From the channel that brought you "An Intellectual's Guide to Demon Hunting" and "Defending Genocides: Ancient and Contemporary" comes the new smash hit "My God is Smaller Than Your God".
What's funny is Capturing Christianity actually rebranded the ministry taking "exposing the intellectual side of Christian belief" shortly before going completely bananas with the exorcism stuff along with the Trump prophecy bs.
Also if we are going to defend Christianity then things like miracles and exorcism should be done, unironically. There being no supernatural phenomena to speak of today would be problematic for the Church (especially if you are Catholic)
6:20 *_The reason I don't take atheism seriously any longer is: Even if we accept the atheists' strongest arguments, it still wouldn't prove atheism._* That's not how this works; that's not how any of this works. Meanwhile, he's got no problem accepting the absolute weakest apologist arguments.
Their strongest argument is…….a bronze age goat herder wrote it down and a committee commissioned by an emperor voted to put in a book with a bunch of other words written down by unidentified individuals so it must be absolutely true even if it runs contrary to what is established science that has been demonstrated. Yeah he’s not a serious individual.
The fun part is that on one side is not even the "strongest", is pretty good but not the "strongest", and on the other side cameron ended up admiting that it refutes the god he believes in anyway.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic(I'm autistic af) but I do wanna say as someone who's not a theist that just because a random theist made a bad point doesn't mean that she represents the theistic tradition.
Exactly. I’m a Christian and it’s clear Cameron’s recent videos are nothing more than a response to the decline of his channel and clearly just an attempt at garnering more views. Alex O’Connor once said Cameron was one of his favorite Christian channels but Cameron has now delved to the point of saying Alex got embarrassed in a video title just to garner more views
It’s also interesting that Cameron mentions his brother which Cameron claims is his reason for his channel. Shouldn’t he take atheism seriously if after 10 years and hundreds of theists on his channel presenting their best arguments, he still can’t convince his brother? That’s at least one reason he should take it very seriously
Or his brother could just refuse, in which case the Bible teaches not to push faith on to others so it's not really a reason to take atheism seriously, more so a reason to love his brother while he can
@ assuming that someone who you don’t know just simply refuses Christianity is arrogant and ignorant. It’s like me assuming you “just refuse” to believe in atheism. If you believe in eternal conscious torment then loving him for a few years won’t do a damn thing.
@@117-d7r and I did say that it might be the case not that it is, that's why I put "or" simply I'm giving the most common reason, people just don't want to worship a God they find distasteful
@@117-d7r also I do " just refuse to believe in atheism, because there's nothing to believe 🤣 I've seen to much to not refuse" I'd die before I renounce my faith.
I was literally just saying to myself that I wish there was a new MoR video to watch and then I looked up your channel to see that you had published this 15 minutes ago. Merry Christmas!
I want to extend a serious and heartfelt thanks to Joe. His work here is hard to express appreciation for. One of if not the most impartial and intellectually honest channels ive discovered. I discovered Cameron and other members of this topic, like Alex, when I was coming out of a period of deconstruction. I felt both made some valid points, but ultimately, I landed on the side of athiesm. I began to feel like i was understanding the landscape of the topic better, but then i found Joe's channel, and wow, it's like discovering there's another room full in the back of the store. It's like a goldmine. Since then ive tried to catch most of your content, but it's hard since you make so much. And we all know 60 minutes of Joe is really 90-120 minutes of real content. Never slow down, and thanks. Know people like me deeply appreciate what you do. I wish I could do more to support you.
Goff’s limited god theory to explain fine tuning should be called out for what it is: *_fine-tuning god’s attributes to hand-wave away difficulties he doesn’t like._*
There's nothing problematic about fine-tuning your hypothesis in general, it's quite recommended in fact. I'm not defending Goff here, btw, but this one is not a problem.
If it’s in response to new evidence, I agree 100%. If it’s merely to avoid difficulties that you don’t like, it’s not. And after watching a good chunk of Goff’s interview with CC, my opinion is - that’s exactly what Goff is trying to do, so he can have his religious cake and eat the evidence, too.
@CharlesPayet again, nothing wrong. The problem is that this new, fine tuned version faces the same problems or new problems. But if it works, yeah, it's wonderful to have the cake and eat it. So what exactly makes a hypothesis H less probable or powerful, just because you designed it to face objections that target a weaker version of H?
Well no, If you’re getting god from the panpsychist position, then I think it would make sense for him to be limited. Like if you were a traditional theist just positing a limited god because you don’t know how to make sense of evil, that would be fine tuning god. The panpsychist view of god seems to entail that god would be limited, as he isn’t outside of reality creating it how he pleases, but rather god just constitutes reality under this view. God is the collective conscious experience of all the matter in the universe. Now you may have problems with panpsychism, but that’s a different point from the one you brought up.
@@DDDarwin27 There is a difference between being dishonest for money and being dishonest in their approach. I cannot accuse anyone of dishonesty for the sake of money - I'd need actual evidence to support that claim; however, I will say Cameron's approach to philosophy and, specifically, the discussions around theology are often intellectually dishonest: loaded questions, logical fallacies, ignoring empirical data, etc. Cameron hand-waving away atheism because he thinks Atheism cannot propose a framework for why *every* definition of a god - even the lesser ideas of a "god" - is intellectually dishonest and outright lazy. It's clickbait content designed specifically to drive up his engagement numbers.
Dont agree to be honest. He used to be a fair interviewer and discussed ideas in a fair way. Hes now a fairly intellectually dishonest guy. His Alex was embarrassing vid and the vid being reacted to here are significantly worse than what you'd see years ago from him.
yeah the "limited god" hypothesis fallback as an attempt to salvage a plausible god out of the problem of evil, is really trying to have it both ways, or have your cake and eat it to as the saying goes.. "yes, our god is powerful enough to create the universe, create the natural laws, create life, create consciousness, etc., but not powerful enough to stop excessive levels of pointless suffering"
Exactly. I see it also as a pathetic way to "define" his way out of the problem by using a definition of God that he would never accept under any other conditions...
You could say the same thing to claims by atheists that most arguments for God create a being with only some divine qualities but not all. From what I can tell a “limited god” is all you can get to with successful argumentation from either side at present. Maybe the exception is something like Oppy’s argument against theism and in favor of naturalism,
I thought the pain caused by Cameron this time couldn't possibly be overshadowed, but then you just brought Trent to the scene, haha. This was terrific as always.
@@Hola-ro6yv Why? It's like saying compare that to the pain caused by Crusades. You just brought something irrelevant to what's being said here. If anything, more pain and suffering means more evidence against theism.
I want to know who decided the problem of evil is atheism's strongest argument. It's a valid line of questioning. However, to me, hiddeness is ultimately the strongest. With no actual evidence, why should I increase assumptions? All that said, I think its slightly disingenuous to claim anything is the strongest argument for/against god(s) in an absolute way. Many, if not most, arguments are dependent on personal feelings/reasoning. As such, different people will find different arguments more and less compelling.
I don’t have an argument for atheism. I was born an atheist and arguments from fallacy and empty claims based on presumption and assumption were unable to convince me to move into a position of self delusion and self deception. As Mr Hitchens quite eloquently stated, that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
The concept of hiddenness or non-existence raises profound questions for atheism. The alternative often seems to involve fabricating answers and insisting that these inventions are the truth. Additionally, figures like Jesus and Allah appear to be constructs of human imagination, falling short of representing any truly intelligent being. It’s perplexing that so many individuals embrace the notion of a deity, leading to a struggle against these beliefs instead of acknowledging our collective ignorance and pursuing a deeper understanding of existence without attributing it to assumed entities. The idea that a god could exist independently, somehow becoming self-aware and manifesting itself, presents a paradox. Theists often sidestep this dilemma by asserting that nothing can precede god, claiming it as the ultimate source without further explanation. Perhaps even this god is unaware of its own existence or the reasons behind it, if it exists at all. It’s possible that we are simply not meant to know. Furthermore, I find it difficult to understand how something immaterial could coexist with the material world, especially if the immaterial is said to endure beyond physical existence. The lack of clear communication from such a god is baffling; it seems illogical to provide ambiguous scriptures and vague hints through synchronicities and other strange human experiences.
Since Cameron has failed to convince his brother (assuming he is still an atheist) is a testament to the fact that he should take atheism and atheists seriously.
@@newglof9558it would follow from what we can presume about Cameron's character and his opinion of himself. Cameron, presumably, takes himself seriously and thinks highly of his beliefs and arguments for those beliefs. He also presumably doesn't think his brother is an idiot or intellectually dishonest. So, since his smart and intellectually honest brother is still not convinced by Cameron's good arguments, Cameron should take atheism seriously.
@@НиколайПетров-э4ф Your analogy/example is ill placed, one is a metaphysical claim with scant little to almost no evidence and the other one is, well... Of course my comment is not meant to be taken as a knock down deductive argument with a proper syllogistic structure. It is more of a rhetorical response that does though rely on a few basic assumptions as @cunjoz has already mentioned. These assumptions are fair assumptions in my opinion.
Thanks Joe. I must say I found Cameron's video unconvincing in that he supposedly has spent a decade studying these issues and yet he seemingly has learnt nothing about the need for precise language in philosophical discourse (eg "proving" atheism or what does "take seriously" actually mean.
I have to say, I was very interested and very pleased with how you cover limited gods. In contrast, I've seen the issue raised once or twice on the askphilosophy subreddit and the response there seemed... less than satisfying. As I understood it, their opinion was that the philosophy of religion tradition discusses an orthodox omni-god and that's the end of it. And that just made it look like a big, uncontested, open possibility in my mind.
