What do you infer from the context you add ? Does what you infer alter the argument ? What does it matter if one person brings a seed and the other a tree to the argument ?
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 I see no way this information about the context can influence the impartiality of the debate. Russell lived on to his late 90s. He was probably still in sharp mind in 1948.
“Rational discussion is useful only when there is a significant base of shared assumptions.” - Noam Chomsky In the introductory part, Copleston tried to figure what assumptions they shared and what they didn't. That was important and impressive.
wrong. Copleston is trying rhetorically to create a rug to pull. Russell of course dismantles this man, who is little more than a fancy talking priest.
In the timeless tradition of technological advancement and digital ethics, I unreservedly endorse the utility and ethical considerations inherent in the use of ad blockers. With a discerning eye toward preserving user autonomy and mitigating the intrusive nature of online advertising, ad blockers epitomize a commitment to individual agency and privacy in the digital sphere
They don’t denigrate each other’s intelligence… they don’t interrupt each other… they expect and receive confirmation that their opponent is well versed in the philosophical problems… What kind of ‘debate’ is this?!? 🤣🤣
Damn, two really smart guys articulately describing their position. You don't get that out of radio or today's podcasts. It'd be awesome to see a political debate like this
@amazingmazur6752 Prophet Mohammed was more influential, but he was also a liar like every other person that has claimed to be son of God or messenger of God. Jesus wasn't even able to convince people of his divinity. It was apostles paul that marketed Jesus to the Gentiles after jesus had died and decayed.
@Chukuchuku.a.o Why would people willfully live a life of poverty and persecution for a lie though? I understand that mohammed lied for gain but the apostles all died horrible deaths makes no sense that they'd die for some lie.
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible...’’ - Bertrand Russell, 1953 He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up! He knows God is real but he is a Satanist which is why he doesn't want you to have any spiritual Beliefs! He's Controlled Op. Cointelpro. Still Gives A lot of Good Advice though.......
@@Mayhamsdead Empty reply. Also, even though I imagined that is actually something someone like Russel could say, I haven't found the source interview. What's the context?
39:32 Could we just pay attention to the fact that, basically, because he doesn't want to acknowledge the existence of objective moral principles (as they must then come from God), Sir Russel doesn't even admit that Hitler's deeds were evil because, well, you know, "he was the colorblind minority", and who are we to judge ? Relativists are quite amazing contortionists, aren't they ?
There are zero contortions. Giving “being” to concept is Ontologically complicated and virtually impossible for a label of qualities. The simple approach of calling things black and white is just remedial and clearly misleading and in contrast to reality. Relativism doesn’t mean you can’t make decisions or perform actions. So your only actual complaint is that it hasn’t been made simple enough for you.
If we are referring to the Abrahamic "god", objective morality does not exist. If a standard of morality comes from a particular source, this source being "God" in this instance, this standard is entirely subjective, and I would argue that this standard is also arbitrary because it is based on "God's" whims with no reasoning on why, other than 'because I said so'. In contrast, we can base a system of morality on well-being. You don't need an objective figurehead in order to implement any sort of standard, and I would argue that only an authoritarian would insist otherwise.
@@kenetickups6146 the idea that anything comes from a god is ridiculous. Although we make up our morals, they are not objective. They will always have an element of subjectivity.
If I recall correctly from Coplestone’s memoirs, he said they had an extemporaneous debate that they then organized into notes together into a polished version. I believe the radio recording was the polished exchange from their mutually constructed notes
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:01 📜 *Agreement on the Definition of God* - The speakers agree on a provisional definition of God as a supreme personal being distinct from the world and creator of the world. - Conversation around the existence of God and whether this can be proven philosophically, and the classification of the speaker's perspective as agnostic. 02:07 🌍 *The Metaphysical Argument* - Introduction of the metaphysical argument centered on Leibniz's argument from contingency as the main philosophical explanation. - The argument states that the state of the world is contingent on a necessary being, whose existence is self-explanatory. 04:13 🔁 *Debate on the Concept of Necessary Being* - The speakers engage in an intricate debate over the concept of a necessary being. - The argument revolves around whether a necessary being, whose existence is self-explanatory, is logical or possible. - The notion of propositions, their nature, and their importance in Leibniz's argument are considered. 07:25 🚫 *Rejection of the Terms 'Necessary' and 'Contingent'* - The speaker declares his rejection of the terms necessary and contingent, stating they do not carry significance within his logical framework. - The speakers delve into the concept of modern logic, its varying systems, and its relevance to metaphysics and the problem of God. 10:09 💫 *The Ontological Argument* - The conversation shifts to the ontological argument that suggests the existence of a being whose essence necessitates its existence. - A philosophical disagreement related to the application of the terms 'necessary' and 'existence' to a being. 15:16 ❔ *Question of Sufficient Reason* - The concept of sufficient reason is discussed, with the speaker arguing that they believe the universe is without explanation and that the concept of cause does not apply to the universe as a whole. - The opposition argues the contrary, asserting that the search for a reason or cause for the universe's existence is necessary. 18:58 🔄 *Argument about the Causality of Objects and Universe* - The conversation revolves around the argument about the causality of individual objects versus the causality of 'universe' or the entirety of objects. - A philosophical back-and-forth ensues about the existence and causes of the universe and their relationship with the concept of necessary being. 21:56 *🧪 Quantum Theory and the Concept of Cause* - The conversation progresses to quantum theory and physicist's assertions that individual quantum transitions have no cause, emphasizing that the concept of cause can be philosophically flexible. 22:37 🧠 *Metaphysics, Reason and Causality* - Discussion about the role of metaphysics and reason in ultimate causality. - Debate about the assumptions scientists make about causality, and their implications. - Disagreement about whether the search for causes in nature assumes order and intelligibility. 24:36 🔬 *Scientific Assumptions about the Universe* - Conversation about the assumptions scientists make while conducting experiments. - Discussion about the potential for finding truth through experimental research. - Disagreement over the existence of an ordered and intelligible universe and its implications for scientific research. 26:52 🚫 *Rejecting the Legitimacy of Causality Questions* - Debate about the legitimacy of questioning the cause of the universe. - Disagreement over whether the question itself has meaning. - Decision to shift the conversation to the topic of religious experience. 27:06 🛐 *Religious Experience and Existence of God* - Introduction of religious experience as evidence for the existence of God. - Explanation about the nature of religious experiences and their impact on the experiencer. - Debate about the degree to which religious experiences can be defined or conceptualized. 29:52 😇 *Influence of Imagined Characters * - Discussion about the influence of imagined characters. - Argument about the existence of objects of love that are not real or existing. - Agreement that although people can be influenced by non-existing characters, the situations of an ordinary person and a mystic are different. 32:16 👹 *Equivalency between Mystical Experiences of God and Satan* - Challenge to the logic of equating mystical experiences of God and Satan. - Rejection of presumed equivalency between alleged experiences of Satan and mystical experiences of God. - Argument about the different nature of experiences involving the transcendent object caused by God and Satan. 36:12 ❤️ *Love as a Reflection of God* - Proposal that love is a reflection of God and that all goodness proceeds from Him. - Counterargument about the difficulty of proving the existence of God based on the presence of goodness. - Agreement that the character of a man's life can be evidence of the mystic's veracity and sanity, but not proof of the truth of his beliefs. 40:10 🧭 *Discussion on Objective Morality* - Direct questioning about the existence of an objective morality. - Discussion about the subjective and emotional aspect of distinguishing between good and bad. - Position that despite differences in moral judgments, there could exist a universal moral law. 43:41 🗣️ *Discussion about the Concept of "Ought"* - Conversation proceeds on the difficult subject of 'ought', suggesting it can't simply be defined. - Suggestion that 'ought' is linked with morality, which cannot be fully understood without the concept of God. 46:03 ⚖️ *Debating the Existence of an Objective Moral Law * - Conversation turns to the subject of morality, with the question whether there might be an objective moral law. - Argument that moral obligation itself implies an objective moral law, which in turn suggests the existence of a lawgiver - God. 49:15 🤔 *Experiencing the 'Ought' * - Participants exchange thoughts on how we experience the 'ought'. - Discussion on how different theories on moral judgments might align with people's spontaneous feelings, with skepticism on whether moral obligation can be explained just by feeling. 52:01 💡 *Summary and Clarification * - Participants summarize their stances, with a focus on the existence of God. - Disagreement persists on the nuance of contingency and in what context things could be seen as contingent. - Clarification provided regarding the connection between logic and philosophy. 54:47 🔄 *Continuation of Previous Themes * - Conversation circles back to earlier topics, reiterating some points. - For instance, further elaboration on the place of logic in philosophy, and the understanding of morality vis-à-vis culture and history. Made with HARPA AI
6:00: Russell says "To my mind, a necessary proposition has to be analytic.". Ok, but we are considering whether a being can be "necessary", not whether a proposition can be. Propositions are matters of an epistemic statement. Beings are a matter of concrete existence. While someone who talks about philosophy with many people like Russell has done may be forgiven for conflating the difference between a proposition about something and the thing itself--since when we talk about them we always use propositions to represent their object--the conflation in this instance causes him to see a problem that I do not think is there. Concrete objects can not be "anaclitic" only propositions about concrete objects can be. The "synthetic-analytic" distinction that Russell was fond of considering is just not applicable in the case of this contingency argument. The modality of necessary vs contingent is not epistemic but ontological in the latter case.
Yes, agreed, the "necessary" vs "contingent" "nature of being" question as concerns a hypothetical, presumably extant or existent (possibly eternal) being (deity) is ontological and not epistemic and must therefore be applied to and adjudged with respect to the notion and nature of being and not with respect to the notion or nature of propositions.
No, not agreed, Russell is pointing out that ONLY analytic propositions can be argued as true for a certainty (in as much as one properly understands the definitions of the terms used in the proposition) One might say, for instance that "a ship carrying cargo is laden" and be certain that it is true of necessity. But truths about physical objects, truths about what is, or was, or maybe, are NEVER so sure, these are truths of impoverished recollection, limited faculty, and fallible inference. One may argue that there is a glass there on the table, one may stare and swear to it, only to be shown later that, through a clever system of mirrors you were duped, that the table resides in Algeria and the glass in Albany....or so you now believe.
@@jackhung6929 It is not about epistemic certainty. Its about ontological contingency. We use the idea of ontological contingency every single day. Science uses it all the time. A complete and detailed understanding of physical things is not so easy to come by, but unless we think in terms of condition A being contingent on condition B we can not make any progress in Science and will know nothing at all. Perhaps it is epistemically possible that all of Science is mistaken and there is no such thing as ontological contingency....but AT LEAST we should be able to make the distinction between the two different senses of contingency....you would think...right???
@@reasonforge9997 Copleston was trying to argue for the existence of a Christian god. His first step to that end was to argue for the necessity of the supernatural. He pointed out that all elements of the universe require that other elements bring them into being and that thus the universe requires of necessity an element of another kind, an element that requires no predecessor, a supernatural element. Now I rather like this argument and agree that a complete explanation of how the heavens came to be requires more than that the explanation be left open ended and dangling. Russell's arguments that the only things we know to a certainty are analytic propositions, and that we have no right to ascribe to the whole the properties of a part, while valid, ignore the conundrum altogether. I wish he had made these arguments and then continued on, saying that the best science could do was wave its hands and that some further agency did indeed appear necessary. Copleston still had a long way to go.
@@jackhung6929 "Russell's arguments that the only things we know to a certainty are analytic propositions" No. Russel's objection in the debate was not about level of certainty, but he rejected the very concept of something being contingent in an ontological sense. For example from the transcript Russel said: "The difficulty of this argument is that I don't admit the idea of a necessary being and I don't admit that there is any particular meaning in calling other beings "contingent." These phrases don't for me have a significance except within a logic that I reject.". Russel is using his own analytic-synthetic distinction to say it makes no sense for a "being" to be contingent. He is saying it has no meaning...because a "being" is not "analytic". I can find no where in the debate where he appeals to certainty versus uncertainty to reject the concept. He uses his distinction with remarkable selectiveness for example when he said: 'Well, certainly the question "Does the cause of the world exist?" is a question that has meaning. But if you say "Yes, God is the cause of the world" you're using God as a proper name; then "God exists" will not be a statement that has meaning; that is the position that I'm maintaining. Because, therefore, it will follow that it cannot be an analytic proposition ever to say that this or that exists. For example, suppose you take as your subject "the existent round-square," it would look like an analytic proposition that "the existent round- square exists," but it doesn't exist.'
@joeturner9219 "Nothing" cannot exist because it is not logically possible. 1 If "nothing" existed then it would be "something". 2 "Nothing" is not "something" 3 Therefore, "nothing" does not exist. 1 If "nothing does not exist then "something" exists 2 "Nothing" does not exist. 3 Therefore, "something" exists.
The whole contingency argument falls apart when we ask what is God contingent upon? Then the answer is that one of the attributes of god is that God is not contingent upon anything. I think that simply by replacing the universe as being eternal makes this too beyond being contingent without the necessity of creating something hi g beyond the material.
Dawkins. Harris Ehrman. Etc could never discuss this subject as fully and respectfully. We need this today civility. Knowledge about the subject you’re debating. ✝️☮️
That's less a property of Dawkins, Harris, or Ehrman and more a property of modern apologetics. In their day to be a well known apologist required having a significant comprehension of philosophy. Modern apologists rarely have a basic understanding of philosophy.
