The Existence of God
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 бер 2023
- Dr. Alex Pruss visits Saint Francis University in Pennsylvania to give a talk entitled the existence of God. He presents a cosmological argument for the existence of God throughout this talk. The basic outline of his talk is as follows:
1. Something Causes Something
2. No Circularity
3. No infinite backwards chains
4. Infinite Chains need a First Cause
5. There is a First Cause
6. The First Cause is God
One of the smartest people alive, and always a pleasure to listen to.
Yes, he’s a giant among mental midgets.
I think there are lots of issues with this proof but that's probably of no surprise considering these arguments are generally very old:
- He didn't really demonstrate that infinities cannot exist, he simply demonstrated a handful of examples where infinities cannot exist in time or in space. But its not clear why its legitimate to generalize this to all infinities, especially in a spaceless, timeless void from which the universe emerged (the big bang was apparently the start of both fields).
- While there is no natural thing which "has" to exist, this follows a very narrow view of what is or is not natural. While we are only familiar with natural things inside the universe, I don't think physicists therefore are of the opinion that there could not be any super-universal structures - and indeed they do posit these (11 dimensional branes in string theory or "M-theory" for example, which occasionally collide with each other and spawn universes). Its not really clear why God "has" to exist any more than a non-conscious mechanism "has" to exist, but if your philosophy allows for one, its very strange to disallow the other
- The universe's beauty is not really a rigorous basis for claiming there is an intelligent mind as creator, instead of some "brane" object. And to be quite frank the universe is at least equally terrifying and overwhelmingly bleak and lifeless so I'm not sure you would want to go down this road anyway
- The universe's fine-tuning is also not an argument for intelligence. I view it as similar to ancient times, when we first saw waves, but couldn't explain it, so we invoked the existence of a God like Poseidon to describe why water moved the way it did, and why there were storms at sea. There was never any concrete evidence or reasoning that said - these waves strongly suggest an intelligence behind them. It was always more an argument of - here is one possible explanation, and since we can't think of any others, we will assume it is the CORRECT explanation. In other words, the reasoning follows the well-known fallacy of "god of the gaps". Historically this has turned out extremely poorly. The track record for correctness of God of the gaps explanations for all sorts of natural phenomena has failed repeatedly, from volcanoes, to thunderstorms, to the rise and fall of the sun and the moon. Even consciousness is increasingly seen as a very complex but still determined process as opposed to a magical soul that moves the body. In short, while a cosmic intelligence can explain fine-tuning, fine-tuning is not evidence of a cosmic intelligence, and is more an example of a "God of the gaps" argument than true evidence. Not to mention there are already speculative theories (infinite parallel universes) which explain fine-tuning without the need for a God.
- Parsimony - this is also not a rigorous basis, especially when applied to God, because we can't even properly describe the methods by which God creates universes. As far as theists can tell, it just occurs through some incomprehensible method akin to magic. That is not a serious basis on which to compare complexity. If I said a unicorn magically creates universes with its horn and said its a simpler explanation than parallel universes from quantum mechanics...I think I would get laughed at. Its simply not a rigorous enough definition for how something occurs. And besides this, parsimony is not a good basis for determining what is true or false. We only use it in science to choose between theories that already have a great deal of evidence in their favour. But choosing something as true ONLY on the basis of simplicity is an extremely outdated and incorrect approach to physics that disappeared after the enlightenment. We simply have no good reason to expect the universe to follow the "simple" structures in our minds. This is Aristotelian approach to physics and it died out for good reason, as Sean Carroll has pointed out in his debate with WLC.
For all these reasons, the cosmological argument remains deeply unconvincing. As do all the other arguments for God :) :) :)
I like how this person just dipped out. And calling another person smart and yet they truly are not I have to question the intelligence of the person who calls that guy one of the smartest
In an interview with Pints with Aquinas about 3 years ago, William Lane Craig said that Alexander Pruss is "scary smart" and on par with the atheist and philosopher Graham Oppy as an intellectually formidable thinker. (Craig also mentioned J. Howard Sobel as another very intelligent atheist and philosopher, but Sobel passed away so Oppy would be the "torch bearer" for intellectual defenses of atheism. Craig likewise mentioned Rob Koons and Josh Rasmussen as very intelligent Christian philosophers who would have the intellectual chops to square up with Oppy.)
Seems like Craig highly overestimated him. The whole "existence out of nothing for no reason" charge is so ridiculous...
