Contingency = Good Evidence for God? w/ Dr. Kenny Pearce

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 29 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 290

  • @Oceania-nq5wx
    @Oceania-nq5wx 2 роки тому +16

    Yes, I would like to hear a discussion between Dr Pearce and Dr Rasmussen :)

    • @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
      @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 2 роки тому +1

      @Awesome Wrench They both begin to spin, one around the other in diminishing orbits, until they merge into a singularity.

  • @abbynormal10
    @abbynormal10 2 роки тому +9

    This is very interesting, makes me want to dive deeper into philosophy as a means of deepening my worship of God.
    The example of the clay/statue was very helpful.
    Also, the part about not having to explain things that are already sufficiently understood ('why does water contain hydrogen?') and some of the convo around that reminds me of how God answers Moses about His 'name', which is a form of an explanation, in Exodus 3:
    Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I am has sent me to you.’

    • @Qwerty-jy9mj
      @Qwerty-jy9mj 2 роки тому

      @Awesome Wrench
      2edgy4me

    • @Qwerty-jy9mj
      @Qwerty-jy9mj 2 роки тому

      @Awesome Wrench
      Which was the part that you couldn't spell?

    • @Qwerty-jy9mj
      @Qwerty-jy9mj 2 роки тому

      @Awesome Wrench
      You got confused over the double negative, didn't you? 🤣😂🤣😂

    • @Qwerty-jy9mj
      @Qwerty-jy9mj 2 роки тому

      @Awesome Wrench
      Just because you can't understand the argument, it doesn't mean it doesn't work. Get an adult to explain it to you.

    • @prodebates9182
      @prodebates9182 2 роки тому

      Philosophy gets you to a Prime Mover.
      Nothing gets you to a Christian God.
      Prove me wrong.

  • @prodebates9182
    @prodebates9182 2 роки тому +1

    Philosophy gets you to a Prime Mover.
    Nothing gets you to a Christian God.
    Prove me wrong.

    • @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
      @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 2 роки тому

      Philosophy don´t gets you to a Prime Mover. Prove me wrong.

    • @prodebates9182
      @prodebates9182 2 роки тому

      ​@@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
      P1: The universe began to exist.
      P2: All things that begin to exists have a cause.
      C: The universe has a cause.
      We can just label the cause of the universe (Everything that is) the Prime Mover.

    • @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
      @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 2 роки тому +1

      @@prodebates9182
      1 -For what reason do you affirm that the universe began to exist?
      2 -What is the basis for you to suppose that things begin to exist and not that each existing thing is just the transformation of something that already existed? Do you have any examples of something that has started to exist (in reality) and is not the result of the transformation of something else?
      There is a little problem if one understands that causality, as it appears in reality, can be used to show a unique first cause.

    • @prodebates9182
      @prodebates9182 2 роки тому

      @@EduardoRodriguez-du2vd Because either the universe began to exist or it did not begin to exist. I do not know how the universe could be eternal so I evaluate it beginning to exist as true. For all things beginning to exist having a cause I use induction. We could now go in to Hume's problem of induction if you'd like.
      I'm guessing you think:
      1 - It's possible the universe is eternal.
      2 - It's possible things that begin to exist don't have a cause.
      Is this accurate?

    • @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
      @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 2 роки тому +1

      @@prodebates9182 I have the impression that not distinguishing how it is possible for the universe to exist without having begun rests on the unfounded presupposition that everything has a beginning. But that presupposition does not derive from what is seen in reality.
      - The universe exists.
      - Humans have only witnessed transformations of existing entities in reality.
      - Humans do not know if existing entities have a beginning.
      - Humans do not have the slightest basis to consider that there was a first and only cause from which existing things derive.
      Given two entities, the interaction between them causes each of them to modify the other. It is not true that one affects the other first. The interaction is simultaneous. It is not rational to assume that each entity creates a subsequent entity forming a chain traceable to the first creating entity.
      Nor is it rational to assume that interactions only occur between two entities. An interaction can be composed of multiple entities (under normal conditions).
      Even in the case of a linear causal chain (never seen in reality) one has no reason to rule out the possible existence of multiple independent causal chains.

  • @MrGustavier
    @MrGustavier 2 роки тому +3

    13:14 _"We've got this chain of causes reaching back, and it can't go back forever for sm... For whatever reason"_
    Can someone help me decode the grin from both interlocutors here ?

    • @beanbrewer
      @beanbrewer 2 роки тому +3

      That's the mutual grin of "can we get away with this?"

    • @20july1944
      @20july1944 2 роки тому

      @@beanbrewer I don't know how to interpret their grin myself and I'm interested to know how your interpret it.
      I will say I have bitter experience with "for whatever reason" concealing deliberate deceit -- which makes me more curious.

    • @20july1944
      @20july1944 2 роки тому

      I don't know how to interpret their grin myself and I'm interested to know how your interpret it.
      I will say I have bitter experience with "for whatever reason" concealing deliberate deceit -- which makes me more curious.

