Debunking All Arguments For God's Existence

I don't know, therefore god.

Am I the only one watching this video who can't stop hearing TierZoo's voice every time the apologetics start back up? It's freaking me out. Somebody please confirm to me that this guy isn't TierZoo so I can keep enjoying his content.

I've always found pascals wager is a wonderful tool for nonreligious context. "Dammed if you don't, but some marginal benefit if you do." helps put things in context. Even when the returns are unlikely it prevents a worse scenario.

These aren't arguments, they're assertions.

Also, Pascal's wager is a direct violation of the Ninth Commandment: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor; and the Second Commandment: Thou shalt not take thy Lord's name in vain. Taken together, these are warning us that the God of the Bible does not reward false worship or lip service prayers. Thus, if you're an atheist but you're pretending to believe in God just in case you're wrong, all you'll really succeed in doing is pissing Him off.

I may be going to Hell in a bucket, baby, but at least I'm enjoying the ride.

So I think that maybe there's a problem with one of your answers to Pascal's wager. You draw that chart that divides God exists and God doesn't exist into two categories, and then subdivides the God exists category into all the possible gods. You then say that since you have a 50% chance of being right, while they only have an approximately 1 in 9,000 chance that their particular God does exist, that makes 'God doesn't exist' the better choice. Have I understood that correctly? If I have, the problem as I see it is this: no matter how high your chances are of being correct that God doesn't exist, your reward for being right is nothing, while at the same time no matter how low your chances are of being wrong, the punishment could be extreme. From your chart, a Believer would have a 1 in 9000 chance of being right and going to heaven for sure, they would have a 1 in 8,999 chance that they would have picked the wrong God and therefore they're uncertain about the outcome, and a 50% chance that they're wrong about God altogether and nothing happens to them. For the non-believer, you have a 50% chance of being right and having nothing happen, or a 50% chance that you're wrong and you can't have any certainty about what your fate will be, if we're generous. This means the believer has an ever so slightly larger chance of having a positive outcome, since one of the 4,000 or so gods that exist is the one that they actually believe in, and if that one does turn out to be right they're guaranteed to go to heaven, whereas no matter what you do you are not guaranteed to go to heaven and may end up going to hell.

Another possibility of Pascal's wager is that God does exist, but truly is all loving and so sends all people to Heaven whether they're atheist or not, or even a God who preferred atheists over people who believed in the wrong God, and so send atheists to heaven and Believers in the wrong God to hell. the two columns look identical.

You say I have the potency to become strong, but can you demonstrate that there is literally any other way that the Universe could go then the way it is currently going? If it is true that the universe is deterministic, then it is true or false that I will at some point be strong. If it is false that I will at some point be strong, then nowhere along the line preceding it did I have the potency to be strong. There was literally never any chance that I was going to be strong. You would first have to prove that the universe can go in different directions before you can prove that anything has the potential to do anything beyond what it is actually currently doing or will actually eventually do.

He says that God must be Eternal and therefore cannot change, but I'm sure he also believes that God created the universe, which means God must have had a state of being before he chose to create, and a different state of being after he chose to create, if not the creation either would not have occurred, or would have already occurred. It seems to me like if God is going to take any actions in the universe, or even external to it, he must be capable of changing to at least an extent

He says that because God must be eternal, that it can't ever stop or start because that would be change and God can't do that. But if this is the case, and God truly cannot change, then how can God ever make any decisions? How could God have decided to create the universe? There must have been a way that God was before he decided to do it, and a way that he was after he decided to do it, and those two ways must be different otherwise the creation wouldn't occur, or would have already occurred , so if God creates the universe God changes.

He says that because God must be eternal, that it can't ever stop or start because that would be change and God can't do that. But if this is the case, and God truly cannot change, then how can God ever make any decisions? How could God have decided to create the universe? There must have been a way that God was before he decided to do it, and a way that he was after he decided to do it, and those two ways must be different otherwise the creation wouldn't occur, or would have already occurred , so if God creates the universe God changes.