@@DBZHGWgamer that sounds right , however it’s wrong . Dawkins and the rest don’t believe in philosophy, they believe in what can be proven in the labs . dr Craig Dr Plantinga Dr Swineburn , plus many other if the Christen apologist are well known philosophers, so again you have it wrong . Plus intelligence alone won’t let you prove or disprove Gods existence, so the philosopher has a better tool kit than the scientist do , they haven’t done their philosophy homework, Dr Craig said recently that Dawkins is using the same points , that have been explained to him for many years now ,Dawkins field is biology, and he’s good at it but about the Bible he’s very wrong .!
I actually love Russel's argument on contingency, its something I would have used myself. First of all with the principle of sufficient reason, if you take it to mean a complete explanation as Copleston explains, then its not really clear why there must be a reason at the universal scale. He is extrapolating from personal experience to the universal, which isn't really justifiable. Who is to say there are any clear reasons for existence at the largest scales? In modern arguments theists suggest that things would be able to pop into existence from nothingness if reasons were unnecessary, but its not clear that's true either. I think Russell's point is that the whole area is unintelligible to humans at this point, and could be well beyond our comprehension, and so attempting to fiddle with the logic of "reasons" at this scale might not make any sense to begin with. Until theists can prove otherwise, then nothing can be gained from this kind of inquiry, because we cannot ever assert that the human mind is accurately portraying the situation and is even capable of understanding the situation. Ironically God is something religious people readily assent to being beyond our ability to fully understand, so it is somewhat a double standard for them to then claim that the whole dimension of reality in which God exists can somehow be reducible to the narrow confines of human logic and reasoning. Moreover his point about "necessary existence" of a deity, really seems questionable, not just because Russell pointed out that necessity only makes sense if the entity's non-existence is somehow logically impossible (which seems false in God's case), but because the necessity of such a being must be imposed either externally by some agent outside of God, or by God itself. It can not be imposed by God itself because then God would have had to exist first, and by that point, there is no guarantee of necessity since necessity only follows existence. So rather it seems logically impossible to believe any being must have "necessary existence" as a property because if the necessity comes from outside, then it is contingent, and if it comes from the being itself, then it makes no sense as the being must already exist...which would make its necessity pointless (I must exist in order to necessarily exist). And anyway you could technically apply the same reasoning to some non-conscious process as being the "prime mover" as opposed to God. You simply can't assert qualities such as intelligence from first cause arguments.
Regarding a necessary being (as used by Copleson, it seems to me a rehash of St Anselm's Argument: trying an apriori proof for the existence of a necessary being. To my knowledge, no one was able to provide any convincing proof within that framework, including the great K.Godel. Thanks for sharing.
- “Who is to say there are any clear reasons for existence at the largest scales ?” Well, we can observe that contingent beings do exist rather than not exist even at the largest scales you mentioned (species, galaxies, physical laws or whatever DO exist) and, as such, or have their cause within themselves (which has been proven false), or have their cause within another being. But as Father Copleston explained pretty clearly - implicitly referring to the « Quinquae viae » - that one cannot presume there is an infinity of contingent beings (even at the largest scales) for that would mean there is no necessary being (the « prime mover » you talked about) and thus, that we wouldn’t be able to observe any contingent being that YET we DO observe. - « Ironically God is something religious people readily assent to being beyond our ability to fully understand.» The debate is about God’s existence, not about His essence or about the beatific vision. And if Sir Russel didn’t beat about the bush by playing with words during half an hour, maybe Father Copleston could have developed about what we can rationally tell about the essence of God : His simplicity, perfection, goodness, infinity, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, unity, omniscience, how He allows us to know Him, etc. (cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas' Prima Pars !) - « if the necessity comes from outside, then it is contingent, and if it comes from the being itself, then it makes no sense as the being must already exist » In a sense that’s right, and that is the reason why Father Copleston precises here that he doesn’t consider God as « Causa Sui », but rather as the Eternal « Prime Mover ». - « you could technically apply the same reasoning to some non-conscious process as being the "prime mover" as opposed to God. » Well in fact, not at all. As the Prive Mover can’t be « Causa Sui » (as you rightly pointed out), He has to be Eternal, and thus it can’t be material or non-conscious, for it would never have gotten out of its eternal state of quiescence or homeostasis otherwise (moreover, spiritual life can’t emerge from inanimate matter alone, at least not with an intelligence capable of understanding immaterial concepts and a will capable of free decisions). It seems to me that it is absolutely necessary for the Prime Mover to be an “Intellectual Agent”. Indeed, at some point, there must be some sort of movement of free Will of the « Prime Mover » for Him to give movement to the contingent beings He brought from nothingness to existence. My assumption here implies that the Intelligent Prime Mover has Eternal Movement within Him from all eternity (cf. perichoresis or circumincession), and this vision may be compatible with a God that would be One Holy Trinity (not seeking to prove my views here, just developing my thoughts about it). The only reason for which such a perfect Intelligent Being would bring contingent beings to existence would then be, well, His own Being, which is CARITAS, or Love (cf. the wonderful first sentence of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). For a rational view about it and not just my mere considerations I would recommend the lecture of Aristotle and most importantly Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica ! PS. Sorry for my bad English, it’s not my native language. And... God bless you ;)
@@naayou99 This isn’t a rehash of Saint Anselm’s and Descartes’ a priori ontologic argument : it is well known that this one is false as it is a tautological statement of principle. On the contrary, Father Copleston here bases his argumentation on an A POSTERIORI rational demonstration of the existence of God (just as Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle before him in a sense), according to what all of us can observe, starting with our own contingent existence. Cogito, ergo sum... ergo Deus est ! I want to remind here that the existence of God is a matter of reason and not of faith : faith would rather be putting your faith IN God and, if you dwell into apologetics, in the Resurrection of Christ, in the real Presence of Jesus-Christ in the Eucharist and other reasons for eternal rejoicing ! PS. Sorry for bad English too, and... God bless you too !
@@tonylafrite1233 the Cosmological and Teleological (the a postorieri) face the same fate. In fact, I find the ontological argument more appealing. I would not call it outright falsehood; at best I am not aware of such consensus on its invalidity/unsoundness. Once Russell described it as saying it has something wrong within but one cannot pinpoint it. Godel attempts to slave that argument using modal logic. Back to your objection. It is true that Father Copleston appeals to a cosmological argument but he also speaks of a necessary being. Both the ontological and cosmological arguments appeal to a necessary being. To my mind, both arguments are useless without this presumption. Philosophy and logic are great tools. But science, as Quine would agree, has the ultimate say. The principle of Sufficient reason that Father Copleston appeals to doesn't seem to be in agreement with modern physics, such as quantum mechanics. In the debate, Russell was reluctant to accept the universality of the principle. To me, God's existence is a matter of psychology and not of a reason, as alleged. We, humans, seek a higher purpose for our lives and existence. We cannot accept the notion that we are part of the matter-to-matter, energy-to-energy, or matter-to-energy cycle. We waste the bulk of our precious existence looking for reassurance that the loving God is out there. I would love to see my loved ones who have long gone. But I am not willing to follow the illusion that they are at where the scriptures say they are. We may feel a temporary comfort in religious conviction but many questions start to pop up about this "God" who is all-wise, all-knowing, etc, yet he communicates with us in very mysterious, and unclear ways: sending prophets, his Son, etc. Are we to accept that the necessary being who is capable of doing anything yet He is poor at communication? In fact, the track record shows, he fails. The testing, the free will, etc does not make sense to me. Marvin Minsky once said we wasted 2000 years in this nonsense. I do agree.
@@naayou99 - "Both the ontological and cosmological arguments appeal to a necessary being. To my mind, both arguments are useless without this presumption." Well, your first sentence is right, but the second doesn't seem to make sense as the argument of contingency logically concludes to the existence of a necessary Ens (being), whereas the ontological argument fails to prove it for the conclusion is already in the premise. I'll look up to what you said about Godel though, thank you for the suggestion ! - "To me, God's existence is a matter of psychology and not of a reason, as alleged." Nonsense, excuse me. Total nonsense. Either God exists, or He doesn't. But the true answer to this question (ie. the answer that corresponds to reality) doesn't depend on our psychology or on our subjective views. Concerning science, well, the fact that our current scientific models aren't capable of explaining the precises causes of our observations doesn't mean that these phenomena don't have any cause, obviously. The rest of your comment consists basically in an exposure of the nihilistic materialistic doctrine, here based on dubious psychological analysis without further argument. As we said earlier, this doctrine explains : - neither the possibility of the existence of contingent beings (let alone meaning, that is not the question here) - nor free will (I freely decide to type this and that and THEN only my pre-motor cortex neurons do their work, for they aren't triggered randomly) - nor rational intelligence ("For it is clear that whatever is received in a thing is received in it according to the mode of the receiver" (Ia, q.75, art.5) : just as my retinal photo-receptors can receive photons and my cutaneous mechano-receptors can perceive tact and vibrations according to their respective mode of being, so my intellective soul is necessarily immaterial since it understands from within (=/= AI) immaterial and intangible concepts such as justice, truth, filial love, etc. on the basis of the integration of all the sensory/empirical data collected by my brain during life here on earth, as we humans are hylemorphic compounds of matter and form cf. Aristotle's De anima. - nor good and evil (How pitiful it is that Mr. Russell, in his materialistic relativism, struggles to call the Holocaust an "evil" ! For he knows well that evil has no essence in itself and is always relative to the essence of good, and that such an absolute and universal good cannot be conceived outside of God who is its source, principle and foundation.) I unfortunately have to cut short this conversation (I will even stop going on UA-cam for a while because at this rate I will never advance enough on my projects lol) but do not fear, I accept my finitude and it is not the anguish of death (if we were only an arrangement of atoms, there would be nothing to fear I guess ?) but the love that made me throw myself into the wounded arms of my Lord Jesus crucified. You say that He is poor at communication, I say that there is nothing more eloquent than the Love He showed us on the Cross. "Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you." (James 4 : 8) "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him, and he with Me." (Rev 3 : 20) I'll pray for you with the Immaculate Conception, the most Holy Virgin Mary, so one day you may decide freely to open that door and then... see, and rejoice ! After all, what does a so-called bunch of atoms have to lose in this eternal union with God, right ? Have a nice day !
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible...’’ - Bertrand Russell, 1953 He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up! He knows God is real but he is a Satanist which is why he doesn't want you to have any spiritual Beliefs! He's Controlled Op. Cointelpro. Still Gives A lot of Good Advice though.......
I think it's more that in their day one of the only ways to be well known is to be an intellectual. In modern times i wouldn't say intellectuals are less articulate or respectful, it's just that being intellectual is not a good way to be well known. People who get famous on UA-cam are rarely ever intellectuals, and the few that are end up compromising themselves to ride the algorithm often without even realizing they have done so.
@@DBZHGWgamer I think that's a fair point, but I believe that it's that way because we prioritize and/or value intellectualism and eloquence less as a society in general than people once did. Maybe that's because the common people have more of a voice because of equal access to technology, or something else, but I feel that our intellectuals tend to be less eloquent and thoughtful these days, perhaps because they feel left behind and don't try as hard. If I was a sociologist, maybe I could say with more certainty, but I'm mostly taking somewhat educated guesses at this point.
@@donthesitatebegin9283 It is all our own immagination. There is neither a universe, nor a non- universe, neither being, nor nothing, and no becoming. The thing-in-itself too is just our linguistic shimera, our concoction ...we could call it boogaloola+x=etc.x22 Both men are extremely foolish. The logic they agree upon to start the debate: of two contradictory proposition, not both can be correct at the same time is also idiotic none sense. Why shouldn't they be correct while contradicting each other? What would chimpanzees say about our foolishness? cogito ergo non sum...
@@JSwift-jq3wn 'it's all our imagination'. Well, nope. The fact is we have trillions of complex species on our planet. That is not imagination, it's a fact. Either there was some random dust at first gazillion yrs ago that somehow magically transformed itself without no reason whatsoever into trillions of DIFFERENT species such humans, birds, fishes, giraffes, wales lol etc or something created them.
@@mickeyguide3112 Why should something creat everything? It has, is and will most likely creat itself. Besides, why should the creating agent be called God? Why not call it boogadoodoo factor + 5x
@@JSwift-jq3wn 'it has, is and will most likely create itself. How so? You mean dust could create something from itself? Like trillions of species 😂. Where do we see this happening in our world? Nowhere. It would help the case just a little bit if we could at first even observe how life gets into a cell but there's no mechanism for that, in other words no one has a clue. Why not call God boogadoodoo factor +5x? Why not, call him whatever you like. It doesn't change the facts I mentioned above. There's a difference between imagination and facts. Fact is we have trillions of species around us. They didn't got here through our imagination.
It’s great that this debate is no longer needed. It sad that so many still think there is something to debate. There is no sign of, or need for, supernatural beings. Many think they need them for ethics or psychological reasons, mortality denial primarily, but they don’t know that once you drop the idea that immortality is a good thing you immediately see there is no need for gods, angels or fairies. I mean think how childish it is to want to live forever, to freeze time and exist in some remedial world of no conflict. The God of the Gaps has been pushed from controlling everything from the wind, to disease, to species of the world, etc, to only potentially existing at some mythologically childish creation of the cosmos. And that logical solves nothing, it just pushes the question of the origin of the cosmos to origin of this vague useless god. Let it go, move on, grow.
@joeturner9219 gee thanks for pointing out I can have an opinion. But some opinions are better than others right? Are do you think flat earthers opinions are equal to science? The point of conversing is, if you see a fallacy or issue with my point you counter it. Otherwise, why bother?
