Reminds me of that guy who hosted unbelievable. You'd think years of listening to debates he would do better but his arguments weren't better than look at the trees or why are there still monkeys if evolution is true
All arguments against the existence of unicorns are flawed, because they don't take into account the possibility that I can just define a rhinoceros as a unicorn. Duh.
To make the example slightly more fun: a guy in a bar announces that he is a theist because he considers Tom Brady to be a god, and Tom Brady exists. His buddy thinks for a minute, and has to concede that Tom Brady exists, so he agrees that all atheists are irrational, at least as Cameron has defined the term. The two men therefore become intensely religious, and spend every Sunday worshipping at their local football stadium. Attempts to convert Cameron to the one true religion fail, unfortunately, and Cameron is condemned to spend eternity as a fan of the Jacksonville Jaguars.
Woah woah woah, this is heresy. The one true God is football and Vince Lombardi is the one true prophet. Worship services are at Lambeau. Repent before the end you heretic.
I had a feeling that all Cameron was attempting here was trying to make it okay for him to dissmiss weak atheist/lacktheist positions so he can strawman them into strong atheist positions. Which he's been doing for 10 years already, so I dunno why he felt the need to pretend he had some profound realization.
If CC's arguments were to be taken seriously, then the only hope of theism to work is to keep lowering god's atributes till it becomes fully irrelevant
3:26 there are people who call themselves pantheists and claim the universe is god. I believe in the universe. Does that make me a theist? Of course not.
You are irrefutably correct on this point. 100%, accurate take regarding the subsets of things which have been labelled "God/s" to which an atheist's atheism applies. This includes atheists who claim broadly that "no such thing as God/s exist", as that definition of God/s defines the boundary of what they're "atheist-ing" about. And it must do, for obvious reasons beyond being intellectually honest and charitable. I've received an apologist try and tell me that my atheism is false because some people define the sun as "God" and I believe the sun exists and it's their "God" and thus I'm wrong. Whether or not this person was a troll is irrelevant - it illuminates exactly why a person's claim is limited to the scope of their definitions ... not those imposed upon them (illegitimately) by others, specifically to create contradictions which simply don't exist in the other person's usage and meaning. Cameron is obviously wrong. It only remains to be seen if he's honest (in this case)...
I didn't catch if you addressed this but the definition I prefer is based on action. I dont worship any gods, I dont pray, even if I go to a worship service I am doing that to uphold social convention with the people around me not out of any form of reverence. I am technically an agnostic if we want to break out the technical terms but I fly the atheist flag in general conversation. I dont believe in any gods but I mean how do I demonstrate deism conclusively is t true? Im an athoest in practice and if Cameron doesn't take that seriously then he's the unserious one.
Dr. Rauser. It seems that an atheist denies that ‘God’ can be attributed to any entity - not merely that an atheist is someone who denies X or Y god-concept posited by some theist(s).
It is ‘what counts as’ God that matters. And for the atheist, nothing counts as God. Cameron states that the Problem of Evil, though powerful, doesn’t mean that there is no God. Rather that it could mean we’d have to revise our god-concept to account for evil. The atheist, however, thinks that there is no-God since there is nothing to which the attribute of ‘God’ can be given. Am I missing something?
I've identified something that has been bugging me awhile about this channel. As far as I can tell there is never any mention of Catholic arguments. Given how large the Catholic population is then I find that puzzling and odd. Especially when it comes to Christianity in general topics like this. As a non-believer I do not make in my mind any distinction between the various sects of Christianity, they are all Christian. I take Catholic arguments as serious as Protestant. That's what's been bugging me.
Thank you for this unpacking. I am an atheist but this charge still stumped me when I heard it and your examples made it obviously clear why the charge of atheism being defined like this makes no sense at all in a conversation between an atheist and a theist. There would need to be an agreed upon definition of god otherwise no one can even take a side on this.
It's also worth noting that the SEP entry on agnostic is and atheism makes a distinction between global and local atheism. Has Cameron not read that article or anything else that would have introduced him to that distinction?
Cameron is free to stop taking atheism seriously, I'm pretty sure most atheists stopped taking Him seriously when he denied that a world that never needed MLK would be better than one that had him. But to make a more substantive point. If Cameron doesn't take other conceptions of God seriously, why would an atheist need to?
At the same time Cameron feels strengthened in a theistic worldview after Goff has claimed god could just be somewhat powerful, somewhat benevolent and know a few things.
