"Maths is a human construct that didn't exist before humans" Lol that would mean physics didn't exist before humans either. Ah if only that darn Newton hadn't invented gravity
@@Nicolae_Mew The concepts that bind/underpin the gravitational theory existed before Newton. Newton might have found a way to describe them, but all that did is open human eyes to see it. It does not mean he was always there. There is a difference between the explanation of math, and the very principles that bind it. Your rebuttal is at best drawing on the fallacy of equivocation. Mathematics is not what we explain it to be(just like gravity is not what Newton explains it to be). Newton only draws on pre-existing concepts to codify in human language(similar to how our explanations of math don't create mathematics per say, it only draws on putting pre existent concepts into our language)
The concept of studying physic's didn't really exist before human's. Math and it's exploit's can really only be understood by "people" who teach, or establish, or are formally/informally introduced to them. Act like an adult with your phrasing.
@@zaxbitterzen2178 That something can be understood only by humans doesn't make it any less valid in the absence of humans. Objective truth remains objective truth regardless of epistemology. The laws of logic do not require human investment to be valid. We don't make truth, we discover it.
@@Nicolae_Mew lol that's not the point of the OC. He is just implying about how construct are just interpretation of what we observe as true and real prior from the universe.
I just finished reading mere Christianity .Toward the of me reading it . My shcool teacher saw the book in my bag and asked to read it Infront of the class -I allowed- then after the first paragraph (when we CS Louis was talking about morality) he said "no offense but it's a bit too deep and give me the book back"
I like Shermer, but man, he's one of the weakest debaters I've ever seen... He just can't come up with a decent answer when it's not related to scientific inquiry.
He should have said no, no logic on a planet with no people, Just made a mistake imo. Is anyone going to believe in God because of these dumb gotchas in debates?
@@Obscuredbywinds Frank asked if logical laws are true prior to the existence of humans and he answered "were not special, were not the center of the universe" whether humans are special or not, whether were a tiny speck on the universe does not answer if logical reasoning exists prior to the existence of humans. Earth being geocentric does not decide whether or not logical reasoning exists prior to humans. Us being son of Odin or just a construction of mindless chemicals does not determine whether logical reasoning exist within or beyond human minds. Its either he didn't understand the question but just want to fire back so he said something nonsense, or Jasonwins is correct, he dodged the question. So it's either you did not understood the question or you're just lying because you want his side to be right
We dont know whether they are transcendental since many philisophers have actually raised pretty good objections to them. Look up logical pluralism and dialetheism. If they were really transcendental then raising objections to them just wouldnt be possible, since any objection would be self-evidently false, since no examples or justifications could be provided for why the laws of logic are not universal
@@mothernature1755 If it would be self-evidently false to question transcendental laws, then wouldn't it be universally true that the ability to object to transcendental laws make them self-evidently false? If so, then we have a universal law, bringing us right back to transcendental laws that one is questioning. If not, then there is no basis to conclude in all cases that transcendental laws which are questioned are self-evidently false. In fact, if the laws of logic change as Frank Turek pointed out in this video, then there would be no basis to communicate, or even to have knowledge itself. In other words, there would need to be preconditions for us to have knowledge, including unchanging laws of logic, and if they are unchanging, then they transcend the human mind. If minds are the precondition for abstracts, and these laws are abstract, then it implies a Transcendental Mind, God.
I am a Frank fan but the scientist appears to be right on this topic. A statement like "there are no human beings on earth" before human beings existed is just how we today describe the state before we were here. It's not that complicated. You can apply that statement to before we existed in the English language in that way, while all the words mean the same thing. It will be described differently by someone from another country, or even the same culture at a different time. What we call "laws" are just our analysis of the interactions of things, a way to standardize our calculations for outcomes, that's all it is. This doesn't prove or disprove God.
What a way to completely ignore his point. I though Christians were supposed to be honest and be perfect since their Father in Heaven is perfect. Dr. Shermer's point is that logic is in fact human-made to best describe our physical reality in the most objective and abstracted way. The Copernican principle he posits is a response to Turek's question "How do I know your logic is the same as mine's?" The probability of Dr. Shermer's logic being the most unique is low due to the objective existence of our universe (physical reality) therefore the laws of logic are the most consistent laws of logic that humans have invented to describe our universe.
Always the escape to "humans are insignificant". Well that's exactly the point, the laws of logic are universal, therefore they cannot merely be the product of insignificant minds which themselves are not universal and as such are inappropriate as a foundation for universals. This is why laws of logic, truths etc... are said to be discovered, not invented.
we are information machines. Our mind receives lot of data through our senses. To be able to use the data it uses advanced pattern matching to simplify the data by identifying what data thst seems to "move together" and "make sense" when taken as a unit: these are what we experience as objects. thus the objects is a construct of our mind, not something real.
@matswessling6600 You cannot say "the object" isnt real whilst literally referring to it as something our senses are picking up. Whilst we are in part info processing machines, without a very good reason to say so you cannot say thats all we are since we know that we experience something machines do not, that is, qualia. We arent merely processing, we are experiencing.
@@SomeChristianGuy. take an example of four stones lying in a cross. there is no real object and yet we can refer to it as the cross as an object simply because our pattern natching brain selected to treat them as a single object. there is not anything in the definition of "machine" that prevents it from perceiving.
@@matswessling6600 Doesnt overturn the fact that there are 4 stones arranged in a geometric shape. That there is no actuall cross is irrelevant. Plus you also make a fallacious argument. Just because you are an arrangement of cells, doesnt mean you do not acxtually exist. You have managed to make a weird version of the fallacy of composition here. On your second point. The definition of machine is irrelevant here as it is not designed to make such designations or to connot such things sine it isnt a philosophical term. You dont seem to know much about machines or computing if you think machines ever percieve or understand anything. I build them for a living, no machine ever know what it is doing, ever.
I am a Frank fan but the scientist appears to be right on this topic. A statement like "there are no human beings on earth" before human beings existed is just how we today describe the state before we were here. It's not that complicated. You can apply that statement to before we existed in the English language in that way, while all the words mean the same thing. It will be described differently by someone from another country, or even the same culture at a different time. What we call "laws" are just our analysis of the interactions of things, a way to standardize our calculations for outcomes, that's all it is. This doesn't prove or disprove God.
Logic could never be "constructed" if there was not a real world before us to reason about, i.e.: in the absolute nothingness. The number 3 can only be conceived because there are objects in the real world to be perceived and abstracted as quantities. The real world begun to exist before humans. It follows that logic is not a construction, but a systematic apprehension of reality.
"objects" are definitely a construct by the human mind. Since it is useful it most probably maps some real feature of the workd around us but it still a feature of the information processing maxhine that we are. There are examples when the object concept fools us. one simple example is the concept of haystacks: if you add two haystacks and put them on top of each other you get one haystack, not two. in reality nothing is lost but your minds model of the hay as haystacks gets in trouble.
Shermer reminds me of Hitchens in this video. Hitchens could never answer difficult questions in a straight forward manner. That being said, Hitchens was far more eloquent when he would obfuscate on some issue.
@@zjohnson8773 wow, I actually had no Idea that dude was dead. I've seen him in a number of Turreks videos and I've never seen a single person bring up the fact that he passed away. I wonder if he ever got saved
I am a Frank fan but the scientist appears to be right on this topic. A statement like "there are no human beings on earth" before human beings existed is just how we today describe the state before we were here. It's not that complicated. You can apply that statement to before we existed in the English language in that way, while all the words mean the same thing. It will be described differently by someone from another country, or even the same culture at a different time. What we call "laws" are just our analysis of the interactions of things, a way to standardize our calculations for outcomes, that's all it is. This doesn't prove or disprove God.
@@vertigo2894 If a dinosaur fell from a cliff, broke his neck, and died, could he still hunt? If the answer is yes, then logic existed before humans. Humans only discovered logic and invented words to describe it but logic was still in effect before them. If you truly commit to the idea that logic is a human creation and not a metaphysical law of nature, your answer to the dinosaur question would be "yes, because logic didn't exist yet"
"The laws exist in the mind of god, otherwise you and I couldn't even communicate" - That's a line full of presumptive fallacies.. funny how the video ends there as if nothing can be said after it. Anyone have a link to the rest of it?
@Ken Kibbey even those premises are more like presumptions. Premise 1 presumes there is a start. How do we know for certain there is a start and not an endless cycle.. unless the start is created at the time of measurement by the measurement itself? It also presumes knowing things with certainty must involve knowing everything (omniscience). If the scope of ones knowledge through personal experience is limited (we need only look at a horizon we've never visited to know it's limited), one can know with certainty that their knowledge is limited. Premise 2 is shown above to be possible without omniscience. Meanwhile the premise in the video presumes the mind of god is somehow distinct from you and I, and it presumes to know with certainly what the mind actually is in order to use the word in such a statement as if it's fact. Conclusion: These premises are loaded with presumptions and fallacies. It's quite similar to the presumption among many that science gives us objective truths.
This question turns on what you think the laws of logic are. If you think they are man made descriptions of reality, then the laws of logic did not exist when man did not exist. Reality existed but there were no minds describe that reality. If you believe they are universals which are atemporal entities that actually exist, then the laws did exist when there were no minds. Using a time when there are minds to describe a time when there were no minds creates confusion as to the nature of the laws of logic.
Yes. Logic as we see it today did not exist before human's spent hundred's of thousand's of year's constantly making adjustment's to make it what is today. If anything calling God the source of logic or his nature is logic totally undermines our own. That mean's no matter how much you know your "God" knows more. Sound's incredibly unfair, and a bit belittling.
I actually like Shermer. He seems a nice guy and nothing like some of his his compatriots, such as the ghastly Krauss. He sure does love to flog a dead horse though and here is another example of it.
nickj14711 Firstly, that is simply incorrect. As an example, in the UK, at least 50% of people believe in God. It might pay to check your statistics, my friend. That's important when trying to think critically. Secondly, I'm glad I asked. You see, I've been on your side of the fence. I've seen the land from your perspective and then one day, I was granted the great gift of seeing it from the other side. It was simultaneously the greatest and hardest day of my life. Also, beware of believing that being an atheist endows you with some sort of intellectual advantage. It doesn't. Many (in fact, most) of the greatest minds in history have believed in God. Isaac Newton wrote more Theological books than Science books and Newton possessed an intellect so deep it's hard for the likes of you and I to come to grips with it. And before you fall into the next trap of saying that that's because everyone one in the past was gullible and believed anything, it would pay to read about it and you'll find that the the world back then, as now, was packed with cynical people. The first word in your reply, "absolutely", makes me think you may be ideologically blinded and ideologically blind people are hard to speak to constructively. I hope not and I hope that you remain open to the idea that, maybe, you are not just a chemical reaction destined to fizzle out into the vacuum of eternity. That your loved ones are actually loved and that it's not just a cruel trick of chemical reaction on chemical reaction. Have a good day my friend and keep your ears open to the still, small voice. If you hear it, your life will change.
nickj14711 You have assumed (wrongly) that I am talking about Christians. I am not. I am talking about people who have a fundamental belief in a transcendent creator. That is north of 50%. My own research bears this out. I am talking about Theists.
"Before there were human beings on the Earth, was the statement 'There are no human beings on the Earth' true?" What? Before there were human beings on the Earth, there was no statement "There are no human beings on the Earth". It's a nonsensical question.
Turek simply assumes the laws of logic come from God. That's an easy way to try to win a debate. That's why he asked the question about whether "There are no humans on the earth" was true before humans were on the earth -- he's tacitly assuming that it would be true because the mind of God would have known it to be true. But the fact is that his question is tautological, essentially boiling down to "If there were no humans on the earth is true that there were no humans on the earth?" He can ask that question and receive an answer only if there are at leat two humans around whose minds can compose the question and respond to it. Shermer is correct -- the "laws of logic" are simply man's way of observing reality and communicating about it in a consistent manner. But even if these laws existed before man existed it wouldn't mean they came from a supernatural deity. They could just be features of reality-- Platonic forms, if you will.
@@Kristoferwitha_k I have no idea how the universe started or why there is something rather than nothing (the oldest question in philosophy). Maybe the universe has always existed (in one state or another), much like the theists claim God has. But assuming that something outside of space and time created the universe doesn't allow you to conclude anything else about that something. More specifically, it doesn't tell you WHY creation occurred. The Christian assumption of a Perfect Being known as God seems to me to be inconsistent with creation -- why would a Perfect Being create anything? It's almost as if it was incomplete without creating something; if so, it's not perfect. Moreover, the assumption of a deity that created the universe doesn't allow you to conclude anything about morality. Maybe the creator was malevolent and liked to see his creations kill each other (there's been a lot of that throughout history, hasn't there?). But there's one standard for morality that has been espoused by different cultures throughout the world: the Golden Rule. It seems like a pretty good rule for survival, and it isn't confined to theism or any of its separate sects.
@@Kristoferwitha_k It's called experience. it's called exposure. It's called getting to know the people who live next to you. Hell old testament God is the embodiment of absent morality/egotism. Even if you use God as a source for the argument he is definitely not valid.
@@prof5string You like The Golden Rule. Where do you think the Golden Rule came from? The "Golden Rule" of Leviticus 19:18 was quoted by Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 7:12; see also Luke 6:31)
I think the better way to look at this is more about what you consider "God" to be. If you describe "God" as "whatever it was that created the universe", then the universe itself could be considered God. For example, Take the line: "X is everywhere, and X created itself.". Either side can replace X with either God or The Universe. But I think the point of contention most atheists have with people's belief in God is that of intentional creation. It's not that God created the universe (afterall, it came from somewhere), it's that the thing that created it had a plan on what would go where and how that thing would act to fill its roll. One way is looking at it from "I need a space for X, and X requires Y and Z, so I'll create Y and Z. But they require A and B, which needs C and D..." It assumes that the universe was created for a specific purpose. And another way of looking at it is "D and C now exist, which will cause B and A to exist, which will cause..." This assumes that there was no planned purpose for existence. . Another example: Take the invention of cheese. Scenario 1: You know from previous experience that heat plus movement makes things change. You know what bacteria eating a thing will change that thing. You do that process on milk. You are the creator of cheese. Scenario 2: You have all that is needed to make cheese in a bag, though you aren't aware that some of those things are in that bag. You go for a long ride on a horse, and all that bouncing and just the perfect temperature outside made it so cheese formed in the bag. Are you the creator of cheese? You played a roll in its existence, but because you didn't intend on making it, you are not the creator. Similarly, are you the creator of the universe? You are here, and because of that fact, you play a roll in what the universe is and will be, but does that mean that you are a creator? If yes, then that means all things in existence are the creator. In the same vein, is the man on the left the creator of this video? He's in it, but can he be considered the creator? What about the camera operator? Are they a creator? How about the table that the man taps on. It was integral to this video, so should it get part credit for it's creation? What about the eggs that man had for breakfast? . Another problem with the "traditional" versions of God theory is that you assume that the creator wants the best for you. Is it not possible that the creator made all this just for the suffering of beings? Why is it assumed that the mysterious ways that God works in should fall in our favor?
At the end, Craig throws out this statement then cuts off the answer. Christian making claims unsupported same as flat earth claims that are unsupported.
Oh the real faith statement of humanism; good birth defects/ ie mutations, invented 30-70 million life forms..because God isn't smart enough! I'm a retired bio teacher. I promise it's faith. DNA alone incredibly shows the power of God's word
@@WgWilliams absolutely. I don't use as many words for teens..but you're right. We infer these from birth. Just like the Bible says. To ignore JUST the staggering biochem, it's impossible origins. Tbh, no one believes it.
Ben, you are like the Vikings in the boat during a storm in 800 a.d. They all hear thunder, they turn to the resident atheist and say "can you provide, right now, a naturalistic explanation for thunder?", he says no, then the Vikings chortle "you cannot explain thunder, right now, because it is obviously caused by Thor, and you just don't WANT to believe!"
@@barryjones9362 I also taught debate ..to your dismay. Shifting the burden doesn't address my point. We know volumes about mutations. They cause cancerS, wrinkles, aging, organ deterioration, congenital diseases, etc . NOT 'ADAPTATIONS'/ special created abilities, structures, speed, camo, etc . I'm not trying to be antagonistic..I think intelligent people desire to know the holes.
Transcendentals are apriori so a statement is true apriori if it is necessary and universal. God is the foundation on which everything is built upon must be necessary and universal for it to be true. So is there an actual apriori argument to support the assertion?
From 1:34 - 2:25 say what? Someone should tell Shermer when debating it's ok to say "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" That inane waffling just shows he missed his true calling....as a politician. Keep up the good work, FT.
Nick Jones Unless Sir Roger Penrose professor at Oxford has a nick name called Genesis ..then no. Funny though that same Genesis you mock that communicated for over 2000 years that the universe had a beginning, when science was adamant that the universe was eternal and only got to grips with at the start of the 20th Century through the Hubble telescope..you mean that Genesis?. I can suggest a Penrose book if you want..or perhaps better I suggest stop using caps....shhhhh.
Nick Jones Funny thing about your induction point is that as a theist who believes in a supreme designer than yes I can. I'll give you a "noddy" example. I drive a nice car I wouldn't expect given the engineering and design for tje car to randomly have the wheel nuts or wing mirrors fall off tomorrow or the wheel the next day. As the uniformity of the design is a part of the engineering. ..that the car company intentionally designed. So having a belief in a supreme designer given his uniformity I would expect tomorrow to follow today. As for you as an Aethist with the random chance mentality you can't even guarantee that gravity will influence throwing a coin in the air...why down, why not sideways or up....forget the issue of tomorrow..
