Is the Contingency Argument Persuasive? Dr. Josh Rasmussen vs Scott Clifton

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 29 січ 2025

КОМЕНТАРІ • 335

  • @PresbyterianPaladin
    @PresbyterianPaladin 5 років тому +59

    Dude, this was a great conversation and I really enjoyed Scott Clifton, he was very cordial and respectful and honestly seems like a person concerned with truth. Josh was as articulate and cordial as ever, I really enjoy whenever you have him on Cameron. Just overall this was a great discussion and I can't wait until you guys can do it again for tge second stage of the argument. :)

  • @kristygemchua
    @kristygemchua 5 років тому +40

    I don't know Scott, but I'm loving him for being curious and open to ideas. He's a person who wants to learn, to understand . . . This isn't VS, this is more like a sharing conversation.

    • @CapturingChristianity
      @CapturingChristianity  5 років тому +17

      Kristy Gem Chua The “vs” is for (dumb) marketing purposes.

    • @GuyTato
      @GuyTato 3 роки тому +2

      @@louiscyfer6944 Wow, shallow, AND dumb. You must be a keeper

  • @mothernature1755
    @mothernature1755 4 роки тому +32

    Scott is a really likeable guy

  • @esauponce9759
    @esauponce9759 4 роки тому +36

    Scott at times looks like Chris Pratt.
    Great conversation!

    • @gamers7800
      @gamers7800 4 роки тому +5

      Esaú Ponce ...He does look like Pratt.

    • @anglozombie2485
      @anglozombie2485 4 роки тому +2

      I thought that too but Pratt is a bit different looking

    • @isidoreaerys8745
      @isidoreaerys8745 3 роки тому

      Praise science he is our Star Lord and Shepard.

  • @silverwolfmonastery
    @silverwolfmonastery 3 роки тому +12

    An atheist here... good job hosting another wonderful conversation. Your ministry has value, even though I disagree with you, simply by demonstrating that we can have productive, warm, honest, respectful conversations concerning the meaning of reality. Bravo! Good work Cameron, Scott and Josh!

  • @logos8312
    @logos8312 5 років тому +12

    Man I'd love to hang out with Rasmussen. That guy is pretty chill. Would have a lot of disagreement, but would be a hell of a conversation.

  • @randykrus9562
    @randykrus9562 4 роки тому +39

    I have a feeling that high school wasn't challenging enough for Scott and he got bored.

    • @gamers7800
      @gamers7800 4 роки тому

      So handsome but so smug!

    • @markschmitz5038
      @markschmitz5038 4 роки тому

      Yes that's true! So they pumped him full of Ritalin!

    • @agnosticmonkey7308
      @agnosticmonkey7308 4 роки тому +2

      Gamers Smug? I don't get that vibe at all.

    • @suvariboy
      @suvariboy 3 роки тому

      @@gamers7800 I thought he was very polite.

    • @gamers7800
      @gamers7800 3 роки тому +4

      @@suvariboy Maybe I’m just jealous of his good looks.

  • @christiangadfly24
    @christiangadfly24 3 роки тому +8

    This is actually pretty similar to the conversation Scott had with WLC today, 8/12/21. Apparently he was always nice and always wasn't bothered by the universe not having a cause.

    • @romanski5811
      @romanski5811 2 роки тому +1

      What did he mean by "cause"?

  • @danielcartwright8868
    @danielcartwright8868 4 роки тому +9

    This needs a sequel.

  • @arpitsarkar5718
    @arpitsarkar5718 5 років тому +18

    Kudos to you Cameron for bringing Scott Clifton out of retirement! Scott has in the past taken a liking particularly to the argument from morality and the Kalam, and it would be great if you could in near future arrange discussions on those with him on your show.

  • @RobotProctor
    @RobotProctor 4 роки тому +15

    "Btw Christianity is true" lol that was weird to see at the top of the screen before a discussion even happened

    • @nonprogrediestregredi1711
      @nonprogrediestregredi1711 4 роки тому +4

      Yeah, that seems to be Cameron's dishonest tagline.

    • @Isaac19242
      @Isaac19242 3 роки тому +3

      I’m real late here but I feel like this was more of a joke given the context of a friendly discussion/debate

    • @Joshua-dc4un
      @Joshua-dc4un 3 роки тому +1

      @@Isaac19242 you sure, if it really is, not many people would get that given he doesn't include any context

    • @nathanjora7627
      @nathanjora7627 3 роки тому +2

      @@Joshua-dc4un I think that most people would at least agree upon enquiry that the most charitable assumption is that the "btw christianity is true" is meant to be humorous regardless of how genuinely Cameron believes it to be true.

    • @cosmicnomad8575
      @cosmicnomad8575 10 місяців тому

      @@Joshua-dc4unI suppose not many people would but that doesn’t change that it is

  • @Lazdinger
    @Lazdinger 5 років тому +9

    Wow I remember Scott! I used to listen to him years ago on TBS when he was analyzing and commenting a lot on William Lane Craig’s arguments for theism.. smart dude! I disagreed with him a lot on stuff but came to really appreciate him.

  • @DaddyBooneDon
    @DaddyBooneDon 7 місяців тому

    This might be, well heck it IS the most animated discussion I've seen on the argument from contingency. Thanks for this vid

  • @Petticca
    @Petticca 10 місяців тому +1

    Still fail to see how positing an extra entity, and then coming up with a bunch of extra attributes that it _must_ have doesn't just create a whole new set of problems.
    Like it essentially is just kicking the can down the road as far as 'Why the universe, tho?' goes, and then adding a bunch of unnecessary stuff, that only _appears_ to be required, if you are running on the idea that humans specifically are the goal, which given the universe we observe seems to be an utterly absurd thing to do, especially without first offering the slightest justification for baking that in, again, given the mind boggling vastness of the universe and our truly minute, our speck of a planet within it.

    • @AnHebrewChild
      @AnHebrewChild 4 місяці тому

      Theist here. Believer in Jesus. Yes, good point. It just renames the mystery, it doesn't solve it. Why is there ANY THING / ANY BEING? If consciousness is emergent, then the patterns of consciousness are surely inlaid in its non "unfolded" forms. For interesting reflections on "the unfolding" and reflections on its relationship to QM, see the late physicist David Bohm.

  • @hashiromer7668
    @hashiromer7668 4 роки тому +3

    The most important issue I have seen nobody discuss is context. Explanations make sense in a specific context.

  • @Xarai
    @Xarai Рік тому +3

    theres an intellectual side to christianity?
    Ive watched a ton of debates I've yet to see any
    this includes this debate

    • @stls800
      @stls800 Рік тому +2

      You clearly can't even understand the arguements

    • @Xarai
      @Xarai Рік тому

      @@stls800 tell me an argument that i dont understand? you made a claim tell me 1 explain it and then explain how it proves anything

    • @cosmicnomad8575
      @cosmicnomad8575 10 місяців тому +4

      This is more of a self own than anything

    • @stls800
      @stls800 10 місяців тому +3

      @@Xarai No no no, you will explain it to me bro. Give me a quick summary of the contingency argument. The video under which you commented is about it and you said it's not intellectual so show you at least get it

    • @stls800
      @stls800 10 місяців тому +3

      @@cosmicnomad8575 He understands all the arguments but I have to explain them first 🤣

  • @williammcenaney9393
    @williammcenaney9393 4 роки тому +4

    A brute fact can't have an explanation even in principle. But if there's a way to tell that something is a brute fact, that implies a self-contradiction. It implies that although no brute fact can have an explanation even in principle, some brute facts do have explanations. If I find the explanation of something when everyone thinks it's a brute fact, it only seems to be one.

    • @blamtasticful
      @blamtasticful 3 роки тому

      Well then maybe your definition of a brute fact is wrong lol. You also seem to just admit that if there is a way to tell that something is a brute facts then contingent things without causal explanations aren’t by definition brute facts.

    • @andrejuthe
      @andrejuthe 2 роки тому

      "A brute fact can't have an explanation even in principle" Wrong, if it could not have an explanation even in principle then it would be *necessary* that it lack an explanation which itself (paradoxically enough) does not violate the principle of sufficient reason (at least in many formulations), since it fulfill the second order of explanation: there is an explanation why this particular thing lack an explanation. Such an objects needs no explanation because it is impossible that it has one. Brute facts are not facts that necessarily must lack an explanation, it is enough if the do lack one.

