Man! I clicked on this just wanting something to listen to while I made lunches for my kids and husband for tomorrow but it's been SO much more than that! What an incredibly interesting conversation! I'm going to have a hard time falling asleep tonight, my head is spinning! Loved this! Peace and love in Christ and our Father in heaven, the things he has made and the minds he has given us are SO incredible! ❤
Thank you so much for being interested and engaging respectfully with the other side on this issue. It takes a lot of discipline to seek out the other sides' points and arguments actively. :)
@@jholts6912 well truth be told theists or atheists at the end of the day we all try to figure out the mystery of our existence and our place (if we have one) in this universe etc...So yes I'd say we all have the same goal and different people just take different routes all worth pursuing until we know for sure
I'm atheist as well but, even though the topics are enthralling, the discussion is very biased and generally steered away from a scientific purpose and more towards a Christian agenda. (And I've seen many debunkings of these discussions) Unfortunately I can't take this discussions seriously since they're so one-sided even though a few of the topics are quite important.
I love how this discussion is an exploration in why reasoning can lead to theism and in the comments there are a bunch of atheists in the comments going "bUt iTs NOt HaRd PrOoF tHoUgH!". Hahaha, no kidding, smoothbrain. God doesn't fit into a test tube, you have to rationalize based on what the evidence does provide you.
Exactly, the definition of God would contradict the scientific method because, God is not defined as being able to be observed, tested, or repeated. God is Spirit not subject to matter and energy but eternal and having a will to create. God is non dependent and eternal perfect in nature and purpose and revealed Himself through creation and the Holy Bible and Historically. No other religion can do such thing including atheism
Excellent point. It’s as if they want some type of physical discrete object. They don’t realize that reality clearly is not a purely physical phenomenon.
You know, I've been running into a lot of Muslims lately, oddly enough, and I honestly find the stark contrast between the conversations I have with other Christians and those that I have with Muslims to be overwhelming. I feel Islam doesnt ALLOW people to think like this, to investigate their beliefs on this level, and somehow I feel like that, in and of itself, while not being a real argument or proof of anything, seems to somehow point to the TRUTH of Christianity at LEAST over Islam, because Christianity encourages us to think about these things instead of condemning and excluding this kind of investigation into truth, I feel like if Muslims were allowed to think even half this deeply about their OWN religious foundations there would be no more Islam. Does what I'm saying make ANY sense?
Christianity isn't any more "truth" than Islam or any other mythological narratives. I also find it laughable that you assert Christianity encourages questioning, when the reality is rather different. What so often passes for "questioning" in the context of Christianity seems to be little more than searching for justifications for the a priori belief. Little more than celebrating confirmation bias, from what I've seen.
I think your anecdotal experience of Muslims isn't really relevant. The Kalam cosmological argument was discovered by Muslim theologians. Like other religions that acknowledge that there is only one god, Islam has a rich history of philosophical inquiry. And why wouldn't it? Muhammad stole the best parts of Islam from the Judeochristian tradition. So it's not at all surprising that Averroes and Maimonides reached similar conclusions to St. Thomas Aquinas. Like any major world religion, Islam exists within many independent but interrelated cultural contexts. So to say the religion doesn't "allow" people to think deeply about their religion, without first investigating the diversity of cultures within which Islam predominates, would be ridiculous. It's manifestly false on its face, since Islam has many centuries of written history that tell us about the state of theology and philosophy (including natural sciences but also natural theology) in Islam. There have been all sorts of Muslim cultures and empires. Some have encouraged philosophical thought, and some haven't. Islam is no longer said to be in a "golden age," of course, but it's not like it's a new religion. The same religion has produced many types of cultures, just like Christianity. If you're going to criticize Islam as a whole for the fact that some Muslims have their heads in the sand, then they can equally criticize Christianity as a whole for the fact that some Christians have their heads in the sand. I find many American fundamentalist Christians to be very rigid in their thinking and ignorant of their own religion. Actually, statistical studies demonstrate that this is an actual correlation, not merely my own personal anecdotal observation. But that didn't stop me from converting to Christianity, because I'm capable of recognizing that the stubborn ignorance of a specific subculture of Christians is not necessarily a consequence of their religion. As with televangelists and the "prosperity gospel," it's probably more a consequence of the United States' consumerist culture than anything else. Since I wanted to learn about the authentic intellectual tradition of Christianity, I quickly realized that the primary strain of Christian thought (the one that has predominated and continued without interruption for two thousand years) is very sophisticated and hungry for knowledge. I have done the same kind of research on Islam. However, the reason I'm now Catholic and not Muslim isn't because I think the Christian intellectual tradition is better than the Muslim tradition. It's because Christianity is true. Islam is just an early medieval scam that co-opts some true elements from Christianity and Judaism. That doesn't mean brilliant people supported by well-founded civilizations can't develop truly groundbreaking philosophy and science on the basis of a scam. Islam may be fraudulent, but Islamic philosophy is still incredibly deep, at least historically speaking.
Goodness, there are so many terrible comments by atheists here. I wish I could respond to all of them but it is just not worth the time, most of you are not even here to discuss, y'all are here to just repeat talking points, and flap around and say "hahah dumb theists"
David Julian - let's avoid all those bad comments. I am not going to tell you how wrong you are. I am not going to make any assumptions about you. Just one simple question, asking for an honest answer. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
@J.W. H. verifiable evidence is evidence that can be objectively verified. It is the basis of all reality in this world. The existence every real thing or force that exists in this world can be measured, weighed, counted, or demonstrated. I doubt that you can name a single thing or force whose existence cannot be confirmed with at least one of those attributes. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
@J.W. H. you say, "Ok so verifiable evidence equals scientific evidence. " Those are your words. Mine are good enough for me as they stand. The rest of that paragraph is more of the same, your words, not mine. They are irrelevant to my question, so I'm not interested in whatever they are talking about or wherever you think they lead. If you want to argue them, help yourself. But not with me. Same goes for your assumptions and "interpretations in different ways." You want to offer argument. I'm asking for evidence. Two different things. I'm not interested in argument. You say, "I assume you mean . . . " is just more strawman. You can talk or write all you want about your assumptions, but they are irrelevant, argumentative diversion. They are a totally different conversation. Not interested thank you. It's interesting, after all those words, they you did not address the interior issue of your inability to name a single real object or force that lacks that kind of evidence. I am not aware of any, I don't hear that you do either. It might be something we agree on, if you do offer a straight answer. Your final answer (below) to the core question in this dialog says that's something you are capable of doing. I commend you - seriously, I do - for the candor of your answer at the end of your comment stating that you do not have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god. I have never met anyone who offers an honest answer that includes objectively verifiable evidence. Do you believe in a god?
