Відео

Hi Anthony! Thank you for your encouraging words, I appreciate it. What is the 'so what?' objection? I'm curious. What background assumptions are you thinking of here?

@@mileskdonahue75 Suppose you make a valid argument that the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of life. The hypothetical objection goes: "Yeah, so what?" You have to be able to infer a connection between the physical parameters and the emergence of life such that this makes the existence of God more likely. The background assumption therefore has to involve a claim like: "Life makes the existence of God likelier because R", and moreover, we could not justifiably give R as a reason in a different case, e.g., "Stars make the existence of God likelier because R." Oppy touches on this early on when he asks: "Could God not have specified the physical parameters of the universe with the intention of producing stars (but not necessarily life)?" The idea is that without assuming an intentional state for an intelligent designer that takes human life as its object, then the universe could have been fine-tuned for anything that actually exists (i.e., stars) while biological life was an accidental outcome of that fine-tuning. If, on the other hand, the fine-tuning argument is going to reduce to a mere probabilistic one, where we say *this particular configuration* is objectively so unlikely that it requires a supernatural explanation, then this really has nothing to do with the existence of life anymore. If all we are saying is "unlikely configuration", then it can be asked: based on what? Without tying the "tuning" to the existence of human life, the claim is weakened to a probability claim about the configuration itself, but we have no reference class. We have no idea whether the value taken by each constant represents an independent event, or if they are dependent, or if they are necessary. We'd need to know something about the distribution of other universes, if there are any. And a priori, I'm not convinced that this is analogous to a situation like the Monty Hall problem or the Sleeping Beauty problem (both of which only feature an evidential update if the players have information that, in our case, is completely lacking). I apologize for the length of this answer.

I think you're quite right, that's a good point. I do still think that Oppy's objection is guilty of overkill, but I'll need to reflect on it more.

@@mileskdonahue75 yes, and I think that a strengthened version of an awesome cosmological argument which puts the nicene creed directly into the fundamental laws of physics can help demonstrate that he would have to simply state "it is a brute necessity that a nicene creed appears on fundamental particles". And I think this shows that stating "once you've reached necessity, there is nothing more to explain" is a cop-out. To me, the question really is: what credence do atheism and theism assign to the nicene creed appearing on fundamental particles? This is much much less expected on atheism, so we could say this evidence would disprove atheism relative to theism. Remember also, that Oppy defended elsewhere a view that the causal history of the universe can be traced back to an "Original Necessary Item", which isn't too far from theism. If he were to trace the origin of the law of nicene creed on fundamental particles to this Original Necessary Item, then it seems to me that he ought to identify this Item with God. If he somehow argues his way out of making this identification by some esoteric contrual of what constitutes simplicity or by appeals to "brute neccesity is the end of explanation", then his argument must be deeply flawed and is just a trick of some sort rather than a satisfying position.

@@tymmiara5967 Hear, hear! This is a quality analysis.

@@mileskdonahue75 Perhaps I agree with Oppy that ultimately it will be a matter of personal judgement, but I somehow feel like I find brute contingencies much simpler than brute necessities. I feel like an explanation "this thing happened as a result of brute contingency i.e. it could have happened but it didn't have to have happened" is a far more modest than saying "this thing happened out of brute necessity i.e. it not only happened because it could have happened, but also it could not have happened otherwise". I feel like most people in everyday situations would find the latter type of statements epistemically more difficult to make, because you not only need to prove possibility but also necessity. As far as epistemic statements go, this is uncontroversial. "Possible" is always more modest than "necessary". The question really is about whether this transfers to ontological statements. It would seem Oppy disagrees that it does. I think I agree, but ultimately I think it doesn't matter, because I think our minds are completely bound to the epistemic realm. Even when we talk about necessary truths, we almost always consider our own cognitive weaknesses, which leads us to assign non-binary credences. For example, if you ask someone on the street "is the number 27464737 divisible by 7, they will say 'maybe', and someone else could comment "there is 1/7 chance that it is". But obviously ontoligically, there is no "maybe" or "chance" here. That number is not divisible by seven and that fact is necessary. It serves to illustrate that our minds always by default resort to epistemic thinking. We can't escape it. Ultimately, we fundamentally operate on emotions such as "surprise" (when we expected a wide range of possibilities, but a very narrow outcome happened, this leads to feelings of positive reward whose ultimate role is to narrow our range of expectations, leading to high confidence) and "disappointment" (which occurs when something occurred outside of our narrow range of expectations, which leads to negative reward, whose role is to widen our range of expectations which can lead to anxiety if we have to widen it so much that we become overwhelmed). And we always will think emotionally. That doesn't mean we are irrational. These emotions are perfectly rational as far as optimal learning strategies go (you widen an narrow your expectations appropriately to the observed outcomes and eventually your expectations match the true range of possibilities. That's a state of competence). They are, however, completely tied to the epistemic realm. Which is why I think the real question should be "is fine-tuning more surprising on atheism than on theism?" the answer is "yes" (no matter what your modal theory is). Therefore, a rational seeker should decrease their credence/confidence in atheism and increase their credence/confidence in theism. I think I cannot adopt Oppy's preference for brute necessities without going into so much cognitive dissonance with epistemic way of thinking about everything.

