SIMILAR ARTICLES

61 COMMENTS

    • Michael, If Josh is a Calvinist, he keeps the 100k. Calvinists love to quote the following chilling passage, which they take to be a direct quote from God: “I make peace, and create evil” (Isaiah 45:7). Take a tip from a fellow atheist and study Calvin’s doctrine of Double Predestination.

        • William, According to Calvinism, God hates some people and loves others. It is that simple. “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated” (Romans 9:13). Unfair? The Calvinists do not think so. It is not unfair because God is not subject to the principles of fairness. God, says the apostle Paul, can love whomever he pleases, and no one can call him into question if he does not love everyone

          • I really hate when people quote the bible as true. If I say the bible isn’t true and god isn’t true then why use the bible to defend itself? Why not have another source or piece of evidence? It’s because the bible is the only evidence you have. I don’t worship Harry Potter because he’s in a book, nor do I think dragons exist because I have read Eragon. So why do you think there is a god since a book, the bible, told you so? It’s a logical fallacy.

          • @Dillon.
            I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from here, but I take it that you’re asking why an atheist would use a biblical quote as part of their argument. Am I on the right track? If so, I’d say that it’s employing supernatural logic in response to someone using supernatural logic.
            The person using biblical quotations can’t expect rational answers back as a matter of curtesy.

  1. So that’s what Seth Andrews looks like! Till now, a disembodied voice for me.
    Of course all the usual, ridiculous, ‘oh-so-clever’ thinking on the part of the You Tube Crusader. So easily put down, but still carrying sway with the already converted.

  2. Why does Seth Andrews try to do exactly what Feuerstein demands? He repeats all sorts of excuses (many of which are taken from TGD) to reject God but still fails to prove His non-existence. Feuerstein obviously got to him. I wonder whether there's still a little nagging figure in his conscience that can't quite delete God from his thinking, causing 11.5 minutes of verbosity. Both believers and non-believers know that proof either way is impossible on this earth and in this life (thus Feuerstein knows his money is safe).

    • Hi CumbriaSmithy,

      With the best will in the World it is difficult to believe that you mean what you say. when you discuss Seth’s comments. Seth seems to be exceptionally clear to me.

      In essence Seth is saying that he isn’t in a debate with Josh Feuerstein because there is no debate to be had. Josh claims there is a god. Go to it Josh, show us what you’ve got.

      The rest is window dressing … perhaps that’s a wee bit too strong. The rest is Seth trying to help Josh, and anyone who thinks Josh has a point, to understand that no-one will win Josh’s money because Josh’s question is a fraud.

      Feuerstein obviously got to him.

      It is very unusual for Seth to respond to anyone, but I hesitate to translate that into a motive for Seth. There is no shortage of people out there inventing titles and posting silly ‘challenges’. It is more likely, I suggest, that Seth was dismayed by the number of people who were following Josh. on social media. Like watching a Snake Oil Salesman in the Town Market, I too would have felt the need to try and stop the Salesman from separating the gullible from their valuables.

      I wonder whether there’s still a little nagging figure in his conscience that can’t quite delete God from his thinking, causing 11.5 minutes of verbosity.

      You are free to speculate. I have difficulty seeing how arbitrarily assigning thoughts to Seth advances any argument? Indeed, it could be argued that it looks an awful lot like a diversion from the real story.

      Both believers and non-believers know that proof either way is impossible …

      Which raises the question: Why believe? Without evidence why waste your very precious time?

      Feuerstein knows his money is safe.

      Yes, I’m also sure that’s true. Like Seth, I have a concern that many people can’t see the reason for that.

      Peace.

    • Well, quite simply, he doesn’t do what Feuerstein demands. If you paid attention to the first part of the video, you would realise that this is quite clear. What Seth does is exactly what should be done. Proving a positive, in this case that God does exist, is both much easier and much more sensible than disproving the existence of God.

      It’s the case of Russell’s Teapot: the inability to disprove something does not prove anything. Just because we cannot disprove the existence of God, we have not proven that He exists, since we haven’t disproven that the universe is simply completely random either. In fact, neither have we disproven the idea of the universe being inside a snowglobe on Santa’s fireplace. That is why Feuerstein’s question is moot, and why Andrews spends the 15 minute video explaining his reasoning behind demanding proof from Feuerstein, rather than the other way around.