That kind of ethics is just emotivist alignment to current ideological stances and conflicts, it has no basis but the impetus of the individual subject to contextual pressures, nothing more why would someone advocate for that kind of ethics, is beyond me, well not really… it's as I said, based on an emotivist inclination due to the historical moment. That's why, even as a non-religious person, I think there is something inherently important in ethical inquiry and compromise that includes and finds its basis in the questions you arrogantly dismiss. It's pragmatically important to accept and investigate our innate religious attitudes within our worldview, in this respect, (and I recall) Wittgenstein view was superior to Russell's, because it was of a pragmatic openness that allowed for further development of life and inquiry and not the self enclosed humanist materialism that ignores its own dogmatic and ironically, christian valuation of situations (contemporary secularism). Beyond a faithful basis for morality, the only motivations are feeble and depend on convenience. A transcendent longing, be it true or false, real or just a product of irrational imagination, is NECESSARY for a stronger more meaningful life… no wonder bastardizations of stoicism, buddhism and different forms of asceticism or its hedonistic opposites are so predominant nowadays, also why the hedonistic/ascetic nihilism aligned to global economical stances is so strong… because as you CORRECTLY say if you drop the idea that life is good (in perpetuity and in any form or shape), the only alternatives are these compulsory ideologies of pessimism and inertial morality.
Hitler can only be called "bad" if we have an unprovable, underlying belief system upon which we reason to characterize his behavior as bad. I have such a belief system. And so do most atheists, whether they recognize it as a belief system or not. Belief is inescapable. Without it, you have no reason to do anything beyond the instictive and emotional.
is morality objective? it can never happen. objective is a condition that would persist even in the absence of human intelligence (or other agents’ intelligence). morality is the framework of humans (or other intelligent agents) deciding on helpful ways to interact with other beings. when a nazi dehumanizes another human being in order to justify the extermination of that human the nazi has to one degree or another within himself stepped away from his own humanity; he has ceased regarding his own morality in favor of lies, propaganda. mass murder is not “good” for the nazi even if he seems fully committed to it. given sufficient time his sense of morality will regret his actions as short-sighted. non christian societies the world over have arrived at certain basic conclusions. “don’t murder each other. don’t steal. don’t bother your neighbor’s wife.” even christian societies can agree on these. that’s not handed down from on high. that’s a shared moral instinct. it’s human. nazis stepped away from their own humanity.
@@reallyidrathernot.134 I'm not sure whether you mean that the idea that morality has no objective basis is popular among non-philosphers, or the accusation of this charge being a "classic Christian manoeuvre" is the commonplace. But I would ask: what logical flaw is there I someone asserting the exact reverse of your statement?
The origin of the emotion and moral tenant called "goodness" comes from the simple Law of Synergy which governs all life on Earth. The totality of life is dependant on and a consequence of synergy. Symbiosis is a well known aspect of synergy. It is from this intrinsic fundamental process upon which all life evolves that humans experience goodness or kindness. They are human interpretations and experience of this Law of Synergy. It is a necessary condition or Law for life to propagate through time. Sunlight or simple pure energy is involved and drives the experience of goodness , which can can be attached to sunlight. To attribute a being as the cause of this process is an unprovable supposition. It is only a supposition, not a fact.
It was disappointing that Coplestone didn't press further against Russell's argument that the idea of a "cause of the universe" involves a fallacy of composition. Someone defending cosmological arguments should object that there is a fallacy here. I think this can be done, but Coplestone didn't do so, so they were left at a total impasse, and then moved to arguments for God that aren't particularly good.
Copleston: “Here are the rules of the game to which we will play”. Russell: “I can’t play the game because your rules don’t make any sense and therefore don’t have any meaning”.
Invented from the mind of man in awe and wonder gazing at the stars conceived an awakening of self and declared that he is special and created by the God up in heavens. God concepts were many the last 200,000 years give or take. The Christian concept or others? Invention is created through time.
For anyone coming to this after me, and scrolling deep enough in the comments: the best way to enjoy any philosophy is to come at it willing to be wrong I tell this to myself as I begin the video. I hold myself not to pause it and insert my own thoughts to comprehend, and to follow each person's logic in good faith without letting my preconceptions interfere with my consumption of this media.
I'm an atheist but I don't think I agree with Russell that it is a meaningless question to ask why there is something rather than nothing. I don't think we will ever have an answer but its still a meaningful question. I'm not sure if Russel said it was a meaningless question but he did think it was sufficient to say the world in its totality is just there. If the world is something that can just be there then I need an explanation for how that's possible. After all everything around me in the macro world is where it is due to history so there is some incomprehensibly large story explaining it. As for quantum physics, I still think that there is an explanation for quantum behavior even if that behavior is random and acausal to a certain degree. The laws of quantum physics could be arbitrary but if they were I would expect them to be much more chaotic and disordered than they actually are. Quantum physics is too successful at making predictions for it to be just there.
funny, that you cite Quantum physics and still disagree with Russel. Russell refuses, and I agree with him, to accept Libnietz's sufficient reason principle. Quantum physics, particularly at the microscopic scale, introduces a degree of inherent uncertainty and randomness that appears to challenge classical notions of determinism and strict causality. you say "I still think there...". I don't know what to make of this. Maybe this is. We just cannot project our wishes on things. We the knowledge Russell had, and we still have, the principle of sufficient reason has no solid ground. David Hume's arguments would refute it. Coplstone wanted to go from a shakey principle to "therefore, God exists". I find it incredible. Also, being atheist or otherwise should feature in accepting or rejecting one's position. In Russell, we are talking about one of the founding fathers of modern logic and a well-versed scholar in quantum physics, at least with knowledge of his time.
It's meaningless in the sense that it literally means nothing, not that people can't find it worth asking. There's a certain presumption to it that doesn't actually mean much on it's own; in whatever ways the universe could or could not exist, if it could possibly not exist and didn't, you wouldn't be around question whether it could be there or not. So in essence, there's a sort of survivorship bias to the question itself. Obviously there's probably some kind of answer or "reason" but we don't really know enough currently to figure out which leads to follow or even what they are.
Because we would obtain an infinite vertical serie, which is considered as impossible. The true problem with contingence argument is that it supposes sufficient reason just because.
@@abhishekmhatre1554 Not really. Russell is describing the objective properties of the shapes, that is, round as in having no vertices and square as having four vertices, both planar shapes, regardless of perspective, and the other, Robert here, is describing subjective perspectives, in which a square and a circle can be lines if viewed from their sides. This would appeal only to the uninitiated, and usually, these types of comparisons, from my experience, seem to make sense for the religious more than their counterparts. Generally, and again from my experience, the more 'godless' a person is, the more advanced his ability to distinguish parts of an analogy from each other. No wonder religious texts are full of false analogies, comparing humans to seeds and gods to mortal men. It shouldn't make sense, but for the religious it does. The same applies to those who are starting cults nowadays like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson, they go heavy with the analogies.
I think there must be God as defined by spinoza, which that which is cause of itself(is independent), that with cannot not exist and is the cause of everything - note that this is much more simpler than religion and I think is not religious at all because God can be substituted with reality
Spinoza's God is debatable too, he defends a racionalist philosophy that implies that we obtain knowledge of the cause from its effects. That's why he considers God a causa sui and he uses an ontological argument to defend Its existence. I'm sorry if this comment is awfully written, I'm Spanish.
Stuck with necessary being, these two debaters should have identified intelligent designer/observer, all such considerations comes from quantum mechanical interpretation that consider cosmic consciousness, being responsible for life, soul and faith. It maybe considered that they don't consider 'luck' and 'accident' as the reason of reality, by most atheists today. In their days, fine tuning, intelligent design, even Anthropic Principles were part of physics for some.
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible...’’ - Bertrand Russell, 1953 He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up! He knows God is real but he is a Satanist which is why he doesn't want you to have any spiritual Beliefs! He's Controlled Op. Cointelpro. Still Gives A lot of Good Advice though.......
I'm not up to par on this and will never be,I do know in my estimation I will say you go further and faster if you stamp religion of sorts on everything you do. People don't want to discuss the possibility of a Supreme being or organized religion. So I bear out~Try to read between the lines.
Always the problem for believers is to find solid, factual connection beyond historical dogmatic texts that demonstrates the purpose and evidence of an intervening higher being. I found the recording very tedious, as if Leibiniz and philosophical jargon are going to lead to a path of proving a higher intervening god. We know this nonsense. The gentlemanly and lack of serious conflicting debate, makes this nothing more than a historically curious event, but there is little value I gained listening to this. It just felt unsatisfying, unlike a debate of Christopher Hitchens. To me, the best argument against God is the concept evolution and natural selection. Almost every part of our physiology is flawed, but in the process of survival, we have succeeded, but in terms of optimum design, a creator would be ridiculed. Overall, I found Russell very disappointing here. The lack of reference to Darwin, and the weakness of the moral question argument, really was lost here.
I feel like I'm listening to a debate between occam and aquinas. Nouns refer to objects i can point to. We can talk about unicorns, etc but we know we cannot point to a real unicorn. A unicorn is a metaphysical concept. It is in the same category as Santa Claus, elves, Satan, and other literary fictions. Empiricism destroyed metaphysics early in the 20th century. We can still have ethics and other branches of philosophy without reifying non- existent nouns.
Just going through comments though to grapple our head around magnitude of god comes to a matter of faith and belief. It’s said in the Bible in many verses we cannot fathom and understand until after this life. What the main challenge is making sure we still treat god as above all in our lives and strive to keep that
Soraya, This is religion in a nutshell. I will sell you a car. Pay me now and I will deliver it after you die. By the way, you can understand anything reasonable. This nonsense about we can not understand until after life is an insult to all of us.
@@behroozcompani2348 it’s said in the bible. Which is refereed to as testament and witnesses to gods word. Religion is not faith. Bible is also evidenced as reliable and it’s Sonya 😊
@@AsixA6 why are you on this page? Wondered that? Your conscious obviously has a desire to know about god. Bible is part of it. If you research the evidence for the bible the locations and events discussed it stands as reliable. Unfortunately a lot need to take on uncomfortable truths before accepting the real purpose and path
@@sonilite I’m on this page because I like watching invisible magician believers get destroyed in debates. Again, the BuyBull is a reliable source of falsehoods.
I admire Russell's patience and elegance in dealing with the rhetoric attempts - trying to load concepts with alien meanings in order to try to establish his cause-actor argument Copleston had concocted to try to defend the existence of supernatural beings.
The argument from contingency isn't a rhetorical attempt. All things can't be potential. Something must be actual. It seems to me he's not understanding the argument, as he assumes the "first cause" is in a temporal series, as in child is caused by parents, caused by their parents, etc. But that isn't the argument.
Things exist, therefore god is not an argument, no matter how eloquently such a non-argument is presented. Before postulating a god/creator/supreme being/etc., I would think that one should provide empirical evidence for the actual existence of such an entity.
The issue is that there are non empirical objects (they exist), such as ideas, they are, meaning they exist and we have access to them through internal intuition. Now, that's one hell of an issue, you can say it propelled the philosophical debate for ages. It's in that realm of problems that the discussion about the existence of God has traditionally been placed. Cheers.
@@dadiarfs8261 Yes, ideas certainly exist. It would certainly follow that the idea of gods also exist. As for the actual existence of such beings in our reality, there’s no more empirical evidence for their existence than there was thousands of years ago, despite the musings of theologians and philosophers. If such evidence existed, debates like the one featured in this video wouldn’t be necessary. It saddens me when I think about all the time and effort people have invested in things for which there is little or no compelling evidence.
@@jamessoltis5407 Ok, I get that, but think of it this way, what is more real, the apple you perceive in front of you or, given the fact it is you who perceives it, the idea of that apple in your mind? Things are very much what they are FOR YOU. There is a whole realm in which things make sense, I mean, they are what they are, they get their meaning, and that is only the realm of human mind. That's pretty much Kant's work, to say we cannot think in any way an object without our own mind. Objects -the world- are (and are what they are) just in relation of our own internal mind processes, how it's built up and how it's working. Well, now, if there's a realm of rationality from where things pretty much get their being, in strict sense what they are, then what is the status of an idea such as the idea of God. It's just, an open question. Cheers.
Bertrand🙄..pacifist🙄.ww1 He decided to opt out🙄.While other poor souls didn't🙏🙏🙏🙏 He wrote his books in his cell away from it all😠😠😠...People like that make me sick!!!!
Here is a truth for you. If the same effort had been put into something useful instead of arguing and insisting obout an imaginary friend that no human can possibly know anything about the world would be a better place.
They each knew great leaders of the 19th and 20th centuries. I cant understand why Bertrand rejects God (and so accepts tyrants). Man is therefore destined to be ruled by savages.