@J.W. H. asks "Ok then let me ask you what you mean by “objectively verifiable evidence” What is it about my previous answer to that question that is not clear? As a lawyer might say when that happens in a court, "I object to the question. It's been asked and answered." You say, :I did name such things. Morals, the existence of universals, the act potency distinction, God, so many other things. Things that are real and we can know through logic and reason alone (something which I am unsure of which you would count as objective verifiable evidence). " Now we have a huge problem. You wanted to put words in my mouth and when I refused to let that happen, you want to invent words you did not say. How can we have a rational dialog when you keep inventing diversions? And BTW, had you actually said what you claimed to have said, I would suggest you do not understand a "real thing" when you claim that "morals, the existence of universals etc " are real things. OK, that's your definition, and you are entitled to it. Do you acquire and use and share them by the pound? The yard? But I already defined real things and forces for the purpose of this dialog - and your "morals, universal things" do not fit the definition at the core of my question. You can continue to co-opt and change the question. But not if you want to talk with me. Please stop telling me what you think I think. Stop claiming you said things you did not. It's a deadend. It makes you look like an overeager, indoctrinated 14 year old. If you do not what to discuss things that cannot be measured, weighed, etc, etc" - that again is *your* topic of interest. I have no interest in that. I want to discuss the existence of real things and forces as I understand reality. You say, "I do believe in God. God’s existence can be demonstrated through reason alone. " Good for you. Do you keep your Noble Prize on the shelf or in a closet? Where did you publish this amazing, one-of-a-kind thesis? But you did explicitly agree that you have no verifiable evidence based on the very clear definition of evidence that you asked for and then accepted. Post hoc you want to change that definition to explain why you did not honestly answer the question. And you think I would engage in philosophic dialog with someone who exhibits such dishonesty? Really? Do you want to change your answer?? Here's your chance. "Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
It *is* verifiable *if* any of the highly-developed *philosophical* arguments go through- “verifiable” in the sense that other thinkers can likewise follow the steps of the arguments and can’t refute the premises. Obviously, whether or not such arguments actually work is very controversial, with sophisticated philosophers on both sides. But that doesn’t mean both sides are equally right or equally well-argued for. If, on the other hand, you’re defining “verifiable” as “physically-discoverable” or something akin to experimentally testing a hypothesis (in the way we would test the hypothesis that a particular drug will have particular effects), then *no,* classical and neoclassical theism are not verifiable. But that fact in itself does nothing to undermine the aforementioned philosophical arguments and does nothing to make classical theism and/or neoclassical theism less plausible. To think otherwise is to insinuate that science (as defined earlier) captures *all* of reality, which in this context would surely be begging the question by assuming ahead of time the falsehood of classical theism (which is not a scientific hypothesis and couldn't be in principle). In other words, what we really ought to focus on are the philosophical arguments for classical theism and the back-and-forth points on those arguments. Asking for scientific evidence is literally a category error and completely irrelevant. If you disagree then there's no point in further conversation, sorry.
Josh’s “Anything exists” is a lot like Descartes’s “I think therefore I am.” Descartes and Josh both say even if they’re fooling themselves, that would still be something doing something.
God is Being (I Am)---Being, of itself and without origin, is the singularly self-evident argument. God is Love--- It is nature of Being to continually give of itself, for all that is partakes of Being. God is triune--- to give is relational. As Being is singular this relation is intrinsic to Being. God is personal--- self-reflection is the inner relationship which constitutes consciousness.
In his book he explains how emergentism is basically just a relabeling of the mystery. Saying that consciousness "emerges" from underlying neurochemistry doesn't explain how such a thing is possible.
@@CapturingChristianity Except there's a fairly large field of science that addresses the question of how consciousness emerges from material brains, called Neuroscience. It's not just a mere labeling as a placeholder, there are actual experiments conducted and data collected.
@@CapturingChristianity Ok that seems reasonable, though maybe not so persuasive. Couldn't you show that emergent properties occur in nature and then infer that the mind could work similarly?
@Ju Err Nobody knows anything about the soul, if they did it would be front page news all over the world. Read some actual neuroscience instead of 'Christian apologetic neuroscience' and you might learn something about reality.
Another great discussion. What I don't understand is how necessity is an explanation. You can still ask why that thing is necessary, I heard Josh before saying that something necessary is also necessary that it's necessary. I don't know how you avoid circularity or infinite regress. Isn't the a necessary thing still contingent on the fact of it's necessity, what is it's necessity contingent on, and so on.
Great question Luke! Necessity, does at the face of it seem very circular and does seem to lead to an infinite regress. However, it seems also true that given the nature of purely contingent things like me and the tablet I am typing on, that there should be something which exists by its own nature. Take for example the proposition, "x + y = z; therefore, x = z - y". Why is it true? Because of the necessary mathmatical and logical axioms undergerding the proposition. (Here I am referencing the concepts/logic behind both the semantics and the statement itself) But of course one can continue to ask why those axioms are true. In logic it seems like the only way one can get by. Namely, by assuming some absolutes. So in order to aviod a regress we can just postulate that there must be an end to things and thus there is a necessary. But perhaps u find this reasoning shaky. Fine, then we can just reason as follows: if a infinite regress and circularity are in fact unreasonable then we are justified in say that there must be an absolute or necessary that is itself not contingent upon any further reason. Just like logic itself. Why does logic work and is true? Well, we have to assume that it is just the absolute fabric of truth itself and nothing cango beyond it. Plus, we can also point out that the opposite of assuming that something must be necessary is much worse. Take, for example, the explanation of contingently existing things. Why do they exist? They just do. Its a brute fact. There is no explanation. Now you might say, "But wait, why can't I just stop at a brute fact about the universe's existence this seems simpler and I need not postulate any absolutes". The reasons this is fallacious is because simplicity is always beholden to explanatory power and in so far as it is possible that there be a further explanation we should take it. That is until we are forced to the explanatory edge which is the aboslute. In fact, it just is the reasoning that we need to follow the chain of explanation until its simplest end in a absolute that leads us to the necessary fact of reality like logic itself. Furthermore, say u do want to just use brute facts becuase there simpler. Then you can just say that nothing exists and there is no logic. Becuase its simpler. Seriously, take the outside world, its simpler that it doesn't exist. Ofc then u ask why do I have this experience of the outside world? Brute fact! But we can go further and say that u don't even exist. U will argue "but its evident that I exist for there must be an explanation of "I think therefore I am"". Answer, brute fact. But why are there brute facts? Brute fact. Why? Brute fact. Ad infitum. What about reason? Why ask such a question? there is no reason only brute facts. It only gets worse and thus, is just utterly self defeating. I know this might seem like a lot and might not at first glance seem like a sufficient reasponse, but it seems to be after further thought and I hope it helps. :)
"What I don't understand is how necessity is an explanation." Because it is the conclusion of an argument. Once one understands the distinction between _contingency_ and _necessity_ it becomes an unavoidable conclusion that there much be some necessarily existing foundation to the universe. "You can still ask why that thing is necessary.” Some argue that numbers exist _necessarily._ For example, there is no possible universe in which _one_ does not exist. You could, I suppose, ask _why_ _one_ is necessary, but I think the answer would be that it's the nature of _one_ itself to exist necessarily. By its very nature, _one_ cannot _not_ exist. To exist necessarily is simply to say that by its very nature it cannot _not_ exist. To attempt to posit a universe or possible world in which the thing in question does not exist leads to logical incoherence. To "ask why that thing is necessary" is simply to ask what about its nature makes it impossible for it to not exist. I don’t see the circularity in the question. To say "isn’t a necessary thing contingent on the fact of its necessity" is to misunderstand the distinction between essence and existence. _That_ a thing is is not the same as _what_ it is. So no, that a necessary thing exists is not contingent on its necessity.
