@@sndpgr Sorry, I hadn't seen your comment. Your example would be analogous if Yahweh and Allah were the only deites in town, so to speak. But that's not analytically true (as in the case of being married and being a bachelor). Got it?
@@piano9433 No you didn’t get the point! The point is being atheist is not a relation you have to Gods , so if you say you are atheist regarding Yahweh that is nonsense . Being atheist is a statement about you ! It simply means you don’t believe any gods exist . if i say Iam married ! it’s not about a relation to women but a statement about me. That Iam married means Iam married to least one person. It makes no sense to say Iam married with respect to my wife and a bachelor with respect to Ana de Amas unless it’s a joke!
@@sndpgr Ok, got it. I thought you were taking issue with the idea that one can be unsure about the existence of a god simpliciter, but certain that Yahweh and Allah in particular don't exist. That it was somewhat incoherent. You're right. Your use of these labels is preferable. Nonetheless, I'm sure most people can get what I meant. I was not trying to make a rhetorical point, as if it proved something (like the old "I believe one less God than you do"). I was just stating my position. If you had asked me to clarify, I would had pointed out that I meant I'm not sure if there is a God, but I believe Yahweh and Allah don't exist. Thanks for the feedback, anyway.
18:15 "I have no idea how to set my priors, like I don't know how to set the prior probability of different hypotheses" Strongly agree with this! This is one of my main arguments for in-principle agnosticism. I don't think biological and cultural evolution have given us good priors for metaphysical hypotheses like this. Combine skepticism about priors with Oppy's view that none of the arguments on either side are compelling, and you get strong agnosticism.
I guess I don't find skepticism about priors to be justified. Absent absolute certainty, we have to bite the bullet with our metaphysical beliefs. If you take "priors" to be background knowledge, there seems to be much more of that falling on the side of naturalism than theism, e.g., we've seen no evidence of any supernatural causation in any of our scientific empirical investigations (we see only natural causation), so it's more justified to believe that natural causes are at the origins of metaphysics instead of supernatural ones. Do we know this for sure? No, but we can hold beliefs about it based on the background knowledge we have. In this sense, atheism is more justified than agnosticism.
Your intellectual honesty is admirable and reassuring. The contingencies of believing is such a great point. I say that as a neuroscientist who is maybe too aware of some of those contingencies. Also, NDE reports are some of the most powerful forces that pull me out of my materialistic deterministic views. So many reports’ components can’t be explained by biology or even physics.
There seems to be a profound misunderstanding here by Mr Green and by some of the commenters. Agnosticism is not a weaker or more intellectual or more reasonable form of atheism. They refer to two very different concepts and it is possible to be both at the same time. Agnosticism is about what we know, whereas atheism is about what we believe, or rather do not believe. I prefer not to label myself negatively, in terms of what I do not think or believe because the list of such labels would be never ending and prefer to be called a humanist but, in effect, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not and cannot 'know' there is no God but I do not believe there is.
@@Outspoken.Humanist I reject your framework. I made a video three years ago about the confusions of the online atheist community and their “agnostic atheism”. Here’s a short that touches on it as well: ua-cam.com/users/shorts9xRHAFzXeI4?si=wKIjcCjm4QQ0djCd
@@EmersonGreen Tried to make a longer reply but UA-cam ate the comment. Long story short, it doesn't matter what you reject, we're explaining to you the concepts of our belief positions using words with clear definitions we provide. You can reject it all you want, but that's not our problem. In that video you linked, someone referenced the popular gumball analogy and I don't believe you responded to it. I won't rehash it here, but I'm curious what your response is: Do you accept the person's claim that there's an even number of gumballs? Do you actively believe there are an odd number of gumballs because you do not accept his baseless assertion? Or do you withhold a positive belief state until such time as you have gained knowledge to inform a true belief?
