The best argument for atheism you've NEVER heard

the sort of God philosophers tend to be interested in is the Eternal non-physical omnipotent omniscient and Omni benevolent or morally perfect Creator God worshiped by many theologically Orthodox Muslims Jews and Christians let's use the term theism in this video for the proposition that a God of this sort exists and Atheism for the proposition that no God of this sort exists one interesting question is how best to argue for atheism it sometimes claim that a good argument for atheism is impossible because while it's at least possible to prove that something of a certain sort exists it's

impossible to prove that nothing of that sort exists youve probably heard someone say you can't prove a negative after all set aside the problem that this claim is self-defeating since it itself is a negative claim and so if you could show that it's true you would thereby have proven a negative another problem with this claim is that the descriptions of some kinds of objects are self-contradictory for example we can prove that no circular Square exists because such an object would have to be both circular and non-circular which is impossible thus one way to argue for

the non-existence of God is to argue that God is an impossible object like a circular Square many attempts have been made to construct such Arguments for example it's been argued that an omni benevolent or morally perfect being would be incapable of doing wrong while an omnipotent being would be quite capable of doing things that would be wrong to do after all it's entirely possible to do something wrong and we might think that an omnipotent being should be able to do anything possible there are though sophisticated and plausible replies to arguments like these more importantly even

if such an argument succeeded theists could plausibly claim that by omnipotent they just mean not maximally powerful but optimally powerful where the optimal degree of power may not be maximal if maximal power rules out possessing the optimal degree of some other Perfection like moral goodness similar problems face attempts to show that theism must be false because it's logically incompatible with certain known facts about the world such arguments typically depend on detailed and contested interpretations of divine attributes like Omni benevolence a quite different approach is based on the idea that to argue for God's non-existence we

don't need to show that God's properties are logically inconsistent with one another or incompatible with known facts about the world instead the goal of this approach is to show that the existence of God Is So improbable that confident belief in God's non-existence is Justified in a Stanford encyclopedia philosophy entry on atheism and agnosticism philosopher Paul draber discusses two arguments of this sort the low prior argument and the decisive evidence argument and it's the second of these that will be our Focus today [Music] Sup Dogs welcome back to the Majesty of reason I'm Joe Schmid and

today we're looking at philosopher Paul Draper's decisive evidence argument among the arguments for atheism that you've probably never heard of this one might be the best and I'm curious to hear your thoughts about it so let me know what you think in the comments after I presented the argument the general strategy of the decisive evidence argument is to argue that some alternative hypothesis to theism is more probable than theism because the alternative hypothesis one is about equally as probable as theism prior to looking at any evidence and two does better than theism at predicting the

total evidence these two together don't imply that the alternative hypothesis is probably true but they do imply that theism is probably false in the case of the decisive evidence argument we have a few options for the alternative hypothesis we want to pick Draper chooses one called aesthetic deism to ensure that theism and aesthetic deism have about the same intrinsic probability that is about the same probability prior to looking at any evidence which depends on only on the content and features of the hypothesis themselves aesthetic deism is best defined in such a way that it's almost

identical to theism thus we stipulate that like theism aesthetic deism implies that an eternal non-physical omnipotent and unmissed being created the physical world the only difference then between the god of theism and the deity of aesthetic deism is what motivates them a theistic God would be morally perfect and so strongly motivated by considerations of the well-being of sensient creatures an aesthetic deity on the other hand is motivated exclusively or primarily by aesthetic considerations and so would prioritize aesthetic Goods over moral ones perhaps a good metaphor here is that of a cosmic playwright a sort of

author of nature who wants above all to write an interesting and beautiful story exhibiting aesthetic value so with that hypothesis introduced and bearing in mind that we can choose different alternative hypotheses here this is just one way of running the decisive evidence argument we can now turn to the decisive evidence argument itself which I've actually slightly modified from Draper's own presentation so it's probably most accurate to say that this is is a version or variant of the decisive evidence argument so the argument has three premises and three subc conclusions I'll first lay out the whole