After 65 years of laughing at Johnathan Miller's beautifully funny account of Russell out witting G.E. Moore, I have finally found the basis of Miller's satire. The next step in my quest would be to attempt to ascertain, if at all possible, whether, or not, I would indeed laugh more, or less, at this actual account of pretentious, arrogant babblegab from Bertrand Russell if I had never known of Miller's satire. Therefore, I must ask myself; barney, I said- Does ANYTHING here in the discussion that Bertrand Russell has presented either possibly and/or absolutely translate to be complete, insolent, self glorifying rubbish? nnNO, I replied and smiled seraphically, as is my wont. After a brief pause, I reconsidered my query and proceeded, to ask of myself; Barney, I said - Does SOMETHING here in the discussion that Bertrand Russell has presented either possibly and/or absolutely translate to be complete, insolent, self glorifying rubbish? nnNO, I replied... leaving me in a logical cleft stick from which I had but one way out; BARNEY - I said - HAS the discussion that Bertrand Russell presented either possibly and/or absolutely translate to be complete, insolent, self glorifying rubbish? yyYES !! I replied, and I have been even more contemptuous to stupid old farts trying to sound intellectually endowed, including myself, ever since. Please do listen to Beyond the Fringe, you actually might learn something. Now that I've said that: Turn from sin, follow Jesus Christ and take to heart the word and will of Our Heavenly Father and you shall find joy, justice, peace and - GUESS WHAT? - Real Knowledge. (edited a grammar error and am not shy for any other grammar corrections (please))
That's interesting, it seemed to me that his arguments were quite well countered by Russell and largely unreasonable. Which argument specifically did you find convincing?
His arguments are fairly simple and easily defeated with reality … God is easily proven false through all his teachings and the blatant lies written about Jesus and the fact there is no evidence of any kind …only ever in imagination has any religion claimed proof or miracle .
Copelstone’s argument for Gods existence is just nonsense, academic nonsense. The universe doesn’t need a reason to exist, and humans similarly don’t need a reason to exist beyond evolution.
The immediate issue with this debate is in the first line, " a creator separate from the world", no religious text supports this view. All major religions state that we exist within God itself. God according to the scriptures state that God is not separate from a rock or blade of grass or you.
@@tomblackburnmusic "Ephesians 4:6 - one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all" Panentheism was developed by Karl Christian Friedrich Krause. The bible itself describes God as something which everything is encompassed within (not outside of). God is not a separate entity if the bible is to be believed and practiced. Same with most ancient esoteric texts descriptions of a supreme being. So i would argue based of the bible's own words, that the premise to debate itself is not a Chirstian understanding of God.
@@tomblackburnmusic I mean not really. If "God" is within everything and basically surrounding everything and it was the original cause, it is in fact everything. A single thing that divided into many and is now within " all ". Blood many be in your hand, but it's also in your feet, hands and feet and not the same but there still part of the same body. So going back to my original point god is not a separate being by the bible's own definition. As god is not merely something that dwells over creation, it is creation itself. And back to my original point, the premise of the debate itself is incorrect.
@@mn5499 It's a perfectly valid view to take on God, but it is rejected by most kinds of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, in the texts and the teachings. You have described several different views (pantheism, God is the world, panentheism, the world is in God, and then another, the world is 'part of' God). Some are found in Hinduism, but not western religions. The whole idea of creation for Christians, Jews and Muslims is that God exists prior to the world and creates it in a free act out of nothing. He then interacts with it in various ways. This is why God and the world are separate. I would love to see some Biblical evidence for the pantheism you just described.
That's an interesting debate, even if I have never assumed an agnostic position in relation to any question related to the existence of God and since when I was only a child I had no doubt about it and I was sure he exists. I think it's a matter of faith and not a philosophical one, but I also appreciate to listen to other points of view. Of course the absolute values are lost by denying the existence of God and relative values get more important. The materialistic values get more important, of course. That's a funny question whether a round square exists or not 😂. I suppose it doesn't.
Its just that if you admit it is a matter of faith, it becomes a pretty serious problem because faith is technically irrational and it can't be justified. If a mind can't be convinced that something exists, but has to bully itself to believe without any evidence, then isn't that ultimately just some form of psychological abuse? We are forcing the minds of others and their children to believe things even when there are no clear reasons to do so. Like what if we also told our children to believe the Santa Claus is real - not just as a temporary phase during childhood, but permanently into adulthood. Isn't that morally wrong? Shouldn't we have reasons for believing things are real? If not, then what are we doing to ourselves and our children? And why are we doing that?
@@radscorpion8 I agree, that's why is important to explain to atheists like you that god exists and must be so, and I'm not religious, but the important thing here is to understand the world we live in first of all, and it's really worrying that so many "intellectuals" nowadays can't even grasp the basic of philosophy, logic and therefore, existence, still, people with better education, theoretically, lead the world, which is scary to me.
To put it lightly i am completely and utterly unsurprised that a person in possesion of a playlist advocating the use of astral projection among other ridiculous unfounded techniques is also opposed to one of the most intelligent and influential philosophical minds of the 20th century. To state that the late Bertrand Russel is a fool may as well be an absolute condemnation of all logic and an admition to a dogmatic reclusiveness to any form of education.
@@meeseeksguy4859 meeseeksguy you're lucky I am not in the mood. And yes I reject all one sided idiotic left bran "logic" worship and "education". It's just a fleeting fashion posession of the times, nothing to do with actual reason/intelligence
I don't quite understand what people are on about in the comments. Copleston was not even in the debate. He was clearly arguing points he presumed before the debate started and did not adequately engage russels arguments. The feeble attempt to describe Russel as dogmatic showed a lack of reflective capacity. Coplestons argument was literally God exists because it necessarily has to be so, and as with most religious arguments he presupposed this existence and used fancy yet ultimately circular reasoning to support his dogma.
The question is what would God be? Not whether God exists or not. To answer this question it is necessary that we ask what is our measure, the measure of us who answer the question, in relation to the size of existence. Considering that the visible Universe is around 13 billion years old, knowing that we only know the short existence of humans and nothing about other thinking living beings in the universe, we can say that our measurement is very small. But, disregarding a subjective experience of God that some put forward as proof of the existence of God, we can wonder why many primitive cultures posit the existence of a God. They placed it due to the natural observation of how extraordinary existence and the universe are in their laws. Therefore, the primitive God is the Universe itself, but whether there is something superior that gave rise to the universe, we cannot answer. But we can justify that it is impossible for existence to have existed, and calling this impossible existence God, we can say that something extraordinary that is existence exists, that it is impossible and its essence is wonderful, because it contains so many predictions and because of its reality accidental to be extraordinary.
*Moses, 1300 BCE:* Good and Evil have been set before you. Do not murder, Love your neighbor as yourself. *Micah, 700 BCE:* Act Justly, Love Mercy. *Confucius, 550 BCE:* Treat others as you would have others treat you. *Buddha, c.500 BCE:* Abstain from taking life. *Hippocratic Oath, 400 BCE:* Abstain from doing harm. *Jesus, 30 CE:* As I have loved you, you are to love one another.
@@Noor-sl5epbecouse Russell assumes absolute Reason logic and absolute truth that is immterial Conceptual by Nature Unviersal unchanging law's of logic' Russel can't account for truth logic' Reason and absolute Eithics on Pure Naturalism? physics chemistry and matter in motion Don't Produce proper logical inference. absolute logic is immterial Conceptual by Nature its not part of the fiscal Universe.
Its funny how you say that, but fail to provide any clear evidence or reference for where the reasoning is convoluted or empty. Ironically your own argument is therefore just as empty as what you are accusing, and can therefore be immediately dismissed.
When you scorn and bin your own humanity in the manner you just have, it is certainly reasonable to compare your intellectual existence unfavorably with that if monkeys.
@@andrewjohnson8232 I think you mean "of monkeys" not "if monkeys". If I am correct, then I understand your point. But I'd rather be a monkey than a bishop.
@@tedgrant2 When a typo is corrected in triumph, we're in for a tedious ride. A monkey or a bishop? What a bizarre choice to cite as ultimately informative of the world.
@@andrewjohnson8232 As we all know, God created Adam and Eve using the finest ingredients available. He made every effort to ensure that they were of the best possible quality. He gave them free will and was shocked when they used it.
@@tedgrant2 (Excuse the sermon, about to follow and indulge me a little. It's just so you understand the perspective I'm coming from). Ridicule is a poor substitute for question, it does not foster understanding and does not yield answers. I'm not a fan of our current, perversely reverent, attitude toward comedy and satire (of course a culture whose priesthood consists of stand up comedians thinks bishops are ridiculous), because anything can be subjected to ridicule, whether reasonably or not. Just think of the part satire and ridicule have played in the history of genocide for example. The Bible is arguably the single most significant cultural artefact in world history. (I don't say important or finest, I say significant, influential). Even where it appears to grate irretrievably against contemporary ideas and sensibilities, ridicule is clearly not a meaningful approach, as ridicule is always closer to fear than to reason. What does it cost a person to take a chisel to the Sistine, compared to appreciating it, compared to actually creating it? If you want a better understanding of the text than the one you're appealing to, you have to ask more profound questions of it. ( Do not mean to patronise. Again, we are steeped in a very illiterate and dismissive culture which is entrenched, reinforced, ubiquitous, and not easy to negotiate). In your experience, how accurate or sympathetic a representation of the human condition do you consider the poem of Genesis to be? (Genesis Chapter 1:1 - 3:24).
![Chris Langan - The Interview THEY Didn't Want You To See - CTMU [Full Version; Timestamps]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9miVG2xT5jY/mqdefault.jpg)
For added context: at the time of recording, Russel was 76, and Copleston was 41.
Copleston had a great mind indeed!
What do you infer from the context you add ? Does what you infer alter the argument ? What does it matter if one person brings a seed and the other a tree to the argument ?
The thumbnail is certainly misleading then.
@@dogwithwigwamz.7320 I see no way this information about the context can influence the impartiality of the debate. Russell lived on to his late 90s. He was probably still in sharp mind in 1948.
That makes no sense! That would mean they'd have both been born in the Victorian times!!
Also there's no WAY he's 41! Look at the photo!!
Man, Copelstone did an amazing job! Russell was good too.
What a stellar debate this was! It's almost like a platonic example of debate.
I've been waiting for years to hear the full and unedited version. Thank you ❤️ how did you get this?
“Rational discussion is useful only when there is a significant base of shared assumptions.”
- Noam Chomsky
In the introductory part, Copleston tried to figure what assumptions they shared and what they didn't. That was important and impressive.
No that was Russell
wrong. Copleston is trying rhetorically to create a rug to pull. Russell of course dismantles this man, who is little more than a fancy talking priest.
@@turinhorse your anti-Catholic bigotry betrays your ignorance.
Thanks for posting this. What a glorious way to spend an hour.
Thank you for this. So rare to find excellent debaters such as these.
Such a shame that this wonderful debate is filled with ads. Makes it impossible to listen while doing dishes
adblockers
This would have been a really great listen if it wasn't riddled with so many ads. 😑
In the timeless tradition of technological advancement and digital ethics, I unreservedly endorse the utility and ethical considerations inherent in the use of ad blockers. With a discerning eye toward preserving user autonomy and mitigating the intrusive nature of online advertising, ad blockers epitomize a commitment to individual agency and privacy in the digital sphere
@DaanBudel51 that's one way to put it.😅
My thorough thanks for uploading the full version of this ^
So refreshing. So clear. So civilised.
They don’t denigrate each other’s intelligence… they don’t interrupt each other… they expect and receive confirmation that their opponent is well versed in the philosophical problems…
What kind of ‘debate’ is this?!? 🤣🤣
The best of all possible worlds😂
An example that modern "debaters" would be wise to model
Thank you for posting this.
I’m in love with this. I wish I could talk to everyone in this such way
There must be respectable space for human beings to say 'i do not know' or 'i am not sure'.
Damn, two really smart guys articulately describing their position. You don't get that out of radio or today's podcasts. It'd be awesome to see a political debate like this
Radio is trash!!
Imaginary things can't be debated into existence. 😳
Name one person other than Jesus who has had more impact on the world than Jesus himself.
God is beyond imagination.
@amazingmazur6752 Prophet Mohammed was more influential, but he was also a liar like every other person that has claimed to be son of God or messenger of God. Jesus wasn't even able to convince people of his divinity. It was apostles paul that marketed Jesus to the Gentiles after jesus had died and decayed.
Becoming a call word for 'ow that hurt' isnt particularly impressive, Jesus was an idiot
@Chukuchuku.a.o Why would people willfully live a life of poverty and persecution for a lie though? I understand that mohammed lied for gain but the apostles all died horrible deaths makes no sense that they'd die for some lie.
Finally! This is truly great
Couldn’t understand 5% but love listening to Russell talk.
Russel was saying that there's no law banning stealing, not stealing is just doing the world a favor not keeping any laws.
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible...’’ - Bertrand Russell, 1953
He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up!
He knows God is real but he is a Satanist which is why he doesn't want you to have any spiritual Beliefs!
He's Controlled Op. Cointelpro.
Still Gives A lot of Good Advice though.......
Nonsensical comment.
@@Mayhamsdead Empty reply.
Also, even though I imagined that is actually something someone like Russel could say, I haven't found the source interview.
What's the context?
@@BertrandRussell2Take your meds
Why does this sound like the reading of a transcript?
I don't understand one bit but enjoy it immensely!!
Pueden pasarlo en español??.
Damn my brain can't keep up with this convo
I should like to say that I am completely lost.
Atheism is not a belief system. It is a very narrow position; I need more proof to substantiate what you are claiming. . Nothing more.
Try not getting hung up on the image of an infinite number of chocolates; that really had me in a spiral for quite some time!
Belief is not Faith
You either BELIEVE in something or someone OR have FAITH in something or someone.
39:32 Could we just pay attention to the fact that, basically, because he doesn't want to acknowledge the existence of objective moral principles (as they must then come from God), Sir Russel doesn't even admit that Hitler's deeds were evil because, well, you know, "he was the colorblind minority", and who are we to judge ?
Relativists are quite amazing contortionists, aren't they ?