I mean that is what *necessity* is. The theist will have god (necessity) + universe (contingent) and the non-theist will have just universe (necessity)...
Hard to believe since even philosophers who are atheists and super smart like Graham Oppy have a lot of respect for Alexander Pruss' philosophical sophistication and intelligence.
@@pattube I got a big problem with "person I think is smart thinks X is smart, therefore X is likely to be correct" logic. I would rather engage with the arguments. And Pruss basically claims when non-theists claim *necessity* it's for "no reason" but does not apply the same logic to his own theistic arguments... 🙄
@@fahimp3 1. Sure, that's fair, but people like Craig and Oppy are primarily speaking in terms of Pruss' arguments when they say he's philosophically sophisticated and intelligent and so forth. It's not as if they have no basis or grounds for their assessment of Pruss.
2. And it's not only a handful of his arguments but his arguments overall. One can be mistaken and even sorely mistaken in one's arguments or reasoning processes in one's arguments, but overall still be quite intelligent. After all, Pruss argues for theism, while Oppy argues for atheism, and they can't both be correct on the issue. Plus either or both of their reasonings to their conclusions (therefore atheism or theism) could be faulty at variois points, but that doesn't necessarily imply they're not both highly intelligent philosophical thinkers. Einstein's huge scientific blunders within his own field (e.g. "God does not play dice", "I cannot believe the universe had a beginning") don't necessarily detract from his genius. 🙄
idk paul draper I think is a bit better than oppy
This was great! Keep making content
The problem I have with this is that you start with the conclusion, and then find arguments to support the conclusion
What would you say is more plausible for an actual infinity to exist >IN< our time/space reality…..
Lets take “the card” analogy for consideration in this.
A) the Cards must continually be added, one after another, too infinity. ( in witch, is this actually infinity?)
B) the cards dont have to be continually added because it already exists fully and completely. ( somehow 🤷🏻♂️)
?????????
27:06 I don't get it. What does Smullyan's Rod have to do with the impossibility of a chain of causes extending back towards an infinite past? EDIT: at 34:38, he explains it.
I’d love to pick these philosophers’ brains over why Christianity over other forms of theism. I find the case for theism very compelling, and find the case for Christianity most compelling, but I think the case for theism is a lot more solid than the case for Christianity specifically. Love to talk to someone as smart as Pruss about it.
If you accept the premise that God is interested in us, we would expect his presence to be through some religious context. Then we just compare religions.
Why do you find the case for theism compelling at all? (Is there even _one_ argument for a god that isn't illogical? I've heard all the common ones and quite a few weird ones, and never heard anything that avoided logic errors.)
@@MasterMooperwell, tell that to the pre Colombian Americans ?
I think it’s quite possible we could be like them where the “right” religion just hasn’t arrived yet .
And so, … maybe you live some sort of mystic spiritualism? Like what’s the best way to worship God if you aren’t convinced of any specific God?
Its not like the pre Colombian Americans had a Bible or anything
@@majm9309 what is not logical about the contingency argument? Is it the logic employed or the premises involved?
@@No_BS_policy Which contingency argument? Different versions commit different mistakes. For example Kalam's conclusion isn't even a god, _"Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence."_ I'm not asking for evidence of a cause (though I also don't think Kalam even makes a rock-solid argument for that). I'm asking for evidence of a god.
Other versions simply assert things are needed for no reason.
Some of those necessary things we can even outright disprove: like imagining Zorbin the Alien running our universe as a simulation on his computer.
* Zorbin isn't timeless; he experiences the time of his own universe, though it's not the same time as our universe.
* Similarly Zorbin isn't spaceless or immaterial. But again, he's not composed of the material of our universe.
* Yet some versions of the Cosmological Argument say these are necessary traits of a cause to our universe.
Zorbin's simulation also doesn't just "kick the can down the road", because when we run simulations they don't necessarily obey the same laws as our universe. (Super Mario's universe doesn't have thermodynamics, for example.) So does causality apply to all reality? We can't say. So the moment we admit Zorbin's simulation is a real possibility (as is god and any other idea for how reality might be structured), we're admitting we can't make a causality-based argument because the laws of reality outside our universe may be extremely different.
Also either (A) everything or (B) not everything has a cause. If A, then an uncaused god is impossible. But if B, then contingency arguments have no reason for saying a god is logically necessary (the engine at the heart of contingency arguments is causality: things needing causes. By admitting uncaused things are possible, one rips out that heart -- and yet clearly people trying to use this argument for god(s) can't switch their answer to "A" because it rules out their desired conclusion!).
