All arguments for God explained in 10 minutes

preview_player
Показать описание
Рекомендации по теме
Комментарии
Автор

'Basically, if your pizza gets infinitely great, it'll turn into God' -Redeemed Zoomer, 2024

arasgee
Автор

I was a stern atheist until the second you said "trust me bro". After that I went immeadiatly getting baptized and now I go to church every day.

steffen
Автор

“Imaginary numbers don’t correspond to reality”

electrical engineers: 😐

ZacharyTLawson
Автор

"You can be strong, but you're not."

Sad truth. 😔😔

juliannodavinci
Автор

I love the part where RZ said its mathin time, then mathed everything, and the atheists were left completely mathed out.

reci.
Автор

A thing about Pascal's Wager is that whether it can be an argument for God, it can't be the reason to why you choose to believe in God. If your only reason to believe in God is because of the potential benefit you may gain from it and nothing else then it kind of defeats the purpose of believing in god in the first place, since what ties you to that belief isn't morality or logic but just the benefit you may gain from it. This means that if someone were to offer you something better than what god gives you, you would reject god, which means you didn't truly believe in him in the first place.

_MrMoney
Автор

"Trust me, bro." - my beloved brother in Christ

mcfarvo
Автор

For a bit of context on the Euler argument, e^i*x is a rotation of x radians (a more mathematical unit for angle [instead of degrees]) in the complex plane around 0. I don’t fully understand the proofs of this, but you can research them if you would like to know more.

Pi radians is the equivalent of 180 degrees, and a 180 degree turn around the complex plane is -1. (This is obvious if you just visualise a 180 degree turn). Therefore e^(i*pi) = -1 and if you add 1 to both sides you get e^(i*pi) +1 = 0

The argument that this is proof for god is because this is a very beautiful equation due to its simplicity and bringing together all the nice numbers. However, you can break every part of this equation down to the fundamentals of maths and understand why it works this way, so it’s not really an inexplicable mystery as to why this equation is so beautiful and neat.

immoloiser
Автор

As a mathematical physicists, I would like to make one comment about the mathematical view: the reason why math is so general is because it is essentialy the study of relations between concepts. The concepts (axioms) are entirely arbitrary to ones choice (such as the existence of i, it can only exist as an axiom), but, once you accept it, you may find how other results derive from it. As another clear example, once you accept Euclides axioms for geometry, it is a fact that Pythagoras theorem is True, no matter where you are in the universe or the time you are in.

The real surprise, though, comes from the fact that, when applied to explaining the World, mathematical models give such a good description within a range that it is possible to measure, and that suxh description is somehow understandable to us (e.g newtonian mechanics). For those more interested, I recommend a paper called "the unreasonable effectiveness of math in rela world" (or something like that) by Wigner

pedrocasella
Автор

Honestly Pascal’s Wager reminds me of a different side of the same coin (sort of).

Marcus Aurelius essentially stated, “Live a good life. If there is a god and they are just, they will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are unjust gods, then you will not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then your memory will live on in those who you have lived virtue by.”

sim
Автор

6. Ontological: A pizza that is indestructible cannot be eaten, so it is not the greatest possible pizza since it cannot fulfill the fundamental purpose of pizza.

jimurban
Автор

I love the fact that you use meme language and simple explanations to explain old, complex ideas. I often watch these when I just need a simple reminder when I get too lost in the complex theological train of thought. Thank you for all of your videos!

roxyjust
Автор

I like the Teleological argument with Hebrews 3:4 which says "For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything."

melody._.
Автор

0:12 Evidental Argument
0:40 Moral Argument
1:18 Cosmological Argument
3:04 Pascal's Wager
3:41 Telelogical Argument
4:26 Ontological Argument
5:28 Personal Experience
5:50 Transcendental Argument
6:25 Conciousness Argument
7:30 Mathematical Argument
8:10 Eulers Identity
8:49 Mandelbrot Argument

MSKofAlexandria
Автор

Just wanna point out the absolute banger "You see, it all started in the establishment of the first Russian state in 862" at 1:29, a funny note to the Tucker/Putin interview

sakarael_rex
Автор

Cosmic Skeptic sent me. Enjoyed the video!

