The 3 BIGGEST Mistakes Made By Atheists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 кві 2021
- Atheist UA-camr Rationality Rules recently asked what the top 3 biggest mistakes are that atheists make. In this video, Joe Schmid (from Magestyof REasn_) joins me to discuss some potential answers. (Limiting it to 3 will prove quite difficult.)
Joe's channel: / @majestyofreason
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on UA-cam: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchristianity.com
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchristianity.com/fre...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchristianity.com/ult...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- 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/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Atheism #Apologetics #Mistakes
That impressionation of Richard Swinburne was 👌
@Jon I don't know on what he changed his mind precisely, I will say I no longer agree with him on many points because I moved towards classical theist camp and I don't like open theism which I heard he endorses.
He has given us a lot just like Craig and I'm thankful for him, but he is not the best.
Yes, he is old (i can only imagine how this sounds) so I also hope he shares more of his interesting thoughts with us.
I love his impressions
The Swinburne impression was so spot on, wow. 😂
Please just do an entire video where a lot of different people do impersonations. That was amazing
We’ve talked about it but we’re both actually not that good at impressions (beyond like 1 or 2).
That impression of Swinburne is straight 🔥
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is a slogan just like "Btw Christianity is true". So it's OK for the slogans to lack detail initially. But we can always follow up with what's meant.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is about an obvious of a truism as you can find.
@@JM-jj3eg LOL! Bro, you've been listening to too many youtube christian apologists. "Not even those who mouth this claim." Are you saying that the claim "I have a pet dog" and "I have a pet dragon" are pretty much equal, and that you would not view those as requiring different kinds of evidence? That's doesn't make sense to you?
@@JM-jj3eg 'I have a pet dragon' is an extraordinary claim. So is 'I have a pet blue whale', but to a lesser extent, because at least blue whales exist. The phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" just means that the more a claim is out of line with our understanding of the world, the more evidence we need before we can accept that claim. The claim that I have a pet dog is not extraordinary; I know that dogs exist and that people have pet dogs, so it is highly likely that I have a pet dog. If I showed you a picture of me my dog, that would probably be sufficent evidence that I have a pet dog. However, if I claimed to have a pet dragon, just a picture of me with a dragon would not be sufficent, because the existence of dragons is so unlikely, so out of line with our understanding of the world, so extraordinary that we would need significantly more evidence before accepting that claim as true.
@@JM-jj3eg Paulogia does. Search for his video on the topic
@@JM-jj3eg It means you should have evidence with a strength equal to the claim you're asking someone to believe. It's pretty straightforward, but if you're insisting on some belief that you have no way to support, I can understand the typical obfuscations. Make it something way more complicated than it obviously is and try to get people talking about every tangential distraction you can. As long as you're able to confuse someone, you can segue from one nonsense to another.
Man, this video was so fun to watch and so substantive. Love this format/idea. Please "borrow" more ideas and get Joe back on.
This video was so spot on! I think a video about the top mistakes we as Christians make would be super useful, too.
Amen!
I'd suggest you just take the same things you think are wrong with atheists. Turns out that humans are pretty similar in their flaws.
@@goldenalt3166 *humans are pretty similar in their flaws*
Agreed, as Cameron pointed out in this video. So, what would you consider the Christian analogue of lacktheism to be?
@@nathanaelculver5308 Failure to define God. When the Christians argue against atheism they suddenly go to "I'm not defending the Christian God just theism in general."
@@goldenalt3166 How is that analogous to lacktheism?
Such an awesome stream! I'm so tempted to make clips out of it.
Cameron, people won’t allow things like Biblical “testimony” for the Resurrection because Resurrections do not have an empirical basis. Your daughter being happy is an empirical claim with an empirical basis.
34:17 Stop the slogans!
CC : “btw, christianity is true”
Brutal
I was unaware that empirical evidence could have certain things be ruled out as impossible a priori with no regard to the facts. You are assuming what needs to be proved, namely, that resurrections can’t happen. They might not be able to happen according to your world view. But then again, your world view might be mistaken.
@@DavidSupina They never said or implied that resurrections can't happen. Only that we currently have no empirical basis for them, and thus it's not like for like with "daughter being happy".
@@DavidSupina I said that testimony is not sufficient to justify claims that do not have an empirical basis
@@GhostLightPhilosophy Can you empirically demonstrate your last comment or should we just take you at your word?
Also, he clearly meant that slogans shouldn't be used as arguments. Pretty simple to discern.
54:57 Ricky Gervais is not doing philosophy. None of the Christians I know in my day-to-day life care about philosophy either. I do not fault them for this or expect them to refrain from talking about their beliefs. I agree with most everything you guys are saying about atheists with regards to atheism vs theism in the philosophical realm. I don't think its fair, however, to criticize atheism, the term and the worldview, as it exists outside of the philosophical realm by philosophical standards. I don't go around criticizing the Christians I know for their lack of theological rigor.
Lol. Ricky has a degree in philosophy.
So of any of the people casually saying stuff, he should know better.
@@watchinginthelight Oh seriously? I didn't know that. That definitely makes him even more anoying.
I sill don't think he's trying to pass anything he says off as philosophy. He's an entertainer/comedian, and not a particularly good one.
Should I be scrutinizing the message of the Sunday sermon this way?. It's not fair to the minister out for lack of philosophical rigor. That's just not what they are doing
@@blueheron998 I agree he's not doing philosophy. But I think he is on the mocking side with some bad lines that I think he shouldn't drop.
And yeah I think you SHOULD scrutinize the Sunday sermon. (And the Bible says to, and James declares those that teach will be judged harshly for their words)
The conversation started out by saying we are going to use the versions of 3 atheist arguments that we can use as a strawman and then turn around and criticizes atheist for using versions of apologetic agreement as strawman arguments.
If an atheist argues against the premise of an apologist argument does that argument against the primes not apply to all versions of the argument with the same premise? If the apologist argument changes so much that the atheist argument no longer works then the premise has changed and it is no longer the same argument.
Yes the scientific method is the best way to find truth so far until humans invent something better and just because something feels right to some people or we could all just be a brain in a vat doesn't change that. We all have to work within an agreed on reality and the scientific method is the best way to find truth. If one person sees red and the other person sees Green the best way to decide who is right is NEVER to just pick the person who FEELS the most right. Unless you are saying that we just have to except that they are both right. ???
Nice rebuttal.
“BTW, stop with the slogans” is going to be your new shirt, isn’t it :-)
Pleasee, we need that.
With a parenthesis saying (I know this slogan is self-refuting)
@@Oskar1000 that would kill the fun tho
@@elgatofelix8917 Yeah you're probably right. A bit too obvious.
@@elgatofelix8917 I agree that would kill the fun😂
I found your expression of the fact that we use belief in order to gain scientific knowledge tremendously refreshing Cameron!
My experience has been that the very best way to debunk Atheists is to simply ensure they have their say.
How exactly do you debunk a position - a state of affair? It would be like debunking poverty.
So explain HOW can anyone debunk my simply suspending any acknowledgement of the existence of a god until credible evidence is introduced? It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Wouldn't you agree?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Well for one, yours is the watered down definition of Atheism, a fall-back position--one that only some Atheists opted for when they positively affirmed God's non-existence but could not prove it.
Yet, you misread my comments which was, "the very best way to debunk Atheists."
Now, you refer to "credible evidence" but the first step is for you to justify your demand for evidence--and what is "credible evidence" would be a subsequent discussion.
@Excuse me but Well, as "Ammi's Law" states, "Atheists will begin with conclusions 100% of the time" is one example. See, on their view: truth, logic, and ethics are accidental, as is our ability to discern them, there's no universal imperative to do so, nor to demand that others do so. Thus, they are dead in the water since their worldview fails before it even begins. They make their bed--of, say, we're just accidentally existing apes and so you "should" or "must" or "ought to" adhere to empirical truth, which would be a world-class textbook classic case of a non sequitur--but don't want to sleep in it. They want their cake, want to eat it too, and don't want to get fat--capiche?
@@theoskeptomai2535That's not atheism. That's agnosticism.
Thanks for this: great stream!
This was really something. Here's my thoughts as I go.
1) Joe's 3rd: Where is the talk of priors? If you don't define any of your priors, then you can't come to any valid conclusion using the math that Joe is describing. That's what the P(H) term in Bayes theorem is, after all. This is simple: if you don't define your priors, then you can't say that some event E is confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence given hypothesis H. So if we want to talk about conscious moral agents being confirmatory evidence for theism, you can only say that if the posterior on theism is higher than the posterior on naturalism (also how the math works, this has to do with the P(E) term), and a necessary condition to determine the posterior is the prior.
There's also nothing to bridge the analogy between jellybean jars and theism vs. naturalism. Jellybean jars can generate expectations. Theism can't. It's an infinite parameter model. If we don't define our priors, then of course any event is going to be confirmatory evidence for theism because the probability of any event occurring given theism is 1. We can talk about whether humans are actually free (in some libertarian sense) or if they actually have value, but for now these are both assumptions that naturalists aren't going to accept, end of. But this is all moot considering P(E|T)=1 for any E. Such is the case for infinite parameter models.
2) Cam's 3rd: Yes, it's good to look at different versions of arguments and to try to keep up with the meta. However, if the expectation is that someone is supposed to be aware of all the new and updated arguments and all the new creative defenses as they come out, all of which require a very strong grasp of logic and analytic philosophy and are blocked by paywalls, then that's just unreasonable. Hell, even philosophers of religion who get paid to do this aren't given the same expectations (notice how they specialize in one or maybe a few particular arguments???). I don't expect theists to be aware of every single counterargument that has ever been made against (insert your favorite argument) for precisely the same reasons as above.
