A short film showing how faith has no place demanding agreement or punishing disagreement.
From browsing the Youtube comments on this video, it’s interesting how many people jump to conclusions about the filmmaker’s intent. They believe he’s attempting to prove “God doesn’t exist.”
This is not true. I believe he’s attempting to show why it’s logically incorrect to coerce others into believing God when there’s no real presentation of evidence. God may be true for you, but that doesn’t mean someone else needs to believe for the same reasons.
Community Connection
Need some more philosophy? Don’t miss F. Daniel Harbecke’s classic The Kung Fu Warrior’s Guide To Informal Fallacies and The Kung Fu Warrior’s Guide To Arguing With Logic.
About the Author
More By This Author
- Interview: Charles Eisenstein On The Ascent Of Humanity (4 comments)
- A Tribe The Size Of The Entire World (8 comments)
- Ask The Readers: The Spiritual Cost of Gadgets (4 comments)
Related Posts
19 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Excellent video.
I have seen a similar video to this and it’s most likely by the same people who made this one – the style and diction are almost identical. Using logic to counter flawed divinity arguments by fanatical religious people as they knock on your door on Saturday morning and demand that you convert to Mormonism or perish is quite fun indeed.
↵ -
yes yes yes this video is great and it is fun using logic on religionus zealots who try and convert you at “UN GODLY” hours in the morning but my opinion is that if this logic were to be effective on them in the first place would they be on my door with their pamphlets in the first place?…granted some may decide to leave me alone but the rest just call me Satan and retreat into their faith based shell
↵ -
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.”
- Thomas Jefferson↵ -
Debating whether God exists or not is a waste of time: we will never be able to prove either its existence nor its non-existence.
A completely different thing is to research about Jesus existence, because if he never existed it’ll be very interesting to know why and who made him up.↵ -
I’m sorry that everybody has had such bad experiences with organized religion. On behalf of every religious douchebag you’ve encountered…I’m sorry.
@Ian – “God may be true for you, but that doesn’t mean someone else needs to believe for the same reasons.” Are you arguing for relativism or against the coercion of a certain belief? I agree that I can’t nor should I MAKE you believe something (which brings up an interesting paradox. If one makes somebody believe something, do they actually believe it? What actually defines belief? Profession of a statement or a display of a lifestyle?). However, just because somebody is incapable of persuading a person of an idea/concept, does not mean that the idea/concept is invalid.
@Angela Yes it would be. There is a ton of historical evidence for Jesus’ existence, but if it is all just fabricated, all made up, he has to have claim to the most impacting existence of any fictitious character in history.
↵ -
I’m arguing that belief is something personal, and the “evidence” is different for each person. To your point about persuasion, I agree, the inability to persuade does not make a concept invalid.
↵ -
Yes, evidence can vary from person to person, however truth can not. People on a jury panel can come to different conclusions about what happened in a criminal case but there is one version that actually happened.
Similarly, people can come to different conclusions about God and his existence, but he either exists or does not exist. I don’t understand people who argue relative truth – that truth can be different for individuals is something that is in of itself a logical fallacy. There’s an intelligent rapper (yes, they do exist) named Lecrae that says it pretty welli:
“Man, It’s just some folks say, All truth is relative, it just depends on what you believe.” You know, “hey man, ain’t no way to know for sure who God is or what’s really true.” But that means you believe your own statement; that there’s no way to know what’s really true. You’re saying that that statement is true. You’re killing yourself. If what’s true for you is true for you and what’s true for me is true for me, what if my truth says yours is a lie? Is it still true?”
↵ -
“…people can come to different conclusions about God and his existence, but he either exists or does not exist.”
The existence of God cannot be proven with the traditional view of evidence (which is why your jury example doesn’t apply). By it’s very nature, God is undefinable. it doesn’t fit into our narrow ideas of “truth.”
Therefore, it is up to each person to decide if God is true or not for them. And then decide how they want to live their lives, based on that relative truth.
↵ -
I think we’re saying the same thing using different terms…
Correct me if I’m wrong. Whether or not you can “prove” God is an entirely different argument. I’m not arguing the “proof” of him. However, I think its fair to say that he either does exist or he doesn’t. He can’t “exist” & “not exist” at the same time. There are two options that are mutually exclusive.
I agree that every person can decide for themselves what they believe and how to live their lives based on their beliefs. “Proving” God’s existence or lack thereof is an entirely different argument not really suited for comment thread
.
