This is ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” – Debunked.
To support me on Patreon (thank you): https://www.patreon.com/rationalityrules
To support me through PayPal (thank you): https://www.paypal.me/RationalityRules
To follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Rationalityrules
And, to tweet with me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RationalityRule
1. ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existience”: https://youtu.be/-jxdIt2_WI0
As always, thank you kindly for the view, and I hope that this video helps you understand and articulate the fallacies and errors in ASAP Science’s “Can Math Prove god’s Existence” (and of course Arguments from Improbability in general). Stay rational my fellow apes.
Y’all are actually on the same page. Stop nitpicking. ASAP is just doing an over review but you want to go into detail. This is not a debunking video but a more in depth video piggybacking off their video 🙄. Get over yourself
It’s important to know as well, if you very much want to go with the 1/7,775 theory, that considering the history of the universe, the dice may be considered to be rolled more than once. The creation of each planet could be considered each to be their own dice role, and Earth may be the only one to show up as straight snake eyes, as far as we know.
Say, if you flip a coin, there is a 50/50 to land on heads, but if you flip the coin more than once, the chance to land on heads at least once dramatically improves. The same goes for both dice rolls and the creation of a life-sustaining planet.
This argument debunking matches my argument against Pascal's Wager. Pascal's Wager states it's safer to believe in a god than risk going to hell. But what Pascal's wager fails to account for is the vast number of possibilities out there. For every belief that you go to hell for *not believing* in X, there's the same chance you go to hell for *believing* in X.
My argument goes further, however. Pascal's Wager has no purpose for convincing believers. Pascal's wager is designed to convince non-believers (usually non-believers who are "on the fence"). This means that the most rational way to present the argument is for people who consider god unlikely.
If someone was trying to convince me of Pascal's Wager, and I rebutted with "there's a chance that you could go to hell for believing in god." If they were to reply, "That is unlikely", then I can easily point out that the same is true of the premise behind Pascal's Wager.
ASAP's "Can Math Prove God's Existence" video sounds remarkably similar to the arguments made that we're living in a simulation, but Elon Musk believes that there's a much higher chance that we're living in a simulation than that we're not, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson strongly believes in the simulation theory as well. Can you make a video about the simulation theory? The theory seems like a god theory to me.
humans have genetically altered, plants, animals, and different species, for example: look up glow in the dark kittens.. now what scientist have noticed is that certain types of markers that show up in the altered DNA animals, also are in human DNA and RNA.. why? if we evolved naturally then there should not be markers that someone, genetically altered humans the same way that humans, have altered DNA of animals that would never meet or bred together.. atheist busted !! why is human DNA altered? and who altered it? answer: our Creator did.. you atheist don't know, because your GAY, and are defects of nature and everything in nature has defects, and you are human defects, who don't have a creator, and that is what makes you defective.. No more defects,, No more evil.. own it !!
Why can’t one assume that a world is created when there is so much evidence of creation? Is not man a great example or evidence that creation or creating is possible? Imagine and see all the tools man has made from primitive to the most modern tools, all of it are CREATED BY A CREATOR and was created and designed first in the mind before it was made by man..if this is so evident in a man, this is also evident in other creature in this planet..therefore everything is created and patterned to the Creator..even this video was creatively put together by someone who ironically doesn’t believe in creation.
The reason why one wants to be an engineer because one wants to create something not merely relying it to “natural selection” or evolution or big bang! It was thought of, designed, tested thoroughly, with much detail that an engine was born, for example.
I'm sorry but the first syllogism ASAP Science presents is not begging the question. It literally follows the rule of Modus Tollens.
P = There is no God
Q = Humans did not develop
~P = There is a God
~Q = Humans did develop
If P, then Q
The argument they offered is simply a probabilistic version of the argument I just offered. No question begging whatsoever.