@@EmersonGreen Thank you for your response. I have watched the short and I think we are referring to different ideas. The short addresses the two types of atheism. Some atheists say they merely lack a belief in God whilst others say they actively believe there is no God. It has been said that these are qualitatively different but you seem to be making the case that they are effectively the same. I tend to agree with you and I note that you yourself actually say that the mental state concerned says nothing about what may be actually known to be true. My point was that agnosticism is not about belief at all. It is about what we know or do not know. In either of the above types of atheism, we are strictly dealing with belief. Belief is an opinion we hold in the absence of facts. Once something is known to be factual, by virtue of evidence and/or demonstration, it is no longer necessary to believe it and not believing it would be to deny reality. I should clarify that I'm not referring to people who claim to 'know' their particular god exists. They are using the word colloquially to encompass the depth of their belief, not claiming that they possess information denied to the rest of us. I suggest that it is impossible to truly know God exists or does not exist because there is no evidence to support either position. Therefore, we are reduced to believing or not. Thus, my argument that I am both an agnostic and an atheist and, conversely, that every Jew, Christian & Muslim is an agnostic theist, regardless of what they might claim or assert. Whether I choose to express my atheism as a lack of belief that God is real or if I actively believe God is not real, I must be honest and admit that I do not and cannot know the answer. I hope that is a better explanation of my point. Thanks again.
@@EmersonGreen Even if you reject the label "atheist" to describe people who "lack belief gods exist", those people still genuinely hold that position. It seems to me that people often try to attack this definition of atheism to avoid dealing with a position that is very real, but also problematic to their own self-concept. After all, if atheists aren't necessarily absolutely certain unfalsifiable claims are false, then how can they be the irrational bad guys we're supposed to feel superior to?
Is that a polar bear or a white dog on your picture? I'm thinking the bear. Also priors can't be stated until you show the instances which ( all human or subjects undergoing a task) have an upper and lower limit. Like in athletics prior to Usain bolt, it is not available to contest that a human has speed well above bolts, and it is available to all humans. If that makes sense. Anomalies don't indicate necessary inference, but general descriptions, what this specific subject did maximally.
The most decisive break with atheism occurs when one finally groks that there is indeed a supernormal, if not supernatural, aspect of reality--one that cannot be denied or explained away in normal/natural terms. Short of having a personal experience of this aspect of reality, like an NDE, one might read and ponder something like journalist Michael Tymn's book about the most scientifically scrutinized medium of all time, Leonora Piper. It was the years--indeed decades--of such scrutiny that prompted William James and other luminaries of that era to publicly admit that their prior rationalist worldviews were shattered, and that if they were not communicating with dead friends and family members through Mrs. Piper, then something else equally mindblowing was going on. Good for Emerson in his atheism concerning a god who damns most people--even some, even one--to eternal torment, and also in his coming to realize that there are many more morally and intellectually acceptable theologies.
Thanks! As an atheist, I was still pretty open to those kinds of phenomena, though. (I spoke to Dale Allison about this a while back on the channel.) I don’t see much of a tension between nonbelief in God and the other spooky stuff that the skeptic community typically tries to debunk. They seem pretty unrelated, to my mind.
This was done by an organization of leading scientists and scholars in the late 19th/early 20/th centuries called the Society for Psychical Research (SPR). You will have to read something like Tymn's book to grasp this astonishing fact, if you're open-minded enough to question the naturalist reductionism in which all of us were raised. Internet commentary can point to an issue like this, but it must be seriously studied in order to form a solid opinion.
@@newtonfinn164 in what independent scientific journals has this work been vetted and published? Where is the Nobel prize for it? Simple books do little for objectively unless they cite external hard data and others acceptance. In that case we go to the peer-reviewed journals.
The scientists in the SPR were among the most distinguished and decorated of their day. As far as top-tier scientific journals are concerned, check out Dr. Richard Conn Henry's piece in Nature called The Mental Universe.