Nick Jones A universe highly specified and intentionally designed but yet there's no proof of God...your deductive reasoning is "brilliant" . Funny I thought Miracles existed. Recommend you do some research a book by Craig Keener called Miracles documenting medical miracles. More credible than the Aetheist miracle of something from nothing. 2. Oh dear you think that Justification of my worldview has to do with whether you accept it or not....sorry to burst your bubble you try too hard. lol! About 7 % of the world are aethists seems illogical to care about the opinions of people whose numbers are akin to a margin of stastical error and a niche world view. ..but somehow you think I need to do the proving...funny...no, seriously. I hope you take off the blinkers and wake up to the truth of Jesus before you die and find out an alternative unpleasant truth instead. We base worldviews on what is most probable. History justifies my world so does cosmology , teleology, morality, the Cambrian explosion and so on. But wait don't worry I am sure..compared to your random something from nothing world view and that randomnly generated brain of yours I'm sure you may convince someone other than angry Aethesits . ...maybe.. nah. I will look out for that debate with Frank in future where I'm sure you'll slay him with that logic of yours....good luck...you'll need it .
Nick Jones You posted twice to get me to respond...you really need to relax. There is life outside of UA-cam and a strange thing called Time Zones. i trust your ability to make well thought out conclusions as much as I trust your ability to make well thought out arguments. No need to repeat post to bait me into a response. Your responses show you are either clueless or a troll. You use references like childish and capitals for emphasis but come up with lines such as providing proof of miracles based on lab conditions, Christians being from poor and uneducated backgrounds when Christians have established universities and hospitals all over the world and ignoring they induction response because it's "not credible "...based ob your undefined idea of credible. .oh dear. The (transcendent) moral argument went over your head and instead you come back with a silly argument on Christians condoning baby killing. Ironically you prove my point on morality inadvertently by your reference to everyone has morality. You linked the Cambrian explosion to me trying to prove the bible when the CE is an event that provides a theistic point on the sudden introduction of complex life on earth without prior natural selection, gene mutation or time needed going agains Darwinism and natural selection macro evolution....nothing to do with the truth of thr bible or Christianity. Then you say history doesn't support my world view (even though evidence of an historical Jesus is agreed by all scholars including Atheists such as JD Crossan and Gerd Ludemann and from OT evidence for Tower of Babel and Dead sea scrolls, Hittite, Walls of Jericho and on). Not to mention your inane comments on the Big Bang. I suggest you do some research before engaging because your "JUSTIFY it" and "its CHILDISH" are pointless and repetitive. No more back and forth as we don't need another 50 response thread from an village Atheist who sounds like a demented echo on repeat.....makes Shermer look scholarly....almost.
The problem is that Shermer is equating the descriptive part of the laws of logic with the prescriptive part. The descriptive part of the laws of logic are man-made because we are the ones describing how the laws of logic work. But the prescriptive part works independently of our descriptions. The laws of logic are still in effect regardless of human beings were ever around to describe them. That's the prescriptive part of the laws of logic. The prescriptive part of the laws of logic are absolute and completely independent of human description. Therefore our descriptions must coincide with the reality of the prescriptions, but it sounds like Shermer is trying to say it the other way around. He's trying to say that the laws of logic are man-made but at the same time saying that they're absolute. He's only half correct and he needs to understand that crucial difference between descriptions and prescriptions, otherwise he's contradicting himself by saying that they're absolute and yet man-made. If they're man-made, then they are contingent and therefore not absolute. His own understanding the laws of logic is self-defeating.
All 2D data fields (i.e. the whole of visual culture) is subject to the transcendental pictorial context of perspective, as such proving the possibility of God.
Tag is basically self defeating for theists. If logic is necessary and absolute then it can't be contingent on god which means god can't be the foundation and you can't infer god from that. If you say it is contingent on god then you abandon the premise that it is necessary and absolute and the argument fails anyway.
This is assuming logical voluntarism. Theists can grant that logical laws are necessary truths, but that doesn't mean there isn't a dependence relationship between necessary being and necessary truths.
At 1:05 Before intelligent life existed, the statement "There are no X on Y" did not exist. Similarly, 100 years ago, I did not have money in a bank account. But because I did not exist 100 years ago, the statement "(Person) did not have money in a bank account." also did not exist. Just as right now, you can't say "Fred Billonks, born in 2045, does not have a bank account today.", because there is no way of knowing that Fred will exist until he does. Only in the future will you be able to make accurate statements about the past. Though you can make vague statements such as "There is no one who will have been born in 2045 that has a bank account open today.", you won't be able to prove that until 2045 passes. For instance, time travel could be made before 2045, or if you prefer a more plausible scenario, a woman could open an account today for a child she plans to adopt in 2045. Another way to phrase this would be that you can only make accurate statements about the past. Let me ask you this: Are there any Vhorshtacks on Earth right now, or have there ever been? The only way to answer this would be to look over the entire Earth, and then answer the question. But the problem here is that in doing so, time has passed, so you can't be certain that in the amount of time that passed, a Vhorshtack didn't land on Earth. Therefore, you can never accurately answer a question about what currently is, or what will be, only what was (even if that moment you are referencing is one nano-second in the past, it is still in the past). Though, to be fair, this only applies to the things within the system. If you make a game where a counter flips between 1 and 2, assuming it is perfectly sealed, you can make an accurate statement about the future of that system. But even then, this relies on it remaining perfectly sealed. And the only way you could know that it will remain perfectly sealed is to be in the future to confirm. And at this point, you are making the statement about the past (since now is just the past of soon to be).
Saint Gundy I know this is off topic, but i'm looking for references to something Frank said elsewhere. He said, even atheist (Chris hitchens?) admits the Christian worldview is internally consistant. it may not have been hitchens, but someone else. Does that sound familiar? Can anyone point me to the video where Frank says that, or maybe an article? Thanks.
@@kurtgundy there are thousands of different christianities. All these woukd be consistent? dont think so. So the quote being true us highly questionable.
@@candaniel Why? Christianity is founded on baseless statements. It's supported (by ignorant people and liars) on baseless statements. There are so many ways to disprove Christianity and the bible it's gone from being laughable to outright pathetic. There's nothing logical about Christianity. Why would I waste my time elaborating on anything when none of you has done anything to prove your position. Everything you people say is baseless and that's why it keeps getting thrown out and laughed at by every intelligent person. Prove your god exists, go for it. Show REAL evidence.
@@gilgamesh..... You wrote one long string of sentences absolutely filled with accusations, generalizations and insults, while not providing one single argument. Nor did you explain how the TAG ignores logic. That is what I call baseless. What do you gain from that? You don't even know me as a person, nor why I came to my beliefs to begin with. As for evidence for God, what do you expect? Physical proof for a God who transcends the physical world? That is illogical. I presuppose God in the same way you presuppose all kinds of things. You cannot justify materialism, or whatever worldview you have, without inherent, unjustifiable assumptions.
@@candaniel What I wrote was truthful and accurate. The insults were there because they're honest and appropriate. No matter if you like it or not, if the shoe fits, then it just does. I was a Christian for decades. I've have plenty of interactions with them. I've seen the hypocrisy, immaturity and everything else first hand. Also, I realized it in myself when I realized how wrong it is and how wrong everyone is that believes in it. If you truly want me to give you an honest response though fine, I'll do so. And I'm not trying to be insulting directly to you, I'm just already aware of the responses and am so tired of putting forth facts that get ignored or twisted so you can hold on to your feelings and the lies that built them. Fallacy number one, you just demonstrated without even realizing it. That would be you saying physical proof for your god isn't logical. It 100% is for an all powerful god, that is supposed to have created this universe and is supposed to be omnipotent. Your god is supposed to be omnipotent and all knowing. Therefore, by definition, it should posses unlimited universal power, authority, knowledge and force. It should therefore, LOGICALLY, be able to physically show itself. To deny that is to deny one of the basic beliefs of your god. It's 100% illogical to say an omnipotent being couldn't show itself. Now according to your scriptures, specifically, Genesis 12:7 17:1 22:11-14 and several others your god appeared to Abraham. According to Genesis 35:1 35:9 48:3 and others your god appeared to Jacob. According to Exodus (several passages I can list if you need) your god appeared to Moses. There are also the times your god appeared to Adam and Eve. And (this is a big one now that Christians like to use to support their position) is the claim that your god appeared to Paul (Saul) which is what lead him to converting. I can list so, so many others but hopefully you get the point. So you are illogical by saying your god can't physically show himself to me or anyone else. Has he become less powerful over the years? Or have you simply not read your own book? I have, cover to cover. I read the KJV of the Christian bible, some parts several times. I can logically and honestly tear down any argument you want to bring. If you'll be honest with what you say. I'm not presupposing anything and I won't be mean or rude as I was before if you'll not be like so many other Christians have been when I state facts.
People are being very uncharitable. Schermer is saying that there is an underlying reality, and the logical absolutes are just one of many formulations we have come to with to describe that reality. There are other formulations of the laws of logic. Even if Plato was right ontologically, epistemically Platonism is bunk.
This has nothing to do with Platonism. This is about necessity and contingency. Either all truths are necessarily contingent or all truths are necessarily either necessary or contingent. Either way, there are some necessary truths. If you admit necessary truths into your worldview (logical laws are candidate examples for necessary truths), you have to give an account for them.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl You say that if one admits necessary truths into their worldview then they must give an account for them. By "account" I assume you mean an explanation for why there are necessary truths. But presumably any such account would involve positing a necessary truth, which would require its own account. And then that account would involve another necessary truth that would require its own account, ad infinitum. So how can one avoid an infinite regress of positing necessary truths to account for necessary truths?
@@chad969 No, that's not what I meant exactly - but thanks for allowing me to clarify. Explanation generally bottoms out at necessity. I'm fine with allowing that. But a theory about the nature of truths is needed to ground necessary truths if we're realists about truths. If truths are real things in our ontology, they need to be given some sort of ontological grounding and explanation.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Please bear with me here because I’m a little confused. When you said “a theory about the nature of truths is needed to ground necessary truths…”, I assumed that you were using the word “ground” in an epistemic sense rather than an ontological sense. The reason I thought that is because theories about the nature of truth are contingent (since we are contingent), and obviously it wouldn’t make sense for something that’s contingent to serve the ontological grounding for something that’s necessary. But then you said “if truths are real things in our ontology, they need to be given some sort of ONTOLOGICAL grounding and explanation”. That made me think that maybe you were actually using the word “ground” in ontological and therefore non-epistemic sense. If there are necessary truths, how can those truths be ontologically grounded in a contingent human being’s theory about the nature of necessary truths? Wouldn’t those necessary truths exist regardless of our theories about them?
If the laws of logic were actually grounded in your favorite god characterization then they would simply be the whims of logic - either secured by this being (somehow) and thus subjective and open to change or the laws exist objectively such that your favorite god characterization is subject to them the same as we are and thus offers no deeper explanatory foundation and is made entirely irrelevant/redundant. TAG is the desperate final throes of a once powerful god now relegated to the imaginary recesses of its staunchest believers and most opportunistic grifters. It’s rather pathetic, honestly.
The trouble is that many atheists (such as Shermer, here) are so committed to nominalism that they fail to call Christians out on this paradox. Because they're so committed to thinking of logic as a "human construct," they're unable to engage with the question that theists are actually asking. While it's asinine to talk of God creating logic (or emanating it, or whatever the heck else he supposedly does), and suggesting this suggests a God that is, himself, sovereign over and exempt from logic, an atheist who insist that logic is man-made cannot point this out. This atheist is, himself, postulating a world that was free from logic before humans came around to invent it.
It's more like humans have a specific interpretation because it obviously exists. The theist argument would suppose that the bat seeing the table is not possible of existing.
what do you mean by 'how' they exist? They exist necessarily, there's no possible world where they don't exist, and I'm sure most people would agree that necessary things don't necessarily have an explanation
Frank is a good guy, he owns atheists with compassion. Michael just didn't have an answer..it just shows how much atheists will stumble denying God.. Sad really. Michael is a nice guy too
@@caustixsoda8125 you want me to list my own comment as "too long, didn't read"? I wrote it so sure I read it and of course Frank's position is not something one could abstract in a short commentary. "The whole argument" means this will detailed and long read...
We are here to defend Christianity. Elijah mocked the followers of Ba'al. Wg Williams, I am totally up for reasonable debate but when an atheist attempts to deliberately ridicule and belittle me I will mock them with compassion, you can make fun of someone's belief with a smile and still remain compassionate with that individual. Atheists are followers of scientism, not science (empirical) but the scientism faith we see prevailant today. They have a fully fledged religion and it deserves to be mocked. 1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with *meekness* and *fear* 1 Kings 18:27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
We are here to demonstrate the Bible verse, "Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools" as true. Call this accurate demonstration of a Bible verse what you will.
Frank’s question: Before there were any human beings on the earth, WAS the statement. “There are no human beings on the earth,” true? My answer: That is a nonsensical question. Only statements/propositions can have a truth value, right? Objects or events cannot be “true” or “false”. And only humans can make or ponder statements/propositions. So, since only statements we ARE currently making or have recorded as some PERSON having made them can be said to be or have been true, then, as Shermer points out, there was no one around to make that statement for it to HAVE BEEN true. Only people can make true or false statements, so only people can make that quoted statement be true or false. No humans = no possibility of a true or false statement to exist. What Frank is doing when he is thinking about that statement being true IN THE PAST is he is imagining himself back then, so for his brain to make sense of that statement which he is pondering NOW to be true, he has to imagine himself as some kind of godlike narrator or exclude himself from the human-less past scenario on which he is commenting. A more sensible phrasing of his question would be: IS the statement, “There were no humans alive 2 billion years ago.” true? The answer to that is “yes” because it’s a statement that a person is uttering now or has been recorded as uttering.
@@Nox-mb7iu There were no "circles" before we existed. A "circle" is a very very very simplistic "2D" abstract concept -- a concept that only we (or possibly any other creature with a similar capacity for abstraction) have come up with. There are no "circles" in nature. What we see in nature, if studied closely, are vastly more intricate and complex 3D structures. Our minds vastly oversimplify these structures to create the abstract category of "circle" for the sole purpose -- our purpose -- of making it much easier for us to lump other similar structures into and discuss and navigate reality. But each of those similar structures are not actually "circular", and any mathematics we use to describe their form or behavior are limited to our abstraction and that particular simplified way that we would like to discuss such structures in nature for a specific purpose in that moment. And, no, a circle cannot have 4 sides, because otherwise it wouldn't be a circle *as we define circles*. WE define what a circle is. WE add examples of circles to that "collection" in our minds and disregard anything else which would not match that definition -- merely for practical, cognizable purposes. The "circle" begins and ends in our minds. The reason why we all agree on what a circle is, is because we all have similar brain structures which have evolved to allow us to survive, navigate, and communicate about a shared reality, but a reality nonetheless in which there exists no actual "ideal perfect circle" as an entity unto itself, existing completely independently of human cognition.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib If the universe is billions of years old and life is common, then there should be advanced life out there. There are ways to detect advanced life without seeing them on another planet. For example if an advance species lived in a Dyson Swarm or had built a Dyson Sphere we would be able to detect it without seeing it.
@@syn4588 There probably is life out there, but the universe is an extremely big place, and light is painfully slow. Anyone living around a star more than a couple hundred light-years from Earth would, at best, see a planet that might have oxygen on it if they look at us. The vast majority of stars in the galaxy are so far away that the light that they see from Earth predates our oldest known civilizations. Why should we expect to see any Dyson swarms? Even assuming we build one within the next thousand years, basically no one in the Galaxy will notice for tens of thousands of years yet. For all we know, we're surrounded by type 2 civilizations, and the light simply hasn't reached us yet
"before there were any humans on the earth, was the statement "there are no human on the earth" true?" Frank's question is predicated on the assumption that the statement "there are no human on the earth" existed prior to humans. Why think that it did? There's no reason why Shermer should have to grant that assumption.
[INTRODUCTION] @chad Well, Logic is immaterial, universal, abstract, and absolute. It cannot spring into existence with human intelligence, nor from social constructs, and materialists and empiricists rather presuppose Logic from subjective philosophy, hence it lies in circular reasoning. Logic cannot be justified with the epistemology of empiricism, neither can be physically demonstrated from our cognitive faculties; for they presuppose they're reliable to begin with. To the possibility of knowledge and reason cannot exist through a neurological mechanism. That would also presuppose there's a mind. GOD is the Absolute Authority of Truth, thus indicating that anything that is Absolute, points to GOD. That's the Transcendental Argument. The Transcendental Argument justifies on why intelligent causality is a universal requirement; in where the Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, and Absolutes are principles or Laws - in which are verified by GOD.
This is just begging the question. "If God exists then he exists and that proves that God exists." This is how children think. Well, and apologists too, to be fair.