      Incidentally, by that same logic, an inability to prove God’s existence does not mean that God does not exist. However, as I said before, there are literally over a billion possilbe competing theories as to why the universe, and by extension ourselves, exists. If you cannot provide proof of the Christian God, then surely this means that there is no reason to believe this theory above all of the others, which have similar amounts of proof? Through that way of thinking, by turning the question on it’s head, we have a conclusion, albeit an uncertain one. Feuerstein’s initial question, if it cannot be answered, proves nothing, and provides no conclusion. This is why the burden of proof should be on him, and not the other way around.

    • Both believers and non-believers know that proof either way is impossible on this earth and in this life…

      Huh? Why would you assume that it is impossible to prove God’s existence? Au contraire, I think most rational people (believers or nonbelievers) know would be ludicrously easy to prove god’s existence (if, in fact, he did exist). Believers just seem to accept that God chooses not to prove he exists, while non-believers accept the absence of evidence as evidence of absence.

    • CumbriaSmithy Aug 29, 2014 at 6:10 pm

      Why does Seth Andrews try to do exactly what Feuerstein demands? He repeats all sorts of excuses (many of which are taken from TGD) to reject God but still fails to prove His non-existence.

      Which god of the thousands? Most of the vaguer ones can’t be disproved as a remote possibility because their supporters’ claims are too incoherent to analyse!
      Many of the gods are incompatible with each other so most of them must be wrong!

      Feuerstein obviously got to him. I wonder whether there’s still a little nagging figure in his conscience that can’t quite delete God from his thinking, causing 11.5 minutes of verbosity.

      Once again – Which gods of the thousands cannot be deleted? Many had devoted followers with strong god-delusions and many still do today! There is no reason to assume that someone’s pet god is a default, which takes precedence over other contradictory god claims which are equally “undisprovable“!

      Both believers and non-believers know that proof either way is impossible on this earth and in this life.

      That’s not strictly true! Many of the theist claims of properties of their gods ARE capable of refutation. Those that are not are hidden in gapology or are too shufflingly, vaguely, incoherent, in their descriptions, to identify properties to refute.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

  3. Most of the commentators in this forum know that you can’t prove god exists. And you can’t prove he doesn’t. Even Cumbria Smithy knows this. So for me, that’s where the issue ends. Don’t care. If god turns up one day, or there is reliable evidence, then I, like every good skeptic, will change my mind and follow the reliable evidence. Until that day. Nothing.

    But like any scientific enquiry, things are not black and white. It is said that there are no facts in the universe, only probabilities. Some scientific dogma has so much supporting evidenced and proof, that it is considered a fact. Speed of light. Gravity etc. Some matters are highly likely. Man made global warming etc. Some are open to conjecture and rest of the balance of probabilities, 50/50 and could fluctuate either way depending on each scrap of new evidence.

    While there is no proof either way for god, there are probabilities. There are thousands of questions that could be put to the probability test, which I am sure that you could all think of. I like this one. What is the probability that 13 billion years ago, god flicked the switch to start the big bang, waited until a few thousand years ago when he got bored, and decided that on a minor planet orbiting a minor sun on the edge of a minor galaxy, part of a minor galactic cluster and decided that he would give exclusive ownership of a couple of valleys to one tribe, out of millions that existed on earth at that time, and claim them as his own special pet favourites, and tell them ridiculous and contradictory things, and order them to kill people and that they, and only they will go to heaven. And on and on and on….

    God’s busy right now. He’s got a universe to run. He is not going to do this.

    What is the probability of the above? About a Planck length away from zero? And you could ask countless questions of this type as I have above and the probability that “God did it” will still rests at the Planck length.

    Compare that with the probabilities associated with the science of the big bang, quantum physics, relativity, evolution, maths and just about every other quality scientific endeavour, where the evidence and proofs are so high, as to be very close to being a fact.

    Pastor Josh Feuerstein won’t pay me. Refer to opening paragraph above. But the probability that I am right and he is wrong is so weighted in my favour, that the bookies would pay out.

  4. I have to say that I am amused by the method Josh is using, which is not unusual for theists debaters to use: argue from what can’t be proven rather than go to any lengths to prove anything. This is because he should know the statement is true from both sides, just as the same is true of attempting to prove (or disprove) any god(s).