Excellent discussion and explanations. I watch a lot of these types of videos, and you have a definite gift. I've always been an agnostic, for the reasons you outline here (though you get credit for articulating these reasons better than I could do it).
Just finished the video. Loved it. About the hypothesis that this is best of all possible worlds, what do you think of the idea that god could create a whole bunch of different universes, with the majority being less than perfect but still worth creating? If these imperfect but valuable universes vastly outnumbered the perfect universes then we wouldn't expect to find ourselves in the best of all possible worlds. To me it seems arbitrary to assume that an omnipotent god would only ever create one universe and nothing else. I'd love to hear your thoughts on this
@@ajrthrowaway I suppose that’s not impossible, but I would be very skeptical that *this* is only a few rungs down from “best possible world”. Maybe God wouldn’t make every world an A+ (though I’m not sure why, since he has reason to do what’s best, and the power to do so…), so some people will find themselves in a B- world or something, but…a world with a natural order infused with predation? Is *this* what a B- world looks like?? Surely God wouldn’t create a world that’s *much, much worse* than the best he could do. I tend to think our world would be worth creating only if it’s the best (or very nearly the best, granting your point) that the creator could do.
@@EmersonGreen I definitely agree with you on evolutionary animal suffering. And still, the amount of value that I observe, and the gratitude I feel makes it so I can't bring myself to say that this world would be better off not being created. It's certainly a huge point of tension, but since it seems to me that this world is worth creating, that is some evidence that it would be worthwhile for a god to create this world.
@@EmersonGreen'maybe god wouldn't make every world an A+ ( though I don't know why, since HE has reason to do what's best, and the power to do so...)' 'surely god wouldn't create a world that's much much worse than the best HE could do' emerson, even if there were a god of some kind, how could you possibly have any idea what it's motives are ??
@@haydenwalton2766 I’m assuming we’re talking about the traditional god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But even if you strike that last attribute, I think it may follow from omniscience anyway (this is connected to my moral realism).
I actually hold both positions as they are not mutually exclusive. And here is why: There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality. Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient). It is the the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism. The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle). The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism), or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option. The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism). The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time. The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time. This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists." The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim. The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence. The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'. And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._ Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist. This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.
I’m not sure I agree with the assertion that the universe did not HAVE to be like this. Isn’t it possible that the laws of nature are fixed and there is no other way they “could have been”? Also, I like the multiverse hypothesis better. It seems to have better explanatory value. However, theists could push the goalpost back regarding the multiverse and simply assert that God created the multiverse.
Theists' theory that god created the multiverse is more expensive and has more theoretical commitments than simply saying the multiverse has a naturalistic origin. I don't see why the theistic theory should win in this comparison. It doesn't explain anything better than the naturalistic theory does. And it commits you to additional entities you have to defend (namely, gods).
Mormonism sounds silly not only because of contingent factors about our place of birth and culture, but also because of its dubious origins (to put it mildly) in Joseph Smith. Nothing about Christianity for the preceding 1800 years of Mormonism's creation would cause the believer in Jesus to expect a sudden and drastic shift in theology, ecclesiology, and the rest. Especially not through an institution like the LDS church and a guy like Joseph Smith. Again, it's not just my culture that makes me think this way. The nature of historic Christianity in its monotheism and organic ecclesiology (not counting the divinely ordained papacy the medievals concocted to leverage political power) is far removed from the spirit of LDS theology and historicity.
@@JesusChristWayTruthLife777 Yeah, this kind of thing is just not convincing at all. It’s pure cope. You can’t put a gulf between the plausibility of Mormonism and the plausibility of some random Protestant sect.
@@EmersonGreen You haven't said why I can't. You must concede that the presbyterian vs baptist division, like most of the things that divide most protestants, is SO MUCH different than protestant vs mormonism. Islam is in a sense closer to orthodox Christianity than Mormonism is, given their belief in preexistence and infinite people/gods.