3) Joe's 2nd: Scientism and the devaluation of philosophy. I feel like the actual point is that science tells us interesting things about the natural world because science actually looks at the natural world. Science doesn't a priori formalize principles or axioms and try to see what follows from them. You're very rarely going to learn anything interesting about the natural world using this methodology because the natural world does not care what particular principles or axioms you decide to adopt. Philosophy doesn't tell me that Grignard reagents can't be synthesized from alcohols or that errors during crossing over can cause large scale gene duplications or that Robertsonian duplication can cause down's syndrome. To come to any of those very interesting conclusions about the natural world, we looked at the natural world and saw what it was doing. It's not that philosophy or math can't tell us anything interesting. Math tells us that the natural numbers don't form a vector space, which I find interesting. But when it comes to discovering interesting truths about the natural world, science wins by miles.
4) Cam's 2nd: I hold this truth to be self-evident that not all testimony is created equal. You know how we can determine what testimony constitutes good evidence? By defining our priors. I also don't see how scientists only being experts in small domains within a field is going to help you. Yes, we trust a lot of what scientists have to say, but the beauty of science is that the knowledge it encompasses is accessible (in principle). If you don't want to take scientists at their word, then you can go look at the evidence yourself.
Also, do you know how to determine what constitutes an extraordinary claim? By defining your freaking priors! And no one, I mean no one, that I have ever heard has ever said that cumulative cases are invalid.
5) Joe's 1st: Lacktheism. This one I have to sympathize with. As Logos has said, you can't have a conversation with "no". I just say that God does not exist and move on with my life.
6) Cam's 1st: Failure to care about good philosophy. There's a lot to unpack here, but I'll make this quick. 1. while it is important to consider contemporary philosophy, what qualifies as good or bad philosophy is largely up to individuals. 2. I'm fully capable of coming up with my own ideas and so is everyone else. They don't suddenly become bad just because I'm not a philosopher. 3. it will never be legitimate to point at someone and call them a moron while alluding to the existence of some expert that's already "debunked" what they've said. 4. this ties back to what I said earlier, but the best material isn't always the most accessible to people.
You think there's a difference between "someone looking at the latest arguments"
And
"Someone making a UA-cam video claiming to DEBUNK something" to maybe take a peak?
@@watchinginthelight Uh I'm not sure what you're saying. Can you rephrase that?
I think Spider-Man’s comments were great! Seriously though, another super video guys!
Can we PLEASE get a Joe Smitch-Cosmic skeptic dialogue????
Atheist dialoguing with a true agnostic. That would be great.
Yea, Joe Schmid vs. Alex O'Connor would be fantastic.
@@GustAdlph They're all "true agnostics". The only difference is that Joe Schmidt is the only one with the honesty to admit he is agnostic.
If you want an easy-to-access answer to the “people being bad at probability” stuff, the Birthday Paradox is the best example I know. The question is “what is the smallest number N such that in a room of N people, the probability of two people sharing a birthday is above 50%?”
Every time I’ve asked this to a non-mathematician who hadn’t heard it before, they’ve said at least 100. The real answer is 23.
@@HarryNicNicholas How?
I find it quite odd to compare us believing someone saying their daughter was happy based on testimony and people being justified in accepting the claim that someone rose from the dead on the same basis. They're not comparable. I think it's reasonable to tentatively accept the former due to us having plenty of evidence for people being happy. That doesn't make any claim without that empirical basis reasonable to accept through testimony.
Also the narrative that people accept 'scientism' is getting kind of tiresome. Especially when it's defined the way it was in this discussion. How many people actually say that science is the only way we can know things. Not just that it's the best way, but the ONLY way. One? Two? Give us examples of people making that claim (if you want to be intellectually honest and philosophically sophisticated 🧐).
Can you do a video about the three biggest mistakes Christians make?
Cool idea!
Including their inability to honestly state the case for evangelical and Christ-mediated universalism. It’s not deliberate; they’re just ignorant, with some exceptions.
🤷♂️
I didn't see your comment, Ghost Light! I just asked the same thing 😊 Definitely agree that would be helpful.
What type of Christians? Is it wise to group all of them together? Seems like different sects will have their own variations of common mistakes based their theology and academic knowledge .
Would you put Ray Comfort in the same ball park of Richard Swinburne?
@@streetsdisciple0014 Ray Comfort is a Zionist. Never heard of Swinburne tho
Cameron 1 "Failure to care about good philosophy"
I think a distinction must be made between philosophy as a exercise and philosophy as an academic institution. I am not convinced that the academic status of a philosopher makes that philosopher any better at uncovering truth than an amateur philosopher. This may seem counterintuitive, but consider these two points:
Neural networks (please forgive and correct me if I am using the improper terminology) are trained by computing the error between their outputs and the correct output corresponding to a given input. The difference between the output and the correct output is an error function, which is minimized in the training process. Here, the correct output must be determined by a human form the training to take place. If human learning is in any way similar to how neural networks are trained, then learning is merely the development of thought patterns that successfully answer in accordance with some type of 'correct output'. In the case of science, the ultimate 'correct output' is ultimately data. Thus, trained scientists (in principle) develop their minds in such a way to predict data. In philosophy, the ultimate 'correct output' is either the authority or the consensus. If this is true, a professional philosopher is only better than an amateur philosopher in his ability to conform to this arbitrary 'correct output'
Secondly, I believe (and I could be wrong here, as I do not have evidence for this claim) that intelligence is not correlated to the agility to uncover truth. A person of intelligence is better equipped to find convincing arguments for incorrect positions than a person without such intellect. Thus, intellect, while capable of uncovering great paradigm shifts, is also prone to sophistry. Again, in the field of science, this phenomena should be countered by the requirement of empirical data. However, in the realm of philosophy, there are no such constraints.
As such, it seems unproductive to concern oneself with whether they or their interlocular have interacted with some piece of literature in the past (I am constraining this to philosophy). It seems much more productive to simply assert and back whatever claims the interlocuters have to make.
Still having trouble understanding what is meant about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence? Let's say I claim that I invented a teleportation device that allowed me to visit proxima centauri, before that though I made another claim that I sold a fitbit to a guy on Craigslist. One of these claims I have video evidence, star charts, and telemetry data, and the other I have accounts by my two best friends and some drawings on notebook paper. Which data would you need to go with each claim to maximize the believability of both claims?
What makes a claim extraordinary is how it relates to things I already believe and what prior beliefs might need to change if I were to accept the claim.
For example: I already believe that craigslist and fitbits and guys exist. I already believe that those entities interact in the way you described on a regular basis. In fact I already had empirical evidence to support those beliefs before I heard your claim. The claim is mundane so I would probably just take you at your word.
On the other hand: I do not believe that teleportation devices exist. As far as I know they are not even possible. The claim seems to contradict what I already know about physics (which admittedly, is not *that* much). To accept that claim would require that I abandon previously held beliefs about how the universe works and adopt new beliefs. So I'm going to need even more evidence than what I currently have for the existence of craigslist, fitbits, and guys.
23:36 "I can gain knowledge on the basis of testimony"
is that a good epistemology ? considering to be knowledge what people tell you ? aren't you missing some caveats here ?
I think that wasn't what he meant, he was talking about scientism (the idea that only science knows).
He was trying to give an example about other ways to gain knowledge, like testimony (which works for history, and it's pretty useful on court).
So, if the scientific method has presuppositions which are unjustified (reliability of your cognitive faculties, memory, free will to reason and grasp truth), someone could say that other fields, like philosophy (epistemology), are other ways to learn. Hope that made sense, have a good day bro!
@@SantiagoAaronGarcia that was my point, testimonies are pretty weak evidence in court, and in history it depends on the context, and on a lot of other things, in particular, a testimony that is not corroborated by outside sources is also pretty weak in history.
@@MrGustavier I don't think testimonies count as "weak" evidence, if there is such thing as "weak evidence". Eyewitnesses are essential to corroborate facts about events which cannot be solved by the use of other factors (DNA samples, camera footage, etc). Of course when we talk about ancient history, it needs to be corroborated by other sources as well, and there are lots of other things that have to be taken into consideration in order to know if a narrated event that hypothetically took place, actually happened.
Anyways, he was talking about scientism, not actually making a case for the veracity of eyewitness testimony. Again, I agree, nice chat
@@SantiagoAaronGarcia how could we figure out if a testimony is good evidence? Gather facts, corroborate it with multiple sources, test it against our shared understanding of reality and. wait, should have just said the scientific method?
@@bradleyadams9430 once again, he was not talking about the veracity of eyewitness testimony, he was attacking the main idea of scientism and its presuppositions about the reliability of our cognitive faculties, our capacity to reason and grasp truth, memory, etc.
Really good video fellas!
I wanted to send in a second question for Joe specifically about Ontological Arguments which don't have the symmetry problem at all. But I got to the discussion too late. There are Ontological Arguments (even one from Anselm... he had a few...) for which the whole concept of a symmetrical "reverse" argument just doesn't even make sense. I mean, I'm all for symmetry breakers for the types that need them (for example, I think an argument like Dougherty makes, based on an innate natural desire, might be an interesting route to pursue for symmetry breaking). But, there are Ontological Arguments that don't even need them. Gödel's OA, and various modifications and versions thereof would be another example.