    Worse is the implication that science is attempting to disprove god from arguments like this. Science is exploring the universe and discovering more about where we are and how we got there. It doesn’t factor deities and such into its hypothesis because it doesn’t need to . I believe it was Laplace who said to Napoleon when asked about where god was in his book that ‘there was no need for that hypothesis’ (at least it has been written about him). The only people to get bent out of shape over whether god exists are believers in a specific god. Unless they are imposing said god on others that do not believe.

    Answering the challenge is pointless and I have way too much to do with my day.

  5. Epicurus got the problem with theism right a few hundred years before Jesus: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?”

    Until you can solve this conundrum, you got nothing.

  6. Terrific video. Seth really nails it. He’s got a great voice, too. If he doesn’t do voice overs, he should.

    I only wish I could post this on FB to refute everyone who has posted the Feuerstein video, but it would cause me a lot of grief.

    • Hi Smithy, When did simply believing in God’s existence put you right with the God of the Bible? In fact, your so-called good book warns that a plethora of people claiming to ‘know’ Christ will still end up with the rest of the rabble in hell (Matthew 7:22-23). Perhaps your God was talking about Feuerstein when he said “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matthew 7:15).

  7. Ok Seth Andrews. I’ll give you the presumed non-existence of Father Christmas and fairies and the boogie man. But time-travelling teddy bears… they do exist! Rupert (Stewie’s teddy) often goes time travelling and he definitely exists. AND, as a spooky coincidence, their creator was also called Seth!

    By the way, I like your style. You remind me a little of Bill Maher in your method of delivery. (just in case you don’t like Bill Maher, that was intended as a compliment)

  8. Josh, Atheism is the Rebuttal to your argument, not the original argument itself. The burden of prrof rests with the originator of the claim in question… that would be you. It’s not up to us to disprove a negative. I win where’s my cash?

  9. Keep your money, how can something be proven not to exist, if it is based on faith? But for what it’s worth, If something as beautiful as this planet and universe is created by an omnipotent being. Why would said being, let it destroy itself? If I make or create something, I cherish it and look after it.

  10. The problem you are all missing is that you are all arguing from the standpoint that the bible is the in errand Word of God and therefore a reliable source of information. Based on the burden of evidence, there is plenty of reason to believe that Judaism is rather a social construct, not a divine revelation. If Judaism be on shaky ground in this respect, then both Christianity and Islam are equally disputable. Until Israeli or the Christian scholars provide tangible proof of something like the exodus, there is nothing to debate.

  11. “The natural world, governed by natural laws”
    Apparently we can ignore several of the basic laws of science to account for our existence.
    Claiming that a parent is morally superior to a god that he makes his living trying to prove does not exist ? So I suppose he gets to have his cake and eat it as well.

  12. Does it matter which god I prove does not exist?

    Many gods resolutely insist they are the only one and make that part of their definition. Pick a pair of such gods. They can’t both be right. Therefore at least one of them does not exist.

    Likely he is only interested in whether Jehovah exists, but did he specify that?

  13. Hi Seth!

    I am at this point of my life in the middle, my logic side said that any type of religion is a creation of human brains during our evolution as thinking beings. I believe that. But I say I´m in the middle, because I cannot set a conclusion on paranormal activity, happenings, visions, and all that. I was once involved in learning a type of discipline, and even in the first stages I already experienced and witnessed things that I cannont explain with science. (dont want to go into details because its irrelevant)

    My question is, and very respectfully, how does science explains all these types of events.

    • But I say I´m in the middle, because I cannot set a conclusion on
      paranormal activity, happenings, visions, and all that. I was once
      involved in learning a type of discipline, and even in the first
      stages I already experienced and witnessed things that I cannont
      explain with science. (dont want to go into details because its
      irrelevant)

      Often the events you refer to are ones that are highly subjective (paranormal activity especially) and most often cannot be duplicated after a single ‘event’. Most of the popular ‘paranormal’ events are routinely debunked or are admitted frauds.

      Visions are even more subjective and can happen for many reasons. If one goes without eating for long periods of time (popular during fasting) you can indeed start hallucinating but it has nothing to do with revelation and far more to do with nutrient deprivation. Drugs are great at producing visions.

      I suppose if you are pondering a specific instance it would help to be more specific, but most importantly bear in mind that the unexplained does not equal a god of any sort. It simply means it requires honest investigation to be explained.

Leave a Reply