"One Less God Than You" Is Being Wasted | Redeeming Atheist Arguments

Añadido: 2026-05-27

[00:00:00]So um you believe in one god I assume >> uh in three persons but go ahead.

[00:00:05]>> Okay. So you believe Okay.

[00:00:08]>> So but there there are about 3,000 to choose from that have been you know people who believe in >> some reading. Yeah.

[00:00:14]>> Okay. So so basically you deny one less god than I do. You don't believe in 2,999 gods >> and I don't believe in just one more.

[00:00:26]Right.

[00:00:30]Oh, wait. Sorry. The the audience clapped and I I got a little distracted.

[00:00:34]Got a little carried away there. I think Ricky Dervase may have just said a whole lot of nothing, but he's actually quite close to making an incredibly strong point. And today, I'm going to explain where this has merit, where it misses, and I'm going to show you the very subtle tweak that Ricky could make to really cause a stir and give theists something to think about.

[00:01:03]preview.

[00:01:05]>> Yeah, I haven't really made an intro yet, and I probably actually won't. Uh, now that I think about it, I like it better when videos just get right into it. You know, I I really hate when the person making the video has this long- winded first part before they actually get into the content. It's like, I didn't come here to listen to you ramble, get on with it. You know what I mean? and then they overexlain everything. It's really just a big waste of time. It It needlessly just extends the runtime of the video. And so that's kind of why I'm thinking I probably won't make an intro. That way it'll save you time and me time as well and we can just get right into it. Okay. So Ricky Dy starts by saying >> there are about 3,000 to choose from.

[00:01:43]>> 3,000 to choose from. He says it as if they're all equally plausible. Like there's no particular reason you ended up in the religion that you did. And of course, as we know, that's exactly how it works. Theists just decide what to believe in completely at random. I'm a Christian, for instance, and I still remember the day I spun the wheel of faith and I landed on Christianity. I was hoping for Hinduism, but what can you do? I'm obviously joking, but to be fair, that caricature is not entirely inaccurate in some cases. More on that later. Richard Dawkins put the same idea right smack in the front of his book, The God Delusion. We're all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. This saying is all over the internet at this point and most associated with Jervis or Dawkins, but actually it came from Steven Roberts in the '9s. And I find that a lot of the impact comes from the confidence in the person who's saying it. Ricky Jerves is a respected comedian, for example. He's charismatic. He's simply a likable guy and he's getting interviewed. So that already positions him as the guy to listen to. Let's try and separate the argument from the individual just for a moment. Imagine Ricky goes up there and says the same thing, but he replaces the I and his statement with someone else.

[00:02:56]Some random dude that has no credibility. That's great and all that you're religious, but you could have picked from any of these different gods.

[00:03:02]You had all these options to choose from, and you believe in one? Well, you know who doesn't even go that far? Tony.

[00:03:08]I think that takes away from some of the rhetorical impact. Even though structurally speaking, the argument is the same. You believe one thing someone else doesn't. It's almost trivial. We all don't believe in some gods. I just don't believe in one more than you. We all drink water. Some of us just add ice. We all can count to seven, but some of us count to eight. That being said, this argument gets a lot of flack in philosophy, but I think it really isn't that bad. Admittedly, it can be a weak argument if you take it at face value.

[00:03:38]And I'll come clean. That's what I've been doing to this point. I couldn't help myself. I wanted to have a little fun with it. Richard Dawkins has made a career of making theists cry. So, I couldn't help but feel a little petty.

[00:03:50]But now, let's dive deep and look past what might first appear as nothing more than a mere fun fact for the old autobiography. There are three ways I think people use this argument, and I think they get progressively stronger.

[00:04:03]And then there's that fourth super special, secret, spectacular, superb, subtle difference that I promised. The first and weakest interpretation is probably unfortunately the most common.

[00:04:14]Something like you don't believe in all these other gods. Now just extend that reasoning to the god you do believe in.

[00:04:21]Bingo. That's where I landed. If you just stop and think about why you deny the other gods, you'd clearly see why it's irrational. Very catchy. Really rolls off the tongue. The full quote from Steven Roberts in the '90s is basically this first interpretation.

[00:04:33]Exactly. I contend we're both atheists.

