2 Incredible Ways The Cybertruck Proves God!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 гру 2023
- In this video, I explain two unique ways that the recently released Cybertruck actually points to the existence of a creator God. The second reason is even stronger than the first!
Special thanks to Dr. Josh Rasmussen for providing helpful comments on earlier drafts of the script.
FREE STUFF -------------
"The Rationality of Christian Theism" & "The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners" E-Books (completely free): tinyurl.com/CCFREESTUFF
GIVING -------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all our supporters for your continued support! You don't have to give anything, yet you do. THANK YOU!
SOCIAL -------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
Website: capturingchristianity.com
MY GEAR -----------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/43Ty8BD
Lens (Nikon Z 24mm f/1.8): amzn.to/3YkeD4c
HDMI Adapter (Elgato HD60 X): amzn.to/3DFUKe4
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/44NJtUZ
Audio Interface (Apollo Twin): amzn.to/44SRF6w
Key Light (Aputure 300X): amzn.to/3Qs1WSZ
Color Back Lighting (Hue Floor Lamps): amzn.to/3DDkpnL
Recording/Interview Software: www.ecamm.com/mac/ecammlive/?...
CONTACT ----------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Apologetics #CapturingChristianity #ExistenceofGod
The cybertruck seems like a great way to meet God personally. So that’s a way to prove His existence I guess.
I can think of better ways but if it works it's better than nothing I suppose. 😅
This is the best comment. I don't need to read anymore. Nothing can top it.
It is also an excellent murder weapon for pedestrians.
😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣💀💀👏👏👏
The fact that this is simultaneously bait and a genuine philosophical argument is pretty funny
Indeed. 👌👌
Well it is definitely the first
I would have thought that the cybertruck is actually an argument for original sin, because only a fallen race could have come up with such an affront to pickup truckdom.
😂😂😂
The worst part of it is that it is being built in Texas, and a Texan is promoting it as an example of objective beauty.
Turns out the cyber truck is merely evidence humans can create cyber trucks.
@@introvertedchristian5219 As a Texan, I can confirm that this is terrible.
The cybertruck is proof of God's existence because as we continue to secularize, our trucks have gone from the high resolution detail of an F150s to the Nintendo 64 polygon art that is the cybertruck.
Reason #1:
Premises 2 and 3 are assertions and no effort is made to validate that these premises are true and valid.
When you honestly can't tell if they're just trolling Christians. If this was satire, well done.
0:50
1 Some things are ugly. (your shirt)
2 If God exists, it's surprising that things are ugly.
3 If God doesn't exist, it's not surprising that things are ugly.
4 So, ugly things provide strong evidence against God.
My husband put his name in for a cybertruck but he changes his mind because they did not delivered what they said they would, which is the range, tow capacity and partially bulletproof (only subsonic), and the price is alot higher than the original price. When they said in the beginning the original price was 40,000 and now is 100k.
I am glad he changes his mind, because we don’t need another car when we already have two cars is paid off and running fine. I hope you get your dream car.
Actually i fyou account for inflation, the price is in line. 40% cumulative inflation since 2019
I think the cyber truck is hiddeous. The fact that there are people who think it's not only beautiful, but objectively so, makes me question whether the "objective beauty sensor" is a reliable belief-producing mechanism.
I think it's kind of cool, but definitely wouldn't think to call it beautiful.
"Beauty" is a highly variable sort of quale that creatures like us, who can rationalize and articulate what we think and feel, experience. Though I think the argument for God from beauty is goofy overall, I nonetheless have a bit of sympathy with it in a general sense.
I think it looks really cool and futuristic. Maybe you're just boring af 😂
🤖
This text presents two arguments that supposedly link the newly released Tesla Cybertruck to the existence of God. Let's analyze the logical and scientific aspects:
Argument 1: Beauty as Evidence for God's Existence
Some things are beautiful; the Cybertruck is beautiful.
If God does not exist, it's very surprising that anything beautiful exists.
If God does exist, it's not very surprising that anything beautiful exists.
Beautiful things provide strong evidence for God.
Analysis:
The argument begins with subjective premises about beauty.
The transition from beauty to the existence of God relies on the assumption that God is necessary for beauty, which is subjective and not universally accepted.
The objection that beauty is subjective is addressed but not entirely convincing.
The conclusion seems to be based on personal convictions rather than a strong logical connection.
Argument 2: Dependence as Evidence for God's Existence
Some things exist dependently (e.g., the Cybertruck).
If some things exist dependently, there is something that exists independently.
There is something that exists independently.
The best explanation for why something exists independently is that God exists independently.
Analysis:
The concept of dependence and independence is introduced, relating it to the Cybertruck and, by extension, the universe.
