Crazy to think that they used to be able to put this stuff on the radio and not just some mindless, repeating song that sounds like every other song that is all about yourself and not having to change who you are or improve yourself.
Yes the banter back and forth with the utmost respect was delightful. It would be nice to hear things like this on the radio or TV. Not the garbage monotonous lower human aspects.
They weren't born staring at screens that constantly deliver cheap and instant dopamine hits, which over time destroys the ability to focus on content that isn't immediately gratifying. Social media is literally lobotomizing us.
They've been speaking so coherent,and not interrupting each other,they really listened to one another. Mind blowing when you dive into history,you realise people were so polite about others view even if they considered twisted or wrong in their way.
The voice-over was provided by Disney... The character of the Martian commander who sought to blow up the world with a fuse. Bugs Bunny did away with him too.
Bertrand was my relative - albeit - distant. So amazing to hear his voice, read his work and understand so much more about the similarities of other family members, with himself.
Both excellent discussion for a timely world, flowing between arguments is spectacular. Especially for today from Historical philosophical experience. Bertrand Russell and copleston.
It really is remarkable how similar in content, if not linguistic style, this conversation is to the kind of discussions had in this field today. It’s easy and pleasant to imagine equivalently engaging disputation happening in the time of Aquinas, Ibn Sina or Aristotle, and I suspect that in most regards we ultimately know precious little more today than such titans knew about the big metaphysical questions
British empiricists and the Vienna Circle, including Wittgenstein, basically eviscerated metaphysics by viewing it as a problem of words, not objects. Notions such as the soul, gods and devils, elves, etc are objects without concrete referent. As Santa and Easter Bunny are fictitious characters.
I wondered whether the full debate was out there somewhere. Thanks for the upload. I love Russell’s enduring stubbornness here (and Copleston’s patience with him).
They have both considered every point beforehand and are just going through the motions. Either that or these old-timers really can evaluate arguments on the fly and shoot back with impeccable prose.
"They have both considered every point beforehand..." No,like all unbelievers, Russell overlooked that any statement about what a "God" is, as Copelston's opening statement, begs the question.
@@jaysyd143 Good information, thanks. I knew there was *something* odd about the way they talk here. Their choice of words seemed alert and passionate, but they both deliver their lines like their heart isn't in it.
@@HegelsOwl An argument begs the question when in order to accept its premise you need to already accept its conclusion. Copleston's opening statement is the basic step of asking for terminology agreement, by `God` they mean a being with certain qualities, not an idea, or a set of physical laws or moral principles, or your hope for humanity etc. It doesn't require you to accept the conclusion (whether such being exists or not) to accept that use of terminology in the debate. The reason such basic step exists in any philosophical debate is to avoid the humpty dumpty use of words when you lose the argument and you start saying "b-but this term means just what I choose it to mean, not what you're saying". Which happens A LOT when lay people debate God. They probably prefer this move so they are never wrong but people who are educated in philosophy hate it and rather avoid such situation. Suppose you debate someone whether `Superman` exists, the first thing you should do is to come to agreement that the term `Superman` you are debating refers to an actual man in cape, not a comic book character (we already know such character exists). To simply accept provisionally that the term `Superman` in that debate means an actual man in cape who can fly, punch through buildings and has X ray vision, doesn't require you to accept that such a man exists. So it doesn't beg the question at all. It's the way to even have a clear question to think about. This is a really basic concept and without understanding it you really shouldn't be thinking about these big philosophical questions at all. It always makes me chuckle when we have a debate between two great masters of a topic then a guy who understands less than the average first year student comes in with a sweeping generalization and drops their insight on how they failed to consider something :))
If people nowadays, especially the educated, the privileged and the dwindling number of intellectuals, can think with such clarity of thoughts, can articulate their opinions without distorting truths or demonising dissenting views, can behave graciously in victory and defeat, then our world will be a much better place for all.
I dont think Russel was gracious in victory at all. He seems to have lost the debate very clearly and misdirected. Copleston, in turn, seems to have been gracious enough to not press.