It would have been question begging if they would have said something like this:
There is a God, so humans developing is likely
Humans did develop
Therefore, there is a God
The most silly philosophy I have ever come across is the question that "can there ever be a proof for the existence of something I currently have no proof on how it exists" and the answer to it was NO. hilarious
To be fair, one of the easiest counterarguments to the "probability" issue is... even if the probability of humans exisiting by 'pure luck' on Earth was 1 in 10^24, it takes that one single chance to happen to allow us to even ask that question in the first place. If that one single chance didn't happen, we simply wouldn't be here and that question would be a non-issue :)
I don't think the video was trying to prove God. I think it was trying to show how people in the past tried to use math to prove intelligent design. Still a pointless video to make since it is obviously fallacious
I still don't understand the claim that evolution is not random. Dawkins seemed very sure of that. But as I understand it natural selection acts on random gentic mutations. Survival of the fittest also seems to be a misnomer as there is something called genetic drift which is a fancy way of saying that a particular group accidentally dies out.
+Chris Francelli I made no suggestion that god was an answer to anything. And it is sad that someone should who acts infavour of science but attacks a simple question. Moreover you miss the point, sexual selection and environmental pressures are natural selection acting on random mutation. Perhaps you should reconsider the question before attcking like a fanatic. There are no scientific facts, which you would understand if you understood the subject better. I have a degree in biology, what do you have?
the best part about the chance (that they obviously made up on the fly) of how low the likelihood of us being here without a god is, is the fact that in a universe that is massive and continues to expand STILL facilitates us coming into being without a god just by basic laws of averages. If that number was even remotely true then that chance would still be the one in a billion billion that allowed us to be here in the first place so their argument even though it's completely untrue can still allow us to exist without a god even by it's own logic.
i try to always watch your videos straight through, but sorry, I couldn't tolerate a full 9 minutes of ASAP's preposterous poppycock. 7:00 minutes in I started banging my head into the wall at the sheer stupidity of what was being presented, so thought it better to shut the video off before I hurt myself.
Luv u as always though RR.
A note on chance:
Say that, like the die, our chances of coming into existence are 7,775:1. While this would make it look extremely unlikely to exist, it disregards one important factor: the number of rolls. If you rolled forever, the probability doesn’t matter: it’s inevitable for that result to be reached an infinite amount of times.
I really like the way you call them out on their BS, but yet you are so polite when presenting your arguments. You're respectful and you acknowledge the other party where its due. Thanks for all these wonderful videos!
why is there arrogance, to suggest that humans have divine parenthood, and are entitled to the entire universe, and are in fact the centre of this world. What in the world is this absurd idea. We have no idea what is the centre of the universe, nor we have any idea, which part of the universe are we at accurately. We just know that we are living in a universe, and what's observable around us is local.
actually, we are the last of the homo genus, the Homo sapiens species, and the Homo sapiens too have experienced a bottleneck effect once. We had massive epidemics, warfare, disasters. All of it evolution by natural selection. There is no proof that there was divine help to guide humans.
Idk this is a good video but it’s missing the point of ASAP sciences video like It’s assuming everything was created from nothing which if it was then the chances of there not being a god or any creator of any kind is impossible because that contradicts the laws of physics. And evolution has nothing to do with how the universe began. So I think the only mistake ASAP science made was the argument they presented was assuming that the universe began from nothing which we do have compelling evidence that it did and if it did there has to be a creator of some sort whether that be gods or a simulation I don’t know
IF magical, human creating, pixies existed, then there is a 100% probability that humans would exist; humans exist, therefore human creating pixies exist. Before speaking of how likely humans are to exist if god/gods exits, god/gods have to be demonstrated to be a plausible explanation for human existence. Basically, the probability of the outcome doesn't matter, if the cause has not been demonstrated to be sufficient and necessary.
Man, seriously!!!! YOU JUST STATED EVERYTHING I THOUGHT OF WHILE WATCHING THAT VIDEO AND MUCH MORE!!!! THANK YOU!!!! You have no idea how much calmer I feel inside knowing that I was not alone thinking that it had way too many logical fallacies!!! THANK YOU!
if there is no magic 31 genie then rolling a 31 is very unlikely, I rolled a 31 therefore it is unlikely there is no magic 31 genie.
pr( Magic 31 | Data ) = pr ( Data | Magic 31 ) * pr( Magic 31 )/ pr( Data ), note that this is done after the fact that 31 exists so probability of data is 1.
so pr( Magic 31 | Data ) = 1 * pr( Magic 31 ) /1 = pr( Magic 31 ).
oh god, they actually referenced bayes box, wonder what gymnastics they pulled and if they showed they pulled the hypothesis after the data...