  • @robb7855
    @robb7855 2 роки тому +3

    Cam made many awkward interjections.

  • @blanktrigger8863
    @blanktrigger8863 3 роки тому +3

    Idk how people see him as open-minded and concerned about the Truth and understanding etc etc. I saw his vids attacking William Lane Craig when I searched him on UA-cam and he's not only smug but also falls squarely into the common popular atheist camp. We have to be more discerning, especially as born-again people.

    • @BSFree-es5ml
      @BSFree-es5ml 3 роки тому

      I think people see him as open minded, and concerned about the truth because... he's open minded and concerned about the truth.
      But hey, just go after the person if you think that's a good idea.
      Atheists tend to be more discerning.

  • @6Churches
    @6Churches 5 років тому +11

    30:00 Scott is so eloquent here and nails a real issue.
    I guess my question here is if God is a necessary being, why ought we not also conclude that all of God's characteristics, and then as a result all of God's thoughts, and then as a result, all of God's actions are also necessary and exist without reference to an explanation such as thinking or deciding or freedom?
    Or said another way - why is freedom 'necessary' rather than absolute rigidity? Freedom seems floppy, changeable - whereas a necessity that necessarily creates contingent things predicts contingent things better than a necessity that only has the option to produce contingent things.

    • @6Churches
      @6Churches 5 років тому +1

      @Trolltician Not really, no.
      I just want greater simplicity in the description why particular qualities of a necessary being are part of that being.

    • @michaelsayad5085
      @michaelsayad5085 5 років тому +1

      @@6Churches Freedom is a necessary property of God's because freedom is logically possible and freedom is a greater property than 'absolute rigidity'.

    • @6Churches
      @6Churches 5 років тому +6

      @@michaelsayad5085 I really appreciate this input.
      But there is no way to know that freedom is greatness making. For instance, if God is not free, but instead forced to only ever take the best course of action, then adding freedom to this God only creates the possibility that it would make less-than-best choices.
      Freedom also implies that this God has competing desires, or competing methods, or competing goals - but if God was rigidly of one mind, one intent, one method and one goal - then adding freedom here is also redundant because there is no 2nd best option to ever "freely choose" there is only the single option that expresses the uniformity of its being.

    • @michaelsayad5085
      @michaelsayad5085 5 років тому +2

      @@6Churches "then adding freedom to this God only creates the possibility that it would make less-than-best choices."
      Just because it is not logically possible for God to make evil choices does not mean that he does not have free will. It is possible that even though he can't make choices that are contrary to his Goodness that he doesn't out of freedom. There is an analogy that is made of a mad scientist who puts electrodes on someone's brain to have them vote for Obama over Romney or we might as well change this to Trump over Hillary. LOL. What would happen if the person willingly chose to vote for Trump before the scientist pressed the button? The scientist would not need to press the button anymore and the choice made is free. This is analogous to God because there is nothing outside of him determining his actions, he alone determines his actions and therefore is free.

    • @6Churches
      @6Churches 5 років тому

      @Dayne Stafford I appreciate this - but I'm not convinced that a division between properties and powers makes sense when a being is timeless (therefore changeless), and is often described as pure actuality with no potential (no need for passivity at all), and simple (not requiring a division of capacities), and necessary (where such divisions would also have to be necessary, prompting the question what mechanism requires divisions within the capacities of a necessary being?).
      Okay, let's grant God is passively omnipotent.
      God creates the Earth BUT - this act prompts us to ask, why didn't He create a different Earth? And how can we even conceive of God having several active different ideas (rather than passively pure and total knowledge) that He selects from in choosing this particular Earth? How can perfection even entertain a variety of options? If supreme perfection is not compelled towards supremely perfect decisions, what is the point of regarding this thing as God - if it can make less that perfect decisions?
      For instance, God could always just choose to make inferior decisions in every single decision, eschewing utter perfection at all times - then we shouldn't trust this being.

  • @mjdillaha
    @mjdillaha 3 роки тому +7

    It’s weird to see Scott so humble here, as I literally haven’t seen him speak in probably 7 or 8 years when he was so arrogant and disrespectful to the people who he shows honor and deference to now. I hope his change of attitude is sincere and not just an attempt to avoid embarrassment now that he’s actually engaging with the people who he so casually maligned in the past.

    • @PartTimeBox
      @PartTimeBox 3 роки тому +1

      Relax.

    • @mattsmith1440
      @mattsmith1440 3 роки тому +2

      You're going to have to provide some evidence of that, doesn't ring true to me (the disrespect, the arrogance).

    • @mjdillaha
      @mjdillaha 3 роки тому +1

      @@mattsmith1440 you’ll have to go back and watch his videos from roughly 10 years ago.

    • @mjdillaha
      @mjdillaha 3 роки тому +2

      @@PartTimeBox ok I’m relaxed. Anyway it’s weird to see Scott so deferential considering his arrogance and vitriol years ago.

    • @mattsmith1440
      @mattsmith1440 3 роки тому +2

      @@mjdillaha
      I did watch them, that's why I found your comment surprising.

  • @danielmartini3229
    @danielmartini3229 5 років тому +21

    finally, exposure to the intellectual side of christian belief. I was beginning to lose faith

    • @PrestonGranger
      @PrestonGranger 5 років тому +3

      Imagine if you walked into a university class for evolutionary biology the first day of the semester and the first thing the professor says is "Welcome to the intellectual side of evolution."

    • @tshirtjay
      @tshirtjay 4 роки тому +11

      @@PrestonGranger Well evolution isn't a belief system nor is it a philosophy so there is no "intellectual side" to evolution. All it is is a series of processes. False equivalency.

    • @DavM310
      @DavM310 4 роки тому

      Lee Richardson and that is "simply" a blatant lie

    • @onlyclaude
      @onlyclaude 4 роки тому +1

      Genji Shimada if it’s a blatant lie, then where is this evidence you are suggesting? And please don’t use the bible as evidence because this is at best, poor evidence! Also what is the lie you are suggesting?

  • @IshaaqNewton
    @IshaaqNewton 3 роки тому +4

    I think, in the beginning, Scott was seeking explanation of the Unexplainable Nature of the Necessary Existence; not explanation of the Necessary Existence at all. If that's the case, then he actually failed to show the circularity in the argument. By the way, he is a nice guy.
    I would be happy if someone shows where I am wrong.

  • @Tdisputations
    @Tdisputations 5 років тому +6

    You guys are way off. God necessarily exists because He is identical to what existence is. That’s not begging the question because we don’t determine that God exists starting with that assumption. Instead, we start with the existence of finite things and determine that this thing who’s essence is existence exists.

    • @stiimuli
      @stiimuli 4 роки тому +6

      That's simply defining god into existence by re-labeling existence itself god.

    • @Velakowitz
      @Velakowitz 3 роки тому +2

      Lol the only comment that gets it! Nominalism is one hell of a drug. Protestant nominalists arguing with atheist nominalists.

    • @Tdisputations
      @Tdisputations 3 роки тому +1

      @@stiimuli No, we discover that God is existence itself through experience

    • @Tdisputations
      @Tdisputations 3 роки тому +1

      @@Velakowitz Yeah, that’s right. I didn’t even realize the nominalist roots of this, but I think that’s right.

    • @stiimuli
      @stiimuli 3 роки тому

      @@Tdisputations You just reiterated the comment you attempted to disagree with. You literally just said "God is existence".

  • @5driedgrams
    @5driedgrams 5 років тому +4

    YES
    Scott is back!

  • @christiangadfly24
    @christiangadfly24 3 роки тому +2

    Scott seems to defy rules of logic and a first cause. Someone needs to come to him with a compelling analogy of our universe to a video game. Then abductive logic to it being more like our reality than something disorganized and uncreated. A rock may not have the laws of logic written on it, but it falls using math.

    • @christiangadfly24
      @christiangadfly24 3 роки тому

      @@MoNtYbOy101 Well, then your position is stronger than Scott's in that respect.
      A and B both just need to be settled by abduction. We have limited data. I'll assume through induction that ours is the only one and has been assigned these laws. That is where all the evidence points at this moment. This is a rebuttable presumption. It definitely weighs in favor of theism, but it's also not deductive. The atheist certainly has a way out. There is always a way out in probabilities.

