Does God Exist? 4 New Arguments | 5 Minute Video

Science tells us that the universe came into being via The Big Bang. But how do you get from energy and matter to a self-aware human being? That takes three additional Big Bangs that science can't explain. Noted theologian, Frank Pastore, unravels this compelling mystery and, in the process, poses the ultimate question that every thinking person must face.

📲 Take PragerU videos with you everywhere you go. Download our free mobile app!

Script:

You know, for 27 years, I was an atheist. I thought, anyone who believed in a God or Gods was, well, stupid -- or uneducated -- naive, gullible, or just into the gig for money, sex, and power. I mean, after all, everyone knows that religion is just a psychological crutch for intellectual weaklings, right? So, what changed my mind?

Well look, I tell the whole story in my book Shattered, but for our purposes here on Prager University, I was simply challenged by my Christian teammates on the Cincinnati Reds to read some religious books, critique them, and then share with the guys where the authors were wrong, and why atheism is the only real and true outlook for anyone not deceived by fantasy, fiction, or mythology. I mean, for someone who wants to base their beliefs and values upon evidence and argument, not emotion and tradition.

Now look, simply put, I set out to disprove theism, which I didn’t think would take very long, but I ran into some difficulties along the way. Difficulties like: Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas. I mean, in simple terms, I was confronted with the awareness that there are really four big bangs that have to be accounted for, not just one. I had never really even considered that before.

We’re all familiar with the first big bang, right? It’s usually the answer given to the question: “Why is there something rather than nothing?” It’s the idea that there was nothing, it popped, and -- boom! -- there’s something! I mean, that time, matter and space all came into existence in some great cosmological flash about 16 billion years ago. There was no gradual development, no transitional forms, just a binary flip -- a metaphysical, now you don’t see it, and now you do. Fine, I want to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

However, astrophysicists tell us that this first big bang yielded only a handful of fundamental elements, and that it would take billions and billions of years for the nuclear furnaces of trillions of stars to yield the 118 elements in the periodic table.

But the first theoretical cosmological big bang, well, it only yields matter and energy. It doesn’t even begin to address the origin of life. So, how do you get life from non-life?

How did abiogenesis occur? I mean, the notion that something can come from nothing. Where’s the evidence?

Well, you’re going to need another something-from-nothing leap of faith, some kind of biological, second big bang. For all the mind-blowing advancements we’ve made in physics, biology, and chemistry in just the past 100 years, we’re still no closer to making it happen. We don’t have a clue. The closer we look, the wider the chasm.

I mean, sure, we’ve learned a lot about how to manipulate life forms, how to add and subtract DNA material, even map the human genome, but we have no idea how to literally create life from dead stuff. Now look, at this point we still only have physics, chemistry, and some basic biology -- or matter, energy, and simple life, if you will.

But we still don’t have a way to account for the great diversity of life forms, I mean, the huge differences between bacteria, plants and animals. Nor do we have a way to account for the differences between man and animal. We still don’t have an anthropology at this point.

[derrickk]

I think you can be conservative and not religious.

[Chidds]

Next time someone says, "Hey, what about God?"
Just say, "Which one?!"

[ThatBasedGuy]

Imagine if Newton would have said:
"I don't know what pulls things down, therefore, God pulls everything down"

[andrewpitts]

"I don't know how it works, therefore god."

[stefangheorghe]

Bruh this is literally God of the gaps times 4.

LITERALLY THE OLDEST TRICK IN THE BOOK. And that smug face he makes when making arguments with more logical fallacies than he can count.

[fynn]

Its unrealistic that somehow chemistry turned into biological cells that slowly turned into more and more complex creatures but its perfectly realistic that there is an ultra intelligent almighty creature that is just there without any reason?!

[ever-sjdl]

They released this two years after the guy died

[augustuswayne]

We will all find out if there is a God when we die .

[WildwoodClaire]

This video confirms what many already know, that there are no "new" arguments for god, just endlessly recycled ones. Do us a favor, toss those tattered rags in the bin, especially the argument from ignorance fallacy.

[paddy]

I'm just sat here with my popcorn reading the comments

[chronicrandomness]

3:20 Why are there two male lions on that ark?

[AllAhabNoMoby]

There were no arguments in this video. None. Just questions. And the 'argument' apparently is that if you don't have a fitting answer to those questions, then it must have been god who did it.
That IS indeed an emotional reaction to a psychological need. But it's okay to not know how something came about. In fact, if you wanna have a chance to find out, you first have to ADMIT that you don't know. If you insist god did, you've closed all doors to any possible real answers.

[ixtlguul]

Do you even understand that "life from non-life" is not the same as "life from nothing"?  YOU are the one who believes in "life from nothing" - unless you'd care to mention the materials you think God used...   dirt, maybe?  

"Life from non-life", or as you prefer to put it, "abio-what?"  is not so much of a stretch when you realize that there are objects that exist in the gap between the two, such as viruses and self-replicating layers in crystals.  You may be a "noted theologian" but you don't know much about science, maybe you should read some science, instead of more theology. Theologians have added nothing to science, except a lot of ill-founded sophistry, fallacious word-salad, misrepresentation and confusion. Nice job.

[meshgate]

These aren't arguments. This is a video full of questions

[MisterItchy]

Not understanding the atheist position (which is really strange for someone who was an atheist for so long) or the big bang or, really anything, and strawman arguments are not convincing anyone other than those who are already and want to remain convinced.

[blakeburton]

I believe in god but I don’t think this is a good argument for god

[davidholman]

There's a simple explanation for the development of the moral sense. As humans have evolved and learned we've discovered what works and what doesn't. A tribe that's free of harmful behavior is healthier, stronger. We're still on the journey, but who can honestly believe that murder, adultery and theft help a society?

[emildimov]

This video tries to disprove the big bang theory, yet fails to consider atheists admit we do not know how everything started. Your theory is more ridiculous, considering there’s a whole book on it

[-NoneOfYourBusiness]

I dont believe for a second that this guy ever been an atheist, or if he was, he never really thought about it.
These "arguments" are just standard "therefore god" arguments. Nothing more.
Any kid who have read on the subject a little can spot them quite easily.

[heartfthedragn]

My problem with theism of any kind(modern beliefs or ancient by-the-book religions) is that it proposes the connection "unknown=god" and stops trying to explain it. Science accepts that we don't know everything and attempts to find it in a provable and replicable way, rather than just proposing explanations and not bothering to test them.