Just a quick note. Descartes wouldn't claim to know things in his brain or inside his head. He would claim to know things in his mind. This is an important distinction which makes his arguments flow better. I like the videos.
Ok this is brilliantly explained, i have to do a phylosophical thesis for (guess what) Philosophy and this was greatly explained and beautifully organized. Defo going to put this video as the first credits link
@@donthesitatebegin9283 why is it not analytic? I have this notion that we are innately inherit knowledge of mathematics. I would be pleased to know the opposite that prove this thought wrong
I never heard any convincing argument for the existence of gods, and I have a library full of theological books. It all sounds equally nonsensical. Great video. I am glad it got recommended to me. Subscribed!
my school asked me to attack that ideia, and im so fucked, all my classmates are going to give answers like that, you have any wisdom all mighty andreas Plosky?
I don’t think the ‘should’ here is moral. Rather, Hume says that there is no rational basis for a belief in God. He comes to the same conclusion, for slightly different reasons, for the existence of causality and, most disturbingly, for even the existence of the self. Thus, not only does he reject DesCartes on the existence of God, but also rejects the famous Cogito ergo sum. If the ‘should’ is in some sense moral, then the next question would be, is the statement ‘one should not believe X’ analytic or synthetic. Most will conclude that it is neither, and thus…
@audivisionacousticresearch3231 I know that Hume argued against the immortality of the soul. I don’t think it would be much of a stretch to extend/analogize his arguments against causation and the self. Thus, I think it likely that he would have maintained that there was no rational basis for holding that spirits exist. If you are asking me personally, without thinking about it too much, I tend to believe that spirits exist in much the same way that marriages and contracts exist.
I agree that philosopher 100%, why doest the question come to our brains in the first place. Each and every human being cross the world think about God and they worship something. That itself is the prove that god exist.
Why does the idea of unicorns come into our heads? Obviously, the fact that the idea of unicorns is in our heads is not actually even slightly evidence for the existence of unicorns. Your second argument-- that people all over the world have the idea of God, and therefore God must exist-- is a classic example of the ad populum fallacy. At one time virtually everybody thought the earth was more or less flat. All those people were wrong. You should be deeply embarrassed at making two obviously fallacious arguments in one brief post.
A cat is not an animal by definition the same way that a bachelor is unmarried. Cats are bodies, like spoons and planets. We know that they are animals by observation before we wrote the definition: "a cat is a particular kind of animal."
It’s an incoherent question if taken seriously and independent from the coloring of social/cultural influence, but if by this you mean do any of the manmade god characters exist, then the answer is quite obviously no.
So the proposition, "the cat will be on the mat tomorrow", Hume would say you shouldn't believe that? Cat's a creatures of habit, if the cat has a mat it will likely be on the mat tomorrow. But maybe that was a bad example of what Hume was trying to sat,
Not believing the cat will be on the mat tomorrow is not equivalent to believing the cat will not be on the mat tomorrow. One does not believe either proposition if one is rational. It is rational to think that it's likely that the cat may be on the mat tomorrow, depending on the supporting information, but it is not rational to BELIEVE the cat will be on the mat tomorrow. Not believing a proposition is not equivalent to believing the opposite proposition.
@@donnievance1942 Of course a cat is not as reliable as the sun rising in the morning. It might get hit by a car etc. But if the probability is high that the cat will be on its favorite mat because the cat always sleeps on that mat, then it is rational to believe the cat will be on the mat tomorrow.
If x is analytic then by definition it is true! That sounds like it's trivially true! For, if x is defined by y (x and y are arbitrary) then the very definition would make it to be true. Am I missing something?
It was unreasonable at the time of his writing. You are conflating the concept of not believing something with the concept of believing that something is not true. In other words, not believing that people will fly is not equivalent to believing that they will not fly. If you are asked whether you believe that the number of uncounted marbles in a jar is even, your proper answer is no. This does not imply that you believe the number is odd. You should not believe that either. That would be what is known as a converse error, or the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I do not believe that people will ever colonize planets in another star system. This does not imply that I believe they will not colonize such planets. I do not believe either proposition. Not believing a proposition is not equivalent to believing the opposite proposition. Theists seem incapable of grasping the concept of converse error. They think that when one says "I do not believe in any god or gods," that this is equivalent to making a claim that "no gods exist" and that one acquires a burden of proof to demonstrate that no gods exist. I'm starting to wonder if theists are actually distinguished from atheists by some kind of genetic inherited inability to understand the concept of converse error.