Are you also agnostic on the claim that Miss Piggy and Kermit are a real couple? If you truly have an open mind, you should go the whole frog ... oops, sorry, I meant to say the whole hog. 🤨
@@zachr0and, if taken in isolation, it may be reasonable to defer to their apparent meaning. However, the other verses provide important context. Even if universalism were true, living as if it were would result in less urgency to carry out the great commission, which is commanded by God. We can hope that so will be saved and trust that it is up to God to convert them by regenerating their hearts but while also working as if they will be condemned to hell and as if it is up to our efforts. Or a happy medium. Work, in trust, as commanded, motivated by gratitude, treasuring the opportunity.
I personally am an agnostic when it comes to theism simpliciter and an atheist regarding Yahweh and Allah.
Iam personally married when it comes to my wife and a bachelor when it comes to Ana de amas.
@@sndpgrgot em 😂
@@sndpgr Sorry, I hadn't seen your comment. Your example would be analogous if Yahweh and Allah were the only deites in town, so to speak. But that's not analytically true (as in the case of being married and being a bachelor). Got it?
@@piano9433 No you didn’t get the point! The point is being atheist is not a relation you have to Gods , so if you say you are atheist regarding Yahweh that is nonsense . Being atheist is a statement about you ! It simply means you don’t believe any gods exist .
if i say Iam married ! it’s not about a relation to women but a statement about me. That Iam married means Iam married to least one person. It makes no sense to say Iam married with respect to my wife and a bachelor with respect to Ana de Amas unless it’s a joke!
@@sndpgr Ok, got it. I thought you were taking issue with the idea that one can be unsure about the existence of a god simpliciter, but certain that Yahweh and Allah in particular don't exist. That it was somewhat incoherent.
You're right. Your use of these labels is preferable. Nonetheless, I'm sure most people can get what I meant. I was not trying to make a rhetorical point, as if it proved something (like the old "I believe one less God than you do"). I was just stating my position.
If you had asked me to clarify, I would had pointed out that I meant I'm not sure if there is a God, but I believe Yahweh and Allah don't exist.
Thanks for the feedback, anyway.
For me most of guys who agnostic means they are humble enough to say "I don't know about that"
Exactly. Plus it helps in starting potential dialogues.
18:15 "I have no idea how to set my priors, like I don't know how to set the prior probability of different hypotheses"
Strongly agree with this! This is one of my main arguments for in-principle agnosticism. I don't think biological and cultural evolution have given us good priors for metaphysical hypotheses like this. Combine skepticism about priors with Oppy's view that none of the arguments on either side are compelling, and you get strong agnosticism.
I guess I don't find skepticism about priors to be justified. Absent absolute certainty, we have to bite the bullet with our metaphysical beliefs. If you take "priors" to be background knowledge, there seems to be much more of that falling on the side of naturalism than theism, e.g., we've seen no evidence of any supernatural causation in any of our scientific empirical investigations (we see only natural causation), so it's more justified to believe that natural causes are at the origins of metaphysics instead of supernatural ones. Do we know this for sure? No, but we can hold beliefs about it based on the background knowledge we have. In this sense, atheism is more justified than agnosticism.
Your intellectual honesty is admirable and reassuring. The contingencies of believing is such a great point. I say that as a neuroscientist who is maybe too aware of some of those contingencies. Also, NDE reports are some of the most powerful forces that pull me out of my materialistic deterministic views. So many reports’ components can’t be explained by biology or even physics.
What kind of things are in those nde reports? Can you give an example?
NDE reports are really bad actually
There seems to be a profound misunderstanding here by Mr Green and by some of the commenters.
Agnosticism is not a weaker or more intellectual or more reasonable form of atheism. They refer to two very different concepts and it is possible to be both at the same time. Agnosticism is about what we know, whereas atheism is about what we believe, or rather do not believe.
I prefer not to label myself negatively, in terms of what I do not think or believe because the list of such labels would be never ending and prefer to be called a humanist but, in effect, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not and cannot 'know' there is no God but I do not believe there is.