FT seems to bullying Shermer into accepting the burden of proof. It is FT's job to demonstrate that the laws of logic have to come from a God and he doesn't even attempt to do this. I have never seem any apologist make any headway in proving this because of the logic equivalent of the euthephro dilemma. Summed up in the question 'If God is responsible for the laws of logic could he change those laws?, could be make A = not A for example?'. If the answer is no then God is not the author of the laws of logic as he is bound by them and if yes, what possible universe could exist in which the logical absolutes do not hold? How could they be altered in such a way that they applied to any conceivable physical reality? also even if you could explain how this can be done then it would mean that the laws of logic are not transcendant and the argument fails again, hence my reference to the dilemma. Apologists usually either run and hide when faced with this question (IP), struggle and tapdance around (Matt Slick does this) or FT's method which is try and reverse the burden of proof. very dishonest Frank!
Postulating that that everything came into being by random chance does require the greater burden of proof. Don't you think? It would seem here that you do agree that logic exists objectively. Amen. You are not saying that logic is merely human experience. Now it also seems that you are saying that logic exists necessarily for the universe to exist. I agree. Like logic is an essential part of it. Now does the universe exist necessarily? Does the universe have to exist? What came first the laws of logic or the universe? Two quick points on God 1)If God is bound by anything, that in which He is bound by is God. Infinite regress in impossible. 2) As with the question of morality Euthyphro's Dilemma is solved by considering that God is the source. He doesn't create logic. He is logic.
I don't opt for either of the options posited in the Euthyphro dilemma. I do not consider concepts like moral goodness and logic to be independent of God and self-existent in their own right - but to be grounded in the nature of God. If God did not exist, goodness and logic would not exist. So, the reason God cannot change them is because God cannot change. And God does not have to strive to meet them, because everything he thinks, says, and does is naturally good and logical. But perhaps it is more precise to say that goodness and logic are godly, since they are based on God's nature. I don't use this point as an argument for the existence of God though. I describe it merely as an attribute of God. MountainDew seems to agree. What do you think?
@@randominternetguy1499 For those of us who believe in the God of the Bible, we know such things based on the Bible. In addition to that, we also use reason.
Oh good grief, Frank is confused about the laws of logic. The reason these laws exist is as follows. Lets take the law of identity for example, A=A, or, a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. This is one of the three classic laws of logic. That something is what it is, is the only way something can be. It is impossible for something to not be what it is. It is this impossibility that makes the Law of Identity a law of logic. This explains the law of identity without any reference to God. As I said, Frank is confused.
Wow, Frank missed the boat by a train station on this one. (they cut off the video just before Shermer explained this) The laws of logic exist, today, and are a construct of our minds interpretation of what we can sense, how we communicate, and our ability to interpret, assess, and analyze the world around us. When we pose the question "before there were any human beings on the earth..." we are then able to communicate and interpret the premise. When he asks "is the statement there are no human beings on the earth true?" We can establish that through logic, any observer can deduce that the statement is true. A non human observer, or non-earthly human observer would both have come to the same conclusion that "there are no human beings on the earth" at that time. This completely follows logic, and does not require a supreme being to enlighten or interpret anything about the circumstances.
The TAG asserts that logic, laws, laws of logic exist. PSA asserts that knowledge, reason-ability exist. Sure is, nobody is forced to adopt these assertions. I assert that imaginary objects as asserted in PSA and TAG do not exist. Imaginary objects *(PSYCHE)* are mere-symptoms, inside-brain-effects, epiphaenomena They are merely asserted. They are merely assigned/attributed to all that is real *(Physis).* These assertions *(Logos, Logoi)* are deemed to be useful, that's all. Anyone with a brain in their skull can easily find out, you cannot even prove or disprove that the assertion "1=1" IS true or false. The assertion is deemed to be, is asserted to be: Useful, by some if not the majority, that's it. Imaginary objects, including all **asserted** gods, they are **unchangeable = immutable = ETERNAL** for a simple yet surprising reason: they do not exist in the first place. The question whether unknown yet possible uncaused-causes created the universe, is a different topic. Theistic Apolgists are merely trying to lump "asserted gods" together with "possible gods" HAD I the misfortune, to debate Prof.Turek, the my first questions a t him would be Do you maintain the assertion, that you can use logic? Can you demonstrate the usage of the imaginary, in order to prove, that the ASSERTION "1=1" IS true? If Prof.Turek is reading this, i would deem him to be wise, if he goes asks a mathematician first! I unambiguously admit that I hate liars. Both PSA and TAG are big fat lies. Kind regards from GERMANY!
@@kleenex3000 In your worldview everything is meaningless, which is why I'm confused about your need to even engage in any discussion, let alone this one.
The idea that the laws of logic are transcendent in nature leads theists into a very foolish error. One that is repeated here. The assumption that we humans "discovered" them. We did not. We invented them based on very real observations of the real world. Premises are always based on observations of the real world. Causes and effects are observable in the real world. Non-contradiction is observable in the real world. And because the laws of logic were formulated out of observations of the real world, that is why they were able to be constructed in such a way as to be recognisable to all humans.
"we invented them based on very REAL observations of the REAL world" to make the presumption that the observations are "real" you would need the laws of logic to begin with
This response is quite disappointing. If it's not God then what? "I don't know"? that's not a satisfactory answer and is worse than trying something that is plausible.
@@chad969 Not in that humans invented logic, only in that we recognize it. If logic is conventional then it is therefore subjective. A strawman today could be totally valid tomorrow and yet we would stillall know that a strawman is a fallacy because it avoids addressing the actual argument. But without that law transcending humanity, it would be subjective.
Shermer may sound like he goes off on tangents, but what he's trying to convey is that we have to look at ourselves and the world we live in with some *perspective.* We can't get caught up in our narrow-mindedness, getting off by trapping people in logic loops, like what Frank does. Frank never brings anything new to the table. He's got his script, and he's a stubborn bastard about sticking to it. At least Shermer dares to have a little humility and speak off the cuff.
My friend, if you call making it up as you go along "speaking off the cuff" then OK. Shermer is the king of basically saying "we don't know", but then turning around and giving long explanations of things based solely on personal conjecture. I pray that that one of those "logic loops" will speak to your heart. God Bless:)
Was he even answering the question? The man just went off on a quest of telling us he is not special compared to other humans. When the question was about if the laws of logic are transadental
Michael Shermer is like a discount version of Christopher Hitchens. You get the same self-contradictory nonsense but his stories are not nearly as interesting and he doesn't have the cool accent. lol
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib My Bible starts with In the Beginning God... and the laws of logic make perfect sense coming from the mind of God. Don't agree? Good to know. How does the atheistic worldview make sense of them even existing?
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib First, of course atheism is a worldview. As far as the laws of logic, I'm pointing to the mind of God and your pointing to.... don't know. Got it. And should I assume that's also your answer for the laws of nature and mathematics, yes?
Near 1:27 on the clock, Mr. Turek said one of the most interesting question: how could we communicate if your logic is different than let's say mine? I have never seen greater unification in a family, among friends, in a church, our government, what have ya than when people bear common sense. But to refute the fact that "common sense" is only as common as the people that bear it. It has to be truth shrouded in righteousness! Other than that it would be heaven in hell.....
Is your god dependent on the laws of logic or not? If one is true or the other, you got more problems to deal with than with just some old plain skepticism coming from some syllogisms
No. What you heard is that Shermer is a nominalist. And, really, this is just a matter of the two of them talking past each other. Two men having different ideas of what they mean by "logic." For those, however, who believe logic is something real that imposes itself on reality, suggesting that God is somehow responsible for logic is to take a position every bit as nonsensical as the nominalist stance. It proposes a space in existence in which logic does not apply. To say that logic depends on God is to postulate a God who is, himself, exempt from logic. He owns it, he controls it, he can decide what it does. We have a God who supposedly mandated against square triangles and married bachelors, and this would admit of the possibility of square triangles and married bachelors had God decided otherwise. Even theists who make this asinine argument don't believe in the God that it implies. This is shown every time they answer the question "can God make a rock too big for him to list." By insisting its a nonsense question, they indicate that they do not believe in the TAG God, because the TAG God could easily violate logic in order to accomplish any nonsense task.
I am a Frank fan but the scientist appears to be right on this topic. A statement like "there are no human beings on earth" before human beings existed is just how we today describe the state before we were here. It's not that complicated. You can apply that statement to before we existed in the English language in that way, while all the words mean the same thing. It will be described differently by someone from another country, or even the same culture at a different time. What we call "laws" are just our analysis of the interactions of things, a way to standardize our calculations for outcomes, that's all it is. This doesn't prove or disprove God.
@@Quentin94 That's assuming it can't be any other way. Different ways of interaction might produce different creatures asking these same questions. Also, that wasn't the question. The question was do these 'laws" exist independently and the answer is the term law is just what we use to describe what we all see so we understand what we are talking about when we converse. The star doesn't know it has laws nor does it calculate anything, it's just (like the scientist) says, burning and doing whatever it does.
@@Quentin94 That's the thing, we live in this universe so we know these interactions. If we lived in a different universe we may not be the way we are now. We would be some other thing asking questions in some other way. This sisespecially true of the big bang is on a cycle. It could have happened a bagillion times before , watch with slightly different laws.
@@Quentin94 What you call a "standard" is how the fundamental forces interacted and formed in THIS(key word( universe or cycle). Countless attempts would make any possible occur.
That last statement "The laws exist in the mind of god....." has to be demonstrated. The problem with the TAG argument is that it is never demonstrates this necessary element for the TAG argument to be a good argument. Even if I say that I don't know why the laws of logic present the way they do, this does nothing to demonstrate that a God exists through the TAG argument. I think the case against the TAG argument is even better. Things have a nature because they exist. Our ability to describe this nature depends on our minds, but the nature of something is dependent on the thing that exists. Just because things have a nature, this in no way demonstrates that a God exists. Just because we have minds that can understand this nature, that in no way demonstrates that a God exists. The TAG argument is a very silly argument in my book. Asserting that the nature of thing is dependent on a God and then refusing to demonstrate this is as useless as just asserting a God exists and leaving it at that.
@@---yu7ff Nope, logic is just our way of understanding how things that have a nature operate. You have not shown a God is necessary or required for logic to exist. Since you have failed to demonstrate that your God is necessary for the laws of logic to exist, I am justified in rejecting your explanation/worldview until you provide such proof.
If you're talking about Beall and Restall's work, it does not reject the universality of the laws of logic. It's an effort to reconcile different logics (Classical, Paraconsistent, etc) which have varying theories of validity. The idea is that multiple logics can correctly capture the logical consequence relation of natural language. The logics can disagree over the validity of different argument forms and still get things right, because they are capturing different aspects of validity.
Lol.. all the religious nuts in the comments. Thumping chests over a 2 minute video.. Watch actual full length debates.. that way you'll atleast get to hear both sides clearly. And no, TAG or teleo or onto will not get you to Jesus(coz it's the bramha who y'all should be worshipping).. they are mental masturbations, which when properly deconstructed will leave you think of another argument.. That's how omnipotence went out of fashion...
When I was a kid I used to think that everyone behind my back was plotting against me and when I’d turn around, they’d all go back to what they were doing and therefore I never fully could know or not know if the whole world was conspiring against me behind my back. I also used to think that my stuffed animals were real. I also used to believe in Santa clause and when the whole god thing was presented to me, I knew that was the same thought process I once used. Especially when I would ask for evidence for such claims and get many different answers like, you just have to open your heart and god works in mysterious ways. It was then and there I knew that no one other human knows of a god and what it is. I knew then and there how full of egotistical crap everyone was who presented such claims. I knew they were using the very mentality I once used to believe in fairy tails and myths and that’s exactly what a god is, a myth. A figment of our imaginations. No one other human knows about before or after this life over any other. We are all in the same boat of not knowing and faith does not equal knowing.
Z Johnson I am presenting the fact that no one other human knows anything over any other human about before or after life and that the mentality used to believe you know such things is the same adolescent mentality we all had as children when we wanted our toys to be alive or when we thought Santa was a real person. That is all. As for anyone wanting to believe? Cool, just don’t act like you know.
Z Johnson then you’re trying to cap the infinite regression which by logic of things needing a creator, god would have to have had one too. And so forth. I don’t agree that your dichotomy is valid. There are many denominations and many forms of belief. And many people humble enough to admit not knowing or believing. Doesn’t mean you have to believe or not. There is middle ground. Nothing is absolute, black and white, and finite. As we know. Or lack of knowledge. Either way, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of thou who state thy claims. Not the unbeliever having to try to prove why they don’t believe. The scrutinized can try to become the scrutinizer be it your kalam or what ever failed attempts to try to claim logic, knowledge, morals and good or evil rest within your perceived god. No one has yet to even prove a god exists, now they want to claim they know it’s behaviors and wants? I again, will always call bs to these claims. Especially when threats of damnation are presented. That’s where I will refute and scrutiny will follow.
@@zjohnson8773 Yes it is. Talking about "God", or metaphysic's, or the supernatural, ghost's, goblin's, El Cucuy etc... is meaningless as a topic to debate with any real world tangibility.
@@Kristoferwitha_k But he's right. God at his very best incarnation is filler. The blank answer screen. Hope above action. The embodiment of we "could" be doing rather than what should be doing.
Kristofer Milhauser why would I need some violent, near death experience or whatever you want to manifest to happen to me, for me to even consider believing? Why do you yourself not believe in other religions besides the one you grew up with. I think your lack of understanding who I am gets you to call me arrogant as I’ve laid out my experiences and how arrogant for Christians or any denominations of any religion to try to claim theirs is the real one over any other? All bibles fail to hold any more or less water for all are to be taken literal when desired to control people or figuratively when you can’t control people with such brutalities as are in many bibles. Things in bibles that tell believers to cause harm onto non believers and you know perfectly well why you can’t practice what the inquisitions or crusades did in modern times unless you want to look like the extreme religions killing infidels. Christianity, Islam, Judaea philosophies all worship the same god yet y’all squabbling still about who’s is right even though they all take faith yet between them, are all atheists to at least two out of three within those religions that all worship the same god....hmmmmm think about that. Think about why you’re an Athiest to Islam and Judaism if you’re christian. Why you don’t believe in other religions then come back and call me arrogant as you realize how arrogant you must be to prop up any of these three religions and act holier than thou.
The laws were formed by humans to describe things in a way humans can understand them and make sense of them. There's no evidence for these existing prior to the existence of life on earth. Next argument please.
Hello! I read your comment and was surprised how quickly you dismiss Mr. Turek's point. I am not trying to be argumentative. The point below is a serious attempt to get you to consider something beyond dismissing your initial line of thinking. The laws of logic is helpful for understanding Truth. By truth, I mean accurate statements and/or accurate ideas. If the laws of logic were created by humans, then there could be no logic or truth prior to humans. That is, "Before there were humans, there were no humans." Is that true? Of course it is. But, he could not possibly be true if humans created the laws of logic because they didn't exist yet. Therefore, there must be logic/truth beyond humans. Thoughts?
@@preferablystephen480 Logic is not universal, it depends on a particular choice of axioms, classical logic is not the only one, we can construct logics whitout LEM or the law of non-contradiction, even the law of identity can be replace with relative identity. Ever heard of intuitionistic logic, paraconsistent logic or fuzzy logic? Furthermore, Gödel's completeness theorem and soudness theorems provide justification for the use of some logical systems like classical propositional logic, or intuitionnistic logic in computer science. If our universe obey at a certain logical system (and at their associated algebra) then there's other possible universes which obey at different, exclusive and consistent set of logic. There's NO "the" laws of logic like there's no "the" laws of physics, and God has nothing to do with that.
@@omega82718 Hello. I don't see much value in your comment. Truth is not relative. I believe that is Mr Turek's point. Even before man, did not gravity exist? Gravity did not begin to exist when man decided to try to understand why they didn't float away into space. Gravity existed before man described it. Things like this were true before man and before man described them. Man is just describing what is already true.
@@preferablystephen480 I agree with that and I also believe that all mathematical truths existed before us, math has a necessary existence. Turek's point is that classical logic exists, and that's right, but that's not the only possible and consistent logic, there's different algebras that represent different set of logical systems, it's not even sure if our universe obey at classical logic, our final theory (or theory of everything) could be expressible in a different formal system, we just don't know and there's nothing very particular with classical logic.
1:29 - "How could you and I communicate if you had your own idea about the laws of logic and I had my own idea?" Because both of your are basing those laws of logic on a common framework (i.e., reality). This is just as silly as asking "How could you and I be talking to each other in English if English is a human invention?". Yes, English was created by humans, but this doesn't mean that *each individual human* creates its own version of English.
*This is just as silly as asking "How could you and I be talking to each other in English if English is a human invention?".* Frank did word it somewhat poorly there I think. The difference is human language is conventional, logic is not.
If you think logic is just based on "reality", then thank you for stirring the logical ones towards or side and keeping the illogical & irrational people yourselves.
> "The difference is human language is conventional, logic is not." Agreed (or at least, human language is *more* conventional), but I don't think this saves the objection. The point is that just because something is a human construct doesn't mean it's subjective, or individual. For example, math is a human construct, but it's clearly based on observable reality.
*For example, math is a human construct, but it's clearly based on observable reality.* The symbols that we use to represent quantities are human constructs. Math is not. Two plus two would be four even if there were no humans. So we have things like mathematics and logic (as well as many other things such as the reliability of our senses and our memory, the inductive principle, etc.) that we need to make sense of the world. Atheism can not give any remotely adequate justification for these presuppositions. This is the transcendental argument for God's existence.