There are zero contortions. Giving “being” to concept is Ontologically complicated and virtually impossible for a label of qualities.
The simple approach of calling things black and white is just remedial and clearly misleading and in contrast to reality.
Relativism doesn’t mean you can’t make decisions or perform actions. So your only actual complaint is that it hasn’t been made simple enough for you.
If we are referring to the Abrahamic "god", objective morality does not exist.
If a standard of morality comes from a particular source, this source being "God" in this instance, this standard is entirely subjective, and I would argue that this standard is also arbitrary because it is based on "God's" whims with no reasoning on why, other than 'because I said so'.
In contrast, we can base a system of morality on well-being. You don't need an objective figurehead in order to implement any sort of standard, and I would argue that only an authoritarian would insist otherwise.
The idea that objective morals must come from god is rediculous
morals can be determined rarionally like everything else
@@davidarbogast37And I would argue that without authritarianism there is no way to keep morality
@@kenetickups6146 the idea that anything comes from a god is ridiculous. Although we make up our morals, they are not objective. They will always have an element of subjectivity.
so smooth, it's like they're reading from scripts. edit: 15:41 is that a page turning? is it actually being read?
I think it is.
They were reading from notes.
@@richardsasso8043 Politely, how do you know? I want to believe, as it explains how inhumanly confidently they spoke.
@@reallyidrathernot.134 people back then spoke with eloquence
If I recall correctly from Coplestone’s memoirs, he said they had an extemporaneous debate that they then organized into notes together into a polished version.
I believe the radio recording was the polished exchange from their mutually constructed notes
I can hardly hear it. What a shame.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:01 📜 *Agreement on the Definition of God*
- The speakers agree on a provisional definition of God as a supreme personal being distinct from the world and creator of the world.
- Conversation around the existence of God and whether this can be proven philosophically, and the classification of the speaker's perspective as agnostic.
02:07 🌍 *The Metaphysical Argument*
- Introduction of the metaphysical argument centered on Leibniz's argument from contingency as the main philosophical explanation.
- The argument states that the state of the world is contingent on a necessary being, whose existence is self-explanatory.
04:13 🔁 *Debate on the Concept of Necessary Being*
- The speakers engage in an intricate debate over the concept of a necessary being.
- The argument revolves around whether a necessary being, whose existence is self-explanatory, is logical or possible.
- The notion of propositions, their nature, and their importance in Leibniz's argument are considered.
07:25 🚫 *Rejection of the Terms 'Necessary' and 'Contingent'*
- The speaker declares his rejection of the terms necessary and contingent, stating they do not carry significance within his logical framework.
- The speakers delve into the concept of modern logic, its varying systems, and its relevance to metaphysics and the problem of God.
10:09 💫 *The Ontological Argument*
- The conversation shifts to the ontological argument that suggests the existence of a being whose essence necessitates its existence.
- A philosophical disagreement related to the application of the terms 'necessary' and 'existence' to a being.
15:16 ❔ *Question of Sufficient Reason*
- The concept of sufficient reason is discussed, with the speaker arguing that they believe the universe is without explanation and that the concept of cause does not apply to the universe as a whole.
- The opposition argues the contrary, asserting that the search for a reason or cause for the universe's existence is necessary.
18:58 🔄 *Argument about the Causality of Objects and Universe*
- The conversation revolves around the argument about the causality of individual objects versus the causality of 'universe' or the entirety of objects.
- A philosophical back-and-forth ensues about the existence and causes of the universe and their relationship with the concept of necessary being.
21:56 *🧪 Quantum Theory and the Concept of Cause*
- The conversation progresses to quantum theory and physicist's assertions that individual quantum transitions have no cause, emphasizing that the concept of cause can be philosophically flexible.
22:37 🧠 *Metaphysics, Reason and Causality*
- Discussion about the role of metaphysics and reason in ultimate causality.
- Debate about the assumptions scientists make about causality, and their implications.
- Disagreement about whether the search for causes in nature assumes order and intelligibility.
24:36 🔬 *Scientific Assumptions about the Universe*
- Conversation about the assumptions scientists make while conducting experiments.
- Discussion about the potential for finding truth through experimental research.
- Disagreement over the existence of an ordered and intelligible universe and its implications for scientific research.
26:52 🚫 *Rejecting the Legitimacy of Causality Questions*
- Debate about the legitimacy of questioning the cause of the universe.
- Disagreement over whether the question itself has meaning.
- Decision to shift the conversation to the topic of religious experience.
27:06 🛐 *Religious Experience and Existence of God*
- Introduction of religious experience as evidence for the existence of God.
- Explanation about the nature of religious experiences and their impact on the experiencer.
- Debate about the degree to which religious experiences can be defined or conceptualized.
29:52 😇 *Influence of Imagined Characters *
- Discussion about the influence of imagined characters.
- Argument about the existence of objects of love that are not real or existing.
- Agreement that although people can be influenced by non-existing characters, the situations of an ordinary person and a mystic are different.
32:16 👹 *Equivalency between Mystical Experiences of God and Satan*
- Challenge to the logic of equating mystical experiences of God and Satan.
- Rejection of presumed equivalency between alleged experiences of Satan and mystical experiences of God.
- Argument about the different nature of experiences involving the transcendent object caused by God and Satan.
36:12 ❤️ *Love as a Reflection of God*
- Proposal that love is a reflection of God and that all goodness proceeds from Him.
- Counterargument about the difficulty of proving the existence of God based on the presence of goodness.
- Agreement that the character of a man's life can be evidence of the mystic's veracity and sanity, but not proof of the truth of his beliefs.
40:10 🧭 *Discussion on Objective Morality*
- Direct questioning about the existence of an objective morality.
- Discussion about the subjective and emotional aspect of distinguishing between good and bad.
- Position that despite differences in moral judgments, there could exist a universal moral law.
43:41 🗣️ *Discussion about the Concept of "Ought"*
- Conversation proceeds on the difficult subject of 'ought', suggesting it can't simply be defined.
- Suggestion that 'ought' is linked with morality, which cannot be fully understood without the concept of God.
46:03 ⚖️ *Debating the Existence of an Objective Moral Law *
- Conversation turns to the subject of morality, with the question whether there might be an objective moral law.
- Argument that moral obligation itself implies an objective moral law, which in turn suggests the existence of a lawgiver - God.
49:15 🤔 *Experiencing the 'Ought' *
- Participants exchange thoughts on how we experience the 'ought'.
- Discussion on how different theories on moral judgments might align with people's spontaneous feelings, with skepticism on whether moral obligation can be explained just by feeling.
52:01 💡 *Summary and Clarification *
- Participants summarize their stances, with a focus on the existence of God.
- Disagreement persists on the nuance of contingency and in what context things could be seen as contingent.
- Clarification provided regarding the connection between logic and philosophy.
54:47 🔄 *Continuation of Previous Themes *
- Conversation circles back to earlier topics, reiterating some points.
- For instance, further elaboration on the place of logic in philosophy, and the understanding of morality vis-à-vis culture and history.
Made with HARPA AI
be good to run a limiter over the audio
The debate can be found on Spotify for free as well. NO ANNOYING ADS!! And with TRANSCRIPT OR CAPTION.
That's nice!
6:00: Russell says "To my mind, a necessary proposition has to be analytic.". Ok, but we are considering whether a being can be "necessary", not whether a proposition can be. Propositions are matters of an epistemic statement. Beings are a matter of concrete existence. While someone who talks about philosophy with many people like Russell has done may be forgiven for conflating the difference between a proposition about something and the thing itself--since when we talk about them we always use propositions to represent their object--the conflation in this instance causes him to see a problem that I do not think is there. Concrete objects can not be "anaclitic" only propositions about concrete objects can be. The "synthetic-analytic" distinction that Russell was fond of considering is just not applicable in the case of this contingency argument. The modality of necessary vs contingent is not epistemic but ontological in the latter case.
Yes, agreed, the "necessary" vs "contingent" "nature of being" question as concerns a hypothetical, presumably extant or existent (possibly eternal) being (deity) is ontological and not epistemic and must therefore be applied to and adjudged with respect to the notion and nature of being and not with respect to the notion or nature of propositions.
No, not agreed, Russell is pointing out that ONLY analytic propositions can be argued as true for a certainty (in as much as one properly understands the definitions of the terms used in the proposition) One might say, for instance that "a ship carrying cargo is laden" and be certain that it is true of necessity. But truths about physical objects, truths about what is, or was, or maybe, are NEVER so sure, these are truths of impoverished recollection, limited faculty, and fallible inference. One may argue that there is a glass there on the table, one may stare and swear to it, only to be shown later that, through a clever system of mirrors you were duped, that the table resides in Algeria and the glass in Albany....or so you now believe.
@@jackhung6929 It is not about epistemic certainty. Its about ontological contingency. We use the idea of ontological contingency every single day. Science uses it all the time. A complete and detailed understanding of physical things is not so easy to come by, but unless we think in terms of condition A being contingent on condition B we can not make any progress in Science and will know nothing at all. Perhaps it is epistemically possible that all of Science is mistaken and there is no such thing as ontological contingency....but AT LEAST we should be able to make the distinction between the two different senses of contingency....you would think...right???
@@reasonforge9997 Copleston was trying to argue for the existence of a Christian god. His first step to that end was to argue for the necessity of the supernatural. He pointed out that all elements of the universe require that other elements bring them into being and that thus the universe requires of necessity an element of another kind, an element that requires no predecessor, a supernatural element. Now I rather like this argument and agree that a complete explanation of how the heavens came to be requires more than that the explanation be left open ended and dangling. Russell's arguments that the only things we know to a certainty are analytic propositions, and that we have no right to ascribe to the whole the properties of a part, while valid, ignore the conundrum altogether. I wish he had made these arguments and then continued on, saying that the best science could do was wave its hands and that some further agency did indeed appear necessary. Copleston still had a long way to go.
@@jackhung6929 "Russell's arguments that the only things we know to a certainty are analytic propositions" No. Russel's objection in the debate was not about level of certainty, but he rejected the very concept of something being contingent in an ontological sense. For example from the transcript Russel said: "The difficulty of this argument is that I don't admit the idea of a necessary being and I don't admit that there is any particular meaning in calling other beings "contingent." These phrases don't for me have a significance except within a logic that I reject.". Russel is using his own analytic-synthetic distinction to say it makes no sense for a "being" to be contingent. He is saying it has no meaning...because a "being" is not "analytic". I can find no where in the debate where he appeals to certainty versus uncertainty to reject the concept. He uses his distinction with remarkable selectiveness for example when he said: 'Well, certainly the question "Does the cause of the world exist?" is a question that has meaning. But if you say "Yes, God is the cause of the world" you're using God as a proper name; then "God exists" will not be a statement that has meaning; that is the position that I'm maintaining. Because, therefore, it will follow that it cannot be an analytic proposition ever to say that this or that exists. For example, suppose you take as your subject "the existent round-square," it would look like an analytic proposition that "the existent round- square exists," but it doesn't exist.'
My mind exploded
There is something rather than nothing because NOTHING DOES NOT EXIST!
But why ?
@joeturner9219 Clarify that "nothing" does not exist? Or clarify that "something" does exist.
@joeturner9219 "Nothing" cannot exist because it is not logically possible.
1 If "nothing" existed then it would be "something".
2 "Nothing" is not "something"
3 Therefore, "nothing" does not exist.
1 If "nothing does not exist then "something" exists
2 "Nothing" does not exist.
3 Therefore, "something" exists.
Does the existence of the universe enough to dismiss nothingness?
@@thunkjunk nothing is something that is missing ;) or nothing is something that do not exist ;)
The whole contingency argument falls apart when we ask what is God contingent upon? Then the answer is that one of the attributes of god is that God is not contingent upon anything. I think that simply by replacing the universe as being eternal makes this too beyond being contingent without the necessity of creating something hi g beyond the material.
Dawkins. Harris Ehrman. Etc could never discuss this subject as fully and respectfully. We need this today civility. Knowledge about the subject you’re debating. ✝️☮️
That's less a property of Dawkins, Harris, or Ehrman and more a property of modern apologetics. In their day to be a well known apologist required having a significant comprehension of philosophy. Modern apologists rarely have a basic understanding of philosophy.
@@DBZHGWgamer that sounds right , however it’s wrong . Dawkins and the rest don’t believe in philosophy, they believe in what can be proven in the labs . dr Craig Dr Plantinga Dr Swineburn , plus many other if the Christen apologist are well known philosophers, so again you have it wrong . Plus intelligence alone won’t let you prove or disprove Gods existence, so the philosopher has a better tool kit than the scientist do , they haven’t done their philosophy homework, Dr Craig said recently that Dawkins is using the same points , that have been explained to him for many years now ,Dawkins field is biology, and he’s good at it but about the Bible he’s very wrong .!
I actually love Russel's argument on contingency, its something I would have used myself. First of all with the principle of sufficient reason, if you take it to mean a complete explanation as Copleston explains, then its not really clear why there must be a reason at the universal scale. He is extrapolating from personal experience to the universal, which isn't really justifiable. Who is to say there are any clear reasons for existence at the largest scales? In modern arguments theists suggest that things would be able to pop into existence from nothingness if reasons were unnecessary, but its not clear that's true either. I think Russell's point is that the whole area is unintelligible to humans at this point, and could be well beyond our comprehension, and so attempting to fiddle with the logic of "reasons" at this scale might not make any sense to begin with. Until theists can prove otherwise, then nothing can be gained from this kind of inquiry, because we cannot ever assert that the human mind is accurately portraying the situation and is even capable of understanding the situation. Ironically God is something religious people readily assent to being beyond our ability to fully understand, so it is somewhat a double standard for them to then claim that the whole dimension of reality in which God exists can somehow be reducible to the narrow confines of human logic and reasoning.