Yo Cameron, please consider arranging a discussion between ElephantPhilosophy & Malpass on something (Malpass’s critique of causal finitism & the grim reaper paradox, EP’s critique of Malpass’s critiques of Craig’s symmetry breakers come to mind). Cheers.
Sounds like a fun video
How can anyone as smart as Joe still be an Arsenal fan?
Lmao
@Joe, What are you thoughts on Russel's Teapot and it's reasoning on the burden of proof?
The tricky thing about probability and philosophical arguments is that the only way for it to be considered evidence is if it is actually sound, correct. If its premise(s) are false then it’s not going to be evidence for the intended conclusion of the argument.
Another thing is, since it wouldn’t be evidence when the argument is flawed, if the arguments premises or a premise in the argument could still be false, then it’s probably not evidence for the intended conclusion of the argument.
Great stream!
Joe - thanks for acknowledging that zygotes and foetuses are human. It was in the context of an argument about atheism but in a world where we struggle for even theists to acknowledge basic biology, it was lovely to hear you say it out loud in a confident way.
That analogy of jelly beans and consciousness was just painfully bad.
1) In the case of jars of beans, you are dealing with quotidian objects whose operation is well understood, and about which probabilities may be estimated with a straight face. The operation of consciousness is not well understood, and I have yet to hear a coherent description of what a deity is from any apologist. The probability of conscious beings arising is certainly quite low--big-brained things like us came about after four billion years, on only one rock we know of--but until you have some notion of how a deity does anything, why would you even try to assign probabilities to its operation or existence, or say that any phenomenon is more likely when we assume one?
2) Your own example does not present very high odds against the orange bean being taken from jar one in the first place.
3) Life has overcome probability hurdles, plainly. The universe is unremittingly, implacably, hostile to things like us. Why would we expect this after postulating a god?
4) Living things are valuable only to themselves, and often not even to themselves. You invoke the value of living things being more likely given a deity, but why? Again, how does a deity work? What makes an atheistic universe less probable than a theistic universe in which the telos has nothing whatever to do with human beings? What makes either of the preceding scenarios less likely than an unremittingly hostile cosmos that, honest and truly, got made by something that loves us?
35:55 What's that thing you put on all your merch?
Awesome show!
Having addressed 3, I suppose I should address more:
Cameron 3 "Attack weakest version"
Obviously, attacking the weakest version of an argument is a mistake. Further, I mostly agree with Joe's point about treating a family of arguments as one. Certainly, critiquing a single argument as representative as the family does not address the family of arguments. However, I do think it is possible to object to one family of arguments in a single set of points. For example, disagreement with the principle of sufficient reason would result in a disagreement with almost all cosmological arguments. Of course, this is a fringe case.
Cameron 2 "Local skepticism/Ext. Claim Req. Ext. Ev."
I completely agree with everything said here.
Joe 1 "I just lack theism"
I consider myself to "believe that any predictions made by appealing to the idea of God which do not conform to other phenomena are not likely to be verified, and further, a theory of God that does not make predictions in the first place is possible, but indistinguishable from a theory without God." I am genuinely unsure as to how this would relate to Joes paradigm of belief, and further, where I would fall under given the selection of 'Theist', 'Atheist', and 'Non theist'. I used to call myself an Atheist, but Joe may have made a sufficient argument for me to consider myself a 'Non theist'.
I'd love to hear more discussion around the extraordinary evidence saying. Yes, a lot of people don't define what they mean by extraordinary evidence, but the point still stands that extremely unlikely (or unprobable) claims would require at least MORE evidence, or more convincing evidences compared to unextroadinary claims. Such as miracles of walking on water. Maybe not 1 big piece of evidence, but for a logical person to believe that happened, it makes sense to require MORE evidence or better convincing evidence than compared to other mundane everyday claims (like saying your daughter is happy). Some claims are so preposterous that it would therefore require additional evidences I think. Like walking on water, breaks physics. It makes sense that would require way more additional and convincing evidences, than saying any mundane physical law abiding claim. Idk that's just my initial thoughts. I'd love to hear an expanded discussion on it.
Damn, Joe against Matt Dillahunty on the cosmological argument. Also maybe Joe against Destiny. To be short Joe is awesome and thanks to both of you for doing this. :)
Against Destiny?
Destiny is a Political UA-camr who does tons of Debates.
@@MoNtYbOy101 The Winger debate was good in that they came to a point of disagreement. Winger believes the bible and Matt doesn't.
@@aswinunni1811 Why would he ever debate Destiny regarding religion?
@@justinmarty127 it's just because often Destiny comes of as a supporter of scientism when it comes to stuff like Metaphysics.
The real problem with the "lack a belief" definition is that if they believed it they would not be arguing against God. They just wouldn't care, or would only be casually interested because they would *only* lack a belief. No more no less. You don't make whole websites and banners and road signs and books and movies attacking God and his believers if you aren't *sure*.
Do people that do that realize what they are doing? You can point that out to them and they will try to refute it in the most absurd way possible. They can't see beyond themselves because their heart is too hardened. And thus don't accept anything that doesn't fit their worldview, but objectiveness is not defeated by millions attempting to refute the obvious.
@@Xenon_001 Tbh, I think it's because they never actually thought about it. They just read Dawkins saying it and assumed it was a fact. Ironic, considering they accuse us of never thinking..... again, mostly because Dawkins told them to. Lol
Even if atheists were “attacking” god, why do you care? Are you gods lawyer?
Seems like god is more than just a proposition for the universe as Christians understand “god” to be something more embedded in mainstream society. Instead of outright telling you, I’ll let you figure it out.
HINT: Why aren’t atheists “attacking” the Amish Christians as opposed to evangelicals or Catholics?
@@streetsdisciple0014 Hmm? Me? I defend the faith because the Bible demands it, and because I don't like how atheists attack my religion. And they attack it because they are tribalists who don't want Christians to believe. They go after Catholicism and evangelicalism because ether they or the key atheists they listen to are largely either a part of those groups or ex-Protestants. I don't think there's a big mystery here. It's an emotional thing for them and they lash out against the church. They act irrationally because they don't want it to be true. That's why they say that no evidence is good enough.
@@streetsdisciple0014 "aRe YoU gOdZ LaWyEr?" 😂
I really liked that guy, really smart
1:16:32 Every channel. Even WLC used to say similar things.
In the first argument I'm already lost: as I gathered in your opinion proving something is based mostly on probability, is it not?
That to me makes little sense, it seems incomplete: as an example similar to the clock argument for the existence of God, if I throw lets say 10 six sided dice and for simplicity let's assume I can discern the order. Then I get the combination and if only probability and randomness are involved I would have had a 1 in 6 to the power of ten chance of getting that combination but if it existed an invisible, untouchable, unperceivable little cheating goblin that wanted that combination, the probability of that event would have been 100%. Does that prove the existence of that goblin?
On the second one: address the strongest version of an argument. As it has been said, there are tons of different version for each one. It's impossible to address them all so isn't it logical to talk about the most common ones?
One can't be expected to have the same amount of skepticism on every arguments. To you , saying that I drank a glass of water is as credible as saying I jumped to the moon and got back?
Scientist don't relay on testimony. Science is based on proof and repeatable experiments. If someone says something about science they can cite the sources and one can repeat the experiment. Scientists love to be put under scrutiny, peer review. If someone said there's a thing that you con never measure or see or experience you've got only their statement.
There's a great difference between faith in religion and """faith""" in science (you can't even apply faith to science but is one common argument of apologist, sadly)
One of the reason of teams of research can be traced exactly on the lack of faith. One can make mistakes, say something stupid or intentionally wrong, that's why we need members of a team monitoring each others.
I don't see a convincing argument on why memory is such a problem as you say bbut even if it was, there are ways to minimize its effects (like repeatable experiments, data tracking,documenting each step etcetera)
I see the problem with the current definition of atheist, that's why you don't define someone by what they are not. Anyway, if we keep it, does an agnostic really classify as an atheist? I mean, there is a believe even if not certain. There's a chance in an agnostic view for the existence of God.
"You know that one equals one..." I'm not a mathematicians but if you say something similar to them like 1+1=2 always, they will probably cry.
Science does try to do without as much unproven supposition as possible. There are a lot of axioms of course but they have been proven to be true. Not like you can't be both red and green at the same time. In certain ways you can.
(And sincerely I've never seen a scientist say they can trust their senses. That's why we created machine that can give a measure as objective as possible)
Testimony is the most unreliable source of information. Even in some justice system they're considered at last place. Otherwise I should listen to those who say they've seen God, aliens, Greek gods etcetera simultaneously. At least that's what god said to me.
To me it seems you're talking of a straw man of scientism. Are there even reliable logic alternatives to scientism?
One thing I’ll add regarding lack-theism is that in order for their to be symmetry between the atheist and the theist is to suggest that someone who lacks non-belief in god is a theist. A person who lacks non-belief in god isn’t required to affirm belief in god. This would mean that a person could both lack belief and lack non-belief in god, but also be a theist. This sounds pretty absurd to me.
Cameron, even Joe, I’m curious about y’all’s thoughts on what I’ve said.
40:30 "any carving up of the conceptual space needs to accommodate a distinctly agnostic position"
how does your carving up of the conceptual space allows you to accommodate the distinct positions of FIDEISM and EVIDENTIALISM ?
because this is the same distinction.