The argument is presented as stronger than the first, but it introduces the idea of something existing independently without clearly establishing why it must be God.
The Perfection solution is proposed, suggesting that something perfect (God) existing independently is a better explanation.
The paper quotes a source that argues a perfect being would be too great to depend on other prior things.
Overall Analysis:
The arguments contain logical structure, but the premises rely heavily on subjective interpretations of beauty and abstract concepts like dependence and independence.
The transition from the characteristics of the Cybertruck to the existence of God is not logically robust and may be seen as speculative.
The arguments mix subjective experiences (beauty) with abstract philosophical concepts (dependence, independence), making it challenging to draw concrete scientific conclusions.
The text lacks empirical evidence or scientific observations to support the claims.
In conclusion, while the arguments may resonate with individuals who share similar beliefs, they do not provide a scientifically rigorous or universally convincing case for the existence of God based on the Tesla Cybertruck. The concepts of beauty, dependence, and independence are highly subjective and abstract, making it difficult to establish a strong logical connection to the existence of a deity.
🤖
Great video!
Nice Video, Cam. I liked it a lot.
Nice one!
Your assumption is that the truck is beautiful. Many people I know (including myself) think it’s a pretty freaking ugly truck lol
Did you even watch the video? Lol
The person actually proved God is real by that comment.
In your reason #2, state that “there are some things (plural) that exist dependently”, but then state that “there is something (singular) that exists independently”. Why can’t there also be some things (plural) that exists independently? It seems to me that you’re trying to smuggle a singular god into your argument.
If there's more than one independent thing, they would comport to the exact same standard of perfection, thereby be the exact same thing.
If any one was lacking in some attribute, then it would be dependent.
A perfect being is more than capable of creating this universe, so why posit multiple independent things to explain the same data when one is sufficient? It is Occam's razor.
Yeahh god is nothing more than a middle man
Hahaha, I love that you defended premise 1 as being the most attacked. Hilarious
As to Argument 1, premise 2. What is beauty. It really a conglomeration of multiple things that each have a reasonable evolution by natural selection explanation. In general it is just a stimuli that draws mindful creatures to things that benefit them. Aligning motive to survival in a positive way.
The second argument is consciousness itself. This is another god-of-the-gaps argument which one will either reject or accept based on belief. No one has ever proven where human consciousness comes from so not evidence, just conjecture.
As to argument 2, contingency is an illusion based in the mechanics of human cognition. Mater and energy are not created or destroyed, merely reconfigured.
Beauty cannot be explained by evolutionary processes, the second half of your comment demonstrates that. Beauty is a conscious experience, and that experience is unnecessary in causing behavior, like stimuli to a robot.
Merely positing that beauty is a form of stimuli for evolutionary goals does not answer it whatsoever, as robots are move by stimuli but lack conscious experience of beauty.
Additionally, claiming that beauty is explained by evolution is a “just-so” story. The evolutionary explanations given are just wild guesses, usually completely shallow. (What evolutionary reason do we have for finding the images of the hubble telescope beautiful? Why is an artistically masterful photograph of a desert more beautiful than a competent-yet-uninspired photograph of a resource-rich forest?)
“God-of-the-gaps” is a lazy critique. First of all, its not God of the gaps, just basic reason, that grounding reality in a conscious mind makes more sense of the existence of consciousness and conscious minds than reality grounded in non-mental matter.
Second, *every* theory or model ever is meant to address gaps in a preexisting model. Calling something “god of the gaps” is just acknowledging the fact that the God hypothesis makes sense of data that the atheist hypothesis fails to account for.
@@repentantrevenant9776 1. Beauty absolutely is a motivating stimulus. Like I said there are many different things we lump into that word, the beauty of a starry sky is not the same as the beauty of the human face nor the beauty of a reunion with long missed friends. The fact that it is complicated doesn't make it not causable by natural selection. Using it broadly is just self justifying rhetoric.
As to the specifics of the beauty of the starry sky I can thing of two natural selection phenomena that would explain it. First, humans are attracted to bright things, it could be due to the selection that lead us to value fire. Second it could be for navigational purposes. Many creatures, even insects look to the sky for direction.
Finally god-of-the-gaps is 100% a valid criticism of any divine explanation of an observable phenomena. Throughout human history tons of phenomena have had a god explanation. The reproduction of frogs, solar eclipses, changing of seasons, sneezes and many more. There has never been a single phenomena thats had a god explanation that once known actually was a god explanation. You guys are batting 0 for a lot.
@@andrewmn3024 Your fundamental lack of understanding of classical theism is so drastic that it’s difficult to even find where to begin.