J Holts *I loved how u distinguished between essence and existence* Thanks, but it’s really just the standard Aristotelian distinction, so I can’t take any credit for it :8)
@@jholts6912 'it seems also true that given the nature of purely contingent things like me and the tablet I am typing on, that there should be something which exists by its own nature' It doesn't seem like it to me, although it seems like a possibility. I would still want to know why that thing has such a nature. Could the universe not be that thing that exists by it's own nature? I understand that maths and logic might be necessary but since we are asking why there is something rather than nothing, would mathematical and logical axioms still be true if there was nothing rather than something? If so I see know reason that there could not also be physical laws that could cause the universe to come into being, it seems like the most reasonable step to take. We do assume logical absolutes but that is because we have to for our epistemology, but does that mean they are absolute ontologically? It is fallacious to reason that if an infinite regress and circularity are unreasonable then there must be something necessary. I'm not yet convinced that necessity is any more reasonable. I just think it's an unsolved or unsolvable problem. 'in so far as it is possible that there be a further explanation we should take it'. I just don't see any situation in which a further explanation is not possible. I've explained why that is the case even with something necessary. Your explanation of brute facts being a poor explanation is exactly why I think necessity is a poor explanation. It is necessary that it is necessary that it is necessary... Brute fact is no more or less 'self defeating' than necessity.
CC: 1:05:05-1:05:10 "If christianity is true then there is really nothing to worry about" Me: Well except for this little place called Hell that everybody has one chance in two to go to
Idealism just says that everything is reducible to and constructed from mind. But that's basically what theism is. if you believe God is a mind and that everything that exists is reducible to God then that's basically idealism. There's really no good reason to prefer substance dualism over idealism if you're a Christian.
I am from india. I was a christian. Now am agnostic between materialism and various form pansychism and idealism.. first i am seeing some body from christian apologetic who is open to idealism and panpsychism. If i would say indian philosophical tradition is a complex construction of reality with idealistic monism+cosmo psychism +panpsychism rather than pantheism even though pantheism and panenthiesm is suitable in some sense. Advaita philosophy is very popular but 'samkhya' is quite intresting. Whenever i hear arguments in line with classic theistic tradition i feel it is compatiable with vedantic world view. I read some hindu philosophic literature in our local language using Aquinas arguments for vedantic world view. Even though terminologies are different. Even 'THE ONE 'philosophy of ancient greece also have close similarity with vedanta. A discussion with Ben Kastrup and josh rasmussen will be an intresting one. I think kastrup have a strong version of idealism.
Neoplatonist philosophy is a very similar metaphysical system to Vedanta (idealistic monism, panentheism), and it influenced a number of Christian theologians.
Apparently the UA-cam thought police don't like my comment as they keep putting lines through it---- God is Being (I Am)--Being, of itself and without origin, is the singularly self-evident argument. God is Love-- It is nature of Being to continually give of itself, for all that is partakes of Being. God is triune--- to give is relational. As Being is singular this relation is intrinsic to Being. God is personal--- self-reflection is the inner relationship which constitutes consciousness.
It always seem to me that anyone who understood the worlds within worlds using microscopic details of the world it’s animals insects way the world works, there is no way they can explain how it all came about without an intellect outside of us. They couldn’t possibly be as intelligent as they claim to be. I don’t know if I explained that well. I’m not one of the intelligent ones I guess. Lol. I hope you guys understand what I mean
Nothing but an argument from incredulity. You cannot imagine how it could be without a magical "God" therefore it must be that "God" Completely fallacious and useless.
aside for the ad hominem, you clearly know nothing about what atheist means. Atheists are not believers, they are skeptics who say without verifiable evidence for the existence of a god, you cannot rationally claim the existence of a god. That's the entire atheist position. Individuals may have more to say, or less, but that simple unwillingness to accept an assertion of a god without verifiable evidence for the existence of a god is the core atheist position. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
@@JoeHarkinsHimself what you've described is agnosticism. Planet size brained internet atheists have tried to change it to mean atheism. The classic definition of atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
@@serenaistheb.o.a.t nope, nope, nope . . . if you are not describing yourself when you say "atheist" you do not get to define what that word means. Words are DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. Another way of putting it is . . . "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all." Language like "planet size brain" is just a gratuitous insult, not an invitation to an honest rational dialog. Of course, you could change my mind. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
Lawrence Eason technically the demonstrable evidence would be the incarnation death and resurrection as historical events (which we have more evidence for than plenty of other ancient figures that we generally believe are real). But beyond that, there’s no “demonstrable evidence” we don’t live in a simulation. your reason works within a paradigm from which you can reason to conclusions, and for Christians that paradigm is through revelation. For atheists it’s an undefined nebulous that can lead to as many conclusions as there are atheists, all of them contradicting. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness”
@@TheApple411 embellishments are commonplace in fables and myths. Especially in ancient times. People who were looked up to elevated as gods and performing miracles. The Caesars were elevated as gods. In present times Kim Jung-Un called a god. The emperor of Japan was a god. When it comes to evidence we cannot test, such as a "resurrection", we look to observed evidence. There is zero evidence that a resurrection is at all possible
Lawrence Eason it’s not naturally possible, which is exactly the point; it’s super natural. There is absolutely a rock solid case from people of faith to atheists that Jesus was sentenced to crucifixion by Pontias Pilate, that an empty tomb was discovered and that multitudes of people reported having seen this character named Jesus after his death. Is that a logical proof? no; but all of the historical evidence supports the claim of a resurrection; and if it were demonstrably false then it would be odd that historical evidence doesn’t even seem to suggest that
@@TheApple411 can you demonstrate anything that is supernatural? Can you demonstrate anything that comes close to a human rising up after being a corpse for 3 days? I have no problem with the idea of a man named Jesus who lived 2,000 years ago. But as I say, fables and superstitions contain many embellishments
Lawrence Eason do you realize what you’re asking when ask to demonstrate something super natural? by their philosophical definitions the super natural can not be demonstrated through natural experiments. But if evidence is our only guide to truth, then what evidence do you have that morality exists? did you conduct research to find out murder is wrong? or is that an intuition? what research could ever prove that murder is objectively wrong? my point is that things we take to be objectively True aren’t in every case (or frankly in most cases) based on evidence, they’re based on experience; and I think reducing the pursuit of True knowledge to the scientific method is mere prejudice against the possibility that something exists beyond the natural world that science and evidence is limited to
What are you up to right now? "Something super exciting, I can't say". What a tease. unsubscribing. And his name sounds like Rasputin. That's two wrongs.