Within our universe nothing is uncaused. How do you kbow this applies to things outside of our universe or the universe itself.
He never shuffled an infinate deck of cards.
the philosopher (whom atheists feared) William Lane craig calls him "scary smart'
Even if we accept that the Universe was created by something that necessarily exists, why can't it be that the cause of the Universe is different from the being that then designed it? Why can't it be that the necessary cause of the Universe creates this intelligent being which then creates the Universe; or that this necessary cause creates the Universe and this being?
Because that would not be the simplest explanation. Besides, what you proposed once again flirts with the paradox of infinite regress.
@@cryxibus
Sometimes, the complex explanations are the correct ones, despite Occam's razor. And it doesn't lead to infinite regress, because the origin of the designers of the Universe is the necessary cause.
@@alittax Yes, but how is that explanation different from the current one? That there are multiple necessary creators rather than just one?
@@cryxibus
The difference is that there's one necessary cause, and its role was to create the beings who then went on to create the rest of the Universe. So the second class of beings couldn't have existed (they're contingent) without that necessary being.
@alittax I see what you're saying, but what logic is available to presuppose that event as feasible? We can, at the very least, deduce that a singular, necessary, first cause must have happened. But I do not see how we could possibly deduce another step between the singular, necessary, first cause and the creation of the material universe with the current logical argument at play.
Dr. Pruss immediately makes me think of Vitalik Buterin. Similar mannerisms and both are absolute geniuses.
The issue with his paradoxes is he assumes actual infinities rather than potential - which is quite odd for someone familiar with Aristotelian philosophy.
The point is that a potentially infinite series, at any given point that you observe it, is only finite in size. Craig agrees that time could be potentially infinite into the future, but at any point that you look at it (say, the present) only a finite number of events will have passed. So time is potentially infinite, but the past is finite.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf I’m aware he thinks that - and it’s incorrect in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy. Time into the past is potentially infinite as well. It’s a per accidens series of events to the present.
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf @truthgiver8286 we had some back and forth in another post I can't seem to access they don't like an argument they cant win and they have blocked me from posting so I have had to create another account there will not be anymore but I did want to answer you last comment.
The leprechaun assures me the universe has always existed in one form or another and that neither he or anyone else created it. The cosmological argument is silly a few false premises and then insert a god (it does not actually need to be your god)
Talking about unlikely god was supposed to create things by speaking them into being (I know I laugh at that as well) anyway there are billions of planets and we reckon that not even a god could say all their names in a week. The leprechaun reckoned it would take best part of a year.
While the Grim Reaper paradox may raise interesting questions about the nature of time and infinity, particularly in the context of philosophical thought experiments and logical puzzles, it may not necessarily undermine the Aristotelian-Thomistic understanding of a potentially infinite past. Instead, it invites further reflection on the nature of infinity and the limits of human reason..@4256
Yay! Wish I was therse
There are apparently over 3000 religions worshiped worldwide what makes you think yours is the true one
Your argument is like saying that the more people try to answer a question the more likely there isn’t a question at all. If I gave a calculus problem to 50,000 people the fact that 50,000 people have their own answer doesn’t make the question any less relevant, some people will be write. Some people will be wrong. Some people will be less wrong than others, but there is still one definite, correct answer
@@radtrad1401 Extraordinary claims of a god call for extraordinary evidence as yet none has been forthcoming.
@@paulhaynes3688 oh, I agree with your stream of reasoning, yet evidence implies something is quantifiable. Yet if that being exist outside of the material world, none of their attributes would be measurable. If they were that being would not be outside of space and time metaphysical entities require metaphysical evidence.
@@radtrad1401 Are you saying you automatically believe in every unquantifiable idea you hear? So when I tell you about the Undetectable Anti-Deity Donut which prevented all gods, do you now thing the existence of any god is impossible?
There is one Correct Answer regarding whether any god exists. Knowing truth requires evidence. We don't have evidence. So currently we don't know any gods exist.
Well I think your goal should be truth, and that means being unwilling to believe (that you know) unknowns. You must only believe ideas you have good reason to think are true. That doesn't include gods (or Anti-Deity Donuts for that matter).
"The emotional things are oretry good reasons to believe" is that the justification for the hindu thats accepted by yourself for thier belief as well. Or just to your own baised beliefs?