Hey Randal, as a non believer myself, it’s very refreshing to see believers pushback on creators like CC. I like listening to other people’s points of view about things, and learn why people believe what they do, but I can never really bring myself to listen to people like CC for more than 5 minutes because of how smug, disrespectful and dishonest becomes across. I’m not fully aware of his beliefs but it feels like he’s getting close to the Turek’s of this world as opposed to the Josh Rasmussen’s for instance and it’s such a shame. I did watch that 8 minutes or so video he put out recently out of curiosity and have similar objections to you. I’d also like to add that if the problem of evil was true let’s say, and we could show that the Christian god couldn’t exist as a result, nor could most concepts of god… he would probably call himself and atheist as well because the Christian concept of god is the one he clearly believes in I just discovered your channel today, looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts!
Not sure why theists don't get it when atheists try to explain that we are just skeptical of one more god than theists. I think they must be incredulous or incapable of learning that complexity arises from the less complex all the time with no requirement of a designer... perhaps based partly on pressure, temperature, shape of particles, molecules, charge, magnetics, gravity, environment in general.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in any concept of God that I have ever been presented with. The people Cameron talks to know his concept of God that’s why they use arguments such as the problem of evil , because in our view as atheists, the problem of evil is a defeater of the tri-omni God he proposes. I would not use it to argue against Zeus, because Zeus may have been the most powerful god but he was not described by his fill as being omnibenvevolent, or all powerful, or all knowing.
Not gonna lie, I clicked on this mainly because I appreciate the “Bertuzi Doozie” in the thumbnail lol. Cameron isn’t a serious person and should be treated as such.
Cameron's argument is essentially saying that every argument atheists make must counter the existence of every possible concept of god and not simply counter specific examples of a god. Cameron is being intellectually dishonest in this position, as he normally is. Unless you are saying that every god exists simultaneously, then the atheist is not committed to providing a rebuttal to every concept of a god.
The Son is the image of the invisible God. To see Jesus is to see the Father. Critiquing a caricature of God that does not resemble Jesus Christ is ultimately critiquing something not truly representative of Christian belief. In Jesus, God doesn’t just explain suffering, but He enters it, bears it and promises its ultimate eradication.
Well, didn't Cameron learn from the best, that there is ignoring crucial points of critique for more than 20 years probably? Yes, I'm referring here to *William Laine Craig* - currently best person to be ignorant of almost all crucial criticisms for more than 20 years at least in my opinion. Cudos to you demonstrating proper listening skills as such crucial skills become more and more sparse these modern days of ignorance.
CC misunderstands the definition of atheism, which you can literally look up on google, and claims that you are wrong? Wow that is a new level of ignorance and arrogance combined into one. Of course if he did any research at all into what Graham Oppy says, he would know, that that definition of atheism strictly only applies to philosophical literature, and that the common usage of the word is completely different.
It seems only proper to define ones terms. Gods are not a basic concept known a priori. Of course you must define what you mean by gods. I imagine that most atheists Cameron interacts with are shaped by christian/jewish/muslim concepts of gods, and they argue on definitions of gods compatible with these. It's a short slide to reductio ad absurdum , that if any definition of gods is in play, you can define a specific pebble as god, and this all atheism is absurd.
As for the problem of evil, I have a feeling that something is off about the problem of evil. After all, Christianity has preached about a suffering God and the fall and evil from the very beginning. Christian martyrs suffered. So I don't think... And suddenly, after 1000 years of Christianity's existence, an atheist comes along and says that the existence of God is incompatible with evil. Maybe, if we abstract the Christian God from all context, it will sound logical that this concept shouldn't tolerate evil. It will sound logical that God, understood in this way, shouldn't tolerate evil. However, since Christianity presupposes the existence of evil and suffering, and even redemption, in my opinion, the problem of evil is not a serious argument against the existence of the Christian God.
@pustygrob5837 well it kinda matters to your point that someone shows up after 1000 years of Christianity. But you're correct if you do not claim an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god, then there is no issue with the problem of evil.
@@srenkongstad2992 I'm well aware that the problem of evil predates Christianity. I was simply pointing out that if someone challenges the existence of the Christian God based on the problem of evil, they seem to have forgotten the fundamentals of Christianity. From its very beginning, Christian theology has acknowledged the existence of suffering in the world, and even suffering in God himself
There is nothing new about the Problem of Evil (better described as the Problem from Suffering). It is already implicit in the Book of Job, although never answered. Further, the fact that there are Christian responses isn’t relevant; the question is as to the cogency of the responses. I don’t think any of them work; the Theist is reduced to imagining a weak, imperfect ‘god’ difficult to reconcile with the Bible, traditional beliefs or the requirement of worship.