God is immoral In the case of the murder of all Amelikite babies, this god commanded their genocide. 1 Samuel 15:2-3 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” So here is my challenge. God had choices and chose: 1. To make human beings into baby killers, traumatizing them for life instead of god doing the dirty deed itself 2. Instead of killing these babies in a painless and humane manner, god chose bloodshed, pain and suffering, chopping and stabbing them into bloody bits for the crows to feed So here is my question: 1. God could have gently and humanely taken these babies to heaven Or 2. God commanded human beings to be baby killers...for armed warriors to chop and stab defenseless, crying babies into bloody pieces for the crows to feed This god chose #2. Now, if this god is a moral god, you or your bible should have no problem explaining how it's moral to choose #2. I await the answer
"reason" that does not have the solid support of verifiable evidence is just empty argument. You cannot name any thing or force that exists in this world but cannot be measured, counted, weighed, defined, described or demonstrated using verifiable evidence for its existence. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
@Classical Theist00 argument without evidence is argument. that's why it is called argument. Evidence is evidence. You cannot name any thing or force that exists in this world but cannot be measured, counted, weighed, defined, described or demonstrated using verifiable evidence for its existence. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
It seems clear that the way reason leads to God is if you have a prior belief in it. That's what apparently lead Josh to devise his arguments, he said so himself! Or rather, he said he wanted to avoid that, whilst obviously demonstrating for anyone not asleep that confirming his desperate wishes was precisely what he ended up doing. There is no contradiction in the possibility that everything within existence has a reason, but that existence itself has no reason. To claim otherwise is to commit the fallacy of composition. Why can't existence itself be the ultimate foundation, and not a God? Because Josh doesn't like that conclusion. He's a very nice guy though all the same, very enthusiastic and genuine-seeming, even if his arguments are pure confirmation bias.
@@jacobkats3670 Jacob, I'm pretty familiar with Josh's arguments already, I've seen several videos of his, read a number of articles discussing his arguments, read a couple of his own papers and exchanged an email with the man. If what he says about himself on UA-cam is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, I'm well aware why he believes what he believes. He prayed to a God he desperately wanted to believe in, and wouldn't you just know it, the 'light of reason' just lead him to that conclusion. Shocking! Will reading the book make his statements in this and other videos magically disappear, and show how this is not a blatant demonstration of the human capacity for self-deception?
Matt Smith If the components of the totality of all contingent facts failed to exist in some possible world, then the totality would fail to exist in that possible world, for there is no totality apart from the parts which compose it, that is to say, a composite whole is not ontologically distinct from its constituent parts. Since there is a possible world where no contingent facts exist, then there is a possible world where the totality of all contingent facts does not exist, making that totality in turn contingent. Surely no fallacy of composition committed here. By the PSR, the totality of all contingent facts requires an external explanation, and that explanation must involve a necessary being with the omni-attributes. On a side note: try to be a little more charitable to theists. I'm certain that Josh has gone through Russel's objections to the contingency argument, it's not like theists are incapable of sound reasoning.
@@johnanderson9330 John, there are holes you could drive a truck through in the arguments you just presented. Quite frankly they are full of gibberish. Do I need to go through them one by one? One of the biggest failures is that just imagining a thing failing to exist does not demonstrate that it it possible. Perhaps it's possible for, let's say, the present configuration of the moon to fail to exist, but what about the matter/energy from which it is composed? Why would we imagine the PSR has to apply to the Universe, if the Universe if absolutely everything in reality? You can't get 'external' to that! Why would omni-properties be 'necessary' when they are incompossible? I'm being perfectly charitable to Josh, who seems an intelligent, thoughtful and generous person, but that doesn't stop me from noticing the elephant in the room.
@@dongadon8697 Maybe we just don't know how it got here and using evolved ape logic to argue that whatever created it is strangely similar to us is just absurd.
@@dongadon8697 no. Nobody knows how the universe started. Only you theists PRETEND to know without ANY evidence. So saying "the universe created itself" is a theistic claim. No atheist or scientist will ever make such a claim. Ever.
Why think it is a hallucination? In the absence of some overriding defeater I should simply believe what seems most obvious to me. Namely, that God exists and is in fact giving me commands/comments. Just like in the absence of some overriding defeater I should simply believe what seems most obvious to me. Namely, the existence of the external world and the existence other persons. Yes, both beliefs could be illusory but I have no reason to think so beyond the mere possiblity and am rational in accepting them until I am given some overriding defeater.
@@jholts6912 "Why think it is a hallucination?" Because it is a fact proven by psychiatric medical science community. The fact simply is that if you are hearing voices giving you commands/comments, then you are hallucinating. If you don't like that fact then I suggest you contact the psychiatric medical science community. Google them to get their contact info.
@@jholts6912 I'm not saying God does or doesn't exist because there is no evidence to prove either way. I'm saying you are hallucinating when you have reached a conclusion out of arguments from ignorance that God of the Bible exists and is giving you commands/comments, just because a primitive slavery promoting book claims itself to be the holy truth.
@@jholts6912 I'm not saying you should stop hallucinating whatever makes you happy and helps you stay out of trouble. I'm saying if you happen to have been born in Saudi Arabia, you would now most likely be hallucinating that Allah, not the God of the Bible, is giving you comments/commands.
@@AtamMardes oh dear. I dont think u understand what a Christian means by hearing recieving commands/comments. It's not like I hear a actual voice whispering in my head. What Christian's mean is that they have an intuitive sense or a "sense of divinity" as John Calvin calls it. This has been somewhat proven empirically by psychology of religion. However, my main point is that it's more of a sense than it is a voice. It would be like if your in the forest at night and see a tiger in front of u. U would sense danger. It's the best I can compare it too but it's a bit more complex than that
@@derekmizer6293 and how were your cognitive faculties of reasoning formed? Assuming that by cognitive faculties of reasoning I mean merely those capacities of your brain to do that which one understands to be logic and reason in the properly basic way in which they are understood. Essentially, I am asking if you have a reasonable mechanism of how your faculties are formed in order than they would be aimed toward truth. Moreover, is there a way in which your faculties ought to function? Is there a properly functioning way in which they would operate such that they would act in the confines and in agreement with the objective reality of truth and reason?
Man! I clicked on this just wanting something to listen to while I made lunches for my kids and husband for tomorrow but it's been SO much more than that! What an incredibly interesting conversation! I'm going to have a hard time falling asleep tonight, my head is spinning! Loved this! Peace and love in Christ and our Father in heaven, the things he has made and the minds he has given us are SO incredible! ❤
PRAISE GOD for Prof. Josh Rasmussen
big fan
Hallucination, not reason, leads to God. You are hallucinating if you think an invisible being is giving you commands/comments.
@@AtamMardes wow, you are so smart.
find out how smart you are: ua-cam.com/video/UD7YrsG8dVg/v-deo.html
@
Wow you are so dumb. Only a fool believes a book just because the book claims itself to be the holy truth.
@@AtamMardes you must be a philosopher?
I'm an atheist but I like this channel, always good discussions and food for thoughts. Keep it up
Thank you so much for being interested and engaging respectfully with the other side on this issue. It takes a lot of discipline to seek out the other sides' points and arguments actively. :)
@@jholts6912 well truth be told theists or atheists at the end of the day we all try to figure out the mystery of our existence and our place (if we have one) in this universe etc...So yes I'd say we all have the same goal and different people just take different routes all worth pursuing until we know for sure
@@vjnt1star: Well said.
I'm atheist as well but, even though the topics are enthralling, the discussion is very biased and generally steered away from a scientific purpose and more towards a Christian agenda. (And I've seen many debunkings of these discussions)
Unfortunately I can't take this discussions seriously since they're so one-sided even though a few of the topics are quite important.
@@up2nogod771 I can tell you don't watch the channel
I love how this discussion is an exploration in why reasoning can lead to theism and in the comments there are a bunch of atheists in the comments going "bUt iTs NOt HaRd PrOoF tHoUgH!". Hahaha, no kidding, smoothbrain. God doesn't fit into a test tube, you have to rationalize based on what the evidence does provide you.