[00:04:36]I just believe in one fewer God than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. The reason one might not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is because we know it was founded in 2005 by Bobby Henderson for the specific purpose of making a protest against bad theistic arguments. Reason for disbelief, known satirical origin, and the concept itself implies material contingency. It's made of spaghetti. Perfect. Let's take these points and try to apply them to another concept of God. Maybe Aristotle's unmoved mover concept. And yes, I am actually comparing the spaghetti monster to an idea from Aristotilian metaphysics. If you think that's an unfair comparison, that shows you know the difference and you won't be making the mistake that interpretation one makes. Good job. For those who are unfamiliar with the unmoved mover, imagine everything in the universe as a train car. I'm a train car. You're a train car. Earth itself is a train car.

[00:05:37]Everything is a train car.

[00:05:39]>> Everything.

[00:05:41]>> How many cars do we have to add before this train takes off from the station?

[00:05:45]Even if there are infinite train cars, can the train actually move without a locomotive? The answer Aristotle gives is it doesn't matter how many train cars there are. You need a locomotive. You need something fundamentally different.

[00:06:00]And so he posits an unmoved mover.

[00:06:02]Something that can bring about motion without itself needing to be moved. This is where his concept for God comes from.

[00:06:09]And nothing like us, nothing contingent or physical, he says, can actually get things moving. We need something fundamentally different. So let's apply our flying spaghetti monster logic here.

[00:06:20]Known satirical origin. Not really.

[00:06:23]Well, no. Maybe the concept itself implies material contingency. Is this grand locomotive made of pasta? Matter of fact, it isn't. In fact, Aristotle explicitly argues the unmoved mover must be immaterial and non-composite.

[00:06:39]Shocker, the spaghetti logic doesn't work here. Not all the gods are the same. Whoops, we did a conflation. Now, that doesn't mean Aristotle is automatically right. In fact, there are plenty challenges to this argument as well. Why must there be one unmoved mover, for example? I say, let's add 50 locomotives. really get this thing moving. Also, why must the locomotive be conscious or caring? No one said this has to be an omnipotent Thomas the Tank Engine. What if the locomotive is really just uninterested and wants to go to bed? He's been pulling the universe so long for 13.8 billion years after all.

[00:07:12]Poor guy must be exhausted. If I had to really critique it, I would say it's not immediately obvious why we should treat existence as a per se chain rather than a per accident chain. Why is persistence something that needs to be actualized at all? If you're a theist philosopher, I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

[00:07:29]Maybe we can get more into it later. I'm planning a video on Aristotle for February of 2030. We'll see how closely I stick to my plan schedule. Regardless, if we want to disprove the unmoved mover, we might have to delve into the active potency system, maybe engage in metaphysics. But you know what? Many of these unmoved mover critiques don't touch whether or not the spaghetti monster exists. The logic we're using to interrogate the different gods is vastly different. Imagine saying, "I don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe pineapple belongs on pizza." The fact that the gods are different means the logic that you use to reject one does not automatically apply to another. Interpretation one fails. And all of that being said, I actually don't think that's how Jerves or Dawkins are using the argument. The two of them are not sitting at home reading through the Bible and then watching Avengers Endgame and seeing Thor like, "This must be that Jesus fellow from the book." The second interpretation of the one less god than you line implies something about how theists pick their beliefs, which is sort of what I was joking about earlier.

[00:08:34]You're skeptical on 2,999 cases. Why are you not skeptical for the last one? Why does the god you believe in get exempted from the rigor you apply everywhere else? This one's a good question to ask actually. We should be reflective and not dogmatic. I too would encourage that and I think everyone would. You don't want to just blindly follow something. I think universally we should all take a step back, evaluate our positions. I don't think that's controversial at all. Just sit down, learn about the subject, and make an informed decision. Maybe find an animated philosophy religion channel on YouTube, subscribe to it, watch the videos, like the videos, and comment. At least that's probably what Dawkins and Drav are saying. It's possible there's a subtle accusation in there. Theists only believe because they're hypocritical and don't extend their logic consistently.

[00:09:22]Now, that's objectively the funniest interpretation in my opinion. Some theists are born into their faith and never really stop to consider why they think it's true or whether they're simply told to think it's true. Of course, the same could be said of atheists. It sort of just reinforces the encouragement to step back and evaluate our positions. The one thing you can't really do with this specific interpretation is present it as some mic drop argument that completely demolishes theism because there's actually not any substance to it. You'd need to follow it up with some counterargument probably because claiming that you do or don't believe in something is more of a fun fact. It's not really an argument. I just believe in one god less than you.