Moreover his point about "necessary existence" of a deity, really seems questionable, not just because Russell pointed out that necessity only makes sense if the entity's non-existence is somehow logically impossible (which seems false in God's case), but because the necessity of such a being must be imposed either externally by some agent outside of God, or by God itself. It can not be imposed by God itself because then God would have had to exist first, and by that point, there is no guarantee of necessity since necessity only follows existence. So rather it seems logically impossible to believe any being must have "necessary existence" as a property because if the necessity comes from outside, then it is contingent, and if it comes from the being itself, then it makes no sense as the being must already exist...which would make its necessity pointless (I must exist in order to necessarily exist).
And anyway you could technically apply the same reasoning to some non-conscious process as being the "prime mover" as opposed to God. You simply can't assert qualities such as intelligence from first cause arguments.
Regarding a necessary being (as used by Copleson, it seems to me a rehash of St Anselm's Argument: trying an apriori proof for the existence of a necessary being. To my knowledge, no one was able to provide any convincing proof within that framework, including the great K.Godel. Thanks for sharing.
- “Who is to say there are any clear reasons for existence at the largest scales ?”
Well, we can observe that contingent beings do exist rather than not exist even at the largest scales you mentioned (species, galaxies, physical laws or whatever DO exist) and, as such, or have their cause within themselves (which has been proven false), or have their cause within another being. But as Father Copleston explained pretty clearly - implicitly referring to the « Quinquae viae » - that one cannot presume there is an infinity of contingent beings (even at the largest scales) for that would mean there is no necessary being (the « prime mover » you talked about) and thus, that we wouldn’t be able to observe any contingent being that YET we DO observe.
- « Ironically God is something religious people readily assent to being beyond our ability to fully understand.»
The debate is about God’s existence, not about His essence or about the beatific vision. And if Sir Russel didn’t beat about the bush by playing with words during half an hour, maybe Father Copleston could have developed about what we can rationally tell about the essence of God : His simplicity, perfection, goodness, infinity, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, unity, omniscience, how He allows us to know Him, etc. (cf. Saint Thomas Aquinas' Prima Pars !)
- « if the necessity comes from outside, then it is contingent, and if it comes from the being itself, then it makes no sense as the being must already exist »
In a sense that’s right, and that is the reason why Father Copleston precises here that he doesn’t consider God as « Causa Sui », but rather as the Eternal « Prime Mover ».
- « you could technically apply the same reasoning to some non-conscious process as being the "prime mover" as opposed to God. »
Well in fact, not at all. As the Prive Mover can’t be « Causa Sui » (as you rightly pointed out), He has to be Eternal, and thus it can’t be material or non-conscious, for it would never have gotten out of its eternal state of quiescence or homeostasis otherwise (moreover, spiritual life can’t emerge from inanimate matter alone, at least not with an intelligence capable of understanding immaterial concepts and a will capable of free decisions). It seems to me that it is absolutely necessary for the Prime Mover to be an “Intellectual Agent”. Indeed, at some point, there must be some sort of movement of free Will of the « Prime Mover » for Him to give movement to the contingent beings He brought from nothingness to existence.
My assumption here implies that the Intelligent Prime Mover has Eternal Movement within Him from all eternity (cf. perichoresis or circumincession), and this vision may be compatible with a God that would be One Holy Trinity (not seeking to prove my views here, just developing my thoughts about it). The only reason for which such a perfect Intelligent Being would bring contingent beings to existence would then be, well, His own Being, which is CARITAS, or Love (cf. the wonderful first sentence of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). For a rational view about it and not just my mere considerations I would recommend the lecture of Aristotle and most importantly Saint Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica !
PS. Sorry for my bad English, it’s not my native language. And... God bless you ;)
@@naayou99 This isn’t a rehash of Saint Anselm’s and Descartes’ a priori ontologic argument : it is well known that this one is false as it is a tautological statement of principle. On the contrary, Father Copleston here bases his argumentation on an A POSTERIORI rational demonstration of the existence of God (just as Saint Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle before him in a sense), according to what all of us can observe, starting with our own contingent existence. Cogito, ergo sum... ergo Deus est !
I want to remind here that the existence of God is a matter of reason and not of faith : faith would rather be putting your faith IN God and, if you dwell into apologetics, in the Resurrection of Christ, in the real Presence of Jesus-Christ in the Eucharist and other reasons for eternal rejoicing !
PS. Sorry for bad English too, and... God bless you too !
@@tonylafrite1233 the Cosmological and Teleological (the a postorieri) face the same fate. In fact, I find the ontological argument more appealing. I would not call it outright falsehood; at best I am not aware of such consensus on its invalidity/unsoundness. Once Russell described it as saying it has something wrong within but one cannot pinpoint it. Godel attempts to slave that argument using modal logic.
Back to your objection. It is true that Father Copleston appeals to a cosmological argument but he also speaks of a necessary being. Both the ontological and cosmological arguments appeal to a necessary being. To my mind, both arguments are useless without this presumption.
Philosophy and logic are great tools. But science, as Quine would agree, has the ultimate say. The principle of Sufficient reason that Father Copleston appeals to doesn't seem to be in agreement with modern physics, such as quantum mechanics. In the debate, Russell was reluctant to accept the universality of the principle.
To me, God's existence is a matter of psychology and not of a reason, as alleged. We, humans, seek a higher purpose for our lives and existence. We cannot accept the notion that we are part of the matter-to-matter, energy-to-energy, or matter-to-energy cycle. We waste the bulk of our precious existence looking for reassurance that the loving God is out there. I would love to see my loved ones who have long gone. But I am not willing to follow the illusion that they are at where the scriptures say they are. We may feel a temporary comfort in religious conviction but many questions start to pop up about this "God" who is all-wise, all-knowing, etc, yet he communicates with us in very mysterious, and unclear ways: sending prophets, his Son, etc. Are we to accept that the necessary being who is capable of doing anything yet He is poor at communication? In fact, the track record shows, he fails.
The testing, the free will, etc does not make sense to me. Marvin Minsky once said we wasted 2000 years in this nonsense. I do agree.
@@naayou99 - "Both the ontological and cosmological arguments appeal to a necessary being. To my mind, both arguments are useless without this presumption."
Well, your first sentence is right, but the second doesn't seem to make sense as the argument of contingency logically concludes to the existence of a necessary Ens (being), whereas the ontological argument fails to prove it for the conclusion is already in the premise. I'll look up to what you said about Godel though, thank you for the suggestion !
- "To me, God's existence is a matter of psychology and not of a reason, as alleged."
Nonsense, excuse me. Total nonsense.
Either God exists, or He doesn't. But the true answer to this question (ie. the answer that corresponds to reality) doesn't depend on our psychology or on our subjective views. Concerning science, well, the fact that our current scientific models aren't capable of explaining the precises causes of our observations doesn't mean that these phenomena don't have any cause, obviously. The rest of your comment consists basically in an exposure of the nihilistic materialistic doctrine, here based on dubious psychological analysis without further argument. As we said earlier, this doctrine explains :
- neither the possibility of the existence of contingent beings (let alone meaning, that is not the question here)
- nor free will (I freely decide to type this and that and THEN only my pre-motor cortex neurons do their work, for they aren't triggered randomly)
- nor rational intelligence ("For it is clear that whatever is received in a thing is received in it according to the mode of the receiver" (Ia, q.75, art.5) : just as my retinal photo-receptors can receive photons and my cutaneous mechano-receptors can perceive tact and vibrations according to their respective mode of being, so my intellective soul is necessarily immaterial since it understands from within (=/= AI) immaterial and intangible concepts such as justice, truth, filial love, etc. on the basis of the integration of all the sensory/empirical data collected by my brain during life here on earth, as we humans are hylemorphic compounds of matter and form cf. Aristotle's De anima.
- nor good and evil (How pitiful it is that Mr. Russell, in his materialistic relativism, struggles to call the Holocaust an "evil" ! For he knows well that evil has no essence in itself and is always relative to the essence of good, and that such an absolute and universal good cannot be conceived outside of God who is its source, principle and foundation.)
I unfortunately have to cut short this conversation (I will even stop going on UA-cam for a while because at this rate I will never advance enough on my projects lol) but do not fear, I accept my finitude and it is not the anguish of death (if we were only an arrangement of atoms, there would be nothing to fear I guess ?) but the love that made me throw myself into the wounded arms of my Lord Jesus crucified.
You say that He is poor at communication, I say that there is nothing more eloquent than the Love He showed us on the Cross.
"Draw near to God, and He will draw near to you." (James 4 : 8)
"Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in and dine with him, and he with Me." (Rev 3 : 20)
I'll pray for you with the Immaculate Conception, the most Holy Virgin Mary, so one day you may decide freely to open that door and then... see, and rejoice ! After all, what does a so-called bunch of atoms have to lose in this eternal union with God, right ? Have a nice day !
This reminds me of the great televised debates including Prof FJ Lewis on History Today.
Philosophy Overdose has a better audio version of this debate
thanks - the owner of this channel should have boosted the audio before uploading
This debate is much better than the Hitchens debate
Which one?
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible...’’ - Bertrand Russell, 1953
He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up!
He knows God is real but he is a Satanist which is why he doesn't want you to have any spiritual Beliefs!
He's Controlled Op. Cointelpro.
Still Gives A lot of Good Advice though.......
Hitchens was a Fascist Neocon and a Satanist
@@BertrandRussell2this is a perfectly sane comment
@@BertrandRussell2
There are no satanists in this debate, why are you posting nonsense?
is this the one where Russell talks about "coconut island"?
This is of clear definition of speaking to his inventors mate "don't stress your mind experience calmly" positive are his manners
One thing is certain ; people were more articulate, respectful and civilized at this time. At least the intellectual class, that is.
I think it's more that in their day one of the only ways to be well known is to be an intellectual. In modern times i wouldn't say intellectuals are less articulate or respectful, it's just that being intellectual is not a good way to be well known. People who get famous on UA-cam are rarely ever intellectuals, and the few that are end up compromising themselves to ride the algorithm often without even realizing they have done so.
@@DBZHGWgamer I think that's a fair point, but I believe that it's that way because we prioritize and/or value intellectualism and eloquence less as a society in general than people once did. Maybe that's because the common people have more of a voice because of equal access to technology, or something else, but I feel that our intellectuals tend to be less eloquent and thoughtful these days, perhaps because they feel left behind and don't try as hard. If I was a sociologist, maybe I could say with more certainty, but I'm mostly taking somewhat educated guesses at this point.
I am afraid the assumption of a personal supreme creator of the world is wrong.
What about an Impersonal Creator of the Universe? Not some subjective Supernatural Sky-God but an objective Thing-in-itself?
@@donthesitatebegin9283 It is all our own immagination. There is neither a universe, nor a non- universe, neither being, nor nothing, and no becoming. The thing-in-itself too is just our linguistic shimera, our concoction ...we could call it boogaloola+x=etc.x22
Both men are extremely foolish. The logic they agree upon to start the debate: of two contradictory proposition, not both can be correct at the same time is also idiotic none sense. Why shouldn't they be correct while contradicting each other? What would chimpanzees say about our foolishness? cogito ergo non sum...
@@JSwift-jq3wn 'it's all our imagination'. Well, nope. The fact is we have trillions of complex species on our planet. That is not imagination, it's a fact. Either there was some random dust at first gazillion yrs ago that somehow magically transformed itself without no reason whatsoever into trillions of DIFFERENT species such humans, birds, fishes, giraffes, wales lol etc or something created them.
@@mickeyguide3112 Why should something creat everything? It has, is and will most likely creat itself. Besides, why should the creating agent be called God? Why not call it boogadoodoo factor + 5x
@@JSwift-jq3wn 'it has, is and will most likely create itself. How so? You mean dust could create something from itself? Like trillions of species 😂. Where do we see this happening in our world? Nowhere. It would help the case just a little bit if we could at first even observe how life gets into a cell but there's no mechanism for that, in other words no one has a clue. Why not call God boogadoodoo factor +5x? Why not, call him whatever you like. It doesn't change the facts I mentioned above. There's a difference between imagination and facts. Fact is we have trillions of species around us. They didn't got here through our imagination.
It’s great that this debate is no longer needed. It sad that so many still think there is something to debate. There is no sign of, or need for, supernatural beings. Many think they need them for ethics or psychological reasons, mortality denial primarily, but they don’t know that once you drop the idea that immortality is a good thing you immediately see there is no need for gods, angels or fairies.
I mean think how childish it is to want to live forever, to freeze time and exist in some remedial world of no conflict.
The God of the Gaps has been pushed from controlling everything from the wind, to disease, to species of the world, etc, to only potentially existing at some mythologically childish creation of the cosmos. And that logical solves nothing, it just pushes the question of the origin of the cosmos to origin of this vague useless god. Let it go, move on, grow.
@joeturner9219 gee thanks for pointing out I can have an opinion. But some opinions are better than others right? Are do you think flat earthers opinions are equal to science?
The point of conversing is, if you see a fallacy or issue with my point you counter it. Otherwise, why bother?
Get over your terrible religion people. It does nothing for you or your fellow humans.
