Why do you still believe?

Human life and human behavior can be explained based on cells and neural networks. That rules out the soul.
In the bible, god constantly reveals himself to people and performs miracles, none of that happened in recent history. Evidence towards god not existing.
Humans and all the other species on earth can be explained as an accidental combination of chemicals evolving through survival of the fittest, that rules out god creating the world.
On the contrary, the evidence towards god (the christian god) existing is zero except for a bunch of stories that people compiled in a book.
Why do you still believe in the religious jew, pol?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo
youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs
youtube.com/watch?v=LTSKfXzdiuE&list=PL95B1BB23B7A3C795
www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2017/july/new-evidence-blood-of-tortured-man-is-found-on-the-shroud-of-turin
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Foot fetish pope is best pope

Non sequitur, Op.
If you can't observe the soul except as a personal experience, you can't "rule it out" with science.
Don't assume my pointing out your fallacy is a "fallacy fallacy". I'm not saying the counter to your thesis is right and you're wrong, I'm saying you have no logical argument.

Your brain works based on neurons, which are cells, physical objects.
If the cells in your body were able to interact with the soul, other matter could interact with it as well, and it could be demonstrated and analyzed scientifically.
What is more likely, that once in a while the universe changes it's rules to let matter interact with this hypothetical entity that you call the soul, or that you just had a brief hallucination brought upon by events such as a transient localized seizure your brain, or your brain's natural production of hallucinogens such as DMT?

You can observe the soul.

A naturalist explanation does not preclude divine origin; but the kikes sure would lie you to believe that, which is why they lie to you about the validity of their entirely unscientific theories.

the naturalistic view does exclude the bible as holy word though...
if you look at all the parasites and nasty things that are in the world, and all the human suffering that happens to humans randomly irrespective of their own choices in life, you can't say God made the world and that he is a loving being at the same time.

The brain isn't a soul, A brain dead person or a person born without a brain who is still alive has a soul within him.

Omnibenevolence from human perspective is not a biblical concept, God personally murders people. Even if it was it would be under the supposition that you don’t get to impose morality on the being that gave you the ability to conceive of morality; your morality is second-hand at best and an aberration at worst.

>Human life and human behavior can be explained based on cells and neural networks. That rules out the soul.
Explain how this is supposed to work.
>Science stuff [???]
>Soul = ???
>???
>Therefore, there is no God
What is this crap OP? What, specifically, is your malfunction?

>a soul
something that there isn't any evidence it exists

so basically you can point to random stuff and say "god did it, he works in mysterious ways". how is that different from me saying "aliens from saturn did it. they are too advanced, we can't understand what they must've been thinking"

it rules out the soul in the sense of the soul being what makes humans do what humans do. if humans could be exactly the same without a soul, what do we need to concept of a soul for to begin with? it doesn't have any explanatory or predictive power.
>What, specifically, is your malfunction?
none.

You haven't ruled out anything. Give some reasoning. A causal connection is ruled out? How? You haven't explained a single concept. Say what the soul IS, first, then make your argument about causation.

You are very bad at this and presumably underaged. Also, aliens are likewise naturalistic and don’t fulfill a meaningful purpose, simply pushes naturalistic origins back a step.

Back on topic, describing naturalistic origins in no way makes them true nor does it preclude divine origin. We have to trash most of physics and science if you want to omit God from creation because that would mean we don’t live in a purely causal universe.

>underaged
Not underaged.
>We have to trash most of physics and science if you want to omit God from creation because that would mean we don’t live in a purely causal universe.
You still have the problem of what caused god. It's still not a causal universe even with god. Thus god servers no purpose in that sense.
But that's beside the point. I am not arguing against an intelligent being in a metaphysical plane, that may very well be the case. I am arguing against the god in abrahamic religions, and the bible being of divine origin.
I think I explained it already. A soul is proposed by religious people as an element separate from the material word that is necessary for normal human behavior. Let me ask you this, would humans be able to exist (and behave normally) without a soul? If so, what makes you believe we do have one?

What is "the hard problem of consciousness"? How is a concept like 'soul' not similarly irreducible? And given that, wtf are you on about?

I am on Daniel Dennett's side. The hard problem is an illusion, there is no hard problem. Consciousness as separate from matter is an illusion.
Soul is in fact reducible to nothingness because there's no reason to believe it exists.