    • @HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke
      @HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 3 роки тому

      @@christiangadfly24 Math is such a flexible tool that it could describe the behavior of rocks no matter what that behavior is. That you can describe a falling rock with math does not suggest to me that we are in a video game, because it would be true of something outside a videogame too.

  • @3V1LKNIGHT
    @3V1LKNIGHT 4 роки тому +5

    This is how you make America Great Again, you sit down, you talk, you let the other person talk, you listen. I admire the three of you. I have learned so much from all sides and yes our government should look up to you

  • @thuscomeguerriero
    @thuscomeguerriero 2 роки тому +2

    1:24:06 of utter nonsense..!!
    Is it just me or is the whole argument from contingency an exercise in running in place ad nauseam?

    • @No_BS_policy
      @No_BS_policy Рік тому +1

      What a way to say you didn't understand anything

  • @serversurfer6169
    @serversurfer6169 4 роки тому +10

    *Josh lists a bunch of “supreme-making properties”*
    I dunno about any of that stuff, but I’m pretty sure that Supreme means “with cheese.” 😕🤷‍♂️

    • @TestMeatDollSteak
      @TestMeatDollSteak 3 роки тому +1

      Or, “with sour cream and tomatoes”, if you’re at a Taco Bell 🌮 🛎 💩

  •  5 років тому +8

    To me, why is it true that God exists? because its denial literally entails nonsense.

    • @renevelation6586
      @renevelation6586 5 років тому +4

      Ah yes the Presupp nonsense. How do you know that Christianity even exits? How do you know what the Bible says? How do you know that you can speak english when you were taught language from fallible people?
      How can Christianity account for language when the entire doctrine depends on you understanding it when again it presupposes language. Account for your ability to speak english, to read and to understand words without using words.

    •  5 років тому +2

      @@renevelation6586 I was copying what TBS said about 2+2 = 4 just for fun. Calm down lol :)

    • @6Churches
      @6Churches 5 років тому +1

      To me, why is it true that the Answer exists? because its denial literally entails nonsense
      Do you see why this isn't convincing. "God" and "the Answer" are just vague umbrella terms. Now if I told you that in addition to being "the Answer", that I could also pray to "the Answer" and it could grant wishes - well, suddenly it being "the Answer" isn't enough and you'd want some evidence in place of rhetoric.

    •  5 років тому

      @@6Churches ua-cam.com/video/FPCzEP0oD7I/v-deo.html

    • @6Churches
      @6Churches 5 років тому

      @ Do you think numbers exist necessarily, separate from God and separate from space and time? If not, then they aren't good examples for things that exist necessarily.

  • @gazorb2
    @gazorb2 4 роки тому +2

    I assume what I must assume in order to make sense of my own existence and the apparent existence of the external world. But I admit that I make my basic epistemic assumptions for EMOTIONAL reasons.
    Many people claim not to make the assumptions I make. But they appear to be making those assumptions and denying it simultaneously.
    Other people fault my admission of an emotional starting point, but can't offer an epistemic foundation that doesn't, upon examination, reveal itself to be indistinguishable from mine.

    • @silverwolfmonastery
      @silverwolfmonastery 3 роки тому

      I appreciate your honesty. Everyone comes to their conclusions based on their own temperament. I rejected Christianity initially because of the psychopathic slave beating, geocidal nature. I became an atheist because I am convinced that their is no adequate evidence to justify a divine origin to reality. I am okay with answering the question "why is there existence?" with "I don't know".
      I think admitting our motivations allows for much more authentic conversations.

  • @christiangadfly24
    @christiangadfly24 3 роки тому +1

    That distinction between brute fact God vs necessary being God is really interesting.

    • @christiangadfly24
      @christiangadfly24 3 роки тому

      @@vejeke That's so funny taken out of context hahaha. (For those who are reading this thread and don't want to rewatch, Rasmussen is trying to identify what it is about an independent being without further explanation that makes Scott uncomfortable).

    • @philotheoapolobrendon3653
      @philotheoapolobrendon3653 3 роки тому +3

      I think with the contingency or as Philosopher Ed Feser argues things with potentiality is that you cannot have a infinite regress. You must start the chain with a necessary or pure Act being that has no potentiality. The definition of God is that. Anything outside God would be God. Whether God exists or not, that is the definition of God (e.g. necessary/Pure Act). Using logic you can go backwards to that kind of cause so philosophically that's the best explanation. That's not the only way we know God.
      Atheist's sometimes assert a brute fact for the way things are but there is no reason for that. Its just an assertion. God/necessary being can be arrive at through reason which is how evidentialist approach these topics. Having said that, presuppostionalist start with God and have good approach to show incoherence of non-theists views also.

    • @christiangadfly24
      @christiangadfly24 3 роки тому

      @@philotheoapolobrendon3653 That actually makes a lot of sense. I always just argued that God was less ad hoc than all these random unrelated brute facts of naturalism, consciousness, morals, the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, etc. Showing that cause needs to end in a necessary being makes a lot of sense and satisfies the argument from limits.

  • @BenCarnage
    @BenCarnage 4 роки тому +4

    I understand the allure of this argument, because intuitively we either get to a brute fact or an infinite regress. The God hypothesis seems to be both, as God is described as eternal, so he should have an infinite number of prior events. If not, God should have a starting point. The fact that time seems to break down prior to what we call the big bang certainly doesn't help our intuitions about causality either.
    Existance of anything seems to necessitate some form of brute fact. From what we know of the universe it seems to boil down to at least some type of physical/metaphysical law that in turn can lead to a universe like ours. My thoughts are that while an explanation featuring one or more gods could answer this, though it seems to be an excessive explanation compared to minimalistic laws that allow for the initiation of universes. Even accepting brute facts, we are left with the question of why/how, even though it no longer makes sense to ask. The fact that time seems like a physical manifestation rather than a brute fact makes me further suspect we just barely have the vocabulary to tackle these ideas.
    Existance allows for our universe to be produced is basically what we can logically get to. Perhaps time isn't strictly linear outside of our local experience and linear time as well as starting points may be a red herring beyond the local presentation of our universe. Not religious, just enjoying the struggle of where our current philosophy and science can barely begin to reflect on the topic.

    • @BenCarnage
      @BenCarnage 4 роки тому

      If time works non-linearly at some pre-universe stage an infinite regress is also hypothetically possible, but it would still require an explanation or ''law'' to explain how it functions. If time loops in on itself, even in non-repeating patterns. Kind of hurts your brain to think about it.

    • @JohnSmith-fz1ih
      @JohnSmith-fz1ih 3 роки тому

      Well said.
      One note - it’s not a given that time is linear within our universe. Or more precisely, moving in the forward direction. Certainly our experience of it is linear and forward facing, but all the laws of physics allow for time to move in either direction.

    • @BenCarnage
      @BenCarnage 3 роки тому

      @@JohnSmith-fz1ih Indeed, we're making so many assumptions for each point that we can't know. Theistic answers have a lot of cultural advantage over hypothetical non-theistic ones. Luckily I don't find the need to make any assertions on the matter. As far as I can tell the world I experience doesn't metaphysically owe me answers, and I need not pretend to know things that I do not.
      Some argue that the questions themselves may be mostly or entirely misguided. Beyond the novelty of musing on potential implications from a perspective and perception that might not apply, the only conclusion I can draw is that certainty in the matter should be seen as a red flag.

    • @JohnSmith-fz1ih
      @JohnSmith-fz1ih 3 роки тому +1

      @@BenCarnage I agree the world doesn’t owe us any answers, but that doesn’t stop us from wanting them. Fortunately we’ve done an exceptionally good job of finding them. And lucky for me, I live in a time when I have unprecedented access to answers.
      For me, it’s natural to want to know answers to the big questions like how I and everything else got here. I am similar to a lot of people in this. Where I differ from many is I’m not capable of accepting obviously faulty answers. I agree whole heartedly with your last sentence!

    • @imaboss6244
      @imaboss6244 3 роки тому

      I didn’t read your whole comment but regarding the first paragraph, I think eternal doesn’t necessarily entail an infinite number of past events if, at one point, there was no time before that point, but God still existed timelessly

  • @gabrielteo3636
    @gabrielteo3636 6 місяців тому

    Logic is probably a descriptor of reality. Truth is probably a property of sentences. Propositions are probably conceptions in our brains. There are lots of hypothesis of what the necessary foundation of reality is like. "Consciousness" adds no explanatory power and just adds ambiguousnees to the foundation of reality...whatever it is.