Great criticism as always, but what's worse for the argument and you missed in both criticisms, is that Cameron misses the simetry of his stance with Atheist stances. There could be one argument (at least for the sake of argument) that disproves God, and that are arguments for God that even granted, can disprove God as an useful concept. I will talk with the last example from Majesty of Reason channel which I'm sure you Randal are familiar with Joe Schmidt, not for other reason, that you had many interactions with him: Grim Ripper paradoxes if they prove (for the sake of argument) that the universe has a beginning, it proves with a simetric reformulation that "eternal life" has an end. This is the clip for discussion: ua-cam.com/video/_L30MRWZlbU/v-deo.html
Hamburg, is the ground of all beef. They like to say that the problem of evil is the "best argument" but it's not or at lest not in the way he is asking, it's powerful emotionally, It gets people to think, but it's not the best logic argument. A=A but (not A )is not = to( not A) / (not A) has and infinite number if ways to be not being A, but A just has one way of being A. Without evidence one way or the other, you are infinite more likely to get a (not A) than and A. Until someone show good evidence for some type of god, then they are just picking one and are infinite likely to be wrong. This is why the burden of proof is set up as it is. And it's why the burden of proof is the best argument, it's just not as sexy as the problem of evil. This is why they keep trying to change, (I don't believe in are god to I know there is no god ) If you strip down Cameron's "argument " his just using a lot of words to shift the burden of proof. If he had evidence there be no need to try and do this.
This is absolutely spot on , which is what I've always thought. My problem with Oppy's definition and Drapers is they don't talk about what the phrase God means. For some, God is a personal creator of the universe, but not for the Greeks! For Einstein and Spinoza, it was impersonal; there are so many different definitions of God that the phrase atheism or theism cannot be so generalized and always has to be made to a specific God, usually the God of the surrounding culture. You expressed this brilliantly.
Dr. Rauser, I've noticed with apologists that atheism is somehow worse than being another religion. They can't take atheism seriously because they can't have open questions. I think the biggest mystery is, "Why is there anything at all?" I don't have a good answer to this as an agnostic and I won't just plug in a God to answer it. Sometimes it's best to say I don't know and remain curious.
Bc you guys can't answer a simple question. If I granted you that Christianity was wrong and truth is subjective, then why is your made up or non position any better?
@@treadstoned9915 Oh, that's easy to answer. Truth isn't subjective. The position of not accepting Christianity is better because it aligns more for the facts of reality. You were right. That was simple. Any other questions?
Randal makes some very important points here. This why I insist on starting any discussion about God with a definition of what God is, and if the other person has a radically different concept of God to mine (as an atheist) I end the discussion quickly. I wish more internet discussion about God would start this way. Also, I wonder if Cameron has updated his concept of God on the basis that (apparently) the Problem of Evil IS a good argument against the traditional tri-omni God.
cameron is soo wrong on another point too. he says that "the problem of evil" argument can be defeated by an another typ of god (the limited god). but that god is not your god. the problem of evil is an argument only against the abrahimitic god. it was not meant to critique every other god. cameron takes this argument, brings it up against other god definitions, lets it fail and then claims with this stupid strawman fallacy that atheism is irrational and so on. so dumb.
This seems like a red herring from the main issue, which is whether people should take Atheism seriously or not. I think it's difficult to treat people with respect if you don't take their deeply held worldview seriously, and in general I think we should treat people with respect.
Exactly! Perhaps amoung your bros you can speak harshly/ make light of your opponents arguments; but in the marketplace of ideas, mutual respect, especially by one that claims to represent the King of Peace. Peter's admonition was "with gentleness and respect..." when giving the reason for the hope that is in them. Hindsight is 20/20, but having left Evangelism to save my faith, my church ignored vast swaths of clear scripture regarding respect, presenting truth, contending for the faith, attitude towards government or government officials, as well as the mandate of loving one another and our neighbors! People of the Book, indeed.
Do you treat flat earthers with respect? Mind you, not with empty and condescending platitudes we're meant to show in social situations, but do you genuinely believe someone who tells you the earth is flat and surrounded by a wall of ice deserves your time?
I take atheism to be accepting the proposition that no God exists. "God" in PoR has a very particular meaning. I think there is a real sense in which I could be an atheist if I was convinced that the Greek pantheon of gods existed.
The Greek pantheon is a very obvious and conventional example of gods. Saying you could be an atheist if the Greek gods exist is as silly as saying someone has to be a theist because the universe exists.
