Hey Cameron! Just wanted to say, I love your work and keep up the great content. I also wanted to give a suggestion for your title: "Contingency Arguments: A Conversation", I think maybe the title might not be the most descriptive or explanatory for those who are not familiar with the topic and perhaps have a negative impact on the amount of people that will click to watch this video. Don't be afraid to use more "clickbait" names! Like... "Proving God's Existence: A Closer Look at the Contingency Arguments" - I'm pretty sure it will get more views! In any case, love your work, keep going!
Hello, cam 😊, one of your protestant brothers in Christ here 👋🏽. It would be awesome to see Dr. Jordan wood on your channel to talk about St. Maximus, the confessor.
@@CapturingChristianity can’t. Wait. Also I really hope you consider interviewing Barrie Schwortz as he was a photographer on the original 1970s research team and seems to know more about the history of the shroud than anyone else I’ve heard.
I don't think I'm a whole lot dumber than average, but this conversation baffled me: I was able to extract zero content from it. Checking out after 35 minutes.
1:31:31 THIS!! With Dr. Kenny!! "Matter, God, and Nonsense: Berkeley's Polemic against the Freethinkers in the Three Dialogues" in Berkeley's Three Dialogues: New Essays, ed. Stefan Storrie (Oxford University Press, 2018)
Thank you. Don' think you can separate Josh's two stages so clinically. First premise, that the totality of dependent things depend on something, cannot be justified by science. This just shows that objective physical things in an objective physical environment depend deterministically upon that. It says nothing about the whole physical environment, the total cosmos. But science prescinds from the mind as observer and actuator of meaning. This responsible initiator offers a non-physical source of physical dependence. It's the only way human observers can conceptually transcend the totality of physical inter-dependence. But this is to "identify" what a "ground" looks like (mind). I.e: the beginning of Josh's 2nd stage.
I find it strange how rare it is to see an interfaith discussion on arguments for God considering how most are applicable across religious lines, especially between western and eastern religions. Why not a conversation on what unites rather than divides
Contingency arguments, also known as "design arguments," are a type of argument for the existence of God that is based on the idea that the universe and the things in it exhibit signs of design or purpose. The basic idea behind these arguments is that the universe and the things in it are so complex and orderly that they must have been created by an intelligent designer, which is identified as God. One of the most famous versions of the contingency argument is the cosmological argument, which states that the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and the best explanation is that it was created by God. Another famous version is the teleological argument, which states that the complexity and order of the universe and the things in it indicate that they were designed by an intelligent being. The argument from design is a type of a posteriori argument, meaning that it is based on empirical evidence and observations of the world.
The reason why the argument from contingency is so powerful, is because we cannot conceive of a series of contingent things not having a cause, and all the things we encounter in the world are contingent, therefore a necessary non-contingent Creator's must be at the bottom of it. The problem people have is that they cannot answer how a contingent series exists without a beginning from some un-contingent cause.
@@sanjeevgig8918 it is dishonest to claim theists use this argument to prove Christ, they use this argument to prove there is a non-contingent ground of all being which transcends the physical (contingent) universe.
@@sanjeevgig8918 your comment demonstrate that you don't know how the contingency arguments work, sow instead of wasting time writing nonsensical comments, you can go to try to understand the argument.
@@RealVerses So you are talking about Jesus' human nature, not Jesus as a whole? Jesus' human nature is contingent, of course. But Jesus is not merely a human person. He is a divine person first and foremost, and he took on a human nature at some particular point in time. So Jesus' human nature is contingent, but his divine nature is not.
@@reality1958 I see. 😌 What if the argument is based on the observation that contingent things exist? For instance, the hardware and software you’re reading this comment on was contingent on a bunch of developers to develop it, so the developers are more “fundamental” or “necessary” than the hardware/software, and the software probably still depends on them in some sense… Have you thought of it that way?
Having these two juggernaut philosophers in the same video is quite the accomplishment. Underappreciated channel
Thank you for all you do Cam! Love your content
Hey Cameron! Just wanted to say, I love your work and keep up the great content. I also wanted to give a suggestion for your title: "Contingency Arguments: A Conversation", I think maybe the title might not be the most descriptive or explanatory for those who are not familiar with the topic and perhaps have a negative impact on the amount of people that will click to watch this video. Don't be afraid to use more "clickbait" names! Like... "Proving God's Existence: A Closer Look at the Contingency Arguments" - I'm pretty sure it will get more views!
In any case, love your work, keep going!
Great discussion!
If you're here for the title of this show: 10:18 start.
Hello, cam 😊, one of your protestant brothers in Christ here 👋🏽. It would be awesome to see Dr. Jordan wood on your channel to talk about St. Maximus, the confessor.
Orthodox here. I love Saint Maximus! Not familiar with the Dr. But I see he has a book on him that I might look into - thanks!