@@Outspoken.Humanist I reject your framework. I made a video three years ago about the confusions of the online atheist community and their “agnostic atheism”. Here’s a short that touches on it as well: ua-cam.com/users/shorts9xRHAFzXeI4?si=wKIjcCjm4QQ0djCd
@@EmersonGreen Tried to make a longer reply but UA-cam ate the comment. Long story short, it doesn't matter what you reject, we're explaining to you the concepts of our belief positions using words with clear definitions we provide. You can reject it all you want, but that's not our problem.
In that video you linked, someone referenced the popular gumball analogy and I don't believe you responded to it. I won't rehash it here, but I'm curious what your response is: Do you accept the person's claim that there's an even number of gumballs? Do you actively believe there are an odd number of gumballs because you do not accept his baseless assertion? Or do you withhold a positive belief state until such time as you have gained knowledge to inform a true belief?
@@EmersonGreen Thank you for your response. I have watched the short and I think we are referring to different ideas.
The short addresses the two types of atheism. Some atheists say they merely lack a belief in God whilst others say they actively believe there is no God. It has been said that these are qualitatively different but you seem to be making the case that they are effectively the same.
I tend to agree with you and I note that you yourself actually say that the mental state concerned says nothing about what may be actually known to be true.
My point was that agnosticism is not about belief at all. It is about what we know or do not know.
In either of the above types of atheism, we are strictly dealing with belief. Belief is an opinion we hold in the absence of facts. Once something is known to be factual, by virtue of evidence and/or demonstration, it is no longer necessary to believe it and not believing it would be to deny reality.
I should clarify that I'm not referring to people who claim to 'know' their particular god exists. They are using the word colloquially to encompass the depth of their belief, not claiming that they possess information denied to the rest of us.
I suggest that it is impossible to truly know God exists or does not exist because there is no evidence to support either position. Therefore, we are reduced to believing or not.
Thus, my argument that I am both an agnostic and an atheist and, conversely, that every Jew, Christian & Muslim is an agnostic theist, regardless of what they might claim or assert.
Whether I choose to express my atheism as a lack of belief that God is real or if I actively believe God is not real, I must be honest and admit that I do not and cannot know the answer.
I hope that is a better explanation of my point. Thanks again.
@@EmersonGreen Even if you reject the label "atheist" to describe people who "lack belief gods exist", those people still genuinely hold that position. It seems to me that people often try to attack this definition of atheism to avoid dealing with a position that is very real, but also problematic to their own self-concept. After all, if atheists aren't necessarily absolutely certain unfalsifiable claims are false, then how can they be the irrational bad guys we're supposed to feel superior to?
We share the same position Emerson Green! :)
prior probability thing was fascinating. maybe it represents a shortcoming of analytic philosophy
Is that a polar bear or a white dog on your picture? I'm thinking the bear. Also priors can't be stated until you show the instances which ( all human or subjects undergoing a task) have an upper and lower limit. Like in athletics prior to Usain bolt, it is not available to contest that a human has speed well above bolts, and it is available to all humans. If that makes sense. Anomalies don't indicate necessary inference, but general descriptions, what this specific subject did maximally.
The most decisive break with atheism occurs when one finally groks that there is indeed a supernormal, if not supernatural, aspect of reality--one that cannot be denied or explained away in normal/natural terms. Short of having a personal experience of this aspect of reality, like an NDE, one might read and ponder something like journalist Michael Tymn's book about the most scientifically scrutinized medium of all time, Leonora Piper. It was the years--indeed decades--of such scrutiny that prompted William James and other luminaries of that era to publicly admit that their prior rationalist worldviews were shattered, and that if they were not communicating with dead friends and family members through Mrs. Piper, then something else equally mindblowing was going on. Good for Emerson in his atheism concerning a god who damns most people--even some, even one--to eternal torment, and also in his coming to realize that there are many more morally and intellectually acceptable theologies.