Which god? Some might exist and it might be that any that do exist are unknown to humans. The real question is 'Is the universe a natural or artificial phenomena?'. If you answer that it is artificial then the next question is 'Who (is/are) the artificer(s)?'.
How to define what is an analytic statement? What makes a cat a cat and not any other similar creature? The answer of this supposed answer by Hume lies in this question. You can have an analytic statement for God if you know which is the true God. Now, which is the true God? Well the one with the attributes of a true God. A God who doesn't rest, a God who doesn't feel jealous, a God who is just and honest. That God is only in Islam.
Do you even read what you write? The definition of God: "God has the attributes of a true God: a God who doesn't rest, a God who doesn't feel jealous, a God who is just and honest. That God is only in the faith of Mugumapidooblebam." You can't make stuff real by defining it in a certain way. A bachelor is an unmarried man by definition, but analytic statements represent substantial truths only when they are predicated on things priorly established by evidence. Men have been shown to exist independently of the definition of bachelors. If every last bachelor on earth suddenly died, it would still be true that bachelors are unmarried men, but it would not be true that bachelors actually exist. Otherwise, I could define a unicorn as "a truly existing horse-like animal with a single horn on its forehead" and that would make unicorns real because I put "truly existing" in the definition. The statement "A unicorn is a horse-like animal with a single horn on its forehead" is analytically and trivially true, because there is such a definition, but that doesn't make unicorns real. You can define God in some particular way, and it will be trivially true that God is something that has the attributes that you name. That doesn't make your God real. You can't define stuff into existence. Analytic statements are only trivially true unless at least one of their terms are independently demonstrated to exist. Cats have been independently shown to exist as palpable phenomena. Their definitory attributes have been stipulated by an examination of actual cats. After that stipulation, it will be true that cats are things that have the attributes that have been stipulated. But cats are not shown to be real by the writing of a definition. "Skagwars are whales that fly." That's true because that's how I define skagwars. That doesn't show that skagwars exist. Jeezus F'n Christ.
The assertion by Hume that there is no evidence for God is bogus .He will only believe if he sees God which suggests that only what is in our purview can be thought analytic. Not according to Augustine when dealing with the same problem said there are many things we accept that are not seen.
In the Holy Quran, there is an interesting verse that even captivates me. God says that I placed a certainty in every human’s heart that indeed exist and that I’m their creator. God says that that person gets corrupted later on in life and still that certainty in the heart lingers and ever goes away. It’s amazing because when I was a child I do remember before anyone mentioned God to me I used to look up the sky and would talk to him. I would ask him to help when I was going through difficulties and shockingly as a child often the difficulty would removed or fixed immediately. Always shocked me and got me closer to believe him.
Try reading about theory of memes. I’m happy God helped you finding your lost toy but good luck telling that to afghan kids being raped by men of God right now.
@SZASZ BOMB okay so here is my question for you. If the Quran as you claim is a plagiarism. Then why did God mention the pulsar star in the Quran and described exactly what it’s and what it does? And first pulsar discovered in human history was in 1970 by NASA. Closest pulsar is over 200 light years away. How do you explain this? Assuming you’re not talking from animosity perspective towards Islam. Let’s assume you’re a free thinking person.
@SZASZ BOMB brother. You didn’t answer my question. The actual star was discovered in 1971 by NASA. NASA said only a super computer was able to help observed it. The Quran described the actual star and what the star does. Your answer doesn’t explain my question.
@SZASZ BOMB the African ritual did not name the star nor do they say what the star does. The Quran did and NASA confirmed. Okay here is another question. In the Quran God described 3 darkness levels the baby goes through in the mother’s womb. This fact was not discovered until technology showed this to scientists. Where did the Quran steal this info 1441 years ago?
@SZASZ BOMB No you did not you’re okay. I’m wondering have you read the Holy Quran from beginning to end? Because I’m trying to have a legit conversation not hostile and lies like the Big Lie l
Jesus asks us to have faith, to believe that He is God and that He suffered and died for our sins and rose from the dead. Belief and faith are categorically not knowledge. No one who know what the words mean would that they have faith that 2+2=4, or that Paris is the capital of France.
Would not it be irrational and unethical for God to save people based on their created intellect rather than their chosen ethics/morals? Hence, pursuing the wisdom of the world doesn't lead to God, but pursuing righteousness does. "Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, 'Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him'" - John 6:43-44a
A god(s) as described in religious cult’s handbooks for example in the bible or quran? There’s is no reason or good evidence to believe the claims in aforementioned books. Therefore, I do not believe ANY gods exist from ANY claim from ANY culture in recorded human history.