What is "an element"? Ruling out the existence of something puts a heavy burden on you to make your concepts perfectly clear. Your question is ambiguous without your concept defined.

Calling it "an illusion" SAYS what, exactly? Is there anything substantive in that claim? All you can say about consciousness is "Nope! Nothing there, nothing to say!" That is just a silly pose.

I believe in the frog.

Does "free will" necessarily act CAUSALLY? Why do we always assume it must? A billiard ball acts causally on another billiard ball, we say... free will's action would seem to be at the other end of some scale of complexity, in comparison... why would it, and a billiard ball, alike be "causal"?

This is a cringe thread. No, "neural networks" don't "rule out" a soul.

The burden of defining it is on the people who are arguing for the positive ie. religious people. If you give me a more precise, formal definition of what it is I can give you a more precise answer as to why it does or does not exist.

Take a big chunk of your brain out and see if you don’t become retarded.

Frog miracles.

The "illusion" is believing it can't be explained by physics and information processing by the brain.
It does. The concept of a soul is an outdated concept used to explain how people could think, see, speak and so on before scientists figured out how the brain actually works.
If you think that isn't what a soul is then I'm curious what your definition is.

Our entire civilization presupposes the existence of a soul. If you want humanity to go be scratching subsistence off of rocks then sure, keep listening to nihilistic bullshit from r/atheism.

I agree that religion is better than materialism for society. I'm not even asking for religion to go away. I wish I could believe in god myself.
But by the way I am, I can't convince myself of something that I see is as being so obviously false as religion. And it's quite lonely being one of the few who even thinks about it or sees it as being a lie to keep the population happy and productive.
I wish there was a viable alternative to religion or an antidote for the atheism blackpill.

I don't and never have. Been to church only once in my life

You are compelled to nihilism. Nihilism equals degenerate society heading toward dissolution. Even science itself loses any objective value under nihilism. The necessary existence of a first cause can be shown via metaphysics, to which all other branches of knowledge are inferior. I'll throw my lot in with metaphysics, and leave the nihilism, and masturbating to Science, to you guys.

If angels and other supernatural beings are real, then why don’t we have pictures of any of them? There should be many pictures of demons and angels.

Totally wrong. The logic of refutation dictates that you KNOW what you are refuting, otherwise, you have nothing. The affirmative position can be much more nebulous, but that is beside the point. First and foremost, YOU have the burden to justify the claims YOU make. Period, always. If you say "the soul doesn't exist", then you have to understand and justify THAT CLAIM, and know and explain the terms you are using. What kind of bizarre confusion leads you to think you don't, and to furthermore refer to some other claims no one is making here, as if that bears on your own failure to justify your own claims or even explain or understand your own concepts?
This Richard Dawkins shit is a mess.

I can't suddenly start believing in something that I think is an obvious lie. I can decide to shut up about it and pretend I believe it in public, but I don't like to lie.
I already agreed that religion is better for morale than atheism, but once you are an atheist I don't see how you can genuinely go back.
I don't necessarily agree that atheism equals nihilism. There are still biological objectives such as the desire to survive, to reproduce, to improve living conditions, to avoid suffering in myself and others, and so on.

>whoever makes a claim carries the burden of proof regardless of positive or negative content in the claim.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

>Why do you still believe in the religious jew, pol?

Universe is a computer simulation running religious jew software.

I didn't want to believe it either, but it's legit.

c = infinity.

youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo

youtube.com/watch?v=8ORLN_KwAgs

Aquinas still holds up.

There needs to be a first cause, a prime mover.

Even with what we know about science, the origin of the unoverse doesn't rule out God.

I am refuting a fairly broad range of super natural concepts of the soul, god, and other events happening in the bible, not any precise definition of any of them.
This has nothing to do with Dawkins. I don't like him and have never listened to him.
Non existence is the default, there are more things that don't exist than things that do exist.
Does a teacup orbiting Jupiter exist? I deny that proposition, and I don't have the burden of proof because the prior probability of a teacup orbiting Jupiter is very low. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, unimpressive claims don't. How do we know what the prior probability is? Occam's razor. The longest an hypothesis is in terms of irreducible complexity, the less likely it is to be the case.

What was the cause of god's existence? A god solves nothing in terms of causality.
Besides I am not arguing against a metaphysical god, I am arguing against god as described in abrahamic religions.