argument and then proceed through each premise and explain why someone might accept it after doing that we'll turn to some ways one might push back against the argument finally I'll conclude with an invitation to you to offer your thoughts on the argument in the comments and then some bonus soccer to round out the video hey now that my ACL is healed I'm playing soccer like all the time and it's glorious so yeah don't take for granted the health of your knees one aesthetic deism is about as intrinsically probable as theism which again just means that

aesthetic deism is about as probable as theism prior to looking at any evidence and this intrinsic probability solely depends on the content and features of the hypotheses themselves two the total evidence excluding facts about suffering and religious confusion is roughly equally expected under theism and aesthetic deism respectively three given the total evidence excluding facts about suffering and religious confusion the facts about suffering and religious confusion are much more expected on a athetic deism than on theism from those it follows that four aesthetic deism is more probable than theism from that it follows that theism is

probably false and from that it follows that atheism is probably true now in a bonus video exclusive for patrons I actually show mathematically that this argument is valid using Baye theorem in that video I walk through the mathematical steps and explain them in a way that's hopefully understandable for those without much background in math so if you want access to that video and other exclusive goodies like scripts and early access to channel content and whatnot please consider consider becoming a patron there's a link to that in the description but if you want to just see

why the argument is valid kind of intuitively just recognize that the comparative probability of two hypotheses after looking at all the evidence is a function of the comparative intrinsic probability of those hypotheses together with how well they predict the data compared to one another since theism and aestheticism are roughly equally intrinsically probable according to premise one it follows that which one is more probable on the whole depends on how well they predict the data premise 2 tells us that theism and aesthetic is M roughly equally well predict the data other than facts about suffering and

religious confusion so then which of these two hypotheses is more probable all comes down to how well they predict these facts and premise 3 tells us that aestheticism predicts these facts better in which case aestheticism will turn out to be more probable than theism All Things Considered and when two hypotheses are incompatible but one is more probable than the other the less probable hypothesis must be less than 50% probable that is it must be probably false right if we have two incompatible hypotheses they can't add up to something more than 100% they must add up

to less than or equal to 100% And so if one of them is more probable than the other it's going to have to follow that the less probable one is less than 50% probable right because if both of them were more than 50% probable then they'd add up to more than 100% which can't happen for incompatible hypothesis and from all that it follows that theism is then probably false and hence atheism is probably true but now comes a crucial question why should we accept the premises or maybe a bit more accurately for this video's purposes

why might one be attracted to some of the premises why might one be sympathetic to them well let's consider each premise in turn beginning with the first premise aesthetic deism is about as intrinsically probable as theism one might find this premise plausible because the content of aesthetic deism is extremely similar to the content of theism they assert about as much about reality as each other they assert roughly as much about reality as each other after all both of them affirm the existence of an all powerful all- knowing Eternal Creator and they simply differ about whether

this being is motivated primarily by aesthetic or moral considerations moreover if there's any internal incoherence or tension or conflict within aesthetic deism prior to looking at any evidence the degree thereof seems at least approximately equivalent to that of theism so then absent any observations of the world it seems like we should be roughly equally confident that one or the other of these hypothesis would turn out to be true the argument then continues with the second premise which says that the total evidence excluding facts about suffering and religious confusion is roughly equally expected under theism and

athetic deism respectively of course we can't systematically proceed through all the evidence here but one might find this premise plausible after reflecting on how theism and aesthetic deism roughly equally well predict the evidential chips allegedly favoring theism in order to have any interesting story involving drama conflict resolution and the like it seems like you need a fine-tuned universe capable of supporting that kind of drama and conflict a lifeless universe that collapses in on itself after Pico seconds doesn't make for a good Cosmic story or anything of significant Beauty and so an aesthetic deity would like