Theists don’t look at naturally occurring phenomena and think “well at some point God just does a miracle.” God created the natural order, so it should operate without need of miraculous interruptions (the spawning of frogs, etc), or else it would be an imperfect creation.
This is utterly different from things like beauty and conscious experience, which are qualitatively different from the world of movement and quantity that can be described by the material.
Your naturalistic account of why the hubble telescope’s images are beautiful is exactly the kind of shallow, reductionistic, wild guessing “just-so” story that I was complaining about. But even that doesn’t even come close to understanding or addressing the problem of the subjective experience of beauty in a conscious mind. It’s a category error.
Calling the hard problem of consciousness and the mind-body problem “god of the gaps” arguments reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the issues at play. Literally anything could be explained away by saying “_ of the gaps,” because gaps in understanding is exactly what you’re supposed to look for to reveal when a model is deficient.
@@andrewmn3024 calling beauty a “stimulus” shows that you fundamentally just do not know the difference between conscious experience and stimuli that prompts behavior. A robot could be prompted to be directed towards light, or sound, or visual stimuli, without ever having a subjective experience of beauty.
Any explanation rooted in behavior or natural selection does not address the problem, because such stimuli leading to behavior would be logically possible without the subjective experience of beauty.
Conscious experience is what you’re missing. The first-person mental rather than the third-person material. And the existence of such a phenomenon makes more sense in a reality with a mind as the foundation than the kind of fundamental reality that atheists imagine.
On a side note, I was curious why the designers made the Cybertruck the shape that it is. It’s very angular with sharp edges and flat panels. Turns out it’s to do with the materials used and the function. Form follows function. That’s an interesting design point. The purpose of the truck and the materials used create necessary design limits.
They can shape metal in almost anyway they want, so your argument does not follow.
@@darrylelam256 it’s not my argument. It’s the explanation of those who know about it. I looked it up. It is stronger in its current form.
@mc07 No it isn't as the metal it's made of can and has been shaped to many different forms, so your ARGUMENT is invalid.
@@darrylelam256 are you incapable of reading? Did you not read my comment? It’s not my argument. I looked it up and that’s what I read. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the manufacturers. It’s not my argument.
@mc07 I am perfectly capable of reading, and it's amazing are all the other car developers aren't so limited, almost like you are full of it. So don't try to blame a bad design on the same materials that every other truck and car uses. Your ARGUMENT is complete and total crap.
Is this satire?
Can’t wait for Joe Schmid’s 2 hour rebuttal
I'd make my typical hour long response but honestly its so simple that it doesn't need one. Ugly things and pretty things do not prove anything at all. These are wholesale asumptions on his part.
Brilliant! I'm getting that truck.
If it ever goes on sale for an amount of money that isn't stupid considering the rest of the market.
Ultimate word salad...HAHAHA
These arguments were pretty funny in how terribly they were constructed. You claimed even if it’s not beautiful it still proves G-d bc there are other beautiful things like sunsets…but then the cybertruck obviously wouldn’t be proving G-d, by your own reasoning, the sunset would be proving G-d. not sure how u could have missed such a glaring flaw in your argument.
Your second point had equally ridiculous holes in its reasoning, but idc to bother typing them out, I’ve already devoted more time than I should have to this lame low-effort video
Well he clearly stated he could've used anything that's beautiful for this argument. He's not arguing that the cybertruck proves god, he's arguing beauty does and the cybertruck is his example of beauty in this case, he then explains he could use anything else that's beautiful such as a sunset and the argument would be the same. This video is clearly not a serious argument for God so I'm not sure why your so pressed about it tbh. Seems you wasted more time than necessary to debunk an argument you don't understand.
Is the first way an argument from consciousness? It's a bit unclear why you think the subjective experience of beauty is unlikely through evolution.
Hey, off topic but can we pray for my sister? She's just come out as trans, and I'm just lost and confused right now.
Oh poor thing, yes let's bow our heads and pray right now. Dear lord..
Just kidding. Get tf over it lolol
I will now look at dust and wonder if it's having a conscious experience
Cyber trucks are so cool and futuristic looking ☺️
Could have also come up with fine tuning for technology?
If anything, the Cybertruck proves that if a God ever did exist he’s now floated off to bother some other planet and left a 5-year-old with a crayon in charge.
Was this made as a joke? Cause this is the funniest thing I've ever seen!
Firstly I am a Christian, but for the sake of intellectuals curiosity,
if it were the case that an agent could emerge from a process like evaluation, would one not expect that agent to require a motive to move towards somethings and avoid others? Could not the motive that attracts be considered a basis for beauty? If so, why would subjective beauty be more likely were God to exist.
