that there is no such being okay but I think you can prove that there is no God I mean it's not enough it's it's not a mathematical proof I would not you cannot possibly give a um a mathematical forgive income okay here's an any kind of argument um everything that religion claims a God can do can be accounted for by science so that's if you like the um one branch of the argument so that there is no need there's no necessity for a God because science can account for everything on the other side of the argument is the reasons why people do believe in God one can understand why people believe in God it's a sense of being alone it's a sense of bewilderment it's a sense of pushing for power over other people it's the worst of the the reasons it's a a simplier sense of bewilderment it's a sense of being alone and you would know these feelings far better than I because you obviously believe in them but there's um but there's taken together with a reason why people believe desperate to believe together with the fact that you don't need actually a God in a sense amounts to an argument against the existence of God well I guess I don't see that I mean why doesn't that commit the genetic fallacy of trying to say that by explaining how a belief originates you thereby show the belief to be false even if it were true that belief in the existence of God we're the product of fear and anxiety and so forth which I don't for a minute admit but even if it were it that's simply a genetic fallacy to say that because that's the way the belief originally what therefore the belief is false but that's only one half of the argument I'm not saying that that alone is adequate and I'm not saying that the fact that science can account for everything in a living is also adequate but taken together the fact that one that science is omnipotent and the fact that I can understand why people like you desperately want to believe in God that is an argument against it but two fallacious arguments put together don't make a second argument right yeah but but two legs are support yes but the legs have to be sound I mean these are sound I mean um I'm monkeying with the sufficiency and the necessity the the first argument only if if granted which I don't Grant I don't Grant the premises but the first argument would only prove that it's not necessary to believe in God in order to explain certain things that doesn't prove God doesn't exist the second argument is it commits a genetic fallacy of saying that because you can explain how people come to believe in God therefore God doesn't exist neither of those warrant the conclusion therefore God doesn't exist I did not say that it was going to be a mathematical proof no no but I am it is valid in the sense that there is no need for a god I mean everything in the world can be understood without needing to invoke a God you have to accept that that is one possible view to take about the world sure that's possible but don't you deny that science cannot count for everything yes I do deny that science so what can't do the council well I had you brought that up in the debate I had a number of examples that I was going to give uh I think there are a good number of things that cannot be scientifically proven but that we're all rational to accept let me list five logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven by science science presupposes logic and math so that to try to prove them by science would be arguing in a circle uh metaphysical truths like there are other Minds other than my own or that the external world is real or that the past was not created five minutes ago with an appearance of age are rational beliefs that cannot be scientifically proven ethical beliefs about statements of value are not accessible by the scientific method you can't show by science whether the Nazi scientists in the camps did anything evil as opposed to the scientists in Western democracies aesthetic judgments number four cannot be accessed by the scientific method because the beautiful like the good cannot be scientifically proven and finally most remarkably would be science itself science cannot be justified by the scientific methods science is permeated with uh unprovable assumptions for example in the special theory of relativity the whole Theory hinges on the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a one-way Direction between any two points A and B but that strictly cannot be proven we simply have to assume that in order to hold to the theory put that in your pipe and smoke foreign [Music]