@fluffysheap there is a difference between "God" and "gods." PoR deals mostly with "God." I'm saying you can be an atheist, meaning believing that God does not exist, even if gods exist. That is the relevant sense of being an atheist I mean.
I think the problem is that the entire discipline of Philosophy has been captured by Theists. So it has become an enormous bubble that lacks connection to the real world. Philosophers used to have a background in the classics, and to have modern languages as well. This militated to some extent against parochialism. Now they construct long chains of premises largely dependent upon the accidents of language for validity. They don’t know how estranged they are from the enduring intellectual currents of the world.
Cameron also just made a video about how Alex O’connor was making “embarrassing” mistakes in his debate with the Knechtles. That video itself was embarrassing.
I just want to point out the irony of Cameron's argument historically when it came to arguing against polytheism. Christianity and Judaism are the first monotheist religions. Christianity for centuries argued that polytheism as a concept is false, leaving only monotheism and the only monotheism god is the Christian god. Although many an anthropologists have pointed out that most polytheism religions usually trace back to a single origin god, making them initially monotheist. Also, in Hinduism god can manifest in anything and new gods can be created Johnny on the spot if one thinks something natural is in fact supernatural. Then as Bart Ehrman has pointed out, the early Gnostics believed Jesus had secret teachings to reveal divine power. They beleived divine power could then recombine and such. This is kinda of a god shatter approach to the mystic where god will eventually reassemble as a whole, similar to the 9th level of Buddhism and Nirvana.
A concept can't be false. Obviously monotheism is incompatible with polytheism and therefore any monotheist will believe any polytheistic religion is false. That is not the same as the concept being false. Monotheists usually believe that other monotheistic religions besides their own are also false.
He writes: _Atheism = there are no gods._ I'm an atheist and I don't believe in any gods. I don't say, "there are positively no gods." So, there's a counter-example to Cameron's ignorant claim. As a sidebar, in any discussion with any Christian, I'll grant a god exists for purpose of discussion. I'll even say, "I believe in a god." There....now what? Cam, & other apologists, MUST then resort to defining the god they're arguing for and I can say, "I don't believe in that god, for sure."
Bertuzzi said that he can't take atheism seriously because atheism's "best" argument does not prove atheism. Which is kind of a curious objection, because theism's best argument doesn't prove theism, either. So why would anyone take theism seriously?
Cameron's definition of atheism becomes completely useless as a descriptive term, as it fails to describe the actual position of any person on earth. No sane and honest person actually holds the affirmative position that no entities exist that are described by other humans as a god. There are good reasons why a large percentage of modern atheists describe their position as "a lack of belief in a god", similar to a lack of beliefs in fairies. Saying that one hasn't yet seen sufficient and convincing evidence to warrant belief in a god is not an unreasonable position, and should definitely be taken seriously.
I don't take anything from Cameron seriously, he is either dishonest or obtusely ignorant. Given the amount of time and the people he has had conversations with I put dishonest at the highest probability.
@@PlaylistWatching1234 there's no probably about it. He's done at least one devils advocate debate and dropped one of the hardest hitting versions of the problem of evil I've ever heard. Cameron either doesn't understand or no longer cares about philosophical rigor and actual truth seeking.
Cameron's argument is so dumb im flabbergasted that he has been doing this for ~10 years and his understanding is like high school level.
Reminds me of that guy who hosted unbelievable. You'd think years of listening to debates he would do better but his arguments weren't better than look at the trees or why are there still monkeys if evolution is true
It's a grift.
All arguments against the existence of unicorns are flawed, because they don't take into account the possibility that I can just define a rhinoceros as a unicorn. Duh.
That analogy is spot on 👌
That's just science.
Unicorns ARE real. I've seen a skull.
Fun fact, Romans accused early Christians of being atheists.
all Romans? ;)
@@vfjpl1 Many Romans, yes.
To make the example slightly more fun: a guy in a bar announces that he is a theist because he considers Tom Brady to be a god, and Tom Brady exists. His buddy thinks for a minute, and has to concede that Tom Brady exists, so he agrees that all atheists are irrational, at least as Cameron has defined the term. The two men therefore become intensely religious, and spend every Sunday worshipping at their local football stadium. Attempts to convert Cameron to the one true religion fail, unfortunately, and Cameron is condemned to spend eternity as a fan of the Jacksonville Jaguars.
Woah woah woah, this is heresy. The one true God is football and Vince Lombardi is the one true prophet. Worship services are at Lambeau. Repent before the end you heretic.