If one can affirm belief and abscence of knowledge that pertains to the belief (fideism)
and one can affirm believe AND knowledge (evidentialism),
then one can affirm lack of belief and knowledge (anti-theism)
or lack of belief and absence of knowledge (atheism or non-theism).
all the people here that claim absence of knowledge (fideists and atheists) are agnostics,
and all the people here that claim knowledge (evidentialists and anti-theists) are gnostics...
I don't know why it's so difficult, philosophers use the terms gnostic theists, and agnostic theists all the time.
materialism drives to fallabilism, so atheism is the default state in that context. Skeptics as ancient as Pyrrho spoke of "epoché" the suspension of judgment... aren't theists able of suspending their judgment ?
claiming that the answer "I don't know", or "I don't believe so" to the question "is there a god" is irreceivable is just in bad faith.
@JD Apologetics *"Typically, philosophers construe "true belief" to be a necessary condition for knowledge"*
not in fallibilism.
And Gettier (and many others) showed all the problems that come along with this definition, famously illustrated by his "gettier problems".
*"the standard definition of fideism is not a rejection that we can know God exists. Rather, it's the claim that our knowledge of God does not (or cannot) derive from evidence or reason"*
yes, it's a different epistemological position. If someone claims that one can have knowledge that is not derived from evidence or reason, then one can reject or accept any claim on that basis.
*"Philosophers do not typically use the terms "gnostic theist" or "agnostic theist,""*
I would agree with you that I never saw it written in an academic paper (so far), but I have watched debates with academic philosophers that talked about gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism to express the distinction that we are talking about here.
@JD Apologetics I may have misinterpreted Gettier, but it seemed to me that what Gettier was saying is that "justified true belief" is placing too many constraints on justification for knowledge, and that if you keep the three, you can justify certainty about false things, as illustrated by his gettier problems.
And one of his proposition to solve these probelm is to jettison the "true" constraint on knowledge, which is pretty much what fallibilism means : knowledge as justified belief, that can happen to be true... or not... which is to say that knowledge doesn't require the truthfulness of a proposition (epistemic certainty) to be justified knowledge.
so when you say
*"Typically, philosophers construe "true belief" to be a necessary condition for knowledge."*
and then when you say
*"Fallibilists do not deny that knowledge entails true belief. Fallibilists deny that knowledge requires one to have epistemic certainty."*
I am not sure I understand you, fallibilists are "typical philosophers" are they not ? and they deny that "true" is a necessary condition for knowledge do they not ?
Your second sentence is unclear, could you clarify it for me ?
As you can see in fallibilism there is no problem in having *"both people who know that god exists and people who know that god does not exist"*
because knowledge doesn't entail certainty, so both people can be wrong.
you say that I am using idiosyncratic definitions, that might be so, let's see, my definition was :
- one that affirms belief and abscence of knowledge that pertains to the belief.
your definition is :
- the claim that our knowledge of God does not (or cannot) derive from evidence or reason.
stanford's definition is :
- faith is in some sense independent of, if not outright adversarial toward, reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds-or at any rate appears to hold (more on this caveat shortly)-that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.
if one defines knowledge as justified belief, and defines justified belief through the use of evidence or reason, then your definition seems incoherent, maybe this is what you call "idiosyncratic" on my part, and yet, this acception seems to be corroborated by these further excerpts from the same stanford article :
"During the Middle Ages, efforts to reconcile Christian doctrine with Aristotelian logic-newly reintroduced into European thought via the translation of Aristotle’s corpus from Greek and Arabic-gave rise to a family of positions that Sheila Delany groups together under the label “skeptical fideism.” By distinguishing the revealed truths of the Christian religion, which can be accepted only via what they posited as a distinct faculty of faith, from the knowledge"
"John Paul II warned of “a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God"
"although Kant famously championed the conception of a thoroughly “rational” (i.e., moral) version of Christianity-a “religion within the limits of reason alone”-he also placed religious belief outside the domain of what can be known by means of speculative philosophy. In this way, he “found it necessary to deny knowledge, in order to make room for faith” (1929, 29)."
@JD Apologetics hey thanks for those clarifications, before I answer, can I ask you to give some precisions on your definitions ?
when you say epistemic certainty is different than truth, which definition of truth do you use here ?
and when you speak of "properly basic beliefs", are you using it as a synonym to brute facts (foundationalism) ? or dogmatic belief (axioms)?
because when I do a quick search on stanford for "properly basic belief" , I get 14 results, of which here are the first four titles :
Religious Experience
Divine Revelation
The Epistemology of Religion
Moral Arguments for the Existence of God
so maybe that's why I haven't come across that term so far ??
@JD Apologetics hey, again, thanks for the clarifications, so let me see if I can articulate all of this (and get it right)
(T) correspondence theory of truth : a true proposition is a proposition that corresponds to reality.
(K) knowledge is JTB : justified true (T) belief [but per Gettier that is not sufficient (JTB + X ??)]
(P) Psychological certainty is a feeling of extreme confidence.
(E) Epistemic certainty is about the objective likelihood that my belief-forming process will lead to truth. the state of not possibly being mistaken about a belief
(F) Fallibilists deny that epistemic certainty (E) is a necessary feature of knowledge (K)
(B) Properly basic beliefs are beliefs which are justified, but do not rely on other beliefs for their justification (epistemology)
(BF) brute facts are different from properly basic beliefs. Brute facts are facts that are contingently true but have no explanation for their truth (metaphysic)
there is a difference between (T) and (E), it is the difference between, like you said : *"the belief one has in the truth of a proposition* [and] *the confidence one ascribes to that belief"*
So if I go back to my initial comment :
If one can affirm belief and abscence of knowledge that pertains to the belief (fideism)
and one can affirm believe AND knowledge (evidentialism),
then one can affirm lack of belief and knowledge (anti-theism)
or lack of belief and absence of knowledge (atheism or non-theism).
as you said, with (K) and (T), *"there cannot exist both people who know that god exists and people who know that god does not exist"* , because one would have the (T) condition of JTB, and the other wouldn't.
which doesn't prevent them from claiming or "affirming" their knowledge.
The "certainty" part comes in the "justified" part of (K), meaning certainty is just a modality of justifying a true belief, a measure of the confidence in the justification, and this is also where the concept of properly basic belief (B) comes in, if one justifies a belief as a (B), then we might say that they don't have (E). But does it mean that if we don't have (E), we automatically need to conjure (B) ?? (in foundationalism)
now with regards to fallibilism, initially I said :
I may have misinterpreted Gettier, but it seemed to me that what Gettier was saying is that "justified true belief" is placing too many constraints on justification for knowledge, and that if you keep the three, you can justify certainty about false things, as illustrated by his gettier problems.
And one of his proposition to solve these probelm is to jettison the "true" constraint on knowledge, which is pretty much what fallibilism means : knowledge as justified belief, that can happen to be true... or not... which is to say that knowledge doesn't require the truthfulness of a proposition (epistemic certainty) to be justified knowledge.
From the definitions above, I do seem to be missing the distinction between truth (T) and certainty (E).
as you said :
*"Epistemic certainty is not the same thing as truth. Rather, it is the state of not possibly being mistaken about a belief. Classical skeptics gave arguments (e.g., the existence of optical illusions, the possibility that we are all dreaming right now) to claim that we cannot have epistemic certainty, and then made the skeptical assertion that knowledge is impossible. Fallibilists deny that certainty is a necessary feature of knowledge. They don't deny that truth is a necessary condition for knowledge."*
but, if I can be a bit critical here on your explanation, I would have hoped that you had not chosen an analytical example to illustrate the distinctions between (T), (P) and (E), because you open up the whole topic of analytic vs synthetic. And your examples of mathematics are, because I am not a mathematical realist, off topic, because mathematics don't give (T), they just give tautologies, something cannot be (T) in virtue of the definitions that you give of it, it can only be "valid", or "trivial", or "analytically true" if you see what I mean.
And "analytical knowledge" (AK) would be JVB "justified valid belief" (I'm having a little fun here)
But there are plenty of synthetic examples in the stanford article about "The Analysis of Knowledge" and the gettier problems (like the barn example, or the dog in a park example) much like your own time watch example.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#GettProb
And to the point, if the truthfulness (T) of a A is undecidable (if it is untestable for example) then, following (K)=JTB knowledge is justified true (T) belief, it is never possible to determin whether any claim about A is (K) or not, since the (T) condition of (K) is undecidable. If one defines (K) as being possible with or without (E) (fallibilism or not), doesn't have any impact of the (T) condition of (K), since (E) is a modality of "J" the justification.
If that is the case, fallibilists can never claim knowledge of anything that are not true (like you said, they don't deny that truth is a necessary condition for knowledge). But in the absence of (E), then what exactly can they claim to be knowledge then ?
It would seem to mean that indeed, they are not justified in claiming that they "know they are more than one year old" wouldn't it ? (here I assume that "being one year old" is an untestable claim)
@JD Apologetics
I'm a bit lost here, because I've only seen the term "non-cognitivism" used in ethics, and it refers to the question of whether value judgments have truth values or not, so if I try to apply this to epistemology, do you mean to refer to the question whether propositions about god have truth values or not ? or whether there are *"facts of the matter"* about god propositions ?
Let me see if I can give a satisfactory answer without trying to answer your question :D
In philosophy there is a distinction between what is real (independant of the mind), and what is not real (dependant of the mind), and this distinction is different from the distinction between existence and non existence.
so things can be existing and not real, for example, everything that is not independant of your mind, like thoughts, ideas, concepts, abstractions etc.