I love the cybertruck! I have one on order. Big fan of Tesla and Elon Musk. I have the model 3 and it makes a fun fast car. Not to mention the Cybertruck is the first with a 48V architecture allowing for steering by wire for the first time
Welcome to the illusion of perfection, where perfectly rational people abandon their senses to enter the house of mirrors.
How do you define a person as perfectly rational, given your worldview?
@@jeremywongzijun1994 Loosely.
@@jeremywongzijun1994someone who is knowledgeable of and adheres to critical thinking.
@@DM-dk7js Good definition.
Interesting. I’d be interested to see how others deal with these arguments. I’d recommend calling into The Line UA-cam channel or The Atheist Experience with these arguments and see how they fare against rhem
Any reason why I shouldn’t think that 6 isn’t a fallacy? ‘Every person has a mother, so there is someone who is mother of every person’ type of inference
Premise 6 is not relevantly similar to your example, and the type of inference is not the same. If something (A) is dependent on B, and B is dependent on C, then A is then dependent on C. With your example, the same relations do not work. My mother's mother is not in fact my mother, whereas A is in fact dependent on C. This can be shown directly, as I am dependent on both my grandmother and my mother, and that doesn't make them both my mother.
@@beatleswithaz6246 Yeah, but what if there are a billion per se dependence chains each terminating in a different independent thing? Why is that unlikely?
@@whatsinaname691 I think that there is only one independent concrete thing because of theoretical virtue. A maximally perfect being with no limitations requires not many explanations for its properties, and there is only one because any more would fail Occam's razor. Only one perfect being is required to create everything we see around us, so positing any more is unnecessary. Plus, fine tuning of the universe leads me to believe that creation came from a mind with specific intentions.
@@beatleswithaz6246 Ok, that’s a fine inductive inference. But that’s not Cam’s argument
@@whatsinaname691Yeah I don’t think Cam said all of this, but its what I’d say.
The one video i _wanted_ to see, and I miss it...
This is why we can't have nice things....
Im dead this is hysterical bro 😂
Good spiel.
this is very weak and weird
Should have used "DeLorean" from "Back to the Future" in the video.
That’s actually my dream car :)
Random quantum fluctuations are uncaused events that can cause other things. They're therefore can terminate all causal chains in the past, whether time is past infinite or not.
But the crucial issue is that you must have a lot of faith in a theory like that to actuall produe reality. Reality does not actually suggest that there are random quantam fluctuations... Rather, especially in the human experience, minds cause things to happen. And naturally, there is such a fine tuning in the universe that does not suggest complete randomness. The evidence is there, but it just isn't compelling
@@stephengarrett4193no there’s no evidence of fine tuning.
I definitely prefer the minimalist design of the cybertruck over the bloated over-designed blob look of current SUVs, but I prefer the designs of classic cars/trucks over all of them.
Some adults are wired to find little children very attractive. What does that say about your god?
When you crashed the cyber truck and die, you can meet God. Therefore God exist
my man
Utter rubbish. The cybertruck is objectively ugly.
But also, premise 2, rubbish - prove it. Premise 3, rubbish - prove it. Premise 4, rubbish - does not follow and "strong" is way overstated given that no justification for weight to the faulty premises 2 and 3 has been given.
Premise 8, rubbish - there is no reason to invoke God here at all. Massive and unjustifiable jump from "independent thing" to God. The Independent thing could be entirely natural.
"From mindlessness, only mindlessness comes" - prove it.
I would've thought this was Cameron just joking around except that he was so serious about presenting it.
Hello there! I would like to provide a more substantive response, but before I can do that, you’ll need to interact with the reasoning I offer in defense of the premises. Calling them “rubbish” doesn’t actually address anything I say. Cheers!
@@CapturingChristianity Fair reply. I'll need to rewatch to provide a more detailed response and will do that soon (life's demands have taken precedence at the moment).
@@CapturingChristianity Thank you for taking the time to engage with me on this. I acknowledge that the first argument wasn't your strongest of the two, and that it was a little tongue-in-cheek, but I'll take a look at both.
Argument 1:
I reject Premise 1 out of hand. There are no beautiful things. There are only things. Beauty is a subjective experience of conscious agents. The best we could say is that, "Some things are perceived to be beautiful by conscious agents." Let's say only two conscious agents exist, Abe and Bea. They come across a tree and Abe says, "Oh, look how beautiful that is". Bea replies, "That! It's ugly!". Now, does a beautiful tree exist? No. A tree exists. It is perceived as beautiful by Abe, but not by Bea. All beauty is subjective.