Ack! I was going to do a video on this but you beat me to it! 25:25 to 28:22 - Good point. I think it's easy to forget how, if the deity used to explain the data is not omnipotent, it seems _pretty darn close to it._ With that said, Philip Goff would likely have something to say about the effectiveness of the argument from evil etc. for his non-omnipotent version of theism.
lol, i knew people would have a field day with this video. Capturing and his click-baity titles - some might say it’s deliberate 😮. Also, Mr Reason, you talk real fast.
I do hereby recant my atheism. After witnessing that sublime arts and crafts segment, I am forced to postulate a perfect being to explain this phenomenon. Seriously though, that was great!
How can you "prove" atheism do you want me to prove that I'm unconvinced. His whole video is built on a straw man he says atheism is a claim when it's not inherently.
They're using 'atheism' to mean the falsity of theism. Theism is either 'true' or 'false'. ie. if theism is 'false', then it logically follows atheism is 'true'
@@Nero-Caesar I understand - i'm just saying that for Joe 'atheism' is an ontological claim: no gods exist (theism is false). If you use it differently - that's fine.
10:00 Obviously, a **perfectly** good god would simply not have created the universe that contains suffering. His 1st option is **not** "what kind of would can/should I create", but whether to create at all. Also, while Cameron is keen to use the less-than-omnipotent god against atheism, it's not the god he believes in. **My** atheism isn't "there are no gods whatsoever". It's "various people have told me about various gods, and I'm not convinced by any of them". Given the range of things people propose as gods, disproving the very concept is tilting at windmills. But this is why these people insist that atheism **must** mean the claim that no gods exist, otherwise they really have nothing. 11:50 I wouldn't be so excited about agreeing with a confessed psychopath… Ultimately, Cameron shouldn't be using limited-god arguments, since he doesn't accept limited gods anyway. Frankly, nobody should take **Cameron** seriously, because he isn't doing philosophy at all. He's doing apologetics. We could debunk everything he says, and he wouldn't care, because we aren't his target audience.
_"various people have told me about various gods, and I'm not convinced by any of them"_ That may be caused by the lack of facts, or by your not accepting the facts. Being 'convinced' is as much emotion as it is reason.
@@jursamaj _given the complete lack of facts supporting any god_ (Ludwig Wittgenstein): 1. The world is everything that is the case. 1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things. 1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts. 1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case In other words, if you leave out facts, you do not find the truth. There are three thousand years of facts about God gathered. That's quite a number of facts to ignore to say 'complete lack of facts.' You might want to back away and try studying for a while, and praying, and Bible reading to find facts that you have missed. Jesus said, 'Follow me.' You might try that.
@@craigsmith1443 Funny thing is, you think you have those facts. You don't even have "Jesus said, 'Follow me.'" as a fact. It is an assertion, by an anonymous, non-eyewitness author. You would reject any such claim from any other religion, yet that is the entire base of yours. Further, I couldn't "follow Jesus" if I tried. He hasn't been around for almost 2000 years (assuming he was ever more than a mythic hero).
Used to watch Cameron’s stuff every now and then, I stopped when he showed how completely ignorant he is on certain issues and he just doesn’t bother to think critically or do research on them. His video on Imane Khalif is particularly bad on all those fronts, he gets even the basic details wrong. Love your channel Joe! Keep up the amazing work, really helps me think critically about my beliefs. I like the new intro music variation
But does Cameron actually believe in a limited god? Or is he just hiding behind Goff's God because he knows he can't defend the tri-omni Biblical God? I don't doubt Goff is sincere, but I don't trust Cameron at all (or any other professional apologist).
@@craigsmith1443 Every religious person is an amateur apologist. 😁 I trust them to be sincere (wrong, but sincere). Professional apologists are more prone to motivated reasoning/knowing dishonesty because their living/reputation depends on sounding authoritative.
This is a good video. It's helpful to realize that limited theistic worldviews can often have some of the same problems even the problem of evil. One example I sometimes think of is alerting emergency services. Making a phone call is not a difficult thing to do, so if there is an omniscient being with limited power, that being should at least be able to make a phone call to 911 or something to give them a divine heads up about a potential crime.
@@pigetstuck When I was a Christian, I use to watch David for his criticism of Islam. It's interesting how he can't apply the same logic and criticism to Christianity.
@@pigetstuck It's been too long so I can't remember anything specific. I just remember how he would walk through the Qur'an verse by verse, picking it apart and pointing out internal inconsistencies and scientific contradictions. If he applied the same rigor and critical thought with the book of Genesis, I think he would come to the same conclusions as he did with Islam.
As soon as I saw your comment on this video I knew it was coming hahahahahahah Christian Dr Randal Rauser did a good couple of videos on this is well, really shocking from CC
I'm sorry you had to do this man, I can't imagine watching that Cameron video, especially in its entirety. But I'm also glad and excited for viewers of these sorts of videos that you've decided to take it upon yourself to provide a critique they can have access to. Anyway, I know you're a PhilOfRel and metaphysics guy, but do you see yourself trying out content from the philosophy of well-being in the future?
WRT Camerons comment. Cameron, it would be cool to see you actually reflect on this though and maybe be like "hey I did kind of overstate things here -- Joe has some good points" or something. Whilst a joke, this seems a bit close to deflection.
24:54 to 27:27 was the one the best things my brain has encountered in a long time. Joe, you nailed it, bro. This was one of the best things I've heard in a long time. Pure wisdom!
It seems to me that Bertuzzi is pulling an apologetic tap dance worthy of the great (?) Low Bar Bill! He rejects atheism because it cannot dismiss all god claims - even ones that have not been made yet - then picks on an example of a 'weak god claim' as 'evidence' whilst moving on to imply that he still believes in his strong god claim as a result. "See, this god claim that I don't believe in isn't dismissed by this objection so I can claim atheism isn't true and therefore still believe in my completely different god"!
While i appreciate that the intention here is probably not to correct Cameron's bad philosophy (you'd need to use smaller words and more explanations for that goal), i similarly doubt you'll effectively correct the misapprehension of his listeners. If youre listening to Cameron, you probably think his arguments are good. If you think his arguments are good, you're probably not going to understand most of this video. But it was fun to listen to.
It's a shame that Cameron doesn't take atheism seriously considering the works of people like Draper, Oppy, Schellenberg, Leon, Lowder, Fales, Sobel, and Mackie.
@@Hola-ro6yv I'm not 100% sure that any of those individuals were in fact atheists. Secondly, even if they were, they were just bad people, and it has no reflection on atheism. There have been many terrible theists throughout history; that doesn't mean that theism itself is bad.
@@Hola-ro6yv First, the mentioned people are known for arguments which is what Cameron wf talking about. Second, do you think that God would fair well if we compared his death count to those leaders?
@@Hola-ro6yv No disrespect, but what you just said is entirely silly. The people that I listed in my original comment are/were professional philosophers who specialize in the philosophy of religion. Many of those same individuals have presented numerous arguments in support of atheism. So, if someone like Cameron is going to claim that he doesn't take atheism seriously, he should at least interact with the best atheists out there. Again, I am not 100% sure that Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were atheists. I haven't looked into that matter. Even if they were, the crimes they committed have no bearing on whether or not God exists. The same reasoning applies in the reverse scenario. There have been many evil people throughout history (and currently) who were theists. Again, the evil that those people were responsible for has no bearing on whether or not theism is true.
Many evangelicals like Cameron were raised on black and white thinking. I would know, because i used to be one. They take that foundation with them wherever they go. Nuance and uncertainty are just too uncomfortable
Yep. They can't even decide on what some very important points the holistic truth of Christianity even entails, so why should I take it seriously? (If Purgatory exists or not, whether Hell consists of ECT or annihilationism, etc.)
@@TheOtherCaleb I would if there was actually one coherent position that Christianity was positing, but Christianity is anything but monolithic. There've been competing schools of thought within it since its early development.
@@TheOtherCaleb Why take a claim that has no empirical evidence seriously? I mean, sure, it can be discussed as a hypothesis. But that's as far as it goes.
Cameron shouldn't be taken seriously. There was a time when it seemed like he was at least honestly pursuing his apologia, but he's been transparently clickbait-grifting for at least the last year. *edit--* Also, hearing Cameron say that Cliffe Knechtle "embarrassed" Alex O'Connor is some of the most cringey, revisionist cope I've ever encountered.
BY FAR the strongest arguments for atheism are not strict arguments, but rather refutations against the absolutely pathetic arguments for theism. Also, Cameron flatly lied about atheism's definition.
Atheists love the paradigm of “arguments” because it lets them cop out of maturing into their own personal sovereignty Atheists willingly choose to limit their ego to the reasonable consensus The atheist projects an intellectual adversary: “the theist” as if there is some debate to be had The atheist is unwilling to crucify himself, he wants to stay in his little box of his own I wouldn’t debate an atheist on god, The atheist is thirsty to debate god so that he can crystallize his ego’s preference with seeming rhetorical justification If I had to debate an atheist I would point out the adolescent psychology of atheism I don’t want to analyze god I want to analyze the extent of the typical atheist’s ego
To be fair, almost all Christian apologists are lying about what the atheism is. And that "almost" was just the benefit of the doubt, since I've never ever seen any christian apologist who got it right.
If I understand correctly, Bertuzzi is saying something like "because it's impossible to conclusively prove that there is no god (using one particular argument), I will therefore not take seriously the idea that there is no god". That seems positively bizarre. I can't conclusively prove that other people have conscious experiences, but I certainly seriously entertain the idea that they do.
_Bertuzzi is saying something like_ Perhaps if you used what he actually said instead of your 'something like' which it hardly ever is in our use of it.
When I hear him say "I don't take atheism seriously", I think he's saying that in the sense of "I don't take (a specific enemy) seriously." It's a way of trying to delegitimize (or anti-market) some specific competitor (in this case, a subtly anthropomorphized sociopolitical rival) against his (and his political cult's) social clout in the social marketplace.