@@natanaellizama6559you just repeated the things to that contrary to his points. Proving the existence of God by pure reasoning is just already crazy and it is clear that this more of a discussion where both of them can exchange ideas rather than try to prove their ego
@@SeanAnthony-j7fI'm not sure how this engages with what I've said. Why is it crazy to use reason to prove GODs existence? And I just disagree. Bertrand was not undogmatic. In fact, he was strongly biased towards his non-theism. If you have to be cornered down to saying "oh, well, even talking of a cause of the world is non-sensical(a technical term to mean it has no linguistic meaning like "flies dances banana koala gotooto")" you kinda lost the debate. Because it's clear that, as Copleston says, to put it in the form of a question is not linguistically non-sensical("Is there a cause of the world?")
@@natanaellizama6559 that is why he can't subscribe to all arguments for the existence of God, because of the limitations of reason itself not because he is being dogmatic about his certain belief or doctrines. He actually described himself as an agnostic philosophically and an atheist regarding his public circle. It seems like we got a very primitive understanding on the limitations of language and rationality. Conceiving God with humans' inherently finite cognition, living in a tiny planet from our solar system within a Milky Galaxy from another multitude of more Milky Galaxies that has millions and billions of more planets in multiple universes. Trying to deduce all of that by pure reasoning to an omniscient entity- that has anthropological properties such as morality and virtue that we mostly imagine by featuring it as a human by believing in personal God (that also has pluralistic cultures with different personal Gods) that probably also undergoes the same evolutionary processes like us. Trying to be nuanced and not hindering at least philosophically because I think there are a lot of cultural and existential elements that I find valuable- I will subscribe but proving this personal God exists- it is just out of our faculties. Immanuel Kant had already refuted that God's existence is even conceivable beyond space and time cannot be known a priori; one good example when logical reasoning gets too far is Godel's interpretations of ontological argument that is so precise in deductive reasoning that it comes out as more interesting for computers scientists than of theologians.
@@natanaellizama6559 that is why he can't subscribe to all arguments for the existence of God, because of the limitations of reason itself not because he is being dogmatic about his certain belief or doctrines. He actually described himself as an agnostic philosophically and an atheist regarding his public circle. It seems like we got a very primitive understanding on the limitations of language and rationality. Conceiving God with humans' inherently finite cognition, living in a tiny planet from our solar system within a Milky Galaxy from another multitude of more Milky Galaxies that has millions and billions of more planets in multiple universes. Trying to deduce all of that by pure reasoning to an omniscient entity- that has anthropological properties such as morality and virtue that we mostly imagine by featuring it as a human by believing in personal God (that also has pluralistic cultures with different personal Gods) that probably also undergoes the same evolutionary processes like us. Trying to be nuanced and not hindering at least philosophically because I think there are a lot of cultural and existential elements that I find valuable- I will subscribe but proving this personal God exists- it is just out of our faculties. Immanuel Kant had already refuted that God's existence is even conceivable beyond space and time cannot be known a priori; one good example when logical reasoning gets too far is Godel's interpretations of ontological argument that is so precise in deductive reasoning that it comes out as more interesting for computers scientists than of theologians.
It is a little difficult to pass from England to America, and then to India , and to China and keep one's social philosophy unchanged. The world had convinced Bertrand Russell that is to big for his formulae, and heavy to move towards to move rapidly his heart's desire. And there are so many hearts, and so may hearts desires. All in all, a very lovable man: capable of the profoundest metaphysics and the subtlest mathematics, and yet speaking always simply, with clarity which only comes to those who are sincere; a man addicted to fields of thought that usually drys up the springs of feeling, and yet warmed and illumined.
Russel's argument points out that the properties of the whole do not match the properties of each individual part. If we have the set of natural numbers for example, the set has properties none of the parts has, for example the mere property of being a set, or of being indefinite, etc. Further on, the parts have properties the set doesn't have, for example the set doesn't have the property of being odd, even, divisible by 2, etc. Copleston's argument, as he clearly stated, relies on assuming the whole's contingency by virtue of each part being observably contingent (his words: "but it cannot be necessary since each member is contingent"). He did hide this, however, when he said he doesn't assume the whole's contingency but rather the idea that the whole is not a sufficient explanation of the parts. (To which Russel replies why should there be a cause) Ok, but if that's the argument then why the previous line of thought trying to prove the whole must be contigent? It seems to me Copelston is playing on 2 different grounds here and shifting the argument.