Thanks!
As an atheist, I was still pretty open to those kinds of phenomena, though. (I spoke to Dale Allison about this a while back on the channel.) I don’t see much of a tension between nonbelief in God and the other spooky stuff that the skeptic community typically tries to debunk. They seem pretty unrelated, to my mind.
Please demonstrate this "supernormal, if not supernatural,". I'd love to see this shared with the world.
This was done by an organization of leading scientists and scholars in the late 19th/early 20/th centuries called the Society for Psychical Research (SPR). You will have to read something like Tymn's book to grasp this astonishing fact, if you're open-minded enough to question the naturalist reductionism in which all of us were raised. Internet commentary can point to an issue like this, but it must be seriously studied in order to form a solid opinion.
@@newtonfinn164 in what independent scientific journals has this work been vetted and published? Where is the Nobel prize for it?
Simple books do little for objectively unless they cite external hard data and others acceptance. In that case we go to the peer-reviewed journals.
The scientists in the SPR were among the most distinguished and decorated of their day. As far as top-tier scientific journals are concerned, check out Dr. Richard Conn Henry's piece in Nature called The Mental Universe.
Excellent discussion and explanations. I watch a lot of these types of videos, and you have a definite gift. I've always been an agnostic, for the reasons you outline here (though you get credit for articulating these reasons better than I could do it).
Credence in theism: 📈📈📈
😂 dream on...
He literally says his credence in theism went up 🤷♀️
@@ajrthrowaway yes?
@@ajrthrowawaythat doesn't mean that it has for anyone else on the planet
Emerson . Do you have an email ?
People should focus on being free thinkers rather than attaching themselves to predefined boxes.
Just finished the video. Loved it.
About the hypothesis that this is best of all possible worlds, what do you think of the idea that god could create a whole bunch of different universes, with the majority being less than perfect but still worth creating? If these imperfect but valuable universes vastly outnumbered the perfect universes then we wouldn't expect to find ourselves in the best of all possible worlds. To me it seems arbitrary to assume that an omnipotent god would only ever create one universe and nothing else.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this
How can you claim this is the best of all possible worlds? What metric? What other worlds are comparing ours to? What entails possibility?
@@ajrthrowaway I suppose that’s not impossible, but I would be very skeptical that *this* is only a few rungs down from “best possible world”. Maybe God wouldn’t make every world an A+ (though I’m not sure why, since he has reason to do what’s best, and the power to do so…), so some people will find themselves in a B- world or something, but…a world with a natural order infused with predation? Is *this* what a B- world looks like?? Surely God wouldn’t create a world that’s *much, much worse* than the best he could do.
I tend to think our world would be worth creating only if it’s the best (or very nearly the best, granting your point) that the creator could do.
@@EmersonGreen I definitely agree with you on evolutionary animal suffering.
And still, the amount of value that I observe, and the gratitude I feel makes it so I can't bring myself to say that this world would be better off not being created.
It's certainly a huge point of tension, but since it seems to me that this world is worth creating, that is some evidence that it would be worthwhile for a god to create this world.
@@EmersonGreen'maybe god wouldn't make every world an A+ ( though I don't know why, since HE has reason to do what's best, and the power to do so...)'
'surely god wouldn't create a world that's much much worse than the best HE could do'
emerson, even if there were a god of some kind, how could you possibly have any idea what it's motives are ??
@@haydenwalton2766 I’m assuming we’re talking about the traditional god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But even if you strike that last attribute, I think it may follow from omniscience anyway (this is connected to my moral realism).
This guy needs subtitles. Really hard to understand what is he asking Emerson.
But as always was interesting to hear you ❤️
Claim- God exists...I don't believe it, I don't know it. I'm an agnostic atheist.