Rationality rules is always violating rationality. Evolution as an explanation of life? I did not knew biogenesis and molecules were ruled by natural selection and evolution. More over he claims there is abundant evidence of this. 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
Also you can't say his numbers where crazy when you just randomly decided to put the alien and non alien sign on them actually the human sign should be on God why because when you see a painting in the forest with no foot prints you assume there was a painter so you can assume there is a creator behind the creation
one thing i disagree with is that natural selection is random, the mutations are random but the good ones are just the ones to survive so there is structure to it at the later parts. that doesnt change the fact that the start of the process is very random, its one of the reasons it takes so long(not only just one of)
As an artist with some design background, simplicity is more indicative of a designer than is complexity. The design argument for God fails because the premise of complexity being designed seems inconsistent with actual design. If anything, complexity is evidence of poor design or non at all.
Before I admitted I never believed in any higher power, I always thought that god would have been the spark of universal expansion. Nothing intelegent, nothing with a will, just the spark of chaos in all of creation. That always struck me as beautiful. Aesthetics dont really matter to reality tho
I'm a Christian because I like to follow the evidence. The evidence (that is required in order to have faith in science) RELIABLY leads many wise, clever, humble and highly intelligent people to an eternal, spaceless, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, immaterial supernatural mind. I.e the same God that Christians believe in. Hence I'm not surprised that science owes a great debt of thanks to the great Christian science pioneers. The same Christians who wisely and rationally concluded that doing good science is a noble way and method to get a better understanding of God's awesome mind. Thanks and praise to God.
Which is why as a rational Christian - the all powerful, just, true, eternal, all wise, omniscient perfect person whom I worship needed no designer nor any cause. The Big Bang discovery, the findings of Albert Einstein and science itself relies very heavily on some very necessary philosophical presuppositions. Furthermore the Christian God can indeed be rationally credited as the ultimate mind and cause of everything that the scientific method depends upon.
Your use of the black and white fallacy response shows your haven’t done enough research on theological scientific explanations for the existence of God. The natural law of causation.. “the un moved mover” in philosophical terms is what Christians use to explain the rational believe in God..
The likelihood of a perfect, all powerful, all knowing being simply existing without a reason, design, designer, purpose or work, is also incredibly low (with the very limited amount of information we have).
The probability of such a being existing is much lower than the possibly that random configurations of matter and energy which are shaped by the rules of physics, chemistry, single celled biology, multi-celluar biology and biology that uses sexual selective variation, can, over long periods of time, produce molecular machines that depend on chemicals to continue to exist in an orderly pattern with a propensity to propagate variations of that pattern to another generation of molecular machines.
For if it wasn't the case we would see a multitude of deities in contrast to the billions of forms of ordered matter and energy we are aware of, within the scope of matter and energy we can identify.
Such a situation also completely devalues life at large and humanity in particular as perfection can just happen without any intellect to produce it. As opposed to our very limited intellect and power, which such proponents suggest required a deity for our existence.
+sigmata0 I'm merely assuming that atheism is true. Therefore in the absence of a moral law giver (eg God) that objective morality is an illusion. I'm just asking you to prove that morality does exist, because as you are the one making a plethora of truth claims (e g that morality exists and that the Christian God is somehow an immoral sadist), the burden of proof is on your shoulders 😉.
How do I explain that to someone who has lost their humanity? The ducks and lions very rarely ever kill their own species. Their food is sought from other living things. As is the grand majority of other complex creatures. It's an interdependent web of biological interaction. What we as a species have preferences for does not make those preferences universal. You would have distinct emotional difference in your reaction to the killing of a mammal in comparison to killing an an insect. That is completely arbitrary on the face of it, but it's directly due to our empathy with creatures who are more closely related to us than insects are.