Russell lost the debate as soon as he uttered the words, "I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause". If it has no cause, then: 1) it's not contingent; 2) it's of necessity, even if you try to dress that up as 'just there', 'gratuitous' or some other absurd sidestep. Therefore, as Copleston said, a total that's of necessity containing parts that are contingent requires further explanation. .
Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals" I find interesting on the ethical issue. It's interesting Russell is so associated with logic as I always have the impression when listening to him of how his views lead to dead ends. Maybe it's because he could not adequately explain them in a limited conversation.
The problem with using logic as a human being with everything is this methodology needs time to reach the end of process and ascertain truth from, time which in its entirety human beings will never have.
Russell confused logical necessity with ontological necessity. The statement, 'A rabbit need no sufficient reason to exist,' involves no logical contradiction, analytically, as a statement, but it does it involve an ontological contradiction, as rabbits cannot provide the sufficient reason for their own existence, in actual reality. As with rabbits, and so with all material reality.
15:30 Russel says we have to grab this whole thing entirely to do what Copleston wants but I certainly can't see any grounds for this assertion. I mean it would mean we know nothing of science. We need not calculate every digit of pi to come to the conclusion that it is an irrational number less than 4 and greater than 3. We need not always trace every path in a maze to realize that there is no way through (for example if we notice that the end is blocked off). We often are able to see something about the big pitcure without knowing all the many details. When we see contigent things, well we can see where things have to end: A necessary thing. We may have no idea at all if the chain goes back a billion years or ten trillion years or through a system of super powerful aliens or gods or simulators of a computer program we live in or whatever...but we can tell we have to end up at a fountain head of all this reality however large this reality may turn out to be.
No dumb Dawkins or Harris , or any of the the other sycophants , just two Philosopherss discussing an important topic, no name calling ,,just two people who are debating in a good faith effort to make sense of an important topic. ✝️☮️
We exist, so for Bertrand asking why we exist rather then not is meaningless and should NEVER be asked because he has to admit that we came to existence from nothing believing in magic rather than God, but both Bertrand and Frederick know the truth now, and we will find it soon
@@shawnclark8232 You're quite right, we are not in position to know anything about God except He informing us. We don't know what is happening kilometer in our street, when we look at our bodies, its like monkey looking in Ferrari, we know about our immune system about 1% if i remember correctly from Harvard journal. So by logical conclusion how we are going to know Creator if we are not in position to know about ourselves even? First of all, Creator by definition of the word must be one. Think about this experiment, if i am creator of a robot with AI and i put him in closed area with limited amount of objects there. The only way for him to know me is if i inform him, not other way around, because he is subset of my powers and possibilities just like God is outside and beyond our space and time and our dimension. Definition of God in Islam is that we are never going to be in position to understand what God looks like, He looks like nothing we could ever imagine
@@shawnclark8232 Firas Zahabi studied philosophy for 20 years, UA-cam this: “Fighting Faith - Firas Zahabi, Mohammed Hijab, Subboor Ahmad”, "Firas Zahabi Talks Religion, Consciousness and Meaning of Life." “Randomness: The Atheist Idol - Live with Firas Zahabi”, “Live discussion with Firas Zahabi”, “What is Truth? with Firas Zahabi”, “Firas Zahabi Destroys Stephen Fry’s Complaining and Insulting God Argument (GOOD AND EVIL)”, and this UA-cam channel “AllTruthRevealed”
People who believe in a god are the ones who believe in magic, a magical being they call a god and that everything came from nothing, so it sounds like a bunch of projecting on your part. So stop lying to yourself and admit that you believe in magic and that your holy book is a book that describes a lot of magic, that you supposedly don't believe in.
Frederick Copleston is clearly the superior philosopher... Russell..apparently a man of logic who rejects propositions concerning metaphysics as he cannot answer them and always has to run to mathematics and the hole he digs for himself. Trying to understand the Creator of The Universe cannot be described using mathematics or physics.
I felt persuaded by Copelston's line of argument after the first watch, but after rewatching I realized he's actually not addressing Russel's point at all. Russel said the elements of a set having a particular property (all humans having a mother, for example) is not proof of the set having that property (the human race having a property), and Copelston's reply affirmed the opposite, "and if it (the whole) is sufficient to itself, it is what I call necessary. But it can't be necessary, since each member is contingent". Why does each member being contingent entail the set's contingency? It seems like a fallacy to me.
