

without actually knowing what that means it gives the impression of something existing infinitely into the past and future but time itself does not stretch infinitely into the past or future near as we can tell Time start started when

the universe took its current form 13.7 billion years ago this line of thinking also insists on the first cause being outside of the universe thereby assuming that there is such a thing as outside of the universe in the first place a notion

that has not been established then the craziest one of all insisting on the first cause being all powerful because um it can't be moved but when did we prove that it can move anything and everything else but when did we prove that I mean even

if it moved the first thing and started the big bang that doesn't mean that it has all power over everything that occurred thereafter I mean I can make a first move by pushing a large Boulder that is teetering on the edge of a mountain and

then it moves absolute tons of as it Carin down the mountain side that doesn't mean that I have all power over all the trees that it knock down or the creatures that it killed along its path basically starting off a chain of events

does not insist that the first movement in that chain has all-encompassing power over everything that happens along that chain so basically none of this stuff follows from the initial idea of there being a first cause which itself doesn't

even insist on intelligence or intentionality I don't get it okay let's make it even harder then everything is a mixture of act meaning what it is and potency meaning what it could be for example a baby actually is alive and it

could be an adult an apple actually is red and it has the potency to be eaten so if you eat an apple you're actualizing its potency to be eaten but you also are a mixture of act and potency for example you have the potency

to be strong but you're not anytime something changes you it's actualizing a potency in you anytime a change happens you have one thing actualizing another but you can't go back forever So eventually need to go back to an un

actualized actualizer which we call God okay this seems like the theistic take on Quantum superpositioning this sounds pretty much like Schrodinger's cat where you lock a cat in a box with poison and since you can't see or detect whether the cat is

alive or dead the idea is that it exists in a super position of being both alive and dead simultaneously until you open the box and collapse the Paradox into one reality so all that about everything being a combination of observed reality

and the possibilities of what it could be all that's fine but the problem occurs when you trail that chain back to your first cause and then assume that it can't have been a similar mixture of reality and possibilities well why not what brought

you to the conclusion that the god that you believe in couldn't have expressed its potential any differently especially given that you think that God has all power to do whatever it wants but the actions that we take shape our reality restrict our

potential into a singular way of being for instance you use the example of a person having the potential of being strong if they choose to take the steps towards building their muscles and getting stronger that choice and the

actions that were taken restricted the potential and actualized the reality of that person being strong well isn't the same true of God didn't God have the potential to be a deity who created a whole universe and life in order to have a relationship

with that life that it created couldn't that God have also decided not to create a universe at all and just be content in and of itself as a perfect being or couldn't that God have chosen to create life differently than it did

or to create the world or Universe differently or to have no relationship with that life that it created at all weren't these all potentials that were unrealized until the god that you believe in acted in order to actualize

them so then how is God different from the person realizing the potential to become stronger how is the god you believe in not a mix of act and potency also is this one sphere distracting anyone else the random color swap is

flaring up my OCD and I don't even have OCD Pascal's [Laughter] wager you serious Pascal's wager is much simpler and it's more of a thought experiment than an argument let's say you're an atheist and Atheism turns out to be correct nothing happens after you

die well then you don't really gain or lose anything it's just kind of neutral for you but let's say you're an atheist and it turns out you're wrong and God is real then it could be very bad for you

now let's say you believe in God and it turns out atheism is correct well then you still don't gain or lose anything it's just neutral but if you believe in God and God is real then you could gain

everything so between these two possibilities which one do you want to bet on this one gives you a much better chance so it's better for you to believe in God you actually brought up Pascal's wager what were you just trying to fill time

and didn't care how batshit crazy and nonsensically stupid this line of thinking is let me try to parse through some of the major flaws in Pascal's wager as quickly as I can for starters this is where your Christian Centric approach to

these arguments is really shooting yourself in the foot if you're a Christian and you believe in the Christian God well what if it turns out God is real but it's a Hindu god and that Hindu god really doesn't like

Christianity then the Christian and the atheist are in the exact same boat and both are going to Hindu hell even though the Christian fervently believed in God also even if the god you believe in does exist that's no guarantee that you

pick the right religion to properly follow him for instance the god of Christianity is exstensively the same god of Islam but Christians insist Muslims will go to hell for not being Christians and Muslims insist Christians will go to for not being Muslim so what

if your God does exist but he favors the Muslims then the Christian and the atheist are in the same boat both Bound for hell now if you really want to look at this from a gambling perspective a wager

placing point of view then to tie yourself to one God belief is clearly the worst bet let me explain so let's say you start off with the same basic setup as Pascal's wager let's say there's a 50/50 chance that God exists

and that God doesn't exist I don't think that's anywhere close to the actual odds of both options but fine I'll give you that one well if it turns out that God does exist now you have to figure out

which God exists using the same logic of equal odds for all options then we have to divide the God exist side into all of the different possible gods that could exist and that's somewhere in the vicinity of 4,500 gods that humans have

believed in and worshiped since we created theism in the first place that's if the god that exists is actually one of the ones humans have conceived of and not something totally different this lowers your odds to having selected right to about one in