  • @kristygemchua
    @kristygemchua 5 років тому +4

    I'm currently "rediscovering" my faith, if God is real, because he's "God", the ultimate being, he should be someone so great and able of anything that our human minds won't/shouldn't be able to comprehend . . .

    • @anomalylogic5947
      @anomalylogic5947 5 років тому +6

      I would say that we may not fully be able to comprehend him in a fully experiencial way. For example... all of us have limited knowledge so we won't fully comprehend knowing everything. But that does not mean we can't understand anything about God. It seems a prerequisite if we are to maintain some sought of spiritual relationship with God then we should at least understand sufficiently about him to make a spiritual relationship possible.

    • @6Churches
      @6Churches 5 років тому +6

      Wrong.
      If God is both real, ultimate AND the creator/designer of minds - then no minds should exist that can possibly fail to comprehend him UNLESS he designed them specifically to lack this capacity.
      How could a perfect creator create imperfection? How could a perfect teacher find that they have students that have failed the lesson? Both scenarios leave room to imagine a more perfect creator and more perfect teacher whose creations and lessons result in no deviation from perfection.

    • @kristygemchua
      @kristygemchua 5 років тому

      @@6Churches you have a point there. But wouldn't that make us equal to him if that's the case

    • @6Churches
      @6Churches 5 років тому +2

      @@kristygemchua That is also a good question - and I think it is answered from within Christian concepts best:
      We can imagine living in heaven for all eternity with a perfect comprehension of God (even if our understanding was still finite), without becoming God. So if we can do it there, we could have done it here.
      Also, because some humans can comprehend the entirety of the functioning of a nuclear reactor - the result is not that their minds or bodies gain the capacities of the nuclear reactor.

    • @kristygemchua
      @kristygemchua 5 років тому +1

      @@6Churches 🤔👍hmmm. . . 🤔🤔 digesting what you're saying

  • @christiangadfly24
    @christiangadfly24 3 роки тому +1

    Maybe a Christian can bite the bullet and call God a brute fact, but their view of reality is less ad hoc because they have only one brute fact as opposed to a handful of them.

    • @HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke
      @HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 3 роки тому

      I disagree that by having a single word, 'God', that means you only have one brute fact. I can do that too for 'the universe' and my handful of brute facts evaporates into one too. That's just grouping them. Really you have a handful of assumptions about the details of God, such that he would want to create a universe just like this.

  • @philotheoapolobrendon3653
    @philotheoapolobrendon3653 3 роки тому

    Around min 40 i think they are thinking of: Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause

  • @gonephishing100
    @gonephishing100 3 роки тому +1

    2+2 necessarily equals 4.

  • @alanrosenthal6323
    @alanrosenthal6323 8 місяців тому

    Special Pleading. Could the first cause be a super computer? Could the first cause be a chicken that lays eggs that inflate into universes? Could the first cause be Quantum Fields?

  • @ThatReadingGuy28
    @ThatReadingGuy28 4 роки тому

    You should do a part 2.

  • @epicchrist2941
    @epicchrist2941 5 років тому +2

    How did you fix the audio?

  • @chad969
    @chad969 4 роки тому +1

    How am I just now seeing this !

  • @bournechupacabra
    @bournechupacabra 5 років тому +1

    Good stuff. But I'm wondering if the first part of the conversation was slightly missing the point? It almost sounded like they were arguing about the ontological argument. Scott says he can't find any reason to see God's existence as necessary and compelling because its denial doesn't involve a contradiction. But the whole point of the contingency argument is to establish that a necessary being exists in the first place. It's not trying to "argue from definitions" like some accuse the ontological argument of doing. If the contingency argument is sound, then the contradiction you would get by denying God's existence is the contradiction of denying the true conclusion of the contingency argument.

    • @bournechupacabra
      @bournechupacabra 5 років тому +2

      @Oners82 you seem to miss the discussion on strict logical possibility vs metaphysical possibility. An example I've heard is that abstract objects, IF they exist, would likely be metaphysical necessary. They wouldn't be contingent on other things. But it's obviously possible to imagine their non existence. Hence the different forms of 'possibility'
      Simply saying 'I can imagine God's non existence' doesn't really do much to show the argument is unsound. The logic is valid so you would have to defeat the premises. The objection in question doesn't directly address any of the premises and thus isn't all that useful of an objection.
      TLDR: you can't just assert that the conclusion is false and claim you have proven the argument to be unsound

    • @bournechupacabra
      @bournechupacabra 5 років тому +1

      @Oners82 ok a lot of things to say here but for the moment let me just say these things:
      William lane Craig and Josh Rasmussen both support the concept of metaphysical necessity rather than logical necessity. I don't know about other theologians but I, and everyone here are going for that version. I also agree that there is no explicit logical contradiction with nothing existing, so there is no point in trying to attack the logical necessity formulation.
      I also want to say that your formulation of the contingency argument is quite different than what Josh did here. In fact WLC also explicitly rejects the version you presented precisely because of objections from swineburne and others.
      So I won't spend too much effort trying to respond to your detailed points about the arguments that most of us here don't really defend. But if I have time I will try to respond to the more general points you made

  • @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns
    @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns 4 роки тому +1

    If the “thing” that we’re calling “God” didn’t exist in all possible worlds then it wouldn’t be “God.” It could be unfathomably powerful, but that’s isn’t enough to make it “God,” which/who (among other things) is supposed to answer the very question of existence- the question of why there are *any* possible worlds *at all.*
    This isn’t to endorse any of the ontological arguments. But those arguments do at least capture the correct definition/concept of God within the majority of both the classical and even neoclassical tradition.

    • @patricktinkl4996
      @patricktinkl4996 4 роки тому

      Yes, but you can't just start from the assumption that this version of god exists, you have to build the foundation. I think that's why Scott wanted to really dig deep on the question of neccessity.

    • @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns
      @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns 4 роки тому

      You’re right, which is why I also wrote (in a separate post) the following:
      One mistake is to move from God to necessary existence; the classical tradition often first argues for some necessary existence and then teases out attributes that warrant the label “God.”
      Scott is approaching it backwards, and Josh bears some blame for that. Josh’s other presentations are a lot better, although he was still good here.

    • @patricktinkl4996
      @patricktinkl4996 4 роки тому

      @@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns Well, maybe there is no thing that exists in all possible worlds. Ergo, what you call god in this context (a misnomer if you ask me) might not exist either.

    • @patricktinkl4996
      @patricktinkl4996 4 роки тому

      @@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns the point here is not that they work the wrong way, the point is that Scott doesn't accept the concept of neccessity as opposed to contingency as a valid starting point in and of itself.

    • @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns
      @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns 4 роки тому +1

      Nobody is “starting” from necessity either. Again, one first Argues to necessity and then from there one deduces qualities that seem “divine.”
      That’s the whole point of the contingency argument, combined with some form of PSR. If psr is true then it does indeed take you back to some necessary existence. And this necessary aspect of reality would, of course, be found in every possible world- it is the reason, after all, as to why there are any possible worlds at all.
      I can show you a PSR syllogism leading to necessary existence if you’d like. On the other hand, if you deny any forms of PSR then I’d recommend the rationalist chapter in Feser’s 2017 Five Proofs.
      So, again, nobody is starting with necessity; that’s a conclusion that is reached through a series of steps.

  • @robsengahay5614
    @robsengahay5614 4 роки тому +1

    To me the whole problem is the theistic desire to pose and answer the ‘why’ rather than ‘how’. Why does the universe exist, why are we here etc etc.

    • @mattsmith1440
      @mattsmith1440 3 роки тому

      I have a question for that kind of person: why does god exist, rather than nothing?

    • @robsengahay5614
      @robsengahay5614 3 роки тому

      @@mattsmith1440 They will answer that with a question “how can something come from nothing?” Your question is presenting a false dichotomy which theists often use. There are more than 2 options.

    • @mattsmith1440
      @mattsmith1440 3 роки тому

      @@robsengahay5614
      Well I'm not asserting that there are only two possibilities. I'm mentioning two of a kind that have been presented to me by theists. Either the Universe or nothing. One would think my question would be at least as valid.

