Are Atheists Rejecting the Wrong God? #science #facts #shorts #shortsfeed

In this video, we discuss why some prominent atheists, like Stephen Hawking and Neil deGrasse Tyson, reject the concept of God and explore whether they may be rejecting a flawed interpretation rather than a consistent, logical understanding of a creator. Could the issue lie in how God is portrayed, rather than in the idea of God itself? Join us as we dive into the difference between rejecting a limited concept of God versus a true, logical idea of a creator.

[Daiblix]

Jeez you might want to tell all the Christians about that God too. They believe in the one we rejected!

[AnotherViewer]

This argument hinges on redefining God to fit around objections, but it doesn’t address the core issue: evidence.

"Atheists reject a God tied to human limitations or contradictions."

Yes, and with good reason. The concept of God many atheists were introduced to—one that regrets, punishes, or intervenes in human affairs—contradicts the notion of an omnipotent, omniscient being. Rejecting that version of God is logical. But redefining God as something “beyond time and space” doesn’t solve the problem; it just makes the concept vaguer. A vague, unfalsifiable God isn’t more convincing—it’s just harder to analyze critically.

"Imagine a creator outside time and space, beyond human limitations."

This sounds poetic, but it raises more questions than it answers. How does something “outside time and space” interact with the universe? How do you demonstrate that such a being exists? Saying it “doesn’t conflict with logic” isn’t enough. Plenty of concepts don’t conflict with logic but still lack evidence (e.g., invisible unicorns).

"Atheists aren’t rejecting God but a flawed interpretation."

This is a common apologetic tactic: argue that atheists misunderstand God. But most atheists are open to revisiting their position if compelling evidence is presented. The issue isn’t a “flawed interpretation” but that any version of God—flawed or refined—still lacks sufficient evidence to justify belief. Even if a "perfect" God concept exists, how would you establish that this concept reflects reality, rather than being an abstract philosophical idea?

"This concept complements logic."

Complementing logic isn’t enough; you need evidence. Logic might help you develop coherent ideas, but those ideas still need to match observable reality. Without evidence, this “creator outside time and space” remains speculative.

[최민태-dc]

This is basically saying god is beyond reason and logic, so his illogical nature is actually logical