By saying "subjectively distasteful" you are again inferring you have a choice. As you cant' show me the alternative nor how it operates, least of all how it would be superior, you have nothing at all to say to me. Again, pretending you have an alternative doesn't make it so. I understand you've completely reframed the notion of morality which is why you undoubtedly promote immoral acts. Like the indoctrination of children. That is completely immoral but due to your personal belief you think you are completely justified in doing that. You are effectively supporting the idea that a god that allows children to be damaged, then grow up to kill themselves is somehow a morally good entity. How fucked up do you have to be to come to that conclusion?
You are a monster of your own design, and you think I should become a monster like you. Behind that emotionless facade you promote the idea that emotional blackmail will seal the deal, that threatening non-believers with some kind of endless torment will make your case stand when you have no evidence or basis to claim what you do. None of that is moral. Particularly when it was a consequence of your deity's design failures.
If you can look into the eyes of a child and simply dismiss your subjective reaction you are a psychopath. If you are are such then I don't expect you to understand my description of the reaction. I understand that such people exist. I very much doubt you are one of those, but if you are then this is all hypothetical to you.
No, how you are doing this is to change the context in which you are making meaning of the world. The context doesn't match reality and as a consequence the meanings you are making are at odds with the consequences for others in reality.
You've not even attempted to make a case for your position. You've make sure you done as much as possible to hide your position. That too is morally indefensible.
It's making me feel sick just talking to you. Someone who is quiet at ease with the idea of endless torture. Have you ever actually experienced anything like torture? Do you even know what it is you are promoting here? I think you've divorced yourself from your body. Mainly to inflict horrors upon others.
Now as I've previous stated it's your personal belief that is running you. You don't have a human say any more because you have to maintain your belief regardless of information to the contrary. Just like the millions of devotees for countless deities through history and today. None of that rests upon a methodology that creates consistent results of modelling reality. You won't see that as long as you hold a belief that stands in the way.
I've had enough of your immoral ravings. Go forth and multiply.
+sigmata0 I find boiled onions vile and unpleasant and I also observe lions killing zebras and mallards killing their own offspring. Yet we don't condemn the lion or the male duck. Nor the chef who serves boiled onions. So please tell me why the paedophile's deeds are truly wrong and evil - as opposed to being merely illegal, antisocial or subjectively distasteful?
An objective and true basis.... hmmm. Well, objectively, you have no claim to the supernatural. You literally have no evidence. Second, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. It makes no other claim. What you are asking me is a description of how moral action can be derived from non-supernatural means, as if you had a choice. As you have no evidence for any supernatural events, the choice is not there.
I'm willing to accept there are aspects of what you do that you consider moral. I suspect you think others act in moral ways too. In that regard, even though we don't agree on what constitutes moral behavior, we can agree a general category of possible behaviors include those with moral evaluations with the intent to act as moral agents. In this regard they exist as far as the definition of such activity exists, and because there is no sign of the supernatural, it must be a consequence of the natural, i.e. ultimately the laws (patterns in nature) that science can interact with and discover. Your imagination is not something you can assert as an alternative.
So let me layout the general situation we find ourselves in, and how they can be the basis of moral evaluation and the valuing of moral action in societies. The morals humans use are a production of the minds humans have, and the interaction between the bodies those minds control, and the environment in which those bodies interact. For any individual that environment includes all other human individuals, as well as the other animals, plants and panoply of life together with all that is not life but we can interact with.
All organisms that actively interact with the environment must make decisions based on whatever data they can acquire through their own senses, together with modelling that environment, so that they can make active decisions about how to interact with that environment. To do otherwise is simply to act randomly and will be less efficient than choice with intent rooted in accurate models of reality. This sensory feedback includes information originating in the bodies of the individuals themselves about those bodies.
