Відео

Fine tuning is a really weak argument for a pretty simple reason. The theoretical physics that is done to determine what the universe would be like is really speculative. Luke Barnes can whinge all he wants, but it is. But let's say that it was somehow made rock solid, what do you do about other constants? For example, say our universe can be described by a+b=c and theoretical physics explores what a+0.9b= and other variations, what does the universe (√σφ/йぎ)^ぱ= look like? Those symbols aren't manipulating the strength of the constants in our universe, they're completely different and unrelated constants, the form of the equation is completely different. You have no point of reference.The utter hubris to think you could say anything meaningful about a universe like that is mindbending. And the complete set of universes possibly available to theoretical physics is an infinitesimal subset of possible universes. So, with that in mind, give a ballpark odds that our universe would be created. Please do...

And STILL!!!!! No evidence for a ‘God’ 😂

You cannot have a perfect state of being and it ad or subtract from its state. Because your god is a creator god, it cannot be perfect. Not to mention a state of perfection cant actually exist.

Hey Matthew! Fellow Theist here. Was wondering if you ever considered doing a debate or conversation with Joe Schmid? I’d love to see that

When you talked about making the trolley fly over the people, all I could think of was this video: ua-cam.com/video/aL-gG96ZCcs/v-deo.html

Why I’m I getting recommended this video?

Notice how Matthew keeps yawning and Huemer doesn’t contagious yawn back even once. The dude is just built different.

It would be interesting to get Luke Barnes on and see if he did say that his view was that God would be complicated. I think Tjump is making that up.

after watching admittedly too many tjump debates this is at least in the top 3 of the most upsetting, confusing, and cringy. His first argument (having read a good number of history books that discuss miracle claims, I think TJ misrepresents the reasons most historians don't want to evaluate them) isn't even valid -- as if, just because historians currently resist miracles, we can never have any arguments for God -- and that he was fully willing to tout his deduction as a "fact" demonstrates such a severe lack of critical thinking skills it is almost unbelievable. It's difficult to see the point in engaging with him when he thinks knowledge doesn't require certainty except in the case of God at which point it does for some reason. He also continues to claim that demonstrably-valid deductive arguments for God are actually invalid, so it's a "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario.

No matter how much Cons wish it were true, rational thought is not possible with a superstitious mind. And no, just being able to rationalize their superstitions is not the same thing as rational thought.

WHats your discord server?

You're much more patient than I am. Props.

Matt: You’re wrong bec- TJ: Shut up, you idiotic moron. I’m right and I’ll kick you if you keep wasting my time. We have to assume physicalism and positivism. Now why does God exist? Matt: Well those aren’t good assumptions to make bec- TJ: You moronic idiot. How is this at all relevant? Matt: Well it’s relevant bec- TJ: That’s stupid. Stop wasting my time talking about your magical sky daddy. This was a very funny conversation to listen to. Would love for you to do more of these 😂

TJump actually thinks that people 50 years ago couldn't justifiably believe other people are conscious and had thoughts because they couldn't empirically observe it and they couldn't make testable unique empirical predictions from it?

Thanks for the video it was the HEIGHT of comedy hearing Tjump say you didn't know philosophy and he does lmao 😂😂😂

Tom’s entire epistemology is reddit moderator level question begging. It was particularly evident with his genuinely astonishing and, in all honesty, outright stupid use of “properties”. To say that properties can only be attributed to things that relate to fundamental ontology, nothing more, nothing less, seems to me to be straight up nonsense. And for all of his talk on “muh consensus!” he seems to be wholly ignorant of contemporary metaphysicians’ use of properties, as per usual.

He really got you when he said "sky daddy" and "farting pixies"! No recovering from that, sorry.

TJump has always been a clown. Dr. Joshua Rasmussen’s convo with him (which obviously annoyed and confused him) was actually what first peaked my interest in analytic philosophy. From day 1 I’ve never trusted him. And from day 1 I’ve loved Josh Rasmussen.