It’s always dangerous to psychologize others when you don’t have conclusive evidence but just given the definition of atheism…it’s as though he was to say “I don’t take the disbelief of my UNFOUNDED belief by FAITH” seriously” which is probably true but sad because truth seekers should seek to be falsified 😢
@@jeffreyjdesir Regarding: "It’s always dangerous to psychologize others when you don’t have conclusive evidence" --- I agree. That's why I chose not to do that in this case. Instead, Cameron invited his audience to intuit their way into his meaning. In response, I took him up on that offer. ------------------------------------------ Regarding: "given the definition of atheism…it’s as though he was to say “I don’t take the disbelief of my UNFOUNDED belief by FAITH” seriously” which is probably true but sad because truth seekers should seek to be falsified 😢" -- Yep. That's a very critical flaw in his reasoning. Critically flawed minds reason in critically flawed ways.
Joe you have no idea how cathartic this video is to me to hear someone voice the problems I have with theism that I’ve come to by my own thinking. Too often are these overlooked or dismissed outright by both theists and atheists.
Welcome aboard! Glad to have you here🙂 My papers are listed on the research part of my website, linked in the description! They’re also on PhilPapers if you search “Joseph c Schmid”
10:25 It seems that Camerons argument is that the position of Atheism is falsifiable while the position of Theism is not falsifiable, hence he is rather a Theist. There is a reason why Karl Popper removed unfalsifiable _"there exists"_ statements from the considerations to be taken seriously.
I just expect him to follow the same objective morals he expects others to follow because, you know, OBEJCTIVE. If its objectively moral to save a drowning person if you can with no risk to yourself and you are of sound mine, then if god is good I would expect him to do it as well.
Not so much cure cancer but why did he create cancer I. The first place? Why do kids have cancer? Why create the conditions for world hunger? Why make creatures that have to eat food?
For a start I'd want theists to be consistent in their claims and the resulting conclusions. Granted, eventually I also want empirical evidence for their claims. Once they make sense.
This is my first time watching this channel. I'm a Christian but I enjoyed the content. The style was appreciably dry, dense, and articulate. I also thought the video from Capturing Christianity was dumb but that was more of an intuitive response to it. I didn't take the effort to formulate a reason it was dumb. I'm still not remotely convinced by the problem of evil. I think it misunderstands God's omnibenevolence by ascribing to Him the moral decision making that applies to us. Obviously that's not the point of this video but since I'm still here I clearly haven't left the video to watch your series on the topic.
I'm not going to say decisively that he makes moral decisions. That's an entirely separate theological can of worms and describes an agency that He may or may not have depending on your theological persuasion. Some argue that God can only ever act in accordance with his nature, so God does not have libertarian free will. I'm agnostic on the topic of God's agency. My point is that the system that governs what is or is not moral for us does not necessarily apply to God because his relationship to morality is fundamentally different. Being "made in God's image" doesn't mean we're the same as God, just that there's a particular sense in which we resemble Him.
@@clawed279I understand your point. I was just being a little snarky. I'm an agnostic. I don't think we know anything at all about God's relationship to morality or if such a relationship even exists. I am aware that classical theists will tell you that God is not a moral agent. I don't necessarily buy that argument, but I suppose it depends on how you define God... Definitions cause so many problems in these types of debates...
@@clawed279 I don't want to start an argument, just a clarification : Are you saying that attributing libertarian free will to an agent, means that agent can act in ways not in accordance with their own nature? That seems counter-intuitive.
@@cafeeineaddicted8123 Everything acts in accordance with its own nature. If an agent has libertarian free will there exists more than one possible way that it can act, with each of those ways is necessarily in accordance with its nature. It could however be that there is only one possible way that God can act, and that would mean God does not have libertarian free will. I worded my earlier response poorly because I was stepping around the topic to clarify my previous point. I hold no strong opinion either way on the truth of the statement "God makes moral decisions" and I understand there's some complexity to it.
Joe, one model of limited theism you might wish to look into is that of the theologian Thomas Jay Oord. He first argues for a particular understanding of the nature of love, and then in subsequent books argues that God’s power (when taking this understanding of love) cannot unilaterally control states of affairs. The view is called “essential kenosis”, and at least potentially frames God’s power in a non-arbitrary way. I have some objections to it, yet it is certainly worth a look. :)
@@MajestyofReason Joe. Towards the end of the video you mention that there are atheistic options where a kind of Brahman or other types of impersonal causes are conceived. What academic works explore these options and why do you consider them to be plausible or not ?
@@jacksonelmore6227Even if one holds demonstrably wrong beliefs sincerely, the demonstration of the wrongness should correct the belief if it is understood correctly. Cameron has demonstrated in the past that he CAN recognize a valid syllogism. So, we are left with two options: he either understands why all the the syllogisms in the arguments for gods are invalid and unsound and yet remains an apologist: a grifter, or he only understands that some of the syllogisms in the arguments for gods are invalid and unsound and yet remains an apologist: a grifter, and is monumentally stupid. I can accept either proposition.
@@Evolution.1859 you have to transcend your need for “arguments” You like to deal in the paradigm of arguments because you can trick your ego into thinking you’ve won some debate You’re afraid to be god You’d rather waffle on “arguments” than to accept your godhood
## Can God Make a Square Circle? Exploring Big Questions with Little Minds **Adult:** Hey there! Let's play a thinking game today. Have you ever heard people talk about God? **Child:** Yeah, sometimes at school and at grandma's house. **Adult:** People have lots of different ideas about God. Some think God is super powerful and can do anything, like make a square circle! Do you think that's possible? **Child:** A square circle? That's silly! Squares have corners, and circles are round! **Adult:** Exactly! It seems impossible, right? Well, some people say God can't do impossible things either. They say if God is all-good and all-powerful, why is there so much bad stuff in the world, like sickness and mean people? It's like asking why God wouldn't just make a square circle if he could do anything. **Child:** Hmm, I see. Maybe God isn't as powerful as people say? **Adult:** That's one idea! Some people think **God might be good but not able to stop all bad things**. Like, imagine you're trying to build a giant sandcastle, but the waves keep washing it away. You're trying your best, but you're not strong enough to stop the ocean. **Child:** I get it! Maybe God wants to stop bad things, but something is stopping him! **Adult:** That's a clever thought! But then some people ask, "If God is limited, why is he limited?" It's like saying God can lift a car but not a truck. Why that specific limit? It can seem a bit random. **Child:** Yeah, it's like saying God can make cookies but not brownies! Why only cookies? **Adult:** Exactly! It's a tricky question! And here's another one: If God is super good and made everything, why doesn't everyone know about him? Some people feel like he's hiding. It's like he baked a giant cake but didn't invite anyone to the party! **Child:** That would be a sad party. Maybe the cake is for a special occasion? **Adult:** Maybe! We don't know for sure. But thinking about these questions helps us learn about different ideas people have. Some people think the **problem of evil means there's no God**. Others think it means **God might be different than we imagine**. **Child:** So, there's no right answer? **Adult:** Not one everyone agrees on. But that's okay! It's fun to think about these big questions and see what makes sense to us. **Child:** It is kind of like a puzzle! **Adult:** You got it! And maybe one day you'll have your own ideas about God and the world. Just remember, it's good to ask questions and keep thinking!
When I was a child, I was sure that unicorns were real. Shockingly, my brother disagreed with me, and after I challenged him to a debate, I realized that I had no idea why I even believed in unicorns and couldn't bear my brother actually sounding reasonable when saying they don't exist. So I searched for arguments that would justify the existence of unicorns, and came across some strong points, like one where someone reported that they saw a unicorn one time. But secondly, there also are powerful arguments against unicorns. The best argument that unicorn deniers have, at least that I found, is that nobody has ever taken a picture of a unicorn, and it would be possible to find and see them if they existed anywhere. This argument is so powerful that you've even got people saying that there might be good arguments for the existence of unicorns, but this one is so good that they still don't believe that unicorns are real. But counter-intuitively, this argument actually plays a central role in why I no longer take unicorn denialism seriously. The thing is, even if we accept the strongest argument against the existence of unicorns, it still wouldn't prove the non-existence of unicorns. Unicorn denialism is defined as the view that there are no unicorns. But what if all unicorns are magical creatures that are invisible? This view has not been touched at all by the argument that nobody has ever seen a unicorn, even though this is the strongest argument against them. Of course, this doesn't mean that I accept the argument; I still believe that unicorns are real and they actually are visible and not magical at all, just regular creatures, and they do live in my backyard, but this just means that if I were to accept the logic, the fact that I have never seen a unicorn in my backyard wouldn't mean that there aren't any, it would only mean that I would have to accept that unicorns are invisible through their magical powers.
I don't believe your story is true. I don't think if you are so young that you believe in unicorns, that you are also engaging in debates and able to do "research". The difference with using unicorns as an analogy, versus God, is that people are not killing each other over the existence of unicorns. People are not curing their alcoholism because they feel loved by a unicorn. The belief in unicorns does not bring value to people's lives. A belief in unicorns does not help us cope with our greatest fear of all (the fear of death). It's a false equivalency. So when you are debating with someone on whether God is or isn't real, it is not the same as debating on whether a 3 headed dog exists. A relationship with God - whether it is "real" or just something conjured up in the mind - is still a real experience people feel, so there is still something real that you are arguing against.
@etaylor8028 "... is still something real you are arguing against." Substitute whatever you prefer, in place of unicorns. God will work, in fact. The comment still succeeds in making its point. Also, just to note it almost comes across as though you believe the consequences a belief in God has, versus a unicorn, undermines the point being made, when obviously it actually serves to highlight the problems with the situation being satirized.