Certainly someone has critiqued Hume's Fork against its own criteria? The statements "You should believe statements which are true by definition" and "You can, if you choose, believe statements based on observation" seem to fall into the "neither analytic nor synthetic" camp. So, based on Hume's criteria, why should I trust his metrics for judging the truth value of statements?
Can you read exactly the mind of your partner? But you can't see it even if you open her skull,you can only see parts of the brain. But why you believe that she loves you?
@@moonshoes11 again, you don't understand the question. You really love to demonstrate, I have another question. What if suddenly all your senses can't function anymore but you're still alive. How will you demonstrate that you still exist and your partner still exist also? Just like state of comatose.
"The cat is on the mat." What if the picture was photoshopped? What if the cat was not a living being but rather it was just a dummy? You cannot depend on your sensations to prove or disprove a statement.
Believe it or not David Hume was a very smart man thought long and hard about the big questions of life and the heavens and earth why are we here why is anything here . And my favorite quote “” morality is not the conclusion of our reason “ .however depending on the subject E =m c squared or on trigonometry in which I can ask an expert , the question does God exist your opinion or my opinion or mr Humes opinion carry’s the same weight . He was a human being , so on opinion questions I’ll defer to my own opinion. Three things are evident and two out of three are at the 99% level . Jesus walked the earth had a ministry had many followers, Jesus was resurrected. And many of his followers choose death rather than renounce him , pretty strong proof in my mind . As was said hypocrites and martyrs are not cut from the same cloth ! Again I like David Hume but there’s limits to everyone’s knowledge. Peace
the matter of whether a statement is analytic or synthetic comes down to semantics, instead of saying does God exist ? you say Yahweh exists. The cat is an animal or Yahweh exists both make a supposedly factual statement. The word Yahweh means I exist and also is refering to a particular being. You can still believe a cat is not an animal or Yahweh doesn't exist but the statements are bot analytic. Hume is flawed
If you say, "this road leads to Dallas." That is synthetic. According to the video/Hume, If you say "tomorrow we will take this road to Dallas because it leads there", your making neither an analytic nor synthetic statement and therefore should not believe it. So what reason do you have to believe the road will lead to Dallas tomorrow? Hume would say because of custom or habit. Most beliefs are neither type of statement because they refer to the future. Yet without accepting beliefs, we would be forever in a paralytic state. Hume is correct, we are driven by customs and habits (beliefs).
Analytically God exsists through belief of what the prophets taught us and we found true within our hearts. Synthetically speaking God exists through observation of his creations starting with us chemistry and seeing everything has a code it is not random it was created by the almighty.
If God actually existed there would be no need for a discussion. God's existence would be real and not imaginary. As there's no evidence or proof, it's rational to accept there's no god.
This video is really good, I love the quality and effort you put into your videos
Amazing video thank u so much
Thanks for this encouragement.
Great channel, like your communication style
Thanks so much!
So aesthetically explained! Thank you so much for this vid.
No it's not
🌷💜
Excellent explanation!
Descartes already had the concept of god in his head. It would be impossible to suppose god put any thoughts in his head without that presupposition.
I do not have any idea of god in my head, so god put it out then:)
Yes, it sounds kinda absurd
Just a quick note. Descartes wouldn't claim to know things in his brain or inside his head. He would claim to know things in his mind. This is an important distinction which makes his arguments flow better.
I like the videos.
David Hume Another Great Scotsman, now that's a fact, A lot of great people have come from Scotland, and that's another fact.
🏴🏴🏴
Yes it is uncanny. Many of the most sensical theories in many major disciplines were created/discovered by Scots.
@@russelldavis4938 And many, many more by Englishmen.
@@CIMAmotor Citation needed.
@@donnievance1942 No it isn't.
Ok this is brilliantly explained, i have to do a phylosophical thesis for (guess what) Philosophy and this was greatly explained and beautifully organized. Defo going to put this video as the first credits link
Don't. He gets things wrong. For example: 2+2=4 is not analytic but synthetic a priori (see e.g. Kant).
@@donthesitatebegin9283 why is it not analytic? I have this notion that we are innately inherit knowledge of mathematics. I would be pleased to know the opposite that prove this thought wrong
I'd say 2+2=4 is true by definition. By 2 we mean the successor of 1. By 2+2, we mean the second successor of 2 which is, by definition, 4.
1 + 1 + 1 = 1 ; if you believe Jesus is GOD.
