Why Atheists Don’t Believe in God

Every single one of you guys.

I want every single one of you guys to write one question down. It doesn't have to relate to this hour. Don't forget, like I said,

Please finish

around right now, right? More than one.

All right. So

we're gonna quickly go through, I'm going to try and make this as brief as possible, but we're going to go through some

objections that atheists may have. But before that,

I'm going to try and put myself in the shoes of the atheist for a while.

I will go through some exercises, some mental exercises in Sharla. Before

the first thing that ought to be asked is, when you asking or speaking to an agent, say your name.

The question is, what is your truth standards mean, that's an important thing to establish. The atheist, is an atheist, because he's not satisfied for the most part with the evidences of theism. So he becomes an atheist. And for the most part, most atheists are negative atheists. So they are atheists because of a lack of belief of something, not because they have a positive argument again, against the existence of God. So for the most part, you can say that most atheists have negative atheism is a sum total agnostic. So they, they wouldn't necessarily say 100%, there's nothing, you know, out there, but they just say that we are not satisfied completely with the evidences.

So the first thing has to be asked is, what kind of evidence is would you be satisfied with

and just thinking mentally, I came with three possible things, which atheists could not deny, right? Number one, is encourage ability, which means something which is not changing. Yeah. So if something is not changing, it becomes a good evidence. Number two is eternality, which is clearly linked to intelligibility.

And number three, you could say, unnecessarily true. So for example, is contingently true that I'm wearing a grey jumper. But it's not necessarily true that I'm wearing a grey jumper, we're trying

not use too much philosophical jargon. But with those three kinds of evidences,

and ACS will be completely satisfied. Now, an atheist might say

that these kinds of things are satisfied in both math and science.

That mathematics is, is incorruptible.

Number two days eternal. Number three, that is necessarily the truth.

And the atheist might say that scientific science is quite similar. In that regard. That's why there are two standard, it would be a mathematical truth standard. Or it could be a scientific studio truth standard, they would consider these things to be truth. For the most part, obviously, I'm not generalizing all atheists are post modernists out there who don't believe in this. they criticize both mathematics and science massively. But generally speaking, I mean, from my experience, it's been the case that atheists are satisfied with these kinds of truth standards. Now the question is this. The question is, is mathematics as an example here, actually, those three things I will just

mentioned. Now, this is something which has plagued the minds of philosophers ever since the time of Plato, Plato himself, didn't know how to reason with numbers, basic arithmetic, he didn't know because if you think about it, numbers in and of themselves don't exist. You can't touch a number, you can feel a number, because metal about numbers is actually a conceptual abstract reality.

But in logic, you have to have a truth.

In order for a truth to be true, it has to have a physical reality.

objective truth is that which is usually an object. So this poses a problem for Plato. So he says, for example,

that mathematics is something he has in the phones, the world of phones, so it's something he struggled with the man who can claim 70 something similarly said that mathematics is not something we take from the world, but it's something we put onto the world.

Now, you'll find that even after this point, mathematics itself had a shaking up. The cat was put with the pigeon, so to speak. When cut, when cuts, Google came up with his two incompleteness theorem theorems, and basically these two incompleteness theorems exist.

Suppose the inconsistencies in that's

exposes these inconsistencies. Because according to the theorems,

he had the first theorem, for example, was similar to the liar paradox. If someone had come forward, or someone else who's a liar says, I am lying.

There's no way to prove or disprove this statement, because the liar if he's lying is telling the truth, which means he's not a liar. And if he's telling the truth, then that contradicts the fact that he's saying that he's lying. Now, something similar was put in a mathematic format. And from that perspective, this is called the incompleteness theorem. Mathematics was seen to be inconsistent, and inconsistent model. By the way, math, the philosophy of maths or meta mathematic narratives, or philosophy of maths, this is a big thing, and still unresolved. To this day, it's unresolved yet people still do maths.

Yet, people still do maths, maths have axioms, which cannot be proven. They're only self evident.

They're self evident axioms. Which means to believe in such axioms, you have to have faith. Because there's no evidence of those axioms. There's no evidence, these things, these axioms and theorems are based on assumptions, not concrete, evidence. Science is much more flimsy than maths, and so much has changed much more. And it's ever changing.

And this is something which is documented well by Thomas Kuhn in his book structures of scientific revolution, that not only the science changes, scientific facts, change, but the whole framework within which science operates.

Now,

why am I telling you this, because we have to understand

that when the atheist is skeptical,

with the evidences,

then you have to ask yourself, what kind of evidences Are you not going to be skeptical? Because those true standards that I mentioned in the beginning of this talk,

if they're applied to almost any discipline,

you will not have faith in anything, you would not believe in anything, you couldn't do anything, you couldn't prove anything.

Therefore, the truth standard wouldn't work. For the atheist. That particular truth standard, couldn't and wouldn't work. Rather, if we're honest with ourselves atheist stick to standard is a true standard, which is probabilistic

is a true standard, which is probabilistic. we as human beings work on probability reasoning almost every single day. If something is 99% assured we're happy. If something is 99% Sure, we can say we're certain of it almost all we can definitely say we're certain of it. And if it all piles up in front of us is a big heap of evidence that this assures us

this is where

the arguments put forward by the atheist, or the lack of belief that the atheist has, I would say, is unsubstantiated. Because if you use a probabilistic reasoning,

okay, there is no doubt in almost anyone's mind that you will come to very many conclusions about this universe. The fact that it's fine tuned. And when I say it's finely tuned, I'm not saying that it's aesthetically pleasing.

I'm not saying that that's not what fine tuning means. Fine tuning means is fine tuned to allow any kind of life to exist within it. This is fine tuning.

atheist and non atheist, Muslims, Christians, Jews, anyone who's done science agrees with this.

I'm not saying there isn't any rogue opinion. But I am saying this is the normal approach to the cosmological environment around us.

Martin Rees wrote to just six numbers, and he said that any of those six numbers have they been different, the universe would not be as it is, and it would not allow him to live to exist.

Even Steven Hawkins in a brief history of time,

an atheist an ardent atheist, he admits to the fine tune. The fine tuning is something which is probabilistically indicating a design.

If that is the case, and the question is,

who or what designed this universe? And from this perspective, is quite a straightforward answer.

The one with a thing that has designed this universe is that one will not think that was

able to do so

and who and what, who or what could be able to do so.

So we employ basic reason. And we realized that it must have been something or someone with certain characteristics must have had knowledge.

It must have had power, and must have had the ability to change the situation.

It must be one, had it not been one, there would have been a conflict of interest between the many parties that they would be.

This is good.

The evidence of God is not just evidence, it's overwhelming probabilistic evidence.

We don't have faith in that which is unreasonable. We have faith in that which is clear.

And what I personally believe, is that the atheist has to in order to avoid this thorn in his or her side, they must employ a double standard approach. They have to the way they live their lives is different to the way they want to conceptualize the theological and philosophical reality of God, that must happen.

Other than that, the atheist must think

the atheist must dare to think