Science makes the trains run on time. Religion not so much.

Science destroyed all of religion.

>second video
That experiment is not so much about rewriting the past but about the universe decided what happened in the past after the fact. Still fascinating stuff.

>A god solves nothing in terms of causality.

Causality is routinely violated in Quantum Mechanics.

c = infinity.

Ergo, we don't exist.

Well, the world is also becoming more black and retarded as we speak. So not exactly an endearing fact

No we don’t have that problem you brainlet. God is what made our causal universe, with have no information on what his “reality” is like.

>Human life and human behavior can be explained based on cells and neural networks.
Sufficient explanation and claims of sufficient explanation we would expect to see if God exists are not the same thing.
>In the bible, god constantly reveals himself to people and performs miracles, none of that happened in recent history.
Define "constantly" and "recent." These are either quantified, or pulled out of your ass.
" "
>the evidence towards god (the christian god) existing is zero except for a bunch of stories that people compiled in a book.
Just because you reject the evidence or won't look it up in favor of trusting those who preach what you want to believe doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Nor does testament doesn't constitute zero evidence. It's called "testimony" in a court of law, and the bible is 66 different narratives, letters, and writings written by 40 different people, five of whom witnessed Jesus after His resurrection, over about 1,500 years that are all theologically synchronous.
"Hmpf that's not good enough," isn't good enough of a reason to disbelieve when there is zero evidence the Christian God doesn't or is even unlikely to exist.

God isn't part of the physical universe.

Cause, origin, decay, and death only make sense within the universe because they are all functions of the universe. Anything outside the universe isn't subject to its laws.

Of course the universe coouldn't come into existence on its own. It didn't bootstrap itself into existence. There needed to be an outside force that willed it. Call it whatever you want, but you can't deny that it is necessary.

see

There is a difference between essentially ordered causal series, and accidentally ordered causal series. In the former, there must a first cause, not itself caused, to explain all that follows, it's not just a matter of tacking on another cause at the beginning, or saying the causal chain is infinite. Look into it.

If god doesn't need a cause to exist, he doesn't exist in a causal universe.
If god exists in a non-causal universe, he couldn't be the cause of the universe.

Why do you need to be spoonfed what to believe by scientists following an agenda on what to disclose to the public? Almost like you can't fucking think unless the state tells you too.

Everyone is working on a collective mind and maybe in time it gets an evolved body.

> Still meming causality.

I've already shown you one of the dozens of experiments showing causality is routinely violated in Quantum Mechanics.

Materialism is a debunked theory. Why are Atheist brainlets such rampant science deniers?

I get it, bro. I was an atheist too until I saw the results of these experiments. It's time to move on and accept Zombie Jesus.

Show us on this bear where Zombie Jesus gave you the bad touch.

>If god doesn't need a cause to exist, he doesn't exist in a causal universe.
presupposes all things in a universe are subject to the laws of that universe
presupposes God necessarily exists in the universe
These imply precedent to your conclusion that God doesn't exist, and thus beg the question.
>If god exists in a non-causal universe, he couldn't be the cause of the universe.
" "

You seem to think God exists inside the reality he created, which is part of the reason I keep mocking your intelligence.

Your thought here is analogous to humans being unable to create binary computing because they don’t live in a binarily computed system. It is a total non-sequitur.

You are the one memeing, friend. Quantum nonsense is 100% imaginary.

Then by your own definition an essentially ordered causal series is impossible.
If everything that ever existed requires a cause, then the universe either existed forever or it doesn't exist. In a strictly causal metaverse god couldn't have bootstrapped itself into existence either.
I don't want to believe in atheism, I want god and eternal life to be true. How great would that be? I just can't if it's not true (or at least I see it as being false).

> You are the one memeing, friend. Quantum nonsense is 100% imaginary.

I agree that science has proven everything is imaginary, including us.

We agree - although we never really disagreed at all.

>I want god and eternal life to be true.
Seeing as how this isn't possible for an atheist, and it isn't possible to be too stupid to find God, ima call bullshit. You should reconsider your position if you have to lie to defend it, even if it's to yourself.

>Then by your own definition an essentially ordered causal series is impossible.
Do a google search on essentially ordered causal series.