You acknowledge that subjectivity might be an objection, but don't really overcome it. Dust motes are not conscious agents. And you say that "from mindlessness, mindlessness comes", but don't really provide any real justification or proof of that. Clearly in a naturalistic world mindfulness does come from mindlessness, and there are clear evolutionary explanations for it. When you say it isn't expected, that might be true in isolation given we still no very little about the natural world, but then I would argue that an all powerful God isn't expected in the first place. These are matters only of intuition, and mine is very different to yours.
This leads into Premises 2 and 3. I reject Premise 2. If God does not exist, given that the natural world does, and that the natural world is able to support life and evolution, then it's not at all surprising that evolved conscious agents would experience beauty. It is a survival imperative that we can distinguish things that are harmful or beneficial. It's logical that we would perceive beneficial things as beautiful, and harmful things as not. Further, since the effects of the parts of the brain involved in such experience would likely affect us in ways beyond the necessity of survival, we would expect to see beauty (and ugliness) in all kinds of things as a consequence of how the brain processes experience with the world. You can raise objections to the likelihood of a world in which life and evolution are as we see them, but that's a separate issue. I can raise the same objections about God.
You don't really defend Premise 3 other than to say God values beauty. How do you know that? What's the biblical basis for that? From what I've been able to find the only beauty God values is an internal one, and actually eschews external beauty. But perhaps you're not talking specifically about the Christian God and are making a more general case. In which case, again, what basis do you have for asserting that this construction of God values beauty, or anything else?
Premise 4, therefore does not follow in my opinion. But my greater objection to it is the use of the word "strong". Again, all of the premises so far have required value judgements about how "surprising" something is, or is not. I would classify it as weak evidence, at best. I'm not sure where you feel you get the power of that premise from.
Argument 2:
Premise 5 I accept as factual.
Premise 6. Why does the existence of dependent things necessitate something independent? It is possible, for example, that some dependent things, A and B, depend on each other and nothing else, but upon which all other things depend. This is logically possible and therefore a defeater for the premise. One could say that A and B, as a whole are independent. But that isn't true independence. I haven't yet seen a good argument for why an independent thing is necessary. But, for the sake of argument I'll accept that such a thing is necessary.
In which case, Premise 7 follows. I object somewhat to the use of God being used here without a clear definition of what that is. It smuggles in a whole lot that isn't really a part of the argument. But you went on to talk about perfection, so I'll assume you mean a necessary thing that is maximally perfect (note, that this does not get you agency or any kind of mind - that's an argument you haven't justified at all).
Briefly on eternality. I agree with you about this where the independent thing has a set of features that may themselves be dependent. But that need not be the case. Firstly, those features, if they have an explanation, are dependent on that explanation, so I would argue there is something more fundamental that is independent. Secondly, an independent thing may not have any features that need explaining. So it's possible for an independent, eternal thing to exist.
The perfection argument amounts to a lot of mental gymnastics. A way to hand wave away the need to actually explain anything deeper. Removing a limit may eliminate the need to explain the limit, but it does not remove the need to explain why the limit does not exist. And gravity is a poor example here. Removing the limit of where gravity works in a particular way does not explain gravity, it just simplifies its description. Nor does it make gravity independent.
And when you're talking about the limits of an entity with a "supremely great nature", you are arbitrarily deciding what limits to remove. Do we remove the limit of evil? Surely a supremely great nature includes the maximal capacity for evil, unless we arbitrarily limit it?
But let us say that absolute perfection is independent. It does not follow that such a thing exists at all. Nor that it has any other properties assigned to a God other than the capacity to lead to the reality we perceive. There is nothing in the argument that actually bridges this gap. And much depends on how we, not God, define perfection. Again, a purely subjective process where we decide the attributes that are perfect.
I'll admit that I need to give greater consideration to your second argument, but I wanted to provide a better response than my original comment since you took the time to push back. This has also been a little rushed because I'm at work.
I look forward to your objections 😁
@@CapturingChristianity Ah, my mistake. I thought you were sincere when you said "I would like to provide a more substantive response, but before I can do that, you’ll need to interact with the reasoning I offer in defense of the premises". It seems it was just sarcasm. More fool me, I guess. I expect that kind of thing from your fanboys here, but I thought you might actually respond to my objections. Perhaps they missed the mark. Perhaps you never intended to respond. I don't know. Oh well, never mind, I'll go ahead and assume that the weight of my intellectual argument so crushed your arguments that you were left dumbfounded and unable to respond. Now THAT'S sarcasm!
Seriously though, I do enjoy most of your content, even when I don't agree with it. All the best over the holiday season.