Atheism, anti-theism, evidentialism, fideism, none of these categories claim that god doesn't exist in my opinion, the controversy is on reality (realness ?), not on existence.
So atheists affirm that they don't believe god is real, and they also affirm that they don't have "knowledge" (I guess we still need to finish that conversation) that pertain to that belief.
Anti-theists affirm that they don't believe god is real, and they also affirm that they do have knowledge ...
so for both of these cases, we are talking about people that believe god is only an abstraction, a concept.
ok, with this disambiguation, if I take your question :
*"On your view, does the atheist withhold belief about the proposition, "God exists," and the anti-theist believe the proposition, "God does not exist?" if that's true, I don't know what the difference between a gnostic atheist and an anti-theist is. Are you using them synonymously?"*
if, if you allow me, I change the words "god exists" in your question with "god is real", then yes, a gnostic atheist would be an atheist that pretends to have knowledge, therefore he would be an anti-theist.
*"or is a gnostic atheist a non-cognitivist (someone who claims that there is no fact of the matter about whether God exists, or that the statement "God exists" is not a meaningful proposition). In the latter case, I could see how someone make a knowledge claim ("I know that 'God exists' is not a meaningful proposition.") but still withhold belief about (rather than deny) the proposition "God exists.""*
so, same here, god exists, that's not the issue, the issue is : is it real ? therefore "god is real" is definitely a meaningful proposition, it is opposed to "god isn't real", and both refer to the same question : is god something independant of my(our) mind(s) ?
*"I think that the Fallibilist would deny that they can't test whether they are more than one year old: they would cite memory evidence, photos, public records, etc., as evidence that their belief is true. When you respond that such a belief is not "testable", you seem to assume what the fallibilist denies--that to get at truth, you need a process that can provide you with epistemic certainty."*
wait, that's not how you defined fallibilism, you defined it as
(F) Fallibilists deny that epistemic certainty (E) is a necessary feature of knowledge (K)
now you are defining it as :
(F') Fallibilists deny that epistemic certainty (E) is a necessary feature of truth (T)
I would agree with you that this "I am more than one year old" might not be the best example, and I agree with you that fallibilists would affirm that the claim of being more than one year old is a testable claim.
There are a few different definitions of fallibilism that I came across, but I remember that they all seemed to point towards the position that there was no absolute knowledge and that everything we know could be false (which would contradict the definition that you gave of fallibilism), which was my initial motivation in saying that fallibilists sort of jettisons the "true" condition of (K)=JTB.
I am self-tought in all matters of philosophy, and my initial training is in science, I remember before I started to read about philosophy, defining "knowledge" as : "what allows you to make accurate predictions"
And to this day, this seems to me to be a relevant solution to the gettier problems, how do you check if your right in claiming that it is midday, if you have a doubt about the accuracy of your watch ? you make predictions, you say : if it is midday, I should hear 12 beats on the bells in a few instants, or if I ask the next bystandard about the time, he will answer midday, or the sun should be pretty high in the sky etc...
Coming from a scientist this definition of knowledge is not surprising, since it kind of implies the scientific method and the epistemological value of novel predictions. But notice also that it completely seperates knowledge from truth. This is how you can have knowledge about synthetic objects, you define truth as something you are trying to approach, which is the exact correspondence to reality, but you also acknowledge that it might be unreachable (absence of epistemic certainty), therefore you kind of switch the goal post of epistemology from truth, to predictive power, the closest thing we have to epistemic certainty, by doing that, you can talk of knowledge as justified belief, and you condition justification on a list of criterias, that are logically or inductively derived through time (which gave us the scientific method).
If you don't do that, like you said, *" I just think it's difficult to come up with synthetic truths about which we can have epistemic certainty, except maybe my own existence"*
following that (and your definition of knowledge (K)), then, the only thing that fallibilist should be able to claim knowledge of should be there own existence, because whether you have epistemic certainty or not, you should only be able to claim knowledge of something that is also true, which is precisely the thing that you are trying to assess with epistemology.
Now to go back to the atheist/anti-theist thing, with my unorthodox definition of knowledge, when the atheist affirms that he doesn't believe god is real, and that he doesn't have knowledge, the term knowledge here is a direct implicit reference to the epistemic method entailed in knowledge, which is to say, he affirms that he has seen none of the "evidence" that is required for his epistemology, in other words, he has no good reason to believe god is real.
the anti-theist on the other hand, pretends that he has come upon evidence that god is not real (logical contradictions, supernatural things that make no sense, and there is also the whole Bayesian inference like competing explanations for the claims of theists and all that jazz)
Gnosis, then, is also a direct reference to the epistemic method, if you applied your epistemic method and you found yourself able to reach a conclusion, then you are a "gnostic" of the matter in question, if you didn't apply the method (simple ignorance) or if you don't have the requirements to even start applying your method (like unfalsifiable claims for falsificationists) or if you can apply your method but you can't reach a conclusion because you're missing some stuff, or the method is ill-equiped to face that kind of claim, then you are an "agnostic" with regards to the particuliar claim.
In that sense the fideist is an agnostic, he believes without applying epistemology, if believes without appealing to evidence or reason.
And that is also why I consider myself an atheist (agnostic atheist) and not an anti-theist (gnostic atheist), because my epistemology is the scientific method, and that to even begin to apply the scientific method, you need to check if the claim is falsifiable, and most theists design or formulate their claims such that they be not falsifiable, therefore I cannot apply the scientific method, therefore I cannot conclude, therefore I do not have knowledge, therefore I am not a gnostic.
If, for example, theists would claim that praying to their god could heal the sick, that would be a falsifiable claim, and I could apply the scientific method on that claim, and acquire knowledge about that claim.
One could, in theory, hold on to the truth part of (K)=JTB, but it would be more like I said earlier : your knowledge can happen to be true, or not... it is still knowledge.
bruh I totally busted out laughing OMG
Question: Isn't expecting extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims something like poisoning the well? Doesn't this cause meaningful conversation to crash to a halt? And maybe stopping the conversation is the goal of the statement after all...
I assume from the disdain Cameron expressed to the lack of philosophical rigor displayed by "new/youtube atheists", that he's not really concerned as much with a way to lead others to Christianity but more in displaying his superior intellectual abilities and attempting to humiliate people who don't share his views.
I'm sure Logical Positivism is going to come up. Also, Atheists can tend to view God the same way as they view the gods of the Pantheon, rather than the ultimate source of everything that is. Those are the two biggest problems New Atheists have. Joe Schmid actually made a worthwhile video on New Atheism as well.
NO. I am perfectly clear of your claim this mythical god is believed to be "the ultimate source of everything that is." I simply have never encountered any evidence whatsoever that suggests such a being.
@@theoskeptomai2535 I am happy to discuss what you think would count as evidence for God's existence.
@@fujiapple9675 And I would be equally as happy to hear what evidence convinced you of your conviction.
Like any claim to truth of import, I would require sufficient credible evidence to change my position (as would any individual)
I define 'evidence' as _any_ presentation that substantiates the truth of a claim.
I define 'credible evidence' as that which is verifiable for validity, accuracy, and authenticity.
I define 'sufficient credible evidence' as that which can convince another of the truth of a claim.
Have you ever encountered credible evidence for the existence of a god?
I admit I thought that Swinburne impersonation was just "ok" but Zizek´s was almost perfect, I almost couldnt believe its not him.
aaaa, the Swinburne impression!!!!
So, on the "extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence".
I just take this to be a slogan that's meant to explain the notion of priors used in Bayesian reasoning. Note that the slogan doesn't say "extraordinary claims require one piece of extraordinary evidence".
And yes the slogan conveys an obvious truth to most people who have discussed these issues for a while but these things aren't always obvious to lay people.
I'll restate the challenge I gave to Cameron, give me an atheist that expands it in another way. Not, point to an atheist that didn't expand it. I've only ever heard it expanded in the priors sense. I often do see atheist expands by giving example (the famous pet dog vs pet dragon).
(I've seen a theist expand it to "supernatural claim required supernatural evidence" which would be crazy).
I've also asked some lay people what they think the slogan conveys and they seem to get it just fine. Some of them also thought it was thought provoking.
Last note: I don't particularly like slogans to be honest but as slogans goes this one is alright.
So I don't think it's an argument btw, it's just a catchy way to relay to an audience of lay people the fact the we need to take priors into account.
So, it can't be the a critique of the slogan that people don't follow it up with proper argumentation. But I agree that you probably should follow it up with proper argumentation and evidence and everything.
Considering the vast array of belief systems that claim to be Christians it's quite amazing that Cameron is so insistent that words have definite meanings, very few words in the English language have only one definition by the way.
You know, for an agnostic, he did really good! Next time you talk to him, tell him Brian Bowen from Apologetics 101 said that. Blessings!
Stephen Woodford probably says 'free biggest mistakes'. I keep thinking he is from Essex since that is where he sounds like he is from and he sounds like my brother when he is not consciously trying to get rid of his Essex accent. (I probably sound a bit like that too, only I am biased).
I think that for lay folk, the local skepticism you describe, is based on a second axis that you ignore in your examples... consequence. If I believe the testimony of a religious text then I have to change a lot of beliefs in my life; it has a lot of consequences and thus I tend to question it more. Whereas, you claiming your delighter was happy has essentially no consequences on my life... to the point I don't even question if you have a daughter or not. Applying skepticism in this way allows for a skeptic to go about their life without questioning literally everything, and still have deep concerns over the testimony of a religious text.