Exactly, the definition of God would contradict the scientific method because, God is not defined as being able to be observed, tested, or repeated. God is Spirit not subject to matter and energy but eternal and having a will to create. God is non dependent and eternal perfect in nature and purpose and revealed Himself through creation and the Holy Bible and Historically. No other religion can do such thing including atheism
Excellent point. It’s as if they want some type of physical discrete object. They don’t realize that reality clearly is not a purely physical phenomenon.
@@whatistruth6375 can you demonstrate any of that to be true?
You know, I've been running into a lot of Muslims lately, oddly enough, and I honestly find the stark contrast between the conversations I have with other Christians and those that I have with Muslims to be overwhelming. I feel Islam doesnt ALLOW people to think like this, to investigate their beliefs on this level, and somehow I feel like that, in and of itself, while not being a real argument or proof of anything, seems to somehow point to the TRUTH of Christianity at LEAST over Islam, because Christianity encourages us to think about these things instead of condemning and excluding this kind of investigation into truth, I feel like if Muslims were allowed to think even half this deeply about their OWN religious foundations there would be no more Islam. Does what I'm saying make ANY sense?
Christianity isn't any more "truth" than Islam or any other mythological narratives. I also find it laughable that you assert Christianity encourages questioning, when the reality is rather different. What so often passes for "questioning" in the context of Christianity seems to be little more than searching for justifications for the a priori belief. Little more than celebrating confirmation bias, from what I've seen.
@@forkliftwizard Yes and I'm sure you question your views and are completely free of bias.
Yes.
@@forkliftwizard What's your basis for believing that?
I think your anecdotal experience of Muslims isn't really relevant. The Kalam cosmological argument was discovered by Muslim theologians. Like other religions that acknowledge that there is only one god, Islam has a rich history of philosophical inquiry. And why wouldn't it? Muhammad stole the best parts of Islam from the Judeochristian tradition. So it's not at all surprising that Averroes and Maimonides reached similar conclusions to St. Thomas Aquinas. Like any major world religion, Islam exists within many independent but interrelated cultural contexts.
So to say the religion doesn't "allow" people to think deeply about their religion, without first investigating the diversity of cultures within which Islam predominates, would be ridiculous. It's manifestly false on its face, since Islam has many centuries of written history that tell us about the state of theology and philosophy (including natural sciences but also natural theology) in Islam. There have been all sorts of Muslim cultures and empires. Some have encouraged philosophical thought, and some haven't. Islam is no longer said to be in a "golden age," of course, but it's not like it's a new religion. The same religion has produced many types of cultures, just like Christianity.
If you're going to criticize Islam as a whole for the fact that some Muslims have their heads in the sand, then they can equally criticize Christianity as a whole for the fact that some Christians have their heads in the sand. I find many American fundamentalist Christians to be very rigid in their thinking and ignorant of their own religion. Actually, statistical studies demonstrate that this is an actual correlation, not merely my own personal anecdotal observation. But that didn't stop me from converting to Christianity, because I'm capable of recognizing that the stubborn ignorance of a specific subculture of Christians is not necessarily a consequence of their religion. As with televangelists and the "prosperity gospel," it's probably more a consequence of the United States' consumerist culture than anything else.
Since I wanted to learn about the authentic intellectual tradition of Christianity, I quickly realized that the primary strain of Christian thought (the one that has predominated and continued without interruption for two thousand years) is very sophisticated and hungry for knowledge. I have done the same kind of research on Islam. However, the reason I'm now Catholic and not Muslim isn't because I think the Christian intellectual tradition is better than the Muslim tradition. It's because Christianity is true. Islam is just an early medieval scam that co-opts some true elements from Christianity and Judaism. That doesn't mean brilliant people supported by well-founded civilizations can't develop truly groundbreaking philosophy and science on the basis of a scam. Islam may be fraudulent, but Islamic philosophy is still incredibly deep, at least historically speaking.
Awesome book thanks DrJosh for your work
Thanks.Added book to my wish list to order later when I get paid.
Goodness, there are so many terrible comments by atheists here. I wish I could respond to all of them but it is just not worth the time, most of you are not even here to discuss, y'all are here to just repeat talking points, and flap around and say "hahah dumb theists"
David Julian - let's avoid all those bad comments. I am not going to tell you how wrong you are. I am not going to make any assumptions about you. Just one simple question, asking for an honest answer. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
@J.W. H. verifiable evidence is evidence that can be objectively verified. It is the basis of all reality in this world. The existence every real thing or force that exists in this world can be measured, weighed, counted, or demonstrated. I doubt that you can name a single thing or force whose existence cannot be confirmed with at least one of those attributes.
Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
@J.W. H. you say, "Ok so verifiable evidence equals scientific evidence. " Those are your words. Mine are good enough for me as they stand. The rest of that paragraph is more of the same, your words, not mine. They are irrelevant to my question, so I'm not interested in whatever they are talking about or wherever you think they lead. If you want to argue them, help yourself. But not with me.
Same goes for your assumptions and "interpretations in different ways." You want to offer argument. I'm asking for evidence. Two different things. I'm not interested in argument.
You say, "I assume you mean . . . " is just more strawman. You can talk or write all you want about your assumptions, but they are irrelevant, argumentative diversion. They are a totally different conversation. Not interested thank you.
It's interesting, after all those words, they you did not address the interior issue of your inability to name a single real object or force that lacks that kind of evidence. I am not aware of any, I don't hear that you do either. It might be something we agree on, if you do offer a straight answer.
Your final answer (below) to the core question in this dialog says that's something you are capable of doing.
I commend you - seriously, I do - for the candor of your answer at the end of your comment stating that you do not have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god. I have never met anyone who offers an honest answer that includes objectively verifiable evidence. Do you believe in a god?
@J.W. H. asks "Ok then let me ask you what you mean by “objectively verifiable evidence” What is it about my previous answer to that question that is not clear? As a lawyer might say when that happens in a court, "I object to the question. It's been asked and answered."
You say, :I did name such things. Morals, the existence of universals, the act potency distinction, God, so many other things. Things that are real and we can know through logic and reason alone (something which I am unsure of which you would count as objective verifiable evidence).
"
Now we have a huge problem. You wanted to put words in my mouth and when I refused to let that happen, you want to invent words you did not say.
How can we have a rational dialog when you keep inventing diversions?
And BTW, had you actually said what you claimed to have said, I would suggest you do not understand a "real thing" when you claim that "morals, the existence of universals etc " are real things. OK, that's your definition, and you are entitled to it. Do you acquire and use and share them by the pound? The yard?
But I already defined real things and forces for the purpose of this dialog - and your "morals, universal things" do not fit the definition at the core of my question. You can continue to co-opt and change the question. But not if you want to talk with me.
Please stop telling me what you think I think. Stop claiming you said things you did not. It's a deadend. It makes you look like an overeager, indoctrinated 14 year old.
If you do not what to discuss things that cannot be measured, weighed, etc, etc" - that again is *your* topic of interest. I have no interest in that. I want to discuss the existence of real things and forces as I understand reality.
You say, "I do believe in God. God’s existence can be demonstrated through reason alone. " Good for you. Do you keep your Noble Prize on the shelf or in a closet? Where did you publish this amazing, one-of-a-kind thesis?