It's perfectly possible to justify the Laws of Logic without God. Lets take the Law of Identity for example, a thing is what it is, and not what it is not, expressed in the statement, A=A. So, we have a statement, A=A, and that to what the statement refers. The statement refers to the impossibility of things to be other than what they are, the statement describes the only way things can be, ie, themselves. That it's impossible for something to be other than what it is is the justification for the Statement A=A, the Law of Identity. That's all there is too it, no God needed.
That doesn't follow at all that God is not "needed", for three reasons: 1) It's not a question of "need". It's a question of causal agency and plausibility. Does the question of God make the most plausible sense out of the laws of logic? 2) Can the laws of logic still be true even if God did not exist? That's a question that the atheist cannot answer because according to the atheist, you cannot prove or disprove God in general either way. So why on Earth do you get this idea that you don't "need" God to explain the laws of logic? It sounds like you're trying to have it both ways. 3) If the laws of logic are axiomatic or self-evident in and of themselves, then why wouldn't that further justify an uncaused first cause that is self-evident and necessary in and of itself as well? Why does that not seem plausible?
@@josephthomasmusic If logic is absolute that I think you'd agree it was, then it's non contingent. If it was contingent, on a God for example, then it wouldn't be absolute.
@@Whatsisface4 It sounds like you're making an either or out of this, which is a false dichotomy. Either logic must be contingent on God or not contingent on God. It's neither. Logic and God's nature are one and the same. Therefore the laws of logic are absolute.
@@josephthomasmusic So you say, but you're going to have to do better than just assert that logic and God's nature are one and the same. Also, I didn't give that dichotomy, false or otherwise. My point was that logic can't be contingent on God for the reasons given.
@@Whatsisface4 Well that's the point. Contingency is a non-sequitor. Also negating another person's claim without reason why is not a rebuttal. The point is as a theist, my worldview can account for the uniformity of the laws of logic. Metaphysical naturalism cannot. That's why Frank was challenging Shermer's point of accounting for the laws of logic. If the skeptic has a framework for accounting such laws then we would love to hear it. The argument for accounting for the laws of logic in terms of God makes sense because the laws of logic are absolute so if that's the case they come with a source that is absolute by nature as well. God by definition is absolute, and the laws of logic are absolute as well. To say they exist independently is to classify them in the same category as a god, which defeats the very purpose of the argument that the skeptic is trying to raise against their "needing" to be a God for the laws of logic. So the skeptic either way has no sufficient argument against laws of logic coinciding with God's nature. So that is not an assertion on my part, that's an actual argument that follows logically from the premises. Arguments do count as evidence. If you have an argument to account for the uniformity of the laws of logic as a skeptic then I would love to hear it. But until then, you can't just say that my argument is just an assertion. You must present a counter argument to account for the laws of logic in a universe in which a God is not present. If you have an argument to support such a thing then I would love to hear it.
"We're not special.." As he ignores the Fermi paradox and the fact that he makes ethical claims using logic and language. Professing to be wise, they became fools. - Romans 1:22
The Fermi paradox isn't a paradox if you know anything about what you're talking about. The inverse square law is a thing, and light is very slow. Even assuming aliens are looking for us, there's no record of human existence outside a couple hundred light years sphere around Earth. Why should we expect alien civilizations to have become as advanced as we are, long before we were?
I don't know what's more shocking, how confused Frank is by this concept or the number of people here that think he came off well. Do a little reading folks, this isn't a difficult concept.
1:11 the answer is obviously not because that statement was not uttered by anyone yet and could not have a truth value. However, if someone (say an alien) would have come along and uttered it, then yes it would be true since in fact the statement would convey a concept (that there ate no humans on earth) would match reality.
Believers of different religions use exactly the same argument to prove the existence of their gods. It's really weird, isn't it? To Frank, those gods are nothing but dummies and he would even call them trash, wouldn't he? But he uses exactly the same argument they use to prove what he'd call trash. It can be used to prove the existence of any god. All you have to do is to say "god is a necessary precondition." I know not a single theist has been successful in proving the existence of a god but Frank should be aware that this "transcendental argument "is already so worn out and unconvincing.
akasatana202 not weird at all if God is the reason why anything and everything exists, and if he is the foundation of all knowledge. It’s precisely what Paul teaches in Romans and is an elementary Christian theological concept. All men know god in a general sense - general revelation - but to know specifics of his character and design and plan god must somehow reveal himself to man. - special revelation. The fact that humans are sinful and fallible and distort his special revelation, in no way undermines the validity of his general revelation. It is exactly what we should expect if the Bible is true and if man truly is an enigma, created perfectly in his image, but also fallen and distorted.
@@a5dr3 Imagine somebody from a different religion, say, "Spacetology" comes and says to you the following. "God is the reason why anything and everything exists, and he is the foundation of all knowledge. It’s precisely what his apostle teaches in our holy book and is an elementary theological concept. " "Spacetology" is a relatively new religious cult in my country (and I just named it in English) that supposedly worships the "Creator of the Universe" who they say is "the reason why anything and everything exists." Replace the god's name with another one and it still works fine. Try Zoroastrian god, Hindu god, or whatever gods you'd like to. All you have to do is to come up with a deity and give all the convenient attributes to it. You can just conveniently define your god to fit your "god hypothesis" too. Or you can even write a book about the deity to make it look more probable. See the problem? You don't see any problem with Spacetology believers using the exact argument to prove the existence of their god? They don't see any problem. They think it perfectly works. As you can probably see this "Transcendental Argument" can be used to prove the existence of anything-any god that you would even call trash.
The Transcendental argument for God is an argument for GOD. It's not an argument for the Christian God. This argument is strong against athiests/agnostics. If Frank Turek wants to debate another religious apologist on why the Christian God is the true God, he would use a different argument.
ClubicaArt I’m not sure where your getting your information but TAG is most certainly an argument uniquely for Christian theism. I know, (knew,) the people who created it, and it is essentially claimed by Westminster Seminary even today, as being precisely that.- If you want to know why look at the link I left in the above comment.
Surely doesnt prove the christian god. If morality is considered to be an absolute trancedental category, then god is guilty of breaking them all through acts such as genocide and imposing slavery. Thus morality becomes nothing more than just a tool god can play around with and if this is the case, we do not have access to the knowledge of what absolute morality is or could be, and the same can be said for every other category
Atheists- “The chances of me being THE ONE who is alive and everyone else being zombies is so low” Christians - “yes I agree. And the chances of naturalistic evolution are even MORE slim.” Atheists - “yeah but I believe in that” Must be nice to pick and choose what you believe based on your own opinions and desires
@@therick363 the natural process of life starting on earth from non life is basically impossible… it’s more likely I am in a simulation like the matrix and I only think this is the real and true reality
@@timothyvenable3336 maybe I misunderstood what you meant. Are you saying that atheists believe in evolution like a belief? That atheists pick and choose what to believe in based on opinions and desires?
@@timothyvenable3336in order to make a statement about what's more likely, you would have to establish how likely any of these premises actually are in the first place
WOOOAAAHH DOOOODE! What an excellent, well thought out, well researched and well articulated sophisticated argument right there. You intellectual genius you, you heavy weight master mind, you Einstein junior, you high flying brainiac. Dammit, somebody give this dude his well deserved nobel prize already!! NOW!!
Atheist did a awesome job. He explained himself clear and honest. While the theist argues he can’t or isn’t aloud to think for himself he needs a special Friend to tell him what to think rather how.
"Maths is a human construct that didn't exist before humans"
Lol that would mean physics didn't exist before humans either.
Ah if only that darn Newton hadn't invented gravity
No one's saying Newton invented gravity. Rather, the gravitational theory. That did not exist before humans. Do we agree?
@@Nicolae_Mew The concepts that bind/underpin the gravitational theory existed before Newton. Newton might have found a way to describe them, but all that did is open human eyes to see it. It does not mean he was always there. There is a difference between the explanation of math, and the very principles that bind it. Your rebuttal is at best drawing on the fallacy of equivocation. Mathematics is not what we explain it to be(just like gravity is not what Newton explains it to be). Newton only draws on pre-existing concepts to codify in human language(similar to how our explanations of math don't create mathematics per say, it only draws on putting pre existent concepts into our language)
The concept of studying physic's didn't really exist before human's. Math and it's exploit's can really only be understood by "people" who teach, or establish, or are formally/informally introduced to them. Act like an adult with your phrasing.
@@zaxbitterzen2178 That something can be understood only by humans doesn't make it any less valid in the absence of humans. Objective truth remains objective truth regardless of epistemology. The laws of logic do not require human investment to be valid. We don't make truth, we discover it.
@@Nicolae_Mew lol that's not the point of the OC. He is just implying about how construct are just interpretation of what we observe as true and real prior from the universe.
Mere Christianity by c.s Lewis is a good book. Highly recommended
I just finished reading mere Christianity .Toward the of me reading it . My shcool teacher saw the book in my bag and asked to read it Infront of the class -I allowed- then after the first paragraph (when we CS Louis was talking about morality) he said "no offense but it's a bit too deep and give me the book back"
its a good book to learn spotting argument errors... C.S. Lewis was no big thinker.
I like Shermer, but man, he's one of the weakest debaters I've ever seen... He just can't come up with a decent answer when it's not related to scientific inquiry.
Hey 😂
@@wilder_adventures Similar taste in apologetic-related content? Who would've thought!
He should have said no, no logic on a planet with no people, Just made a mistake imo. Is anyone going to believe in God because of these dumb gotchas in debates?
He definitely wasn't being logical while dodging Frank's question.
sure he was. just because you dont understand the argument it doesn't mean it's wrong
he wasn't dodging at all
@@Obscuredbywinds Frank asked if logical laws are true prior to the existence of humans
and he answered "were not special, were not the center of the universe" whether humans are special or not, whether were a tiny speck on the universe does not answer if logical reasoning exists prior to the existence of humans. Earth being geocentric does not decide whether or not logical reasoning exists prior to humans. Us being son of Odin or just a construction of mindless chemicals does not determine whether logical reasoning exist within or beyond human minds.
Its either he didn't understand the question but just want to fire back so he said something nonsense, or Jasonwins is correct, he dodged the question.
So it's either you did not understood the question or you're just lying because you want his side to be right
@@seanfernandolopez9139 frank doesn’t understand that logic is descriptive not prescriptive so his question is moronic
@@Bi0Dr01d i don’t presuppose the laws of logic at all bc logic is descriptive more so than it is prescriptive. nice try though
Frank Turek: Are the laws of logic transadentental?
Athiest: capernacin principle tells me I'm not unique.
Lol
We dont know whether they are transcendental since many philisophers have actually raised pretty good objections to them. Look up logical pluralism and dialetheism. If they were really transcendental then raising objections to them just wouldnt be possible, since any objection would be self-evidently false, since no examples or justifications could be provided for why the laws of logic are not universal
@@mothernature1755 If it would be self-evidently false to question transcendental laws, then wouldn't it be universally true that the ability to object to transcendental laws make them self-evidently false? If so, then we have a universal law, bringing us right back to transcendental laws that one is questioning. If not, then there is no basis to conclude in all cases that transcendental laws which are questioned are self-evidently false. In fact, if the laws of logic change as Frank Turek pointed out in this video, then there would be no basis to communicate, or even to have knowledge itself. In other words, there would need to be preconditions for us to have knowledge, including unchanging laws of logic, and if they are unchanging, then they transcend the human mind. If minds are the precondition for abstracts, and these laws are abstract, then it implies a Transcendental Mind, God.
When dealing with properly basic ideas, all we can really rely on is preference and internal consistency, there’s no way to prove them.
I am a Frank fan but the scientist appears to be right on this topic. A statement like "there are no human beings on earth" before human beings existed is just how we today describe the state before we were here. It's not that complicated. You can apply that statement to before we existed in the English language in that way, while all the words mean the same thing. It will be described differently by someone from another country, or even the same culture at a different time. What we call "laws" are just our analysis of the interactions of things, a way to standardize our calculations for outcomes, that's all it is. This doesn't prove or disprove God.
What a way to completely ignore his point. I though Christians were supposed to be honest and be perfect since their Father in Heaven is perfect. Dr. Shermer's point is that logic is in fact human-made to best describe our physical reality in the most objective and abstracted way. The Copernican principle he posits is a response to Turek's question "How do I know your logic is the same as mine's?" The probability of Dr. Shermer's logic being the most unique is low due to the objective existence of our universe (physical reality) therefore the laws of logic are the most consistent laws of logic that humans have invented to describe our universe.
Frank, go on Joe Rogan!
that would be great
Always the escape to "humans are insignificant".
Well that's exactly the point, the laws of logic are universal, therefore they cannot merely be the product of insignificant minds which themselves are not universal and as such are inappropriate as a foundation for universals. This is why laws of logic, truths etc... are said to be discovered, not invented.
Good point
we are information machines. Our mind receives lot of data through our senses. To be able to use the data it uses advanced pattern matching to simplify the data by identifying what data thst seems to "move together" and "make sense" when taken as a unit: these are what we experience as objects.
thus the objects is a construct of our mind, not something real.
@matswessling6600
You cannot say "the object" isnt real whilst literally referring to it as something our senses are picking up.
Whilst we are in part info processing machines, without a very good reason to say so you cannot say thats all we are since we know that we experience something machines do not, that is, qualia.
We arent merely processing, we are experiencing.
@@SomeChristianGuy. take an example of four stones lying in a cross. there is no real object and yet we can refer to it as the cross as an object simply because our pattern natching brain selected to treat them as a single object.
there is not anything in the definition of "machine" that prevents it from perceiving.
@@matswessling6600
Doesnt overturn the fact that there are 4 stones arranged in a geometric shape. That there is no actuall cross is irrelevant. Plus you also make a fallacious argument. Just because you are an arrangement of cells, doesnt mean you do not acxtually exist. You have managed to make a weird version of the fallacy of composition here.
On your second point. The definition of machine is irrelevant here as it is not designed to make such designations or to connot such things sine it isnt a philosophical term.
You dont seem to know much about machines or computing if you think machines ever percieve or understand anything. I build them for a living, no machine ever know what it is doing, ever.
Turek: asks a question
Shermer: (Let me rumble aimlessly and make all kinds of unrelated comments with no end just so I can avoid this question...)
It’s actually kinda sad to Shermer stammer and stumble on such a straightforward question.
I am a Frank fan but the scientist appears to be right on this topic. A statement like "there are no human beings on earth" before human beings existed is just how we today describe the state before we were here. It's not that complicated. You can apply that statement to before we existed in the English language in that way, while all the words mean the same thing. It will be described differently by someone from another country, or even the same culture at a different time. What we call "laws" are just our analysis of the interactions of things, a way to standardize our calculations for outcomes, that's all it is. This doesn't prove or disprove God.
DId you see the whole debate or this two minute clip? Its like watching 20 seconsd ad a boxing match and reviewing it. @@dwaynemcdowell2073
If stop lights existed before humans, would green still mean go?
Logic could never be "constructed" if there was not a real world before us to reason about, i.e.: in the absolute nothingness. The number 3 can only be conceived because there are objects in the real world to be perceived and abstracted as quantities. The real world begun to exist before humans. It follows that logic is not a construction, but a systematic apprehension of reality.
"objects" are definitely a construct by the human mind. Since it is useful it most probably maps some real feature of the workd around us but it still a feature of the information processing maxhine that we are.
There are examples when the object concept fools us. one simple example is the concept of haystacks: if you add two haystacks and put them on top of each other you get one haystack, not two. in reality nothing is lost but your minds model of the hay as haystacks gets in trouble.
Shermer reminds me of Hitchens in this video. Hitchens could never answer difficult questions in a straight forward manner. That being said, Hitchens was far more eloquent when he would obfuscate on some issue.
@@zjohnson8773 wow, I actually had no Idea that dude was dead. I've seen him in a number of Turreks videos and I've never seen a single person bring up the fact that he passed away. I wonder if he ever got saved
Quite the sophist
I am a Frank fan but the scientist appears to be right on this topic. A statement like "there are no human beings on earth" before human beings existed is just how we today describe the state before we were here. It's not that complicated. You can apply that statement to before we existed in the English language in that way, while all the words mean the same thing. It will be described differently by someone from another country, or even the same culture at a different time. What we call "laws" are just our analysis of the interactions of things, a way to standardize our calculations for outcomes, that's all it is. This doesn't prove or disprove God.
@@vertigo2894 If a dinosaur fell from a cliff, broke his neck, and died, could he still hunt? If the answer is yes, then logic existed before humans. Humans only discovered logic and invented words to describe it but logic was still in effect before them. If you truly commit to the idea that logic is a human creation and not a metaphysical law of nature, your answer to the dinosaur question would be "yes, because logic didn't exist yet"
@@oldscorp We are just giving names to observation of reality, that's it.
"The laws exist in the mind of god, otherwise you and I couldn't even communicate" - That's a line full of presumptive fallacies.. funny how the video ends there as if nothing can be said after it. Anyone have a link to the rest of it?
@Ken Kibbey even those premises are more like presumptions.
Premise 1 presumes there is a start. How do we know for certain there is a start and not an endless cycle.. unless the start is created at the time of measurement by the measurement itself? It also presumes knowing things with certainty must involve knowing everything (omniscience). If the scope of ones knowledge through personal experience is limited (we need only look at a horizon we've never visited to know it's limited), one can know with certainty that their knowledge is limited.
Premise 2 is shown above to be possible without omniscience.