@@ieronim272 It is fallacious generally, but Copplestone is trying to say here that there are exceptions to that fallacy, dependant on what the particular property in question is. For example, if each element of the table is made of wood, the table as a whole will of course be wooden. I'm not really sure though, how you could determine which qualities are properly transferrable from the element to the set, and which are not.
Part 1 : ( first Kantian antinomy : Origin ) @26:45 ‘ well , then if it ‘ s a question and then it has no meaning , then it ‘ s very difficult to discuss it . ‘ ( Antinomy 3 : @ 25:50 ‘ first causes that haven’t in themselves GOT causes ) ( of time succession or events / things a priori ? ) the infinity of a / the series of events @17:19 ( for prelims and part A probability : ill - defined in structure . What is the discipline ?) Kant ( American edition ) antinomy 1 : (1 ) ‘ an infinite series of states of things in the world , each following another , have passed away ‘ (2 ) ‘ the infinity of a series consists in that it may never be completed by successive synthesis ‘ (3) ‘ thus many series of things’ (4 ) ‘ the infinity of the world series and the sum total of the world .. ‘ @21:00 ‘ the series of events … ‘ IF : … it is caused … ( @23:47 ‘ a man may look for gold ‘ ) Part 2 : @26:56 ( theme comes from the beginnings of part 1 , but is not exercised as antinomy … namely , The 4th Kantian antinomy of a ‘ necessary being ‘ . This begins with a recognition of religious experience as not necessarily proof . ) @29:20 : ‘ That is by no means always the case ‘ ( ‘ the devil ‘ : @31:28 ) ( The dijunction : @37:44. As a facet of contemporary epistemology , one would wish to understand the appropriate ways of requesting justification , and also giving justification . … ‘ seeing ‘ is not appreciated here in its a priori capacity . ) ( @46:00 . The Kantian ‘ categorical imperative ‘ , the ‘ ought ‘ , is that one ought to exercise those maxims that admit a possibility of being law . )
It's endlessly fascinating for us to listen to this debate but I know that Fr. Copleston was not entirely happy with it. He preferred his debate with A.J. Ayer on Logical Positivism.
Copleston won this in the first three minutes. He gets Russell to agree that everything is contingent and that there has to be a necessary being at the end because it can't just be contingencies forever. Russell tries to deny the existence of causes. He says "necessary" isn't a meaningful word. He claims the "universe is just there" but is unwilling to say it's uncaused. He tries to maintain that because you can't perfectly know something there's no point in searching. (To clarify, if you were consistent with him here human knowledge would entirely collapse. We'd be able to collect no data because we couldn't isolate causes, and no one would search for any answers anyway because omniscience is impossible.) At every turn he's just deconstructing, deflecting, and avoiding very obvious definitions of simple words like "cause" and "necessary". On the moral issue he says, "I agree but" and then throws out word salad. This debate was a smackdown from the beginning. Brutal. Watching Russell is like watching a dog poop in the floor and then fighting with all his might as his owner pushes his nose into it.
That’s quite the impression you’ve had. Copleston by no means won this debate, much less in the first three minutes. Far from denying that “necessity” and “cause” are meaningless terms, Russell was quite clear that “necessity” is a term proper to notions, not real entities, and that causes *may be* applicable only to entities *of* the universe, but not to the universe itself. By analogy, “top” and “bottom” may be parts of a whole entity, but that whole entity cannot be describable as “top” or “bottom” unless it is itself also a part of a greater whole. The same goes for causality. The universe (a whole) itself needn’t be describable in terms of cause and effect simply because entities *of* the universe are effects and causes.
@@christophersoria5911 No, Copleston didn’t win this debate by any means, much less the one by which you claim he won it. Tracing causes back to a “necessary” “uncaused cause” is a notoriously dubious argument, and Copleston certainly didn’t provide any reason for its indubitability. It is just a plausible that all that exists has always existed and needed no cause to come into existence than that it was caused to come into existence. Unless God spasmodically caused the world to come into being - which, to admit, would commit you to the possibility that God’s causation is as impersonal as that of impersonal, eternally existent matter - you would have to attribute desire to God. But then the reason for that desire arising for God must be given a reason. And to say that the desire simply arose without reason commits you to the possibility that things can simply come to be, and thus that that is a possibility for the universe itself.