Put ∃(X) on the front and ∄(X) on the back.
perfectly balanced, as all things should be
What a beautiful video!
Regarding @57:56 all of Joe's impressions are amazing! Joe, PLEASE also do your Jordan Peterson. Back in the day he sounded like Kermit the frog. Now he’s Kermit with throat cancer.
The impression from Slavoj Žižek
is really impressive
So, the magnitude of their mistakes can actually be quantified? Intriguing.
It's not just that people can define things how ever they want, it's that the definition is less important than the argument. All that matters is both people agree on the term
The part where they talk about "no evidence" reminds me of Kelly from Rational Response Squad when she was being interviewed by Todd Friel. She has that California "Valley Girl" accent when she says, "there's just no evidence..." like it's some kinda slam dunk argument... and the way Friel handles that conversation was quite remarkable
Yeah, a much better talking point is to say that the evidence isn't sufficient to warrant belief in the supernatural, not that there is no evidence.
@@worldviewdetective9456 which is highly subjective, and based on prior metaphysical presuppositions and commitments (ie naturalism).
Something theists have been trying to point out for years to lacktheists. I don’t think they’re seeing it anytime soon still lol
@@plzenjoygameosu2349 Who's fault is it that the evidence for God's existences is highly subjective? God, being omnipotent, could have created humans so that everyone would instinctually know that Christianity is true, but he didn't. You might respond by saying that irrefutable evidence would remove our free will to choose God or not, but according to Christianity the demons know God exists but still reject him, so this claim clearly isn't the case.
Also, you don't need to presuppose naturalism to reject a given supernatural claim. Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christian theists believe a God exists, but still don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. A God could exist and every religion on planet Earth still be false.
Really that what is your creditable testable evidence for any god... Ow wait you don't have any.
@@darrylelam256 I don't get it... on a vid about the 3 biggest mistakes, you persist in employing one of the big 3 right here. Did you even watch the vid? I think that when you do this you poison the well for any meaningful conversation from the start. So what kind of evidence would convince you of the reality of God?
@ Sarah Bush you need to read all of Exodus and tell us how many times God hardened Pharaoh's heart
Joe 3 "There is no evidence for God":
Cameron's point of this claim often being unfollowed by evidence is excellent. However, I am less convinced by Joe's point. Joe essentially brings up Bayes theorem and argues that there are some observations that are more expected under a theistic model than an atheistic model. However, his specific example seems very post hoc. He claims that we should expect a perfect God to create a world with intelligent life, but I doubt that this could be precisely argued. Considering the vagueness of some attributes defining God, there are many different intentions that God might have if He exists (note that I am using epistemic, not ontological possibility). Thus, the set of theories in which God exists and desires the existence of life form a subset of the set of theories in which God exists in general. Therefore, the existence of a God that crates life has a lower apriori probability than the existence of God in general. From this, it could be the case that as the specificity of the type of God increases to be better evidenced from the fact that life exists, the apriori probability of this type of God drops to negligible levels.
Of course, the primary issue is not the apriori probability shrinking as the specificity of the theory increases. Rather, it is the arbitrary nature of developing apriori probabilities in the first place. Without some measure on the space of theories, this apriori probability is impossible to objectively define. This indefinability allows anyone to imagine the prior probability to be whatever they need it to be to verify their opinion. Since this bias tends to manifest as post hoc reasoning, the only remedy that I can imagine is to favor theories that are capable of predicting future observations. A theory that predicts can not be rationalized via post hoc methods in the same way that a theory that explains can. An example of this process is the verification of the big bang theory, where the model was developed to explain red shifting, then successfully predicted the cosmic background radiation, which was previously unobserved.
Still, not every theory makes predictions for future observations. Theories about certain past events are an example of this. However, as long as these non-predictive theories can be stated as composites of predictive theories, they can inherit their apriori probabilities from the mechanics of the predictive theories that they are composed of. For example, the theory that a specific man was murdered can be the composite of a medical theory describing how he died and a psychological theory describing the potential motivation of the murderer. Here, both the medical and psychological theories are verified by having made predictions, in which case the priors that they suggest for the specific case of the man being murdered can be considered objective.
Unfortunately, a theory that God exists cannot be described by any predictive theory. Thus, the only way it could have satisfying evidence (under the conditions I present) is by being verified as having predictive power itself. When atheists claim there is no evidence for God, they often mean that God cannot be used to make predictions.
To avoid accusation of scientism, I must note that "predictive theories" need not be "scientific" in the sense that they are uncovered using the scientific method. When I trust my friend, I am believing in a casual predictive theory that I will never observe my friend going back on his word. To rationally earn this trust, I must have been able to have correctly predicted his honesty in the past using this theory. Additionally, this discussion does not have any bearing on whether deductive arguments for God have merit.
The intuitive generation to generation bigger picture.
1. One’s meaning of personal life existence worldview.
A lot of life experience with age usual do or can change ones world view from dorm and parents basement years..
The older I get the more I agree with the conclusion from the author of Ecclesiastes.
I don't understand this "gotcha" with amethysts where one sides tries to catch someone saying something wrong or a goof up and the other celebrates as if he won and is better. Nothing is going to change your faith in God and not I ing will change a amethysts so why?
I really appreciate and respect the knowledge you and Joe have on these issues!
The distinction between agnostic and atheist is the seperation between knowledge and belief
Wrong. Knowledge, and belief are actually one, and the same.
23:30 It’s surprising that Joe goes in the direction because this line of reasoning is so easily shot down. It’s similar to the "I have a dog in my backyard" claim verses "I have a dragon in my backyard" claim. Nobody requires extra proof for the dog claim because it’s nothing extraordinary. Dogs clearly exist. Lots of people have dogs. Unless it’s critical testimony in a murder case, nothing much is at stake with the claim. The dragon testimony is very different and requires a ton of evidence to back it up. The same goes for testimony about the supernatural.
Even if God does exist, why even think about it if this god can't be detected in any testable way.
This invisible god is pretty boring, why waste your time with it.
I think if the lower hanging fruit are just a few inches lower, then the highest fruit. That argument isn't really a argument.
There's no way to test the reliability of our memory? How hard is it to record a conversation, record a person's recollection of the conversation and play them back side by side while recording the things they got right and wrong? This rings of the "you have faith that chair will hold you up when you sit on it" Yeah, because I've sat on hundreds of chairs just like I've correctly remembered what's going on in hundreds of conversations while I'm having them. Granted, our memory is a lot worse than we tend to believe it is. We need to appropriately be skeptical of our ability to correctly perceive and remember things because we are easily manipulated. The point is we understand our strengths and weaknesses in memory and cognition. We don't rely blindly on our memory as humans. Unless you want to go into brain in a vat or we were all created last Thursday with our memories implanted.
What he said about the limits of the Scientific Method I have discussed myself. We have more modes of knowledge besides science, & the Scientific Method, although a good method in empirical sciences, is still limited in what it can prove. As I said, I think he did really good.
What knowledge of real phenomena is unavailable to scientific methodologies? Can you provide an example?
@@theoskeptomai2535 Yes. For example, the Scientific Method cannot be applied to historical events beyond our own lifetime. The Scientific Method is based upon observation, repeatability, & experimentation, but we can't observe events if they are beyond our own lifetimes. We certainly can't repeat them, & we cannot experiment on them since they would have to be able to exist in front of us to be able to experiment on them. In William Lane Craig's debate with Christopher Hitchens Craig gave five things that cannot be proven by scientific inquiry, one of which was esthetic (beauty) things. You could throw in metaphysics (which I think was one of Craig's points), consciousness, theology, etc. These things require different methods because they are different modes of knowledge by which human beings acquire information. Thank you for the reply, I hope this was helpful! Blessings!
@@apologetics-101 Thanks for you response. Let me ask you, do you think the position of atheism is a rationally justified one?
@@theoskeptomai2535 No. Even if it was true that there was zero evidence for the existence of God, at best that would make you agnostic on the issue, since there would always be a possibility that God exists, even if no evidence existed for him. I have talked with many atheists, & I can never really figure out why they are atheists in the first place since they can never give me rational justification for their atheism. However, there is very strong evidence for the existence of God that comes straight out of the natural sciences. Evidence from information, evidence from biochemistry, evidence from biology, astronomy, physics, etc., all pointing toward the existence of a Creator. The more we know & discover the more the evidence appears to be rubber-stamping that point. To me, the viewpoint of either atheism or naturalism is becoming irrational every time we make a discovery. I just don't see how one can look at all that & still conclude that their atheism is rational. Also, so far, I haven't found an atheist that can produce a rationale for their own atheism either. Thanks for the reply! Blessings!
@@apologetics-101 I disagree and here is why:
There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism regards. And that is the 'theistic' claim that "God(s) exists."
Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim; *_acknowledgement_* of the claim; and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to the claim.
The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no middle ground.
And it is our approach to answer _this_ dichotomy that determines our position and the proper definition of an identity associated with such a position.
The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as true (theism), or does _not_ acknowledge the claim as true (atheism). Again, there is no middle ground.
The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism).
The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time.
The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning a given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time.
This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "god(s) exists."
The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from or personal relationship with the deity mentioned in the claim.
The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence.
The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'.
And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._
Of the four populations, only the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions.The agnostic atheist is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist.
This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an agnostic atheist.