the theistic God be motivated to some extent to fine tune the universe's constants to allow for the development of life or consider psychophysical Harmony psychophysical Harmony Just refers to the generally orderly and coherent association between on the one hand mental States like pain pleasure intentions and sensory experiences and on the other hand physical States like bodily movements muscle contractions neuron firings and so on conceivably our physical States could have remained just the same even though they're associated with no mental States at all or totally jumbled mental states that make for a completely disordered mental life

but that's not what we observe instead our mental life is strikingly ordered and intelligible and mental states are paired with physical States in a strikingly fortunate way even if theism nicely predicts this kind of psychophysical Harmony this harmonious pairing between mental States and physical States notice that aesthetic deism does too a story seems better with psychophysical Harmony since radically disharmonious mental lives whose conscious experience is characterized just by say tipid bwat Sensations doesn't allow for complex dynamic character development and also renders less meaningful the tragedies and triumphs of the characters in the story clearly the

Lord of the Rings wouldn't be nearly as good a story if the inal lives of the characters were a jumbled mess additionally a structured elegant complex mathematically describable and orderly universe is immensely beautiful given aesthetic dism it's not particularly surprising then that we'd see all of these narrative Goods this beauty and other such aesthetic values just as under theism it's not particularly surprising that we'd see these things in reality either and we could go on and on proceeding through the pieces of data that allegedly favor theism over the alternative that it's standardly contrasted with namely

a kind of atheistic naturalism the lesson here is that both aesthetic deism and theism seem to roughly equally well predict the data and again proponents of the decisive evidence argument maintain that this point generalizes to other alleged pieces of evidence for theism than the ones that we' briefly surveyed here next up is premise three given the total evidence excluding facts about suffering and religious confusion the facts about suffering religious confusion are much more expected on aesthetic deism than on theism we can ask here why might one find this premise plausible well the basic idea is

that aesthetic deism makes predictions about the conditions of sensient beings that are different from the ones that theism makes more specifically they differ with respect to facts about suffering and religious confusion let's take facts about suffering first and see how well theism predicts them to make matters poyant we'll focus on evolutionary animal suffering but the point generalizes to other facts about the amount kinds intensity and distribution of suffering so during the second half of 2019 and the beginning of 2020 bush fires raged across Australia literally billions of animals were harmed in these fires images of

the destruction flooded social media including images of burning koalas stuck amidst the Flames left for an agonizing and prolonged death due to starvation or dehydration all while suffering from severe untreated burns the kind and amount of suffering in these fires is mind-numbing we're talking literally billions of animals suffering in excu iting Agony Things become even more numbing when we remember that this is just months within one year within a single country imagine similar Agony visited upon millions of animals across the entire world not just for a few months but years centuries Millennia millions of years

hundreds of millions of years what you've imagined of course is the actual history of life on Earth for hundreds of millions of years animals have been ripping each other to shreds and predation parasitizing one another and languishing from starvation or dehydration or disease or natural disaster these are not unfortunate byproducts of a mostly Humane creative process they're the very means or mechanism of that process the very engine of creation was hundreds of millions of years of languishing and suffering I submit that these facts about evolutionary animal suffering are overwhelmingly surprising if theism is true God

easily could have made creatures through processes that are nowhere near as grotesque and horrific he could have made animals synthesize energy from the Sun or from the atmosphere or from minerals or from any number of things rather than designing them such that they must savagely kill and devour each other in order to survive likewise he could have created biological diversity through a far shorter process thereby doing away with Untold swaths of seemingly pointless suffering like we are to imagine God before creation you know surveying the possible Creations possible ways that he could create you know

he's got the one option where like he really could create as the young Earth creationist roughly en visioned that he did create and he's like hm you know here here's this other option which involves like animals like ripping each other to shreds for hundreds of millions of years just like this massive blood bath you know I'm going to go with that one it's like what are you what are you doing bro moreover depending on one's views in the philosophy of mind he even could have designed the psychophysical laws in such a way that organisms experience