I already explained that the delayed erasure experiment doesn't mean there isn't causality. The universe isn't fully causal because there is also a random element in the quantum wave collapse, but apart from that it is causal. I'ts just that the results of the wave-function collapse aren't computed until the particles involved have interacted with the rest of the universe.
And even if causality was a meme I don't see how that has anything to do with Christianity. In any case it would be the opposite to the "muh causality chain" argument.

>but apart from that it is causal
What are you basing this claim on?

A soul is an individual awareness.

If i may, a soul is an emergent byproduct of a brain interacting with matter.
it is similiar to information in that it isnt fully causal in nature.
you are not a noun, but a verb.
you are an action instead of a single entity.
souls are real, but probably not immortal.

>a piece of cloth with a face painted in it proves anything
If not all things in a universe are subject to it's laws then this universe could've been one of them, and it created itself in a causal metaverse. Or the metaverse was non-causal and this causal universe that we exist in didn't need a cause. Thus we don't need god to explain the existence of the universe.
I don't think that. If god (which allegedly lives in the metaverse) didn't need a cause to exist, then the metaverse is at least non-strictly causal (some things don't need a cause). This universe also lives in that metaverse, which means this universe didn't need a cause either.
It is possible. But believing in it doesn't make it true. If I thought I could get into an hypothetical heaven merely by believing in god I would do anything necessary to believe in god. I just don't think there actually is a heaven, and thus I have not many reasons to want to believe in god and handle the cognitive dissonance considering the reasons I talked about why I think it doesn't exist.
Maybe you are the stupid one.
In the fact that (empirically) the state of the universe at time t is a function of the laws of physics and the state of the universe at time t-1.
Then by that definition I agree that the soul exists, but what is the point of calling that a soul. The term "soul" is generally implied to transcend death.

Indoctrination.

You don't understand the results of that experiment, senpai.

> The universe isn't fully causal

Yes, and...

> but apart from (when it's not causal) it's totes causal.

Desperately clinging to Materialism like the people you despise cling to their "religions".

c = infinity. We don't exist.

> And even if causality was a meme I don't see how that has anything to do with Christianity.

Study history, senpai. You have much to learn.

Start here:

youtube.com/watch?v=LTSKfXzdiuE&list=PL95B1BB23B7A3C795

>Think of it this way, as Aquinas did. He argues that there are basically two types of causal series: ones that are accidentally arranged; and ones that are essentially arranged. An example of the former type would be the relationships forming a genealogical line of fathers and sons: Kent begets Wayne, who begets Clark, who begets Bruce, and so on. But Bruce’s ability to in turn beget a son does not depend on the existence or activity of Kent. Kent could have long since died by the time Bruce got around to having any sons at all (for that matter, Wayne and Clark could have long since perished, too; this would not prevent Bruce from having children). The various parts of this causal series are accidentally arranged – not in the sense that they have been randomly or haphazardly thrown together without deliberation or foresight, but because the latter members of the sequence do not depend on the earlier members for their causal power
I hope atheists didn't define this absurd shit for means to attack the necessity of logical cause. The idea conveyed, put simply and accurately, is that accidental causal chains exist as former causes not necessarily existing currently in order for latter effects to retain their causal power, but such is obviously the case with all causes. That doesn't mean any latter cause isn't contingent on its former cause(s). This example of example: of course Kent's death would have no effect on Bruce's ability to beget a son, but that is irrelevant. Had Kent not caused the causes that cause Bruce, Bruce wouldn't exist. Whether Bruce's causal ability continually necessitates Kent's existence is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether Kent was around to cause Bruce's sufficient causes. The whole idea is a red herring, and that people believe this shit presumably mostly for the authority of its sources is the best argument for solipsism.

okay I'll check it out

>there is soda inside this can, that means the soda is made out of cans
>also, I don’t believe in cans
You are a real piece of work, retard.

I would just like to take this small moment to remind you all that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church has had no problem with evolution from the day Darwin published his book, and continues to pump cleric scientists out of her seminaries who actively argue against creationism and for chemical evolution, micro evolution and macro evolution.

That is all

Continue on

Because your mind program is called a soul and is made of the world. You die but you probably serve some sort of purpose. Probably. Or maybe not. You have a mind and that is different from your awareness or soul.

Your soul is a process that isnt just the brain. Your mind is your memories and your optic and hearing nerves firing to simulate things.

The mind is simple, awareness is not.
maybe immortal, maybe not, you wouldnt know because a mind is a biological thing.