Could this thing be more Berlin lol. It just needs leather tassels and a laser light show
"Beautiful" is not the key word there - Argument from Beauty should better be called "Argument from Aesthetics" - thus, it works just as well if we can claim that "Cybertruck IS ugly".
The fact that the Cybertruck does not actually exist yet in reality portends poorly for God's fate. Would the semi tractor be similar doubtful?
You are incorrect. Beauty is absolutely subjective.
I think this video shows you have all the knowledge to make many more short videos like this. You could do many debunk videos without needing other philosophers help
I agree
@@TheNaturalTheologian Not only that, but he clearly reads a lot of philosophical literature. I think Cameron doesn't get enough credit. Just watch his debate with Rationality Rules or The Non-Alchemist, he is clearly leaps and bounds further ahead in terms of philosophical knowledge and argumentation. Often I think this is undermined by the edgy atheists in comments who don't actually understand arguments being put fourth. So often they will not understand an argument and assume it's faulty, simply because they just don't have the philosophical background.
@@n.a.odessa3939 i think he gets a little too hung up by dumb comments on his videos.
In Heaven we'll all be driving Cyber Trucks. Sign me up. Though I think the highest spec will belong to God.
Muhammad Hijab's smile 😂😂😂 Brilliant!!!
Mohammed Hijab’s smile proof of God’s existence confirmed
Here is the reason why according to your logic god hates you:
1) If god exists he's a benevolent god in love with his creation
2) Since he loves his creation he gives it the ability to make use of reason
3) Since everything you said is complete nonsense, and lacks any proof of reason, god cannot be benevolent towards you, which means --> god hates you!
But fear not: god hates us all equally.
Or, even more likely: god - in fact no deity - exists.
Mohammad Hijab's smile has entered the chat.
classic
Completely thought this was going to be an argument from beauty, but in reverse, because the thing is so darn ugly!😄
Argument from uglyness 😏
This video concept was too ridiculous sounding not to click
Weakest argument for Theism:
Beauty is a concept attached to things perceived and judged by observers. Since observers capable of judgement exist, as we can all attest to, it is not surprising that they perceive beauty. This says nothing about the existence of God.
Of all the things that exist dependently, we are aware that they do. If there are things that exist independently, we are currently unaware of them. Thus, attaching the word 'some' to things that exist dependently is misleading. P(6) is false.
These arguments are no proof of God's existence.
People like you make me consider atheism. For now, I'm not convinced of the non-existence of God.
I don't if I'm a fan of this argument....but.....i do believe in the Elon Musk of the Gaps of the Cybertruck.
If we were walking on a deserted beach and discovered a Rolex watch and next to it a Zippo lighter we can conclude that both were designed but was the Zippo and the Rolex designed by the same designer? We know that they were not. If we discover an iPhone was that iPhone designed by a single designer or did he have help? He probably had help. If we discover a Smith & Wesson revolver what can we concluded about the morality of the designer?
My point is this. We know that the Rolex, the Zippo, the iPhone and the Smith & Wesson were all designed. How? They are patented and if we care to look them up we will find the names of the designers.
If we were designed how do we know how many designers there were? How do we know their morality? How do we know anything at all about them? This argument takes us no where.
Christians is so confusing about the trinity resorting to prove the illogical trinity
Wow! His "logic" is off the charts, on the downside. He totally misses the point about somebody like me saying, "I don't think the cyber truck is beautiful." If the perception of beauty is _subjective_ then how can it serves as an _objective_ argument for the existence of a god or gods? The subjectively perceived beauty of a specific object fails to provide that evidence. Now if he is trying to argue that the simple fact that we perceive some things as beautiful and others as not, that we have a concept of beauty, and that this is evidence of a god, I say what about ugliness, strangeness, and all the other ways in which we might describe our responses to things? Does my response of disgust at the sight of parasites consuming a corpse prove the existence of Yahweh?
When will apologists start providing evidence instead of just arguments?
Your argument is fallacious from the very start. By the easiest means possible, using a techique known as "reductio ad absurdum" - in plain English, "reduced to absurdity." When you do this with an argument, and it 'works' the same way as the argument made by the presenter, the fallaciousness of their argument is clearly demonstrated.
You said:
(1) Some things are beautiful.
(2) If God does not exist, it's very surprising that anything beautiful exists.
(3) If God does exist, it's not very surprising that anything beautiful exists.
(4) So, beautiful things provide strong evidence for God.
Doing the "reductio ad absurdum":
(1) Some things are ugly.
(2) If God does exist, it's very surprising that anything ugly exists.
(3) If God does not exist, it's not very surprising that anything ugly exists.
(4) So, ugly things provide strong evidence for God not existing.
Your argument is entirely fallacious.
Arguments from incredulity, personal preference, blah, blah, blah...