Some of those patterns are encoded into particular filtering of the senses with the expectation of particular patterns in the environment (biases). Others are more flexible, without such a rigid relationship between sense and the coding of that sensory feedback. Depending on the kinds of animals that engage in this kind of activity, different preferences for the kinds of feedback are applied. So, for instance, for predators particular patterns of movement are sought after, as they are consistent with the prey they have co-evolved to pursue. In complement to this, prey seek particular patterns to respond to, when deciding to flee, or remain stationary. More basically, a particular kind of information from a limb will be coded to correspond to an internal model of reality which indicates pain, pleasure, heat, cold, wet, dry, pressure, etc. Without this range of coding, an individual would have to learn not only what causes damage to a limb, but learn what damage meant when getting signals from a limb (or even that the signals themselves originated from a limb as opposed to elsewhere).
For living beings which seek food, shelter and to procreate, those patterns which are consistent with such meta-sensations are coded accordingly within the models such animals develop to allow them to navigate the environment to successfully fulfill those goals, i.e. to eat food, be safe and comfortable and find a avenues with other individuals to have sex and be selective about whom those others are.
For animals that engage in social interaction with their own species, pattern seeking and coded feedback includes the the behavioral signaling from others of the same species (this is not exclusive to social animals but is a strong preference with such groups. Sexual paring also commonly demands such coding of inter-personal patterns of behavior).
For all goal seeking behavior, part of the biases for coding experience are the ones which label some action or inaction as successful or a failure with respect to the pursuit of a goal (or many goals). More commonly in biological systems it's the pursuit of optimization towards the consequences of a choice rather than maximizing of the outcome of some choice. So the coding is about being on track or off track with regards to some particular desire.
All social systems work better when the participants operate with other individuals in mind. That is, they don't operate in a locally selfish way because the well being of the system is more important that the well being of any particular individual. As such the coding we have is a balance between those elements which are purely selfish and those which are purely self-less. An individual who is at one extreme or the other is unlikely to survive and reproduce (until the group size increases beyond the threshold in which the majority of individual action has catastrophic consequences for the group, even then it can be hazardous).
One of the innate biases to behavior is the desire to propagate your genetic heritage. It should be obvious why this is, but I'll say it anyway. Any reproducing machine which doesn't value reproduction will be superseded by those machines that do value such an outcome. In regards to life, some individuals will die protecting others as their genetic propagation has a direct benefit for doing so. In our experience, coding for family, community, tribe, nation, species, etc, are biases within the general coding of experience. Similarly we can model what others sense, because we model reality in general but also because that is important to understand others behavior and actively chose to cooperate or dissent from some activity.
Humans are unique in that they have both reflexive consciousness, extensive tool making abilities and a mental capacity which allows us to not only model reality but intervene into those models directly. The communication skills that we developed from being social animals became more sophisticated due to the need to communicate more sophisticated ideas, and this was amplified when we transposed verbal coding of language into written form. With this achievement, the coding of experience was no longer limited by the live of an individual.
In our societies, the legacy of coded knowledge allows us to extend our meta-modelling of experience past any individuals acquisition of knowledge. This is the basis upon which ultimately philosophy, law and social contracts could be codified and their contents be reintroduced to new generations of people rather than word of mouth and non-verbal communication between individuals alone.
I understand what pain means. I understand it in various forms. Not just physical pain, but emotional pain, social pain, mental pain (whatever labels have meaning for you). I also understand that the majority of humans also feel this way. We are the same species and as such although there are variations, we are more the same than different.
So, when I act in a way that I realize will adversely affect another human, I feel something about that. It's not simply about my local goal, or my own desires that inform me about the consequences of my actions. Similarly when someone is hurt, I can empathize with that. If someone pricks their finger, I understand what that would me to me, as I could feel that. This empathy is the basic element upon which moral action can be evaluated.
When a child is forced to have sex with an adult, I can imagine what that would be like and how unpleasant that would be for the child. If by action I can stop that sensation occurring in others I care about, then I am driven to act in that fashion as is my general social concern. The coding of my experience is biased to provoke that sensation in me. It's pretty simple, even thought the evaluations involved are not.
You are a morally bankrupt individual who puts their personal belief over the consequences of crime against other people. This is because you've decided there are no bad consequences. You're not debating if people go to hell, nor if that is a moral consequence of finite failure. You're completely fine with that. You've shown me your dark side and it's horrific. You've distorted yourself completely in the name of a belief and you didn't even notice how corrupt you've become as a result of it. You are the same kind of person who killed others during the dark ages simply in defense of a church. You're consistent with those who hide abuse to protect the church because in your mind the church is more important.