Maybe it's uncharitable but much of what Cameron said seemed to be along the lines of "I don't take atheism seriously because I have always been able to make ad-hoc moves to my god explanation to make sure that it always survives any critique".
Like his recent defense of animal suffering. Apparently the obvious fact that there is no evidence that animals won’t be compensated by God in some way is good enough to dismiss the entire argument.😂
Have you ever read a philosophy paper? That's what you do in philosophy, adjust your ideas to make them stronger to objections. I don't say he succeeds, but in itself there's nothing wrong with that.
@@ramigilneas9274 yeah, that was bad. But if he believes that God *will* offer salvation to all animals, then the problem of animal suffering remains, but it's somewhat diminished.
@@tudormarginean4776 Well, when your idea is entirely unfalsifiable so that whenever someone comes up with an objection you can simply make up more excuses without any supporting evidence whatsoever then maybe it’s just a bad idea that you should abandon.
@tudormarginean4776 There is no amount of philosophistry papers that can do a thing to make the assertions of apologists compatible with demonstrable reality. Apologists literally can not manifest a new reality using special pleading, and flagrantly intellectually dishonest argumentation. Religious apologetics is still sophistry even if it's a published work by someone who earned a PhD. The perceived robustness of their arguments is simply a matter of increasingly convoluted obfuscation of equivocations, special pleading, absurd assertions, and logical flights of fancy, all drenched up in burden shifting poisoned well water.
Wait.... What? Cameron tries to weasel out of the problem of evil by accepting or positing Goff's definition of a limited being who created us? Oh boy, isn't that a complete bait and switch? That's a completely different definition of God than Christians ever use in any argument. I call BS. Remember, anytime an atheist proposes a limited "god," Christians always bring up an Anselm and remind us that such a limited being would not fit the definition of God. Playing with definitions doesn't get you out of the argument, Cameron!
It blows my mind that theists think that this world we live in is a necessary one. They argue as if it would be a bad thing to change how this planet and ecosystem functions. If the goal is to have better than what we currently have(ie heaven), then why not accept that this world is not good, and could be better much better if God is capable of changing it.
I don't see anything unfair about it. If anything, Cameron was unfair to Alex and even more so to Phil by almost totally ignoring him as if he weren't there.
@@Hola-ro6yv don't tell me - you're a protestant who stopped watching Cameron when he became a Catholic. You have intellectual consistency written all over you.
I just found you and subscribed. Glad to add your voice to my godless list of godless people who agree with me that "supernatural should take the microphone itself or shut up."
There is, funnily, a very recent video from Kane B (The Inflate & Explode Fallacy) relevant to what's going on (where he talks about "deflate and retain" a concept). What's going on here is actually even more brazen than just "deflating and retaining" the concept of God to maintain the existence of God. He's more like: "I can deflate the concept of God but I won't therefore your refutation of the non-deflated concept is wrong". Talk about brazen😂
10:47 'if we grant that the arguments go through for God's existence then they would actually prove that at least one God is real' I don't see how it helps if those arguments themselves are bad and we wouldn't grant them. Any atheist could just make up an obviously bad reasoning which has in it's conclusion the truth of atheism. Would that make atheism serious by Cameron's light?
The most obvious response to Capturing christianity is that the problem of evil is meant to be an argument against traditional God. If your response to this is "well, if it succeeded, we would just have to adopt a non-traditional view of God" then you have missed the point. The second point is that atheist has a far more difficult time making arguments to prove atheism because of the inherent difficulty in proving a negative. What is the best argument we have against fairies, really? None. Simply the fact that there is no evidence for them. And this is enough.
Apologists readily admit their arguments can be ignored. In fact, they themselves ignore the parts of the arguments that conflict with their view of God.
I used to think Joe was an incredibly talented philosopher. He may make good arguments and is very good at communicating ideas, but there is one fatal flaw. He supports Arsenal.
It's hard to take Cameron seriously on the "intellectual side" of Christianity when he brings on exorcism experts and his hardball question is, "Skeptics might ask, why not record these?" and when they say, "That would violate their privacy" Cameron just agrees. Wait Cameron... can't you get people to consent to being recorded? Wow. What a crazy idea to ask them next time. Sorry Cam, you're a nice guy but I don't see you as a person who can review things like this. Have you really looked in to atheism? Why not have your brother on to have a discussion with him? Let him share his thoughts. That would be interesting!
Ummm, but does the demon consent to being recorded? You ever think about that one, buddy? We can't just go around recording demons without their permission, can we? I mean... can we? Is that moral or ethical or legal, actually? I have no idea.
@@rewrewrewrewr2674 One guy actually said demons get shy when cameras are on. He mentioned how they're smart and don't like to be recorded. So wait, they're smart enough to not be recorded but dumb enough to manifest in front of a priest? Wouldn't their demon buddies tell them demons are 132384-0 against priests? I'm not joking.
Hi. Joe. This is my first day on the internet. I can't wait to read all the respectful and thoughtful commentary under this video.
Metahumor!
Wait...are you sandbagging me?
You win the comment of the year award.
@@Hola-ro6yv Darn those secularists!!
@ buddy, I'm Catholic. I know.
From the channel that brought you "An Intellectual's Guide to Demon Hunting" and "Defending Genocides: Ancient and Contemporary" comes the new smash hit "My God is Smaller Than Your God".
Lmao
Nice 👌
Which defense of contemporary genocide ?
@andresjimenez1724 I meant Gaza
@ Do you mean the actions of Hamas?
Oh look it's Cameron "Exorcism is on the intellectual side of Christianity" Bertuzzi
@@BrghtScorpio the Trinity was just them bragging about their IQ all along.
@@w4rsh1p🤭
What's funny is Capturing Christianity actually rebranded the ministry taking "exposing the intellectual side of Christian belief" shortly before going completely bananas with the exorcism stuff along with the Trump prophecy bs.
From what I've seen he was having trouble making ends meet with the channel and that's why he lowered the IQ of his content.
Also if we are going to defend Christianity then things like miracles and exorcism should be done, unironically. There being no supernatural phenomena to speak of today would be problematic for the Church (especially if you are Catholic)
6:20 *_The reason I don't take atheism seriously any longer is: Even if we accept the atheists' strongest arguments, it still wouldn't prove atheism._*
That's not how this works; that's not how any of this works.
Meanwhile, he's got no problem accepting the absolute weakest apologist arguments.
Their strongest argument is…….a bronze age goat herder wrote it down and a committee commissioned by an emperor voted to put in a book with a bunch of other words written down by unidentified individuals so it must be absolutely true even if it runs contrary to what is established science that has been demonstrated.
Yeah he’s not a serious individual.
The fun part is that on one side is not even the "strongest", is pretty good but not the "strongest", and on the other side cameron ended up admiting that it refutes the god he believes in anyway.
Im so glad you made a response to this video.
I disagree, this a wast of joe's time. Cameron is a joke.
@@Pabimra85 I found it cathartic. plus christians respect him so them seeing some pushback is good too
Okokokok. Don't panic fellow theists. We can still argue that Cameron`s philosophical skill is limited.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic(I'm autistic af) but I do wanna say as someone who's not a theist that just because a random theist made a bad point doesn't mean that she represents the theistic tradition.
LOL
That is the ultimate defense 😂Checkmate atheists!🤣
Exactly. I’m a Christian and it’s clear Cameron’s recent videos are nothing more than a response to the decline of his channel and clearly just an attempt at garnering more views. Alex O’Connor once said Cameron was one of his favorite Christian channels but Cameron has now delved to the point of saying Alex got embarrassed in a video title just to garner more views
Theist should panic. They still haven’t demonstrated an actual reason to believe God.
It’s also interesting that Cameron mentions his brother which Cameron claims is his reason for his channel. Shouldn’t he take atheism seriously if after 10 years and hundreds of theists on his channel presenting their best arguments, he still can’t convince his brother? That’s at least one reason he should take it very seriously
Or his brother could just refuse, in which case the Bible teaches not to push faith on to others so it's not really a reason to take atheism seriously, more so a reason to love his brother while he can
@ assuming that someone who you don’t know just simply refuses Christianity is arrogant and ignorant. It’s like me assuming you “just refuse” to believe in atheism. If you believe in eternal conscious torment then loving him for a few years won’t do a damn thing.
@117-d7r but what can he do? Force himself to not believe in God, it won't change a damn thing either
@@117-d7r and I did say that it might be the case not that it is, that's why I put "or" simply I'm giving the most common reason, people just don't want to worship a God they find distasteful
@@117-d7r also I do " just refuse to believe in atheism, because there's nothing to believe 🤣 I've seen to much to not refuse" I'd die before I renounce my faith.
I was literally just saying to myself that I wish there was a new MoR video to watch and then I looked up your channel to see that you had published this 15 minutes ago. Merry Christmas!
I want to extend a serious and heartfelt thanks to Joe. His work here is hard to express appreciation for. One of if not the most impartial and intellectually honest channels ive discovered.
I discovered Cameron and other members of this topic, like Alex, when I was coming out of a period of deconstruction. I felt both made some valid points, but ultimately, I landed on the side of athiesm. I began to feel like i was understanding the landscape of the topic better, but then i found Joe's channel, and wow, it's like discovering there's another room full in the back of the store. It's like a goldmine.
Since then ive tried to catch most of your content, but it's hard since you make so much. And we all know 60 minutes of Joe is really 90-120 minutes of real content. Never slow down, and thanks. Know people like me deeply appreciate what you do. I wish I could do more to support you.
comments like this make it all worth it :)
@MajestyofReason Hey! I'm glad I can fill the cup a bit. Have a great day!