    • @robsengahay5614
      @robsengahay5614 3 роки тому

      @@mattsmith1440 It was not your intention for sure but if you frame a question ‘why does god exist rather than nothing’ then the assumption that there are only 2 possibilities is clearly defined in that question.
      Why does a God exist is a perfectly valid question on its own but I guarantee you that a theist will answer it with ‘why do you think that the universe came from nothing’ to which you can respond that ‘nothing’ is not any more demonstrable than a god and also ‘why does nothing exist’ makes no sense so should not even be posited.

    • @mattsmith1440
      @mattsmith1440 3 роки тому

      @@robsengahay5614
      It's a typical theist question in my experience: why does the Universe exist rather than nothing? Your mileage may vary, but mine is simply an echo of that.

  • @agnosticmonkey7308
    @agnosticmonkey7308 4 роки тому

    52:27 Why do I keep calling him Joss too? I have never had a speech impediment in my life, I think it has something to do with my tongue automatically repositioning for his last name.

  • @lutherwhyte8706
    @lutherwhyte8706 3 роки тому +3

    Seems to me that Scott's position is held because of a lack of understanding,,,in a way,,,saying theists might have an issue with certain conclusions is neither here nor there..this was almost a pointless conversation..no off.

    • @BSFree-es5ml
      @BSFree-es5ml 3 роки тому

      I agree, it does seem that you have a lack of understanding of Scott's position.

  • @andrejuthe
    @andrejuthe 5 місяців тому +1

    My personal opinon is that the best view of God is that he is a necessary being. He exist in every possible world (on a possible world semantics of modality). And since he is necessary he is not a brute fact.

  • @TheUnapologeticApologists
    @TheUnapologeticApologists 5 років тому +4

    So 37 minutes in. I completely understand Scott’s point about saying God is a brute fact, rather than necessary. It feels more right. But where I have to get off that train, is when we define what a brute facts is. According to Ed Feser, a brute fact not only is a fact without explanation, but a fact that can’t even in principle have an explanation. So it’s a fact that is literally incoherent and nonsensical.
    So if God were a brute fact, he would not have an explanation, couldn’t even in principle have an explanation, and so would be incoherent and nonsensical.
    Which creates obvious problems, because then the theist wouldn’t even have to defend the coherence of God. And God could be incoherent and still exist. Which wouldn’t be an explanation, and then the atheist couldn’t even disprove God by showing his nature to be incoherent. So Necessity being an explanation is more satisfying, because it’s an actual explanation, and affirms the coherence of God.

    • @6Churches
      @6Churches 5 років тому

      Which, if we entertained such a beings existence, makes me wonder - how does God deal with the ability to explain things and the deprivation that he can ever explain himself? Sounds like a recipe for insanity.

    • @ahmedesam5024
      @ahmedesam5024 3 роки тому

      @@6Churches u assume He has an explanation, but that would then make him contingent not necessary

    • @6Churches
      @6Churches 3 роки тому

      @@ahmedesam5024 Yeah, but then ... does God's omniscient mind consider, resent, despair the condition of having to exist from necessity and without reason?

    • @ahmedesam5024
      @ahmedesam5024 3 роки тому

      @@6Churches yep
      Knowing whether one is necessary or contingent falls under the set called knowledge
      And God has knowledge of all of the set therefore he does know whether he is contingent or necessary

    • @6Churches
      @6Churches 3 роки тому

      @@ahmedesam5024 Being necessary doesn't mean one is independent, quite the opposite. God is dependent on necessity for the very structure and function of his own mind, and that mind may resent being trapped for eternity, never able to rest and relinquish.

  • @gazorb2
    @gazorb2 4 роки тому +7

    The idea of God existing "IN" a possible world is erroneous if God is defined as the Creator of all things.

    • @Convexhull210
      @Convexhull210 4 роки тому +6

      I don't see the contradiction.

    • @JohnSmith-fz1ih
      @JohnSmith-fz1ih 3 роки тому +1

      @@Convexhull210 If we’re talking about the Christian God, He used to live above the firmament peering down. That idea didn’t stand up to scrutiny so God was moved outside of space and time where He was safe as an unfalsifiable claim. So God does not live “in” this or any other possible world; He exists outside of it all. You may respond that God does exist in this world... that He manifested here as Jesus and that He can be anywhere within this world or any other at any time He chooses. But there are two devastating problems with this claim:
      1) God was safe from falsifiability when He was outside of space time. The moment you claim He is within space time is the moment He becomes falsifiable. Worse is that you, as the person claiming that He is manifesting in this universe, have now adopted a burden of proof for that claim. Where is He? What method did you use to detect Him? And what verifiable evidence can you provide to back up your claim? You’ve adopted a burden of proof you cannot meet because there is no verifiable evidence of God manifesting in this universe.
      2) If you adopt this position, the ontological argument cannot get off the ground. What logical conclusion can be derived from “God can manifest anywhere He likes any time He likes. He can choose to manifest in some worlds but not others. Or He can choose to manifest in no world at all”. How would you propose to build from this premise and get to a conclusion that “Therefore God exists in all possible worlds”?

    • @iffymarashi7700
      @iffymarashi7700 3 роки тому

      @@JohnSmith-fz1ih I believe the concept of the trinity answers this easily, for these so called contradictions.

    • @JohnSmith-fz1ih
      @JohnSmith-fz1ih 3 роки тому

      @@iffymarashi7700 Thanks for your reply.
      I'm not surprised you feel this way. In fact in the post you're replying to I predicted this as an expected response, then I posed what I see to be two major problems with this view. It's the explanation of why you don't see these as problems that matters.
      Reading back through my previous post, I no longer feel my second question is adequate. Since posting it I've learnt more about modal logic and what "possible worlds" mean and I can see my second question was based on some misunderstandings. I'm not yet sure if my thinking is fundamentally flawed and what I posed is actually no problem at all, or if I merely worded it poorly and there is a valid argument in there still... I'll have to think on that more. Anyway, for now the first problem I posed is the main problem I see. To re-word it a little:
      1) If God exists within this universe in some way, why is He not detectable using reliable methods? Why are only unreliable methods (like personal experiences, which are open to interpretation and used by all competing religions) the only way to discover God?
      The other issue I see with pointing to the trinity is the trinity is only an answer if it is a valid and accurate representation of how God actually works. But it seems to me the trinity isn't even logically possible because it contains an explicit contradiction. The way I hear the trinity being described by Christians is that Jesus was 100% human and 100% God, and God is 100% Jesus. (I'll ignore the holy spirit for now because I've never heard a coherent description of what that even is or how it could possibly work). So saying Jesus is God is to say that God is a tiny part of the universe that He created. It's like saying a toe-nail or even a single atom _is_ me. This is clearly false, and any way I can think to resolve this logical problem results in either i) the logical problem still existing or ii) the trinity not actually being a situation where the three are one and each one are the three.
      I enjoy these philosophical questions so hope you are up for defending your view! (No problem if you're not of course... I know most people on UA-cam aren't interested in longer-form discussions).

    • @iffymarashi7700
      @iffymarashi7700 3 роки тому +1

      @@JohnSmith-fz1ih it would be a delight! I will try to discuss this with you after I get off from work.

  • @BenCarnage
    @BenCarnage 4 роки тому +1

    Logic is a definitions game, not a reality game. It's similar to math, which is why you can find mathematical expressions of logical absolutes. X equals X. X can also equal YB. But X can't not equal X. X = X must always by definition be true. I agree that if we rebooted society we'd most likely get back to somewhat similar notions of math and logic, perhaps with different symbology, but the same principles. Not because they're facts of the universe, but because they maintain internal consistency. Whether a god exists or not you can't have a bachelor who is married. That would be an internal contradiction.

    • @markschmitz5038
      @markschmitz5038 4 роки тому

      Well if logic "isn't a reality game", then why do all attempts regardless of language, culture etc recognize a common end?

    • @BenCarnage
      @BenCarnage 4 роки тому +1

      @@markschmitz5038 uh, they seem to because with all definitions games we do? that's kind of their point. Logic is descriptive not prescriptive, same as with math. They work perfectly well in fictional realities where different rules apply.

    • @markschmitz5038
      @markschmitz5038 4 роки тому

      @@BenCarnage there is the description then there is the phenomena being described. Logic exists independently of our systems/languages that express it. Even if no human had ever existed. That is why all cultures etc come to common conclusions, it is objective.