Comment for traction.
""Talking to an atheist who just does not see it'' thats arogant to assume and assert like that good start to the video. Shows you humility
When he suggested that the sun shining is the best evidence for god i gave up!
*Ascribing a state of affairs to an idea does not substantiate the idea. There must be a cause/effect linkage by which to substantiate an idea as being the case in the context of reality.*
I take evidence to be a demonstrable cause/effect linkage in the context of reality showing some particular state of affairs. The particular states of affairs then allow for more generalizable extrapolations. There is the chance that the further from the base cause/effect linkage observed to the more extremes of the extrapolation, that such extrapolations may become inaccurate. It should be clear that given how tenuous extrapolations can become in the extremes [see newtons laws of motion versus relativity], that anything less degenerates into assertion.
I will grant that an idea can be considered reasonable within the context of a psychological/sociological context that is not reasonable in the context of reality. It seems that theological belief is predicated on psychological/sociological dispositions as opposed to reality. Consider that given the preponderance of claims within a given culture affirming a particular notion, that is reasonable for such individuals to accept such tales as being true at least in a sociological/psychological context. However, the moment a review of reality doesn't allow for the claim to be substantiated (or worse is found to be in conflict with reality), then it should ideally be understood to be a vacuous belief in the context of reality.
43:14 _"If something doesn't have to happen, then it has a reason or explanation"_
Ok.... And who decides what "has to happen" ?
If something happens by necessity, then it just is. There is no decision-making involved. Mathematics (i.e. 2+2=4) is an example of something that exists by necessity.
@@cryxibus *-"If something happens by necessity, then it just is. There is no decision-making involved. Mathematics (i.e. 2+2=4) is an example of something that exists by necessity."*
Be careful not to get confused.
Spinoza for example clearly explains (I think you can find this in Descartes as well) that for any object, there are two ways it can be necessary.
1. It can be necessary by it's own nature : it contains the reason for the way it is within itself/the reason for its existence within itself.
2. It can be necessary from some other object's nature : it is necessarily caused/logically entailed by a necessary object.
This is linked with the distinction between analytic judgments and synthetic judgments.
We can say that 2+2=4 is true in virtue of the definition of the terms.
Another example (given by Spinoza) would be that a triangle has three sides. This is true in virtue of the definition of what a triangle is.
Analytical judgment (Leibnizian version): the content of the predicate of the judgment is true about the subject of the judgment, because the predicate is simply logically entailed by the definition of the subject.
Synthetic judgment (Leibnizian version): the content of the predicate of the judgment could be true or could be false about the subject of the judgment (only contingently true).
Now, triangles are not "necessary" in the first sense of necessity (point 1. above).
The definitions given to "2", "+" and "=" are not necessary in the first sense.
Leibniz explains that something is necessary/exists necessarily (in the first sense) if postulating that it is different/that it doesn't exist entails a contradiction.
But there is no contradiction in defining "2", "+" and "=" differently... And if we define them differently, then there is no contradiction in having "2+2=10" for example.
There is no contradiction in defining a triangle differently.
In conclusion, to your statement that *"Mathematics (i.e. 2+2=4) is an example of something that exists by necessity"* I would answer that it is incorrect, because since I can define the terms differently without doing so entailing a contradiction, it means that they are not necessary in the first sense, and since I don't think *"2+2=4"* is necessarily entailed by a necessary object (point 2. above), then I conclude that mathematics are not necessary. I agree that mathematics are analytical... But not necessary.
I hope this is clear.
@@MrGustavierand what about numbers individually? Like the number 1. Are they necessary?
Thank you for this presentation. I had doubts about my God before these logical arguments were presented, but now I am 100% convinced that Shivakamini Somakandarkram is the one true God. All of these arguments support my belief in the one true God, Shiva.
I prefer brahman
Im unimpressed Alexander is typically way more on it tbh
There is no infinate deck of cards.
at 53:25 KILLER Question, What about the problem of EVIL. Paused for a second or two and then responded with doubt. So, for the good things to happen in your life, requires SUFFERING from EVIL. Ask for your MONEY BACK. He was a Charlatan.
No, we can't have an infinite amount of causes within our universe, but that does not mean that there can not be an infinite chain beyond our universe. That is a fallacy called a composition fallacy. Just because the parts of a whole don't have a property does not mean that the whole does not have that property. For example, you can't see the atoms that make up a penny with the naked eye, therefore you can't see a penny with the naked eye. Clearly, that is wrong. Your prior examples were all within this universe.