anesthesia like effects or nothing or Bliss or something other than pure Agony when their physical and environmental conditions spell certain death conceivably God could have kept all the same physical facts the same but just altered which mental states are paired with which physical States and that would have made like quintilian upon quintilian upon quintili of animals lives overwhelmingly better given the extremely strong reasons against creating through the evolutionary blood bath that we witnessed throughout history deriving from the horrific nature and mind-numbing extent of animal suffering we would strongly expect God to create through one of

these alternative means instead especially since the goods derived from The evolutionary process could easily be achieved through these Alternatives instead I'm thinking here of goods like the existence of biological diversity of embodied moral agents the gradual development of creation creatures themselves playing an AC role in the unfolding of reality and so on and so on right let's now turn to facts about religious confusion if God exists and creates finite persons we would expect God to ensure that finite persons would at least know how to properly relate to him relationship with God after all is profoundly

valuable and failing to appropriately relate to God is believed by most theists to have drastic Eternal consequences we should therefore strongly expect God to clearly reveal to finite creatures the proper way to relate to him and more generally how we can flourish in communion with him crucially though God has not clearly and perspicuously revealed this the world is massively religiously diverse and confusing containing thousands of religions with competing claims about God's existence nature character desires for our lives and the appropriate ways of relating to God and achieving salvation evidently if God exists God is shockingly

inept at conveying these matters of such dire and eternal significance to humanity leaving us with conflicting and non-obvious religions and lame religious texts depicting him as drowning babies commanding the utter destruction of entire people groups and sanctioning monstrosities like Collective punishment forc labor of captured peoples and more besides the sheer mess of religious diversity and the extent of confusion and strife that this causes together with the lameness of purported divine Revelations are all a testament to God's failure to clearly communicate the appropriate ways of relating to him and consequently a testament to God's non-existence or

so one might think the broader Point here is that theism seems to make facts about suffering and religious confusion very very very surprising but crucially aesthetic theism doesn't seem to make these facts nearly as surprising as theism does after all part of what makes a good story is often some intense struggle between good and evil and all good stories contain a mixture of benefit and harm sometimes good wins sometimes bad wins what really drives narrative value is conflict consequently under aesthetic deism we would expect the conditions of sensient creatures to be an ongoing struggle an

ongoing conflict with morally good resolutions in some subplots morally bad resolutions in other subplots and with conflict a pervasive theme so then far from the grotesque Predator prey interactions being incredibly unlikely as it is on theism this dramatic evolutionary arms race is something that we'd actually kind of expect at least to some degree on aesthetic deism and the same goes for religious confusion and diversity it drives conflict and drama and resolution thereby making for a scintilating ongoing story of humanity by contrast and as we've seen under theism got a strong reason to ensure that there

isn't this sort of pervasive religious confusion one might find it quite plausible then that aesthetic deism predicts the facts about suffering and religious confusion much better than theism giving us premise three of the decisive evidence argument by the way here's what the legendary Paul Draper says in his SCP entry on behalf of the corresponding premise in his formulation of the argument a full discussion of this premise is not possible here but recognition of its plausibility appears to be as old as the problem of evil itself consider for example The Book of Job whose protagonist a

righteous man who suffers horrifically accuses God of lacking sufficient commitment to the moral value of Justice the vast majority of commentators agree that God does not directly respond to job's charge instead speaking out of the Whirlwind he describes his design of the cosmos and of the animal kingdom in a way clearly intended to emphasize his power and the grander of his creation were it not for theological worries about God's moral perfection the most natural interpretation of this part of the story would be either that God agrees with job's charge that he is unjust or that