Goff’s limited god theory to explain fine tuning should be called out for what it is: *_fine-tuning god’s attributes to hand-wave away difficulties he doesn’t like._*
There's nothing problematic about fine-tuning your hypothesis in general, it's quite recommended in fact. I'm not defending Goff here, btw, but this one is not a problem.
If it’s in response to new evidence, I agree 100%.
If it’s merely to avoid difficulties that you don’t like, it’s not. And after watching a good chunk of Goff’s interview with CC, my opinion is - that’s exactly what Goff is trying to do, so he can have his religious cake and eat the evidence, too.
@CharlesPayet again, nothing wrong. The problem is that this new, fine tuned version faces the same problems or new problems. But if it works, yeah, it's wonderful to have the cake and eat it. So what exactly makes a hypothesis H less probable or powerful, just because you designed it to face objections that target a weaker version of H?
Well no, If you’re getting god from the panpsychist position, then I think it would make sense for him to be limited. Like if you were a traditional theist just positing a limited god because you don’t know how to make sense of evil, that would be fine tuning god. The panpsychist view of god seems to entail that god would be limited, as he isn’t outside of reality creating it how he pleases, but rather god just constitutes reality under this view. God is the collective conscious experience of all the matter in the universe. Now you may have problems with panpsychism, but that’s a different point from the one you brought up.
Isn't this true of every argument for God?
Cameron has always been a dishonest interlocutor. This is just further proof of his dishonesty.
Agreed.
I agree but I feel like a lot of these online christians at least seem to be dishonest grifters...
@@DDDarwin27 There is a difference between being dishonest for money and being dishonest in their approach. I cannot accuse anyone of dishonesty for the sake of money - I'd need actual evidence to support that claim; however, I will say Cameron's approach to philosophy and, specifically, the discussions around theology are often intellectually dishonest: loaded questions, logical fallacies, ignoring empirical data, etc.
Cameron hand-waving away atheism because he thinks Atheism cannot propose a framework for why *every* definition of a god - even the lesser ideas of a "god" - is intellectually dishonest and outright lazy. It's clickbait content designed specifically to drive up his engagement numbers.
Dont agree to be honest. He used to be a fair interviewer and discussed ideas in a fair way. Hes now a fairly intellectually dishonest guy. His Alex was embarrassing vid and the vid being reacted to here are significantly worse than what you'd see years ago from him.
Without dishonesty, religion evaporates into nothingness.
yeah the "limited god" hypothesis fallback as an attempt to salvage a plausible god out of the problem of evil, is really trying to have it both ways, or have your cake and eat it to as the saying goes.. "yes, our god is powerful enough to create the universe, create the natural laws, create life, create consciousness, etc., but not powerful enough to stop excessive levels of pointless suffering"
Exactly. I see it also as a pathetic way to "define" his way out of the problem by using a definition of God that he would never accept under any other conditions...
@@TheRealShrike exactly.. seems completely ad hoc
You could say the same thing to claims by atheists that most arguments for God create a being with only some divine qualities but not all.
From what I can tell a “limited god” is all you can get to with successful argumentation from either side at present.
Maybe the exception is something like Oppy’s argument against theism and in favor of naturalism,
It is an absolute law of UA-cam that the better the channel, the fewer the subscribers
More evidence for fine tuning??????
Agree
Please seek out theoriginalanswerman
Top tier content and no subscribers so you just talk to him directly in the comments.
It's heavenly -- rimshot
I assure you, my channel is terrible, yet does not have millions of subscribers.
@@bigol7169 lul
I thought the pain caused by Cameron this time couldn't possibly be overshadowed, but then you just brought Trent to the scene, haha.
This was terrific as always.
Love it! proper use of Terr[or]ific!
ad hom.
@@Hola-ro6yv Why? It's like saying compare that to the pain caused by Crusades.
You just brought something irrelevant to what's being said here.
If anything, more pain and suffering means more evidence against theism.
@@notionSlave You don't know what that means. Hint: it's only appliable to arguments, and that person wasn't making an argument.
Youre a pathetic troll with no facts.@Hola-ro6yv
Who has taken Cameron seriously...ever?
Depends on how you’re defining taken since he’s obviously been taken by the religious virus that someone infected him with.
Keep on going!! You inspire me!!
I want to know who decided the problem of evil is atheism's strongest argument. It's a valid line of questioning. However, to me, hiddeness is ultimately the strongest. With no actual evidence, why should I increase assumptions?
All that said, I think its slightly disingenuous to claim anything is the strongest argument for/against god(s) in an absolute way. Many, if not most, arguments are dependent on personal feelings/reasoning. As such, different people will find different arguments more and less compelling.
No one. It's a strawman tactic.
I don’t have an argument for atheism. I was born an atheist and arguments from fallacy and empty claims based on presumption and assumption were unable to convince me to move into a position of self delusion and self deception. As Mr Hitchens quite eloquently stated, that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I don't find hiddenness to be convincing at all, when there are 2+ billion people on earth today who claim to be christian.
The concept of hiddenness or non-existence raises profound questions for atheism. The alternative often seems to involve fabricating answers and insisting that these inventions are the truth. Additionally, figures like Jesus and Allah appear to be constructs of human imagination, falling short of representing any truly intelligent being. It’s perplexing that so many individuals embrace the notion of a deity, leading to a struggle against these beliefs instead of acknowledging our collective ignorance and pursuing a deeper understanding of existence without attributing it to assumed entities. The idea that a god could exist independently, somehow becoming self-aware and manifesting itself, presents a paradox. Theists often sidestep this dilemma by asserting that nothing can precede god, claiming it as the ultimate source without further explanation. Perhaps even this god is unaware of its own existence or the reasons behind it, if it exists at all. It’s possible that we are simply not meant to know. Furthermore, I find it difficult to understand how something immaterial could coexist with the material world, especially if the immaterial is said to endure beyond physical existence. The lack of clear communication from such a god is baffling; it seems illogical to provide ambiguous scriptures and vague hints through synchronicities and other strange human experiences.
@@Alen-gr1xm Isn't the Bible the communication of God? Or do you think it isn't reliable?
Since Cameron has failed to convince his brother (assuming he is still an atheist) is a testament to the fact that he should take atheism and atheists seriously.
That doesn't follow.
That's a bad non sequitur. It's possible we're equivocating here, so could you clarify what you mean by "take atheism seriously"?
@@newglof9558it would follow from what we can presume about Cameron's character and his opinion of himself.
Cameron, presumably, takes himself seriously and thinks highly of his beliefs and arguments for those beliefs.
He also presumably doesn't think his brother is an idiot or intellectually dishonest.
So, since his smart and intellectually honest brother is still not convinced by Cameron's good arguments, Cameron should take atheism seriously.
If his brother was a flat-earther who was still convinced of geocentrism, would it follow her ought to take the flat-earth view seriously? Ofc not!
@@НиколайПетров-э4ф
Your analogy/example is ill placed, one is a metaphysical claim with scant little to almost no evidence and the other one is, well...
Of course my comment is not meant to be taken as a knock down deductive argument with a proper syllogistic structure. It is more of a rhetorical response that does though rely on a few basic assumptions as @cunjoz has already mentioned. These assumptions are fair assumptions in my opinion.
Thank you master Joe
I think you meant grifter Joe.
@@jeevacation Joe mama
Great response, always discover so much watching these videos!
Thanks Joe.
I must say I found Cameron's video unconvincing in that he supposedly has spent a decade studying these issues and yet he seemingly has learnt nothing about the need for precise language in philosophical discourse (eg "proving" atheism or what does "take seriously" actually mean.
_the need for precise language in philosophical discourse (eg "proving" atheism or what does "take seriously" actually mean_
Go ahead.
Lol, the Bob Ross section is incredible
I have to say, I was very interested and very pleased with how you cover limited gods. In contrast, I've seen the issue raised once or twice on the askphilosophy subreddit and the response there seemed... less than satisfying. As I understood it, their opinion was that the philosophy of religion tradition discusses an orthodox omni-god and that's the end of it. And that just made it look like a big, uncontested, open possibility in my mind.
Ack! I was going to do a video on this but you beat me to it!
25:25 to 28:22 - Good point. I think it's easy to forget how, if the deity used to explain the data is not omnipotent, it seems _pretty darn close to it._ With that said, Philip Goff would likely have something to say about the effectiveness of the argument from evil etc. for his non-omnipotent version of theism.
Agreed. Would love to see a discussion between Philip and Joe on this.
lol, i knew people would have a field day with this video. Capturing and his click-baity titles - some might say it’s deliberate 😮. Also, Mr Reason, you talk real fast.
I was not prepared for the bob ross impression to last the _entire_ joy of Bayesianism section.
Joe naturally talks at 1.5x speed
like Ben Shapiro
I thought I set my youtube speed to x2
Need to learn that skill
and sometimes slows down to 1.25x whenever he does a Richard Swinburne impression
@@Hola-ro6yv I now they are Jews, but we can't mention that.
This is brilliant, Joe. I hope you are loving Princeton!
Awesome video!
7:03 “…such as the belief that ‘I’m in pain right now’… which in this case, was true after watching Cameron’s video” 😂😂😂
I do hereby recant my atheism. After witnessing that sublime arts and crafts segment, I am forced to postulate a perfect being to explain this phenomenon. Seriously though, that was great!
How can you "prove" atheism do you want me to prove that I'm unconvinced. His whole video is built on a straw man he says atheism is a claim when it's not inherently.
They're using 'atheism' to mean the falsity of theism. Theism is either 'true' or 'false'.
ie. if theism is 'false', then it logically follows atheism is 'true'
@ChrisTaylor-616 being unconvinced is true see how it doesn't make much sense to me atheism can't be true or false as it's not a truth claim
@@Nero-Caesar I understand - i'm just saying that for Joe 'atheism' is an ontological claim: no gods exist (theism is false).