DNA and the electromagnetic spectrum are proof of higher power. Also, the cell itself couldn't have formed itself. Non-believers are doomed to a life of non-peace and eternal agony and suffering.

>Painted in it
I thought you fucking atheists were suppose to be intellectuals...oh right, you have to be spoonfed.

www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2017/july/new-evidence-blood-of-tortured-man-is-found-on-the-shroud-of-turin

If you wanted to believe in God, you would. Instead, you pretend to reject Him because alas, believing there is a God isn't sufficient for salvation and you'd have to repent and stop being a fucking faggot.
>If not all things in a universe are subject to it's laws then this universe could've been one of them, and it created itself in a causal metaverse. Or the metaverse was non-causal and this causal universe that we exist in didn't need a cause.
Sound, but a pedantic disregard for the principle of charity bordering on red herring. The pertinent implicit premise is that you presuppose God, specifically, must obey the laws of the universe, obviously. You are either too stupid to recognize that, or you purposely omitted it and thus are lying, again.

>c = infinity. We don't exist.
You mean we shouldn't exist.

You must've misunderstood me. I can't make any sense out of the soda cans stuff either.
I didn't know that, thanks for the info.
Just a thing about the catholic church, don't you thinks it's kind of degenerate how they don't let priests have women? That's part of why they end up messing with kids and stuff
Why couldn't it? Biomolecules are easy to form. Why couldn't they agglomerate accidentally creating clumps that divided and grew from the organic molecules in the water, improving efficiency one generation at a time until the modern cell was created?
>implying you could get the relevant concentrations of hormones in a bloodstain from centuries ago
nigger please. that sounds dubious. you should've link to the actual study not a news report. even then, how does a piece of cloth with the blood of a tortured man prove the bible is true? how do you explain the carbon dating studies placing it around the medieval period?
Do you honestly think I would prefer to live an eternity being tortured in hell before doing whatever it says in the bible you have to do to get in heaven? I don't believe because I know I have no reason to believe in god other than the lukewarm feeling that I'm not going to permadie (even though I'm going to whether I'm a believer or not)
You prefer to believe in religious bullshit to spare you from knowing that your existence on earth is limited and there's no happy ending. I don't judge, it's a respectable thing to do, I just can't do it myself.

I mean we don't exist. "We" are inside of a computer simulation running Christian software.

I didn't want to believe it either, senpai. I'm only following the evidence with an open mind.

>don't you thinks it's kind of degenerate how they don't let priests have women?
No

>That's part of why they end up messing with kids and stuff
There is no evidence to support this
The Catholic Church has a lower rate of pedophiles than other institutions
The reason the Church got fucked up, and justifiably so, was because they covered it up

>Do you honestly think I would prefer to live an eternity being tortured in hell before doing whatever it says in the bible you have to do to get in heaven?
No, you would prefer to believe the problem doesn't exist in the first place.
>You prefer to believe in religious bullshit to spare you from knowing that your existence on earth is limited and there's no happy ending.
"Permadeath" isn't an unhappy ending, nor is limited life unhappy because the consequence is permadeath. You prefer to believe in atheist bullshit to spare you from knowing you are responsible for your actions and subject to the laws of a being greater than men. Ad hominems achieve little more than being indicative of a lack of rational reason or argument.
>I don't judge, it's a respectable thing to do, I just can't do it myself.
There is obviously nothing respectable about lying to yourself because you can't face the truth, and you -do- do it yourself.

How can you imply my concept of "we" is wrong if you can't possibly know what it is? Speak plainly, like you don't believe in individual thought or something.

>you would prefer to believe the problem doesn't exist in the first place.

No, I don't prefer to believe the problem doesn't exist in the first place. I am forced to that conclusion by the evidence.
Since the existence of the problem of hell also implies great things (that life is ultimately fair and that there is life beyond death), if I could decide whether god exists or does not I would choose for him to exist.
>"Permadeath" isn't an unhappy ending
I think life is unhappier than it would be if death didn't exist or god existed and death was just a transition to another place which could be potentially good depending on your acts.
The "ad hominems" aren't to insult you, they are to show you why you believe what you believe.
>There is obviously nothing respectable about lying to yourself because you can't face the truth, and you -do- do it yourself.
It's respectable if it leads you to be happier and doesn't have negative consequences. If I was doing it myself, then it wouldn't be respectable, it would be hugely stupid because I would be trading a slight temporary pleasure for an eternity of hell. And furthermore it wouldn't be respectable because it would be indicative of an hedonist person who lives just for pleasure, without no aspiration of greater purpose or accomplishment. I'm a stoic, not a hedonist. I enjoy struggle and success more than I enjoy pleasure, and I think it's more respectable than hedonism.
But in your case I think it's respectable because believing in christian dogma makes oneself happier and more productive.
Since christian dogma is false, being an atheist is also respectable because it means you are smart to see that the christian dogma is factually false, and that you value truth over convenience.