God denies that job can sensibly apply terms like just and unjust to him because he and job are not members of any shared moral Community this is why job's first response to God's speech before capitulating in his second response is just to refuse to repeat his unanswered accusation on this interpretation the Creator that confronts job is not the God he expected and definitely not the god of omnitheism but rather being much more like the deity of aesthetic deism those who claim that God might allow evil because it is the inevitable result of the universe being

governed by laws of nature also lend support though unintentionally to the idea that if there is an author of nature then that being is more likely motivated by aesthetic concerns than moral ones for example it may be that producing a universe governed by a few laws expressible as mathematical equations is an impressive accomplishment not just because of the wisdom and power required for such a task but also because of the aesthetic value of such a universe that value May well depend however on the Creator's choosing not to intervene regularly in nature to protect his creatures

from harm much of the aesthetic value of the animal kingdom may also depend on its being the result of a long evolutionary process driven by mechanisms like natural selection as Darren famously said in the last lines of On the Origin of Species there is grander in this view of life with its several Powers having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being

evolved unfortunately such a process if it is to produce sensient life may also entail much suffering and countless early deaths one questionable Assumption of some natural order theists is to think that such connections between aesthetic goods and suffering provide a moral justification for God's allowing horrific suffering it is arguably far more plausible that in such a scenario the value of preventing horrendous to suffering would from a moral point of view far away the value of regularity Sublimity and narrative if so then a morally perfect God would not trade the former for the latter though a

deity motivated primarily by aesthetic reasons no doubt would to summarize nearly everyone agrees that the world contains both goods and evils Pleasure and Pain love and hate achievement and failure flourishing and languishing and virtue and vice all exist in great abundance in spite of that some see signs of cosmic teeology Cosmic purpose Cosmic design those who defend the version of the decisive evidence AR stated above need not deny theology they do need to show that it is far easier to make sense of the strange mixture of good and Ill which appears in life as Hume

said when that teolog is interpreted as a moral instead of as moral and in particular when it is interpreted as directed towards aesthetic ends instead of towards moral ends and of course from these three premises that we've been examining it mathematically follows that aesthetic deism is more probable than theism and since aesthetic deism is both more probable than theism and incompatible with theism it then straightforwardly mathem ially follows that theism is probably false and hence that atheism is probably true so that's the decisive evidence argument and now we can ask how might one respond to

the argument well I certainly can't hope to canvas every possible response here and I'm leaving out some responses because I think they'll make for good discussion in the comment section since the argument is valid responses will have to Target the truth or justification or dialectical appropriateness of one or more of the premises so let's consider some though not all responses to each premise in turn premise one aesthetic theism is about as intrinsically probable as theism so in spite of the nearly complete overlap between theism and aesthetic deism Richard swinburn would challenge premise one on the

grounds that aesthetic deism unlike theism must posit a bad desire on the part of the aesthetic deity to account for why the deity does not do what is morally best and this makes aesthetic deism less simple and hence less intrinsically probable than theism theism need not posit such a desire according to swinburn because what is morally best just is what is overall best and thus an omnicient be will of necessity do what is morally best so long as it has no desires other than the desires it has simply by virtue of knowing what the best

thing to do is in any given situation now two responses might be made to this objection first the objection depends on a Highly Questionable view known as motivational internalism or what Draper calls motivational intellectualism in particular the objection succeeds only if merely believing that an action is good entails a desire to do it but on most theories of motivation there's a logical gap between intellectual ascent and desire if such a gap exists then it would seem that theism is no more probable intrinsically than aesthetic deism second the proponent of the decisive evidence argument can actually

grant that there is some disparity between the intrinsic probabilities of aesthetic deism and theism and still run their argument so long as this disparity is not as strong as the degree to which facts about suffering and religious confusion favor aesthetic deism over theism and at least on its face that might strike one as plausible a second objection to premise one is that aesthetic deism May suffer from a kind of probabilistic tension that theism doesn't face and this in turn lowers aesthetic theisms intrinsic probability below theisms I introduced the notion of probabilistic tension in my last