    • @beanbrewer
      @beanbrewer 2 роки тому

      @@20july1944 well anyone listening can hear that they've hand waived away a key point in the argument. So it's reasonable to speculate that they recognized this themselves and don't want it pointed out because it threatens the integrity of the argument. As primates, we show our teeth when nervous and I believe they were nervous about the soundness of their argument

    • @20july1944
      @20july1944 2 роки тому

      @@beanbrewer Can you explain what they were avoiding saying?
      I'm only interested in science in this context and don't understand the philosophy that might be involved?

  • @philipatoz
    @philipatoz 2 роки тому +4

    Certain things most certainly DO beg for explanation - least for any thinking person! Most atheists I've debated with - and that's been many - tend to ignore questions of HOW certain things came to be, often claiming our lack of understandings doesn't prove there aren't non-theist explanations for them.
    Atheists also seem to think that at least SOMETHING was eternal, while denying that "something" could have been the God of the Bible, or any god(s). I ask them: How is it that just the right, necessary elements existed, in just the right proportions and proximities to build our universe. Science universally believes no material things existed before the Big Bang. Atheists often point to pre-existing energy or some supposed chain of eternal universes, etc. But an immense number of things (see NECESSARY things, to create the universe) with astonishing designs and functionalities IMMEDIATELY (in MINUTES!) came into existence, at the beginning of the Big Bang. And it's not just that the right and essential things came into existence, but that their unbelievably precise interactions and synergy immediately began brilliantly assembling and cross functioning (all these things show the exact opposite of random chaos), with breath-taking precision and on a scale we can scarcely fathom, much less understand. Not in billions of years, but in MINUTES!!!
    Physicists tell us these many incredibly designed building blocks of the universe immediately appeared and began to show order and determined assemblage, cross-functioning, and incredible precision of direction and operation. And WHAT they were / are and HOW they worked (and WORK) tick every possible box for what we one would otherwise assume (from mere common sense) requires a vast intelligence of great power. Else, we're back to such strategic sophistication occurring without any intelligence whatsoever - with blind, random things producing astoundingly complex designs and exponentially precise functioning. So complex are these things, that our best minds, after a century of intense study, scarcely understand even its basics, with countless books and scientific papers having been written about it.
    What do people think blind, non-intelligent things are capable of, anyway? Blind things can't see, think, hear, plan, plot, design, manipulate, perceive, create, or learn - or even have power or control over themselves. And yet, atheists assume such blind things can explain the stunning components of the Big Bang, life itself, DNA, etc. There are literally hundreds of universe fine-tunings now known to science (which are likely the tip of the iceberg of what was - and is - required!), with any one of them not existing, then ourselves and life itself could not / would not exist. And, without these many amazing things, the earth and universe could not exist or function as they do. So, countless contingent things requiring intelligence HAD to pre-exist us. I'll tell you what shows a lack of using one's intelligence - it's believing what science knows about the Big Bang and what came into existence, knowing about DNA, etc., while nonetheless denying such things reveal or required intelligence! And what such denial also reveals is a powerful determination for many to deny God's existence.
    To be fair, first realizing a powerful, intelligence was required for such complexity, designs, and functionalities doesn't immediately show us that it was the God of the Bible behind them. However, it DOES show us that such things immediately coming into existence would REQUIRE some unfathomably powerful super-intelligence. And so, one knowing such things and being honest with themself should, at the very least, be curious enough to embark upon a quest to search for some explanation that explains the existence of such God-like ability. God made us to seek Him - He made us curious, restless, and spiritually yearning. But one determined to deny our God-given attributes while continuing to accept various absorbed lies (and deciding to personally embrace them') long enough, and they'll eventually begin to believe the lies are the truth. The evidence God has provided to us moderns is extensive, powerful, and undeniable. But the question is, will a person continue to deny or avoid it? Many do so because it conflicts with their desire to remain self-governing as to their own beliefs and behavior - and ultimately, to remain their own little god.

    • @20july1944
      @20july1944 2 роки тому

      Ably presented, Phillipatoz, echoing many of my own conclusions from physics.

    • @therick363
      @therick363 2 роки тому

      I take issue when theist say only their gif can be eternal and nothing else can be.

    • @therick363
      @therick363 2 роки тому

      _science universally believes no material things existed before the big bang_
      No science doesn’t universally agree to that.

  • @VACatholic
    @VACatholic 2 роки тому +1

    39:00 Given that Leibniz was a genius, it's also fair to say that he's making a deeper point by using "Elements" as his example. In particular, "Elements" was the "state of the art" with respect to knowledge of the physical world. So in his argument "Elements" is actually a standin for all of the laws of physics, thus making his observation far deeper than a casual read would indicate.

