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

## Description

This is an important philosophical question that aims to probe an atheist's insistence for evidence. What kind of evidence is an Atheist actually looking for ?

Summary of Why Atheists Don't Believe in God. ​

This summary is AI generated - there may be inaccuracies. *

00:00:00 [00:10:00 ​

Atheists don't believe in God because they think it is unreasonable and there is overwhelming evidence that suggests God does not exist. discusses how atheists are satisfied with evidence that includes mathematical truths and scientific truths, but these truths can only be proven through concepts that can only be experienced in the mind. He argues that, for atheists, the true standard is a probabilistic one, in which we are able to reason that almost anything is likely to be true.

00:00:00 Atheists don't believe in God because they are satisfied with evidence that includes mathematical truths and scientific truths, but these truths can only be proven through concepts that can only be experienced in the mind.

• 00:05:00 Discusses mathematical inconsistencies and how they imply that God does not exist. He compares this to the life paradox, in which if someone is lying, then their statement is not alive. then goes on to discuss the concept of a "true standard" for determining whether something is true or not. He argues that, for atheists, the true standard is a probabilistic one, in which we are able to reason that almost anything is likely to be true. He finishes by discussing the fine-tuning of the universe and how it suggests that a designer must exist.
• 00:10:00 argues that atheists don't believe in God because it is unreasonable for them to do so and because there is overwhelming probabilistic evidence that God does exist.