video but the basic idea is that a theory suffers from probabilistic tension when one of the parts of the theory gives us good reason to think that another part of the theory is false so the different parts or elements or conjuncts of the theory or hypothesis conflict with one another to some extent and this in turn lowers the overall probability of the hypothesis the respects in which a athetic deism suffers from probabilistic tension are arguably twofold first the aesthetic deity has all sorts of Perfections or great making properties like omnipotence omniscience eternality intelligence Etc and

the Very fact that it has most or all of the Perfections other than moral perfection gives us inductive reason to think that it also has moral perfection so then to deny that it has moral perfection as aesthetic deism does will introduce probabilistic tension into the aesthetic deistic hypothesis second given that the aesthetic deity has all these other great making features the aesthetic deity is an incredibly valuable or great being but crucially it's not maximally or supremely valuable since it lacks something that would make it better namely moral perfection yet the very fact that it has

a lot a lot a lot of value gives us inductive reason to think that it has maximal value and so to deny that the being has maximal value as the aesthetic DS does will introduce probabilistic tension into the aesthetic deistic hypothesis now here the proponent of the decisive evidence argument ment could respond in a couple ways first they might say that theism also suffers from certain probabilistic tensions that don't afflict aesthetic theism for instance maybe the fact that God has a ton of power gives us inductive reason to think that he has the power to

do something wrong and yet God's moral perfection precludes this by contrast the aesthetic deity is likewise incredibly powerful and can do something wrong second and once again the proponent of the decisive evidence argument can actually grant that there is some disparity between the intrinsic probabilities of aesthetic deism and theism and still run their arguments so long as this disparity is not as strong as the degree to which suffering and religious confusion favor aesthetic deism over theism so here as before they might say that the identified probabilistic tensions while real don't detract from aesthetic DM's probability

to such a degree that it offsets the confirmation it gets in relation to theism from facts about suffering and religious confusion a third objection the theist might pose is that the intrinsic probability of theism is super duper High because there's a successful or at least plausible ontological argument proceeding from purely opior considerations that is considerations independent of our experience of the world but here the proponent of the decisive evidence argument could retort that we have no such plausible ontological argument and they could draw on my ontological arguments playlist to explain why or my co-authored Stanford

encyclopedia philosophy entry on ontological arguments to explain why Etc and they could also try to parody the theists favored ontological argument in such a way as to equally support aesthetic deism it turns out that at least anel's famous argument from Pan 2 can plausibly be parodied in this way as can the modal ontological argument by asserting for example that it's possible that a necessarily existing aesthetic deity exists Etc let's now turn to premise 2 the total evidence excluding facts about suffering and religious confusion is roughly equally expected under theism and aesthetic deism respectively here the

most natural move for the theist will be to identify facts that are much more expected on theism than aesthetic deism maybe things like Miracles and religious experience specifically and strongly favor a theistic god existing and maybe there are lots of other facts that distinctively and collectively strongly favor theism over aesthetic deism and then the two most natural responses to this objection on behalf of the decisive evidence argument run as follows first the defender of the decisive evidence argument might urge that it's not actually clear that these other pieces of data such as Miracles and religious

experience are better predicted by theism after all causing Miracles and religious experiences and a wide variety of conflicting religious Traditions is a pretty powerful way of ensuring sharply Divergent religious beliefs that lead to ever greater conflict and drama and polarization religious wars and so on thereby contributing various narrative Goods to the book of the world so we might equally expect an aesthetic deity to spice up their Story by doing precisely this second Defenders of the decisive evidence argument might respond that while theism does predict certain pieces of data better than aesthetic deism it's not clear

that these data are so much better predicted by theism than aesthetic deism so as to make up for the probabilistic advantages ACR to aesthetic deism from facts about suffering and religious confusion if that's so then the decisive evidence argument will still be able to show that the m is probably false finally let's turn to responses to premise 3 given the total evidence excluding facts about suffering and religious confusion the facts about suffering and religious confusion are much more expected on aesthetic deism than on theism here the theist could make at least two moves first they