↵ -
In a sense though, even the question “does god exist or not?” implies an objective truth that must have an answer. Yet again, we’re left with an entity that can’t be proven.
So the real problem lies in the question.
↵ -
Ian. I think my brain just exploded…haha.
I’m not sure I entirely understand what your saying…
What would you rather the question be?
↵ -
Sorry to hear about your brain…hope it isn’t too messy
I’m saying the question itself is inherently faulty. It’s like the old koan “If a tree falls in the forest and no ones around to hear it, does it still make a sound?” It doesn’t have an answer – it’s meant to put the ponderer in a state of mind.
In the same way, asking someone “Does God exist or not?” is demanding an answer to a question that has no objective answer. It reveals more about the person asking the question… that they are uncomfortable with uncertainty.
(Not you personally – but anyone who needs an answer).
Osho has a great quote on this:
“The mind has some difficulty in accepting the idea that there is something that is not explainable. Mind has a very mad urge for everything to be explained. Anything that remains a puzzle, a paradox, goes on troubling your mind.
The whole of history of philosophy, religion, science, mathematics, has the same root, the same mind – the same itch. You may scratch yourself one way, somebody else may do it differently, but the itch has to be understood. The itch is the belief that existence is not a mystery.
Mind can feel at home only if somehow existence is demystified. Ideas are substitutes for where life is mysterious and you find gaps that cannot be filled with reality. You fill those gaps with ideas; and at least you start feeling satisfied that life is understood.
But is is not possible. Whatever you do, life is a mystery and is going to remain a mystery.”
↵ -
@ Ian I think that’s a very generalistic viewpoint. To say that some things in life are unknowable is fair. I don’t think that EVERYTHING in life is knowable but neither do I think that NOTHING in life is unknowable. Anytime the words always and never are used, the statements they produce are never always right (irony intended).
I think a great deal of life is a mystery, but I also think one of the great things about life is that we get to uncover mysteries. Do you remember the first time you ate that weird foreign food that you now love? The first time you understood another person in their native tongue? Those are the bests parts of life and they revolve around discovering mysteries. I don’t think everything can be explained away if we just do enough research, but I think there’s something innate about us that has that urge, to uncover mysteries…to explore.
“The whole of history of philosophy, religion, science, mathematics, has the same root, the same mind – the same itch.”
The problem with that statement is that some of those things ARE knowable. Science helps us understand the world. There are laws of mathematics that we use to navigate the world (just try to imagine how we would have figured out how to create an airplane without using math or science).
As for being unable to being at ease with mystery, I would argue that believing in a God opens up more avenues of uncertainty, than it shuts down…especially in the realm of theology. Being at ease with mystery, in a sense, is a requirement for faith (which is basically defined as trusting in someone/thing besides your self)
And finally.
(I know you meant the following as a hypothetical…so this isn’t directed at you.)
As for the questions “If a tree falls in the forest and no ones around to hear it, does it still make a sound?” I’ve never understood that question It still makes a sound. The absence of an observer does not mean an event never took place…kind of like how just because nobody has ever seen me make a hole-in-one while playing golf, doesn’t mean that It doesn’t happen regularly when I play by myself
↵ -
The meaning of the quote is not to declare “Well, life’s a mystery, might as well kick back in our caves.” It’s just making the point that life is infinitely more mysterious and complex than can be fully understood by our minds. We can grasp parts of it, and certainly manipulate it under our efforts, but we must also be content with not thinking it’s under our control.
p.s. does it make a sound? the event certainly happened -but the nature of “sound” relies on someone to hear it…
↵ -
@Ian
I think we both agree on that first part.As for the tree…I still say it does, but I’ll be okay with living with the possibility that I could be wrong, haha.
p.s. good discussion
↵ -
to say life will remain a mystery in my opinion is some what dreadful. Whether or not god exisists is not a question with no prupose the question is just as simple as does the tooth fairy exist or does Ares exist. On a person to person basis you can say what you want but when a persons belief is brought into the REAL world it is subject to the rules of actuallity and questions such as does god exist is subject to logic. If there is no evidence for it’s existence you can throw it in the box filled with old easter bunny and zeus myths which we consider mythology. Your personal evidence is not evidence unless it can be tested. If it is beyond testing then it shouldnt be taken seriously
↵ -
@joel – great discussion. Perhaps you want to write an article for BNT? Let me know…
↵ -
@Ian i’d love to…specific follow up to this, or something else?
↵