A priest using reason to attempt proof of the unreasonable? And a polymath using it to disprove what does not exist in the first place? Reminds me of my idea for a short film: Two people debating the efficacy of the debate form. The debater studies and practices for months, and shows up ready for a skirmish. The non-debater goes to the park. SPOILER: the non-debater wins. Life is not a battle of ideas. It is a struggle for connection.
My washing machine is making a funny noise. Obviously there is a cause. But what can I do about it ? The Bible is very useful in this regard (Matthew 17:20)
22 Bertrand- you would agree that much that makes life LIFE is not material but transcendent and spiritual. Love, consciousness, come to mind. So if we as humans know this, why is it falsehood to ascribe the source of these gifts as a GREATER SPIRIT rather than arising from material beginnings ?? Which one is more logical??? For being so intelligent he doesn’t seems to have grasped simple obvious facts about human existence
why when you interfere with a brain do you interfere with a person's cs'ness? why is the cs'ness of an adult more refined than that of an infant? why do human cs'nesses begin with the formation of brains?
38:00 we probably didn't know back then however now we determine blue in the electro magnetic spectrum as 400-460nm. A Massless wave and particle I think. Wow I rarely hear people speaking so calmly about contentious issues in 2023. Hopefully this will change. If he meant that he understands color through his perspective. Well that's relative for some see color differently. Dichromatic vision and other things. So color is somewhat perspective yet definably on a scale as near exacts. Our own perspective cannot be the underlying causal of ones own higher congnition of reality. For it is limited by varying degrees it seems to me. Through our perception of our own. Which could be not what everyone else experiences on a totality baseline speaking. Or majority speaking.
The accents and speaking voices of these two scholars seem antiquated to me. What type of accent do these two British men speak with? Does it still exist?
Hello, no people don't speak like this anymore. It sounds very charming and old fashioned to us in England too. The name of the accent is 'upper RP.' You shouldn't learn it though lol :) because you will sound like a 1940s film star.
36:00 Copleston made and excellent point refuting his own argument. He says the boy falls in love with the value and ideal and not the fictional character which was Russell's point. Copleston's admission is that someone need not exist in order to fall in love with them, because they are really just falling in love with the ideal and confusing that love with the object. It is clear to me that theists confuse their love of value and ideal with the fictional character of God, thus believing their feeling validates the object of their belief.
@@HangrySaturn There are over 237 different "fallacies." It is impossible to communicate, as per the "logical positivists," without committing some "fallacy." All communication ends. This is exactly what the likes of L. Wittgenstein and his never-ending "disciples, Marxists all, desire--a lust for confusion.
To my mind Copleston's initial premise is not correct. He mentions that there are no objects that contain within themselves the reason for their existence. He gave examples of pen (I think) and a person, but he just didn't look close enough. How would he know if those fundamental particles that make up the pen or person, or the laws which govern them, contain within them the reason for their existence. And just like Wittgenstein once said....perhaps the question is meaningless in any case because we are just playing around with terms. Most of our language has roots in genetics, and the terms we use are derived from how we react to the world around us. Our basic reactions build in. If, for example we see someone who is really beautiful to look at, it's is almost impossible to rationalize that there is no beauty. Likewise I believe that some people have a genuine feeling about a GOD. This too cannot be easily (if at all) rationalized.
Copleston: everything must have a cause, the experiences of mystics must be true because they come from sound minds, morality must be based on God's law if it is not to be relative. Russell: causal explanations may not always be possible, there is no irrefutable evidence to believe in mystics' experiences, morality is based on the greatest good for the greatest number
How can you measure the “greatest good” when good itself is the subject of morality? Isn’t that circular? Isn’t that tantamount to saying “what’s morally good is therefore morally good?”
@@booboo3560 People generally share the desire to survive. This brings primary norms of social order. Over time, innumerable secondary norms develop in societies. Patiently standing in queues is an example. But secondary norms vary from society to society. So, yes, there is a degree of relativism.