Meanwhile the premise in the video presumes the mind of god is somehow distinct from you and I, and it presumes to know with certainly what the mind actually is in order to use the word in such a statement as if it's fact.
Conclusion: These premises are loaded with presumptions and fallacies.
It's quite similar to the presumption among many that science gives us objective truths.
This question turns on what you think the laws of logic are. If you think they are man made descriptions of reality, then the laws of logic did not exist when man did not exist. Reality existed but there were no minds describe that reality. If you believe they are universals which are atemporal entities that actually exist, then the laws did exist when there were no minds. Using a time when there are minds to describe a time when there were no minds creates confusion as to the nature of the laws of logic.
Yes. Logic as we see it today did not exist before human's spent hundred's of thousand's of year's constantly making adjustment's to make it what is today. If anything calling God the source of logic or his nature is logic totally undermines our own. That mean's no matter how much you know your "God" knows more. Sound's incredibly unfair, and a bit belittling.
I actually like Shermer. He seems a nice guy and nothing like some of his his compatriots, such as the ghastly Krauss. He sure does love to flog a dead horse though and here is another example of it.
nickj14711 I cannot find fault in anything Turek said.
nickj14711 Are you an atheist?
nickj14711 Firstly, that is simply incorrect. As an example, in the UK, at least 50% of people believe in God. It might pay to check your statistics, my friend. That's important when trying to think critically. Secondly, I'm glad I asked. You see, I've been on your side of the fence. I've seen the land from your perspective and then one day, I was granted the great gift of seeing it from the other side. It was simultaneously the greatest and hardest day of my life.
Also, beware of believing that being an atheist endows you with some sort of intellectual advantage. It doesn't. Many (in fact, most) of the greatest minds in history have believed in God. Isaac Newton wrote more Theological books than Science books and Newton possessed an intellect so deep it's hard for the likes of you and I to come to grips with it. And before you fall into the next trap of saying that that's because everyone one in the past was gullible and believed anything, it would pay to read about it and you'll find that the the world back then, as now, was packed with cynical people.
The first word in your reply, "absolutely", makes me think you may be ideologically blinded and ideologically blind people are hard to speak to constructively. I hope not and I hope that you remain open to the idea that, maybe, you are not just a chemical reaction destined to fizzle out into the vacuum of eternity. That your loved ones are actually loved and that it's not just a cruel trick of chemical reaction on chemical reaction. Have a good day my friend and keep your ears open to the still, small voice. If you hear it, your life will change.
nickj14711 You have assumed (wrongly) that I am talking about Christians. I am not. I am talking about people who have a fundamental belief in a transcendent creator. That is north of 50%. My own research bears this out. I am talking about Theists.
"Before there were human beings on the Earth, was the statement 'There are no human beings on the Earth' true?" What?
Before there were human beings on the Earth, there was no statement "There are no human beings on the Earth". It's a nonsensical question.
Turek simply assumes the laws of logic come from God. That's an easy way to try to win a debate. That's why he asked the question about whether "There are no humans on the earth" was true before humans were on the earth -- he's tacitly assuming that it would be true because the mind of God would have known it to be true. But the fact is that his question is tautological, essentially boiling down to "If there were no humans on the earth is true that there were no humans on the earth?" He can ask that question and receive an answer only if there are at leat two humans around whose minds can compose the question and respond to it.
Shermer is correct -- the "laws of logic" are simply man's way of observing reality and communicating about it in a consistent manner.
But even if these laws existed before man existed it wouldn't mean they came from a supernatural deity. They could just be features of reality-- Platonic forms, if you will.
@@Kristoferwitha_k I have no idea how the universe started or why there is something rather than nothing (the oldest question in philosophy). Maybe the universe has always existed (in one state or another), much like the theists claim God has.
But assuming that something outside of space and time created the universe doesn't allow you to conclude anything else about that something. More specifically, it doesn't tell you WHY creation occurred. The Christian assumption of a Perfect Being known as God seems to me to be inconsistent with creation -- why would a Perfect Being create anything? It's almost as if it was incomplete without creating something; if so, it's not perfect. Moreover, the assumption of a deity that created the universe doesn't allow you to conclude anything about morality. Maybe the creator was malevolent and liked to see his creations kill each other (there's been a lot of that throughout history, hasn't there?).
But there's one standard for morality that has been espoused by different cultures throughout the world: the Golden Rule. It seems like a pretty good rule for survival, and it isn't confined to theism or any of its separate sects.
@@Kristoferwitha_k It's called experience. it's called exposure. It's called getting to know the people who live next to you. Hell old testament God is the embodiment of absent morality/egotism. Even if you use God as a source for the argument he is definitely not valid.
@@prof5string You like The Golden Rule. Where do you think the Golden Rule came from? The "Golden Rule" of Leviticus 19:18 was quoted by Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 7:12; see also Luke 6:31)
I think the better way to look at this is more about what you consider "God" to be. If you describe "God" as "whatever it was that created the universe", then the universe itself could be considered God. For example, Take the line: "X is everywhere, and X created itself.". Either side can replace X with either God or The Universe.
But I think the point of contention most atheists have with people's belief in God is that of intentional creation. It's not that God created the universe (afterall, it came from somewhere), it's that the thing that created it had a plan on what would go where and how that thing would act to fill its roll.
One way is looking at it from "I need a space for X, and X requires Y and Z, so I'll create Y and Z. But they require A and B, which needs C and D..." It assumes that the universe was created for a specific purpose.
And another way of looking at it is "D and C now exist, which will cause B and A to exist, which will cause..." This assumes that there was no planned purpose for existence.
.
Another example: Take the invention of cheese.
Scenario 1:
You know from previous experience that heat plus movement makes things change. You know what bacteria eating a thing will change that thing. You do that process on milk. You are the creator of cheese.
Scenario 2:
You have all that is needed to make cheese in a bag, though you aren't aware that some of those things are in that bag. You go for a long ride on a horse, and all that bouncing and just the perfect temperature outside made it so cheese formed in the bag. Are you the creator of cheese? You played a roll in its existence, but because you didn't intend on making it, you are not the creator.
Similarly, are you the creator of the universe? You are here, and because of that fact, you play a roll in what the universe is and will be, but does that mean that you are a creator? If yes, then that means all things in existence are the creator. In the same vein, is the man on the left the creator of this video? He's in it, but can he be considered the creator? What about the camera operator? Are they a creator? How about the table that the man taps on. It was integral to this video, so should it get part credit for it's creation? What about the eggs that man had for breakfast?
.
Another problem with the "traditional" versions of God theory is that you assume that the creator wants the best for you. Is it not possible that the creator made all this just for the suffering of beings? Why is it assumed that the mysterious ways that God works in should fall in our favor?
At the end, Craig throws out this statement then cuts off the answer. Christian making claims unsupported same as flat earth claims that are unsupported.
Oh the real faith statement of humanism; good birth defects/ ie mutations, invented 30-70 million life forms..because God isn't smart enough! I'm a retired bio teacher. I promise it's faith. DNA alone incredibly shows the power of God's word
Dear Ben, here are two arguments that confirm your analysis.. I will post both titled "Dear Ben" and feel free to share as you desire...
Dear Ben, ARGUMENT FOR AN INTELLIGENT AGENCY CAUSE OF ORIGIN FOR LIFE
This argument proves that an intelligent agency cause of life is currently the best and only reasonable origin explanation of all living organisms we observe today. Every inference to the origin of the complete information code processing and self-replicating system found in life leads to this conclusion. This argument reveals that a purely natural means (without intelligent agency) cause lacks sufficient accountability for life's complete system. Anotherwords, based on all that we do know about living organisms as a whole today; Any proposed hypothesis for a full account of the orgin of life via purely "agentless natural cause", is foundationally untenable.
This argument also demonstrates that such intelligent agency itself can be known as a cause by being demonstrated as this argument will reveal. This is not a "God of the Gaps" argument" but rather a *"Naturalistic Phenomenon Fallacy" of the Gaps rebuttal.
Argument for an Intelligent Agency Cause of Origin for Life;
1. Life (living organisms) exists.
2. Life is a complete information code processing and replication system operating with chemistry, known in the field of Biological study as Genetics.
3. The only inferences for the origins of all known complete information code processing and replication systems are of intelligent agency cause.
4. There are no feasible hypotheses to fully account for the origin of a complete information code processing and replication system via any purely agentless natural causes.
5. Intelligent Agency is able and does fully account as the origin cause of every other known complete information code processing and replication system.
Conclusion; The only feasible and likely hypothesis to fully account for the complete information code processing and replication systems found in life is via an intelligent agency caused origin.
When science proposes hypotheses for a cause of a known effect, it requires using sound scientific methodology and valid rationality. This is especially true when studying any current result that has an historically past and unknown origin. There are no inferences that the origin of any complete information code processing and replication system is due to purely agentless natural causes.
Asserting a naturalistic presupposition for the origin of life is not an actual (data based) inference itself nor does this assertion alone lead to any type of scientific explanation. If any comparable inanimate system was discovered in outer space, academia would surely automatically attribute it's origin to an intelligent agency cause. A thing either has a purely natural origin, a purely intelligent agency origin or some combination of both.
The difference in natural phenomenon and their system's information verses a intelligent agency (IA) designed code information system's information is;
IA Designed Code Information Systems will; contain, process or create some data, code or information that is; external of, unaccounted by and not inherent to the laws of physics and chemistry.
Natural Phenomenon and Natural Systems will not contain, process or create any data, code or information that is; external of, unaccounted by and not inherent to the laws of physics and chemistry.
Some or most aspects of a IA designed code information system won't apply to this rule but all IA designed code information systems will have at lease one aspect that does.
These aspects will be the discerning factor a code information system was designed by a intelligent agency, verses natural data or information processes following laws of physics and operations of chemistry.
The syntactic and semantic processing properties of life's code processing and self-replicating information system are the aspects that inform us it is an IA designed sytem, rather than a system resulting from a natural phenomenon. The origin of such a system could only be from the result of an intelligent agency.
The SETI Program utilizes these very means to search for and discover signs of intelligence life from outer space. We are able to discern natural occurring radio frequency signals from signals created by intelligent agents via the very same means I utilize here.
Archaeologists did not walk up to the Nazca Lines in Peru and require a "natural phenomenon" explanation and Geologists were not interested in them as such a phenomenon. Why, because they conveyed actual information and design, organized informationally. They were instantly recognizable as more than natural data we must interpret within physics, weathering or chemical reactions. Scientists therefore looked only for intelligent agents as the cause for these lines.
If we can know of black holes, dark energy and dark matter, we can know of an intelligent agent origin by these same means and measure. If we can discern the designed from weathering and natural phenomenon such as in the Nazca Lines in Peru, we can discern an intelligent agent designer by these same means and measure. This argument rationality leads to the discernment of such an existence of origin.
DEFINITIONS
Complete; Having all the necessary or appropriate parts and to the greatest extent or degree; total.
Information; Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.
The definition of "information" utilize here is common to that used when describing the information found in or resulting from code information systems and is specific to code information systems such are found in information technology and the RNA and DNA processes in molecular biology. Thus, this argument is not merely referring to standalone data but specified "information" as defined above in 1-4 and found in both Molecule Biology and Information Technology.
Code; A sequence of instructions or comands for a process or function.
Information System; An integrated set of components for collecting, storing, and processing data or information.
Information Processing; The manipulation information via a sequence of instructions or comands for a process or function. RNA "Processing" in molecular biology is the copping of a protein encoding gene to be modified in several ways before it can be transported out of the nucleus and translated into protein.
Replication; The sharing of information so as to ensure consistency between redundant resources, such as software or hardware components, to improve reliability, fault-tolerance, or accessibility. "Self-replication" is any behavior of a dynamical system that yields construction of an identical copy of itself. In molecular biology, DNA "replication" is the biological process of producing two identical replicas of DNA from one original DNA molecule. This process occurs in all living organisms and is the basis for biological inheritance. The cell possesses the distinctive property of division, which makes replication of DNA essential.
*My New Logical Fallacy: The Naturalistic Phenomenon Fallacy;
1. Asserting that a particular thing must be of a purely natural origin/cause without any supporting scientific based inferences or data. (Holding a purely naturalistic default position as "more likey" without any vaild inferences or any actual data of support.)
2. Claiming that something must have a natural cause or natural origin only because it seems, looks or acts natural, while not requiring further explanation such as, "by what actual natural means?" Asserting something is a natural phenomenon without an explanation of how this natural phenomenon came to be in a natural way.
3. Any hypothesis or theory that concludes something is of natural origin or naturally caused but this conclusion is solely and wholly supported or solely and wholly based only on naturalistic presuppositions.
CLOSING
When competitive hypotheses are proposed, the ones that are based on inferences of what we actually observe are the superior hypotheses. All competing hypotheses with no observational inferences for support are thus the inferior hypotheses. The only reason mainstream science will not propose the same means and measure for the information code processing and self-replicating system system found in life is because of it's implications. The origin of the code and it's specific systematic informational processes and self-replication properties found in life is absolutely anomalous within the laws of physics, weather and known chemical reactions. However, all aspects of life's code information system are commonly found in intelligent agency designed systems.
"The genetic code is not a binary code as in computers, nor an eight-level code as in some telephone systems, but a quaternary code with four symbols. The machine code of the genes is uncannily computerlike."
Richard Dawkins
- River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, p. 17, 1995
Wg Williams© 2017
@@WgWilliams absolutely. I don't use as many words for teens..but you're right. We infer these from birth. Just like the Bible says. To ignore JUST the staggering biochem, it's impossible origins. Tbh, no one believes it.
Ben, you are like the Vikings in the boat during a storm in 800 a.d. They all hear thunder, they turn to the resident atheist and say "can you provide, right now, a naturalistic explanation for thunder?", he says no, then the Vikings chortle "you cannot explain thunder, right now, because it is obviously caused by Thor, and you just don't WANT to believe!"
@@barryjones9362 I also taught debate ..to your dismay. Shifting the burden doesn't address my point. We know volumes about mutations. They cause cancerS, wrinkles, aging, organ deterioration, congenital diseases, etc . NOT 'ADAPTATIONS'/ special created abilities, structures, speed, camo, etc . I'm not trying to be antagonistic..I think intelligent people desire to know the holes.
Powerful stuff
Transcendentals are apriori so a statement is true apriori if it is necessary and universal. God is the foundation on which everything is built upon must be necessary and universal for it to be true. So is there an actual apriori argument to support the assertion?
yues, it is "pp poopo" the statement
From 1:34 - 2:25 say what? Someone should tell Shermer when debating it's ok to say "I'm not sure" or "I don't know" That inane waffling just shows he missed his true calling....as a politician. Keep up the good work, FT.
Nick Jones Unless Sir Roger Penrose professor at Oxford has a nick name called Genesis ..then no. Funny though that same Genesis you mock that communicated for over 2000 years that the universe had a beginning, when science was adamant that the universe was eternal and only got to grips with at the start of the 20th Century through the Hubble telescope..you mean that Genesis?. I can suggest a Penrose book if you want..or perhaps better I suggest stop using caps....shhhhh.
Nick Jones Funny thing about your induction point is that as a theist who believes in a supreme designer than yes I can. I'll give you a "noddy" example. I drive a nice car I wouldn't expect given the engineering and design for tje car to randomly have the wheel nuts or wing mirrors fall off tomorrow or the wheel the next day. As the uniformity of the design is a part of the engineering. ..that the car company intentionally designed. So having a belief in a supreme designer given his uniformity I would expect tomorrow to follow today. As for you as an Aethist with the random chance mentality you can't even guarantee that gravity will influence throwing a coin in the air...why down, why not sideways or up....forget the issue of tomorrow..
Nick Jones A universe highly specified and intentionally designed but yet there's no proof of God...your deductive reasoning is "brilliant" .
Funny I thought Miracles existed. Recommend you do some research a book by Craig Keener called Miracles documenting medical miracles. More credible than the Aetheist miracle of something from nothing.
2. Oh dear you think that Justification of my worldview has to do with whether you accept it or not....sorry to burst your bubble you try too hard. lol! About 7 % of the world are aethists seems illogical to care about the opinions of people whose numbers are akin to a margin of stastical error and a niche world view. ..but somehow you think I need to do the proving...funny...no, seriously. I hope you take off the blinkers and wake up to the truth of Jesus before you die and find out an alternative unpleasant truth instead. We base worldviews on what is most probable. History justifies my world so does cosmology , teleology, morality, the Cambrian explosion and so on. But wait don't worry I am sure..compared to your random something from nothing world view and that randomnly generated brain of yours I'm sure you may convince someone other than angry Aethesits . ...maybe.. nah. I will look out for that debate with Frank in future where I'm sure you'll slay him with that logic of yours....good luck...you'll need it .
Nick Jones God is the causeless cause the immoveable mover silly
Nick Jones You posted twice to get me to respond...you really need to relax. There is life outside of UA-cam and a strange thing called Time Zones.
i trust your ability to make well thought out conclusions as much as I trust your ability to make well thought out arguments. No need to repeat post to bait me into a response.
Your responses show you are either clueless or a troll. You use references like childish and capitals for emphasis but come up with lines such as providing proof of miracles based on lab conditions, Christians being from poor and uneducated backgrounds when Christians have established universities and hospitals all over the world and ignoring they induction response because it's "not credible "...based ob your undefined idea of credible. .oh dear.