If such empathy is so foreign to you that I have to explain it and why that is sufficient grounds to be morally outraged by this bestial archbishops behavior and your support of it, then that is exactly why I am suggesting you've lost your humanity.
+sigmata0 No atheist has even come close to demonstrating an objective and true basis - to substantiate their moral condemnation of me or Cardinal Pell. Hence if you wish to cease merely revealing yourself as an intellectually bankrupt, prideful, judgemental hypocritical bigot, the time is long overdue for you to demonstrate a sound position for your moral indignation.
If atheism is true then it seems utterly pointless for Rationality Rules (or any other devoutly faithful atheist) to try and prove the non-existence of a non-existent being. A bit like someone going to great lengths to produce slick YouTube videos and devoting a large part of their life trying to debunk the existence of a pink and purple unicorn.
However as the biblical God has indelibly stamped morality on each of our hearts and made his existence blatantly obvious (that only a proud fool could vainly argue against his reality), I'm not surprised to see faithful atheists want to kick back at such a being.
God imposes morality, whereas unicorns don't. This is why I think the type of atheists who want to argue against God are merely too cowardly and dishonest to admit that their real motives are pride and self-centredness. Instead they carry on the pretence with the smoke screen of "reason", "Rationality" and other self described lofty titles. Otherwise such atheists would be benignly indifferent to the idea of theism (in the same way they are towards unicorns). They trump up dishonest miscaracterisations of God in order to attack a straw man imitation of God. Sorry to break the bad news to those atheists, but the more you focus in on God with your emotional and cowardly bleating, the more room and scope you give the Christian to highlight your philosophically flawed complaints and futility of your vain and pointless crusade. In a perverse and unintended way, I actually think their intellectually bankrupt bleating only draws more attention to the superior and more well reasoned and rationally robust proofs for God. When a truly humble person with an inquiring mind and open heart sees the contrasting arguments, I'm not surprised they become Christian. As evidenced by the rise of it in Africa and Asia.
" it may take quite a long time for your devoutly faithful atheistic evangelicism to finally get through to me."
-Atheism isn't faith. Your low IQ is really shining through...
"So if you could please offer up some good reasons to join you as a
fellow devoutly faithful frothing at the mouth angry at God atheist"
-I'm not angry at God, just like I'm not angry at the Tooth Fairy, or the Easter Bunny. You aren't that bright, are you?
"then I promise to get my low IQ brain to do it's very best to make sense of whatever reasons you can please provide?"
-Can you dumb ass make sense of no evidence?
" also keen to know if my low IQ has anything to do with whether or not God exists."?
-It's likely, as religion teaches bad reasoning.
" Thanks again?"
-No problem. I'm glad I could help your dumb ass out.
+asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg Since I'm a dumbass religitard (suffering from the unfortunate consequences of a low IQ), it may take quite a long time for your devoutly faithful atheistic evangelicism to finally get through to me. So if you could please offer up some good reasons to join you as a fellow devoutly faithful frothing at the mouth angry at God atheist - then I promise to get my low IQ brain to do it's very best to make sense of whatever reasons you can please provide? Bless you brother. P.s also keen to know if my low IQ has anything to do with whether or not God exists. Thanks again
"If atheism is true then it seems utterly pointless for Rationality Rules
(or any other devoutly faithful atheist) to try and prove the
non-existence of a non-existent being."
-No, it's not pointless. He's helping people shed false beliefs. If you had a friend that legit believed in Santa Clause, don't you think he would be better off _not_ believing in Santa?
"However as the biblical God has indelibly stamped morality on each of our hearts"
" and made his existence blatantly obvious"
-No, it's not obvious at all. There is no evidence of God, and the reasons people give for believing in God are blatantly fallacious.
"only a proud fool could vainly argue against his reality"
-You are assuming God is part of reality...
"I'm not surprised to see faithful atheists want to kick back at such a being."