We certainly choose to remain in our religious beliefs or not, as many deconversion accounts will testify to. So, whatever beliefs I now have are ones that I am responsible for having, at least in some sense. Of course, as with any beliefs, religious or otherwise, we only "choose" them indirectly, by choosing to apprise ourselves of the relevant evidence or not, attempt objective reflection on that evidence or not, etc. But that point applies to all beliefs whatsoever that we hold to.

That's true about atheism too. Those who are born in atheistic societies are more likely to be atheists. So that argument is not special or decisive.

@@mileskdonahue75 But very few people brought up in a religious belief even consider that "choosing" is even an option. Being surrounded constantly by voices reinforcing those beliefs can have a very strong effect on eliminating such thoughts. If we could support our beliefs with evidence, real evidence, there would only be one religion and faith would not be required.

@@mileskdonahue75 odd that atheists pop up all over the world though not very often do baby muslims get born into christian families. it would be interesting to see the stats on buddhist children growing up in hindu families....

academia's leading doesn't mean he is a leader of any sort it simply means he's well respected in academic circles

you're not on the best page for accuracy.

Could be because Graham Oppy is a merited analytical philosopher known for his interests in philosophical arguments on the existence of god. Also makes a short and sweet video title.

Yeah, he believes in God even less than ME! LOL.

My bad 😅

I think what would be a better descirption of Oppy is that he is currently quite popular and has good arguments, even William Lane Craig says he is "scary smart" and ranks him among the most formidable atheists in terms of debating skills.

Yeah, how can you be a "leader" of not being convinced of there being a God? Maybe he is a leader of being able to explain why a Gods existence is not a likely proposition.

By being one of the most notable and important philosophers of religion currently operating and with massive influence on various arguments?

This is the one haha

@@fredroberts8275that still doesn’t answer the question. So, who’s the world’s leading theist? Who’s the world’s leading vegan? I can think of quite a few famous atheists, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Ricky Gervais… just of those three, who’s ranked higher? Because I guess they’re all second rate compared to this guy, but now I really wanna know who’s number two! Please explain!

Thank you kindly! I think you're absolutely right about Dr. Malpass - he is an excellent philosopher.

@@mileskdonahue75 have you got anything new to add to the god discussion cos all the videos i see in your list so far have been subjects done to death already. i've had about forty religious channels pop into my suggestions box in the last few weeks and i'm convinced they do more harm to religion than good, 50% at least have very few views, very few likes and no comments other than my sarcasm, they appear to be totally vanity driven, the serious ones are basically (fake) history and theology classes and even the most ardent church goer doesn't want to do homework, we have talking heads where the presenters just masturbate for an hour, and then there are loons who no one would want to sit next to in church anyway - i don't see anything different about this channel, just search "kalam" or "ontological" - i'd have more respect for religion if people were actually feeding the hungry or comforting the sick, rather than pumping out another video about fine tuning. it's cliche but in this case it's true to life - haven't you got anything better to do? i see nothing about jesus teachings.

Fantastic! Thank you. Yes, I'm a very new channel, so views will be low, but I've got video-editing experience, so hopefully the quality of videos won't feel like they come from the very beginnings of a channel!

But think more hypothetically: COULD science discover that unicorn, if it were in fact there? Certainly. But could science discover God if in fact He exists? No as clear.

Thank you! Keep coming back, as they say.

@@mileskdonahue75 i don't think we need another philosophy channel, especially one that's unclear about it's goals, i have no idea what you're trying to achieve with this.

Haha I'm glad you enjoyed our wit and wisdom!

The proponent of the kalam could respond here that the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause is not a principle that only holds within the universe. The proposal is that such a principle is metaphysical in nature and therefore applies to whatever happens to exist and come into being: universes, souls, or abstract objects (if some of them do in fact come into being, as some philosophers hold). This isn't a crazy proposal; the laws of logic, or the principle that everything with a shape has a size, are also metaphysically necessary and apply to everything that exists. They do not come into being with the universe. Now, you might claim that the proponent of the kalam hasn't given sufficient reason for thinking that the first premise is metaphysically necessary; but then, that's a different objection than the mere assumption that the causal principle is only applicable within the universe.

@@mileskdonahue75 I would then ask for an example of cause and effect that is not constrained to the universe. Otherwise that's just ad hoc rationalization. Metaphysical doesn't mean outside of or prior to the universe, by the way, not even close.

@@mileskdonahue75 why are you having this discussion? what use is the kalam? what use are any of these arguments, they don't "prove" anything other than you have time on your hands, no one has talked god into existing, and bigger brains than yours have done this subject to death already. it's only theists want to keep this drivel going. what have you achieved here?

@@mileskdonahue75 you're making a lot of assumptions in that paragraph. i don't think you know what you're talking about "everything with a shape has a size" is gibberish for a start. "are also metaphysically necessary and apply to everything that exists" is what we animators call "making sht up". still keep it up, i see this channel as another that will help the demise of religion, you add nothing new and you talk nonsense, great for us atheists. metaphysical refers to the basis of physics, not the supernatural by the way, lots of people mix that up.

Thank you for watching my video, Mr. Pacini! It's great to hear from you. It seems to me that your views about the origin of religion are compatible with various realist and non-realist perspectives. Religion intended as fiction or religion intended as fact could both be used as a means of power acquisition and societal control, though perhaps a realist understanding would make this theory more plausible, because if religion were only ever understood as a fiction, it seems unlikely that it could exert the kind of influence and dominance over peoples' thinking that your theory seems to imply. Just thoughts off the top of my head! I look forward to future correspondence!