@CallOut OP

Edit: I apologize for the length, you (callout) obviously spent a fair amount of time on a 10 minute video, so I wanted to do a complete response. I can summarize in one paragraph if anyone wants me to.

I had a bit of free time so a "strong" atheist (me) response to your video.

First: you obviously edited and staged your video, good, if this was just you talking to a shaky poorly lit selfie camera I would of stopped 2 seconds in.

I went and paid the extra money to watch Avatar in 3d Imax. And it was probably one of the greatest movie watching experiences I ever had, especially on the visual effects, art and well done 3D that was not "forced" or over the top for most of the movie (I call it 3d for the sake of 3d.) Perhaps one of the last movies/shows to ever truly impress me on visual effects.

Anyways back on topic...

"Can we know something for certain about something which doesn't exist, or might not exist."

There are no certainties in life, nature, reality, etc. Which to me is precisely why "hard" evidence is so important. Am I "certain" the sun will rise from the direction we call east tomorrow morning? No, but do I think it is extremely likely, and I can and should plan around the fact that the sun will come up tomorrow? I think yes, it is very important to operate that way.

"(atheist) always think 5 steps ahead."

I don't think I personally do that all that much, although I have been debating this subject for long enough I can usually predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy a typical theist apologist response to my own points. For me the atheist viewpoint that "god has not been proven." and then working from a base there it is very likely that there is no god, (as most religions describe god,) that it does tend to be a rather simple exercise to think 5-10 moves ahead simply working from the base point that there is no god, which answers a lot all by it self.

-astronomy example-
I think you are already realize there is really no example or comparison to the god concept. While your points are true, yet undiscovered planets and going into the semantics of the word definition of planets, it is "just talk" about planets, something very very different then knowledge of "god" or not. The primary difference being is that the concept "planet" is very VERY! evidenced. The possibility of other planets (that we can actually observe there are more than just our own!) and that there is yet more planets we have not yet discovered is a tiny jump compared to the completely unevidenced god idea. If there were gods all over the place that were extremely well evidenced and obvious like our planet, and viewable planets in the sky, the concept that there are other planets is a small step, even if we have not "evidenced" these additional planets yet.

"One is a dead end, the other an infinite loop."

Good thing we have tools like "consensus" that can stop the infinite loop. I do not "require" more evidence to disprove god, and my standard to stop an infinite loop on evidence for god, is simple, more evidence that god exists then evidence that man made up god. It just as it stands right now, evidence that man made up god is completely overwhelming, where evidence there is a god is practically non existent.

"you can never have an indisputable conclusion"

Of course not, by definition of that sentence you can not, you cant about anything, not just "god or no god."

"reasonable is not enough."

That sucks. Because like you said, it is about the best we can do. I assume reasonable is enough for you on just about any other topic. Why is the "god" topic suddenly exempt to this? Perhaps you will answer later in.

"I want to find truth beyond any doubt"

You will never find that on any subject, no matter how simple.

"I am talking about a communication tool"

Evidence as a communication tool? Lost me there. Perhaps you can further explain, (maybe you will later in the video.)

.... Oh hey you brought up consensus! :)
Not everything I know do I think it's true because I was told it was true. Sure there are quite a few things I do, do exactly that (think its true because I was told it was true.) Let's take evolution. I am told its true, and a compelling case for it has been done, but essentially yes it is all because some other human (large effort of many humans) its true. BUT!! I still have the option of not taking their word for it, going out with a shovel and digging up fossilized remains and discovering for my self with my own eyes and hands and conclusions that indeed, evolution has occurred.

Earth is round is a good example. Why, because it is something we can discover for ourselves. We can conduct experiments to verify this ourselves. It can be as simple as looking as attempting to see a large volcanic island that is not visible at sea level, but 20 stories up in building right on the coast you can make it out this volcanic island (on a clear day and perhaps with the aid of binoculars,) and then using simple deduction as to why that is. We were told to believe it, but we can verify it ourselves.

I agree, we can not test every single thing we were told as "truth" You even mention how you can test the evidence for yourself, so far all this is (to me) an argument against the various god ideas.

Evidence can be subject to consensus and often is. guess what the consensus on god is based on evidence? Obviously, no god, well let's see where you go with this...

"evidence is an exhausting path to an inconclusive truth."

Sometimes. And that's when we realize it is inconclusive and therefore truth, (or something close to it,) has not yet been found on this subject. The answer to these scenarios should be "we don't know." Why worship something (god) we "don't know?"

You use the words: "self-evident" a lot. Might have to take time to define what "self evident" means to you and in this context.

"The big question, if not evidence, then what?"

I still have heard zero reason to leave "evidence" behind. Sure evidence does not always give us a satisfactory answer on every subject, but why abandon it? It is one of the best tools we have, that we utilize every day to survive and thrive.