    • @BenCarnage
      @BenCarnage 4 роки тому

      @@markschmitz5038 it's an if/then system. 5+5 = 10. The structure would work just as well if a non-human used it, but the component parts only make sense because they are well defined. It's all nice and intuitive for us, but we have a few 1000 years of people laying the foundation of both math and logic the way we use it today. If everyone died, you could say that logic still ''works'', you just don't have any definitions to input, nor anyone to understand what you're doing or why. Logic and maths are tools using definitions. Things are what they are, and aren't what they aren't. Things either are or they are not, something cannot be true and not true at the same time.
      We draw the walls around what a thing is. We make the definitions. We can draw that ring around a branch, a tree, a forest, or just the bits of bark with a perticularly weird shape or color, or we could see just the atoms or the whole of the ecosystem. It might sound silly, because we do this so intuitively, which from our perspective seems obvious.
      Does the statement ''things mean what they mean'' maintain meaning when meaning is no longer defined?
      That's how descriptive tools work. Would they work with a completely different set of meanings? of course, they're descriptive tools, they're just describing something else now. But will a descriptive tool work without something to describe?.
      You could say the same thing about any language or structure. The things we mean when we say them still seem they would somewhat apply without anyone around, but would be kind of pointless, and to a creature to far removed be jibberish.
      We do consistency checks in all languages, math and logic are just more formal ways of expressing it. We're quite interested in the If/Then relationship as it applies to us. So you could say that some form of hypothetical checker of causality would likely be able to reappear as long as there is some type of life, and that's probably true.
      If you mean stuff like a circle's circumference would have the same relationship to it's radius, that's not because of logic.
      Uh, I suppose you could call it objective, because it can be independently verified. Some of logic is just taken as axioms as we can't really make complete proofs, it just seem to make the most sense.
      There are also multiple systems of logic, some with different purposes and some with conflicting schools of thought. What exacly is it you think would exist of logic if no human existed?

    • @markschmitz5038
      @markschmitz5038 4 роки тому

      @@BenCarnage Edison invented the bulb but he didn't invent light. He worked within a reality of natural laws. What mathematicians myself included do is the same. We interact within the system and have some control over the "if" and no control over the "then". It is no different than abiding by the laws of physics when constructing a physical entity, no less objective. If everyone died the laws of physics would still exist even though no one would be left to interact within them. That's why mathematics describes them so eeirily well.

  • @TheLoneWolf7743
    @TheLoneWolf7743 2 роки тому

    Scott’a tactics for defending atheism are brilliant. I don’t think he is right, but he does well representing himself.

  • @TremendousSax
    @TremendousSax Рік тому +2

    Even if one accepts the argument from contingency and concludes that a necessary being exists, there's a significant logical jump from "a necessary being exists" to "that necessary being is the God of classical theism, who is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent." The argument from contingency, in other words, doesn't necessarily lead to the God that most religious believers have in mind.

    • @donaldmcronald8989
      @donaldmcronald8989 Рік тому +1

      Yeah. The argument for permanent stuff.

    • @MrPeaceGuy54
      @MrPeaceGuy54 Рік тому +2

      If I understand correctly, traits such as omnibenevolence are not meant to be proven by this argument. All to tries to show is that there must be a necessary being and that this necessary being cannot be something that is limited by the material world.

  • @TheSimoon12
    @TheSimoon12 4 роки тому +2

    Robin van Persie is so smart.

  • @edwardtbabinski
    @edwardtbabinski 5 років тому

    Any chance of a written summation of the main questions and conclusions of both sides?

  • @agnosticmonkey7308
    @agnosticmonkey7308 4 роки тому

    My two favorite public speakers!

  • @hallelujahize
    @hallelujahize 5 років тому

    That was really awesome.

  • @zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651
    @zakirnaikahmaddeedat3651 2 роки тому +1

    Invite jake the muslim metaphysician to your show.

  • @samuelarthur887
    @samuelarthur887 3 роки тому +3

    Dr Rasmussen is brilliant. A lot of atheists are blinded by sin, and wanting to sin without their conscience being bothered, but may not know that themselves immediately or they don't want it to be true.

    • @HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke
      @HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 3 роки тому

      My impression is that this is a myth of wishful thinking. This is what churches often tell their congregation about atheists, because it's what they want to hear. 'It's not that our beliefs aren't supported by evidence and we are irrational, it's that everyone else is biased against the evidence because they love sinning!'
      But I'm never met an atheist of which this seems to be true. Some do enjoy doing things religions consider 'sin', but it's never a factor in their position on religion. And when next door there's someone who has the same habits but embraces Christianity, it doesn't even seem like it even _could_ be a relevant factor.

    • @samuelarthur887
      @samuelarthur887 3 роки тому +1

      @@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke you are closer to the kingdom that you think.

    • @HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke
      @HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 3 роки тому

      @@samuelarthur887 What do you mean by the kingdom?

    • @samuelarthur887
      @samuelarthur887 3 роки тому +1

      @@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke God in your life.

  • @KurdGamers2
    @KurdGamers2 2 роки тому

    9:00

  • @munachemeka5634
    @munachemeka5634 2 роки тому +1

    wait!, is that chris pratt?

    • @romanski5811
      @romanski5811 2 роки тому +2

      It's the good version of Chris Pratt.

  • @gussetma1945
    @gussetma1945 3 роки тому

    The reason people say brute fact is because they have no explanation. The theists have a plausible explanation. The atheist just are repelled by the theist explanation and would prefer having NO explanation than to accept the only plausible explanation available. To wit: The God of funny medieval guys in vestments.

    • @BSFree-es5ml
      @BSFree-es5ml 3 роки тому

      No.. the atheist has no explanation... the theist, makes one up.

    • @gussetma1945
      @gussetma1945 3 роки тому

      @@BSFree-es5ml Theists make-up their explanation the same way anyone makes-up a hypothesis.

    • @BSFree-es5ml
      @BSFree-es5ml 3 роки тому +1

      @@gussetma1945 Yeah.. but anyone can make up a hypothesis.
      You made the accusation that atheists would prefer no explanation.
      No, they would just prefer not jumping on a far fetched unproven " hypothesis " for the sake of keeping a religion going.
      But yeah, the reason people say " brute fact " is because they have no explanation... I assume you think God is a brute fact. Your hypothesis explains nothing, it just grants theists what they want.

    • @HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke
      @HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 3 роки тому +1

      I don't find the theistic explanation plausible :P

    • @gussetma1945
      @gussetma1945 3 роки тому

      @@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke Fine. You will have to be content with no explanation.

  • @6Churches
    @6Churches 5 років тому

    47:20 Perfect logic being built into the fabric of the foundation for all reality is still a muddy phrasing because:
    1) Built refers to the verb 'to build', which implies both temporality and intentionality - two concepts that necessity resists
    2) Perfect logic doesn't care if it is ever comprehended by any intelligent and contingent beings - but most Gods have a reward/punishment structure that does implicate humans in having to inform and comprehend things to a degree
    3) When something exists - it is logical to say "this thing exists, therefore it can't not-exist at the same time in the same way", but prior to anything existing - the perfect rules of logic don't create an explanatory reason/force/mechanism for [perfect logic exists] therefore [the universe came into existence]. It's not the full story, certainly not a supreme story.

  • @Oliver_Tate
    @Oliver_Tate 4 роки тому

    Love the background

  • @vjnt1star
    @vjnt1star 5 років тому +3

    scott asked very good questions for a first debate. the whole contingency argument is based on a linear vision of time which beyond the planck time is not a given

  • @vjnt1star
    @vjnt1star 5 років тому

    j
    by the way we have an example of a contradictory thing in our world, it is light which is both a wave and a particule. logic is not everywhere

    • @AndrewFordham
      @AndrewFordham 5 років тому

      vjnt1star Then it’s not truly anywhere. The law of non con is universal.

    • @AndrewFordham
      @AndrewFordham 5 років тому +1

      vjnt1star Our scientific categorical designations are not absolute. The law of non contradiction is and has proven it is absolute. You have to assume it’s validity even while arguing against it.

    • @michaelsayad5085
      @michaelsayad5085 5 років тому

      @@AndrewFordham What do you think about the liar's paradox? i.e. "This sentence is false."

    • @coolmuso6108
      @coolmuso6108 5 років тому

      You can't disprove the laws of logic. In order to disprove them, you'd have to assume them --> contradiction.