_"(2) If God does not exist, it's very surprising that anything beautiful exists."_
(2.5) Therefore, if it's not very surprising that anything beautiful exists, then God does exist. (from (2) by contraposition)
_"(3) If God does exist, then it's not very surprising that anything beautiful exists."_
*(3.5) Therefore, it's not very surprising that anything beautiful exists, if and only if God does exist. (from (2.5) and (3) by the introduction of the corresponding biconditional)*
Suuurreee. 😮💨
Why don't you say so from the get-go?
Besides that, *from **_"mindlessness", "mindlessness"_** comes, IF AND ONLY IF from spacesless, timeless and matterless beings, spaceslessness, timelessness and matterlessness comes.*
See, Cameron?
That's how it's done from the get-go.
Oh this is real. This is so painful I thought this was satire. If I presented that reasoning to a local priest, he would kick me out of the church for making fun of him. But I guess any attention is good attention. As long as we can keep those UA-cam metrics high, right?
Muhammad Hijab's smile is irrefutable evidence of God given beauty. Great video!
The pontiac Aztek and Fiat Multipla are better looking.
You were really out of video ideas 🤦♀️
I think it’s a great idea for a fun video, actually :)
Mohammed Hijab's smile #bwahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha
You so fail at logical thought
When even the best arguments for God are fairly weak it seems strange to put out a stream of assertions and non sequiturs. If this is a serious video then you have not demonstrated any connection from your point to your conclusion. Why should a perfect, all powerful being require this philosophical round of mental gymnastics to make the theist feel justified in holding to their superstitions.
'Beauty" is just something you find useful in some way, whether to look at, or consume, or whatever. As for physical objects; we know physical objects depend on their constituent atoms. We know the particles that make up the atoms depend on their field (quantum field theory). What do quantum fields depend on? I don't know; probably not a god.
When I see a beautiful thing, it's beauty just strikes me. I realize this before I find some way to make use of it, if I do at all. The initial, almost unthinking admiration for it may cause us to want to consume it, but that consequence is not what beauty itself is.
If quantum fields of individual atoms were all the evidence for a worldview, I would not come to God. What convinces me is the things made up by those atoms. A world teeming with life, the moral and social dance we find ourselves in, and the real and painful consequences of our actions. It isn't what I would expect to see if the world was fundamentally indifferent to life, suffering, or virtue.
Beauty is much more than something useful, but if beauty is only based on what someone thinks is useful-anything can be useful to someone. So, then beauty is objective because it is a reality that is true in every thing at some point. And that's the beauty of this universe... it might seem to come from randomness; but the opposite is true. Nothing is truly random. There is beauty in everything. God is a good indicator of why these things are so!
"Beauty is pragmatism" that is a new one. And probably about as wrong as you can get.
Beauty has value in spite of its lack of pragmatism. That's largely its point.
excellent video! God is real and loves you John 3:16
Why is it excellent? Because it affirms your beliefs?
is this an ad? a joke?
Nonsense , pure nonsense. Beauty is subjective and what you find beauty in someone else won't , for example and this is going to be harsh for a reason and not me just being mean ...
Your mother probably says you are beautiful / handsome .. when in reality most people think you are far from it ... Subjective
Beauty is also superficial
So very bad arguments to use if you want people to think god is real , which he isn't
And if you literally want to stick with this argument , babies born with cancer , babies born lacking limbs.
Babies are beautiful , babies have not had the chance to be corrupted , yet these innocent babies are going to live short painful lives of suffering and torment.
Hmm no god isn't real and certainly isn't shallow and enjoying the superficial beauty of objects
Is this a comedy piece? If not then it proves that belief in god takes away any semblance of rationality. PS: The Cybertruck is objectively ugly.
Take Thjs video down
Ok :(
The universe is fundamentally just a few quantum field interactions. This is perfect and simple and supports all of existence. It's also much more parsimonious than a complex God that has knowledge, will, emotions, a mind, concerns about morality, etc.
Precisely, how many such interactions are there?
@@TheEpicProOfMinecraf One
There is a small question I like to ask Materialists. What is the atomic weight of Beauty?
2.3 microns if you're bacteria.
@@markgordon5266
I meant Weight!
I'm gonna go stand in the corner now. :-)
@@stevenwiederholt7000 Ah, I only know the atomic height. The atomic weight is totally mysterious and supernatural, so you got me there! ;-)
Materialist here. I don’t know. We don’t even attempt to answer such questions.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 Something something abstract something concrete something something category error.
I left out some of Cameron's favorite philosophy terms because they aren't necessary.