The (transcendent) moral argument went over your head and instead you come back with a silly argument on Christians condoning baby killing. Ironically you prove my point on morality inadvertently by your reference to everyone has morality.
You linked the Cambrian explosion to me trying to prove the bible when the CE is an event that provides a theistic point on the sudden introduction of complex life on earth without prior natural selection, gene mutation or time needed going agains Darwinism and natural selection macro evolution....nothing to do with the truth of thr bible or Christianity.
Then you say history doesn't support my world view (even though evidence of an historical Jesus is agreed by all scholars including Atheists such as JD Crossan and Gerd Ludemann and from OT evidence for Tower of Babel and Dead sea scrolls, Hittite, Walls of Jericho and on). Not to mention your inane comments on the Big Bang.
I suggest you do some research before engaging because your "JUSTIFY it" and "its CHILDISH" are pointless and repetitive. No more back and forth as we don't need another 50 response thread from an village Atheist who sounds like a demented echo on repeat.....makes Shermer look scholarly....almost.
The problem is that Shermer is equating the descriptive part of the laws of logic with the prescriptive part. The descriptive part of the laws of logic are man-made because we are the ones describing how the laws of logic work. But the prescriptive part works independently of our descriptions. The laws of logic are still in effect regardless of human beings were ever around to describe them. That's the prescriptive part of the laws of logic. The prescriptive part of the laws of logic are absolute and completely independent of human description. Therefore our descriptions must coincide with the reality of the prescriptions, but it sounds like Shermer is trying to say it the other way around. He's trying to say that the laws of logic are man-made but at the same time saying that they're absolute. He's only half correct and he needs to understand that crucial difference between descriptions and prescriptions, otherwise he's contradicting himself by saying that they're absolute and yet man-made. If they're man-made, then they are contingent and therefore not absolute. His own understanding the laws of logic is self-defeating.
All 2D data fields (i.e. the whole of visual culture) is subject to the transcendental pictorial context of perspective, as such proving the possibility of God.
To go from God exists to that God is the God of the Bible is a leap of faith.
Yes. Faith in a resurrected man. He's in heaven right now on your behalf! Ready for you to accept His forgiveness for sin
what huh? no, what, huh no?? LOL!!!!
Tag is basically self defeating for theists. If logic is necessary and absolute then it can't be contingent on god which means god can't be the foundation and you can't infer god from that. If you say it is contingent on god then you abandon the premise that it is necessary and absolute and the argument fails anyway.
This is assuming logical voluntarism. Theists can grant that logical laws are necessary truths, but that doesn't mean there isn't a dependence relationship between necessary being and necessary truths.
Shermer just keeps digging a bigger hole for himself!
At 1:05
Before intelligent life existed, the statement "There are no X on Y" did not exist. Similarly, 100 years ago, I did not have money in a bank account. But because I did not exist 100 years ago, the statement "(Person) did not have money in a bank account." also did not exist. Just as right now, you can't say "Fred Billonks, born in 2045, does not have a bank account today.", because there is no way of knowing that Fred will exist until he does. Only in the future will you be able to make accurate statements about the past. Though you can make vague statements such as "There is no one who will have been born in 2045 that has a bank account open today.", you won't be able to prove that until 2045 passes. For instance, time travel could be made before 2045, or if you prefer a more plausible scenario, a woman could open an account today for a child she plans to adopt in 2045.
Another way to phrase this would be that you can only make accurate statements about the past.
Let me ask you this: Are there any Vhorshtacks on Earth right now, or have there ever been? The only way to answer this would be to look over the entire Earth, and then answer the question. But the problem here is that in doing so, time has passed, so you can't be certain that in the amount of time that passed, a Vhorshtack didn't land on Earth. Therefore, you can never accurately answer a question about what currently is, or what will be, only what was (even if that moment you are referencing is one nano-second in the past, it is still in the past). Though, to be fair, this only applies to the things within the system. If you make a game where a counter flips between 1 and 2, assuming it is perfectly sealed, you can make an accurate statement about the future of that system. But even then, this relies on it remaining perfectly sealed. And the only way you could know that it will remain perfectly sealed is to be in the future to confirm. And at this point, you are making the statement about the past (since now is just the past of soon to be).
Saint Gundy
I know this is off topic, but i'm looking for references to something Frank said elsewhere. He said, even atheist (Chris hitchens?) admits the Christian worldview is internally consistant. it may not have been hitchens, but someone else. Does that sound familiar? Can anyone point me to the video where Frank says that, or maybe an article? Thanks.
internally consistent? trinity?
@@matswessling6600
Is there an objection to that idea?
@@kurtgundy there are thousands of different christianities. All these woukd be consistent? dont think so. So the quote being true us highly questionable.
@@matswessling6600
Thousands of different Christianities?!
@@kurtgundy yes. chatolicism, ortodoxy, protestantism etc
The transcendental argument is basically a used car salesmen question. It's completely manipulative and ignores logic.
Elaborate please
It's easy to throw out baseless statements, and your comment is just that.
Care to elaborate how the TAG ignores logic?
@@candaniel Why? Christianity is founded on baseless statements. It's supported (by ignorant people and liars) on baseless statements. There are so many ways to disprove Christianity and the bible it's gone from being laughable to outright pathetic. There's nothing logical about Christianity. Why would I waste my time elaborating on anything when none of you has done anything to prove your position. Everything you people say is baseless and that's why it keeps getting thrown out and laughed at by every intelligent person. Prove your god exists, go for it. Show REAL evidence.
@@gilgamesh..... You wrote one long string of sentences absolutely filled with accusations, generalizations and insults, while not providing one single argument. Nor did you explain how the TAG ignores logic. That is what I call baseless. What do you gain from that? You don't even know me as a person, nor why I came to my beliefs to begin with.
As for evidence for God, what do you expect? Physical proof for a God who transcends the physical world? That is illogical. I presuppose God in the same way you presuppose all kinds of things. You cannot justify materialism, or whatever worldview you have, without inherent, unjustifiable assumptions.
@@candaniel What I wrote was truthful and accurate. The insults were there because they're honest and appropriate. No matter if you like it or not, if the shoe fits, then it just does. I was a Christian for decades. I've have plenty of interactions with them. I've seen the hypocrisy, immaturity and everything else first hand. Also, I realized it in myself when I realized how wrong it is and how wrong everyone is that believes in it. If you truly want me to give you an honest response though fine, I'll do so. And I'm not trying to be insulting directly to you, I'm just already aware of the responses and am so tired of putting forth facts that get ignored or twisted so you can hold on to your feelings and the lies that built them.
Fallacy number one, you just demonstrated without even realizing it. That would be you saying physical proof for your god isn't logical. It 100% is for an all powerful god, that is supposed to have created this universe and is supposed to be omnipotent. Your god is supposed to be omnipotent and all knowing. Therefore, by definition, it should posses unlimited universal power, authority, knowledge and force. It should therefore, LOGICALLY, be able to physically show itself. To deny that is to deny one of the basic beliefs of your god. It's 100% illogical to say an omnipotent being couldn't show itself. Now according to your scriptures, specifically, Genesis 12:7 17:1 22:11-14 and several others your god appeared to Abraham. According to Genesis 35:1 35:9 48:3 and others your god appeared to Jacob. According to Exodus (several passages I can list if you need) your god appeared to Moses. There are also the times your god appeared to Adam and Eve. And (this is a big one now that Christians like to use to support their position) is the claim that your god appeared to Paul (Saul) which is what lead him to converting. I can list so, so many others but hopefully you get the point. So you are illogical by saying your god can't physically show himself to me or anyone else. Has he become less powerful over the years? Or have you simply not read your own book? I have, cover to cover. I read the KJV of the Christian bible, some parts several times. I can logically and honestly tear down any argument you want to bring. If you'll be honest with what you say. I'm not presupposing anything and I won't be mean or rude as I was before if you'll not be like so many other Christians have been when I state facts.
People are being very uncharitable. Schermer is saying that there is an underlying reality, and the logical absolutes are just one of many formulations we have come to with to describe that reality. There are other formulations of the laws of logic. Even if Plato was right ontologically, epistemically Platonism is bunk.
This has nothing to do with Platonism. This is about necessity and contingency. Either all truths are necessarily contingent or all truths are necessarily either necessary or contingent. Either way, there are some necessary truths. If you admit necessary truths into your worldview (logical laws are candidate examples for necessary truths), you have to give an account for them.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl You say that if one admits necessary truths into their worldview then they must give an account for them. By "account" I assume you mean an explanation for why there are necessary truths. But presumably any such account would involve positing a necessary truth, which would require its own account. And then that account would involve another necessary truth that would require its own account, ad infinitum. So how can one avoid an infinite regress of positing necessary truths to account for necessary truths?
@@chad969
No, that's not what I meant exactly - but thanks for allowing me to clarify. Explanation generally bottoms out at necessity. I'm fine with allowing that. But a theory about the nature of truths is needed to ground necessary truths if we're realists about truths. If truths are real things in our ontology, they need to be given some sort of ontological grounding and explanation.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Please bear with me here because I’m a little confused. When you said “a theory about the nature of truths is needed to ground necessary truths…”, I assumed that you were using the word “ground” in an epistemic sense rather than an ontological sense. The reason I thought that is because theories about the nature of truth are contingent (since we are contingent), and obviously it wouldn’t make sense for something that’s contingent to serve the ontological grounding for something that’s necessary. But then you said “if truths are real things in our ontology, they need to be given some sort of ONTOLOGICAL grounding and explanation”. That made me think that maybe you were actually using the word “ground” in ontological and therefore non-epistemic sense. If there are necessary truths, how can those truths be ontologically grounded in a contingent human being’s theory about the nature of necessary truths? Wouldn’t those necessary truths exist regardless of our theories about them?
@@chad969 I understand why you could get that impression from what I said, but, to clarify, I am making an ontological claim.
I think he should said prove it exist in the mind of god
1:58 which principle
The copernican principle
If the laws of logic were actually grounded in your favorite god characterization then they would simply be the whims of logic - either secured by this being (somehow) and thus subjective and open to change or the laws exist objectively such that your favorite god characterization is subject to them the same as we are and thus offers no deeper explanatory foundation and is made entirely irrelevant/redundant.
TAG is the desperate final throes of a once powerful god now relegated to the imaginary recesses of its staunchest believers and most opportunistic grifters. It’s rather pathetic, honestly.
Christians literally have to deal with a paradox they wont explain, but make excuses for
The trouble is that many atheists (such as Shermer, here) are so committed to nominalism that they fail to call Christians out on this paradox. Because they're so committed to thinking of logic as a "human construct," they're unable to engage with the question that theists are actually asking. While it's asinine to talk of God creating logic (or emanating it, or whatever the heck else he supposedly does), and suggesting this suggests a God that is, himself, sovereign over and exempt from logic, an atheist who insist that logic is man-made cannot point this out. This atheist is, himself, postulating a world that was free from logic before humans came around to invent it.
It's more like humans have a specific interpretation because it obviously exists. The theist argument would suppose that the bat seeing the table is not possible of existing.
what do you mean by 'how' they exist? They exist necessarily, there's no possible world where they don't exist, and I'm sure most people would agree that necessary things don't necessarily have an explanation
Frank is a good guy, he owns atheists with compassion.
Michael just didn't have an answer..it just shows how much atheists will stumble denying God.. Sad really. Michael is a nice guy too
Here is the whole argument that Frank was making and Shermer was trying to strawman...
The steps to take to know God exist. First, start off from a solid philosophical position of, 'I think, therefore I am", as a founding principal of truth to knowledge itself and then to God's existence as being pragmatic as the result. Atheists make the error of discarding René Descarte's, "Cogito ergo " in favor of some empirical evidence based system yet known or defined to account for truth in moral oughts and ought nots as well as fact claiming. Science is about discovering "was is or is not" while religion is about discovering "what ought be done about what is or is not". Both have equal value within their own type of truths. Science informs us of "what we are" while religion informs us of "who we are". Atheists seem to not understand that both are actually separate and necessary steps to moral truths rather than opposing means of truth.
All forms of knowledge claiming, including science and empiricism are built on required presuppositions (faith asserting). Consciousness is the only substrate of any possible claim to knowledge and thus the starting and ending point to posit a reality or any truth. Why would one limit themselves to posit empiricism (science's founding principle) as the only method of truth, which is also a product/idea of “Mind” but leads to a world-view that denies one's self, the objective reasoner as no more than mere biochemical illusory as the result of it's assertions.
Empiricism states that knowledge must be restricted to those objects which can be perceived by our senses. At the same time empiricism requires non-empirical foundational presuppositions and these presuppositions are not material themselves, they are metaphysical. Empiricism must assume mathematics, logic and human reason trustworthy; and that the Universe is rational and in line with a rational human consciousness/mind because these are not physical objects which can be perceived by any of our five senses. Mathematics, logic and reason originate and reside in the metaphysical consciousness, the mind. These metaphysical conceptual constructs can not be tested/falsified outside of themselves empirically thus are asserted as objective.
The root problem in Empirical Science is a Materialistic positing that consciousness/mind is mere by-product functioning of brain. Mathematics, reason and logic would therefore be results of this mere by-product functioning of brain called “Mind”. If morality, self awareness, emotions and freewill are also mere results of Mind (the brain by-product) it would then seem to be just cherry picking to trust logic over self-awareness or mathematics over morality and in the end become some form of “begging the question”. Empiricism alone is self-refuting. The theory that all knowledge is limited to what can be empirically known is itself, incapable of being known or demonstrated empirically. When adding the fact that empiricism can not answer for any trustworthy substrate for knowledge that is solely metaphysical (one's self, the objective reasoner); and the fact that the only substrate for claimed knowledge is “one's self, the objective reasoner”, shows empiricism as fallacious at it's core claim of being the only methodology for knowledge. Are presuppositions knowledge, well no, in fact they are actually mere faith asserting.
Science's necessary presuppositions are otherwise inexplicable but logically follow after the positing of a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life. These presuppositions do not logically follow without such a worldview as to what is real and how we can know this to be reality.
Logic and math are also presupposed as vaild means to understanding what is real and our reality but also are inexplicable otherwise as to why they seem to function so well.
Once one posits a Supreme Being designer of the Universe and life; logic, reason, rationally, science and mathematics become validated. All above presuppositional foundations are accounted for with this starting principal notion; Pragmatically, there is a God".
Theism's discovery has predated or coincided with the discovery of philosophy, mathematics, geometry, logic, rationally and science. Why, because it validates their means and presuppositions as to actually true means of the knowledge of reality. Rather than failing to account for such unknowables, presuppositions are used to claim knowledge and even some people discard our ability to know anything at all. To hold presuppositions of one's abilities of their mind as "inexplicable" but nevertheless trust this mind to know what is real is a contradiction. It is a contradiction to assert that inexplicable means are able to lead to true and actual results.
Throughout almost every single culture, every single civilization, and every single human era including our modern era there is a history of a Supreme Being. It is a worldview that has been held since the beginning of recorded history and by the majority in every era. Theism has been independently discovered and revered over different locations, by different eras and different cultures. The mind found within mankind and mind's discovery of Philosophy, Mathematics, Geometry, Logic, Rationally and Science is evidence for God. Theism validated all of these, as they were being discovered, as a true means for mankind to know reality.
Moral obligations would not pragmatically exist if there is no God. It would be no less moral to cast a child into a river that you tripped over than to case a rock into a river you tripped over.
Morality, justice and guilt itself would not be pragmatic if there is no God. If any moral obligation is a net loss to the individual, it would not be pragmatic for the individual to follow such an obligation if there was no God.
A Russellian world implies this proposition and moral obligations with any net loss or that break even become impractical and absurd. You may claim that for yourself, "Pragmatically, there is no God", but you don't live your life by the consequences this assertion would make pragmatically. And if you don't even live by consequences this worldview pragmatically leads to, it surly cannot be pragmatic, even for only yourself to claim as true.
Freewill to choose immoral behavior or even prefer immoral behavior may seem to not be objective but once the ill-behaved is treated "badly" they will always contest this as cruel or wrong. Anyone as the victim of immoral actions will always desire to escape said immoral actions placed on them. This seems to lead to moral objectiveness. Many people may claim to be pro-abortion but if given the “choice” that they themselves stand in as the aborted, only the suicidal would volunteer. No one that values “Choice” would want to be aborted themselves other than the suicidal. The question then would be, not if abortion is moral but is suicide moral. This leaves no doubt about the question that abortion is immoral; meaning that the normal person that is pro-abortion would not want to be aborted themselves unless suicidal. Suicide is already against the law, so why is suicide against the law but abortion not?
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they appear from sensory perception. The mind's ability to know reality is dependent on a posited worldview to assert. All worldviews that operate on the assumption, "there is no God", further limit the mind's ability to know any true reality rather than affirming such abilities to knowledge. The worldview of "there is a God" affirms these abilities to know truths about reality. Therefore, it is not at all pragmatic to claim there is no God. However, it is essential that there is God in order to account for the otherwise inexplicable presuppositions in all means of knowledge. If means of knowledge are pragmatic then so is the worldview "There is a God" that actually validates these means.
Wg Williams©
@@caustixsoda8125 you want me to list my own comment as "too long, didn't read"? I wrote it so sure I read it and of course Frank's position is not something one could abstract in a short commentary. "The whole argument" means this will detailed and long read...