There are no infinate amount of elves. Concepts do not neccesarily represent reality.
Nothing can cause itself. Not even god? The all powerfull one. ?
God may exist but he doesn't care about us
that is deism in a nutshell
@@JohnSmith-bq6nf yeah
At 26:51, then I knew this guy was full of it. Comparing a massively long and straight ruler with the Earth, which is ROUND. So, by his own silly example, the ruler would NEVER hit the Earth because it would be TANGENT. I can't believe he is addressing people. I hope he did not get paid to say such nonsense.
Did you miss the part of the hypothetical where Earth is also an infinite flat plane?
This amounts to claiming that you have logically proven that a "First Cause" exists, and then declaring that it must be your blue one, because blue is your favorite color. 🤔
This is philosophy? He just goes straight to the Bible to quote.
Did you watch the full lecture?
That's why you have to pay attention and watch carefully.
I would disagree that looking outside and inferring that God is "Smiling", overlooks the fact that somewhere in the world at that moment there are violent storms killing people and wrecking their Iives.
You need arguments that don't change with the weather.
It also illustrates what Spinoza says about a belief in a anthropological god. Humans discover many means which are highly conducive to the pursuit to f their own advantage but which they did not prepare themselves. So they imagine that they can worship god so that he will rearrange the world toward their blind cupidity and insatiable avarice.
If the universe always existed, in some form or another, then it wouldn't need a cause, that is just silly. Unless you want to say that your god must have a cause. Why is your god there? Does it have an explanation? If the principle of sufficient reason is true, then your god must need a reason. You can't exempt your god from something that you just said must be true. That is a fallacy called special pleading.
Came to see the comments if atheists are crying
Crying laughing at the god of the gaps philosophy straight out of the microwave
21:39 _"So you're guaranteed there will be an orange why well because there's an elf that set its alarm clock for 12 30. either there was already an orange at 12 30 in which case you still have an orange at one or there was no orange at 12 13 which case the elf put it there and it's still going to be there at one so either way there's going to be an orange at one it's guaranteed there's an orange at one"_
That seems to be simply incorrect. We have two conditions for which the implication is that there will be an orange in the sock, however, to deduce from this that there will be an orange in the sock, Pruss needs to show that these two conditions exhaust all possibilities.
And we can see from the scenario that these two possibilities do indeed NOT exhaust all the possibilities, since none of them can be adjudicated. There is therefore a third possibility, which is that whether there is an orange or not in the sock is undecidable.
Will there therefore be an orange in the sock ? Answer : undecidable.
You are confusing an ontological question for an epistemological question. It is indeed possible for us to say we cannot know the answer to such a question (I.e. it is undecidable), but it is not possible for that to be the answer about the nature of the reality of the situation unless you want to reject the principle of non contradiction.
@@Chicken_of_Bristol I'm not sure I get your point :
First, there is no *"reality of the situation"* since it is a thought experiment.
Second, the scenario is designed for it to be undecidable since it is a recursive definition with no end point.
Third, I don't see why you think this has anything to do with the *"principle of non contradiction"* ?
@@MrGustavier what he meant was that reality isn`t "undecidable", statements of a theory are. Pruss entire point was that this scenario (with infinite chain of causes) indeed is not possible and this chain does not cause anything
@@McRingil @McRingil *-"what he meant was that reality isn`t "undecidable", statements of a theory are"*
Uh.... Ok.... And why are we even talking about reality here ???
Pruss makes a statement that relates to the thought experiment that he lays out in the video. He says : _"so you're guaranteed there will be an orange why well because there's an elf that set its alarm clock for 12 30."_ (21:39)
This statement is simply false. We are indeed talking about *"statements of a theory"* ... Are we not ? Why is anyone talking about reality here ?
*-"Pruss entire point was that this scenario (with infinite chain of causes) indeed is not possible and this chain does not cause anything."*
Yes... As I said, giving a recursive definition without an end point gives you undecidability.
I don't understand how you go from a simple fact about formal languages to the *"possibility of causing anything"* ...
I have read again chicken of bristol's comment, he said :
_"You are confusing an ontological question for an epistemological question."_
The thing is, what is the _"ontology"_ of a the _"orange"_ and the _"sock"_ in the thought experiment ?
In general, what is the _"ontology"_ of objects that are used in thought experiments ?