That kind of ethics is just emotivist alignment to current ideological stances and conflicts, it has no basis but the impetus of the individual subject to contextual pressures, nothing more why would someone advocate for that kind of ethics, is beyond me, well not really… it's as I said, based on an emotivist inclination due to the historical moment. That's why, even as a non-religious person, I think there is something inherently important in ethical inquiry and compromise that includes and finds its basis in the questions you arrogantly dismiss. It's pragmatically important to accept and investigate our innate religious attitudes within our worldview, in this respect, (and I recall) Wittgenstein view was superior to Russell's, because it was of a pragmatic openness that allowed for further development of life and inquiry and not the self enclosed humanist materialism that ignores its own dogmatic and ironically, christian valuation of situations (contemporary secularism). Beyond a faithful basis for morality, the only motivations are feeble and depend on convenience. A transcendent longing, be it true or false, real or just a product of irrational imagination, is NECESSARY for a stronger more meaningful life… no wonder bastardizations of stoicism, buddhism and different forms of asceticism or its hedonistic opposites are so predominant nowadays, also why the hedonistic/ascetic nihilism aligned to global economical stances is so strong… because as you CORRECTLY say if you drop the idea that life is good (in perpetuity and in any form or shape), the only alternatives are these compulsory ideologies of pessimism and inertial morality.
absolutely classic maneuver for the christian to throw down "but who can say hitler is bad?"
Maneuver or simple question prompted by atheism?
Hitler can only be called "bad" if we have an unprovable, underlying belief system upon which we reason to characterize his behavior as bad. I have such a belief system. And so do most atheists, whether they recognize it as a belief system or not. Belief is inescapable. Without it, you have no reason to do anything beyond the instictive and emotional.
is morality objective? it can never happen. objective is a condition that would persist even in the absence of human intelligence (or other agents’ intelligence). morality is the framework of humans (or other intelligent agents) deciding on helpful ways to interact with other beings. when a nazi dehumanizes another human being in order to justify the extermination of that human the nazi has to one degree or another within himself stepped away from his own humanity; he has ceased regarding his own morality in favor of lies, propaganda.
mass murder is not “good” for the nazi even if he seems fully committed to it. given sufficient time his sense of morality will regret his actions as short-sighted.
non christian societies the world over have arrived at certain basic conclusions. “don’t murder each other. don’t steal. don’t bother your neighbor’s wife.” even christian societies can agree on these. that’s not handed down from on high. that’s a shared moral instinct. it’s human. nazis stepped away from their own humanity.
@@andrewjohnson8232 it's a very popular point among non-philosophers, but it's quite bad. You can say Hitler was bad, and you damn well should, too.
@@reallyidrathernot.134
I'm not sure whether you mean that the idea that morality has no objective basis is popular among non-philosphers, or the accusation of this charge being a "classic Christian manoeuvre" is the commonplace.
But I would ask: what logical flaw is there I someone asserting the exact reverse of your statement?
Copleston: the paradigm of the intellectual Jesuit. Deeply impressive. Bravo,
The origin of the emotion and moral tenant called "goodness" comes from the simple Law of Synergy which governs all life on Earth.
The totality of life is dependant on and a consequence of synergy. Symbiosis is a well known aspect of synergy.
It is from this intrinsic fundamental process upon which all life evolves that humans experience goodness or kindness.
They are human interpretations and experience of this Law of Synergy. It is a necessary condition or Law for life to propagate through time.
Sunlight or simple pure energy is involved and drives the experience of goodness , which can can be attached to sunlight.
To attribute a being as the cause of this process is an unprovable supposition. It is only a supposition, not a fact.
It was disappointing that Coplestone didn't press further against Russell's argument that the idea of a "cause of the universe" involves a fallacy of composition. Someone defending cosmological arguments should object that there is a fallacy here. I think this can be done, but Coplestone didn't do so, so they were left at a total impasse, and then moved to arguments for God that aren't particularly good.
I love the way they start by agreeing terms. Necessary = (analytical-rational-self contradictory to deny)
Copleston: “Here are the rules of the game to which we will play”.
Russell: “I can’t play the game because your rules don’t make any sense and therefore don’t have any meaning”.
Invented from the mind of man in awe and wonder gazing at the stars conceived an awakening of self and declared that he is special and created by the God up in heavens. God concepts were many the last 200,000 years give or take. The Christian concept or others? Invention is created through time.
Thank , Mr Cholmondley - Walker.
If only the opposite of opinions and beliefs were mutually respected in this day and age
Thanks
For anyone coming to this after me, and scrolling deep enough in the comments: the best way to enjoy any philosophy is to come at it willing to be wrong
I tell this to myself as I begin the video. I hold myself not to pause it and insert my own thoughts to comprehend, and to follow each person's logic in good faith without letting my preconceptions interfere with my consumption of this media.
I'm an atheist but I don't think I agree with Russell that it is a meaningless question to ask why there is something rather than nothing. I don't think we will ever have an answer but its still a meaningful question. I'm not sure if Russel said it was a meaningless question but he did think it was sufficient to say the world in its totality is just there. If the world is something that can just be there then I need an explanation for how that's possible. After all everything around me in the macro world is where it is due to history so there is some incomprehensibly large story explaining it. As for quantum physics, I still think that there is an explanation for quantum behavior even if that behavior is random and acausal to a certain degree. The laws of quantum physics could be arbitrary but if they were I would expect them to be much more chaotic and disordered than they actually are. Quantum physics is too successful at making predictions for it to be just there.
funny, that you cite Quantum physics and still disagree with Russel. Russell refuses, and I agree with him, to accept Libnietz's sufficient reason principle. Quantum physics, particularly at the microscopic scale, introduces a degree of inherent uncertainty and randomness that appears to challenge classical notions of determinism and strict causality.
you say "I still think there...". I don't know what to make of this. Maybe this is. We just cannot project our wishes on things. We the knowledge Russell had, and we still have, the principle of sufficient reason has no solid ground. David Hume's arguments would refute it.
Coplstone wanted to go from a shakey principle to "therefore, God exists". I find it incredible.
Also, being atheist or otherwise should feature in accepting or rejecting one's position. In Russell, we are talking about one of the founding fathers of modern logic and a well-versed scholar in quantum physics, at least with knowledge of his time.
It's meaningless in the sense that it literally means nothing, not that people can't find it worth asking. There's a certain presumption to it that doesn't actually mean much on it's own; in whatever ways the universe could or could not exist, if it could possibly not exist and didn't, you wouldn't be around question whether it could be there or not. So in essence, there's a sort of survivorship bias to the question itself. Obviously there's probably some kind of answer or "reason" but we don't really know enough currently to figure out which leads to follow or even what they are.
So if God just came into being without a cause, why couldn’t another God do the same over and over?
Who told you that?
Because we would obtain an infinite vertical serie, which is considered as impossible. The true problem with contingence argument is that it supposes sufficient reason just because.
Round squares do exist.
Take a tube, its length equal to the diameter and observe it side on.
Technically a square is a 'plane figure'. Two dimensional. A tube is 3D. I believe the axiom 'round squares do NOT exist" still stands.🤔
@@jonsprague9751 Yeah I think it stands although the other person did make an interesting argument.
@@abhishekmhatre1554 Not really. Russell is describing the objective properties of the shapes, that is, round as in having no vertices and square as having four vertices, both planar shapes, regardless of perspective, and the other, Robert here, is describing subjective perspectives, in which a square and a circle can be lines if viewed from their sides. This would appeal only to the uninitiated, and usually, these types of comparisons, from my experience, seem to make sense for the religious more than their counterparts. Generally, and again from my experience, the more 'godless' a person is, the more advanced his ability to distinguish parts of an analogy from each other. No wonder religious texts are full of false analogies, comparing humans to seeds and gods to mortal men. It shouldn't make sense, but for the religious it does. The same applies to those who are starting cults nowadays like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson, they go heavy with the analogies.
@@abhishekmhatre1554why is a bad invalid argument interesting?
Debate doesn't really change what's true in the first place. It is a cute attempt to discover what is true though.
It's like watching two chess grandmasters moving pieces like a ping pong ball... Fuck, my brain is toasted.
I think there must be God as defined by spinoza, which that which is cause of itself(is independent), that with cannot not exist and is the cause of everything - note that this is much more simpler than religion and I think is not religious at all because God can be substituted with reality
Spinoza's God is debatable too, he defends a racionalist philosophy that implies that we obtain knowledge of the cause from its effects. That's why he considers God a causa sui and he uses an ontological argument to defend Its existence.
I'm sorry if this comment is awfully written, I'm Spanish.
@@SergioLopez-yu4cu youre English is very good, I would have to say I'm convinced by spinozas ideas of God, it makes sense to me
42:36 bookmark
I'm sure the microbials inside of us are having the same debate about us.
That's a beautiful comment indeed 😊
I guess my toenails and my anus are debating about how dumb that is.
Stuck with necessary being, these two debaters should have identified intelligent designer/observer, all such considerations comes from quantum mechanical interpretation that consider cosmic consciousness, being responsible for life, soul and faith. It maybe considered that they don't consider 'luck' and 'accident' as the reason of reality, by most atheists today. In their days, fine tuning, intelligent design, even Anthropic Principles were part of physics for some.
‘’Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy… It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. Diet, injections(vaccines) and injunctions will combine, from very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible...’’ - Bertrand Russell, 1953
He wants to Bring about the New World Order and make the world into 1984. Wake Up!
He knows God is real but he is a Satanist which is why he doesn't want you to have any spiritual Beliefs!
He's Controlled Op. Cointelpro.
Still Gives A lot of Good Advice though.......
Brilliant!!!
Copleston sounds like George the pink hippo from Rainbow 🌈
I'm not up to par on this and will never be,I do know in my estimation I will say you go further and faster if you stamp religion of sorts on everything you do. People don't want to discuss the possibility of a Supreme being or organized religion. So I bear out~Try to read between the lines.
Always the problem for believers is to find solid, factual connection beyond historical dogmatic texts that demonstrates the purpose and evidence of an intervening higher being. I found the recording very tedious, as if Leibiniz and philosophical jargon are going to lead to a path of proving a higher intervening god. We know this nonsense. The gentlemanly and lack of serious conflicting debate, makes this nothing more than a historically curious event, but there is little value I gained listening to this. It just felt unsatisfying, unlike a debate of Christopher Hitchens. To me, the best argument against God is the concept evolution and natural selection. Almost every part of our physiology is flawed, but in the process of survival, we have succeeded, but in terms of optimum design, a creator would be ridiculed. Overall, I found Russell very disappointing here. The lack of reference to Darwin, and the weakness of the moral question argument, really was lost here.
too low to hear
Incompleteness of logic applies here.
This lively exchange constitutes a helpful alternative to the tedious speeches William Lane Craig and his opponents give to each other.
God transcends existence by definition and logic by consequence,, therefore it exists and does not exist.
then there are no conclusions you can draw from it. Sounds hard to say how it'd be meaningful at all.
I agree. The idea of God is not logical. That's all we're saying!
No, He doesn't, he can't create such things as a circular square (assuming He exists).
Gem
I feel like I'm listening to a debate between occam and aquinas. Nouns refer to objects i can point to. We can talk about unicorns, etc but we know we cannot point to a real unicorn. A unicorn is a metaphysical concept. It is in the same category as Santa Claus, elves, Satan, and other literary fictions. Empiricism destroyed metaphysics early in the 20th century. We can still have ethics and other branches of philosophy without reifying non- existent nouns.
@conceptualemilio I don't understand your 2 sentences, and thus do not know how to respond.
Just going through comments though to grapple our head around magnitude of god comes to a matter of faith and belief. It’s said in the Bible in many verses we cannot fathom and understand until after this life. What the main challenge is making sure we still treat god as above all in our lives and strive to keep that
Soraya,
This is religion in a nutshell. I will sell you a car. Pay me now and I will deliver it after you die. By the way, you can understand anything reasonable. This nonsense about we can not understand until after life is an insult to all of us.
@@behroozcompani2348 it’s said in the bible. Which is refereed to as testament and witnesses to gods word. Religion is not faith. Bible is also evidenced as reliable and it’s Sonya 😊
@@sonilite Yes, the Bible reliably states falsehoods.
@@AsixA6 why are you on this page? Wondered that? Your conscious obviously has a desire to know about god. Bible is part of it. If you research the evidence for the bible the locations and events discussed it stands as reliable. Unfortunately a lot need to take on uncomfortable truths before accepting the real purpose and path
@@sonilite I’m on this page because I like watching invisible magician believers get destroyed in debates. Again, the BuyBull is a reliable source of falsehoods.
Since Charles Dawkins wrote his famous book, there isn't any reason to get up on Sunday morning.
Charles dawkins?
@@briandiehl9257
Yes.
He's a well known author
@@tedgrant2 well google doesn't seem to know who he is
@@briandiehl9257
That must be very disappointing
@@tedgrant2 Do you mean richard dawkins? or Charles darwin?
'I haven't commited suicide, I'm gald to say', haha
I admire Russell's patience and elegance in dealing with the rhetoric attempts - trying to load concepts with alien meanings in order to try to establish his cause-actor argument Copleston had concocted to try to defend the existence of supernatural beings.
The argument from contingency isn't a rhetorical attempt. All things can't be potential. Something must be actual. It seems to me he's not understanding the argument, as he assumes the "first cause" is in a temporal series, as in child is caused by parents, caused by their parents, etc. But that isn't the argument.
Things exist, therefore god is not an argument, no matter how eloquently such a non-argument is presented. Before postulating a god/creator/supreme being/etc., I would think that one should provide empirical evidence for the actual existence of such an entity.
