Let's Review CosmicSkeptic vs. Counsel of Trent Because Why Not
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 вер 2022
- A review of a discussion between Cosmic Skeptic and Counsel of Trent, covering topics like the problem of evil and morality.
Link to original video:
• Why I Am/Am Not a Chri... - Розваги
So true that theists turn into giga-consequentialists when the POE comes up
I'm SO glad he brought up that point. I remember first learning about the POE (when I was a Christian) and thinking that the free will defense couldn't work if either a) free will didn't exist, or b) consequentialism wasn't true. Very few people fall into that camp, including the vast majority of Christians.
My biggest problem with Trent's response to magical hide and seek is that it implies that being an uninformed agent is better than an informed agent.
It never ceases to amaze me that theists can be so incapbable of thinking from someone else's perspective, that they think an internal critique is the same as an external critique.
It feels like heresy to think from someone else's perspective.
As an former theist, I think that I'm just as capable of thinking as I was then. Let us not fall for the whole tribalism thing and generalizations
1:46:03 - The apologist's reply that, "Well you don't even think evil exists in the first place" is simply a way to shift the pressure off of themselves and onto their opponent. When the atheist points out the existence of evil in the apologist's worldview, the apologist feels threatened, so he lashes out at the atheist for suggesting that evil exists. It's not that Trent doesn't understand internal critiques, it's just that his fight or flight response is kicking in.
Well of course Christianity explains everything: it's magic. Magic can explain anything and everything. Well done, Trent.
And stupidity explains your comment, from both sides of the argument.
Trent's a staff apologist.. okay. Are there sword apologists? There are a lot of flailing apologists!
Gold! Thanks for the laugh
There is nothing worse than a three stage thermonuclear apologist.
What an argument by Trent "It's a very weird thing to have". We could apply that argument to things pertaining to Christianity. Like, it's a weird thing to have a god who has to force a teenage girl to give birth to it's son.
Or, its wierd to ceremonially eat your God. Or it's wierd that a all knowing deity didn't leave any writing behind in his own hand when he supposedly showed up. Or it's wierd that a god that apparently loves us let us suffer for thousands of years while he watched us develop germ theory.
So many things.
It's weird to sacrifice yourself to yourself to appease yourself by exploiting a loophole in a rule you made.
@@JM-us3fr lol. It's wierd that sacrifices atone for sin in the first place. Like, how does choking a chicken atone for the fact that I "choked the chicken"?
@@uninspired3583 And even if it did atone, the bible makes it clear that I would need to highly value my sacrifice, and that's what makes it a good sacrifice. Since most of the world didn't value Jesus, it's a completely worthless sacrifice.
Hard to take Trent seriously when he believes that not going to a Catholic Mass deserves the same punishment as genocide (as listed at the back of his book, Why We're Catholic)
Catholics really shouldn't get super judgey about people committing genocide. Hypocrisy isn't a good look.
I am so grateful for this video James. I was loosing interest in this debate for almost a year now, since I was bumbing into the same arguments over and over just differently expressed. This is just a huge breath of fresh air and I can move further thanks to you
When theists say you can't have good without God, it reminds me of the Terry Prachett novel where they stop the pharoh from summoning the sun in the morning and "all that rises is a big ball of flaming gas".
10/10 thumbnail
1:01:25 - Yep, God is omnipotent, right until he needs to actually do stuff, then he suddenly has all these odd restrictions.
James, you should check out the "Problem of no best world", it's a not well known but incredibly powerful argument for the claim that the existence of a perfect God is logically inconsistent with any creation at all. I think it also makes the case for the fact that the existence of a perfect being is logically impossible, even without creation. But anyway, look up Dr. Klaas Kray's work on this for a beginning
Thanks I'll take a look
Lots of great points james! Hope you get a follow up wit Rebekah from bread of life and adress the concept of 'intrinsic value". Seems a big part of most theologies really depend a lot on that.
I don't think it's worth continuing this specific discussion, but I'd love for you to continue reviewing others
God wants to keep an epistemic distance to enhance the relationship? I wonder what my wife would say if I enhanced our relationship with epistemic distance. How is that "epistemic distance" garbage compelling in any way?
I wonder if staffing hired an Assistant Staff Apologist for those days Trent is sick?
I think he basically said "yes I have an inconsistent view"
Hey, how did you get your SEP to look so good?
And here I thought Trent was a bit more philosophically sound than shown here. He is just your average goal shifting, frankly intellectually dishonest apologist.
Yeah me too. I've never really listened to him before, so I guess I was just going on what others have said.
I actually think Trent is one of the worst
That thumbnail xD
We do consider freedom to be more important than stopping people from committing crimes. We don't lock people up or drug them just because they are capable or likely to try to commit crimes. What we do do that God doesn't, is to try to stop them when they try.
Although I agree with you point about the naturalist not having the burden of prove and therefore "the reactive approach" is maybe unnecessary, however, I think by taking the above approach, Alex is able to get deeper into the psyche of the Christian and it initially empathises with them and then shows them why what they are postulating is flawed logically etc
Why does the naturalist not have a burden to prove? Naturalism is a positive claim about the world.
@@natanaellizama6559
You're mistaken for two reasons. Firstly, the primary distinction is that a claim involves asserting something as true. In this situation, it's not about someone asserting a belief as true, but rather about someone questioning or not sharing someone else's belief.
The second concern is that they aren't the ones proposing the concepts in question. If you don't believe in Santa Claus, it's not necessary to differentiate between the small or hefty version. If I were to ask, you'd probably reply that you don't believe in either.