@@Chicken_of_Bristol *-"You are confusing an ontological question for an epistemological question."*
What is the *"ontology"* of _"elves"_ in his thought experiment ? What is the *"ontology"* of socks ? Or orange ?
In general, what is the *"ontology"* of objects that are used in a thought experiment ? What is the *"ontology"* of a thought experiment ?
Oh my.... !! You people are all crazy.
You construct a fairy tale, you adorn the notion of God with all kinds of hypothetical attributes, and then attempt to tautologically prove his existence by showing us what a wonderful sunny day is shining on us !
If I constructed an elaborate description of the tooth fairy and then pointed to a sunny day, would that consist of proof of her existence..
You really are crazy !!
If you accept casual principle then you get to a necessary being. How the hell does a sunny day=tooth fairy.
what is really the point of this video?? if i can stretch a 1 minute story to 55, i might have a point???
Here's why no object can merely happen to exist. Some philosophers say there are brute facts. A brute fact is something that can't be explained, even in principle. So there's no way to identify a brute face, since anyone's ability to do that would presuppose an explanation when no brute fact can have one.
You might reply that you explain an object's existence by saying that the object only happens to exist. But you could say that about a brute fact if there was one. Then again, if a brute fact existed, there would be no way to explain its existence. How can you know that something merely happens to exist if your ability to know that presupposes an explanation? You can't.
I see a gap in your reasoning. You start of saying that no object can merely happen to exist. But what follows was only an argument to establish that if they did we wouldn't be able to tell. Do you see the problem there?
You're assuming that if something is epistemically unreachable to humans, it cannot exist. Without such an assumption, the most you can validly draw from your argument is that we could never justifiably believe it exists.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke I argued that there's no such thing has a brute fact since the definition of one is logically inconsistent. Mr. Joe Schmid cowrote about existential inertia and arguments for classical theism. Since existential inertia is new to me, I need to read my copy of Mr. Schmid's book.
Meanwhile, I believe God sustains everyone else and everything except himself because his existence is at least metaphysically necessary.
@@williammcenaney1331 What logical inconsistency did you identify in the definition of a brute fact?
I can't see one and as your argument seems to be 'we could never recognize a brute fact if we saw one', I think you've accidentally inserted into the definition of a brute fact something like, 'humans could recognize that it is a brute fact'.
@@williammcenaney1331 Here is your argument reconstructed:
P1: If anyone could recognize a brute fact upon seeing one, then that would presuppose an explanation of it.
P2: Brute facts have no explanation, by definition.
C: Therefore nobody could recognize a brute fact upon seeing one.
Notice how this conclusion is not 'therefore brute facts are logically inconsistent', or 'therefore brute facts do not exist'?
The conclusion is just that brute facts would be unrecognizable to humans if they did exist. That doesn't make them logically inconsistent.
@@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke If there's no way for any human to recognize a brute fact, even in principle, why believe that there are any brute. facts?
This is the exactly the same argument as Spinoza. And he shows that a anthropomorphic god is impossible in this argument. The type of god that smiles on us, is an emotional non-rational idea of god. If triangles could believe in god they would argue that it is eminently triangular
So that statement, it’s not a matter of faith to believe God exist. It’s something you can just see , I is a complete contradiction in terms. I it’s almost like saying I know a car can go fast just by its body style when you have no idea what type of engine it has. His statement is asserting that gif already exist before he even makes the claim that it doesn’t need faith. If that’s not an incomplete statement on an ignorant level then I don’t know what is.
Your analogy doesn’t align with Pruss’s statement. A more accurate analogy is to look at a car and see that it was created/designed by someone. I think your missing his point
@@nateolivarez3287 Wow another ridiculous fallacy, trying to use a natural world example to compare a supernatural claim. And by the way, which God, these types of claims I’ve been made for eons. Forget, showing their mind made of nothing exist with your thing isn’t a claim lol. Show that just happens to be the one you believe in and the other 4 billion or so people who disagreed with you were wrong. I mean the list goes on and on with how ridiculous this is.
I’ll make it even easier for you to close this out. If you say it’s supernatural being did something in the only thing you have to back up that statement is the statement alone. It’s a claim. As opposed to an intelligent response, saying wow, I wonder how that happened I don’t know let’s look for that answer. Which is precisely what scientist do so your argument is it just with me it’s me it’s with the most intelligent people on the face of the Earth. Oh by the way, not sure if you knew this or not but the top one percent mines in the entire planet do not believe in God looked it up.