[00:10:03]You you know what else believes in one god less than me? Rocks. Not to mention many religious people do interrogate their beliefs. And if they have, there's not much else you can say using this argument alone.

[00:10:17]Why don't you scrutinize your own religion the way you do others? I do.

[00:10:21]Sounds good. Never mind. Then unless the theist you're talking to simply picked out one of the gods like a Pokemon, tossing out a Pokeball like, "I choose you, Yahweh." then you've really got nothing. The the one less godline doesn't challenge theism or support atheism. It doesn't score any points for either side. I consider the second interpretation to be a good question to ask, but not an argument on its own.

[00:10:45]Now, the third interpretation, and this is the one that I think works best, what makes the belief in your god more justified than the rest? This specific phrasing puts the burden of proof on the one making the claim. You're not saying their god is the same as the others.

[00:11:01]You're just inviting them to explain their specific justification. And then they have to make a case and that makes the theist vulnerable. That's when you get them. I feel like I'm making a tutorial on how to rhetorically trap theists. I literally am a Christian though. Maybe it's not wise of me to make a guide on precisely how to corner the people who agree with me. Here I am, though. And yes, redeeming atheist arguments will be a series. The truth is that atheists genuinely don't need to make a claim. They don't need to posit an alternative. But like I said earlier, statements of belief are fun facts.

[00:11:34]They're not arguments. So if you're actually going to argue or engage, to say, "I don't personally find this compelling is one thing. To say your conclusion does not follow," requires that you do a little bit of work. You you don't need to put your own theory out there. But if you just say, "I don't buy it on repeat," it risks being questioning. So let's put in the work.

[00:11:53]We've looked at three possible interpretations. One commits a fallacy.

[00:11:57]The second is good advice but neutral.

[00:11:59]The last one actually gets the conversation started. Bonus round. Sorry to interrupt. Before we get to that super special secret spectacular hidden argument, I have breaking news. So, my last video was on the problem of evil where I utilized an Alex Okconor debate to help me explain the lay of the land.

[00:12:17]And now I'm making this video on the one less god than you, a line that really blew up in the late 2000s, early 2010s.

[00:12:24]I'm thinking I'm a little late to the game, but it's fine. And as I'm animating, I happened to go online and see 10 hours ago, Alex Okconor just made a video on this exact same clip.

[00:12:35]Anyways, now it looks like I'm just obsessing over and copying Alex. I assure you, this video by me was already in production before Alex posted his. In fact, I'm thinking Alex may have somehow got a hold of my upload schedule and is taking my ideas. If he posts a video on how to make philosophy cartoons here in a couple months, we'll know for sure.

[00:12:54]All of that being said, yeah, we're going to take a look at his video and see what his thoughts are. Imagine you were sat around with your 10 brothers and none of you had ever met your father and you were discussing, "What do you think our father was like?" One of your brothers says, "Well, you know, I think he might have been French." And someone says, "No, no, no. I'm sure he was American." If you look at the kind of man that mum's into, I'm sure he might have been American. And you know, the next brother thinks he's Italian, the next brother thinks that he's German, you know, and it gets round to to me and I say, "You know what, guys? I don't think we had a dad."

[00:13:23]They're like, "What? Of course you had a bloody dad. What are you talking about?

[00:13:26]Like, oh, hold on, guys. Like, you don't believe in the French dad and the American dad and the German dad. You don't believe in any of those dads. I just go one dad further."

[00:13:36]>> It's like I think you're making I think I think you're making a mistake there.

[00:13:43]Notice that there is a huge difference between say the difference between 10 and 11 or the difference between five and six and the difference between zero and one. It's a difference of quality rather than just quantity.

[00:13:55]Oh, sorry. I I can't help it. I get caught up in good sound bites. Alex's audience is sort of tearing into him for this, actually. Alex, I'm a huge fan of yours, but this just isn't a good analogy at all. This is the first time I've seen Alex say something nonsensical. Poor analogy. I think we have evidence for necessarily father.

[00:14:18]>> So much so that Alex actually had to pan a comment explaining how people are missing the point. This is so weird.

[00:14:24]People saying, "But we have evidence for dads have completely missed the point.

[00:14:27]Of course, they're not comparable in that sense. The argument is only that one less x doesn't work and that 3000 to one is completely metaphysically different from one one. I think the gist of this is pretty simple. Alex is drawing a line between two questions.

[00:14:41]Does any god exist? And if there is a god, which god is the right god? You can answer one without answering the other.