Do immaterial entities like principles and relations exist on TJ's physicalist view? Genuinely asking.

There are very few things that make me more sad in life than that listeners of Modern Day debate genuinely think Tjump is a smart, educated person.

Fellow vegan here Matthew, im an atheist but you have certainly moved my needle towards theism. Do you have a good response to the problem of evil and divine hiddenness? That would move my needle even more if you did.

Dang you could tell tjump got cornered bad on the dark matter topic near the end cos he got flustered and started constantly muting lol. Also I love that he thinks steelmanning an argument means you let your opponent say factually incorrect things lmao.

But why is moral evil irrational? I think that if one followed the logic of this question to its end you’d find that it is a bottomless pit of reduction unless you land on Love being the only reasonable basis of morality. Whatever you answer, my response would be why is THAT irrational and so on and so on until you get to Love. And even that isn’t necessarily rational, it would be more accurate to say that Love is right. It seems that rationality is insufficient to justify morality from a purely logical standpoint. This is why the Christian worldview doesn’t describe goodness as strictly rational. Also From the Christian worldview, since eternity doesn’t hinge upon moral choices per se, rather it hinges upon faith in Christ, rationality is insufficient in explaining why people have saving faith. Gavin’s point @ 34:00 hit this point dead on.

TJumps main argument is that all of the experts agree to his contradictory and self defeating epistemology, and even tho it is obviously wrong, self defeating, and contradictory we have to accept it because the experts say so. Tbh I don't get why people bother debating tjump.

Haven’t watched yet, but “Absurd” and “debate with TJump” clicks so hard and I can’t wait for my next available time period to imbibe and engorge myself with this content.

and just a quick reminder that the first amendment conflicts with the first commandment "thou shalt worship whoever you want" and that the declaration of human rights gives ME more rights than god. and a history lesson cos the USA is a secular nation, not many people seem to know that, and the founding fathers were at best deists and certainly not christian. hitchens became a naturalised american purely because of the constitution. the UK is officially christian, the US is officially secular. is it annoying that the satanic temple has the SAME RIGHTS as the church?

if you're designing a universe and designing the occupants why would you need to fine tune? you just make both compatible. saying that the likelihood of life is bzillions to one against is saying god was more likely to fail - gods odds ought to be 1:1 - life should be a certainty. if you want life you coarse tune, make it as easy as possible. and if god has make the constants "just so" who is dictating what those values should be? that's the obvious flaw in saying fine tuning indicates god, apparently god can ONLY make a universe THIS way, you didn't notice how dumb that is? you just kept making stuff up, what's the test for omniscience? you say god is this and god is that - how have you come to that conclusion? purely by listening to lane craig and frank turek talks nonsense. tell me how you test for omniscience? i'll grant you tom is annoying, but that's because like all theists you fail to listen to anything that goes counter to what you believe about god. it;s not possible for a religist to be honest cos if you were you believe you will wind up in hell. you all agree totally with god regardless of the truth of the matter. and for those people worried about tom dunking on you, tom is autistic, he doesn''t understand or even care about people's feelings.

The philosophy of science and physics parts harmed my soul

I'm a catholic and your arguments are quite bad. Just because you can explain a lot of things by saying "God created/caused this" that doesn't mean it is necesserily true. In math, likelyhood is calculated by dividing number of desired values by the total number of values. The thing is, right, we cannot calculate the likelyhood that God created the world because we do not know the total number of possible worlds. You should get more educated before you go into debates.

You completely outclassed him

Just finished the video. Are you finally ready to go back to atheism after all that, Matt? lol

This dude has the whackest epistemology I’ve ever heard. Idk how you kept your cool bro

I'd like to get a peek into that man's head to see what's going on in there...

Dang Tom thinks you are a joke. Also, I do think your counter to genie analogy is a bit weak.

What a tool jeez

Wow he's being insanely rude. He's always been awful in these debates, I remember an old video he did with Huemer where he was about as bad. Barely lays out any coherent points then gets super defensive immediately

Jump is awful. Painful to listen to.

