Why Atheists Don't Believe in God. (2017-11-29) #

0:00:24 [Music]
0:00:38 before that even I'm trying to put
0:00:42 myself in the shoes of the Atheist robot
0:00:43 yeah I will go through some exercises
0:00:46 some mental exercises the first thing
0:00:52 that's thought to be asked is when
0:00:55 you're asking a student related say your
0:00:57 nature the question is what is your true
0:01:00 standards I mean that's an important
0:01:03 thing to establish the atheist is an
0:01:06 atheist because she's not satisfied for
0:01:08 the most part with the evidences of
0:01:11 theism so he becomes an atheist and for
0:01:14 the most part most atheists are negative
0:01:17 eighties so there are atheists because
0:01:19 of a lack of belief of something not
0:01:22 because they have a positive argument
0:01:24 again against the existence of God so
0:01:27 for the most part you can say that most
0:01:28 atheists are negative eight years at
0:01:31 some thought were agnostic so then they
0:01:34 wouldn't necessarily say 100% there's
0:01:36 nothing you know
0:01:38 they just say that we're not satisfied
0:01:40 completely with the evidences so the
0:01:44 first thing has to be asked is what kind
0:01:46 of evidence is would you be satisfied
0:01:48 with and just thinking mentally I came
0:01:53 with three possible things
0:01:56 which atheists could not deny right
0:01:59 number one is incorrigibility which
0:02:04 means something which is not changing
0:02:05 yeah so if something is not changing it
0:02:08 becomes a good evidence
0:02:10 number two is eternality which is click
0:02:13 link to incorrigibility and number three
0:02:17 you could say ain't necessarily true so
0:02:21 for example it's contingently true dat
0:02:23 ammonia gray jumpier but it's not
0:02:26 necessarily true that I'm wearing a
0:02:27 chopped-up we're trying not use too much
0:02:31 for the softball jargon but with those
0:02:33 three kinds of evidences and ACS will be
0:02:36 completely satisfied now and ACS might
0:02:39 say that these kinds of things are
0:02:42 satisfied in both maths and science that
0:02:47 mathematics is is incorrigible
0:02:51 number two days eternal number three
0:02:53 that is necessarily true and the Atheist
0:02:58 might say that sight science is quite
0:03:01 similar in that regard that's why
0:03:02 they're true standard it would be a
0:03:04 mathematical truth standard or it could
0:03:07 be a scientific studio true standard
0:03:09 they would consider these things to be
0:03:10 truth for the most part obviously I'm
0:03:13 not generalizing away theists I'll post
0:03:14 modernist out there which don't believe
0:03:16 in this they criticize both mathematics
0:03:18 and science massively but generally
0:03:22 speaking I mean from my experience it's
0:03:24 been the case that atheists are
0:03:25 satisfied with these kinds of true
0:03:27 standards now the question is this the
0:03:29 question is is mathematics as an example
0:03:33 here actually those three things that we
0:03:36 just mentioned now this is something
0:03:37 which has plagued the minds of
0:03:38 philosophers ever since the time of
0:03:40 Plato Plato himself didn't know how to
0:03:43 reason with numbers basic arithmetic he
0:03:47 didn't know because if you think about
0:03:48 it numbers in and of themselves don't
0:03:51 exist
0:03:52 you can't touch a number you can't feel
0:03:55 a number because smellin about numbers
0:03:57 is actually a conceptual abstract
0:04:00 reality
0:04:02 but in logic you have to have a truth in
0:04:06 order for our truth to be true it has to
0:04:08 have a physical reality objective truth
0:04:12 is that which is usually an object so
0:04:16 this poses a problem for Plato so he
0:04:18 says for example that mathematics is
0:04:22 something he has in the forms the world
0:04:27 of forms so is something he struggled
0:04:30 with Immanuel Kant came to 1790
0:04:32 something similar said that mathematics
0:04:34 is not something we take from the world
0:04:37 but it's something we put onto the world
0:04:40 now you'll find that even after this
0:04:43 point mathematics itself had a shaking
0:04:47 up the cat was put with the pigeon so to
0:04:50 speak one cut one cuts Judith came out
0:04:54 with his two incompleteness theorem
0:04:56 theorems and basically these two
0:04:57 incompleteness theorems exposed the
0:05:00 inconsistencies in maths it exposes
0:05:04 these inconsistencies because a flip
0:05:08 into the serums yeah the first theorem
0:05:11 for example was similar to the life
0:05:14 paradox if someone if I come forward or
0:05:17 someone else who's a liar says I'm lying
0:05:20 right there's no way to prove or
0:05:22 disprove this statement because the liar
0:05:23 if he's lying he's telling the truth
0:05:25 which means it's not alive and if he's
0:05:27 telling the truth
0:05:28 then that contradicts the fact that he's
0:05:30 saying that his line now something
0:05:32 similar was put in a mathematic format
0:05:34 and from that perspective this is called
0:05:37 incompleteness theorem mathematics was
0:05:39 seen to be inconsistent and inconsistent