The issue is that there are non empirical objects (they exist), such as ideas, they are, meaning they exist and we have access to them through internal intuition. Now, that's one hell of an issue, you can say it propelled the philosophical debate for ages. It's in that realm of problems that the discussion about the existence of God has traditionally been placed. Cheers.
You would think. It’s so utterly preposterous a belief, only humans could invent it.
@@dadiarfs8261 Yes, ideas certainly exist. It would certainly follow that the idea of gods also exist. As for the actual existence of such beings in our reality, there’s no more empirical evidence for their existence than there was thousands of years ago, despite the musings of theologians and philosophers. If such evidence existed, debates like the one featured in this video wouldn’t be necessary. It saddens me when I think about all the time and effort people have invested in things for which there is little or no compelling evidence.
@@jamessoltis5407 Ok, I get that, but think of it this way, what is more real, the apple you perceive in front of you or, given the fact it is you who perceives it, the idea of that apple in your mind? Things are very much what they are FOR YOU. There is a whole realm in which things make sense, I mean, they are what they are, they get their meaning, and that is only the realm of human mind. That's pretty much Kant's work, to say we cannot think in any way an object without our own mind. Objects -the world- are (and are what they are) just in relation of our own internal mind processes, how it's built up and how it's working. Well, now, if there's a realm of rationality from where things pretty much get their being, in strict sense what they are, then what is the status of an idea such as the idea of God. It's just, an open question. Cheers.
Bertrand🙄..pacifist🙄.ww1 He decided to opt out🙄.While other poor souls didn't🙏🙏🙏🙏 He wrote his books in his cell away from it all😠😠😠...People like that make me sick!!!!
What are you even saying, you emoji-fueled simpleton?!
Here is a truth for you. If the same effort had been put into something useful instead of arguing and insisting obout an imaginary friend that no human can possibly know anything about the world would be a better place.
No
@@goragabdula8203 is that an argument. Haha
@@George.Andrews. it was not an argument. Just my opinion on your comment
@@goragabdula8203 you know what they say about opinions.
They each knew great leaders of the 19th and 20th centuries. I cant understand why Bertrand rejects God (and so accepts tyrants). Man is therefore destined to be ruled by savages.
How does rejecting the existence of any god mean one "accepts tyrants"? Did you pull any muscles during that huge jump to conclusion?
he rejects the ultimate tyrant
After 65 years of laughing at Johnathan Miller's beautifully funny account of Russell out witting G.E. Moore, I have finally found the basis of Miller's satire.
The next step in my quest would be to attempt to ascertain, if at all possible, whether, or not, I would indeed laugh more, or less, at this actual account of pretentious, arrogant babblegab from Bertrand Russell if I had never known of Miller's satire.
Therefore, I must ask myself;
barney, I said- Does ANYTHING here in the discussion that Bertrand Russell has presented either possibly and/or absolutely translate to be complete, insolent, self glorifying rubbish?
nnNO, I replied and smiled seraphically, as is my wont.
After a brief pause, I reconsidered my query and proceeded, to ask of myself;
Barney, I said - Does SOMETHING here in the discussion that Bertrand Russell has presented either possibly and/or absolutely translate to be complete, insolent, self glorifying rubbish?
nnNO, I replied... leaving me in a logical cleft stick from which I had but one way out;
BARNEY - I said - HAS the discussion that Bertrand Russell presented either possibly and/or absolutely translate to be complete, insolent, self glorifying rubbish?
yyYES !! I replied, and I have been even more contemptuous to stupid old farts trying to sound intellectually endowed, including myself, ever since.
Please do listen to Beyond the Fringe, you actually might learn something. Now that I've said that:
Turn from sin, follow Jesus Christ and take to heart the word and will of Our Heavenly Father and you shall find joy, justice, peace and - GUESS WHAT? - Real Knowledge.
(edited a grammar error and am not shy for any other grammar corrections (please))
Look buddy, at least you're proud of yourself. It doesn't matter that nobody else in the world will read this and think it's worth anything.
Bertrand Russell just can to debate about this theme, on the point of view of the Logic Philosophy. This is very bad😂
I have been an atheist for a long time
Wow, thanks for the information. Really important stuff. This changes everything.
Frederick Copleston has argued brilliantly, and in my humble opinion is the clear victor.
That's interesting, it seemed to me that his arguments were quite well countered by Russell and largely unreasonable. Which argument specifically did you find convincing?
trough the glasses of a theist maybe. not by any reasonable person.
His arguments are fairly simple and easily defeated with reality …
God is easily proven false through all his teachings and the blatant lies written about Jesus and the fact there is no evidence of any kind …only ever in imagination has any religion claimed proof or miracle .
Copelstone’s argument for Gods existence is just nonsense, academic nonsense. The universe doesn’t need a reason to exist, and humans similarly don’t need a reason to exist beyond evolution.
The immediate issue with this debate is in the first line, " a creator separate from the world", no religious text supports this view. All major religions state that we exist within God itself. God according to the scriptures state that God is not separate from a rock or blade of grass or you.
The view that the world exists within God is called 'panentheism', and it's not the view of most Christian philosophers.
@@tomblackburnmusic "Ephesians 4:6 - one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all" Panentheism was developed by Karl Christian Friedrich Krause. The bible itself describes God as something which everything is encompassed within (not outside of). God is not a separate entity if the bible is to be believed and practiced. Same with most ancient esoteric texts descriptions of a supreme being. So i would argue based of the bible's own words, that the premise to debate itself is not a Chirstian understanding of God.
@@mn5499 'God is in all' according to Paul here. This is different from saying 'all is in God.'
@@tomblackburnmusic I mean not really. If "God" is within everything and basically surrounding everything and it was the original cause, it is in fact everything. A single thing that divided into many and is now within " all ". Blood many be in your hand, but it's also in your feet, hands and feet and not the same but there still part of the same body. So going back to my original point god is not a separate being by the bible's own definition. As god is not merely something that dwells over creation, it is creation itself. And back to my original point, the premise of the debate itself is incorrect.
@@mn5499 It's a perfectly valid view to take on God, but it is rejected by most kinds of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, in the texts and the teachings. You have described several different views (pantheism, God is the world, panentheism, the world is in God, and then another, the world is 'part of' God). Some are found in Hinduism, but not western religions.
The whole idea of creation for Christians, Jews and Muslims is that God exists prior to the world and creates it in a free act out of nothing. He then interacts with it in various ways. This is why God and the world are separate.
I would love to see some Biblical evidence for the pantheism you just described.
That's an interesting debate, even if I have never assumed an agnostic position in relation to any question related to the existence of God and since when I was only a child I had no doubt about it and I was sure he exists.
I think it's a matter of faith and not a philosophical one, but I also appreciate to listen to other points of view.
Of course the absolute values are lost by denying the existence of God and relative values get more important.
The materialistic values get more important, of course.
That's a funny question whether a round square exists or not 😂.
I suppose it doesn't.
Its just that if you admit it is a matter of faith, it becomes a pretty serious problem because faith is technically irrational and it can't be justified. If a mind can't be convinced that something exists, but has to bully itself to believe without any evidence, then isn't that ultimately just some form of psychological abuse? We are forcing the minds of others and their children to believe things even when there are no clear reasons to do so.
Like what if we also told our children to believe the Santa Claus is real - not just as a temporary phase during childhood, but permanently into adulthood. Isn't that morally wrong? Shouldn't we have reasons for believing things are real? If not, then what are we doing to ourselves and our children? And why are we doing that?
@@radscorpion8 I agree, that's why is important to explain to atheists like you that god exists and must be so, and I'm not religious, but the important thing here is to understand the world we live in first of all, and it's really worrying that so many "intellectuals" nowadays can't even grasp the basic of philosophy, logic and therefore, existence, still, people with better education, theoretically, lead the world, which is scary to me.
I admire Copleston's patience of this fool
To put it lightly i am completely and utterly unsurprised that a person in possesion of a playlist advocating the use of astral projection among other ridiculous unfounded techniques is also opposed to one of the most intelligent and influential philosophical minds of the 20th century. To state that the late Bertrand Russel is a fool may as well be an absolute condemnation of all logic and an admition to a dogmatic reclusiveness to any form of education.
@@meeseeksguy4859 meeseeksguy you're lucky I am not in the mood. And yes I reject all one sided idiotic left bran "logic" worship and "education". It's just a fleeting fashion posession of the times, nothing to do with actual reason/intelligence
@@jollydove6314 Oh no, I hope you're not "in the mood" today. How laughable is this bullshit you're peddling?
I don't quite understand what people are on about in the comments. Copleston was not even in the debate. He was clearly arguing points he presumed before the debate started and did not adequately engage russels arguments. The feeble attempt to describe Russel as dogmatic showed a lack of reflective capacity. Coplestons argument was literally God exists because it necessarily has to be so, and as with most religious arguments he presupposed this existence and used fancy yet ultimately circular reasoning to support his dogma.
Americans still believe that all English people sound like this 😁
The question is what would God be? Not whether God exists or not. To answer this question it is necessary that we ask what is our measure, the measure of us who answer the question, in relation to the size of existence. Considering that the visible Universe is around 13 billion years old, knowing that we only know the short existence of humans and nothing about other thinking living beings in the universe, we can say that our measurement is very small. But, disregarding a subjective experience of God that some put forward as proof of the existence of God, we can wonder why many primitive cultures posit the existence of a God. They placed it due to the natural observation of how extraordinary existence and the universe are in their laws. Therefore, the primitive God is the Universe itself, but whether there is something superior that gave rise to the universe, we cannot answer. But we can justify that it is impossible for existence to have existed, and calling this impossible existence God, we can say that something extraordinary that is existence exists, that it is impossible and its essence is wonderful, because it contains so many predictions and because of its reality accidental to be extraordinary.
*Moses, 1300 BCE:* Good and Evil have been set before you. Do not murder, Love your neighbor as yourself. *Micah, 700 BCE:* Act Justly, Love Mercy. *Confucius, 550 BCE:* Treat others as you would have others treat you. *Buddha, c.500 BCE:* Abstain from taking life. *Hippocratic Oath, 400 BCE:* Abstain from doing harm. *Jesus, 30 CE:* As I have loved you, you are to love one another.
Idealism vs Idealism(!)
Interesting. I mean not..
Atheist Russel lost this Debate on the Existence of God'
How
@@Noor-sl5epbecouse Russell assumes absolute Reason logic and absolute truth that is immterial Conceptual by Nature Unviersal unchanging law's of logic' Russel can't account for truth logic' Reason and absolute Eithics on Pure Naturalism? physics chemistry and matter in motion Don't Produce proper logical inference. absolute logic is immterial Conceptual by Nature its not part of the fiscal Universe.
@@callumclarke1733what? Try again, that's literally unreadable
SPECIAL PLEADING!
Define god into existence, then rejoice that the absolute lack of objectivity is that definition's greatest quality!
Bertie owned the hell outta this guy.
Coplestonl's nonsense hides in his convoluted reasoning. Regardless of his positions, he expressed empty arguments eloquently and authoritatively.
Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man
@@ahad2k11 perfect comment 👌 😍
Its funny how you say that, but fail to provide any clear evidence or reference for where the reasoning is convoluted or empty. Ironically your own argument is therefore just as empty as what you are accusing, and can therefore be immediately dismissed.
The delusion of religion, ladies and gentlemen...
Sorry, I did not mean Russel's nonsense. I meant coplston's nonsense.
We think we are more intelligent than monkeys.
Yet they don't go to Church on Sunday mornings.
(Not unless there is free food !)
When you scorn and bin your own humanity in the manner you just have, it is certainly reasonable to compare your intellectual existence unfavorably with that if monkeys.
@@andrewjohnson8232
I think you mean "of monkeys" not "if monkeys".
If I am correct, then I understand your point.
But I'd rather be a monkey than a bishop.
@@tedgrant2
When a typo is corrected in triumph, we're in for a tedious ride.
A monkey or a bishop?
What a bizarre choice to cite as ultimately informative of the world.
@@andrewjohnson8232
As we all know, God created Adam and Eve using the finest ingredients available.
He made every effort to ensure that they were of the best possible quality.
He gave them free will and was shocked when they used it.
@@tedgrant2
(Excuse the sermon, about to follow and indulge me a little. It's just so you understand the perspective I'm coming from).
Ridicule is a poor substitute for question, it does not foster understanding and does not yield answers.
I'm not a fan of our current, perversely reverent, attitude toward comedy and satire (of course a culture whose priesthood consists of stand up comedians thinks bishops are ridiculous), because anything can be subjected to ridicule, whether reasonably or not. Just think of the part satire and ridicule have played in the history of genocide for example.
The Bible is arguably the single most significant cultural artefact in world history. (I don't say important or finest, I say significant, influential).
Even where it appears to grate irretrievably against contemporary ideas and sensibilities, ridicule is clearly not a meaningful approach, as ridicule is always closer to fear than to reason.
What does it cost a person to take a chisel to the Sistine, compared to appreciating it, compared to actually creating it?
If you want a better understanding of the text than the one you're appealing to, you have to ask more profound questions of it. ( Do not mean to patronise. Again, we are steeped in a very illiterate and dismissive culture which is entrenched, reinforced, ubiquitous, and not easy to negotiate).
In your experience, how accurate or sympathetic a representation of the human condition do you consider the poem of Genesis to be?
(Genesis Chapter 1:1 - 3:24).