might grant that while facts about suffering and religious confusion are indeed incredibly surprising on theism they're also about equally surprising on aesthetic deism now that might seem a little bit difficult to justify but perhaps they can argue that the aesthetic value of a story is dependent on its moral value in such a way that tragic grotesquely morally bad stories are also thereby aesthetically bad that may seem like a stretch but it's an option for response second the theist might say that facts about suffering and religious confusion are not after all incredibly surprising on theism to

the point that they're as or almost as expected on theism as they are on aesthetic deism they might here try to forward various theodes that are meant to be not terribly improbable given theism and which together with theism render the data in question not terribly unlikely to occur maybe thetical consideration pertaining to Soul building maybe the good of interfaith dialogue across ideological barriers and so on unfortunately though exploring this response in requisite depth just goes too far beyond the scope of today's video but it's definitely something that you should think about and I guess one

further thing that the proponent of the decisive evidence might say in response to this last potential point from the theist could be to actually sort of Grant the point to the theist okay yeah suppose suppose I grant you that facts about suffering religious confusion are as or almost as expected on theism as they are an aesthetic de ISM well then given the rest of the premises of the decisive evidence argument it's still going to turn out that theism is roughly as probable as aesthetic theism and since they're roughly as probable as one another and since

they're incompatible and since they're not exhaustive hypothesis that is they don't exhaust the total probability space it's still going to follow that theism is still at least like slightly more probably false than true even given this second rejoiner on behalf of the theist so that's one thing that the proponent of the decisive evidence argument might push even granting the theist this second Point here again just something that you should think about so there we have it that's the decisive evidence argument for atheism I think it raises lots of super duper interesting issues and it can

serve the dialectic by inviting the theist to explain why theism has an advantage over aesthetic deism I'm curious to hear what you guys think about the argument though so comment your thoughts down below again if you want more information about the decisive evidence argument check out Paul Draper's entry on atheism and agnosticism in the SCP and again stay patiently tuned for Draper's forthcoming book wherein he extensively defends the argument I don't know when that will be out though because academic publishing like your mother when we're preparing to go out for dinner takes forever oh and

if you also want to look into dozens of other Arguments for atheism you've probably never heard of check out the super helpful list that philosopher Filipe Leon has compiled on his ex apologist blog and if you want to look at Arguments for theism in more depth check out my 12-hour long video and my playlists more generally they're the best believe me folks they're so great like I'm telling you they're like the greatest things on the planet and as always if you enjoy the video please smash that like button like it's your ex's car turn on

that little bell so you get notified when my videos come out just like your mother is turned on by me consider supporting me on patreon or through a onetime donation hey you tip waiters who bring you extra bread sticks and waiters get paid for what they do I'm not getting paid and I'm not bringing you your bread sticks I'm trying to help you better understand the fundamental nature of reality with caution care love and philosophical rigor so if you tip waiters you should also tip me and hey even if you can't afford to support me

on patreon you can at least consider sharing the video with your friends your co-workers your philosophy teachers and even your local house representative just call them up and be like hey mesty of reason just released a new video you should definitely check it check it out and up next is the bonus soccer so that's fun and of course what better way to end is there then I'm Joe Schmid this is the Majesty of reason and peace [Music] [Music] out can you please sit the down protesting in your paper crown you love to feel offended fighting

from computer [Music] trenches you got to sem my automatic car go [Music] [Music] easy everyone's yelling it's crack in the ceiling pain peeling banana floor splitting or splintering the noise is Def God can't whisper when the base is [Music] up you gotas [Music] can you please turn yourself [Music] down ring kids doing cooking wers no need to feel offended born to a time when the Qui [Music] [Music] you got a semiautomatic mou go easy [Music] now long long long you got to S automatic M you got you got [Music] oh go easy go easy go

[Music] easy it when you it up oh and if you it up [Music] [Music] to your this is our sh [Music]