Which is why conscience is independent of body. Since conscience thought doesn’t take a body to happen, it takes a body to put it into action. Independent and dependent
@@dirtydevil no. Decided to go with original spelling. Since break down of word is to be with knowledge. I liken to origin. Since everything has an origin. That’s how KJV spell’s conscience. People say KJV is hard to understand, well maybe because we have lost origin which means we have lost original meaning. When you lose origin you get to write own narrative and give wrong meaning or to try to change what is actually true truth.
@@dirtydevil gave you break down of word
@@dirtydevil Conscience [ kon-shuhns ] is a noun that refers to a person's inner sense of right and wrong. Conscious [ kon-shuhs ] is an adjective meaning aware or, more literally, awake.
I don’t see difference
@@dirtydevil “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. The first to Timothy was written from Laodicea, which is the chiefest city of Phrygia Pacatiana.”
1 Timothy 6:20-21 KJV
@@dirtydevil to be with knowledge of thought of good and evil. To be knowledgeable of what good it has and what evil it has.
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
Isaiah 5:20 KJV
In can already see the argument coming from the atheists.
“Human intuition is not a valid way of understanding our world”.
The human intuition can certainly be fallible.
certainly, but it is still a valid source of information. @@DM-dk7js
The trouble with the perfection explanation is that it equaly points to many different solutions. Because there are no limits on this entity there is infinite amount of solutions thay meet the no limit criteria. For example a Hilbert space is perfect with thay definition. (infinite-dimensional inner product space having the property that it is complete or closed.) And we have good empirical reason to belive Hilbert space is real. So this argument doesn't point to capital G God in the slightest.
I was convinced by the first argument when I show muhammad hijab, truly undeniable proof
Bro. Stop.
With a handle like that, I was expecting way more from you!
What lol? Atheism is “mindlessness”? I’m an atheist. My mind is my most important asset. I’m not mindless.
Atheism is a "lack of belief"
A lack cannot have a mind
Therefore: atheism is mindless :)
Atheism is the view that mindlessness is at the foundation of reality.
@@CapturingChristianity Exactly, mindlessness is at the foundation of reality. Minds emerge from mindlessness. You finally got it right!
@@markgordon5266"mind emerges from mindlessness" because magic, I guess. If I stack a bunch of yellow Styrofoam together it becomes gold, apparently. And if we mess around with a bunch of meat, salts and electricity we magically get a conscious mind capable of apprehending the world, no further explanation needed
Ladies and gentlemen, the rationality of atheism
@@CapturingChristianityno. Atheism is the view that god doesn’t exist based on a lack of evidence. It merely rejects claims by theists, nothing more. Blatant strawman.
Beauty only exists as a concept because of the emotional response of the observer to that beauty. We use the term beautiful to describe sunsets and scenery as well as some individual moments. We use it to describe human appearance, as well as music or poetry. But a human face is not beautiful in the same way that a song is beautiful. A sunset is not beautiful in the same way that a tender moment between a parent and their newborn child is. The commonality here is the emotion. They are beautiful because they evoke a pleasurable emotional response. Pleasing emotional responses do not prove an act of design by a creator. They are just as easily accounted for in evolutionary biology (beauty is used to find a partner, find safety, etc - beauty is not usually found in dangerous or scary places, therefore the emotional response that we find pleasing serves to protect us and help us thrive) We romanticise the notion of beauty, and ascribe a kind of magical quality to it which gives it an almost sacred place in our world view, but that's not even close to being an argument for the existence of a creator deity. The argument from beauty is a terrible argument for god.
I like to use a very simple method, God creates, Demons Corrupt.
Ahhh crap, I really wanted to remain agnostic but Elon had to release the CyberTruck and Cam was forced to make this video:
P1) If CyberTruck exists God exists
P2) CyberTruck exists
C) God exists
P1 is flawed
@@DM-dk7js … dude…. It’s parody. Brian is smart. He knows P1 is flawed. That’s why he wrote it. He’s doing parody.
Well played Bri.
@@DM-dk7js Pshhh whatever.
Checkmate atheist!
@@mkl2237 I got that atheist good 🙂!
You don't understand the role of beauty in evolution, therefore god. Understood. The second "proof" starts off with an unsupported conclusion and is based on a "best" qualifier without acknowledging that a correct explanation may not have to be the "best" (e.g., better explanations may require fewer assumptions but are still factually not true) and does not define what "best" is. Any explanation that requires invoking an omnipotent, omniscient timeless entity that cares about what individual people think and not only allows evil but designs the world in a way that evil is inevitable, carries such an ontological cost that it would be the last explanation I'd consider.
BTW, if a "proof", either way, existed then nobody would have to believe or not believe. We'd just know.