4:45 Haha, I've never had a lower opinion of Plantinga than learning that was his "strongest evidence" of a god. I seriously thought when the speaker paused after 5:12 that he was going to call out what a horrible argument it was, but then weirdly he says, _"I think there's a lot to that."_ To understand why it's bad, imagine this scenario:
A. Gary says leprechauns exist. (Claim A)
B. You ask him to prove it.
C. Gary claims leprechauns caused the sun to shine on us. (Claim B) He then points to the sun and calls it evidence of leprechauns.
Well if Gary had evidence Claim B was correct, then yeah that'd be evidence of Claim A. But he doesn't. And ironically he'd need to know leprechauns exist before he could know they said/did anything! So he'd need to already have proven Claim A in order to prove Claim B!
Basically you can't prove something exists by simply stacking more baseless assertions (claims without evidence) on a huge pile. Your belief never has a foundation if you do that.
you are so logical thank you for existing
@@McRingil Thanks! If believers actually felt this argument was logical I'd just (A) claim the Anti-Deity Donut exists which prevented all gods, then (B) claim the Donut whispered into the ears of people like Benjamin Franklin to teach him how to discover electricity. Then we'd see Franklin _did_ discover electricity and by the believer's own "logic" that would conclusively prove gods can't exist.
But of course the real reason we shouldn't believe in gods is the lack of evidence (which of course means the lack of _strong, logical evidence,_ since if it's not strong and logical, it's not enough to justify belief in a god).
@@majm9309 i was being ironic
@@McRingilNo, you were being defensive.
@@McRingil If you ignore Platinga's error, does it make the error go away magically? Or is it still an error?
Would you listen to me because I may know something that you don't? Is it possible to be wrong believing? If God is unarguably the most important issue in all our lives and you believe the idea of the creator of the creation is fantasy or dogma of faith that belongs to religion is because the cult deceived you manipulating the information with disastrous consequences. The idea of God belongs to philosophy or rational thinking and all societies have an understanding of the intelligent creator of the creation, that atheists don't "believe" exists. The use of the verb "believe" betrays the intention to make others believe the idea of God is dogma of faith that belongs to religion. If you hear a noise would you "believe" or "know" something caused it? Atheists misreason disingenuously that from the existence of the universe only can be concluded that the universe exists, when in other spheres of life they don't reason the same way. Would you memorize and understand a logical fallacy to preserve knowledge and not lie to innocent and vulnerable children? Atheism is a logical fallacy that assumes God is the religious idea of the creator of the creation to conclude wrongly no creator exists because a particular idea of God doesn’t exist. The atheist logical fallacy would test your IQ and honesty and the error in reasoning is easy to understand being honest and impossible lying to oneself. Future generations would understand who wants to deceive and hurt them. Would you believe me when I say God is necessary because it is impossible the existence of the creation without the creator? Atheists would not be able to prove their own existence to themselves if the logical conclusion is that God exists and lose their children believing without questions asked that gambling causes a brain disease, and when they are told they don't care. God is something real capable of creating the universe from eternal existence because nothing can be created from nothing. To end the war in Ukraine the discovery that atheism is a logical fallacy has to be news. To find the truth and God only to think for oneself is necessary.
Is this guy silly, or something? These paradoxes are not real. The universe is quantized. If he was right, then an arrow could never hit its target, because it would always have to go half the distance, so it could never get there. That is not how the universe works. Infinity isn't a real thing, it is just a concept. You can't divide by zero. As soon as you drop those "paradoxes" into a quantized universe, then they disappear. This guy just doesn't understand how reality works.
God is the simplest theory... to be understood by people. Not the simplest scientifically, which requires to be supported by proven hypotheses (Okham's razor). But the existence of God presupposes the existence of so many things that are not even proven (the soul, divine magic, the first cause, a finite universe, the possibility for a conscience to interact with matter without being supported by matter, etc.) that it is one of the least probable theories to explain the world.
And that was just the "deist" claim. So the "theist" claim that such or such religion is right, well, how to begin with... it is just not reasonable to believe it. Only faith (= blind trust that makes feel good) can go around reason and makes you believe. No argument will work.
We could say the same thing back to a universe made up only by matter, but then you have the problem of explaining fine tuning, conciousness, mind , regularity in nature, why is ordered etc.