Truly a horrifying existence
I had a feeling that all Cameron was attempting here was trying to make it okay for him to dissmiss weak atheist/lacktheist positions so he can strawman them into strong atheist positions. Which he's been doing for 10 years already, so I dunno why he felt the need to pretend he had some profound realization.
If CC's arguments were to be taken seriously, then the only hope of theism to work is to keep lowering god's atributes till it becomes fully irrelevant
3:26 there are people who call themselves pantheists and claim the universe is god. I believe in the universe. Does that make me a theist? Of course not.
And you immediately made this specific point. 😂
You are irrefutably correct on this point. 100%, accurate take regarding the subsets of things which have been labelled "God/s" to which an atheist's atheism applies.
This includes atheists who claim broadly that "no such thing as God/s exist", as that definition of God/s defines the boundary of what they're "atheist-ing" about. And it must do, for obvious reasons beyond being intellectually honest and charitable.
I've received an apologist try and tell me that my atheism is false because some people define the sun as "God" and I believe the sun exists and it's their "God" and thus I'm wrong. Whether or not this person was a troll is irrelevant - it illuminates exactly why a person's claim is limited to the scope of their definitions ... not those imposed upon them (illegitimately) by others, specifically to create contradictions which simply don't exist in the other person's usage and meaning.
Cameron is obviously wrong. It only remains to be seen if he's honest (in this case)...
I didn't catch if you addressed this but the definition I prefer is based on action. I dont worship any gods, I dont pray, even if I go to a worship service I am doing that to uphold social convention with the people around me not out of any form of reverence. I am technically an agnostic if we want to break out the technical terms but I fly the atheist flag in general conversation. I dont believe in any gods but I mean how do I demonstrate deism conclusively is t true? Im an athoest in practice and if Cameron doesn't take that seriously then he's the unserious one.
Cameron is playing Bible so I don't take him anymore seriously than someone who said they were from Hogwarts
Dr. Rauser.
It seems that an atheist denies that ‘God’ can be attributed to any entity - not merely that an atheist is someone who denies X or Y god-concept posited by some theist(s).
It is ‘what counts as’ God that matters. And for the atheist, nothing counts as God.
Cameron states that the Problem of Evil, though powerful, doesn’t mean that there is no God. Rather that it could mean we’d have to revise our god-concept to account for evil. The atheist, however, thinks that there is no-God since there is nothing to which the attribute of ‘God’ can be given.
Am I missing something?
I've identified something that has been bugging me awhile about this channel. As far as I can tell there is never any mention of Catholic arguments. Given how large the Catholic population is then I find that puzzling and odd. Especially when it comes to Christianity in general topics like this. As a non-believer I do not make in my mind any distinction between the various sects of Christianity, they are all Christian. I take Catholic arguments as serious as Protestant. That's what's been bugging me.
Thank you for this unpacking. I am an atheist but this charge still stumped me when I heard it and your examples made it obviously clear why the charge of atheism being defined like this makes no sense at all in a conversation between an atheist and a theist. There would need to be an agreed upon definition of god otherwise no one can even take a side on this.
It's also worth noting that the SEP entry on agnostic is and atheism makes a distinction between global and local atheism. Has Cameron not read that article or anything else that would have introduced him to that distinction?
Of course not because he is a grifter not an intellectual
Cameron is free to stop taking atheism seriously, I'm pretty sure most atheists stopped taking Him seriously when he denied that a world that never needed MLK would be better than one that had him.
But to make a more substantive point. If Cameron doesn't take other conceptions of God seriously, why would an atheist need to?
At the same time Cameron feels strengthened in a theistic worldview after Goff has claimed god could just be somewhat powerful, somewhat benevolent and know a few things.
Hey Randal, as a non believer myself, it’s very refreshing to see believers pushback on creators like CC.
I like listening to other people’s points of view about things, and learn why people believe what they do, but I can never really bring myself to listen to people like CC for more than 5 minutes because of how smug, disrespectful and dishonest becomes across.
I’m not fully aware of his beliefs but it feels like he’s getting close to the Turek’s of this world as opposed to the Josh Rasmussen’s for instance and it’s such a shame.
I did watch that 8 minutes or so video he put out recently out of curiosity and have similar objections to you.
I’d also like to add that if the problem of evil was true let’s say, and we could show that the Christian god couldn’t exist as a result, nor could most concepts of god… he would probably call himself and atheist as well because the Christian concept of god is the one he clearly believes in
I just discovered your channel today, looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts!
I love that theists are so inclined to waste hours of their lives over semantics. Better than causing more trouble elsewhere.