But you did explicitly agree that you have no verifiable evidence based on the very clear definition of evidence that you asked for and then accepted. Post hoc you want to change that definition to explain why you did not honestly answer the question. And you think I would engage in philosophic dialog with someone who exhibits such dishonesty? Really?
Do you want to change your answer?? Here's your chance. "Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
It *is* verifiable *if* any of the highly-developed *philosophical* arguments go through- “verifiable” in the sense that other thinkers can likewise follow the steps of the arguments and can’t refute the premises. Obviously, whether or not such arguments actually work is very controversial, with sophisticated philosophers on both sides. But that doesn’t mean both sides are equally right or equally well-argued for.
If, on the other hand, you’re defining “verifiable” as “physically-discoverable” or something akin to experimentally testing a hypothesis (in the way we would test the hypothesis that a particular drug will have particular effects), then *no,* classical and neoclassical theism are not verifiable. But that fact in itself does nothing to undermine the aforementioned philosophical arguments and does nothing to make classical theism and/or neoclassical theism less plausible. To think otherwise is to insinuate that science (as defined earlier) captures *all* of reality, which in this context would surely be begging the question by assuming ahead of time the falsehood of classical theism (which is not a scientific hypothesis and couldn't be in principle).
In other words, what we really ought to focus on are the philosophical arguments for classical theism and the back-and-forth points on those arguments. Asking for scientific evidence is literally a category error and completely irrelevant. If you disagree then there's no point in further conversation, sorry.
Samuel Clarke from the 18th century wrote about this, the being and attributes of God against objections from Hobbes and Espinoza.
Josh’s “Anything exists” is a lot like Descartes’s “I think therefore I am.” Descartes and Josh both say even if they’re fooling themselves, that would still be something doing something.
I wish the materialists would practice logical consistency and turn over their metaphysical money to the rest of us.
How is money metaphysical?
God is Being (I Am)---Being, of itself and without origin, is the singularly self-evident argument. God is Love--- It is nature of Being to continually give of itself, for all that is partakes of Being. God is triune--- to give is relational. As Being is singular this relation is intrinsic to Being. God is personal--- self-reflection is the inner relationship which constitutes consciousness.
This is quality content to have such few followers and views... I follow RZIM and Turek’s channel but I find myself watching these over those
Do you have plans to post more on iTunes? This is content I can digest in strictly audio format
Question for Josh: Do you deny that mind is an emergent property of the material brain? What are your reasons if yes?
In his book he explains how emergentism is basically just a relabeling of the mystery. Saying that consciousness "emerges" from underlying neurochemistry doesn't explain how such a thing is possible.
@@CapturingChristianity
Except there's a fairly large field of science that addresses the question of how consciousness emerges from material brains, called Neuroscience. It's not just a mere labeling as a placeholder, there are actual experiments conducted and data collected.
@@CapturingChristianity Ok that seems reasonable, though maybe not so persuasive. Couldn't you show that emergent properties occur in nature and then infer that the mind could work similarly?
@Ju Err
Nobody knows anything about the soul, if they did it would be front page news all over the world.
Read some actual neuroscience instead of 'Christian apologetic neuroscience' and you might learn something about reality.
@@mattsmith1440 what is a good article/book that shows, or at least points to evidence of an emergent mind?
God’s existence leads to reason is the better format of discussion imo
Another great discussion. What I don't understand is how necessity is an explanation. You can still ask why that thing is necessary, I heard Josh before saying that something necessary is also necessary that it's necessary. I don't know how you avoid circularity or infinite regress. Isn't the a necessary thing still contingent on the fact of it's necessity, what is it's necessity contingent on, and so on.
Great question Luke! Necessity, does at the face of it seem very circular and does seem to lead to an infinite regress. However, it seems also true that given the nature of purely contingent things like me and the tablet I am typing on, that there should be something which exists by its own nature. Take for example the proposition, "x + y = z; therefore, x = z - y". Why is it true? Because of the necessary mathmatical and logical axioms undergerding the proposition. (Here I am referencing the concepts/logic behind both the semantics and the statement itself) But of course one can continue to ask why those axioms are true. In logic it seems like the only way one can get by. Namely, by assuming some absolutes. So in order to aviod a regress we can just postulate that there must be an end to things and thus there is a necessary. But perhaps u find this reasoning shaky. Fine, then we can just reason as follows: if a infinite regress and circularity are in fact unreasonable then we are justified in say that there must be an absolute or necessary that is itself not contingent upon any further reason. Just like logic itself. Why does logic work and is true? Well, we have to assume that it is just the absolute fabric of truth itself and nothing cango beyond it. Plus, we can also point out that the opposite of assuming that something must be necessary is much worse. Take, for example, the explanation of contingently existing things. Why do they exist? They just do. Its a brute fact. There is no explanation. Now you might say, "But wait, why can't I just stop at a brute fact about the universe's existence this seems simpler and I need not postulate any absolutes". The reasons this is fallacious is because simplicity is always beholden to explanatory power and in so far as it is possible that there be a further explanation we should take it. That is until we are forced to the explanatory edge which is the aboslute. In fact, it just is the reasoning that we need to follow the chain of explanation until its simplest end in a absolute that leads us to the necessary fact of reality like logic itself. Furthermore, say u do want to just use brute facts becuase there simpler. Then you can just say that nothing exists and there is no logic. Becuase its simpler. Seriously, take the outside world, its simpler that it doesn't exist. Ofc then u ask why do I have this experience of the outside world? Brute fact! But we can go further and say that u don't even exist. U will argue "but its evident that I exist for there must be an explanation of "I think therefore I am"". Answer, brute fact. But why are there brute facts? Brute fact. Why? Brute fact. Ad infitum. What about reason? Why ask such a question? there is no reason only brute facts. It only gets worse and thus, is just utterly self defeating.
I know this might seem like a lot and might not at first glance seem like a sufficient reasponse, but it seems to be after further thought and I hope it helps. :)
"What I don't understand is how necessity is an explanation."
Because it is the conclusion of an argument. Once one understands the distinction between _contingency_ and _necessity_ it becomes an unavoidable conclusion that there much be some necessarily existing foundation to the universe.
"You can still ask why that thing is necessary.”
Some argue that numbers exist _necessarily._ For example, there is no possible universe in which _one_ does not exist. You could, I suppose, ask _why_ _one_ is necessary, but I think the answer would be that it's the nature of _one_ itself to exist necessarily. By its very nature, _one_ cannot _not_ exist.
To exist necessarily is simply to say that by its very nature it cannot _not_ exist. To attempt to posit a universe or possible world in which the thing in question does not exist leads to logical incoherence.
To "ask why that thing is necessary" is simply to ask what about its nature makes it impossible for it to not exist. I don’t see the circularity in the question.
To say "isn’t a necessary thing contingent on the fact of its necessity" is to misunderstand the distinction between essence and existence. _That_ a thing is is not the same as _what_ it is. So no, that a necessary thing exists is not contingent on its necessity.