Can you guys do a video on the problem of evil.
I want to see someone do a WLC impression hahaha
53:40 "I think that lack theism is potentially destructive to natural a-theology"
sure.... so the lack of a belief in the spaghetti monster is destructive to natural a-spaghetti-ology...
the lack of a belief in OOty'A (that I just pulled right out of my A) is destructive to natural a-OOty'A-ology...
philosophers just need to speak about epistemology (which they did, and they do) and if you still believe without evidence (fideism) then the efforts of natural a-theologists are completely vain (sorry paul draper).
I think you misinterpreted his sentence. He uses "lack theism" as a sort of technical term throughout the conversation, to refer to a conception of Atheism that just considers atheism "lack of belief in God".
So the correct equivalent would be: "the conception of a-spaghetti-monsterism as a lack of belief in the spaghetti monster is destructive to natural a-spaghetti-monsterology" which seems like a reasonable point to me.
He's simply saying that defining atheism as a belief in the non-existence of God, provides a better appreciation of the work done about this.
@@Imheretohelpnhavefun no no, this was exactly my point,
*"the conception of a-spaghetti-monsterism as a lack of belief in the spaghetti monster is destructive to natural a-spaghetti-monsterology"*
doesn't seem reasonable to me.
No-one asks of no-one to make up a field or inquiry about the non-reality of X, X being whatever silly thing I imagine.
so if conjure out of thin air that OOty'A exists and is real and has impact over our lives, or the source of objective morality etc..
If I then say : "Oh but your lack or belief in my made-up being is detrimental to the field of inquiry that endeavours to prove the non-reality of my made-up thing"
Ir would be reasonable for anyone to laugh at me, and just discard my made up being out of hand.
If we didn't, we would have to open up a different field of inquiry everytime a human being invented a new being....
As long as theists remain utterly incapable of providing the first ounce of an evidence for their claim, I think it is unreasonable to spend any time or energy or ressource in "natural atheology".
@@MrGustavier Ok, I see your point. I don't understand why you say theists don't offer a shred of evidence though. You may think the evidence is uncompelling, but to say that we simply do not offer any is simply false. There are many arguments that are put forward, that's probably why there are atheist philosophers who believe it's useful to respond to them. You can't claim your oponents don't offer arguments simply because you think they are faulty in some way or another. If there are people making claims and offering arguments, and there are people who believe those arguments, and you believe they are invalid, it makes more sense to just respond to their arguments and show why they are invalid, instead of just dismissing them as if no arguments were offered.
Although the name "natural atheology" seems to imply there are some other things to it then responding to theists. I hadn't heard the term before, so I don't really know what that could be...
@@MrGustavier @MrGustave1er Also, I'm still not sure if you understood my last point, because of the language you're using. To quote you:
"If I then say: 'Oh, but your lack or (sic) belief in my made-up being is detrimental to the field of inquiry that endeavours to prove the non-reality of my made-up thing'".
Do you not agree that this sentence is different than: "Your conception of this group as 'non-belief' is detrimental to the field of inquiry that endeavours to prove the non-reality of my made-up thing"? (Remember this is being said by someone who believes that the made up thing, to other people who also don't believe, but might be interested in the field of inquiry)
I mean, I don't have any horse in this race, since I'm not really interested in natural atheology, just trying to bring clarification, since you seem to me to be using sentences with different meaning as if they mean the same thing.
@@Imheretohelpnhavefun Yes, I agree with you, I should have specified : my epistemology stipulates a certain number of criteria to be met in order for something to be receivable as evidence.
So my claim that theist provide no evidence is to be conditioned on my definition of what an evidence is, and of course someone that doesn't have the same epistemology might call something evidence, that I would not accept as being an evidence. But this is why I said in my initial comment : "philosophers just need to speak about epistemology"
The philosophers that believe useful to respond to the claims of theists can be motivated by many things, maybe one of their motivation is to try to prevent the horrors of theocracy to knock at our door once again. People have been murdered and are still murdered everyday at the hands of theists because they don't believe in their made up being that no-one ever presented any evidence for (evidence as defined by the person being murdered).
I notice that in your response you subtly changed from evidence to argument. Arguments are fine, but arguments are not evidence, I can make up arguments about OOty'A, as long as I don't provide any evidence for OOty'A, my arguments can still be dismissed out of hand...
But of course if I have an army of followers that threatens anyone that lacks a belief in OOty'A, THEN it becomes difficult for anyone to dismiss my arguments doesn't it...
But of course if the society we live in make it extremely costly to lack a belief in OOty'A, like ostracization, discrimination and so on, THEN it becomes difficult for anyone to dismiss my arguments doesn't it...
But of course if one has an interest
in OOty'A then they can respond to my arguments, but where does the belief intervenes then ?
I am sure that many of the philosophers that respond to the arguments of theists don't believe in god, how exactly does the lack of belief prevents the field of natural atheology then ?
And what does natural atheology even means ? does it mean naturalism ? materialism ? clearly the lack of belief in god isn't detrimental for materialism...
*"Remember this is being said by someone who believes that the made up thing, to other people who also don't believe, but might be interested in the field of inquiry"*
I don't understand this sentence, is there a word missing ?
I hope this concept of scientism is more prevalent in our society. If people have a consensus that there are other ways of knowing other than science...
There are plenty of people who agree that there are other ways of knowing. However, they can't seem to agree on what that way is.
23:10 "rational intuition, how do you know that one equals one, or that nothing can be red all over, and green all over in the same time and in the same respect"
these are analytical propositions, they are defined. no one "knows" that one equals one, we just define it to be that way.
No one "knows" that contradictions can't be instanciated in matter, we just defined the law of non contradiction and decide to apply it.
And quantic superposition would be a relevant counter-example for your red/green intuition.
Common sense intuitions fail all the time, so saying that you "know" them, is ill-adviced.
On the third point, I think theists likewise apply the different levels of skepticism with regard to contrary religious views. I'm constantly amazed how blithely non-Mormons dismiss the twelve eye witnesses to Joseph Smith's golden tablets.
I actually think the golden tablets may be the best documented evidence for the resurrection of Christ. But I'm m not convinced.
The thing is that most theists and atheists don't care about philosophy. Or perhaps they only care about it insofar as it can supply arguments to support beliefs they already hold. Most of your problems with atheists can be summed up as "people who just aren't interested in philosophy of religion." You can give qualms about unexamined life and all that but people need to eat, they need to work and they need to enjoy life. There is only so much time in the world. Everyone who specializes in a domain hates when other people don't care about their specific domain but that's life.
Your jar example is a false equivalence and a false dichotomy. Your Jar example only works if both sides make claims about which jar the bean came from. I have no problems admitting I don't know which jar it came from, or that maybe it didn't come from those jars at all... so I don't need to point to a jar. it's the person who claims that it came from one of these jar that needs to present their evidence. And if they say it came from jar 2 because a book says so... I will press on and say, what evidence is there to prove that what that book is saying is true? And then comes 2 other books that also claims to know where beans came from and further claims to be the truth.
I think the (false) assertion that there is no evidence is really a misstatement of there is no demonstrable evidence. Nothing about the god claim can be tested or demonstrated. So there exist things that count as evidence that aligns with the notion of a god, but those things are also potentially evidence of some other thing. It is a short hand that you correctly point out is technically false and therefore leads many who miss that fact to believe falsely.
Interesting, the Reverse Ontological Argument is also what broke my faith in the argument! It seems to me that the argument simply proves that a necessary being either exists in all possible worlds or exists in none of them, which follows by definition. It doesn't prove that a necessary being exists in the actual world since there's no evidence that it's metaphysically possible. Also, it seems metaphysically possible that a necessary being does not exist. Well, actually it doesn't to me. I think there does have to exist a necessary being for contingent reality to exist but that simply makes the ontological argument, as you rightly note, pointless. I do though think there is beauty in the Ontological argument in showing that if it's even possible for God to exist, then he exists! This seems to beautifully demonstrate God's greatness by pointing to his total self-sufficiency or aseity.
1:09:01 Steven Nemes & Daniel Vecchio have a formulation of the Ontological Argument that I think is very good. I think the modal ontological argument is outdated, and once you actually bring Thomism into the Ontological argument, it regains its force without succumbing to any of the symmetry problems. They did a good talk on it on Suan Sonna's channel "Intellectual Conservatism" which is worth a watch.
@Steven Nemes lol the man himself. I did nothing! Thank you!
I wonder what the guest thinks of the chance of a Deist type God existing.
1. Consciousness is not more expected on theism.
Aren’t the folks you complain about simply the folks we used to call the village atheists?
Hi @Capturing Christianity, your point on being over skeptical on religion is a poor example.. Though there might be infinite truths to discover, humans generally don't have infinite time to pursue all of them in their lifetimes so we use a value system to prioritize what receives more attention. I use the same level of hyper-skepticism when critiquing both atheism and theism because they have a higher value in my value matrix. They affect how a person is going to lead their life drastically. If I'm going to stone a homosexual, I think more due diligence is required than in verifying whether you are lying to me about having a good day. but even that said, if you were a close friend and I noticed that your demeanor was not reflecting the words you have just said, I would upgrade my level of skepticism and dig deeper, if I valued you. Religion can be used as a tool to control the masses therefore to ask it to receive the same shallow verification as that undertaken during greeting seems unwise. With you comment on science, there is a peer review process where other expert take a dig at any proposed theory. That process reduces the probability of a false statement making it through unscathed. What people put trust in is the due diligence of the peer review process. We don't just believe everything off the bat. Even if you doubted the peer review process, you can reproduce the experiment and verify the results yourself if you dedicated time and resources to it. You don't necessarily have the same error checking in religious discord, it's mostly demands faith and belief.. "for God so loved the world....0".. The emphasis is on belief. "Belief" is usually used when you do not have evidence. If you have evidence, then it's just knowledge.