A supreme authority declaring something to be so, does not make it objectively so. Objective means without respect to the interpretation of any being. God is a beating. If God is the one deciding what is moral, morality is subjective with respect to God, it's only if morality somehow precedes God, exists in an intrinsic way in reality that not even God is open to interpret that it could be called objective. And even if there are objective morals which actually exists in the world it is impossible for a being which has to interpret everything around it to know what morals were and were not objective, which would make your apprehension of objective morals subjective. There's no way to arrive at humans with objective morality

From redeemed Zoomers perspective, presumably, when he says God he is referring specifically to the Christian God in all cases. He wouldn't talk about a case that supported the existence of the Hindu god, since he doesn't believe that is a God. There are reasons to believe in god, and then reasons why you might choose to believe in false gods, from his perspective

My biggest gripe here is when you talked about axioms being consistent. Not only do we not really have evidence that axioms (such as those of ZFC) are consistent or 'true' [whatever that means] but there are proofs saying that if they are consistent we will never know. And we know its not simultaneously complete and consistent (and capable of addition which ZFC is).
Your other arguments are rather good generally though.
(Small one on pascals wager where you say that the probabilty that someone is correct and christian is still significantly smaller than that of godbelieving and correct implies christian is less 'likely' than athiesm is probably fair. But even if the odds of chrisitian is low, the value of athiesm is 0 according to pascals wager regardless of whether its correct of not, wheras there is a value of believing in god.
Pascals wager is still a bad argument because gamification and other stuffs though

cannibalism is delicious.

"evolution doesn't explain the four fundamental forces!"

No one's saying it does???

I don't know how to prove the existence of God, someone who hasn't had tangible (if any) evidence of his existence since over 2000 years ago, so I don't try to. I'm not going to try to prove the existence of someone who doesn't want you to prove his existence using some artificial means, that would be stupid. I believe in him, and I don't try to tell others to believe if they don't want to.

I'll get to the point of thinking that it's reasonable for some people to believe in the existence of a God, and then I hear apologists make their arguments, and I can only think, "These are the stupidest people on the planet." Apologists have done a great job of pushing me further into outright atheism.

there are two types of athiests:

1 normal people
2 redditor athiests that go out of their way to spread negativity and hate :(

pls be more like normal people and less like redditor athiets

I'm at the point in my life where I don't know and it doesn't bother me. I believe, but I will fight tooth and nail for everyone's right not to.

2500 years of desperate philosophy for THIS?? THIS is all that christians have dreamt up??

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. No action, no reaction. No actor, no action.
I don't have the faith to believe the earth et al, appeared out of nowhere. Even science doesn't support this idea. Romans chapter 1 explains this video.
And, even if evolution were true, from where did the materials for this evolution originate? From where did the mass or the energy to act on it for the "big bang" originate?
There are videos on this site that show chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea, balls of sulfur at the site of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah and a documentary showing places described in Exodus in detail.
You might consider dropping "Hell" from your vocabulary since there is no such place, according to you.

Exodus 21:2-11 20-21

I will not worship someone who endorses slavery, I dont care if it was normal for the time, god should have told everyone that it was wrong and with his final say... no one can own another human being... and people claim well thats just the Old Testament... jesus is god in human form. whatever god and jesus says is the same person.

Your counterargument against Teleological Argument doesnt make sense to me. And i know it is not just "your" counterargument, almost every atheist is parroting "it could be the case that different physical constants could not be the case! it could be the case that different physical constants could not be the case!" as if that line of reasoning was some obvious fact that everyone must understand and agree with, while it is the exact opposite.

Something I think you missed on Pascal's Wager is that it's not a "does God exist?" but a "does an afterlife that gives a hoot about what we do or learn on Earth exist?" cause there absolutely can be deities that don't give us an afterlife at all or afterlives without deities, and this is even before discussing the question of how any given afterlife could supply the better end result.