  • @heresa_notion_6831
    @heresa_notion_6831 2 роки тому +3

    The answer to Guilerso's question (54:35) seemed hypocritical. To say that there is no naturalistic explanation of an essential/necessary universal cause based on "physicy stuff" is simply to say such hasn't been described by any scientific theory. Yet theistic approaches don't do any better (by whatever the argument) with respect to "scientific" theory. In short, the response holds naturalists to their own standards, which is fine, as naturalists do that themselves, but theists are outside the naturalist standard for argumentation altogether (which I don't think ANY naturalist would like). What should be more disturbing to the theist is the (mentioned) Leibniz-view of the "impersonal" God, which is classed as a "non-natural explanation", for reasons that are opaque to me. Naturalism aligns itself with the Leibniz-view given the greater parsimony that view has relative to any personal God view (e.g., the idea that "sentience" was REQUIRED for the creation of the universe seems less parsimonious than a more naturalistic view that "sentience" was a result of the universe being created from a necessary something, yet to be scientifically described). So if theists held naturalists to theistic standards of argumentation, and theists valued parsimony in an argument position, all other things equal, naturalists should always win the "God-characterization" argument. The only thing that allows theists to ever "win" over the naturalists is by treating one or the other testament, or some other divine communication, as "true" data. So, imo, philosophy will never allow an escape from faith-based explanations of a "personal" God.

    • @heresa_notion_6831
      @heresa_notion_6831 2 роки тому +1

      whoops, substitute Spinoza for Leibniz (sorry)

    • @davidjanbaz7728
      @davidjanbaz7728 2 роки тому

      How can science provide any evidence for an Aseity supernatural being?
      When it can only test naturalism within the Universe itself.
      Science is unable to provide the evidence that Atheists demand from Theists as the only evidence that can convince them that any God exists: whether personal or impersonal ( Deist concept).
      It's an incoherent demand based on an illogical assumptions.

    • @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
      @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 2 роки тому

      @@davidjanbaz7728 It's just that not everyone has access to the supernatural world.
      The concept "being" (conscious entity) we build it from the natural world.
      We build the concept of "cause" by extracting it from reality. Everything we see seems to result from previous processes.
      If you say that you have access to the supernatural world and in it there is a supernatural being that is uncaused, we will begin to ask how it is that you have access to that supernatural world, how do you know that there is an uncaused supernatural being there, etc.
      If your answer is that it is illogical for us to ask such things, the probability that your statements are true drops abysmally. From the point of view of those of us who do not have access to the supernatural world.

    • @heresa_notion_6831
      @heresa_notion_6831 2 роки тому

      UA-cam is weird. I can see a david janbaz response that I want to respond to --when I'm logged OUT (and also in my notifications when I'm logged in). But I can't see the response when I'm logged in (i.e., the only place that I can respond)!
      So I have to reply to david janbaz (the 2nd reply when I'm logged out) in an irregular way:
      Naturalism needs to assert (given your objection) that whatever the ultimate Aseity is, it's within the universe (a part of it), and discoverable, in principle. If we assume (or know for certain by some means) that the Aseity is "outside the universe", then it may be that it can only be of type sentient, idk, but that's a different argument. My original comment tries to describe an issue of fairness, where it seemed theists were not allowing atheists to argue like them (but as you suggest maybe the unfairness goes both ways). The Spinozan alternative (including an internal-Aseity assumption) seems sound and equally relevant to both naturalist/theist views; however, I don't know if Spinoza considered a non-sentient Aseity (not a philosopher). All the philosophy does for me is make me accept this:
      There exists an A such that A could not exist without A existing, a priori, to any point cited for A's existence. Therefore, A is eternal (i.e., infinitely encompassing all the past). Let A be God by definition.
      An infinite regress does not disqualify the definition in any way I can see, and if something like that definition is accepted as the conclusion of the contingency argument, neither theist nor atheist can consider themselves an aAist.

    • @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd
      @EduardoRodriguez-du2vd 2 роки тому +1

      @@heresa_notion_6831 The same to me. I guess there is a bug in the way YT handles messages.

  • @Super_bus_machine
    @Super_bus_machine 2 роки тому +1

    I tried but I had a hard time following.

    • @Qwerty-jy9mj
      @Qwerty-jy9mj 2 роки тому +2

      that's the problem

    • @20july1944
      @20july1944 2 роки тому

      I think being unintelligent and uneducated has held you back, honestly.

    • @Super_bus_machine
      @Super_bus_machine 2 роки тому

      @@Qwerty-jy9mj lol your comments are the best

    • @Super_bus_machine
      @Super_bus_machine 2 роки тому +5

      @@20july1944 what an awful thing to say

    • @Daexusnol
      @Daexusnol 2 роки тому +1

      The contingency argument is pretty clunky with its language, and it’s not at all intuitive to people who aren’t familiar with philosophy and, by extension, metaphysics. So, don’t feel bad.

  • @reality1958
    @reality1958 2 роки тому +2

    So you have a theory. Any verification of that theory?

    • @20july1944
      @20july1944 2 роки тому +1

      What aspect of his theory are you questioning? I think I can help.

    • @sneakysnake2330
      @sneakysnake2330 2 роки тому +1

      This isn’t a scientific theory, it’s more like a syllogism I believe

    • @reality1958
      @reality1958 2 роки тому +3

      @@20july1944 that the assumption of a supernatural being is the answer to contingency

    • @20july1944
      @20july1944 2 роки тому +1

      @@reality1958 What alternative do you propose?
      God isn't a good Candidate Cause if you have an alternative -- that's obvious!

    • @10mimu
      @10mimu 2 роки тому

      @@20july1944 Principle of sufficient reason is false. Contingency needs no explanation.