We are here to defend Christianity. Elijah mocked the followers of Ba'al. Wg Williams, I am totally up for reasonable debate but when an atheist attempts to deliberately ridicule and belittle me I will mock them with compassion, you can make fun of someone's belief with a smile and still remain compassionate with that individual. Atheists are followers of scientism, not science (empirical) but the scientism faith we see prevailant today. They have a fully fledged religion and it deserves to be mocked.
1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with *meekness* and *fear*
1 Kings 18:27 And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”
We are here to demonstrate the Bible verse, "Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools" as true. Call this accurate demonstration of a Bible verse what you will.
Yes that too.... 1 Peter 3:15 kinda includes that. ;-)
they just spoke past one another
Copernicus was a warm believing christian.
Shermer and Silverman are too trivial of debaters. Turek needs to debate someone more challenging like Hitchens
Frank’s question: Before there were any human beings on the earth, WAS the statement. “There are no human beings on the earth,” true?
My answer: That is a nonsensical question. Only statements/propositions can have a truth value, right? Objects or events cannot be “true” or “false”. And only humans can make or ponder statements/propositions. So, since only statements we ARE currently making or have recorded as some PERSON having made them can be said to be or have been true, then, as Shermer points out, there was no one around to make that statement for it to HAVE BEEN true. Only people can make true or false statements, so only people can make that quoted statement be true or false. No humans = no possibility of a true or false statement to exist.
What Frank is doing when he is thinking about that statement being true IN THE PAST is he is imagining himself back then, so for his brain to make sense of that statement which he is pondering NOW to be true, he has to imagine himself as some kind of godlike narrator or exclude himself from the human-less past scenario on which he is commenting.
A more sensible phrasing of his question would be: IS the statement, “There were no humans alive 2 billion years ago.” true?
The answer to that is “yes” because it’s a statement that a person is uttering now or has been recorded as uttering.
Could a circle have 4 sides before we existed?
@@Nox-mb7iu There were no "circles" before we existed. A "circle" is a very very very simplistic "2D" abstract concept -- a concept that only we (or possibly any other creature with a similar capacity for abstraction) have come up with. There are no "circles" in nature. What we see in nature, if studied closely, are vastly more intricate and complex 3D structures. Our minds vastly oversimplify these structures to create the abstract category of "circle" for the sole purpose -- our purpose -- of making it much easier for us to lump other similar structures into and discuss and navigate reality. But each of those similar structures are not actually "circular", and any mathematics we use to describe their form or behavior are limited to our abstraction and that particular simplified way that we would like to discuss such structures in nature for a specific purpose in that moment.
And, no, a circle cannot have 4 sides, because otherwise it wouldn't be a circle *as we define circles*. WE define what a circle is. WE add examples of circles to that "collection" in our minds and disregard anything else which would not match that definition -- merely for practical, cognizable purposes. The "circle" begins and ends in our minds. The reason why we all agree on what a circle is, is because we all have similar brain structures which have evolved to allow us to survive, navigate, and communicate about a shared reality, but a reality nonetheless in which there exists no actual "ideal perfect circle" as an entity unto itself, existing completely independently of human cognition.
@@bta1138dude you re being irrational, snap out of it
@@rub3n410 Defend your position, please. What is irrational about what I’ve explained?
Good dont let him off the hook with his mumbojumbo.
“We’re not special” then where are all the aliens?
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib That metaphor doesn’t work. We can see pretty far out into space and still there is no sign of life. The ocean is full of life.
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib If the universe is billions of years old and life is common, then there should be advanced life out there. There are ways to detect advanced life without seeing them on another planet. For example if an advance species lived in a Dyson Swarm or had built a Dyson Sphere we would be able to detect it without seeing it.
@@syn4588 There probably is life out there, but the universe is an extremely big place, and light is painfully slow. Anyone living around a star more than a couple hundred light-years from Earth would, at best, see a planet that might have oxygen on it if they look at us. The vast majority of stars in the galaxy are so far away that the light that they see from Earth predates our oldest known civilizations. Why should we expect to see any Dyson swarms? Even assuming we build one within the next thousand years, basically no one in the Galaxy will notice for tens of thousands of years yet. For all we know, we're surrounded by type 2 civilizations, and the light simply hasn't reached us yet
if they exist in the mind of god they exist in my mind too.
"before there were any humans on the earth, was the statement "there are no human on the earth" true?"
Frank's question is predicated on the assumption that the statement "there are no human on the earth" existed prior to humans. Why think that it did? There's no reason why Shermer should have to grant that assumption.
Logic requires GOD. Same with absolutes.
@@thelivingcross3785 Do you have an argument for that?
@@chad969 I just did.
@@thelivingcross3785 Well I see the conclusion: “Logic requires GOD”. But where are the premises?
[INTRODUCTION]
@chad
Well, Logic is immaterial, universal, abstract, and absolute. It cannot spring into existence with human intelligence, nor from social constructs, and materialists and empiricists rather presuppose Logic from subjective philosophy, hence it lies in circular reasoning. Logic cannot be justified with the epistemology of empiricism, neither can be physically demonstrated from our cognitive faculties; for they presuppose they're reliable to begin with. To the possibility of knowledge and reason cannot exist through a neurological mechanism. That would also presuppose there's a mind.
GOD is the Absolute Authority of Truth, thus indicating that anything that is Absolute, points to GOD. That's the Transcendental Argument. The Transcendental Argument justifies on why intelligent causality is a universal requirement; in where the Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument, and Absolutes are principles or Laws - in which are verified by GOD.
Forms are not existent, only matter exists
Said the omniscient cmvmic
@@rub3n410 you don't have to be omniscient to know that
This is just begging the question. "If God exists then he exists and that proves that God exists." This is how children think. Well, and apologists too, to be fair.
Wouldn't it be if solipsism is true, the chances of it would be 100%?
did he just used a principle of Capernicus, a Catholic Monk?
Do you know what the copernican principle is?
FT seems to bullying Shermer into accepting the burden of proof. It is FT's job to demonstrate that the laws of logic have to come from a God and he doesn't even attempt to do this. I have never seem any apologist make any headway in proving this because of the logic equivalent of the euthephro dilemma. Summed up in the question 'If God is responsible for the laws of logic could he change those laws?, could be make A = not A for example?'. If the answer is no then God is not the author of the laws of logic as he is bound by them and if yes, what possible universe could exist in which the logical absolutes do not hold? How could they be altered in such a way that they applied to any conceivable physical reality? also even if you could explain how this can be done then it would mean that the laws of logic are not transcendant and the argument fails again, hence my reference to the dilemma. Apologists usually either run and hide when faced with this question (IP), struggle and tapdance around (Matt Slick does this) or FT's method which is try and reverse the burden of proof. very dishonest Frank!
Postulating that that everything came into being by random chance does require the greater burden of proof. Don't you think?
It would seem here that you do agree that logic exists objectively. Amen. You are not saying that logic is merely human experience.
Now it also seems that you are saying that logic exists necessarily for the universe to exist. I agree. Like logic is an essential part of it. Now does the universe exist necessarily? Does the universe have to exist? What came first the laws of logic or the universe?
Two quick points on God 1)If God is bound by anything, that in which He is bound by is God. Infinite regress in impossible. 2) As with the question of morality Euthyphro's Dilemma is solved by considering that God is the source. He doesn't create logic. He is logic.
I don't opt for either of the options posited in the Euthyphro dilemma. I do not consider concepts like moral goodness and logic to be independent of God and self-existent in their own right - but to be grounded in the nature of God. If God did not exist, goodness and logic would not exist. So, the reason God cannot change them is because God cannot change. And God does not have to strive to meet them, because everything he thinks, says, and does is naturally good and logical. But perhaps it is more precise to say that goodness and logic are godly, since they are based on God's nature. I don't use this point as an argument for the existence of God though. I describe it merely as an attribute of God. MountainDew seems to agree. What do you think?
@@covenantsoul8027 how do we know god can not change? how do we know everything god thinks, says, and does is good and logical?
@@mountaindew7190 How do we exactly know that God is logic and that he didn't just create logic?
@@randominternetguy1499 For those of us who believe in the God of the Bible, we know such things based on the Bible. In addition to that, we also use reason.
Shermer: because there is reality......seems arbitrary to me. This is the level of new atheist
how is it arbitrary? the alternative is solipsism.
So you can’t explain it...therefore god did it...
Wow.. Dr. Frank..... Just wow
Oh good grief, Frank is confused about the laws of logic. The reason these laws exist is as follows. Lets take the law of identity for example, A=A, or, a thing is what it is and is not what it is not. This is one of the three classic laws of logic. That something is what it is, is the only way something can be. It is impossible for something to not be what it is. It is this impossibility that makes the Law of Identity a law of logic. This explains the law of identity without any reference to God. As I said, Frank is confused.
Logic is logical because of logic, sounds like you're making a circular argument, buddy.
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710Can you explain why you think I said that, because I don't think I did. Also, was anything wrong with what I said?
What makes a thing a thing?
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 That's not what I've said here.
@@andrewselbyphotography It's existence, of course.
Wow, Frank missed the boat by a train station on this one. (they cut off the video just before Shermer explained this) The laws of logic exist, today, and are a construct of our minds interpretation of what we can sense, how we communicate, and our ability to interpret, assess, and analyze the world around us. When we pose the question "before there were any human beings on the earth..." we are then able to communicate and interpret the premise. When he asks "is the statement there are no human beings on the earth true?" We can establish that through logic, any observer can deduce that the statement is true. A non human observer, or non-earthly human observer would both have come to the same conclusion that "there are no human beings on the earth" at that time.
This completely follows logic, and does not require a supreme being to enlighten or interpret anything about the circumstances.
This frank guy is just playing word games. If you think this is good evidence for God, oh my..
The TAG asserts that logic, laws, laws of logic exist.
PSA asserts that knowledge, reason-ability exist.
Sure is, nobody is forced to adopt these assertions.
I assert that imaginary objects as asserted in PSA and TAG do not exist.
Imaginary objects *(PSYCHE)* are mere-symptoms, inside-brain-effects, epiphaenomena
They are merely asserted.
They are merely assigned/attributed to all that is real *(Physis).*
These assertions *(Logos, Logoi)* are deemed to be useful, that's all.
Anyone with a brain in their skull can easily find out,
you cannot even prove or disprove
that the assertion "1=1" IS true or false.
The assertion is deemed to be, is asserted to be: Useful,
by some if not the majority, that's it.
Imaginary objects, including all **asserted** gods,
they are **unchangeable = immutable = ETERNAL**
for a simple yet surprising reason:
they do not exist in the first place.
The question whether unknown yet possible uncaused-causes created the universe,
is a different topic. Theistic Apolgists are merely trying
to lump "asserted gods" together with "possible gods"
HAD I the misfortune, to debate Prof.Turek, the my first questions a t him would be
Do you maintain the assertion, that you can use logic?
Can you demonstrate the usage of the imaginary,
in order to prove, that the ASSERTION "1=1" IS true?
If Prof.Turek is reading this, i would deem him to be wise,
if he goes asks a mathematician first!
I unambiguously admit that I hate liars. Both PSA and TAG are big fat lies.
Kind regards from GERMANY!
Hating lying implies a value judgment, which doesn't exist in your worldview.
@@Shane_The_Confessor >>>Hating lying implies a value judgment, which doesn't exist in your worldview.
You can't even account for assertions so replying is meaningless.
@@Shane_The_Confessor >>>You can't even account for assertions >so replying is meaningless
@@kleenex3000 In your worldview everything is meaningless, which is why I'm confused about your need to even engage in any discussion, let alone this one.
Man, his avoidance of a painfully relevant question is cringe.
The idea that the laws of logic are transcendent in nature leads theists into a very foolish error. One that is repeated here. The assumption that we humans "discovered" them. We did not. We invented them based on very real observations of the real world. Premises are always based on observations of the real world. Causes and effects are observable in the real world. Non-contradiction is observable in the real world. And because the laws of logic were formulated out of observations of the real world, that is why they were able to be constructed in such a way as to be recognisable to all humans.
"we invented them based on very REAL observations of the REAL world" to make the presumption that the observations are "real" you would need the laws of logic to begin with
Presup 👀
what if the earth is flat and WE ARE INDEED the center of everything ( just sayin' ). thoughts ?
That's the trascnedental argument? "I don't know understand how logic emerged, therefore god"? That's disapointing.
This response is quite disappointing. If it's not God then what? "I don't know"? that's not a satisfactory answer and is worse than trying something that is plausible.
VindicatedSoul I would say that Laws of Logic like A=A came from human beings. Do you find that answer unsatisfactory?
@@chad969 Not in that humans invented logic, only in that we recognize it. If logic is conventional then it is therefore subjective. A strawman today could be totally valid tomorrow and yet we would stillall know that a strawman is a fallacy because it avoids addressing the actual argument. But without that law transcending humanity, it would be subjective.
strawman
@@vindicatedsoul73 It is better to say "I don't know" than to believe a wrong answer
Shermer may sound like he goes off on tangents, but what he's trying to convey is that we have to look at ourselves and the world we live in with some *perspective.* We can't get caught up in our narrow-mindedness, getting off by trapping people in logic loops, like what Frank does.
Frank never brings anything new to the table. He's got his script, and he's a stubborn bastard about sticking to it. At least Shermer dares to have a little humility and speak off the cuff.
My friend, if you call making it up as you go along "speaking off the cuff" then OK. Shermer is the king of basically saying "we don't know", but then turning around and giving long explanations of things based solely on personal conjecture.
I pray that that one of those "logic loops" will speak to your heart. God Bless:)
Was he even answering the question? The man just went off on a quest of telling us he is not special compared to other humans. When the question was about if the laws of logic are transadental
Michael Shermer is like a discount version of Christopher Hitchens. You get the same self-contradictory nonsense but his stories are not nearly as interesting and he doesn't have the cool accent. lol
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Nice reading compensation. 😂
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib "nonsense"? According to What?
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib Reason? Where'd you borrow that from? Oh yeah, Christianity. Typical. 😂
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib My Bible starts with In the Beginning God... and the laws of logic make perfect sense coming from the mind of God. Don't agree? Good to know. How does the atheistic worldview make sense of them even existing?
@@AnonYmous-yj9ib First, of course atheism is a worldview. As far as the laws of logic, I'm pointing to the mind of God and your pointing to.... don't know. Got it. And should I assume that's also your answer for the laws of nature and mathematics, yes?
Near 1:27 on the clock, Mr. Turek said one of the most interesting question: how could we communicate if your logic is different than let's say mine?
I have never seen greater unification in a family, among friends, in a church, our government, what have ya than when people bear common sense. But to refute the fact that "common sense" is only as common as the people that bear it. It has to be truth shrouded in righteousness! Other than that it would be heaven in hell.....
You heard it folks, atheist don't beleive logic actually exist lol
Is your god dependent on the laws of logic or not?
If one is true or the other, you got more problems to deal with than with just some old plain skepticism coming from some syllogisms
No. What you heard is that Shermer is a nominalist. And, really, this is just a matter of the two of them talking past each other. Two men having different ideas of what they mean by "logic."
For those, however, who believe logic is something real that imposes itself on reality, suggesting that God is somehow responsible for logic is to take a position every bit as nonsensical as the nominalist stance. It proposes a space in existence in which logic does not apply. To say that logic depends on God is to postulate a God who is, himself, exempt from logic. He owns it, he controls it, he can decide what it does. We have a God who supposedly mandated against square triangles and married bachelors, and this would admit of the possibility of square triangles and married bachelors had God decided otherwise. Even theists who make this asinine argument don't believe in the God that it implies. This is shown every time they answer the question "can God make a rock too big for him to list." By insisting its a nonsense question, they indicate that they do not believe in the TAG God, because the TAG God could easily violate logic in order to accomplish any nonsense task.
Oh man... atheism can't even justify intelligibility. Look at Shermer dodging straight forward questions.
Can your sky daddy create a rock so heave he cannot pick it himself?
The guy is using Logic to discredit Logic, that's not funny :)
Look up Jay Dyer. He delves deep into TAG
I am a Frank fan but the scientist appears to be right on this topic. A statement like "there are no human beings on earth" before human beings existed is just how we today describe the state before we were here. It's not that complicated. You can apply that statement to before we existed in the English language in that way, while all the words mean the same thing. It will be described differently by someone from another country, or even the same culture at a different time. What we call "laws" are just our analysis of the interactions of things, a way to standardize our calculations for outcomes, that's all it is. This doesn't prove or disprove God.
@@Quentin94 That's assuming it can't be any other way. Different ways of interaction might produce different creatures asking these same questions.
Also, that wasn't the question. The question was do these 'laws" exist independently and the answer is the term law is just what we use to describe what we all see so we understand what we are talking about when we converse. The star doesn't know it has laws nor does it calculate anything, it's just (like the scientist) says, burning and doing whatever it does.
@@Quentin94 That's the thing, we live in this universe so we know these interactions. If we lived in a different universe we may not be the way we are now. We would be some other thing asking questions in some other way. This sisespecially true of the big bang is on a cycle. It could have happened a bagillion times before , watch with slightly different laws.
@@Quentin94 What you call a "standard" is how the fundamental forces interacted and formed in THIS(key word( universe or cycle). Countless attempts would make any possible occur.
@@Quentin94 Huh? I am not making standards. I am just telling what we see lol
@@Quentin94 This isn't a discussion, you are just playing with word's and issuing strawmans.