    • @michaelsayad5085
      @michaelsayad5085 5 років тому

      @@coolmuso6108 "In order to disprove them, you'd have to assume them --> contradiction."
      Sounds circular.

  • @apollo2843
    @apollo2843 4 роки тому +1

    Ahh throwback to the days before airpods

  • @gazorb2
    @gazorb2 4 роки тому +10

    "Btw, Christianity is true."
    This statement is unworthy of the quality of statements usually expressed here.

  • @Surroundx
    @Surroundx 5 років тому

    It seems like Scott would have benefited greatly from talking to a sophisticated atheist about these issues first.

    • @Surroundx
      @Surroundx 5 років тому

      @Oners82 from his videos on the Kalam Cosmological Argument it appears that he holds to mereological nihilism. Which if true would help him greatly in dealing with these issues, particularly with the notion of the foundation of reality. Alas he seems to allow himself to be led down a path he needn't go down.

    • @Surroundx
      @Surroundx 5 років тому

      @Oners82 I wouldn't say it's a misreading, but rather a misremembering. I haven't watched any of his videos in several years.
      If that is his objection (i.e. fallacy of ambiguity), then it fails. The first and second premises of the KCA univocally concern efficient causation. The real problems lie elsewhere (e.g. efficient causation is not simpler than efficient + material causation), which I'm happy to discuss further.
      Okay, Clifton does accept composite objects. Be that as it may, he presumably also accepts non-composite objects. Which, coupled with a rejection of metaphysical composition (e.g. Prime Matter and form), gives one the existential foundation of reality one needs.
      It then boils down to whether Clifton accepts any notion of contingency beyond ontological dependence. Which again, since I haven't watched the video in a week, I don't remember his position on.

    • @Surroundx
      @Surroundx 5 років тому +1

      @Oners82 you said: ""Univocally"?! Sorry, I don't mean to be a grammar Nazi so I'll stick to your argument."
      Yikes. See here: scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Univocally&btnG=
      You said: "Craig talks about people and chairs and cars etc. "beginning to exist", but they only begin to exist in the sense that already existing stuff is rearranged to create them.
      To say that this is evidence of creation out of nothing genuinely is an ambiguity fallacy, because even if you want to assert that the argument is talking about efficient causation Craig's examples still have a very notable difference."
      Where does Dr. Craig suggest that people and chairs and cars beginning to exist is evidence for creatio ex nihilo? On the contrary, he argues that the actual infinitude of the past is impossible and thus all space, time and matter began to exist. Moreover, it must have had a cause and this cause obviously cannot be material. And therefore, creatio ex nihilo is far more preferable than suggesting that the universe simply popped into existence without a cause.
      You said: "Or to put it more simply, his defense of the premise is empirical, yet since there is ZERO empirical evidence to demonstrate the attributes of creatio ex nihilo his defense of the premise completely fails on the very empirical grounds he needs it to rest on."
      The "attributes of creatio ex nihilo" is the conclusion of the argument, not an individual premise. The first premise is simply a Causal Principle (CP).

    • @Surroundx
      @Surroundx 5 років тому +2

      ​@Oners82 You wrote: "He uses it [i.e. cars beginning to exist is evidence for creatio ex nihilo] to defend the first premise."
      Further down in your reply you state: "In the first premise he defends creation ex materia"
      These two claims seem to contradict each other. But perhaps I am missing something.
      ----------
      I don't want to be rude and ignore your reformulated argument, but I think that a better approach for me to get you to see the logic of the argument is by formulating it differently. Rather than butting heads over whether Dr. Craig defends the two premises you claim. Here it is:
      1. Whatever begins to exist, either:
      i. popped into existence uncaused
      ii. has a material cause
      iii. has a non-material cause
      2. If the universe began to exist it cannot have a material cause (rules out ii)
      3. Therefore, if the universe began to exist, either i or iii must be true (from 1 and 2)
      4. The universe began to exist
      5. Nothing can pop into existence uncaused (rules out i)
      6. Therefore the universe has a non-material cause (from 3, 4 and 5)

    • @Surroundx
      @Surroundx 5 років тому +1

      ​@Oners82 Do you accept or reject the following premise from my argument?:
      2. If the universe began to exist it cannot have a material cause

  • @A_Yo_brown
    @A_Yo_brown 2 роки тому +2

    Scott is a phony. He’s not nice behind the scenes.

  • @LaurenceBrown-rx7hx
    @LaurenceBrown-rx7hx 3 роки тому

    Absurd to say a cat is both alive and not alive

  • @fletcha7777
    @fletcha7777 4 роки тому +2

    What an incoherent statement, something is supreme so it then makes it necessary. Lol

    • @fletcha7777
      @fletcha7777 4 роки тому +1

      @J w wrong again

    • @abs4008
      @abs4008 4 роки тому

      @J w
      Why does it mean that it is god ?
      The impossibility of infinite regress (if granted) tells us that there is a finite number of causes with the first one being the uncased cause.
      The cause of our observable universe (by universe i mean all of space and time and their contents) isn't necessarily the uncaused cause.
      It could be the the second or third or the 100th cause after the uncaused cause.
      I find therefore hard to associate any attributes of this uncaused cause (for example all powerful) with the cause of our universe.
      Does this make any sense or am I missing something obvious ?

    • @abs4008
      @abs4008 4 роки тому

      ​@J w
      I thought you were talking about an infinite regress of causes .
      But since you are talking about temporal events and since the first event coincides with the beginning of time , a temporal cause for this first event would be a contradiction.
      You might mean that the cause is atemporal cause but then again why doesn't this atemporal cause have an atemporal cause that caused it ?
      If you are going to use the impossibility of infinite regress of atemporal causes as an argument , then i ask you why is the atemporal cause of our universe the uncaused atemporal cause and not the 100th cause after the uncaused cause ?
      In other words , why is god uncreated ?
      Infinite regress proves that at least one god must be uncreated , why do you think that god is the one who created our observable universe and not the 100th god before the god that created our universe ?

  • @robb7855
    @robb7855 2 роки тому +2

    Scott still has this misconception.

  • @dienekes4364
    @dienekes4364 4 роки тому +5

    Josh: _"One thing that I find helpful is to connect my reasoning about ordinary things or even in science, using the same reasoning to think about reality as a whole..."_ -- And this is where Josh goes off the rails. You CAN'T use the same reasoning that we use to think about the regular reality that we experience to "think about" or philosophize about the macro and micro reality. Things just simply don't work the same. As much as we know about chemistry, we _STILL_ have to use a model that we know is ultimately inaccurate because it's the only way for most of us to wrap our minds around how chemistry works. It's a good enough model to work with, but it's ultimately inaccurate. So what makes Josh think that he can _imagine_ things in the quantum realm well enough to actually understand them and make conclusions about how reality works? I think it's ironic that the statement just before this, he was talking about being epistemically humble.
    This is why some of the most astonishing scientific breakthroughs were a complete surprise to the scientists who discovered them. You can't go into these things with presuppositions and expect to find reality. Which, unfortunately, is what theists like Josh tend to do.

    • @danielcrukovic
      @danielcrukovic 4 роки тому +3

      Well, yes I totally agree, though that would possibly lead us to no explanation at all since we're distancing ourselves further away from what we could possibly understand about our reality. Otherwise using deductive arguments we could have SOME explanation, which is still better than no explanation. Though I totally see what you saying here

    • @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns
      @TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns 4 роки тому +6

      Yaaaaah. You totally know more than Josh

    • @sophiasuniverse2174
      @sophiasuniverse2174 4 роки тому +1

      @@danielcrukovic But is a bad explanation better than no explanation? Wouldn't a bad explanation make us complacent? When I think I have a question solved, I move on to the next question. When I can't find the solution to a question, I sell my house to buy more books about the question because it is burning my soul to have this unanswered question.
      This is obviously biased, but I think that religion is one of those "bad answers" to a set of questions that we couldn't explain yet. Why do natural disasters happen? Why do some of us die prematurely? Why did we lose the war? "God(s)/spirits." Wouldn't it have been better to simply say "I don't know, but we should investigate until we have a robust understanding of the phenomenon in question."? Isn't that the true nature of the scientific method?