>he doesn't know that evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics

It absolutely doesn't.
The law of thermodynamics doesn't say that LOCAL entropy cannot increase. It only says that TOTAL entropy cannot increase. Total entropy has been increasing since the big bang and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Intelligence life is a transient increase in local entropy that will eventually disappear as the universe progresses towards heat death.

>I am forced to that conclusion by the evidence.
Evidence you've predictably yet to present
>I think life is unhappier than it would be if death didn't exist
Source?
>The "ad hominems" aren't to insult you, they are to show you why you believe what you believe.
They aren't "ad hominems;" they are circumstantial ad hominems. Why you think I believe what I believe is irrelevant and a non-argument. Whether they're insulting is also irrelevant.
>It's respectable if it leads you to be happier and doesn't have negative consequences.
This implies truth isn't important, a notion that does have negative consequence, thus lying is necessarily not respectable.
>If I was doing it myself, then it wouldn't be respectable, it would be hugely stupid because I would be trading a slight temporary pleasure for an eternity of hell.
Consciously trading what you are lying to yourself doesn't exist is a contradiction. You can't knowingly trade what you believe doesn't exist.
>being an atheist is also respectable because it means you are smart
You are not an atheist as a consequent of intelligence; you're an atheist because you let your emotions make your decisions.

And yet all signs of the creation of the universe point to there being a higher being, one who started it all. There is also no way, to our knowledge, for single cell life to evolve into multi-cell. That would also require someone higher to create it.

>Evidence you've predictably yet to present
presented it in the OP
if you have any stronger evidence toward the bible being right then this is the time to present it
>I think life is unhappier than it would be if death didn't exist
>Source?
It's just an opinion. It might not be.
>Why you think I believe what I believe is irrelevant and a non-argument.
Why we believe what we believe is relevant, because it points to possible emotional biases. That is the reason you explained why you think I believe what I believe and the reason I explained why I think you believe what you believe.
>This implies truth isn't important, a notion that does have negative consequence, thus lying is necessarily not respectable.
How important truth is varies according to what the propositions are referring to.
In the case of whether the bible is or is not true, being wrong doesn't have many negative consequences, since the christian bible doesn't usually push people to do any extreme or negative things, in fact it often pushes people to do better things than they would do knowing the truth (that there's no omnipresent god judging their every action).
>Consciously trading what you are lying to yourself doesn't exist is a contradiction. You can't knowingly trade what you believe doesn't exist.
I agree. I never said it was a conscious decision.
>You are not an atheist as a consequent of intelligence; you're an atheist because you let your emotions make your decisions.
Literally the opposite.
I can imagine a method by which a multi-celled organism may arise. By a random mutation, when a cell divides into two cells, the two resulting cells are chained by a biopolymer.
This new link between them allows them to recruit nutrients more efficiently and avoid being swallowed by other cells. Thus this mutation is positive for genetic fitness, the organism reproduces, and the quantity of multicellular organisms increases.

So I've been watching this video and I already have to question it's contents.
He throws around probabilities like candy. Why doesn't he present how were those probabilities calculated?
If the prophecies were common stuff like "he will take a dump" "he will eat" "he will begin to speak before five years of age" the probabilities are different than if the prophecies were "he will revive a dead person".
How does he come up with those big numbers? Proctonumerology?

And yet such a thing has never been successfully tested or observed.

Though I'm curious, what do you gain in disproving god? Nothing in the physical changes because of it, and the existence of him does not necessarily change the method of creation, simply whether or not it was planned. The only thing disproving god achieves is the removal of a higher plane of existence which does nothing but elevates mankind from guttural beasts in the mud. Without the image of god you take away the reason for man to strive and improve. Why do this?