[00:14:48]Think of it like this. There are disagreements over what kind of a being god would be. But to say none of the gods exist is a very different claim.

[00:14:57]It's much bolder to say, "I don't think any God exists." Compared to, "I'm open to the possibility that God exists, but I don't think he exists." Exactly as religious group A describes him. When Alex says, "You don't believe in any of those other dads of different nationalities. I just go one dad further." He's exposing the difference between the two. One claim is very different than the rest. I do think the analogy works given what he's trying to do. In general, I do think it's also a bit confusing because talking about a biological father is obviously different from a spiritual divine father. And it can sound like you're suggesting the old the building proves the builder type argument. My existence is evidence for my parents' existence. Our universe's existence is evidence for a creator of the universe. That seems to be what everyone is critiquing Alex for, but given that Alex remains an atheist, I don't think that's the claim he's trying to make. Now, back to our regularly scheduled program. Here's the thing.

[00:15:55]This argument wants to do something stronger. And you know what? You little argument you, I admire that ambition. I believe in you. I see in you something stronger. And with a little help, I think there's a devastating point hidden in there. Let's zoom in on the second point, the one that we dismissed earlier. Don't zoom in too much, though, because it's just a PNG and those don't really scale up what? See, now that's probably a little too blurry and pixelated. Now, with some of the ideas that are in here, we can really turn up the heat. pun intended. Before we talked about how the interpretation that many theists simply believe only because they've never questioned it and they were raised that way is fairly meaningless as far as I'm concerned.

[00:16:33]It's trivial. Meanwhile, the broader idea that encouraging everyone to take a step back and scrutinize their own views is wise but neutral. However, the Abrahamic religions introduce a little old place called hell. And all of a sudden, this becomes significantly more problematic. One could even say the scale of the issue is increased sevenfold. It's a little Genesis joke for you. If salvation or damnation is influenced by geography, something we cannot control, this seems to be a pretty glaring issue. And if God is the embodiment of justice, he would need to be fair. It certainly seems problematic for God to condemn someone when they could have been saved simply by being born into a nice Christian family in the suburbs. We can't control the family we were born into, after all. And if we need to believe in God to get into heaven, but he's especially more apparent or clear to specific cultures.

[00:17:26]This appears quite unjust, which contradicts the traditional idea of the Abrahamic gods. Meet Richard, Andrew, Noah, Danny, Oswald, Mike, Gerald, Ulisses Young, who we will call random guy for short. Random guy has never heard of God in the first place. And if condemnation hinges ultimately on disbelief, well, random guy got screwed.

[00:17:47]Christians say Jesus is the bridge. But what if random guy is on an island all by himself? This is the real tension point. I think it's much stronger than where we started. Now divine hiddenenness is in question. The problem of hell and whether this is compatible with the idea of the Abrahamic God at all. Now to be fair, whether random guy is condemned or not is actually debated.

[00:18:07]And many theists would even argue he is not. Carl Roner was a theologian who did believe that Christ was the way to salvation. But explicit knowledge of who Jesus was may not be required. Carl Roner actually calls these spiritual individuals who've never heard of Jesus anonymous Christians. Perhaps someone could be saved through Christ without knowing it by genuinely responding to the light they have. Basically, random guy can make his little SOS letters out of rocks. He can make signal fires and an airplane can come pick him up even if he doesn't know the name of the pilot because he did the right things. There's also the view of universalism which is where all the optimists like to camp.

[00:18:49]Universalists believe that everyone eventually goes to heaven. Someone adjacent to it would be a position like what CS Lewis highlights in the book the great divorce. Anyone can get into heaven even postmortem but some simply choose to stay in hell through their own pride. Another view is annihilationism, which basically says that if you're not saved, you're destroyed. Spiritually dead doesn't mean spiritually existing elsewhere. It means gone. Poof. Still not fun, but at least you're not cooking.

[00:19:19]And then there's Calvinism, which just bites the bullet and says, "Yeah, random guy isn't going to be saved." Sucks. As you can see, this is one of those rare topics where scripture isn't interpreted unanimously, which is really strange because normally when it comes to religion, we all agree on everything.

[00:19:34]The point is, this is where I think the conversation should happen. There's an obvious tension here, and we don't need to waste time conflating gods or straw manning physicians. Let's raise the level of discourse on both sides. If you have thoughts on this, whether you're theist or atheist, do let me know in the comments. I respond to everything I can respond to. And I'll see you next time where I do my best to redeem a theist argument.