"Prior probabilities are garbage," lol... Totally nailed him on the idea that something for which it is impossible to exist could justify one's belief in something.

You told tjump that his analogy about the Genie was bad because a Genie has a low prior probability. Your reasoning was that you have to take the prior probability of the genie, and multiply the disposition that the genie would do anything at all. How can this not be turned around and used against your theory ?

I like you! You should stop saying eeerm/aaah so much. You would sound even more convincing and sharper.

Though I appreciate your enthusiasm, I'm not in the least a fan of your approach to philosophy. That said, I was impressed with how you handled this buffoon. I can't make my mind up what exactly is wrong with him. By turns he's rude, a bully, a coward, a liar, dismissive of views he doesn't understand or like, and gung-ho with views he does like. He's clearly not stupid, and from what I hear of other things he does (eg in social housing) he presumably has many good qualities. So I suppose my charitable assessment is that he's obnoxious to get views (which probably works). I'm not sure what the point of talking to him was, but I thought you did a good job anyway.

I'm sorry but Tjump is stupid....

A better discussion ua-cam.com/video/2NJfASa9Aig/v-deo.htmlsi=HIleFPgSqfABzFRe

But ultimately all fine tuning says is that this world is conducive to us. Where is the necessity of a deity at all? Like a world can't be conducive to us without a God? Why not?

Sounds like fine tuning would not allow a god of infinite power. That said deity would be constrained by the laws of physics. So you would have to say that God didn't create the laws of physics. So what did God create? Just show up to push the Start button?

Some problematic responses given by Collins with timestamps: 1:07:10 The proponent of the argument is committed to the claim that we do have enough information to ascertain what follows from what in other nearby worlds without observing them. Undermining this (unexamined) commitment is part of James's counter-argument, and Collins agrees that he doesn't know this. 1:13:14 "But if we do that then we can't determine anything and therefore...." -- Collins concedes that we should be taking into account varying the laws as well the constants. Collins agrees that the epistemic landscape for this is inscrutable. Collins states that if the landscape were inscrutable then he wouldn't be able to make the argument for Theism work. 1:14:50 "There's no problem with the Bayesian reasoning" - NOT true. If the objection James raised is correct, then understanding that the likelihoods and priors depend on making these assumptions about natural laws not varying should actually undermine our evaluation that the likelihood's and priors required for the argument are true such that we cannot conclude God exists from FTA. So, there IS a problem with the BAYESIAN reasoning. 1:15:50 "You could imagine somebody not knowing that and that's how they would update" - Collins accepts that the relevant body of evidence an agent must have in order for the argument to be successful isn't the body of evidence that he himself has. The argument is an argument for a hypothetical nobody from nowhere. 1:26:10 Collins: "God might create unembodied life AND Christians do think so like Angels" Collins accepts the premise that God is capable of, and desires to create non physically realised morally significant life forms and doesn't provide any response as to how this shifts the epistemic probability space of Theism and it's (post)"pre"-dictions.

Why not ask the same questions about God, as FT does for the universe? Why is God's nature/desires this way, instead of another way? If God's desires were just 0.001% different, he would have caused an entirely different universe! From the epistemically illuminated region we find ourselves in seems like God could have a bunch of different desires, and God just happening to have the desires he does cries out for an explanation! It seems exceedingly improbable. You get what I'm trying to say, right?

These socially awkward online atheists have no idea how to have a conversation without getting weird.

Great chat. It seems to me like a lot of this comes down to whether or not one thinks there would be a more plausible reason God would have to present us with an epistemically illuminated region which, by itself negates a chance hypothesis - over and against our existence in such an epistemically illuminated region by chance.

The fine tuning for scientific discoverability defense is subject to the exact same objection. Scientific discoverability in the actual world is indexed to how actual agents investigate the actual world. Scientific discoverability in other possible worlds will be indexed to how those possible agents investigate their possible world.