If you use it differently - that's fine.
@ChrisTaylor-616 I see
@Hola-ro6yv I'm talking about the concept how can you disprove the concept of being unconvinced
10:00 Obviously, a **perfectly** good god would simply not have created the universe that contains suffering. His 1st option is **not** "what kind of would can/should I create", but whether to create at all. Also, while Cameron is keen to use the less-than-omnipotent god against atheism, it's not the god he believes in. **My** atheism isn't "there are no gods whatsoever". It's "various people have told me about various gods, and I'm not convinced by any of them". Given the range of things people propose as gods, disproving the very concept is tilting at windmills. But this is why these people insist that atheism **must** mean the claim that no gods exist, otherwise they really have nothing.
11:50 I wouldn't be so excited about agreeing with a confessed psychopath…
Ultimately, Cameron shouldn't be using limited-god arguments, since he doesn't accept limited gods anyway. Frankly, nobody should take **Cameron** seriously, because he isn't doing philosophy at all. He's doing apologetics. We could debunk everything he says, and he wouldn't care, because we aren't his target audience.
_"various people have told me about various gods, and I'm not convinced by any of them"_
That may be caused by the lack of facts, or by your not accepting the facts. Being 'convinced' is as much emotion as it is reason.
@@craigsmith1443 Well, given the complete lack of facts supporting any god, I'm going with that option.
@@jursamaj _given the complete lack of facts supporting any god_
(Ludwig Wittgenstein):
1. The world is everything that is the case.
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things.
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the facts.
1.12 For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and also all that is not the case
In other words, if you leave out facts, you do not find the truth.
There are three thousand years of facts about God gathered. That's quite a number of facts to ignore to say 'complete lack of facts.' You might want to back away and try studying for a while, and praying, and Bible reading to find facts that you have missed.
Jesus said, 'Follow me.' You might try that.
@@craigsmith1443 Funny thing is, you think you have those facts. You don't even have "Jesus said, 'Follow me.'" as a fact. It is an assertion, by an anonymous, non-eyewitness author. You would reject any such claim from any other religion, yet that is the entire base of yours.
Further, I couldn't "follow Jesus" if I tried. He hasn't been around for almost 2000 years (assuming he was ever more than a mythic hero).
@@jursamaj _It is an assertion, by an anonymous, non-eyewitness author_
Denial is not refutation. Perhaps you could read Irenaeus on Papias.
Used to watch Cameron’s stuff every now and then, I stopped when he showed how completely ignorant he is on certain issues and he just doesn’t bother to think critically or do research on them. His video on Imane Khalif is particularly bad on all those fronts, he gets even the basic details wrong.
Love your channel Joe! Keep up the amazing work, really helps me think critically about my beliefs.
I like the new intro music variation
He doesn't care. He can say whatever he wants to, because his target audience will believe whatever he says.
But does Cameron actually believe in a limited god? Or is he just hiding behind Goff's God because he knows he can't defend the tri-omni Biblical God? I don't doubt Goff is sincere, but I don't trust Cameron at all (or any other professional apologist).
_or any other professional apologist_
Do you trust any amateur apologist?
@@craigsmith1443 Every religious person is an amateur apologist. 😁 I trust them to be sincere (wrong, but sincere). Professional apologists are more prone to motivated reasoning/knowing dishonesty because their living/reputation depends on sounding authoritative.
@@yeekasoose I can see that. Thanks.
Your tone change on the joy of bayesianism was so accurate that in caused me to zone out on the entire section.
Cameron isn’t just the pigeon in the ‘pigeon playing chess’ meme. He’s also the pigeon poo.
@ read it again
Was hoping for a response video from here after seeing rausers video. I'm glad it was made. 49:43, especially, was such a great and funny section
This is a good video. It's helpful to realize that limited theistic worldviews can often have some of the same problems even the problem of evil.
One example I sometimes think of is alerting emergency services. Making a phone call is not a difficult thing to do, so if there is an omniscient being with limited power, that being should at least be able to make a phone call to 911 or something to give them a divine heads up about a potential crime.
The Bob Ross sequence was crazy! 😂
He's showing off his new intellectual position by having David Wood on who's basically ShockOfGod's cousin.
Is David a slouch?
@pigetstuck From what I've seen he is one of those troll for Jesus apologists that got in good with the smart apologists.
@@pigetstuck When I was a Christian, I use to watch David for his criticism of Islam. It's interesting how he can't apply the same logic and criticism to Christianity.
@@duke54762 What's a good example?
@@pigetstuck It's been too long so I can't remember anything specific. I just remember how he would walk through the Qur'an verse by verse, picking it apart and pointing out internal inconsistencies and scientific contradictions.
If he applied the same rigor and critical thought with the book of Genesis, I think he would come to the same conclusions as he did with Islam.
I am a Christian, but I definitely think Cameron should show more respect for atheism. Well demonstrated, Joe! Great job..
As soon as I saw your comment on this video I knew it was coming hahahahahahah
Christian Dr Randal Rauser did a good couple of videos on this is well, really shocking from CC
I'm sorry you had to do this man, I can't imagine watching that Cameron video, especially in its entirety. But I'm also glad and excited for viewers of these sorts of videos that you've decided to take it upon yourself to provide a critique they can have access to. Anyway, I know you're a PhilOfRel and metaphysics guy, but do you see yourself trying out content from the philosophy of well-being in the future?
That intro is pretty intense. Stylish change though.
he should make a 2012 cod montage type intro 😂
WRT Camerons comment. Cameron, it would be cool to see you actually reflect on this though and maybe be like "hey I did kind of overstate things here -- Joe has some good points" or something. Whilst a joke, this seems a bit close to deflection.
nah Alex o Conner is EMBARRASING
I'm gonna laugh my ass off when I see Cameron's next video "disputing" more atheist content.
24:54 to 27:27 was the one the best things my brain has encountered in a long time. Joe, you nailed it, bro. This was one of the best things I've heard in a long time. Pure wisdom!
It seems to me that Bertuzzi is pulling an apologetic tap dance worthy of the great (?) Low Bar Bill! He rejects atheism because it cannot dismiss all god claims - even ones that have not been made yet - then picks on an example of a 'weak god claim' as 'evidence' whilst moving on to imply that he still believes in his strong god claim as a result.
"See, this god claim that I don't believe in isn't dismissed by this objection so I can claim atheism isn't true and therefore still believe in my completely different god"!
While i appreciate that the intention here is probably not to correct Cameron's bad philosophy (you'd need to use smaller words and more explanations for that goal), i similarly doubt you'll effectively correct the misapprehension of his listeners. If youre listening to Cameron, you probably think his arguments are good. If you think his arguments are good, you're probably not going to understand most of this video.
But it was fun to listen to.
It's a shame that Cameron doesn't take atheism seriously considering the works of people like Draper, Oppy, Schellenberg, Leon, Lowder, Fales, Sobel, and Mackie.
He doesn't take theism seriously either.
Quentin Smith!
@@Hola-ro6yv I'm not 100% sure that any of those individuals were in fact atheists. Secondly, even if they were, they were just bad people, and it has no reflection on atheism. There have been many terrible theists throughout history; that doesn't mean that theism itself is bad.
@@Hola-ro6yv First, the mentioned people are known for arguments which is what Cameron wf talking about. Second, do you think that God would fair well if we compared his death count to those leaders?
@@Hola-ro6yv No disrespect, but what you just said is entirely silly. The people that I listed in my original comment are/were professional philosophers who specialize in the philosophy of religion. Many of those same individuals have presented numerous arguments in support of atheism. So, if someone like Cameron is going to claim that he doesn't take atheism seriously, he should at least interact with the best atheists out there. Again, I am not 100% sure that Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao were atheists. I haven't looked into that matter. Even if they were, the crimes they committed have no bearing on whether or not God exists. The same reasoning applies in the reverse scenario. There have been many evil people throughout history (and currently) who were theists. Again, the evil that those people were responsible for has no bearing on whether or not theism is true.
Many evangelicals like Cameron were raised on black and white thinking. I would know, because i used to be one. They take that foundation with them wherever they go. Nuance and uncertainty are just too uncomfortable
Jokes on him. I haven't taken the holistic truth of Christianity seriously for years.
not sure he’d care
Yep. They can't even decide on what some very important points the holistic truth of Christianity even entails, so why should I take it seriously?
(If Purgatory exists or not, whether Hell consists of ECT or annihilationism, etc.)
You should take both positions seriously.
@@TheOtherCaleb I would if there was actually one coherent position that Christianity was positing, but Christianity is anything but monolithic. There've been competing schools of thought within it since its early development.
@@TheOtherCaleb Why take a claim that has no empirical evidence seriously? I mean, sure, it can be discussed as a hypothesis. But that's as far as it goes.
Cameron shouldn't be taken seriously. There was a time when it seemed like he was at least honestly pursuing his apologia, but he's been transparently clickbait-grifting for at least the last year.
*edit--* Also, hearing Cameron say that Cliffe Knechtle "embarrassed" Alex O'Connor is some of the most cringey, revisionist cope I've ever encountered.
I've been unsubscribed to him for click bait for more than a year.
@@Hola-ro6yv That's neat.
@@Hola-ro6yvsays a troll who's doing nothing but spewing hate. Cry some more.
BY FAR the strongest arguments for atheism are not strict arguments, but rather refutations against the absolutely pathetic arguments for theism. Also, Cameron flatly lied about atheism's definition.