We do not need to check or measure every single triangle, only thing we have to do is, if we wanted to object to your claim that you had a 4 sided triangle.

For instance, I am happy to dispute one person's well defined god's existence. And state the lack of evidence for their god claim, and show the overwhelming amount of evidence that the god idea was made up. But will I ever argue their is absolutely zero possibility of any sort of "god" (very broad definition that can turn out to be!) No, we can not know anything for certain. But should we use this powerful reality defining tool of "evidence" to guide our decisions in life, absolutely! We use this tool every day, and we would struggle to survive without it.

Agreed it would be absolutely unreasonable to measure everything to see if there is a "4 sided triangle" but can we measure a few and test the definition of the word? Sure. Can we form a reasonable assumption on the 4 sided triangle? Yes, we easily can, and we should if someone was trying to sell us a "4 sided triangle" for 100 bucks we should exercise the reasonable assumption we made.

"we find indisputable truths through concepts"

I argue we don't. We can agree on standard definitions, and these definitions are useful for communication and sharing of thought, but they are just words, a concept that only exists in our heads. No human brains, no triangles (3 or 4 sided!) Hmmm..... That reminds me of something else.. bet you can guess what I am thinking of!

Oh yeah, "god." No humans no god. To me you just took the pain to present that god only exists in our heads. Something I strongly agree with!

This is actually one of the core reasons why I do not believe in any sort of god. No humans, no god. This strongly points to god being of human creative thought in origin and reality. So sure, you can try to say "god concept" is indisputable, and I say well as you present it any idea any person comes up with their head is "indisputable."

We need to be able to separate out human fiction/lies from reality. It is a highly useful ability to any of us, or we would easily be taken advantage of by anyone willing to lie, using simple words of shared definition to get us to do what they want because we did not require any sort of "evidence" from them. We both use these tools all the time. The difference is, I keep applying this tool to the god concept where others do not. Because many folks have defined their god in a way that puts it above "evidence" why? My guess, the same reason you outlined earlier in your video, people just "took the consensus" from their peers and was told it was true, and was told to have "faith" instead of evidence.

"completely misses how beautiful this indisputable truth is"

Lost me again, why is it "beautiful?" (stand in word for great?)

Perhaps I failed to hear what you are trying to say, but why is "indisputable truth" so great of a concept? I will finish out the video now and see if you explain.

What do we know indisputably about "god"? That people say it is indisputable?

"aspects of god"
"concepts of god"
"we can know something about something even if it does not exist"

So in that magical biochemical computer we call brain where we can cook up any concept or aspect about anything, whether a part of reality or not" And we can make such a thought "indisputable" in our heads, but have we achieved anything? What about the danger of leading ourselves astray with such thinking?

"A triangle will never be a square"

this concept will never change. Unless we decide to change the concept! Since this is all just in my head and concepts, I just changed it. Then I changed it back, to be more useful and less confusing to others in conversation.

Why can't we do these sort of things against the god idea as well? Lots of god ideas state the 3 omni's for god. (all knowing all powerful all good,) yet like a 4 sided triangle, conceptually that is impossible without breaking or bending the definitions for 3 omni's or bending (to the point of breaking in my opinion) the person's own definition of "god."

Oh cool you did it for the god concept as well.

- baseball example -
Hey I like it. I agree, kind of like my 3 omni's example.
Looked at your profile, you state your are christian. Seems to me like you outlined, especially with your baseball example that even if we take away the "evidence" requirement of god, this indisputable claim you done, makes it.. what... indisputable that there is no god because the "god" concept as illustrated by various believers is "logically" impossible?

I feel like I could use your video to help explain, (in a different way,) to theist why they should reject their god idea. I could even point out to them that you state you are a christian.

I have used different words then you, but essentially, I have used a variation of this argument as to why people should abandon their "god" ideas, because they are just that, ideas in people's heads with no bearing in reality, they are just words, and people like to make absolutes out of these words, and like you outline, absolutes is not how reality works, it is only how things work in our heads.
 
 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

I think this is really just the law of non-contradiction. It can only be used to make claims about non-existance or refute arguments. Neither of which is trivial, but also neither of which can give us truth about the universe/existance without evidence. It can tell us what doesn't exist, but can't ever get to what does actually exist. We need more to get any knowledge that we can actually use when living within existance.

I'd imagine a claim argument for something existing that relied on the law of non-contradiction would at some point have to use a fallacious argument from ignorance. I.e. x can not exist because it is contradictory, and so our only other known option, y, must exist. Id be happy to be shown to be wrong though.

We only know the Earth is round because we're told it's round unless we personally carry out experiments ourselves to measure the Earths roundness? Well no we have certain observable facts and things that demonstrate it's roundness, you'll see the mast of a ship over the horizon before you will see the ship itself for instance. It's not a general consensus you have to follow it's an education.