ROFL after the Swinburne impression
That type of talent is evidence that God exists IMO
45:31 "but if atheism is merely the state of lacking a belief in god, then there can be no arguments against atheism [...] you can't have an argument that conclude therefore the state of lacking a belief in god is false/true"
YES ! PRECISELY ! finally someone that gets it ! this is what it means to have the burden of proof ! no one is asking anyone to make an argument againt the lack of belief in the spaghetti monster !
if you want to attack naturalism, attack naturalism, if you want to attack materialism, attack materialism, but it is totally pointless to attack atheism ! attack our epistemology, not our beliefs !
An argument that concludes with "god exists", is an argument against naturalism, or materialism, and if the evidence that corroborates this argument are compelling, then atheism would just be the result of poor epistemology.
this is why you see so many atheist just taking the arguments of theists, and simply switching the terms, because the epistemology of theists allows us to do so !
because theists think that by manipulating concepts in their minds, they can derive truths about reality... so any deductive argument that supposedly works for their version of god, should work for anything for which the deductive argument holds true.
this is why it is difficult to build a "cumulative case" in theology, because the terms of the arguments are just restrained locally to the requirements of the argument.
One doesn't need to invoke the same definition of god in the kalam and in the moral argument, they don't HAVE TO refer to the same object, even if theists would like to, in order to justify their 'cumulative case"
So the atheist can swoop in and produce various concepts, that fill in the requirements of the different deductive arguments, and show that the arguments are proof of whatever hold a certain number of properties.
in empiricism, this problem doesn't arise, because the arguments refer to something that is real, as in empirically observable and testable... so building a cumulative case is easy, since it's (not always) easy to verify that the different arguments refer to the same object.
And if someone make claims about an object that is not empirically observable and testable (like... say... god) then skeptic epistemology is stopped at the very start, and therefore can't conclude anything = atheism.
@Frances Snowflake where did I spoke of the truthfulness or falsehood of theism ?
I think you're just repeating what I said, read me again, I said : "attack our epistemology, not our beliefs !"
it's strange to start a comment by "i'm afraid you're quite confused", to then repeat what the interlocutor has said in the rest of the comment.
Joe's silly jellybean analogy fails. Here's a short list of physical phenomena once attributed to the actions of supernatural beings only to be found to have better, natural explanations: the Earth, sun, moon, planets and stars, volcanoes, the sky, the wind, earthquakes, the day/night cycle, sex & reproduction, comets, plants and animals, the aurora, the rain, eclipses, the tides, meteorites, droughts, tsunamis, the seasons, plagues, mountains, glowing seas etc. Never has a workable natural explanation given way to a supernatural one. This justifies the belief that, whatever caused the Big Bang and Biogenesis, gods had nothing to do with it.
What does Joe offer up as a counterexample? The existence of "conscious, free moral agents." But all such beings we know of are material/chemical. Is God? All such beings we know of belong to _species._ Does God? All such beings we know of are _mortal._ Is God? This is a poor argument from analogy.
Sharks, even when hungry, will morally allow cleaner fish to safely enter their mouths. Many animal species will cooperate to hunt and groom and will morally protect their young. This is an indication of a god or gods? I don't follow. Is God moral? No. There is no such thing as morality that's compatible with any act whatsoever. That's just immorality or, at best, amorality.
Right, science is limited and there are assumptions, however whatever limits science has from an epistemological point of view, the same limits would apply to anything else. If your memory is limited while taking data it's equally limited while you sit in a chair and chant ohm. In other words, even if you reject science, your still going to suffer from all the same limitations as someone who accepts it.
Except that many theists also postulate the existence of a supernatural deceiver so they have even less justification.
@@goldenalt3166 I wouldn't disagree with you there!
I don't think you're disagreeing with what they said on the video, the point simply was that science is not enough as an all encompassing epistemological basis, it presupposes other more basic beliefs. (Which doesn't mean any other specific epistemological system doesn't have the same problem, just that scientism has.)
This just means that the claim: "if any proposition is not based on scientific observation it's not true" can't be true.
@@Imheretohelpnhavefun I think we do disagree, I don't think there even can be such a thing as "scientism", if you really know what science is. Science pertains to the techniques you use to eliminate error and bias. You can do bad science and use poor techniques and claim to be doing science. Believing in a notion of "scientism" seems to suggest there is some other better way of determining something, when there is nothing anyone can do to actually show that this is really the case. It's a claim that's only utility is to act as a kind of cover for religious apologists who cannot confront inconsistencies revealed by scientific scrutiny.
@@benjaminschooley3108 Hmm, ok, so it seems you do disagree with them, and I would argue you don't realize the implications of what you're saying.
I'm not disregarding the usefulness and correctness of scientific and empirical knowledge, I know they are very useful in a huge part of all the knowledge we have. What the guys in the video and I are arguing for is simply that this is not all encompassing. Joe in the video offers several arguments for this, showing that there are kinds of knowledge that can't be achieved through science, like mathematical and logical knowledge, or self knowledge. And the scientific method depends on these other kinds of knowledge as it's basis.
What we are calling scientism (which I'm not sure is defended by anyone philosophically, but I have seen being stated popularly) is the claim that only knowledge that can be attained trough science is real knowledge. Aside from the counter examples to that, it is pretty much a self contradictory statement, since, there can't be any scientific experiment that provides a basis for this claim.
That is different to saying: knowledge that can be attained by science is true knowledge, which I don't think anyone denies (or at least denies without using a faulty definition of science).
I don't understand why you seem to think this undermines scientific knowledge in any way. It doesn't say anything about scientific knowledge itself, it's just to counter the claim that anything that is not based on science is false. Do you disagree that there are things that we know for which the basis is not science?
Scientists can record their experiments, show me tangible results and propose testable predictions... what can theologians show me?
Is there a what? This is the most important question... :)
I think Joe was able to make this counter to "there is no evidence for God" because he compared theism to naturalism. That's not the only way to do it. You can still say there is no evidence that indicates God over a non-God but you'd have to go to something like naturalistic pantheism in order to try and match theism like for like. E.g When the theist says there's some reason that God has which makes moral creatures more likely, the naturalist pantheism which is not God but has a subset of the attributes of God could also provide a reason why moral creatures are likely. When you allow the non-theist similar moves you afford the theist, the "there is no evidence for God" stance becomes plausible again.
What the front door did I just read.
Naturalist pantheism? May I know some of these attributes? Does it have a will?
@@omaribnalahmed5967 He's been watching too much TJump
@@TKK0812 This didn't actually originate from TJump by the way. Can you comment on what I wrote apart from that?
@@omaribnalahmed5967 Please search for naturalistic pantheism here plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/ for more. "Does it have a will?" Unless we are using arguments from ignorance, will is probably not the only way for things to be brought about. It could be something like quantum states etc which just makes one outcome more likely than the other. But if you continue to press how does the natural pantheism work, you might have to answer how does God's will work too. Cos each can just be as unknown or as made up as the other.
@@elawchess it needs to have ordered morality which is a law based of Will lmao argument doesn't work.
Nice understood.can u give your phone no.if u have no any problem sir jii.main v ek video channel create kiya hu to aapke video se hmko bhut jyada help mil rha hai.aap aise hi regular video chodte rhe sir jiii.love your concept.thank u sir jiii
Thinking that whether you believe in any particular god or not is a rational decision is a mistake that a lot of people make.
8:32 - 10:15 assuming both possibilities (jars) are equally probable, you might be onto something,but only one draw tells you very little.
as far as I see it, it is more like one jar (nature) is what we know exists, we can explore and try to understand,while other is jar with wormhole to jelly beans factory in other dimension that supposedly works only if you believe in it.
since you mentioned that is how "scientists themselves often concieve of evidence", I will give you recent example that one draw tells you nothing.
ua-cam.com/video/L47NV190q5Q/v-deo.html if you listen to (and understand) what she says in the minute that starts with timestamp I give here, you'll understand that *one drawn jelly bean* tells you nothing as far as science goes.
I think you should invite Jay Dyer. He's a good proponent to Transcendental Argument for God.
They don't like dyer
@@OdysseyMMA22 I wonder why?
@@moviescrew8638 they say his too mean
@@OdysseyMMA22 in what way
@@moviescrew8638 sometimes he cusses and he is against the catholic and protestant church
Well, I can see there are many people who enjoy this sort of content, but I'd much rather listen to you maybe think about what are the biggest mistakes made by theists... you know, just to see you examine your own believes, rather than get into this loop of self-grattification. Same often goes for atheist youtubers, but to be fair, they're usually much better at including some sort of self criticism at the baseline... this is basically my issue with this whole channel: I can see you try and produce high quality content and I end up watching a lot more of it than I should... but damn, still nothing really interesting. Like now we're talking about what atheism should mean by the textbook. Not necessarily a bad question, I grant you that, but maybe let's think about how to use these words in a way that is useful for the debate? It's nice to get a history of philosophy lesson about it, but it doesn't really change much... words get redefined all the time, it almost always leads to both more AND less confusion, but you still have to move on.