Premis 5 is an assumption. But lets get back to that when he asserts more claims about it. And premis 6. Also an assumption. How do you know that this umiverse was not caused by an advanced alien race? And even if you hand over the claim to be true. Its god. By no means dies it intail yiur god. Yiu have jumped hundreds of steps to 5 and even more to 6. Just bokd ass assertions and claims.
05:35 We can see him SMILING.
ARGUMENT FROM IGNORANCE.
I hope he did not get paid to talk nonsense.
Holy moly, the contradictions and wild claims begin in his first minute of speech and on his first page of points, and of course, therefore god. Holy shit, you people ever wonder why nobody ever calls and asks for real solutions to real problems? I didn’t think so.
Please find me an “atheist thinker” who thinks that some things just happen and have no explanation. That is an absurd characterization considering that we’ve only ever found true causes of effects through naturalistic methods.
Oh, an expert in mathematics. So what equation did he ever need to insert any god variable into to solve? Oh, none. Why might that be?
Cringe
He also has a PhD in philosophy
L take
All of that was just to present a special pleading fallacy followed by a few other fallacies and some incredulity to boot. Who could have guessed, that is all they ever have. Just so sad.
Where did he engage in special pleading and "other fallacies"?
@@hopp_sauce 10:25 "And we do have causation. Something causes something."
-- This is how he's described causation a few times now. Something causes something. That's not really good enough, all it takes for that to be true is that one thing caused another thing once. Everything else in reality could be doing who knows what.
This is not a principle, it's not stating anything about 'all somethings'.
Why is he reluctant to give a clear principle of causation?
Hint: because he can't or we could rule out a first cause just as firmly as he's ruling out all the alternatives.
@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Everything that begins to exist has a cause God didn't begin to exist. Therefore, didn't have a cause.
This guy should study logic, that would clear up so much of his confusion.
Are you crazy?
He is a professional philosopher and mathematician. Who are you?
@@Tuskoid88 I am just someone that doesn't fall for arguments from authority, or any other fallacious argument.
@@jayg342 you didn't give any arguement yourself
@@Tuskoid88 I don't need any argument to reject fallacious arguments.
@@jayg342 you need arguement to show they are fallacious bruh
Certainly one of the silliest videos I've ever seen. This guy is helping in eliminating Christianity for good. Carry on.
I wish you naysayers would at least point out why you disagree with his points
This entire discussion is just a man with a title behind him, saying he believes God exist. That’s it and asserting that everything he mentions it done by God. Of course, none of this can be proven and they are just claims so this is no different than an apologetic Christian having a talk with people. Claims on top of claims with the end result being another claim. Wow.
That’s a very broad way of what the video is. I understand your trying to say he’s just saying what he believes which is only half true because that’s not all that is being said but the whole presentation is to present why he believes. You don’t argue for Gods existence through an empirical process rather you point out a phenomenon that has occurred that is more reasonably caused if God were to exist.
And how are his primacies just claims? If that’s what your implying
Something tells me you’ve been watching too much Matt Dillahunty
LOL someone doesn’t understand what a deductive argument is ….
@@nateolivarez3287 so like every typical Christian would say, all you saying is, if you don’t have an answer just say it’s God. Or, like I said, just make more sessions, which is basically what you just did in your rebottle reply to me. Please explain oh, it’s more reasonable to say God did it how was explaining a mystery with a bigger, mystery and intelligent answer
But what if god didn't make anything? Then the signs that you think you see would be indistinguishable from natural ones. Uh oh, that is what we see.
Don't worry, there is no sound logical argument for the existence of any god. I don't know why they keep trying to lie and say that there is.
Aquinas and Leibniz beg to differ.
@@kenthefele113 Tell them no begging (the question) and to demonstrate that their premises are true.
Did you not watch the talk by Alexander Pruss? There was no begging of the question in his talk.
Yawn. Grow up, mr Dr.
Just a complete delusion. Nothing better than nothing, in fact even worse. He should be ashamed.
This is what happens when otherwise intelligent people try to rationalize beliefs in invisible magical beings that they actually acquired for reasons they don't like to acknowledge in public.
Ironically, the theist could make the exact same claim about the atheist
The dumbest comment I've read all day.
@@djspenceitalDo atheists rationalize beliefs in invisible magical beings too?
Hello again sir, no low bar bill troll jokes today? :)
“invisible magical beings”
Ah yes, the classic atheist ‘sky man not real’ response. God is not a supreme being among beings, he is existence itself.