0:05:43 model and by the way math the philosophy
0:05:46 of maths or meta mathematic narratives
0:05:48 or for a philosophy of maths
0:05:51 this is a big thing and still unresolved
0:05:53 to this day it's unresolved yet people
0:05:56 still do mess yet people still do maths
0:06:03 maths have axioms which cannot be proven
0:06:06 they're only self-evident
0:06:09 they're self-evident axioms which means
0:06:12 to believe in such axioms you have to
0:06:14 have faith because there's no evidence
0:06:17 of those axioms there's no evidence
0:06:19 these things these axioms in terms are
0:06:23 based on assumptions not concrete
0:06:28 evidence science is much more flimsy
0:06:31 than mass and so much has has changed
0:06:33 much more and it's ever changing and
0:06:36 this is something which is documented
0:06:39 well by Thomas Kuhn in his book
0:06:41 structures of scientific revolution but
0:06:43 not only the science change in
0:06:45 scientific facts change but the whole
0:06:47 framework within which science operates
0:06:51 and now why am I telling you this
0:06:54 because you have to understand that one
0:06:58 da is the skeptical with the eminences
0:07:03 then you have to ask yourself what kind
0:07:06 of evidences are you're not going to be
0:07:08 skeptical but those truths stand aside
0:07:11 for mentioned at the beginning of this
0:07:12 talk if they're applied to almost any
0:07:15 discipline you would not have faith in
0:07:18 anything you would not believe in
0:07:20 anything you couldn't do anything you
0:07:22 couldn't prove anything therefore the
0:07:26 true standard wouldn't work for the
0:07:29 Atheist that particular true standard
0:07:31 couldn't and wouldn't work rather if
0:07:34 we're honest with ourselves atheistic
0:07:38 true standard is a true standard which
0:07:40 is probabilistic is it true standard
0:07:45 which is probabilistic we as human
0:07:48 beings welcome to ability reasoning
0:07:49 almost every single day if something is
0:07:52 99 percent assured we're happy if
0:07:55 something is 99 percent sure we can say
0:07:57 we're certain of it almost what we can
0:08:00 definitely say we're certain of it and
0:08:02 if it all piles up in front of us as a
0:08:04 big heap of evidence then this assures
0:08:06 us this is where the arguments put
0:08:12 forward by the atheist or the lack of
0:08:15 belief
0:08:16 that the atheist has I would say is
0:08:18 unsubstantiated because if you use a
0:08:22 probabilistic reasoning okay there is no
0:08:26 doubt in almost anyone's mind that you
0:08:30 will come to very many conclusions about
0:08:32 this universe the fact that is
0:08:34 fine-tuned and when I say it's finely
0:08:35 tuned I'm not saying that it's
0:08:38 aesthetically pleasing I'm not saying
0:08:41 that that's not what fine-tuning means
0:08:43 fine-tuning means is fine-tuned to allow
0:08:47 any kind of life to exist within it
0:08:50 this is fine-tuning atheist and
0:08:53 non-obviousness muslims christians jews
0:08:56 anyone who's done science agrees with
0:08:59 this i'm not saying there isn't any
0:09:02 rogue opinion why i am saying this is
0:09:05 the normal approach to the cosmological
0:09:09 environment around us Martin Rees Robert
0:09:12 Ford just six numbers and he said that
0:09:15 any of those six numbers had they been
0:09:17 different the universe would not be as
0:09:19 it is and it will not allow human life
0:09:21 to exist even Stephen Hawkins in a brief
0:09:25 history of time an atheist and Arden
0:09:28 atheist he admits to the fine-tuning the
0:09:31 fine-tuning is something which is
0:09:32 probabilistically indicating a design if
0:09:36 that is the case and the question is who
0:09:40 or what designed this universe and from
0:09:46 this perspective is quite a
0:09:48 straightforward answer the one would a
0:09:54 thing that has designed this universe is
0:09:56 that one would not think that was able
0:10:00 to do so and who them what who or what
0:10:05 could be able to do so so we employ
0:10:09 basic reason and we realize that it must
0:10:13 have been something or someone with
0:10:16 certain characteristics must have had
0:10:19 knowledge
0:10:20 it must have had power it must have had
0:10:24 the ability to change the situation it
0:10:28 must be one had it not been one there
0:10:31 would have been a conflict of interest
0:10:33 between the many parties that there
0:10:35 would be this is good the evidence of
0:10:41 God is not just evidence
0:10:42 it's overwhelming probabilistic evidence
0:10:46 we don't have faith in that which is
0:10:48 unreasonable we have faith in that which
0:10:52 is clear and what I personally believe
0:10:56 is that the Atheist has to in order to
0:10:59 avoid this born in his or her sight they
0:11:02 must employ a double standard approach
0:11:04 they have to the way they live their
0:11:07 lives is different to the way they want
0:11:09 to conceptualize the theological and
0:11:10 philosophical reality of God that must
0:11:13 happen other than that
0:11:16 the atheist must think the atheist must
0:11:20 dare to think