That last statement "The laws exist in the mind of god....." has to be demonstrated. The problem with the TAG argument is that it is never demonstrates this necessary element for the TAG argument to be a good argument. Even if I say that I don't know why the laws of logic present the way they do, this does nothing to demonstrate that a God exists through the TAG argument.
I think the case against the TAG argument is even better. Things have a nature because they exist. Our ability to describe this nature depends on our minds, but the nature of something is dependent on the thing that exists. Just because things have a nature, this in no way demonstrates that a God exists. Just because we have minds that can understand this nature, that in no way demonstrates that a God exists. The TAG argument is a very silly argument in my book. Asserting that the nature of thing is dependent on a God and then refusing to demonstrate this is as useless as just asserting a God exists and leaving it at that.
@@---yu7ff What is your proof that God is responsible for the laws of logic?
@@---yu7ff Nope, logic is just our way of understanding how things that have a nature operate. You have not shown a God is necessary or required for logic to exist. Since you have failed to demonstrate that your God is necessary for the laws of logic to exist, I am justified in rejecting your explanation/worldview until you provide such proof.
@@---yu7ff Please prove that God is responsible for the laws of logic.
@@---yu7ff I believe that things that exist have a nature.
@@---yu7ff a nature only applies to something that exists.
1:30 logical pluralism is a thing. Not a philosophers accept that the laws of logic are universal statements
If you're talking about Beall and Restall's work, it does not reject the universality of the laws of logic. It's an effort to reconcile different logics (Classical, Paraconsistent, etc) which have varying theories of validity. The idea is that multiple logics can correctly capture the logical consequence relation of natural language. The logics can disagree over the validity of different argument forms and still get things right, because they are capturing different aspects of validity.
Lol.. all the religious nuts in the comments. Thumping chests over a 2 minute video..
Watch actual full length debates.. that way you'll atleast get to hear both sides clearly.
And no, TAG or teleo or onto will not get you to Jesus(coz it's the bramha who y'all should be worshipping).. they are mental masturbations, which when properly deconstructed will leave you think of another argument..
That's how omnipotence went out of fashion...
When I was a kid I used to think that everyone behind my back was plotting against me and when I’d turn around, they’d all go back to what they were doing and therefore I never fully could know or not know if the whole world was conspiring against me behind my back. I also used to think that my stuffed animals were real. I also used to believe in Santa clause and when the whole god thing was presented to me, I knew that was the same thought process I once used. Especially when I would ask for evidence for such claims and get many different answers like, you just have to open your heart and god works in mysterious ways. It was then and there I knew that no one other human knows of a god and what it is. I knew then and there how full of egotistical crap everyone was who presented such claims. I knew they were using the very mentality I once used to believe in fairy tails and myths and that’s exactly what a god is, a myth. A figment of our imaginations. No one other human knows about before or after this life over any other. We are all in the same boat of not knowing and faith does not equal knowing.
Z Johnson I am presenting the fact that no one other human knows anything over any other human about before or after life and that the mentality used to believe you know such things is the same adolescent mentality we all had as children when we wanted our toys to be alive or when we thought Santa was a real person. That is all. As for anyone wanting to believe? Cool, just don’t act like you know.
Z Johnson then you’re trying to cap the infinite regression which by logic of things needing a creator, god would have to have had one too. And so forth. I don’t agree that your dichotomy is valid. There are many denominations and many forms of belief. And many people humble enough to admit not knowing or believing. Doesn’t mean you have to believe or not. There is middle ground. Nothing is absolute, black and white, and finite. As we know. Or lack of knowledge. Either way, the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of thou who state thy claims. Not the unbeliever having to try to prove why they don’t believe. The scrutinized can try to become the scrutinizer be it your kalam or what ever failed attempts to try to claim logic, knowledge, morals and good or evil rest within your perceived god. No one has yet to even prove a god exists, now they want to claim they know it’s behaviors and wants? I again, will always call bs to these claims. Especially when threats of damnation are presented. That’s where I will refute and scrutiny will follow.
@@zjohnson8773 Yes it is. Talking about "God", or metaphysic's, or the supernatural, ghost's, goblin's, El Cucuy etc... is meaningless as a topic to debate with any real world tangibility.
@@Kristoferwitha_k But he's right. God at his very best incarnation is filler. The blank answer screen. Hope above action. The embodiment of we "could" be doing rather than what should be doing.
Kristofer Milhauser why would I need some violent, near death experience or whatever you want to manifest to happen to me, for me to even consider believing? Why do you yourself not believe in other religions besides the one you grew up with. I think your lack of understanding who I am gets you to call me arrogant as I’ve laid out my experiences and how arrogant for Christians or any denominations of any religion to try to claim theirs is the real one over any other? All bibles fail to hold any more or less water for all are to be taken literal when desired to control people or figuratively when you can’t control people with such brutalities as are in many bibles. Things in bibles that tell believers to cause harm onto non believers and you know perfectly well why you can’t practice what the inquisitions or crusades did in modern times unless you want to look like the extreme religions killing infidels. Christianity, Islam, Judaea philosophies all worship the same god yet y’all squabbling still about who’s is right even though they all take faith yet between them, are all atheists to at least two out of three within those religions that all worship the same god....hmmmmm think about that. Think about why you’re an Athiest to Islam and Judaism if you’re christian. Why you don’t believe in other religions then come back and call me arrogant as you realize how arrogant you must be to prop up any of these three religions and act holier than thou.
The laws were formed by humans to describe things in a way humans can understand them and make sense of them. There's no evidence for these existing prior to the existence of life on earth. Next argument please.
Hello! I read your comment and was surprised how quickly you dismiss Mr. Turek's point. I am not trying to be argumentative. The point below is a serious attempt to get you to consider something beyond dismissing your initial line of thinking.
The laws of logic is helpful for understanding Truth. By truth, I mean accurate statements and/or accurate ideas. If the laws of logic were created by humans, then there could be no logic or truth prior to humans. That is, "Before there were humans, there were no humans." Is that true? Of course it is. But, he could not possibly be true if humans created the laws of logic because they didn't exist yet. Therefore, there must be logic/truth beyond humans. Thoughts?
@@preferablystephen480 Logic is not universal, it depends on a particular choice of axioms, classical logic is not the only one, we can construct logics whitout LEM or the law of non-contradiction, even the law of identity can be replace with relative identity. Ever heard of intuitionistic logic, paraconsistent logic or fuzzy logic?
Furthermore, Gödel's completeness theorem and soudness theorems provide justification for the use of some logical systems like classical propositional logic, or intuitionnistic logic in computer science. If our universe obey at a certain logical system (and at their associated algebra) then there's other possible universes which obey at different, exclusive and consistent set of logic.
There's NO "the" laws of logic like there's no "the" laws of physics, and God has nothing to do with that.
@@omega82718 Hello. I don't see much value in your comment. Truth is not relative. I believe that is Mr Turek's point. Even before man, did not gravity exist? Gravity did not begin to exist when man decided to try to understand why they didn't float away into space. Gravity existed before man described it. Things like this were true before man and before man described them. Man is just describing what is already true.
@@preferablystephen480 I agree with that and I also believe that all mathematical truths existed before us, math has a necessary existence.
Turek's point is that classical logic exists, and that's right, but that's not the only possible and consistent logic, there's different algebras that represent different set of logical systems, it's not even sure if our universe obey at classical logic, our final theory (or theory of everything) could be expressible in a different formal system, we just don't know and there's nothing very particular with classical logic.
1:29 - "How could you and I communicate if you had your own idea about the laws of logic and I had my own idea?"
Because both of your are basing those laws of logic on a common framework (i.e., reality).
This is just as silly as asking "How could you and I be talking to each other in English if English is a human invention?". Yes, English was created by humans, but this doesn't mean that *each individual human* creates its own version of English.
But according to my logic my dreams are reality 🤷♂️
*This is just as silly as asking "How could you and I be talking to each other in English if English is a human invention?".*
Frank did word it somewhat poorly there I think. The difference is human language is conventional, logic is not.
If you think logic is just based on "reality", then thank you for stirring the logical ones towards or side and keeping the illogical & irrational people yourselves.
> "The difference is human language is conventional, logic is not."
Agreed (or at least, human language is *more* conventional), but I don't think this saves the objection. The point is that just because something is a human construct doesn't mean it's subjective, or individual. For example, math is a human construct, but it's clearly based on observable reality.
*For example, math is a human construct, but it's clearly based on observable reality.*
The symbols that we use to represent quantities are human constructs. Math is not. Two plus two would be four even if there were no humans.
So we have things like mathematics and logic (as well as many other things such as the reliability of our senses and our memory, the inductive principle, etc.) that we need to make sense of the world. Atheism can not give any remotely adequate justification for these presuppositions. This is the transcendental argument for God's existence.
It's perfectly possible to justify the Laws of Logic without God. Lets take the Law of Identity for example, a thing is what it is, and not what it is not, expressed in the statement, A=A. So, we have a statement, A=A, and that to what the statement refers. The statement refers to the impossibility of things to be other than what they are, the statement describes the only way things can be, ie, themselves. That it's impossible for something to be other than what it is is the justification for the Statement A=A, the Law of Identity. That's all there is too it, no God needed.
That doesn't follow at all that God is not "needed", for three reasons:
1) It's not a question of "need". It's a question of causal agency and plausibility. Does the question of God make the most plausible sense out of the laws of logic?
2) Can the laws of logic still be true even if God did not exist? That's a question that the atheist cannot answer because according to the atheist, you cannot prove or disprove God in general either way. So why on Earth do you get this idea that you don't "need" God to explain the laws of logic? It sounds like you're trying to have it both ways.
3) If the laws of logic are axiomatic or self-evident in and of themselves, then why wouldn't that further justify an uncaused first cause that is self-evident and necessary in and of itself as well? Why does that not seem plausible?
@@josephthomasmusic If logic is absolute that I think you'd agree it was, then it's non contingent. If it was contingent, on a God for example, then it wouldn't be absolute.
@@Whatsisface4 It sounds like you're making an either or out of this, which is a false dichotomy. Either logic must be contingent on God or not contingent on God. It's neither. Logic and God's nature are one and the same. Therefore the laws of logic are absolute.
@@josephthomasmusic So you say, but you're going to have to do better than just assert that logic and God's nature are one and the same. Also, I didn't give that dichotomy, false or otherwise. My point was that logic can't be contingent on God for the reasons given.
@@Whatsisface4 Well that's the point. Contingency is a non-sequitor.
Also negating another person's claim without reason why is not a rebuttal. The point is as a theist, my worldview can account for the uniformity of the laws of logic. Metaphysical naturalism cannot. That's why Frank was challenging Shermer's point of accounting for the laws of logic. If the skeptic has a framework for accounting such laws then we would love to hear it. The argument for accounting for the laws of logic in terms of God makes sense because the laws of logic are absolute so if that's the case they come with a source that is absolute by nature as well. God by definition is absolute, and the laws of logic are absolute as well. To say they exist independently is to classify them in the same category as a god, which defeats the very purpose of the argument that the skeptic is trying to raise against their "needing" to be a God for the laws of logic. So the skeptic either way has no sufficient argument against laws of logic coinciding with God's nature.
So that is not an assertion on my part, that's an actual argument that follows logically from the premises. Arguments do count as evidence. If you have an argument to account for the uniformity of the laws of logic as a skeptic then I would love to hear it. But until then, you can't just say that my argument is just an assertion. You must present a counter argument to account for the laws of logic in a universe in which a God is not present.
If you have an argument to support such a thing then I would love to hear it.
"We're not special.." As he ignores the Fermi paradox and the fact that he makes ethical claims using logic and language.
Professing to be wise, they became fools. - Romans 1:22
The Fermi paradox isn't a paradox if you know anything about what you're talking about. The inverse square law is a thing, and light is very slow. Even assuming aliens are looking for us, there's no record of human existence outside a couple hundred light years sphere around Earth. Why should we expect alien civilizations to have become as advanced as we are, long before we were?
@@andrewsad1 You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
@@causeXeffect23 Do you?
I don't know what's more shocking, how confused Frank is by this concept or the number of people here that think he came off well. Do a little reading folks, this isn't a difficult concept.
1:11 the answer is obviously not because that statement was not uttered by anyone yet and could not have a truth value. However, if someone (say an alien) would have come along and uttered it, then yes it would be true since in fact the statement would convey a concept (that there ate no humans on earth) would match reality.
How can Frank argue with atheists, when he himself is in darkness. May Allah-swt guide him-amen
that's a theist vs atheist debate . You have to support Turek and monotheism.
@@sokratiskonstantaras320
You r absolutely right dear. But Frank should also know his status.
Mohammad Sayed you are in darkness .. Islam is a cult .. God bless you
Believers of different religions use exactly the same argument to prove the existence of their gods.
It's really weird, isn't it?
To Frank, those gods are nothing but dummies and he would even call them trash, wouldn't he?
But he uses exactly the same argument they use to prove what he'd call trash.
It can be used to prove the existence of any god.
All you have to do is to say "god is a necessary precondition."
I know not a single theist has been successful in proving the existence of a god but Frank should be aware that this "transcendental argument "is already so worn out and unconvincing.
akasatana202 not weird at all if God is the reason why anything and everything exists, and if he is the foundation of all knowledge. It’s precisely what Paul teaches in Romans and is an elementary Christian theological concept. All men know god in a general sense - general revelation - but to know specifics of his character and design and plan god must somehow reveal himself to man. - special revelation.
The fact that humans are sinful and fallible and distort his special revelation, in no way undermines the validity of his general revelation. It is exactly what we should expect if the Bible is true and if man truly is an enigma, created perfectly in his image, but also fallen and distorted.
@@a5dr3 Imagine somebody from a different religion, say, "Spacetology" comes and says to you the following.
"God is the reason why anything and everything exists, and he is the foundation of all knowledge. It’s precisely what his apostle teaches in our holy book and is an elementary theological concept. "
"Spacetology" is a relatively new religious cult in my country (and I just named it in English) that supposedly worships the "Creator of the Universe" who they say is "the reason why anything and everything exists."
Replace the god's name with another one and it still works fine.
Try Zoroastrian god, Hindu god, or whatever gods you'd like to.
All you have to do is to come up with a deity and give all the convenient attributes to it.
You can just conveniently define your god to fit your "god hypothesis" too.
Or you can even write a book about the deity to make it look more probable.
See the problem?
You don't see any problem with Spacetology believers using the exact argument to prove the existence of their god?
They don't see any problem. They think it perfectly works.
As you can probably see this "Transcendental Argument" can be used to prove the existence of anything-any god that you would even call trash.
The Transcendental argument for God is an argument for GOD. It's not an argument for the Christian God. This argument is strong against athiests/agnostics. If Frank Turek wants to debate another religious apologist on why the Christian God is the true God, he would use a different argument.
ClubicaArt I’m not sure where your getting your information but TAG is most certainly an argument uniquely for Christian theism. I know, (knew,) the people who created it, and it is essentially claimed by Westminster Seminary even today, as being precisely that.- If you want to know why look at the link I left in the above comment.
@@a5dr3 Us Hindus have been using this argument for hundreds of years. You should read the Vedas and Upanishads.
Transcendental Argument just proves that we are shattered pieces of God and reality is a mathematical mind.
Surely doesnt prove the christian god. If morality is considered to be an absolute trancedental category, then god is guilty of breaking them all through acts such as genocide and imposing slavery.
Thus morality becomes nothing more than just a tool god can play around with and if this is the case, we do not have access to the knowledge of what absolute morality is or could be, and the same can be said for every other category
Atheists- “The chances of me being THE ONE who is alive and everyone else being zombies is so low”
Christians - “yes I agree. And the chances of naturalistic evolution are even MORE slim.”
Atheists - “yeah but I believe in that”
Must be nice to pick and choose what you believe based on your own opinions and desires
Well that wasn’t accurate at all
@@therick363 the natural process of life starting on earth from non life is basically impossible… it’s more likely I am in a simulation like the matrix and I only think this is the real and true reality
@@timothyvenable3336 maybe I misunderstood what you meant. Are you saying that atheists believe in evolution like a belief? That atheists pick and choose what to believe in based on opinions and desires?
@@therick363 sorry, I edited my last comment because it wasn’t true… had to rewatch the video
@@timothyvenable3336in order to make a statement about what's more likely, you would have to establish how likely any of these premises actually are in the first place
Shermer isn't intelligent enough to debate Frank.
WOOOAAAHH DOOOODE! What an excellent, well thought out, well researched and well articulated sophisticated argument right there. You intellectual genius you, you heavy weight master mind, you Einstein junior, you high flying brainiac. Dammit, somebody give this dude his well deserved nobel prize already!! NOW!!
Atheist did a awesome job. He explained himself clear and honest. While the theist argues he can’t or isn’t aloud to think for himself he needs a special Friend to tell him what to think rather how.
Only another atheist can stupidly believe what Michael shermer said there was in any way related to the question lmao
Strawman.
Frank should try listening as much as he loves twisting scripture and committing logical fallacies.
cubs0110 don't upvote yourself
Nice try.
Please elaborate
Muttley Mutt
Don't even bother, bro, unless you enjoy banging your head against a wall of perversely willful ignorance.
"Frank commits logical fallacies!"
He shouts as he commits his own logical fallacies.
The irony!