@@KendallKelly ua-cam.com/users/shorts9xRHAFzXeI4?si=wKIjcCjm4QQ0djCd
I actually hold both positions as they are not mutually exclusive. And here is why:
There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism addresses. And that is the claim asserted by _certain_ theists that some particular god exists in reality.
Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim (true, false); *_acknowledgement_* as to the truth of the claim (acknowledge, fail to acknowledge); and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to ascertain the truth of such claim (sufficient, insufficient).
It is the the position we take on these dichotomies that establishes our identity in regard to atheism and agnosticism.
The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no other possible option as is dictated by the laws of logic (Identity, Non Contradiction, and Excluded Middle).
The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as to be true (theism), or fails to acknowledge the claim to be true (atheism). Again, there is no other available option.
The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to ascertain the truth of such claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism).
The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "a particular god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the theistic claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time.
The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning any given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time.
This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "a particular god(s) exists."
The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the truth of the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from (or personal relationship with) the deity mentioned in the claim.
The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence.
The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'.
And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._
Of the four populations, only the 'gnostic theists' and the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions. The former is justified in changing their position to theism by 'revelation'. The latter is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist.
This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an _agnostic_ atheist.
I’m not sure I agree with the assertion that the universe did not HAVE to be like this. Isn’t it possible that the laws of nature are fixed and there is no other way they “could have been”?
Also, I like the multiverse hypothesis better. It seems to have better explanatory value. However, theists could push the goalpost back regarding the multiverse and simply assert that God created the multiverse.
Theists' theory that god created the multiverse is more expensive and has more theoretical commitments than simply saying the multiverse has a naturalistic origin. I don't see why the theistic theory should win in this comparison. It doesn't explain anything better than the naturalistic theory does. And it commits you to additional entities you have to defend (namely, gods).
Mormonism sounds silly not only because of contingent factors about our place of birth and culture, but also because of its dubious origins (to put it mildly) in Joseph Smith. Nothing about Christianity for the preceding 1800 years of Mormonism's creation would cause the believer in Jesus to expect a sudden and drastic shift in theology, ecclesiology, and the rest. Especially not through an institution like the LDS church and a guy like Joseph Smith. Again, it's not just my culture that makes me think this way. The nature of historic Christianity in its monotheism and organic ecclesiology (not counting the divinely ordained papacy the medievals concocted to leverage political power) is far removed from the spirit of LDS theology and historicity.
@@JesusChristWayTruthLife777 Yeah, this kind of thing is just not convincing at all. It’s pure cope. You can’t put a gulf between the plausibility of Mormonism and the plausibility of some random Protestant sect.
@@EmersonGreen You haven't said why I can't. You must concede that the presbyterian vs baptist division, like most of the things that divide most protestants, is SO MUCH different than protestant vs mormonism. Islam is in a sense closer to orthodox Christianity than Mormonism is, given their belief in preexistence and infinite people/gods.
Are you also agnostic on the claim that Miss Piggy and Kermit are a real couple? If you truly have an open mind, you should go the whole frog ... oops, sorry, I meant to say the whole hog. 🤨
Universalism is not consistent with Christianity if Christianity is based on the scripture though.
Exactly!
@@jessedphillips extremely loud incorrect buzzer noise
@@jessedphillips I think David Bentley Hart and Keith DeRose have convinced me it is consistent with scripture
If we are going on verse count alone, there are more verses in favor of universalism than eternal conscious torment.
@@zachr0and, if taken in isolation, it may be reasonable to defer to their apparent meaning. However, the other verses provide important context.
Even if universalism were true, living as if it were would result in less urgency to carry out the great commission, which is commanded by God.
We can hope that so will be saved and trust that it is up to God to convert them by regenerating their hearts but while also working as if they will be condemned to hell and as if it is up to our efforts.
Or a happy medium. Work, in trust, as commanded, motivated by gratitude, treasuring the opportunity.
Why don't try to read the Quran bro , whats to loose? And I mean the quran only without the doctrine of sectarian/hadith 😊