Not sure why theists don't get it when atheists try to explain that we are just skeptical of one more god than theists. I think they must be incredulous or incapable of learning that complexity arises from the less complex all the time with no requirement of a designer... perhaps based partly on pressure, temperature, shape of particles, molecules, charge, magnetics, gravity, environment in general.
I am an atheist. I do not believe in any concept of God that I have ever been presented with. The people Cameron talks to know his concept of God that’s why they use arguments such as the problem of evil , because in our view as atheists, the problem of evil is a defeater of the tri-omni God he proposes. I would not use it to argue against Zeus, because Zeus may have been the most powerful god but he was not described by his fill as being omnibenvevolent, or all powerful, or all knowing.
Not gonna lie, I clicked on this mainly because I appreciate the “Bertuzi Doozie” in the thumbnail lol. Cameron isn’t a serious person and should be treated as such.
Can't believe he's making that argument. Obviously, every argument is attacking a specific concept of God that a person holds, this is basic
Cameron's argument is essentially saying that every argument atheists make must counter the existence of every possible concept of god and not simply counter specific examples of a god. Cameron is being intellectually dishonest in this position, as he normally is. Unless you are saying that every god exists simultaneously, then the atheist is not committed to providing a rebuttal to every concept of a god.
Right this is what Sye ten Brugencatte did back in the day with presupp. Pegging everyone to global atheism was part of his argument.
The Son is the image of the invisible God. To see Jesus is to see the Father. Critiquing a caricature of God that does not resemble Jesus Christ is ultimately critiquing something not truly representative of Christian belief. In Jesus, God doesn’t just explain suffering, but He enters it, bears it and promises its ultimate eradication.
Randall may I suggest that you both have a conversation about this to settle this.
Well, didn't Cameron learn from the best, that there is ignoring crucial points of critique for more than 20 years probably?
Yes, I'm referring here to *William Laine Craig* - currently best person to be ignorant of almost all crucial criticisms for more than 20 years at least in my opinion.
Cudos to you demonstrating proper listening skills as such crucial skills become more and more sparse these modern days of ignorance.
Cameron has lost some of his critical thought the last couple years
@axel1957ll
He never critically thought about anything.
Watch his "interview" with Goff.
Then watch anything he has done with Craig.
He thinks both of them are 100% correct.
CC misunderstands the definition of atheism, which you can literally look up on google, and claims that you are wrong? Wow that is a new level of ignorance and arrogance combined into one.
Of course if he did any research at all into what Graham Oppy says, he would know, that that definition of atheism strictly only applies to philosophical literature, and that the common usage of the word is completely different.
It seems only proper to define ones terms.
Gods are not a basic concept known a priori. Of course you must define what you mean by gods.
I imagine that most atheists Cameron interacts with are shaped by christian/jewish/muslim concepts of gods, and they argue on definitions of gods compatible with these.
It's a short slide to reductio ad absurdum , that if any definition of gods is in play, you can define a specific pebble as god, and this all atheism is absurd.
Of all the YT apologists, Bertuzzi impresses me the least
I've noticed you've been a bit skeptical and liberal lately. Are you going through a crisis of faith?
I have noticed the same thing.
I think so, and it is great! 😊
As for the problem of evil, I have a feeling that something is off about the problem of evil. After all, Christianity has preached about a suffering God and the fall and evil from the very beginning. Christian martyrs suffered. So I don't think... And suddenly, after 1000 years of Christianity's existence, an atheist comes along and says that the existence of God is incompatible with evil. Maybe, if we abstract the Christian God from all context, it will sound logical that this concept shouldn't tolerate evil. It will sound logical that God, understood in this way, shouldn't tolerate evil. However, since Christianity presupposes the existence of evil and suffering, and even redemption, in my opinion, the problem of evil is not a serious argument against the existence of the Christian God.
The problem of evil predates Christianity. It was formulated , but might have predated, by Epicurus who lived around 300 BCE
@@srenkongstad2992 doesn't matter
@pustygrob5837 well it kinda matters to your point that someone shows up after 1000 years of Christianity.
But you're correct if you do not claim an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient god, then there is no issue with the problem of evil.
@@srenkongstad2992 I'm well aware that the problem of evil predates Christianity. I was simply pointing out that if someone challenges the existence of the Christian God based on the problem of evil, they seem to have forgotten the fundamentals of Christianity. From its very beginning, Christian theology has acknowledged the existence of suffering in the world, and even suffering in God himself
There is nothing new about the Problem of Evil (better described as the Problem from Suffering). It is already implicit in the Book of Job, although never answered. Further, the fact that there are Christian responses isn’t relevant; the question is as to the cogency of the responses. I don’t think any of them work; the Theist is reduced to imagining a weak, imperfect ‘god’ difficult to reconcile with the Bible, traditional beliefs or the requirement of worship.