Amen 🙏
It also matters what exactly does the word God means in the question.
PhD philosopher timothy McGrew destroyed Hume's argument
St Anselm had that belief before Descarte
I never heard any convincing argument for the existence of gods, and I have a library full of theological books. It all sounds equally nonsensical.
Great video. I am glad it got recommended to me. Subscribed!
my school asked me to attack that ideia, and im so fucked, all my classmates are going to give answers like that, you have any wisdom all mighty andreas Plosky?
Thanks. This is encouraging. I wonder if this is related to the difference between things we can believe rather than things we must believe.
@@koinaisk Look for yourself into Spinoza's Ethics.
A better question would be “what do you mean by God?”
Exactly. This question is meaningless as presented.
I don’t think the ‘should’ here is moral. Rather, Hume says that there is no rational basis for a belief in God. He comes to the same conclusion, for slightly different reasons, for the existence of causality and, most disturbingly, for even the existence of the self. Thus, not only does he reject DesCartes on the existence of God, but also rejects the famous Cogito ergo sum.
If the ‘should’ is in some sense moral, then the next question would be, is the statement ‘one should not believe X’ analytic or synthetic. Most will conclude that it is neither, and thus…
@audivisionacousticresearch3231 I know that Hume argued against the immortality of the soul. I don’t think it would be much of a stretch to extend/analogize his arguments against causation and the self. Thus, I think it likely that he would have maintained that there was no rational basis for holding that spirits exist.
If you are asking me personally, without thinking about it too much, I tend to believe that spirits exist in much the same way that marriages and contracts exist.
I agree that philosopher 100%, why doest the question come to our brains in the first place. Each and every human being cross the world think about God and they worship something. That itself is the prove that god exist.
Why does the idea of unicorns come into our heads? Obviously, the fact that the idea of unicorns is in our heads is not actually even slightly evidence for the existence of unicorns. Your second argument-- that people all over the world have the idea of God, and therefore God must exist-- is a classic example of the ad populum fallacy. At one time virtually everybody thought the earth was more or less flat. All those people were wrong. You should be deeply embarrassed at making two obviously fallacious arguments in one brief post.
A cat is not an animal by definition the same way that a bachelor is unmarried. Cats are bodies, like spoons and planets. We know that they are animals by observation before we wrote the definition: "a cat is a particular kind of animal."
It’s an incoherent question if taken seriously and independent from the coloring of social/cultural influence, but if by this you mean do any of the manmade god characters exist, then the answer is quite obviously no.
Didn't Ludwig Wittgenstein "put paid" to the synthetic/a priori position in the Tractatus? Enjoyed this video presentation.
So Jesus ain't coming g fricking g boysssss
So the proposition, "the cat will be on the mat tomorrow", Hume would say you shouldn't believe that? Cat's a creatures of habit, if the cat has a mat it will likely be on the mat tomorrow. But maybe that was a bad example of what Hume was trying to sat,
Not believing the cat will be on the mat tomorrow is not equivalent to believing the cat will not be on the mat tomorrow. One does not believe either proposition if one is rational. It is rational to think that it's likely that the cat may be on the mat tomorrow, depending on the supporting information, but it is not rational to BELIEVE the cat will be on the mat tomorrow. Not believing a proposition is not equivalent to believing the opposite proposition.
@@donnievance1942 Of course a cat is not as reliable as the sun rising in the morning. It might get hit by a car etc. But if the probability is high that the cat will be on its favorite mat because the cat always sleeps on that mat, then it is rational to believe the cat will be on the mat tomorrow.
If x is analytic then by definition it is true!
That sounds like it's trivially true! For, if x is defined by y (x and y are arbitrary) then the very definition would make it to be true. Am I missing something?
By this reasoning, Hume would have had to say it was unreasonable to believe that people would ever build a machine in which they can fly.
It was unreasonable at the time of his writing. You are conflating the concept of not believing something with the concept of believing that something is not true. In other words, not believing that people will fly is not equivalent to believing that they will not fly. If you are asked whether you believe that the number of uncounted marbles in a jar is even, your proper answer is no. This does not imply that you believe the number is odd. You should not believe that either. That would be what is known as a converse error, or the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I do not believe that people will ever colonize planets in another star system. This does not imply that I believe they will not colonize such planets. I do not believe either proposition. Not believing a proposition is not equivalent to believing the opposite proposition.