Your points about trying to prove God by proving the existence of something that's not God reminds me of the sheer incredulity I faced on a Vampire the Masquerade subreddit when I commented that if I was Embraced and discovered I was living in the World of Darkness, it wouldn't be an instant conversion from atheist to whatever as the existence of vampirism, magic, curses, etc does not instantly guarantee the existence of a god especially in light of there being so few who would have direct knowledge (not to mention the few who could being at least mostly literal demons which might not be trustworthy).

So, regarding the gravitational constant or any other constant for that matter.

There is nothing that suggests that they could be different. And there is also nothing that suggests that they can't be *anything*.

That seems like it would support the fine tuning argument, but it actually doesn't help it at all either.

This is the gravitational constant: G ≈ 6.67430×10^−11

if G were: 6.67430E^−11 - 1E^-60 some celestial bodies can't form.
if G were: 6.67430E^−11 + 1E^-60 the universe collapses in onto itself.

Many analogies are made with dice and such to hide the fact that you cannot calculate chance with this.

Cause, there are an INFINITE number of possible numbers in between.

Meaning the chance is undefined.
 
That ends my monolog ranting on why this argument pisses me off.

I do like how confident zoomer is while just rolling out the same old stuff.

And Pascal's wager: believing is not hurting anything? What about the right of body autonomy for women being removed after 50 years of precedent?

All these arguments simply ignore how other beliefs or ideology like Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism & Confucianism sees or posit life, human &/or reality.

If a god exists, its nature must conform to the natural laws and observed and proven history of this reality. This rules out the gods of pretty much every religion, certainly all the major ones - all of whom anthropomorphisise god into a projection of their own people.

Any god that exists would have to be nothing like a human as a human cannot exist the way God would have to. Humans are biological beings with biological limits and biological motivations. Whereas a god would have to be metaphysical and able to exist outside of time, space and matter, which a human cannot do.

What's left possible is some nebulous creator more akin to a force than a being, little to no more an actual deity than gravity but even if it does have consciousness and will of some sort, it most certainly doesn't care about us nor our beliefs, our actions, our plights nor our prayers. The brutality of nature rules out any such divine benevolence (see the problem of evil for more detail.)

Seems pointless to obsess over and worship something like that.

Near Death Experiences (NDE):
15 seconds: Consciousness is lost
4 minutes: Brain cells start to die and permanent brain damage can occur
4–6 minutes: Death can occur
Brain activity is measured in many operations as in some jurisdictions its cessation defines being legally dead. People with NDE have come back under those situations. And without, apparently, noticeable brain damage.

In the restricted format Prof Plink used, he didn't mention the set of experiences that seem to be common with people all over the world; some even go against the preconceived ideas of their culture or religion. If there is a pattern with abundant examples, that seems to me to approach scientific evidence. It can't be replicated under test conditions, but it is being commonly replicated. NDE do not prove there is life-after-death, but it suggests there is. The anonymous Being of Light and Love many NDErs meet is not proof there is a god or God, but it suggests there is

Teleological: Prof. Plink's explanation using snow flakes can also apply to the forces of nature being as fine-tuned as they are: they interact with each other BECAUSE they interact with each other. They fine-tune each other

Transcendental: Logic works - but which logic? Algebra isn't appropriate for calculus problems, calculus isn't appropriate for topological problems, etc. The logic used changes according to its application. Plus there are limits to logic. When a theory's mathematical solution ends in "0", then the mathematician calls in infinity and gives up. Something greater than math logic to overcome the bottlenecks

The complexity of the universe argues AGAINST God. Why does a Being that can do anything at any time need to go through the bother? Why not just animate mud, breathe a soul into it and call it the day before Sabbath. (Matthew 3:9) "I tell you that God can turn these stones into children for Abraham."