Great criticism as always, but what's worse for the argument and you missed in both criticisms, is that Cameron misses the simetry of his stance with Atheist stances. There could be one argument (at least for the sake of argument) that disproves God, and that are arguments for God that even granted, can disprove God as an useful concept.
I will talk with the last example from Majesty of Reason channel which I'm sure you Randal are familiar with Joe Schmidt, not for other reason, that you had many interactions with him: Grim Ripper paradoxes if they prove (for the sake of argument) that the universe has a beginning, it proves with a simetric reformulation that "eternal life" has an end.
This is the clip for discussion:
ua-cam.com/video/_L30MRWZlbU/v-deo.html
It's not called a-particularkindofgod-theism, it's called atheism.
Hamburg, is the ground of all beef.
They like to say that the problem of evil is the "best argument" but it's not or at lest not in the way he is asking, it's powerful emotionally, It gets people to think, but it's not the best logic argument.
A=A but (not A )is not = to( not A) / (not A) has and infinite number if ways to be not being A, but A just has one way of being A.
Without evidence one way or the other, you are infinite more likely to get a (not A) than and A.
Until someone show good evidence for some type of god, then they are just picking one and are infinite likely to be wrong. This is why the burden of proof is set up as it is. And it's why the burden of proof is the best argument, it's just not as sexy as the problem of evil.
This is why they keep trying to change, (I don't believe in are god to I know there is no god ) If you strip down Cameron's "argument " his just using a lot of words to shift the burden of proof. If he had evidence there be no need to try and do this.
This sounds like an argument over semantics. You're just arguing over the definition of atheism.
This is absolutely spot on , which is what I've always thought. My problem with Oppy's definition and Drapers is they don't talk about what the phrase God means. For some, God is a personal creator of the universe, but not for the Greeks! For Einstein and Spinoza, it was impersonal; there are so many different definitions of God that the phrase atheism or theism cannot be so generalized and always has to be made to a specific God, usually the God of the surrounding culture. You expressed this brilliantly.
Dr. Rauser,
I've noticed with apologists that atheism is somehow worse than being another religion. They can't take atheism seriously because they can't have open questions. I think the biggest mystery is, "Why is there anything at all?" I don't have a good answer to this as an agnostic and I won't just plug in a God to answer it.
Sometimes it's best to say I don't know and remain curious.
Bc you guys can't answer a simple question. If I granted you that Christianity was wrong and truth is subjective, then why is your made up or non position any better?
@@treadstoned9915 Oh, that's easy to answer. Truth isn't subjective. The position of not accepting Christianity is better because it aligns more for the facts of reality.
You were right. That was simple. Any other questions?
Randal makes some very important points here. This why I insist on starting any discussion about God with a definition of what God is, and if the other person has a radically different concept of God to mine (as an atheist) I end the discussion quickly. I wish more internet discussion about God would start this way.
Also, I wonder if Cameron has updated his concept of God on the basis that (apparently) the Problem of Evil IS a good argument against the traditional tri-omni God.
cameron is soo wrong on another point too. he says that "the problem of evil" argument can be defeated by an another typ of god (the limited god). but that god is not your god. the problem of evil is an argument only against the abrahimitic god. it was not meant to critique every other god. cameron takes this argument, brings it up against other god definitions, lets it fail and then claims with this stupid strawman fallacy that atheism is irrational and so on. so dumb.
This was a Rausing rejoinder!
I can't deny a claim that isn't at least a little specific...
That being said: your god probably doesn't exist.
This seems like a red herring from the main issue, which is whether people should take Atheism seriously or not. I think it's difficult to treat people with respect if you don't take their deeply held worldview seriously, and in general I think we should treat people with respect.
Exactly! Perhaps amoung your bros you can speak harshly/ make light of your opponents arguments; but in the marketplace of ideas, mutual respect, especially by one that claims to represent the King of Peace. Peter's admonition was "with gentleness and respect..." when giving the reason for the hope that is in them.
Hindsight is 20/20, but having left Evangelism to save my faith, my church ignored vast swaths of clear scripture regarding respect, presenting truth, contending for the faith, attitude towards government or government officials, as well as the mandate of loving one another and our neighbors!
People of the Book, indeed.