9,000 since you only had a 50% chance of being right about any God existing in the first place my odds of being right that no God exists is still one and two you don't have to be a Vegas odds maker

to understand that atheism is the safer bet here by a country mile theological argument says that stuff in the universe seems to have a purpose so that means the universe must have had a designer if you found a

machine lying around you would assume that somebody designed the machine so theological argument tries to argue that the Universe works like a machine so somebody must have designed the universe why do attempts to exemplify theological argument always fall back to man-made

objects and then comparing them to the universe a machine whatever that machine may be is a man-made object we already know that it's man-made by the very nature of what it is why don't you use something complex that is not decidedly

man-made like a snowflake for instance snowflakes comprise complex geometric forms and yet we understand how and why they form the way that they do naturally the ice crystals that make up snowflakes are symmetrical or patterned because they reflect the internal order

of the crystals water molecules as they arrange themselves in predetermined spaces known as crystallization to form a six-sided snowflake ultimately it is the temperature of which a crystal forms and to a lesser extent the humidity of the air that determines the basic shape of

the Ice Crystal thus we see long needle-like Crystals at 23 3° F and very flat platelike Crystals at 5° F the intricate shape of a single arm of the snowflake is determined by the atmospheric conditions experienced by entire ice crystals as it falls a

crystal might begin to grow arms in one Manner and then minutes or even seconds later slight changes in the surrounding temperature or humidity causes the crystal to grow in another way although the six-sided shape is always maintained the Ice Crystal and its six arms May br

Branch off in New Directions because each arm experiences the same atmospheric conditions the arms look identical so we know that snowflakes despite appearing complex and intricate enough that we might think they're designed are actually just the result of

natural occurrences that are conforming to the forces that play around them the reason proponents of the te logical argument are always attempting to compare the universe to something man-made is because obviously man-made objects were made intentionally with intentional design and if they can say

hey the universe is complex and hey this Maserati is complex and hey the Maserati was designed with intentionality then hey the universe must have been designed with intentionality too or it's a natural occurrence just conforming to the Natural Forces at Play

Just Like a snowflake but of course theists tend to think everything absolutely everything including snowflakes are all designed by God so there's literally nothing a non-believer could ever point to as undesigned meaning that theological argument in the mind of a theist is an

unfalsifiable argument which means that it should be revised or discarded if one is actually attempting to find truth because a key part of any hypothesis is its condition of falsifiability but hey don't let logic or intellectual honesty get in the way

of what you think is a mic drop moment for your position am I right things in nature like the human cell or the ecosystem of the world are very complex and they work like a machine now darwinian Evolution can

explain why that is but there's also things darwinian Evolution can't explain like the four constants of the universe there are physical constants like the gravitational constant and the electron charge the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force that are perfectly

fine-tuned such that if they were even the slightest bit different the entire universe would immediately collapse in on itself to say that the fundamental forces of the universe are fine-tuned requires that those forces had a reasonable chance of being different

from what they are if they were any different the universe would collapse in on itself as you say well prove that it's even possible for the forces of the universe to be different from what they are prove that it's even possible for

Gravity to have a different constant or for the nuclear force to work differently than it does we have no idea how to even begin to alter these forces nor even if it is possible for them to be altered and we only have one Universe

to draw data from so the constants of the forces of the universe being what they are seems to have odds of one in one or 100% nears were able to tell there is no chance at all that the forces of the

universe could even be different from what they are so they aren't fine-tuned they have precisely the only values that they even could have the ontological argument says God exists because of the way he is bruh yeah the ontological argument is the

purest theistic in all of AP atics if you really want to hear RZ ramble about it go watch the original video but it all comes down to attempting to define God into existence God is defined as the greatest

being imaginable and actually existing is greater than not existing so therefore God must exist the only retort needed to this flatsome well other than that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard is that definitions are criptive not prescriptive definitions come from

observation and understanding of a thing we Define a fish as a creature that swims not because we insist upon it but because we observe it swimming but you're defining God as a being in which nothing greater Can Be