Theists seem incapable of grasping the concept of converse error. They think that when one says "I do not believe in any god or gods," that this is equivalent to making a claim that "no gods exist" and that one acquires a burden of proof to demonstrate that no gods exist. I'm starting to wonder if theists are actually distinguished from atheists by some kind of genetic inherited inability to understand the concept of converse error.
Hume concluded that it is unreasonable to claim to have knowledge at all, considering you can’t justify it.
God asks does man really exist?
No
Which god? Some might exist and it might be that any that do exist are unknown to humans.
The real question is 'Is the universe a natural or artificial phenomena?'. If you answer that it is artificial then the next question is 'Who (is/are) the artificer(s)?'.
How to define what is an analytic statement? What makes a cat a cat and not any other similar creature? The answer of this supposed answer by Hume lies in this question. You can have an analytic statement for God if you know which is the true God. Now, which is the true God? Well the one with the attributes of a true God. A God who doesn't rest, a God who doesn't feel jealous, a God who is just and honest. That God is only in Islam.
Do you even read what you write? The definition of God: "God has the attributes of a true God: a God who doesn't rest, a God who doesn't feel jealous, a God who is just and honest. That God is only in the faith of Mugumapidooblebam." You can't make stuff real by defining it in a certain way.
A bachelor is an unmarried man by definition, but analytic statements represent substantial truths only when they are predicated on things priorly established by evidence. Men have been shown to exist independently of the definition of bachelors. If every last bachelor on earth suddenly died, it would still be true that bachelors are unmarried men, but it would not be true that bachelors actually exist.
Otherwise, I could define a unicorn as "a truly existing horse-like animal with a single horn on its forehead" and that would make unicorns real because I put "truly existing" in the definition. The statement "A unicorn is a horse-like animal with a single horn on its forehead" is analytically and trivially true, because there is such a definition, but that doesn't make unicorns real. You can define God in some particular way, and it will be trivially true that God is something that has the attributes that you name. That doesn't make your God real. You can't define stuff into existence.
Analytic statements are only trivially true unless at least one of their terms are independently demonstrated to exist. Cats have been independently shown to exist as palpable phenomena. Their definitory attributes have been stipulated by an examination of actual cats. After that stipulation, it will be true that cats are things that have the attributes that have been stipulated. But cats are not shown to be real by the writing of a definition.
"Skagwars are whales that fly." That's true because that's how I define skagwars. That doesn't show that skagwars exist. Jeezus F'n Christ.
Muhammed is a pedo
The assertion by Hume that there is no evidence for God is bogus .He will only believe if he sees God which suggests that only what is in our purview can be thought analytic. Not according to Augustine when dealing with the same problem said there are many things we accept that are not seen.
In the Holy Quran, there is an interesting verse that even captivates me. God says that I placed a certainty in every human’s heart that indeed exist and that I’m their creator. God says that that person gets corrupted later on in life and still that certainty in the heart lingers and ever goes away. It’s amazing because when I was a child I do remember before anyone mentioned God to me I used to look up the sky and would talk to him. I would ask him to help when I was going through difficulties and shockingly as a child often the difficulty would removed or fixed immediately. Always shocked me and got me closer to believe him.
Try reading about theory of memes. I’m happy God helped you finding your lost toy but good luck telling that to afghan kids being raped by men of God right now.
@SZASZ BOMB okay so here is my question for you. If the Quran as you claim is a plagiarism. Then why did God mention the pulsar star in the Quran and described exactly what it’s and what it does? And first pulsar discovered in human history was in 1970 by NASA. Closest pulsar is over 200 light years away. How do you explain this? Assuming you’re not talking from animosity perspective towards Islam. Let’s assume you’re a free thinking person.
@SZASZ BOMB brother. You didn’t answer my question. The actual star was discovered in 1971 by NASA. NASA said only a super computer was able to help observed it. The Quran described the actual star and what the star does. Your answer doesn’t explain my question.
@SZASZ BOMB the African ritual did not name the star nor do they say what the star does. The Quran did and NASA confirmed. Okay here is another question. In the Quran God described 3 darkness levels the baby goes through in the mother’s womb. This fact was not discovered until technology showed this to scientists. Where did the Quran steal this info 1441 years ago?
@SZASZ BOMB No you did not you’re okay. I’m wondering have you read the Holy Quran from beginning to end? Because I’m trying to have a legit conversation not hostile and lies like the Big Lie l
Jesus asks us to have faith, to believe that He is God and that He suffered and died for our sins and rose from the dead. Belief and faith are categorically not knowledge. No one who know what the words mean would that they have faith that 2+2=4, or that Paris is the capital of France.