Full transcript with timestamps: CLICK TO EXPAND

0:00:24 [Music]0:00:38 before that even I'm trying to put0:00:42 myself in the shoes of the Atheist robot0:00:43 yeah I will go through some exercises0:00:46 some mental exercises the first thing0:00:52 that's thought to be asked is when0:00:55 you're asking a student related say your0:00:57 nature the question is what is your true0:01:00 standards I mean that's an important0:01:03 thing to establish the atheist is an0:01:06 atheist because she's not satisfied for0:01:08 the most part with the evidences of0:01:11 theism so he becomes an atheist and for0:01:14 the most part most atheists are negative0:01:17 eighties so there are atheists because0:01:19 of a lack of belief of something not0:01:22 because they have a positive argument0:01:24 again against the existence of God so0:01:27 for the most part you can say that most0:01:28 atheists are negative eight years at0:01:31 some thought were agnostic so then they0:01:34 wouldn't necessarily say 100% there's0:01:36 nothing you know0:01:38 they just say that we're not satisfied0:01:40 completely with the evidences so the0:01:44 first thing has to be asked is what kind0:01:46 of evidence is would you be satisfied0:01:48 with and just thinking mentally I came0:01:53 with three possible things0:01:56 which atheists could not deny right0:01:59 number one is incorrigibility which0:02:04 means something which is not changing0:02:05 yeah so if something is not changing it0:02:08 becomes a good evidence0:02:10 number two is eternality which is click0:02:13 link to incorrigibility and number three0:02:17 you could say ain't necessarily true so0:02:21 for example it's contingently true dat0:02:23 ammonia gray jumpier but it's not0:02:26 necessarily true that I'm wearing a0:02:27 chopped-up we're trying not use too much0:02:31 for the softball jargon but with those0:02:33 three kinds of evidences and ACS will be0:02:36 completely satisfied now and ACS might0:02:39 say that these kinds of things are0:02:42 satisfied in both maths and science that0:02:47 mathematics is is incorrigible0:02:51 number two days eternal number three0:02:53 that is necessarily true and the Atheist0:02:58 might say that sight science is quite0:03:01 similar in that regard that's why0:03:02 they're true standard it would be a0:03:04 mathematical truth standard or it could0:03:07 be a scientific studio true standard0:03:09 they would consider these things to be0:03:10 truth for the most part obviously I'm0:03:13 not generalizing away theists I'll post0:03:14 modernist out there which don't believe0:03:16 in this they criticize both mathematics0:03:18 and science massively but generally0:03:22 speaking I mean from my experience it's0:03:24 been the case that atheists are0:03:25 satisfied with these kinds of true0:03:27 standards now the question is this the0:03:29 question is is mathematics as an example0:03:33 here actually those three things that we0:03:36 just mentioned now this is something0:03:37 which has plagued the minds of0:03:38 philosophers ever since the time of0:03:40 Plato Plato himself didn't know how to0:03:43 reason with numbers basic arithmetic he0:03:47 didn't know because if you think about0:03:48 it numbers in and of themselves don't0:03:51 exist0:03:52 you can't touch a number you can't feel0:03:55 a number because smellin about numbers0:03:57 is actually a conceptual abstract0:04:00 reality0:04:02 but in logic you have to have a truth in0:04:06 order for our truth to be true it has to0:04:08 have a physical reality objective truth0:04:12 is that which is usually an object so0:04:16 this poses a problem for Plato so he0:04:18 says for example that mathematics is0:04:22 something he has in the forms the world0:04:27 of forms so is something he struggled0:04:30 with Immanuel Kant came to 17900:04:32 something similar said that mathematics0:04:34 is not something we take from the world0:04:37 but it's something we put onto the world0:04:40 now you'll find that even after this0:04:43 point mathematics itself had a shaking0:04:47 up the cat was put with the pigeon so to0:04:50 speak one cut one cuts Judith came out0:04:54 with his two incompleteness theorem0:04:56 theorems and basically these two0:04:57 incompleteness theorems exposed the0:05:00 inconsistencies in maths it exposes0:05:04 these inconsistencies because a flip0:05:08 into the serums yeah the first theorem0:05:11 for example was similar to the life0:05:14 paradox if someone if I come forward or0:05:17 someone else who's a liar says I'm lying0:05:20 right there's no way to prove or0:05:22 disprove this statement because the liar0:05:23 if he's lying he's telling the truth0:05:25 which means it's not alive and if he's0:05:27 telling the truth0:05:28 then that contradicts the fact that he's0:05:30 saying that his line now something0:05:32 similar was put in a mathematic format0:05:34 and from that perspective this is called0:05:37 incompleteness theorem mathematics was0:05:39 seen to be inconsistent and inconsistent0:05:43 model and by the way math the philosophy0:05:46 of maths or meta mathematic narratives0:05:48 or for a philosophy of maths0:05:51 this is a big thing and still unresolved0:05:53 to this day it's unresolved yet people0:05:56 still do mess yet people still do maths0:06:03 maths have axioms which cannot be proven0:06:06 they're only self-evident0:06:09 they're self-evident axioms which means0:06:12 to believe in such axioms you have to0:06:14 have faith because there's no evidence0:06:17 of those axioms there's no evidence0:06:19 these things these axioms in terms are0:06:23 based on assumptions not concrete0:06:28 evidence science is much more flimsy0:06:31 than mass and so much has has changed0:06:33 much more and it's ever changing and0:06:36 this is something which is documented0:06:39 well by Thomas Kuhn in his book0:06:41 structures of scientific revolution but0:06:43 not only the science change in0:06:45 scientific facts change but the whole0:06:47 framework within which science operates0:06:51 and now why am I telling you this0:06:54 because you have to understand that one0:06:58 da is the skeptical with the eminences0:07:03 then you have to ask yourself what kind0:07:06 of evidences are you're not going to be0:07:08 skeptical but those truths stand aside0:07:11 for mentioned at the beginning of this0:07:12 talk if they're applied to almost any0:07:15 discipline you would not have faith in0:07:18 anything you would not believe in0:07:20 anything you couldn't do anything you0:07:22 couldn't prove anything therefore the0:07:26 true standard wouldn't work for the0:07:29 Atheist that particular true standard0:07:31 couldn't and wouldn't work rather if0:07:34 we're honest with ourselves atheistic0:07:38 true standard is a true standard which0:07:40 is probabilistic is it true standard0:07:45 which is probabilistic we as human0:07:48 beings welcome to ability reasoning0:07:49 almost every single day if something is0:07:52 99 percent assured we're happy if0:07:55 something is 99 percent sure we can say0:07:57 we're certain of it almost what we can0:08:00 definitely say we're certain of it and0:08:02 if it all piles up in front of us as a0:08:04 big heap of evidence then this assures0:08:06 us this is where the arguments put0:08:12 forward by the atheist or the lack of0:08:15 belief0:08:16 that the atheist has I would say is0:08:18 unsubstantiated because if you use a0:08:22 probabilistic reasoning okay there is no0:08:26 doubt in almost anyone's mind that you0:08:30 will come to very many conclusions about0:08:32 this universe the fact that is0:08:34 fine-tuned and when I say it's finely0:08:35 tuned I'm not saying that it's0:08:38 aesthetically pleasing I'm not saying0:08:41 that that's not what fine-tuning means0:08:43 fine-tuning means is fine-tuned to allow0:08:47 any kind of life to exist within it0:08:50 this is fine-tuning atheist and0:08:53 non-obviousness muslims christians jews0:08:56 anyone who's done science agrees with0:08:59 this i'm not saying there isn't any0:09:02 rogue opinion why i am saying this is0:09:05 the normal approach to the cosmological0:09:09 environment around us Martin Rees Robert0:09:12 Ford just six numbers and he said that0:09:15 any of those six numbers had they been0:09:17 different the universe would not be as0:09:19 it is and it will not allow human life0:09:21 to exist even Stephen Hawkins in a brief0:09:25 history of time an atheist and Arden0:09:28 atheist he admits to the fine-tuning the0:09:31 fine-tuning is something which is0:09:32 probabilistically indicating a design if0:09:36 that is the case and the question is who0:09:40 or what designed this universe and from0:09:46 this perspective is quite a0:09:48 straightforward answer the one would a0:09:54 thing that has designed this universe is0:09:56 that one would not think that was able0:10:00 to do so and who them what who or what0:10:05 could be able to do so so we employ0:10:09 basic reason and we realize that it must0:10:13 have been something or someone with0:10:16 certain characteristics must have had0:10:19 knowledge0:10:20 it must have had power it must have had0:10:24 the ability to change the situation it0:10:28 must be one had it not been one there0:10:31 would have been a conflict of interest0:10:33 between the many parties that there0:10:35 would be this is good the evidence of0:10:41 God is not just evidence0:10:42 it's overwhelming probabilistic evidence0:10:46 we don't have faith in that which is0:10:48 unreasonable we have faith in that which0:10:52 is clear and what I personally believe0:10:56 is that the Atheist has to in order to0:10:59 avoid this born in his or her sight they0:11:02 must employ a double standard approach0:11:04 they have to the way they live their0:11:07 lives is different to the way they want0:11:09 to conceptualize the theological and0:11:10 philosophical reality of God that must0:11:13 happen other than that0:11:16 the atheist must think the atheist must0:11:20 dare to think