@@nathanaelculver5308 thank u so much for putting some reason here. Btw, I loved how u distinguished between essence and existence
J Holts *I loved how u distinguished between essence and existence*
Thanks, but it’s really just the standard Aristotelian distinction, so I can’t take any credit for it :8)
@@jholts6912 'it seems also true that given the nature of purely contingent things like me and the tablet I am typing on, that there should be something which exists by its own nature' It doesn't seem like it to me, although it seems like a possibility. I would still want to know why that thing has such a nature. Could the universe not be that thing that exists by it's own nature? I understand that maths and logic might be necessary but since we are asking why there is something rather than nothing, would mathematical and logical axioms still be true if there was nothing rather than something? If so I see know reason that there could not also be physical laws that could cause the universe to come into being, it seems like the most reasonable step to take. We do assume logical absolutes but that is because we have to for our epistemology, but does that mean they are absolute ontologically?
It is fallacious to reason that if an infinite regress and circularity are unreasonable then there must be something necessary. I'm not yet convinced that necessity is any more reasonable. I just think it's an unsolved or unsolvable problem. 'in so far as it is possible that there be a further explanation we should take it'. I just don't see any situation in which a further explanation is not possible. I've explained why that is the case even with something necessary. Your explanation of brute facts being a poor explanation is exactly why I think necessity is a poor explanation. It is necessary that it is necessary that it is necessary... Brute fact is no more or less 'self defeating' than necessity.
CC: 1:05:05-1:05:10 "If christianity is true then there is really nothing to worry about"
Me: Well except for this little place called Hell that everybody has one chance in two to go to
Well, not really. Depends if you want to or not.
@@lockshore1 not really, no. If one assumes the narrative to be true, then the much touted "free will" claimed by Christianity is entirely impossible.
But Jesus gave His life for you in order that you will go to heaven and not to hell.
Idealism just says that everything is reducible to and constructed from mind. But that's basically what theism is. if you believe God is a mind and that everything that exists is reducible to God then that's basically idealism. There's really no good reason to prefer substance dualism over idealism if you're a Christian.
I am from india. I was a christian. Now am agnostic between materialism and various form pansychism and idealism.. first i am seeing some body from christian apologetic who is open to idealism and panpsychism.
If i would say indian philosophical tradition is a complex construction of reality with idealistic monism+cosmo psychism +panpsychism rather than pantheism even though pantheism and panenthiesm is suitable in some sense.
Advaita philosophy is very popular but 'samkhya' is quite intresting.
Whenever i hear arguments in line with classic theistic tradition i feel it is compatiable with vedantic world view. I read some hindu philosophic literature in our local language using Aquinas arguments for vedantic world view. Even though terminologies are different. Even 'THE ONE 'philosophy of ancient greece also have close similarity with vedanta.
A discussion with Ben Kastrup and josh rasmussen will be an intresting one. I think kastrup have a strong version of idealism.
Neoplatonist philosophy is a very similar metaphysical system to Vedanta (idealistic monism, panentheism), and it influenced a number of Christian theologians.
@@zyphos9444 yes... I noticed Pierre Grimes works on neoplatonists influence on Christian theology
Rasmussen’s face as you go through the books😂
Book tour ends around 12:05.
Stop using his time to go through your book giveaway. That was RUDE!
Apparently the UA-cam thought police don't like my comment as they keep putting lines through it----
God is Being (I Am)--Being, of itself and without origin, is the singularly self-evident argument. God is Love-- It is nature of Being to continually give of itself, for all that is partakes of Being. God is triune--- to give is relational. As Being is singular this relation is intrinsic to Being. God is personal--- self-reflection is the inner relationship which constitutes consciousness.
The overall quality of the discussion comments doesn't match the video!
It always seem to me that anyone who understood the worlds within worlds using microscopic details of the world it’s animals insects way the world works, there is no way they can explain how it all came about without an intellect outside of us. They couldn’t possibly be as intelligent as they claim to be. I don’t know if I explained that well. I’m not one of the intelligent ones I guess. Lol. I hope you guys understand what I mean
What do you think is more difficult to create or come about; a limited intelligence or an infinite intelligence?
Nothing but an argument from incredulity. You cannot imagine how it could be without a magical "God" therefore it must be that "God"
Completely fallacious and useless.
hahaha I am so amaze. why some of the commentors here are believers of atheist fish.
I am amazed that commentor like you can actual state something so nonsensical.
aside for the ad hominem, you clearly know nothing about what atheist means. Atheists are not believers, they are skeptics who say without verifiable evidence for the existence of a god, you cannot rationally claim the existence of a god. That's the entire atheist position. Individuals may have more to say, or less, but that simple unwillingness to accept an assertion of a god without verifiable evidence for the existence of a god is the core atheist position.
Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
@@JoeHarkinsHimself what you've described is agnosticism. Planet size brained internet atheists have tried to change it to mean atheism. The classic definition of atheism is a belief that God does not exist.
@@serenaistheb.o.a.t nope, nope, nope . . . if you are not describing yourself when you say "atheist" you do not get to define what that word means. Words are DEscriptive, not PREscriptive.
Another way of putting it is . . . "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master-that's all."
Language like "planet size brain" is just a gratuitous insult, not an invitation to an honest rational dialog. Of course, you could change my mind. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
Reason leads to a non compromising marriage to demonstrable evidence. Otherwise Grimms fairy tales will look like a plausible explanation
Lawrence Eason technically the demonstrable evidence would be the incarnation death and resurrection as historical events (which we have more evidence for than plenty of other ancient figures that we generally believe are real). But beyond that, there’s no “demonstrable evidence” we don’t live in a simulation. your reason works within a paradigm from which you can reason to conclusions, and for Christians that paradigm is through revelation. For atheists it’s an undefined nebulous that can lead to as many conclusions as there are atheists, all of them contradicting. “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness”
@@TheApple411 embellishments are commonplace in fables and myths. Especially in ancient times. People who were looked up to elevated as gods and performing miracles. The Caesars were elevated as gods. In present times Kim Jung-Un called a god. The emperor of Japan was a god.
When it comes to evidence we cannot test, such as a "resurrection", we look to observed evidence. There is zero evidence that a resurrection is at all possible
Lawrence Eason it’s not naturally possible, which is exactly the point; it’s super natural. There is absolutely a rock solid case from people of faith to atheists that Jesus was sentenced to crucifixion by Pontias Pilate, that an empty tomb was discovered and that multitudes of people reported having seen this character named Jesus after his death. Is that a logical proof? no; but all of the historical evidence supports the claim of a resurrection; and if it were demonstrably false then it would be odd that historical evidence doesn’t even seem to suggest that
@@TheApple411 can you demonstrate anything that is supernatural? Can you demonstrate anything that comes close to a human rising up after being a corpse for 3 days?
I have no problem with the idea of a man named Jesus who lived 2,000 years ago. But as I say, fables and superstitions contain many embellishments
Lawrence Eason do you realize what you’re asking when ask to demonstrate something super natural? by their philosophical definitions the super natural can not be demonstrated through natural experiments.
But if evidence is our only guide to truth, then what evidence do you have that morality exists? did you conduct research to find out murder is wrong? or is that an intuition? what research could ever prove that murder is objectively wrong?
my point is that things we take to be objectively True aren’t in every case (or frankly in most cases) based on evidence, they’re based on experience; and I think reducing the pursuit of True knowledge to the scientific method is mere prejudice against the possibility that something exists beyond the natural world that science and evidence is limited to
What are you up to right now? "Something super exciting, I can't say". What a tease. unsubscribing. And his name sounds like Rasputin. That's two wrongs.
"Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool." - Mark Twain
Reciting quotes proves nothing when you provide no argument to support them.