Imagined because that's what you need it to be defined as in order for the ontological argument to work even though it still doesn't work that definition is not based on any kind of observation or self-existent Reason to put those terms

onto the god that you're proposing also I can imagine a being greater than the god you're proposing I mean part of your conception of God is that God is unchanging you went over that back during the cosmological argument the unmoved Mover The

unchanging changer well being able to change is greater than not being able to change I can imagine a God who is rigid and unmovable when it wishes to be but can also be infinitely flexible if it chooses so this super God that I imagine

has more Free Will and more abilities than your God does but wait that would just mean that the super god that I'm imagining is actually the god that you're thinking of right since your God is defined as the

greatest being imaginable but no it's not the same being because you believe that the god that you're thinking of created the whole universe but the super god that I'm imagining it didn't create the universe but instead gave that task to a

lesser powered being which would be the god that you're thinking of because delegating to others is greater than being forced to do something yourself so I have now defined a being that is clearly different from the god that you believe in but is also clearly

above and Superior I to the god that you believe in but I bet you would say that my definition is flawed right yeah good retort definitions can be flawed can't they I mean it would be silly to insist upon an unproven

definition and then insist on that thing's existence based on said unproven definition right do you understand what I'm saying there is also the argument from personal experience it may sound silly but everyone does see the world through the

lens of their own personal experience a lot of people are convinced God exists either because of Supernatural events they've seen or because of answered prayers or just coincidences in their life so this is very good at convincing oneself that God exists but not very

good at convincing other people wishful thinking you misunderstand something that happens and assume it was a supernatural event when it wasn't something goes your way and you see it as answered prayer ignoring all of the unanswered prayers which is sometimes

called remembering the hits and ignoring the misses sometimes things go your way sometimes they don't doesn't mean there was any Supernatural intervention involved and then coincidences happen to think that coincidences are Supernatural is to fail to understand probability and

the downright inevitability of coincidental occurrences the transcendental argument basically says without God nothing can make sense at all there's a lot of things we assume but we can't prove we assume that logic works we assume that there's consistency in the natural world

we assume that truth exists but we can't prove any of these things scientifically because these are the basic assumptions we need to make to even do science all of these things make sense if we presuppose a worldview where God exists

because then we can say all these other things are grounded in the mind of God but if God doesn't exist then we have no justification for the the things we assume and everything just collapses this is sometimes called

presuppositional apologetics or the people making these claims are sometimes called precepts if you run into them online and they are as silly as their line of thinking sounds we don't just randomly think logic works or that there's consistency in nature based on

nothing and for absolutely no reason in fact we have every reason to think these things lit Lally 100% of the evidence that we have indicates these things consistency we assume the same physical constants that we experience right now

will be true tomorrow not because we're basing that on absolutely nothing but because they have proven to be constant for as long as we've been able to detect going all the way back to the Big Bang the constants of the universe have been

the same to think that they will randomly and for no reason change tomorrow that would be crazy and it's the same thing with logic we believe that logic works because well logic works it's always worked it has never not worked so

why would we think that logic will suddenly stop working tomorrow for no reason not only do these things always work and always have worked we don't even know how they could ever possibly change so for the unchanging unchangeable

brute facts of how the universe works to continue to do so well that's not indicative of some kind of supreme Supernatural power that's exactly what we would expect to be the case in a naturalistic universe conforming to the

Natural Forces at play now if those constants were to suddenly and inexplicably change that would be evidence for an all powerful Supreme Being because it would take such a being to cause these things to change to cause the constants of the universe

to suddenly alter where they never have before but that's never happened now has it and as far as truth exists which was something else you said that we sometimes use as a basic assumption that's a philosophical question there

are plenty of philosophers who have spent their lives questioning the very nature of existence of Truth or what even truth means or is there cap T truth or lowercase tea truth and what do those terms mean I'm not going to get into

that here suffice it to say the only grounding we need for the axioms of naturalistic universe are that those axioms work and they have always worked and we have every reason to think based on experience that they will continue to

work if they ever appear to change we'll change those axioms accordingly but we don't need to appeal to a supernatural demonstrated God being to say that the Universe Works the way that it works and will continue to work that way into the

future there is the argument from the mind or Consciousness which says Consciousness cannot be explained naturally generally The Atheist explanation of Consciousness is that our brain is just a very Advanced biological machine but unlike our minds machines can be reduced to their parts now our

brain can be reduced to its brain cells but that's not the same as the experience of Consciousness for example you could find a part of our brain that sees the color yellow but that's not the same as the experience of seeing

yellowness you cannot study Consciousness scientifically because one can only observe one's own Consciousness Consciousness and experience are two different things Consciousness is what we call a collection of functions and processes that our brains carry out Consciousness is an emergent property of

the brain resulting from the communication of information across all of its regions and cannot be reduced to something residing in specific areas that control for qualities like attention hearing or memory when you talk about experiences like seeing the color yellow you're