Atheists love the paradigm of “arguments” because it lets them cop out of maturing into their own personal sovereignty
Atheists willingly choose to limit their ego to the reasonable consensus
The atheist projects an intellectual adversary: “the theist” as if there is some debate to be had
The atheist is unwilling to crucify himself, he wants to stay in his little box of his own
I wouldn’t debate an atheist on god,
The atheist is thirsty to debate god so that he can crystallize his ego’s preference with seeming rhetorical justification
If I had to debate an atheist I would point out the adolescent psychology of atheism
I don’t want to analyze god I want to analyze the extent of the typical atheist’s ego
@jacksonelmore6227 Are you willing to answer some straightforward questions concerning your comment?
To be fair, almost all Christian apologists are lying about what the atheism is. And that "almost" was just the benefit of the doubt, since I've never ever seen any christian apologist who got it right.
@@milansvancaraCheck out Randal Rauser.
@@milansvancara You should check out Randall Rauser, particularly his response to Cameron's video.
If I understand correctly, Bertuzzi is saying something like "because it's impossible to conclusively prove that there is no god (using one particular argument), I will therefore not take seriously the idea that there is no god". That seems positively bizarre. I can't conclusively prove that other people have conscious experiences, but I certainly seriously entertain the idea that they do.
_Bertuzzi is saying something like_
Perhaps if you used what he actually said instead of your 'something like' which it hardly ever is in our use of it.
When I hear him say "I don't take atheism seriously", I think he's saying that in the sense of "I don't take (a specific enemy) seriously."
It's a way of trying to delegitimize (or anti-market) some specific competitor (in this case, a subtly anthropomorphized sociopolitical rival) against his (and his political cult's) social clout in the social marketplace.
It’s always dangerous to psychologize others when you don’t have conclusive evidence but just given the definition of atheism…it’s as though he was to say “I don’t take the disbelief of my UNFOUNDED belief by FAITH” seriously” which is probably true but sad because truth seekers should seek to be falsified 😢
@@jeffreyjdesir
Regarding:
"It’s always dangerous to psychologize others when you don’t have conclusive evidence"
---
I agree.
That's why I chose not to do that in this case.
Instead, Cameron invited his audience to intuit their way into his meaning.
In response,
I took him up on that offer.
------------------------------------------
Regarding:
"given the definition of atheism…it’s as though he was to say “I don’t take the disbelief of my UNFOUNDED belief by FAITH” seriously” which is probably true but sad because truth seekers should seek to be falsified 😢"
--
Yep.
That's a very critical flaw in his reasoning.
Critically flawed minds
reason in critically flawed ways.
Joe you have no idea how cathartic this video is to me to hear someone voice the problems I have with theism that I’ve come to by my own thinking. Too often are these overlooked or dismissed outright by both theists and atheists.
Even as a christian i find his video questionable
Just found your channel today. Great stuff. I'll have watch some more of your videos.
Also, where can I read your papers? I love reading phil-papers.
Welcome aboard! Glad to have you here🙂
My papers are listed on the research part of my website, linked in the description! They’re also on PhilPapers if you search “Joseph c Schmid”
You can't change someone's mind whose paycheck is based on their current views. What's the incentive for Cameron to change?
He doesn't have to be this boastful though.
10:25 It seems that Camerons argument is that the position of Atheism is falsifiable while the position of Theism is not falsifiable, hence he is rather a Theist. There is a reason why Karl Popper removed unfalsifiable _"there exists"_ statements from the considerations to be taken seriously.
Some people just want God to cure cancer and end world hunger if he is real.
I just expect him to follow the same objective morals he expects others to follow because, you know, OBEJCTIVE. If its objectively moral to save a drowning person if you can with no risk to yourself and you are of sound mine, then if god is good I would expect him to do it as well.
Not so much cure cancer but why did he create cancer I. The first place? Why do kids have cancer?
Why create the conditions for world hunger? Why make creatures that have to eat food?
For a start I'd want theists to be consistent in their claims and the resulting conclusions.
Granted, eventually I also want empirical evidence for their claims. Once they make sense.
This is my first time watching this channel. I'm a Christian but I enjoyed the content. The style was appreciably dry, dense, and articulate.
I also thought the video from Capturing Christianity was dumb but that was more of an intuitive response to it. I didn't take the effort to formulate a reason it was dumb.
I'm still not remotely convinced by the problem of evil. I think it misunderstands God's omnibenevolence by ascribing to Him the moral decision making that applies to us.
Obviously that's not the point of this video but since I'm still here I clearly haven't left the video to watch your series on the topic.
The supposed author and foundation of morality doesn't make moral decisions? How can that be? Aren't we "made in his image?"
I'm not going to say decisively that he makes moral decisions. That's an entirely separate theological can of worms and describes an agency that He may or may not have depending on your theological persuasion. Some argue that God can only ever act in accordance with his nature, so God does not have libertarian free will. I'm agnostic on the topic of God's agency.
My point is that the system that governs what is or is not moral for us does not necessarily apply to God because his relationship to morality is fundamentally different.
Being "made in God's image" doesn't mean we're the same as God, just that there's a particular sense in which we resemble Him.
@@clawed279I understand your point. I was just being a little snarky. I'm an agnostic. I don't think we know anything at all about God's relationship to morality or if such a relationship even exists. I am aware that classical theists will tell you that God is not a moral agent. I don't necessarily buy that argument, but I suppose it depends on how you define God... Definitions cause so many problems in these types of debates...
@@clawed279 I don't want to start an argument, just a clarification : Are you saying that attributing libertarian free will to an agent, means that agent can act in ways not in accordance with their own nature? That seems counter-intuitive.
@@cafeeineaddicted8123
Everything acts in accordance with its own nature. If an agent has libertarian free will there exists more than one possible way that it can act, with each of those ways is necessarily in accordance with its nature.
It could however be that there is only one possible way that God can act, and that would mean God does not have libertarian free will.
I worded my earlier response poorly because I was stepping around the topic to clarify my previous point. I hold no strong opinion either way on the truth of the statement "God makes moral decisions" and I understand there's some complexity to it.
Brooo! That intro! Godlike!
yes, i needed this
9:57 the LPoE doesn’t claim to address a non-omnipotent God. Good job sleuthing that out Cameron.
Perfect response!
Country (Bob Ross) Joe explaining Bayesian probability was amazing
Joe, one model of limited theism you might wish to look into is that of the theologian Thomas Jay Oord. He first argues for a particular understanding of the nature of love, and then in subsequent books argues that God’s power (when taking this understanding of love) cannot unilaterally control states of affairs. The view is called “essential kenosis”, and at least potentially frames God’s power in a non-arbitrary way. I have some objections to it, yet it is certainly worth a look. :)
Based suggestion! Thanks😁
@@MajestyofReason Joe. Towards the end of the video you mention that there are atheistic options where a kind of Brahman or other types of impersonal causes are conceived. What academic works explore these options and why do you consider them to be plausible or not ?
1. Grifters shouldn’t be taken seriously
2. Cameron is a grifter
3. Therefore Cameron shouldn’t be taken seriously
Anytime I hear someone use the word “grifter” I literally think you’ve been ideologically programmed to be skeptical of any degree of sincerity
1. In order to dismiss the rationality of atheism, one must comprehend rationality.
2. Cameron.
@@jacksonelmore6227Even if one holds demonstrably wrong beliefs sincerely, the demonstration of the wrongness should correct the belief if it is understood correctly. Cameron has demonstrated in the past that he CAN recognize a valid syllogism. So, we are left with two options: he either understands why all the the syllogisms in the arguments for gods are invalid and unsound and yet remains an apologist: a grifter, or he only understands that some of the syllogisms in the arguments for gods are invalid and unsound and yet remains an apologist: a grifter, and is monumentally stupid. I can accept either proposition.
@@Evolution.1859 you have to transcend your need for “arguments”
You like to deal in the paradigm of arguments because you can trick your ego into thinking you’ve won some debate
You’re afraid to be god
You’d rather waffle on “arguments” than to accept your godhood
@@jacksonelmore6227gibberish.
As a Christian . This channel is one of my favourite channels out there that discusses topics like these
I lost it when the “arts & craft segment” started (49:42), I wish Joe were my college professor lol. Great response.
## Can God Make a Square Circle? Exploring Big Questions with Little Minds
**Adult:** Hey there! Let's play a thinking game today. Have you ever heard people talk about God?
**Child:** Yeah, sometimes at school and at grandma's house.
**Adult:** People have lots of different ideas about God. Some think God is super powerful and can do anything, like make a square circle! Do you think that's possible?
**Child:** A square circle? That's silly! Squares have corners, and circles are round!
**Adult:** Exactly! It seems impossible, right? Well, some people say God can't do impossible things either. They say if God is all-good and all-powerful, why is there so much bad stuff in the world, like sickness and mean people? It's like asking why God wouldn't just make a square circle if he could do anything.
**Child:** Hmm, I see. Maybe God isn't as powerful as people say?
**Adult:** That's one idea! Some people think **God might be good but not able to stop all bad things**. Like, imagine you're trying to build a giant sandcastle, but the waves keep washing it away. You're trying your best, but you're not strong enough to stop the ocean.
**Child:** I get it! Maybe God wants to stop bad things, but something is stopping him!
**Adult:** That's a clever thought! But then some people ask, "If God is limited, why is he limited?" It's like saying God can lift a car but not a truck. Why that specific limit? It can seem a bit random.
**Child:** Yeah, it's like saying God can make cookies but not brownies! Why only cookies?
**Adult:** Exactly! It's a tricky question! And here's another one: If God is super good and made everything, why doesn't everyone know about him? Some people feel like he's hiding. It's like he baked a giant cake but didn't invite anyone to the party!
**Child:** That would be a sad party. Maybe the cake is for a special occasion?
**Adult:** Maybe! We don't know for sure. But thinking about these questions helps us learn about different ideas people have. Some people think the **problem of evil means there's no God**. Others think it means **God might be different than we imagine**.
