>>23969
>I was trying to make clear why I don't think God is a synonym for non-existence.
Well, at least, that would be boring if we agreed on everything.

>that video
I extracted a part of it from the very beginning (attached). I think, the priest is wrong there, because what both science and religion are trying to do, is to explain the world. Philosophy is reaching for the same fruit too. But those disciplines are differ in methods.

Religion: Here is the ultimate explanation, some great people have produced already, you just trust, take and use it as is. Do not think, just believe.
Science: The world is unknown, but we can make theories about its qualities and conduct experiments to prove or disprove the theories. We don't think the theories represent the ultimate truth, they just explain the world as best as it possible at the moment.
Philosophy: The world is unknown, but we can try to explain it, using mind. Since our senses are unreliable, mind is the only tool we have.

Sometimes the verge between those is vague, like with Buddhism, where part of the knowledge is given as is (sutras — mediate knowledge), but some of it an adept should get for himself (meditation — direct knowledge).

Why do we have all three methods (religion, science, philosophy), instead of just one? Because none of those works for everyone. And it's not about people who inherited their views from parents or surrounding, but about those who is sincerely trying to understand, what's "life", "me", and "why I'm here". There are people, who try to find the answers with science, and being unsatisfied, turn away to religion. There are opposite examples too.