That guy should read up on emergent properties. You can model fairly simple systems (Langton's Ant for example) which show complex behavior which you can't explain when you reduce the system to its building blocks

Everything that exists has a cause.

God doesnt have a cause.

Either god doesnt exist or not everything has a cause.


They undermine their own first premise in the body of the argument. How anyone thinks this is a good argument is astounding.

Merci !

The moral argument is probably the worst honestly.

"Is cannibalism bad" is a question that depends on the circumstances, for instance I would say "Generally yes" simply because of the increased health risks and so on but likewise if you're in a survival situation where it's cannibalise the already dead or die: I'd say that a case could be made that cannibalism becomes "Good" by virtue of the change in circumstances.

That said the core issue of moral arguments is the whole "No ought without an if" problem, my "Moral cannibalism" situation above for instance relies upon the notion that "Not dying" is a good thing. Those poor people ought to eat the corpses if they wish to live.

Pascals Wager is arguably worse but it at least stands if you accept its premise of "Either this specific interpretation of the Christian God or Nothing", the moral argument can't even manage that without special pleading to get from "Absolute morality" to "This specific idea of the Christian god"

There's a saying, "god created the integers. All the rest is the work of man." It's a pithy way of saying that mathematics isn't a thing that exists in the universe separate from humans. It's a tool we created. The way it lines up with reality is a result of people existing within reality creating a tool that lines up with our experiences.

But the baby has the potency to be eaten as well… so where does that leave objective morality?

You’re simply straw puppeting and partially ignoring points in the video, God has and always will be act there is no before and after meaning there would be no chance for potency since it always has been.

Christians have already answered all these questions over 2500 years.......right, keep telling yourself that 😂
Good to see another great Professor Plink vid👍

Imagine if RZ’s god really did exist for a moment. If you hitched your wagon to this god based solely on Pascal’s Wager then I would be willing to bet that you’d be sent straight to Hell because you’re not a genuine believer.

Alternatively God could not care about whether you were a genuine believer and only cares about the act of being praised and worshipped. Which is problematic in its own way.

Despite its simplicity, Pascal’s Wager has some serious flaws.

Imaginary numbers can, and are explained as another dimension in the complex plane. Aka if you ad a y axis the numbers on it can't be measured in the x direction. A better example is that 4D math works, while we can only measure 3 spatial dimensions, but even that fails because there may actually be a 4th spacial dimension that we can't perceive. It is kind of unusual, but it is also kinda stupid. Math therefore, God? yeah, right buddy...It's almost as bad as saying that because we can imagine God then he must exist, which is basically the Ontological argument...

The fundamental forces of the universe aren’t explained by “Darwinian evolution”. Yeah, but those forces are from physics, so why would it explain them?
The Joy of Cooking doesn’t explain how to change a flat tire. It’s not expected to.

The other problem with Pascal's wager: even if it turns out the Christian God exists, he's all knowing. So he'd know your "belief" in him was just hedging your bets and not genuine.

RZ misspelled cannibalism. Way to edit RZ.

Nice. Very concise.

I think you screwed the pooch on the probability thing. If there truly WAS a such a thing as a chance for any given god to exist, then the chance for atheism being true - that being the state of all of those chances fizzling out - would be a result of those chances. The number of gods would neccessarily have an impact on what that chance is, and the larger the number is, the less probable Atheism would be. You cannot, the way you phrased it anyway, just assume it to be fifty percent. when you split the case of the opposition up into several cases as you did, you cannot just treat those as sub sections of "god exists". You have to treat them all seperately as equal cases to "no god exists".

Pascal's wager actually becomes less nonsensical the way you phrased your rebuttal.

The main problem with Pascal's Wager is not that it assumes a particular god, but that it is an Appeal to Consequences fallacy. You are expected to accept a claim not because the claim is justified, but because acceptance of the claim allegedly has beneficial consequences. The fact that the consequences are only real if the claim is true makes it an even worse argument.