really talking about how one function affects other functions turning s data like Vision into memory or how that s data might trigger emotional reactions like what if you weren't seeing the color yellow but were're looking at a loved one and what emotion would that

stir in you Consciousness is the overall canopy term for all of the things that your brain is doing that produces cognition experience is how those individual functions interact with each other you can study all of these things from a scientific neurological

standpoint and neurologists have been doing so for years literally every single thing the brain does that we experience as Consciousness or the formation or maintenance of our minds has been mapped and studied from a purely materialistic biological perspective and there's nothing that

even hints that any of it comes from something ethereal or spiritual or that there's some kind of a soul involved in how our minds work then there's the argument from mathematics which says there's an infinite reality higher than

our physical universe so basic math isn't all that special for example the number five corresponds to five apples and 5 * 3 corresponds to three groups of five apples but the more you get into advanced math the more math starts to

get disconnected from our world but it still works for example There's real numbers which are numbers that correspond to real things but there's also imaginary numbers that are just as mathematically real but they don't correspond to the real world which is

why they're not called real numbers but they still exist mathematically even though they don't exist in the real world the big problem with this argument is that it's attempting to view mathematics as something self-existent it's basically a mathematical spin on theological

argument that was the one that says complexity exist complexity indicates design that Cosmic complexity therefore must indicate a God to design it this argument is basically saying that math exists math is complex complexity indicates design therefore there must be

a God who created math to work the way that it does the problem is math is a language it is another one of those things that is descriptive not prescriptive we use math to describe the universe the universe doesn't work in

accordance with math math Works in accordance with the universe and as a language as a descriptive system math is not self-existent like any language say English for example English is not self-existent even those things that we created words for that might themselves

be existent like the rock or the table the language itself is just a system of symbolic cues that stand in abstractly for that rock or that table math does the same thing the things in the universe that math explains or describe

exist but the numbers themselves are just symbolic cues numbers don't exist as anything other than Concepts and as such we can make similar symbolic cues that don't reference anything but exist as pure Concepts like imaginary numbers and trying to use the complexity

of math to indicate design in the universe runs into the same problem as trying to say complexity in the universe indicates design the complexity of the universe can exist entirely naturally and without intentionality and since mathematics are just a language for describing the

universe it makes perfect sense that math 2 would be as complex as the universe it describes and every bit is natural so that was redeemed Zoomer rushing through not all but certainly some of the most common apologetic Arguments for

the existence of God and as he closes his video off saying and by the way this video wasn't intending to make any of these arguments it would take a much longer video to do any of these arguments Justice it's just to give you

guys an overview of these arguments so you can look more into them yourselves if you want and that's fair enough it certainly would take much longer to flesh out all of these arguments in their entire just as it would take longer for me to

go over all of the different counters and debunks to all of them frankly I'm fairly sure I've made videos debunking all of these at one time or another some of them multiple times over but when I was going through my deconstruction of

my faith and I was desperate to find just one single good reason to continue to believe in God I went looking in the form of religious apologist and these arguments were not the entirety of what I found but definitely they are the

biggest and most recurrent arguments that I ran into and even when I was giving them every benefit of the doubt and I so wanted to agree with them in order to maintain my faith I couldn't ignore the massive holes in these arguments that

were big enough to drive a truck through every one of them have major problems that basically discount them from serious consideration the cosmological argument requires a variety of unproven assumptions the moral argument doesn't know what words like objective and

subjective even mean the te logical argument assumes complexity must mean design when it doesn't the ontological argument attempts to define God into existence which doesn't work the Mind argument is just ignorant of basic neurology personal experience discounts the unreliability of personal

experiences and how prone we are to misunderstanding things that happen to us Pascal's wager presupposes one God and one religion is the only theistic options transcendental precepts assume there needs to be a supernatural grounding to reality when there

doesn't math Arguments for God assume math is prescriptive and self-existent when it isn't and evidentialism relies on faulty or non-existent evidence it was my inability to find a single sound argument for the existence of God that was the final nail in the

coffin for my waning belief in God and in the years since I've still not encountered any arguments for anything Supernatural that hold water redeem Zoomer may have just been giving surface level pitches for these Arguments for God for those largely

uninitiated to them but even at the most basic of surface levels this is still some really weak sauce and the sad thing is it's about the strongest stuff that apologists have to offer and so that is where we'll end

things for today so thanks for watching everyone don't forget to like this video comment and subscribe so you'll always be notified when a new video comes out check me out on Twitter and patreon if you'd like to support my work directly

my Teespring if you want some plinky merchandise all that link below in the description special shout out to my most recent super thankor here on YouTube the weirdo 61 Stephanie spinella 3925 and salvi Mike until next time I'm Professor

plink reminding you to keep striving for greater understanding if it's the best way to get wherever you want to go