-I'm not surprised to see theists incorrectly asserting that atheism is faith based...
"God imposes morality"
"This is why I think the type of atheists who want to argue against God
are merely too cowardly and dishonest to admit that their real motives
are pride and self-centredness."
-Yeah, thinking is not theist's strong point...
" Instead they carry on the pretence with the smoke screen of "reason", "Rationality" and other self described lofty titles. "
-Oh no! We're hiding behind reason and rationale? Ouch, you really got us! Uhhhhhhh ehhh, I'm dead.
"Otherwise such atheists would be benignly indifferent to the idea of theism (in the same way they are towards unicorns)."
-But they _are_ indifferent to the idea of theism, just like unicorns... Just because we don't believe in your God, doesn't mean we're _not_ being indifferent. You have shit reasoning skills.
"They trump up dishonest miscaracterisations of God"
-LOL! _Such as?_
"Sorry to break the bad news to those atheists, but the more you focus in
on God with your emotional and cowardly bleating, the more room and
scope you give the Christian to highlight your philosophically flawed
-LOL! Your dumb ass woudn't know flawed philosophy if it sat on your face!
"only draws more attention to the superior and more well reasoned and rationally robust proofs for God."
-LOLOLOLOLOL!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!! You religitards are too fucking funny!
"When a truly humble person with an inquiring mind and open heart sees
the contrasting arguments, I'm not surprised they become Christian."
-I'm not surprised that theists tend to have lower IQ than atheists....
"As evidenced by the rise of it in Africa and Asia."
-You mean among the super low IQ regions? Who would have thunk? LOL!
Even though they refer to Jordan Ellenberg's reasoning (which I'm assuming they took from How to Not be Wrong, which is an excellent read btw), they completely botched their attempt at conveying the meaning of what he was saying.
I don't need to watch the video. Math and science both address models in reality. The God hypothesis exists in the super natural world. A world without empirical proof so the religious need to use their reality which is faith. Leave math and sciences out of the equation. Also having watched the video this is ridiculous nonsense
So, you're just going to assume that evolution is the truth after telling someone they can't assume God exists? Also, you need to capitalize the G in God. It's a name, so why do so many refuse to capitalize the first letter.
" There's obviously intelligent design such as fractals in nature, the way DNA is so complex, etc."
-Saying "it's obvious", isn't an argument, you dumb fuck.
"There haven't been any transitional forms found in the fossil record"
-Actually, _all_ forms are transitional. You are just demonstrating your scientific ignorance.
"and there is historical evidence for Jesus."
-We're talking about God, not Jesus, you dumb fuck.
+asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg Hmmmmmm, let's see. There's obviously intelligent design such as fractals in nature, the way DNA is so complex, etc. There haven't been any transitional forms found in the fossil record, and there is historical evidence for Jesus.
Someone has a hard on for darwinian evolution 😂, dude theres dozens of other valid theories of evolution (ortho genetic evolution, neo Lamarckian evolution, mutationism, etc), and all of them are based on assumptions like the assumption of homology, naturalism, etc. There is still debate as to which theory best explains our existence, with natural selection being only one of many mechanisms considered. Darwinian evolution os FAR from.proven doods. The vid is right tho, ASAP missed the mark
Before any opportunistic atheist wishes to cherry pick the deceptively low hanging fruit (i.e the wrongful mistrial and unjust punishment of Galileo - by some over zealous renegade cleric), please remember that Jesus Christ's authority for Papal infallibility is only in regards to faith and morals.
Hence any unscientific opinion espoused by a pope or priest is not something that obliges Catholics to follow, because Catholicism itself is fine with (indeed was a fertile nursery ground for) proper science.
+asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg yes I realise I'm just a dumbass religitard. So with that in mind could you kindly remain as patient and understanding of my sad predicament (as you've done so far) by please pointing out the exact verses or section of the catholic Bible - that contain the "invisible man in the sky" belief. Thanks so much brother. Bless you. Paul Burns 🙏
"You are claiming that "Catholicism posits an invisible in the sky". Where is your proof?"
-It says so, in the Catholic Bible, Dumbass.