    • @danielcrukovic
      @danielcrukovic 4 роки тому

      @@sophiasuniverse2174 absolutely, thought I think it would only be a bad explanation if the laws of physics indeed work differently whether in a macro reality or in a micro reality (not sure if that's exactly the point they're making). now I could be totally wrong, trying to be honest here, but it seems to me that most of scientists agrees what it is conceivable to think that the laws of physics are universal, in other words, works everywhere. Now, having said that, reality could totally work in differently in those "realms", not denying that, but it seems to me to be less likely

    • @suntzu7727
      @suntzu7727 4 роки тому +3

      Josh does not argue that everything works the same as what we commonly experience. He argued though that there are logical principles that we can deduce and that are applicable both to the commonly experienced things and everything that could exist.
      The principle of non contradiction has to hold true always, otherwise the astonishing scientific discoveries you're thinking of would mean nothing, since both they and their negations could be true, special relativity could hold and not hold at the same time, Bell's theorem the same etc. And of course there would be no reason to ever consider a theory as matching the observed data, since an apparently not fitting one could explain them although it would make no sense.
      So, of course you're going to have presuppositions like logic and Josh is arguing form such very general principles, he's not at all arguing for and from a naive common-sensism.

  • @git_t0v
    @git_t0v 5 років тому

    It was a good conversation for the believer because we have a lot of depth to our faith that this argument exposes. However, I wonder if these in depth philosophical discussions with people that really aren't that caught up on the philosophy is beneficial.
    Like in jiu jitsu when I roll against a white belt and submit them over and over again. Good roll for me, not necessarily for them. Maybe they learned something?
    The difference between my analogy and the conversation would be that Josh and Cameron took the time to explain things, however, this is a complex argument for the non believer and maybe the explanations are doing more harm than we think ( ? )

    • @WiredZombieLive
      @WiredZombieLive 5 років тому +1

      "Complex argument for the non believer".... really? And it's not complex for the believer as well? Sounds a bit arrogant if you ask me....

    • @git_t0v
      @git_t0v 5 років тому

      @@WiredZombieLive cool

    • @KEvronista
      @KEvronista 4 роки тому +1

      @@WiredZombieLive
      *"it's not complex for the believer as well?"*
      yeah. pretty wild, and certain to go without demonstration from david, despite his planet-sized brain. i guess we'll have to settle for "cool." nothing cuntish about that.
      not to mention, quite the divine catch-22. if only a simple, readily-comprehensible explanation were within god's maximal powers, i might be saved by now!
      KEvron

    • @Cyrinil142
      @Cyrinil142 4 роки тому

      @David Tovar
      I quite disagree. You seem to think that Scott's having trouble grasping sound concepts that Josh at least understands himself. So far as I see, Scott's questions are calling on Josh to explain parts of his argument so that Scott can sort through the semantics in a coherent way. It's not that Scott can't grasp Josh's perfectly coherent argument, Scott's trying to iron out the problems with the argument for the sake of discussion. Problems that are all too obvious to anyone not coming at the discussion with the same implied meaning of a lot of terms (like necessary and contingent) that apologists come with. Implied meaning that also lets apologists hide a bunch of equivocation.
      Scott's not here for a debate and a look at his channel should show that he's at least more qualified for the material than most.

    • @JohnSmith-fz1ih
      @JohnSmith-fz1ih 3 роки тому

      Your portrayal of Scott as “not caught up on the philosophy” is a long way off the mark. A moment looking at his UA-cam channel would tell you this. His channel is explicitly about philosophy and is chock full of videos where he deconstructs arguments very eloquently, concisely and with a sharp eye for inconsistencies.

  • @randykrus9562
    @randykrus9562 4 роки тому

    All the arguments for a god are interesting to entertain......but Christianity not only says there is a god-but the god in question is our god (pointing to the christian god). A god who we know a few things about. A God, mind you, who once wrote...'
    'If two men are fighting, and the wife of one steps in to rescue her husband from the one striking him, and she reaches out her hand and grabs his genitals, you are to cut off her hand.You must show her no pity.
    Deuteronomy 25:11-12
    God thought this was a good idea. And god doesn't mince words here. Its pretty straight forward. It's this and many other 'ideas' god had that are in the bible.... is where Christians loose me in their assertion.

    • @tinymcgoo1195
      @tinymcgoo1195 4 роки тому

      I agree with you on this. I just find it funny that I read a sentence like this I think, but wait, who's genitals was she grabbing? Was she grabbing her husband's genitals to protect them from the man striking her husband. I mean after all those are the important bits. And why should her hand be cut off regardless who's genitals were grabbed. What is the action for which we are showing her no pity? It is all too subjective for me to take seriously. Either the translation has left something to be desired or the words themselves are not trustworthy.

    • @JohnSmith-fz1ih
      @JohnSmith-fz1ih 3 роки тому

      Oh yes there’s definitely a huge disconnect there. Philosophical arguments about the existence of a god are very interesting to me. But the moment someone claims they know which god is real, and it’s the one that condones human slavery, commands a rape victim be put to death if she didn’t scream loudly enough, had a person live onside a whale for a week, and have medical cures that involve rubbing the blood of freshly killed birds on things... we’ve long since departed the land of interesting and are now talking about obvious fiction.

  • @donnadeau7619
    @donnadeau7619 3 роки тому

    What explain best reality is more reality, not some 'If' god exist then that best explain reality? if you want a contradiction, god is the best one.

  • @stuckmannen3876
    @stuckmannen3876 5 років тому

    👍

  • @kimhendrix9629
    @kimhendrix9629 3 роки тому

    Read your bible it tells how the world started God created it! Them a virgin wo.an god sent Angel's to tl the soon to be husband its gods child name him Jesus we are ar the end of the world now I would start reading the bible dont dought Gods word 7 years on this earth being tormented by devil demons people you will wish you change your mind!!!!!!!

  • @AbdulHannanAbdulMatheen
    @AbdulHannanAbdulMatheen 3 роки тому

    👏🙂

  • @overcamehim
    @overcamehim 4 роки тому +3

    Josh, As a born again christian, I don't believe there are many paths to truth. I believe that Jesus Christ is THE ONLY WAY.

  • @geniustracks9213
    @geniustracks9213 4 роки тому +1

    Contingency argument is special pleading, if not straight up question begging. It doesn't take hours of sophistry to deconstruct that...but it seems like for some, in spite of their educational background, the intuitively obvious is not so obvious.

    • @anglozombie2485
      @anglozombie2485 4 роки тому +2

      omg yes its special pleading which is why phd philosophers have written pages upon pages for the argument that was a fallacy all along. You idiot.

    • @JohnSmith-fz1ih
      @JohnSmith-fz1ih 3 роки тому

      @@anglozombie2485 Actually it’s not at all uncommon for philosophers to spend pages and pages deconstructing and evaluating arguments that have known faults. Philosophy is an intellectual exercise, and there can be a lot to learn from arguments that fail due to an error in one premise.
      In fact as part of their learning a philosophy student is exposed to a large number of arguments, most of which are not valid and sound.

    • @TheistBrooks
      @TheistBrooks 3 роки тому +2

      You’re confusing de dicto and de re.

  • @Ohotoho
    @Ohotoho 4 роки тому +1

    "Btw, Christianity is true." What does that even mean? This is not the topic of conversation. Why does it deserve to be atop the entire discussion? Why not "btw, marxism is true" or "btw, pizza is true"? 5 minutes in and you've lost all my respect. These speakers will do good not to come back here.

    • @markschmitz5038
      @markschmitz5038 4 роки тому +1

      Marxism and pizza exist. Marxist pizza remains unconfirmed.

  • @ashleywaite2537
    @ashleywaite2537 4 роки тому +3

    Words, words, and more fancy words asserting the existence of a magic sky wizard without a shred of evidence to support it. Yawn

    • @maxtormanen9351
      @maxtormanen9351 4 роки тому +19

      In other words you're too lazy to try to understand it, therefore it's not true. Also try to come up with a more original edgy slogan

    • @markschmitz5038
      @markschmitz5038 4 роки тому +1

      Damn! I like read that and was all like...whoa...

    • @johnandrea8743
      @johnandrea8743 3 роки тому

      So many words, so few points.

    • @charlescarter2072
      @charlescarter2072 Рік тому

      “Sky wizard” Yawn

    • @ashleywaite2537
      @ashleywaite2537 Рік тому

      @@charlescarter2072 Still arguing about the existence of any gods 🥱