Do you treat flat earthers with respect? Mind you, not with empty and condescending platitudes we're meant to show in social situations, but do you genuinely believe someone who tells you the earth is flat and surrounded by a wall of ice deserves your time?
I take atheism to be accepting the proposition that no God exists. "God" in PoR has a very particular meaning. I think there is a real sense in which I could be an atheist if I was convinced that the Greek pantheon of gods existed.
The Greek pantheon is a very obvious and conventional example of gods. Saying you could be an atheist if the Greek gods exist is as silly as saying someone has to be a theist because the universe exists.
@fluffysheap there is a difference between "God" and "gods." PoR deals mostly with "God." I'm saying you can be an atheist, meaning believing that God does not exist, even if gods exist. That is the relevant sense of being an atheist I mean.
@@popsbjdBeing an atheist by not believing in "God" while believing in "gods"? That just sounds like a convoluted definition for deism
I think the problem is that the entire discipline of Philosophy has been captured by Theists. So it has become an enormous bubble that lacks connection to the real world. Philosophers used to have a background in the classics, and to have modern languages as well. This militated to some extent against parochialism. Now they construct long chains of premises largely dependent upon the accidents of language for validity. They don’t know how estranged they are from the enduring intellectual currents of the world.
Cameron also just made a video about how Alex O’connor was making “embarrassing” mistakes in his debate with the Knechtles. That video itself was embarrassing.
I just want to point out the irony of Cameron's argument historically when it came to arguing against polytheism. Christianity and Judaism are the first monotheist religions. Christianity for centuries argued that polytheism as a concept is false, leaving only monotheism and the only monotheism god is the Christian god. Although many an anthropologists have pointed out that most polytheism religions usually trace back to a single origin god, making them initially monotheist. Also, in Hinduism god can manifest in anything and new gods can be created Johnny on the spot if one thinks something natural is in fact supernatural. Then as Bart Ehrman has pointed out, the early Gnostics believed Jesus had secret teachings to reveal divine power. They beleived divine power could then recombine and such. This is kinda of a god shatter approach to the mystic where god will eventually reassemble as a whole, similar to the 9th level of Buddhism and Nirvana.
A concept can't be false.
Obviously monotheism is incompatible with polytheism and therefore any monotheist will believe any polytheistic religion is false. That is not the same as the concept being false. Monotheists usually believe that other monotheistic religions besides their own are also false.
He writes: _Atheism = there are no gods._
I'm an atheist and I don't believe in any gods.
I don't say, "there are positively no gods."
So, there's a counter-example to Cameron's ignorant claim.
As a sidebar, in any discussion with any Christian, I'll grant a god exists for purpose of discussion. I'll even say, "I believe in a god."
There....now what?
Cam, & other apologists, MUST then resort to defining the god they're arguing for and I can say, "I don't believe in that god, for sure."
I like Cameron. He's a great guy. You should team-up more
Bertuzzi said that he can't take atheism seriously because atheism's "best" argument does not prove atheism. Which is kind of a curious objection, because theism's best argument doesn't prove theism, either. So why would anyone take theism seriously?
Cameron's definition of atheism becomes completely useless as a descriptive term, as it fails to describe the actual position of any person on earth. No sane and honest person actually holds the affirmative position that no entities exist that are described by other humans as a god.
There are good reasons why a large percentage of modern atheists describe their position as "a lack of belief in a god", similar to a lack of beliefs in fairies. Saying that one hasn't yet seen sufficient and convincing evidence to warrant belief in a god is not an unreasonable position, and should definitely be taken seriously.
I can't seriously believe that Cameron is fine with a God that is evil or impotent.
I don't take anything from Cameron seriously, he is either dishonest or obtusely ignorant. Given the amount of time and the people he has had conversations with I put dishonest at the highest probability.
Perhaps Bertuzzi doesn't understand the meaning of internal critique?
Sorry, Randall. Cameron solved the question with which the rest of the world still wrestles. 😁
As always, great content.
Bertuzzi doozy 😀 after he warned me for posting on his threads i should call him cameron bannin' 😀
Randal has an excellent command of the argument here. And could probably argue the atheist position better than most atheists. Cameron, not so much.
@@PlaylistWatching1234 there's no probably about it. He's done at least one devils advocate debate and dropped one of the hardest hitting versions of the problem of evil I've ever heard.
Cameron either doesn't understand or no longer cares about philosophical rigor and actual truth seeking.
@GusSchultzPlays yo, where's the devil's advocate debate
Wow, just found it on capturing Christianity! Thank you!