**Child:** So, there's no right answer?
**Adult:** Not one everyone agrees on. But that's okay! It's fun to think about these big questions and see what makes sense to us.
**Child:** It is kind of like a puzzle!
**Adult:** You got it! And maybe one day you'll have your own ideas about God and the world. Just remember, it's good to ask questions and keep thinking!
Oh my god this is brutal
Joe brings his AK47 to a fist fight 😂
I wasn't expecting the Rick Roderick as Bob Ross segment, but I'm here for it.
When I was a child, I was sure that unicorns were real. Shockingly, my brother disagreed with me, and after I challenged him to a debate, I realized that I had no idea why I even believed in unicorns and couldn't bear my brother actually sounding reasonable when saying they don't exist.
So I searched for arguments that would justify the existence of unicorns, and came across some strong points, like one where someone reported that they saw a unicorn one time.
But secondly, there also are powerful arguments against unicorns. The best argument that unicorn deniers have, at least that I found, is that nobody has ever taken a picture of a unicorn, and it would be possible to find and see them if they existed anywhere. This argument is so powerful that you've even got people saying that there might be good arguments for the existence of unicorns, but this one is so good that they still don't believe that unicorns are real.
But counter-intuitively, this argument actually plays a central role in why I no longer take unicorn denialism seriously. The thing is, even if we accept the strongest argument against the existence of unicorns, it still wouldn't prove the non-existence of unicorns. Unicorn denialism is defined as the view that there are no unicorns. But what if all unicorns are magical creatures that are invisible? This view has not been touched at all by the argument that nobody has ever seen a unicorn, even though this is the strongest argument against them.
Of course, this doesn't mean that I accept the argument; I still believe that unicorns are real and they actually are visible and not magical at all, just regular creatures, and they do live in my backyard, but this just means that if I were to accept the logic, the fact that I have never seen a unicorn in my backyard wouldn't mean that there aren't any, it would only mean that I would have to accept that unicorns are invisible through their magical powers.
Well said 😂
Totally happened.
I don't believe your story is true. I don't think if you are so young that you believe in unicorns, that you are also engaging in debates and able to do "research".
The difference with using unicorns as an analogy, versus God, is that people are not killing each other over the existence of unicorns. People are not curing their alcoholism because they feel loved by a unicorn. The belief in unicorns does not bring value to people's lives. A belief in unicorns does not help us cope with our greatest fear of all (the fear of death). It's a false equivalency. So when you are debating with someone on whether God is or isn't real, it is not the same as debating on whether a 3 headed dog exists. A relationship with God - whether it is "real" or just something conjured up in the mind - is still a real experience people feel, so there is still something real that you are arguing against.
🔖
@etaylor8028
"... is still something real you are arguing against."
Substitute whatever you prefer, in place of unicorns. God will work, in fact.
The comment still succeeds in making its point.
Also, just to note it almost comes across as though you believe the consequences a belief in God has, versus a unicorn, undermines the point being made, when obviously it actually serves to highlight the problems with the situation being satirized.
Great video! ❤
Maybe it's uncharitable but much of what Cameron said seemed to be along the lines of "I don't take atheism seriously because I have always been able to make ad-hoc moves to my god explanation to make sure that it always survives any critique".
Like his recent defense of animal suffering.
Apparently the obvious fact that there is no evidence that animals won’t be compensated by God in some way is good enough to dismiss the entire argument.😂
Have you ever read a philosophy paper? That's what you do in philosophy, adjust your ideas to make them stronger to objections. I don't say he succeeds, but in itself there's nothing wrong with that.
@@ramigilneas9274 yeah, that was bad. But if he believes that God *will* offer salvation to all animals, then the problem of animal suffering remains, but it's somewhat diminished.
@@tudormarginean4776
Well, when your idea is entirely unfalsifiable so that whenever someone comes up with an objection you can simply make up more excuses without any supporting evidence whatsoever then maybe it’s just a bad idea that you should abandon.
@tudormarginean4776
There is no amount of philosophistry papers that can do a thing to make the assertions of apologists compatible with demonstrable reality.
Apologists literally can not manifest a new reality using special pleading, and flagrantly intellectually dishonest argumentation. Religious apologetics is still sophistry even if it's a published work by someone who earned a PhD.
The perceived robustness of their arguments is simply a matter of increasingly convoluted obfuscation of equivocations, special pleading, absurd assertions, and logical flights of fancy, all drenched up in burden shifting poisoned well water.
I really loved the section of the"Joy of Bayesianism".
that tash isn't helping him not look like a mafioso.
Thanks for your video - and yes we should take any of these metaphysical philosophical arguments seriously
4:25 Yes: there are tons of arguments for the existence of god, and each is utter crap.
But if crap is still positive, then god belief can safely rest on a pile of crap. (Or so Cameron argues)
Wait.... What? Cameron tries to weasel out of the problem of evil by accepting or positing Goff's definition of a limited being who created us? Oh boy, isn't that a complete bait and switch? That's a completely different definition of God than Christians ever use in any argument. I call BS.
Remember, anytime an atheist proposes a limited "god," Christians always bring up an Anselm and remind us that such a limited being would not fit the definition of God.
Playing with definitions doesn't get you out of the argument, Cameron!
It blows my mind that theists think that this world we live in is a necessary one. They argue as if it would be a bad thing to change how this planet and ecosystem functions. If the goal is to have better than what we currently have(ie heaven), then why not accept that this world is not good, and could be better much better if God is capable of changing it.
Thanks 4 your presentation
It almost feels like people are unfairly piling on CC. And to be honest, I'm here for that.
I don't see anything unfair about it. If anything, Cameron was unfair to Alex and even more so to Phil by almost totally ignoring him as if he weren't there.
@@Zictomorph “ -unfairly- fairly piling on CC.”
Fixed it for you. 😁
@@Hola-ro6yv Is that you, Cameron? The arguments are nearly as bad and posted everywhere.
That's an interesting syllogism for the problem of evil 🤔 Seems more specific to the unecesarry suffering argument.
Maybe Cameron was honest when he said he watches Majesty of Reason.
there's 'watching' and there's 'paying attention to'.
@@Hola-ro6yv
don't tell me - you're a protestant who stopped watching Cameron when he became a Catholic.
You have intellectual consistency written all over you.
@@Hola-ro6yv
I'm not a genius.
Are you saying you're not a protestant?
@@Hola-ro6yv
so you are a protestant. Maybe orthodox, but your silence would suggest I was right first time.
I just found you and subscribed. Glad to add your voice to my godless list of godless people who agree with me that "supernatural should take the microphone itself or shut up."
He's agnostic.
There is, funnily, a very recent video from Kane B (The Inflate & Explode Fallacy) relevant to what's going on (where he talks about "deflate and retain" a concept).
What's going on here is actually even more brazen than just "deflating and retaining" the concept of God to maintain the existence of God.
He's more like: "I can deflate the concept of God but I won't therefore your refutation of the non-deflated concept is wrong". Talk about brazen😂
He's right though.
Can’t take Cameron’s channel serious any more, it’s insane bias, sycophant, sophistry
10:47 'if we grant that the arguments go through for God's existence then they would actually prove that at least one God is real'
I don't see how it helps if those arguments themselves are bad and we wouldn't grant them. Any atheist could just make up an obviously bad reasoning which has in it's conclusion the truth of atheism. Would that make atheism serious by Cameron's light?
The most obvious response to Capturing christianity is that the problem of evil is meant to be an argument against traditional God. If your response to this is "well, if it succeeded, we would just have to adopt a non-traditional view of God" then you have missed the point. The second point is that atheist has a far more difficult time making arguments to prove atheism because of the inherent difficulty in proving a negative. What is the best argument we have against fairies, really? None. Simply the fact that there is no evidence for them. And this is enough.
As a Deist, I have immunity to all the apologetic arguments.
Apologists readily admit their arguments can be ignored. In fact, they themselves ignore the parts of the arguments that conflict with their view of God.
@goldenalt3166 Jay Dyer thinks his gobbledygook is obvious.
I used to think Joe was an incredibly talented philosopher. He may make good arguments and is very good at communicating ideas, but there is one fatal flaw. He supports Arsenal.
@LogosDIA COYG🔴⚪️🔴⚪️
It's hard to take Cameron seriously on the "intellectual side" of Christianity when he brings on exorcism experts and his hardball question is, "Skeptics might ask, why not record these?" and when they say, "That would violate their privacy" Cameron just agrees.
Wait Cameron... can't you get people to consent to being recorded? Wow. What a crazy idea to ask them next time.
Sorry Cam, you're a nice guy but I don't see you as a person who can review things like this. Have you really looked in to atheism? Why not have your brother on to have a discussion with him? Let him share his thoughts. That would be interesting!
Ummm, but does the demon consent to being recorded? You ever think about that one, buddy? We can't just go around recording demons without their permission, can we? I mean... can we? Is that moral or ethical or legal, actually? I have no idea.
Then theyll come up with some other ad-hoc defense, such as "Cameras make the demons run away"
Cameron is Cameron, but he’s still better than Matt dilladodgy
@@steved5960 Oh! Ask me a question that Matt has dodged. I'd love to answer it!
@@rewrewrewrewr2674 One guy actually said demons get shy when cameras are on. He mentioned how they're smart and don't like to be recorded.
So wait, they're smart enough to not be recorded but dumb enough to manifest in front of a priest? Wouldn't their demon buddies tell them demons are 132384-0 against priests?
I'm not joking.
I think Thomas Nagel’s “Mind and Cosmos” provides a gateway to theism, even if its author doesn’t present of perceive it in that way
My pet gerbil was upset with your comments about his mother at the end there
You’re like if Peter Parker got bit by a Darwin’s finch instead of a spider