Would not it be irrational and unethical for God to save people based on their created intellect rather than their chosen ethics/morals? Hence, pursuing the wisdom of the world doesn't lead to God, but pursuing righteousness does.
"Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, 'Murmur not among yourselves.
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him'" - John 6:43-44a
A god(s) as described in religious cult’s handbooks for example in the bible or quran?
There’s is no reason or good evidence to believe the claims in aforementioned books.
Therefore, I do not believe ANY gods exist from ANY claim from ANY culture in recorded human history.
Certainly someone has critiqued Hume's Fork against its own criteria? The statements "You should believe statements which are true by definition" and "You can, if you choose, believe statements based on observation" seem to fall into the "neither analytic nor synthetic" camp. So, based on Hume's criteria, why should I trust his metrics for judging the truth value of statements?
Nice!
All is God.
Can you read exactly the mind of your partner? But you can't see it even if you open her skull,you can only see parts of the brain. But why you believe that she loves you?
What we consider to be love can be observed through actions.
One can make a demonstration.
One cannot do the same for the actions of any gods.
@@moonshoes11 you don't understand the question
@@caliberos783
You don’t understand the answer.
Can you demonstrate any gods exist?
@@caliberos783
One can demonstrate whether or not a partner exists.
@@moonshoes11 again, you don't understand the question.
You really love to demonstrate, I have another question. What if suddenly all your senses can't function anymore but you're still alive. How will you demonstrate that you still exist and your partner still exist also? Just like state of comatose.
"The cat is on the mat." What if the picture was photoshopped? What if the cat was not a living being but rather it was just a dummy? You cannot depend on your sensations to prove or disprove a statement.
Isn’t this what Descartes what getting at, that our senses sometimes deceive us
Believe it or not David Hume was a very smart man thought long and hard about the big questions of life and the heavens and earth why are we here why is anything here . And my favorite quote “” morality is not the conclusion of our reason “ .however depending on the subject E =m c squared or on trigonometry in which I can ask an expert , the question does God exist your opinion or my opinion or mr Humes opinion carry’s the same weight . He was a human being , so on opinion questions I’ll defer to my own opinion. Three things are evident and two out of three are at the 99% level . Jesus walked the earth had a ministry had many followers, Jesus was resurrected. And many of his followers choose death rather than renounce him , pretty strong proof in my mind . As was said hypocrites and martyrs are not cut from the same cloth ! Again I like David Hume but there’s limits to everyone’s knowledge. Peace
Gravity exists. This statement is neither analytic nor synthetic yet gravity exists
Gravity was induced from experience, through repeated observation of everything heavy being attracted to the center. So, in a way, it's synthetic.
@@dudanunesbleff yeah you are right, I guess though gravity is not an entity but a process instead
No, sir. It is analytic. By definition, gravity exists. Gravity is the force felt and perceived and therefore by definition, exists.
Gravity sucks.
Gravity may not exist at all is the conclusion of many scientists.
the matter of whether a statement is analytic or synthetic comes down to semantics, instead of saying does God exist ? you say Yahweh exists. The cat is an animal or Yahweh exists both make a supposedly factual statement. The word Yahweh means I exist and also is refering to a particular being. You can still believe a cat is not an animal or Yahweh doesn't exist but the statements are bot analytic. Hume is flawed
God exists is analytic. It's just true.
If you say, "this road leads to Dallas." That is synthetic. According to the video/Hume, If you say "tomorrow we will take this road to Dallas because it leads there", your making neither an analytic nor synthetic statement and therefore should not believe it. So what reason do you have to believe the road will lead to Dallas tomorrow? Hume would say because of custom or habit. Most beliefs are neither type of statement because they refer to the future. Yet without accepting beliefs, we would be forever in a paralytic state. Hume is correct, we are driven by customs and habits (beliefs).
Statements avout the future are still synthetic statements.
Pointless post. Do all philosophers agree,do all people of any subjects in any realm agree obviously not. Thats reality.
god (little g) can't die fast enough
Analytically God exsists through belief of what the prophets taught us and we found true within our hearts.
Synthetically speaking God exists through observation of his creations starting with us chemistry and seeing everything has a code it is not random it was created by the almighty.
If God actually existed there would be no need for a discussion. God's existence would be real and not imaginary. As there's no evidence or proof, it's rational to accept there's no god.
God is a necessary precondition for knowledge. We have knowledge, therefore God exists.
God is fantasy of human beings. End of
Your existence is fantasy without God.