"If not then I may as well ask you "when are you going to stop molesting babies?""
-Good one! You're so clever!
+asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg the onus of proof is on the claimant. You are claiming that "Catholicism posits an invisible in the sky". Where is your proof? If not then I may as well ask you "when are you going to stop molesting babies?"
+asrgaqgq sdfgsdgsdfgsdg if you actually think Catholic dogma posits an "invisible man in the sky" then you are absolutely misinformed. I know that it's very convenient for many devoutly faithful, lazy and disingenuous atheists to posit the "invisible sky fairy" strawman, because such cowardly atheists love riling against a caricature that can't hit back.
Seems as though some people are on a witch hunt against the Catholic church.
Seems certain dimwitted atheists with a bigoted chip on their shoulder would like to miscaracterise the Catholic Church's very valuable contribution to science (by cherry picking the facts to make their vacuous untenable case).
Hence why such atheists are often too cowardly to honestly acknowledge that a Catholic priest is credited as the formulator of the Big Bang theory.
"Seems certain dimwitted atheists with a bigoted chip on their shoulder
would like to miscaracterise the Catholic Church's very valuable
contribution to science"
-Seems like you don't know what a genetic fallacy is... You were saying something about being dimwitted? LOL!
ASAP's use of Math is terrible in their video. Highly unlikely things happen all the time naturally and they don't require intent at all. What are the odds that a specific drop of rain will land on a specific spot on earth and not another? I mean, it could have fallen on billions of different drop-sized spots, yet it landed on that particular one! It's obviously absurd to conclude that every drop of rain is defeating nearly impossible odds, therefore a higher power must be guiding the trajectory of each one.
The appropriate way to use math to analyze the existence of a god is to compare its attributes as generally accepted by its believers, to what we observe in the natural world, then find the probabilities that such a being exist, with each attribute which can't be observed in nature anywhere as an additional percentage of improbability against the existence of such being.
If ever I commit rape and murder of a stranger and my finger prints are on the murder weapon and my DNA is shows up in the rape test result, I just hope Rationality Rules is on the jury. I can certainly count on him to deny the evidence and come up with some perverted far fetched justification for my innocence.
A lot of angry atheists are only too happy to miscaracterize Catholicism as being the enemy of science and responsible for the mythical "dark ages". I'd not be surprised if they believed that King Arthur actually in those "dark ages" too. Not too mention those who blindly worship Scientism and believe in the "Enlightenment" fairytale
"A lot of angry atheists are only too happy to miscaracterize Catholicism as being the enemy of science"
-That's because it was for the longest time. It wasn't too long ago, that the church finally admitted Evolution is fact...
" and responsible for the mythical "dark ages"."
-So the didn't torture and kill countless people for heresy???
"I'd not be surprised if they believed that King Arthur actually in those "dark ages" too"
"Not too mention those who blindly worship Scientism"
-Nobody worships science, you pathetic snowflake...
You don't even have to go there.
Probability is mathematical number which is determined by investigating the role of a possible cause in different scenarios.
We don't even know if the existence of gods are possible in our Cosmsos...how on earth are we going to talk about possibilities, specially when we don't have many universes to compare?
Before you apply, the following information should be reviewed to ensure the appropriate program and start date is selected:
Be aware that Student Visas, if needed, can take time (approximately 3 months), so we recommend that you apply as soon as possible. For non-EU applicants under age 18, please review the additional requirements (legal guardianship is required) needed to apply for an Austrian visa.
English Language Requirements.
In order to qualify for any of Webster Universitys academic programs, a minimum level in English proficiency is required. To learn more about our language requirements and how to ensure you meet them, please click here.
Selecting your Entry Date.
First-time freshman students are encouraged to begin their studies with the Fall 1 and Spring 1 starting dates. However, if classes are available, freshman students are furthermore welcome to start with our Fall 2 and Spring 2 starting dates. First-time freshman students are unfortunately not able to start with the Summer term.
All Bachelor transfer students - transferring from an accredited university (accredited by the Ministry of Education in your country) - can also start in all of our 5 terms, if classes are available.