ScareTheater
Автор

"Darwinian evolution can't explain the 4 constants of the universe"
That's because Darwinian evolution is part of biology, not physics. It's also a bit of a misnomer to say darwinian evolution, as there is alot more to modern evolutionary biology than, just what Darwin contributed with

Thefreakygamerdansk
Автор

Redeemed Zoomer was actually first discovered by zooming in on a Mandelbrot set infinitely to the point where it becomes impossible to deny the existence of God, and one is forced to accept Him as Savior and is thereby redeemed through zooming.

not_milk
Автор

”You have the potency to be strong, but you’re not.” That line hit hard fr 😢
edit: 2:15

allgaming
Автор

Not hating, just stating my opinion. Correct me if i'm wrong:
Argument 1: Not understanding things that happen already was evidence for god in the middle age. Assuming something cant happen naturally and blaming it on god is mostly the lack of knowledge about what ist happening. Its also an individual emotional experience which cannot be used as an rational argument. Storys from people who died because saying they saw what christ did might seem convincing, because people wouldnt die for made up things. But these storys are 2000 years old and could easyly have been altered over time.
Argument 2: Objective Moral is actually not real. We as a society have the illusion of an objective moral. It is actually a collective subjective moral, because we as human beeings and a society have the same interests, which lead to a enjoyable human life. That is the reason why we all say killing ist bad as example. Objectively right and wrong dont exist, because for moral to exist wee need individual conciousnesses, which all perceive right and wrong in another way. Seeing 8 Billion Individuals perceive the same things as good and bad, leads to an illusion of objective moral.
Argument 3: This argument is known in philosophy as the "prima causa" (the first cause). It is undenyable that everything has to have a cause so there needs to be a first cause of everything. The only thing we know about it is that it exists or existed. It has to either be its own cause or have existed forever. Thats the philosophical god. But two things we need to think about here: firstly, the prima causa does not have to exist today. It just needed to cause everything. After the Existence of something had started, the prima causa could have stopped existing, because other things existed which could be causes for other things. And secondly, the prima causa does not have to be a god like we think about, it doesnt even have to be concious. It could just be a physical force or a cosmic event. So yeah, there is a cause, but as I just explained, it does not have to be a god. And also the common question: If it is god, which one? Which religion is true?
Argument 4: Pascals Wager has no meaning because anything could be put in there. If we replace god with the flying spagetthi monster, everyone would have to believe in it after his logic. Or what if we put in a god that punishes people for believing and rewards them for not believing? My point is that this argument loses credibility, because Pascals wager can be used on everything
and therefore have contradictional outcomes.
Argument 5: Darwinism is not the entirety of biological knowledge. With the synthetical theory the existence of complex biological systems can be explained and proved. With experiments we can even recreate the emergence of life from non alive matter. And the physical constantes: In order to be a human being that is able to measure that these constantes are fine tuned, they firstly need to be. In all the billions of possible existences where they are not fine tuned, no one would be there to notice. The chances are still horrendously low, but the finde tuned physical constantes can only be noticed if they are perfect.
Argument 6: It is a thought experiment that cannot be proven. Also it is very theoretical and hypothetical but very interesting.
Argument 7: It is assumed that everything has to make sense. But that is not true. Existence and Things can be a product of senseless randomness. Might sound weird but The Sense of things isnt a thing that is objectively there, but gets made up in our minds.
Argument 8: Conciousness is still a scientifical problem but can be explained. There are different parts in our brains, which are responsible for different tasks. Some controll the non concious vegetative nervous system which controlls heart, bloodflow, digestion, etc. . Other parts make up our personality and Conciousness. When these parts are destroyed the person is no longer an individual and could be called dead, but the vegetative brain parts are still working so the heart is beating, the lungs are breathing etc. . Conciousness in the product of complex neuronal networks which isnt completely understood. But it is dependent on the physical structure of the brain. Digital neuronal networks in AI's might get very interestic for science once we can create strong AI's, not like ChatGPT, which are concious.
Argument 9: The seeming perfection of math can be described with the fine tuned physics explained earlier. If math would not be that perfect, we would not exist. That is because math is based on observations of the universe. Imaginary numbers and non-world-related math are also just theoretical and therefore cannot be projected on a practical world.
Argument 10: "Trust me bro." Sorry i cannot debunk that, too strong

I dont mean this comment in any anti theological way, im just writing what I think about these arguments. I cannot prove that god exists, neither can I prove that he does not. Overall I think that religion is a beautiful thing, which helps people deal with fear and live better lives, wether it is real or not. Maybe god is just a societal concept that lives from the believe in it. No matter what, believing is a great help for people, and gives us moral instances. As I said, I like religion (except if its destructive) and dont want to hate on it. Thank you all for reading this book i wrote here and have a great day!

IKRPRD