This is analogous to the perspective of atheists. I've encountered various interpretations of gods. Most of the entities people assert as gods don't align with my beliefs. Some of these entities have genuine existence, but I hesitate to categorise them as gods (for example, the sun, love, the universe, etc.), as I see no compelling reason to use a less practical label for them.
1:00:00 well also what strikes me is where is the balance, cos if there are all these evils going on that cause greater goods how can there ever be a state where there is no evil? if the end goal is a place with no evil, how can you achieve that when apparently we need evil to cause the good? and yes, i joke that i cause as much suffering as possible, cos actually it's good, which is fun.
God the utility printer xd
How do Christians know their god isn't just loki playing a joke on them?
Anthony Flew was on the tail end of his life and Christian’s use that as a significant win. Lee and J Wallace I also don’t think thought about god enough to know if the idea was possible. I think them realizing Jesus actually existed was sufficient for them.
1:57:00 james you're mistaken in saying that Alex changed the subject
In fact his mention of animal suffering was to press the point that god should compensate for all this suffering. That would make him a giga consequentialist which we find immoral
But the point being discussed was not "that god should compensate for all this suffering". It was that Trent claimed Alex could not critique Christianity's position on suffering because, according to Trent, Alex can't ground morality. But Alex doesn't have to ground morality to be able to critique Christianity.
Things become more clear when you stop pretending that people like Trent horn are good faith actors. He's a sophist playing to an audience.
He's talking more than Alex but saying less. Dodging any questions jumping from point A to B to C and back to A just to run out the clock.
If you talk to a sophist at all, it should be laser focused on laying bare their cheap debate tactics.
You are better at this than most in that you actually recognize when someone dodges a question, changes the subject and starts a counter attack ("you can't even ask that because there's no right and wrong under naturalism").
Alex is still led around by the nose.
Something about these two guys talking feels so uninteresting to me. It’s like they’re apparently bringing up really powerful arguments but the other one neither really accepts the point nor refutes it nor raises the perspective to the broader discourse.
They both have such a strong tendency to go into story-time-mode to hijack the conversation. Pinecreek would just call it bloviation. Talking much isn’t always bad of course but the way they do it sometimes just makes me zone out and when it doesn’t it kind of makes me want to.
I think Alex particularly has somewhat of an overemphasis on topics where he happens to have a philosophical story time response and his emphasis and rhetorics makes me feel like I’m watching amateur acting. Like he’s good at it I just don’t think it’s very productive.
And it allows Trent to lightly jump between topics, say some minor points without really being pressured on them.
Look into the channel called proving Islam because they look at a scriptural way of arguing and I would like to see if you think its any different from Christians justifying Jesus being crucified and resurrected
Trent starts with the Christian god and will scoop up whatever is around to try and prove it.
Dear Mrs. Lincoln,
Please accept our condolences for the loss of Mr. Lincoln.
As a token of appreciation, you and your family are welcome to attend all future events at Ford's Theater free of charge.
Sincerely yours ......
About the happines vompensation. Doesnt God already knows that you are willimg to sign the informed contract?
Trent: "resurrection of Jesus Christ best explains the origins of Christianity." Huh? How then do you explain the origins of Mormonism? Today it is spreading wider and faster than Christianity, and it has zero credibility. Or how do you explain the origins of Islam? The point being that truth has nothing to do with the rise and spread of religions.
53:50 yep, surely we wouldn't have a clue god exists if he wants us to be acting entirely sincerely.
😇 May God Bless You Always! 😇
What a lunatic bot
mAy GoD bLeSs YoU aLwAyS!🥴
@@MLamar0612
Good Girl! 👌
Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱
It's slightly amusing to me you complain about Alex's pedantry but you talk for Daaaaayyyyyyssssss
Oh man I'm getting a headache a 4 minutes in. How the hell does god solve the infinite regress? He is infinite too?
Infinities are part of existence scientifically speaking so why wouldnt the universe be infinite? WHY NOT? And how the hell is god supposed to be the answer here? and if god is the answer then why can't there be something undiscovered with simular properties?
it huuuurts
Why would anyone want Christianity to be true from the perspective of (Christian) history and the existence of an apparently jealous and morally highly dubious deity? Also, spending eternity together with self-righteous and hypocritical people isn't on my wish list.
Philosophy is stuck in pre-scientific modes of thinking. The God Debate has been over since at least Darwin in 1859, but more probably since D’Holbach and Hume in the 18th century. The question now should be ‘How can we retain the good things from Theism without the theological substrate?´
Actually, theism isn't taken seriously at all in academic philosophy. For most professionnal philosophers, the God debate is indeed over
@@cultofscriabin9547 I still think most of what philosophers do is useless.
Silly ideas like panpsychism are taken seriously. Even the sensible people, like those engaged in formal logic and analytics, are engaged in games about concepts and words that don’t justify the resources devoted to them. There are exceptions, like Alex Rosenberg, but most of it is from my perspective bunk.
@@davethebrahman9870 From all the people I heard make statements along the lines of "most of what philosophers do is useless" all of them were people who know very little or nothing about philosophy
@@cultofscriabin9547 Yes, that describes me pretty well. My knowledge of Interpretive Dance Theory is pretty shaky too.
@@davethebrahman9870 Yeah so I recommend you to not have strong opinions on things you know little about, because your opinions will very likely be bad
lol, omninipotent. god is nipping at your toes.