@@adn8099 yes 🙌🏻 I want to read that book as well! I have been so blessed by the catholic and orthodox Churches as of late! Bless you ❤️
Thanks for the video! When is the shroud interview coming out?
We’re actually going to release it during Lent.
@@CapturingChristianity can’t. Wait. Also I really hope you consider interviewing Barrie Schwortz as he was a photographer on the original 1970s research team and seems to know more about the history of the shroud than anyone else I’ve heard.
The shroud is amazing, but also seems "too good to be true".
@@jaykrizzle Christianity seems too good to be true.
I don't think I'm a whole lot dumber than average, but this conversation baffled me: I was able to extract zero content from it. Checking out after 35 minutes.
Cameron EVERY WEEK: This is the STRONGEST argument for god.
LOL
Nice!
Al Kindi was part of that philosophical tradition yet he believed that universe had temporal beginning.
1:31:31 THIS!! With Dr. Kenny!!
"Matter, God, and Nonsense: Berkeley's Polemic against the Freethinkers in the Three Dialogues" in Berkeley's Three Dialogues: New Essays, ed. Stefan Storrie (Oxford University Press, 2018)
Thank you. Don' think you can separate Josh's two stages so clinically.
First premise, that the totality of dependent things depend on something, cannot be justified by science. This just shows that objective physical things in an objective physical environment depend deterministically upon that. It says nothing about the whole physical environment, the total cosmos.
But science prescinds from the mind as observer and actuator of meaning. This responsible initiator offers a non-physical source of physical dependence. It's the only way human observers can conceptually transcend the totality of physical inter-dependence. But this is to "identify" what a "ground" looks like (mind). I.e: the beginning of Josh's 2nd stage.
I find it strange how rare it is to see an interfaith discussion on arguments for God considering how most are applicable across religious lines, especially between western and eastern religions. Why not a conversation on what unites rather than divides
Most of this work is from Analytic tradition, which mostly encompasses the Anglo world
@@RadicOmega oh yeah I can see how not having a shared lexicon could get it the way. That's sad
Contingency arguments, also known as "design arguments," are a type of argument for the existence of God that is based on the idea that the universe and the things in it exhibit signs of design or purpose. The basic idea behind these arguments is that the universe and the things in it are so complex and orderly that they must have been created by an intelligent designer, which is identified as God. One of the most famous versions of the contingency argument is the cosmological argument, which states that the existence of the universe requires an explanation, and the best explanation is that it was created by God. Another famous version is the teleological argument, which states that the complexity and order of the universe and the things in it indicate that they were designed by an intelligent being. The argument from design is a type of a posteriori argument, meaning that it is based on empirical evidence and observations of the world.
The reason why the argument from contingency is so powerful, is because we cannot conceive of a series of contingent things not having a cause, and all the things we encounter in the world are contingent, therefore a necessary non-contingent Creator's must be at the bottom of it.
The problem people have is that they cannot answer how a contingent series exists without a beginning from some un-contingent cause.
Type "not having a cause" abracadabra dishonestly smuggle a "Creator" and then hop skip and promptly jump to Jesus Christ proven.
LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 So a series of contingent things does not need an explanation?
@@sanjeevgig8918 it is dishonest to claim theists use this argument to prove Christ, they use this argument to prove there is a non-contingent ground of all being which transcends the physical (contingent) universe.
@@OniLeafNin YOU have to DEMONSTRATE and provide EVIDENCE.
NOT just smuggle in a Creator or a Being.,
LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 your comment demonstrate that you don't know how the contingency arguments work, sow instead of wasting time writing nonsensical comments, you can go to try to understand the argument.
I can agree with the argument for a necessary existence, but wouldn't Jesus be a contingent being?
Finally someone who can think. Great question
Why do you think that Jesus would be a contingent being?
@@Jack-z1zBecause he’s dependant on things external to him to exist he has limited qualities and is human
@@RealVerses So you are talking about Jesus' human nature, not Jesus as a whole?
Jesus' human nature is contingent, of course. But Jesus is not merely a human person. He is a divine person first and foremost, and he took on a human nature at some particular point in time. So Jesus' human nature is contingent, but his divine nature is not.
@@Jack-z1z so Jesus is half contingent and half necessary? In what world does that make sense?
Contingency argues for contingency. It doesn’t demonstrate a god…or that a god is necessary for contingency
I also don’t really understand the argument as well as I could… Wanna try to figure it out?
@@theautodidacticlayman sure
@@reality1958 Nice. 😌 Does the argument conclude that things are contingent?
@@theautodidacticlayman as far as I understand it yes
@@reality1958 I see. 😌 What if the argument is based on the observation that contingent things exist? For instance, the hardware and software you’re reading this comment on was contingent on a bunch of developers to develop it, so the developers are more “fundamental” or “necessary” than the hardware/software, and the software probably still depends on them in some sense… Have you thought of it that way?
🫶🏼