I can't feel... my face. When I'm with yoo?
God is immoral
In the case of the murder of all Amelikite babies, this god commanded their genocide.
1 Samuel 15:2-3
2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
So here is my challenge. God had choices and chose:
1. To make human beings into baby killers, traumatizing them for life instead of god doing the dirty deed itself
2. Instead of killing these babies in a painless and humane manner, god chose bloodshed, pain and suffering, chopping and stabbing them into bloody bits for the crows to feed
So here is my question:
1. God could have gently and humanely taken these babies to heaven
Or
2. God commanded human beings to be baby killers...for armed warriors to chop and stab defenseless, crying babies into bloody pieces for the crows to feed
This god chose #2. Now, if this god is a moral god, you or your bible should have no problem explaining how it's moral to choose #2. I await the answer
"reason" that does not have the solid support of verifiable evidence is just empty argument. You cannot name any thing or force that exists in this world but cannot be measured, counted, weighed, defined, described or demonstrated using verifiable evidence for its existence. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
crickets
@Classical Theist00 argument without evidence is argument. that's why it is called argument. Evidence is evidence. You cannot name any thing or force that exists in this world but cannot be measured, counted, weighed, defined, described or demonstrated using verifiable evidence for its existence. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
@Classical Theist00 because you can't
@Classical Theist00 chirp chirp Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
@Classical Theist00 arguments without evidence are just arguments. Do you have verifiable evidence for the existence of a god?
It seems clear that the way reason leads to God is if you have a prior belief in it. That's what apparently lead Josh to devise his arguments, he said so himself!
Or rather, he said he wanted to avoid that, whilst obviously demonstrating for anyone not asleep that confirming his desperate wishes was precisely what he ended up doing.
There is no contradiction in the possibility that everything within existence has a reason, but that existence itself has no reason. To claim otherwise is to commit the fallacy of composition. Why can't existence itself be the ultimate foundation, and not a God? Because Josh doesn't like that conclusion. He's a very nice guy though all the same, very enthusiastic and genuine-seeming, even if his arguments are pure confirmation bias.
Read the book
@@jacobkats3670
Jacob, I'm pretty familiar with Josh's arguments already, I've seen several videos of his, read a number of articles discussing his arguments, read a couple of his own papers and exchanged an email with the man.
If what he says about himself on UA-cam is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, I'm well aware why he believes what he believes. He prayed to a God he desperately wanted to believe in, and wouldn't you just know it, the 'light of reason' just lead him to that conclusion. Shocking!
Will reading the book make his statements in this and other videos magically disappear, and show how this is not a blatant demonstration of the human capacity for self-deception?
Matt Smith If the components of the totality of all contingent facts failed to exist in some possible world, then the totality would fail to exist in that possible world, for there is no totality apart from the parts which compose it, that is to say, a composite whole is not ontologically distinct from its constituent parts.
Since there is a possible world where no contingent facts exist, then there is a possible world where the totality of all contingent facts does not exist, making that totality in turn contingent. Surely no fallacy of composition committed here.
By the PSR, the totality of all contingent facts requires an external explanation, and that explanation must involve a necessary being with the omni-attributes.
On a side note: try to be a little more charitable to theists. I'm certain that Josh has gone through Russel's objections to the contingency argument, it's not like theists are incapable of sound reasoning.
@@johnanderson9330
John, there are holes you could drive a truck through in the arguments you just presented. Quite frankly they are full of gibberish. Do I need to go through them one by one?
One of the biggest failures is that just imagining a thing failing to exist does not demonstrate that it it possible. Perhaps it's possible for, let's say, the present configuration of the moon to fail to exist, but what about the matter/energy from which it is composed?
Why would we imagine the PSR has to apply to the Universe, if the Universe if absolutely everything in reality? You can't get 'external' to that! Why would omni-properties be 'necessary' when they are incompossible?
I'm being perfectly charitable to Josh, who seems an intelligent, thoughtful and generous person, but that doesn't stop me from noticing the elephant in the room.
@J w
Have you actually got any good reasons not to be an atheist? I've been looking for even one, no luck so far.
Why reason leads to theism: it doesn't.
You think it’s more reasonable to believe that the universe created itself?
@@dongadon8697 Maybe we just don't know how it got here and using evolved ape logic to argue that whatever created it is strangely similar to us is just absurd.
@@dongadon8697 no. Nobody knows how the universe started. Only you theists PRETEND to know without ANY evidence.
So saying "the universe created itself" is a theistic claim. No atheist or scientist will ever make such a claim. Ever.
Inner Vigilance
We do know something cannot come from nothing and create everything
@@dongadon8697 Answer my question. If a god DOES exist, how did this god come into existence?
Hallucination, not reason, leads to God. You are hallucinating if you think an invisible being is giving you commands/comments.
Why think it is a hallucination? In the absence of some overriding defeater I should simply believe what seems most obvious to me. Namely, that God exists and is in fact giving me commands/comments. Just like in the absence of some overriding defeater I should simply believe what seems most obvious to me. Namely, the existence of the external world and the existence other persons. Yes, both beliefs could be illusory but I have no reason to think so beyond the mere possiblity and am rational in accepting them until I am given some overriding defeater.
@@jholts6912 "Why think it is a hallucination?"
Because it is a fact proven by psychiatric medical science community. The fact simply is that if you are hearing voices giving you commands/comments, then you are hallucinating. If you don't like that fact then I suggest you contact the psychiatric medical science community. Google them to get their contact info.
@@jholts6912
I'm not saying God does or doesn't exist because there is no evidence to prove either way.
I'm saying you are hallucinating when you have reached a conclusion out of arguments from ignorance that God of the Bible exists and is giving you commands/comments, just because a primitive slavery promoting book claims itself to be the holy truth.
@@jholts6912 I'm not saying you should stop hallucinating whatever makes you happy and helps you stay out of trouble. I'm saying if you happen to have been born in Saudi Arabia, you would now most likely be hallucinating that Allah, not the God of the Bible, is giving you comments/commands.
@@AtamMardes oh dear. I dont think u understand what a Christian means by hearing recieving commands/comments. It's not like I hear a actual voice whispering in my head. What Christian's mean is that they have an intuitive sense or a "sense of divinity" as John Calvin calls it. This has been somewhat proven empirically by psychology of religion. However, my main point is that it's more of a sense than it is a voice. It would be like if your in the forest at night and see a tiger in front of u. U would sense danger. It's the best I can compare it too but it's a bit more complex than that
Do u know how the universe came to be? No? Therefore God.
How do u know?
Faith. Bible. 😂😂😂😂
Ju Err Considering his comment I doubt it.
@Ju Err reason cannot lead to god. No amount of reasoning. Its ignorance. Just like my original comment
Gotta love the Dunning Krueger effect.
: |
@@derekmizer6293 and how were your cognitive faculties of reasoning formed? Assuming that by cognitive faculties of reasoning I mean merely those capacities of your brain to do that which one understands to be logic and reason in the properly basic way in which they are understood. Essentially, I am asking if you have a reasonable mechanism of how your faculties are formed in order than they would be aimed toward truth. Moreover, is there a way in which your faculties ought to function? Is there a properly functioning way in which they would operate such that they would act in the confines and in agreement with the objective reality of truth and reason?