@@sendakan666 you almost missed the point of my question. But you accepted that there’s relativism in your example. The fact that “most people have a desire to live” does not create an objective moral truth that “living is good”. Such a moral claim is relative, not objective.
@@booboo3560 The fact that most people have a desire to live creates order. People do things to have peace, protect families, etc. Secondary norms of language and culture are learnt. Nothing is 'objective', they just evolve
Copleston has no trouble conceiving of a being that has no cause external to itself. Russell has no trouble conceiving of a universe that has no cause external to itself. This is not a debate.
@@kevinpulliam3661 In any case, I don't know which one violated the PSR. Perhaps it is a matter of personal preference. What shall I have for tea ? Chicken fried rice or fish and chips ?
@@tedgrant2 it’s not personal preference. Russell’s view necessitates “brute facts” which is an incoherent concept and its introduction to a worldview makes it a nonstarter. Copelstons view has a necessary being who’s essence is existence, which makes sense and is rational.
@@kevinpulliam3661 For me, the concept "necessary being" is incoherent. Maybe the universe has always existed in some form. I don't know, but at least I have no doubts that it really exists.
You can say that there is a cause to the universe but you go off the deep end when you say that this cause is a god, without connecting the cause to a god. You have inserted and asserted that the concept of a cause is a god without proof or evidence. The same happens when you change concepts. The gods have to be inserted and asserted without proper connection to reality. Therefore, gods must remain in the fictional realms until shown to exist.
When you reach home and your stuff is gone you posit it has been stolen. When we see creation we posit a creator. Or, what else could it be? A rock? It has to be a creator.
@@koppite9600 That is your main problem. You look at things as being created by a creator. Stop using stupid words and you won't sound stupid. Nothing was created by a creator. There was never a creator to create anything. You see creation. That's your problem. You can't see a rock as just a rock. You insert a creator to explain things that you believe already. It's your way of thinking. You have no evidence for a creator. That's the problem with making stuff up with out being able to back it up.
@@koppite9600 Why don't you blame your creator for taking all of your stuff? Is it because your creator doesn't have the ability to take your stuff or because positing a god that does stuff is really silly and that it must have been something else, like a robber which we have examples and evidence of?
The debate starts as it should, with Copleston stating what a "God" is. But, that's as far as the debate should have gone, because no one can say what a "God" is without begging the question. The hypothesis of a Being that can do anything raises more questions than it explains. The subject is that simple.
Does that follow? Does any abstract thing being defined beg the question? How would that work in relation to any abstract noun? - Also it’s important to point out they didn’t get i to defining God proper, but the definition itself is based on either 1) deductive necessity / rationality or 2) a posteriori experience. - For example if God is Uncaused (as Coppeston holds) then He’s independent by necessity, of other causes. Ghazali points out how a cause cannot be contemporaneous with an effect in time without agency as to when that effect comes into action, if the cause precedes the effect over a sustained period of time (so God has agency). Etc
@@HegelsOwl well that’s because you’re assuming He doesn’t exist, and so I referred to Him as an abstract noun. God can either be an abstract noun, or a proper noun. Either way one can reason about what qualities that noun would have. If God is an abstract noun, we can reason what properties He would have, based on other deductive principles. For example, if I say “God” is the non contingent cause of all contingent things, I’d have to believe by definition God is non contingent, able to cause things, independent of causes, prior to contingent things (of which the series of created events and things that make up the universe is one). Etc. - Beyond that, we can look at God for example, even as atheists as having certain properties based on the description of Him as such. For example I can define to you various qualities of a unicorn without 1) pre supposing that it exists 2) based on the conception of the creature as what it is. - Regardless I don’t think God being referred to either as an abstract noun nor as a proper noun matters. Unless your position is that the only things we can speak of, are those things which we know by empirical experience to exist. So no abstract nouns a priori can have any worth in discussing
@@HegelsOwl you can’t “beg the question” on foundational principles really. Especially in a single proposition. Saying “God can be an abstract noun” doesn’t beg anything really - because to call something an abstract noun doesn’t pre suppose that it exists. Unless you mean I have to first propose the existence of every term “God as a term exists” “can as a term exists” “be as a term exists” “abstract as a term exists” “noun as a term exists”, and then say “God can be an abstract noun”.
@user-qu8gi8oh9s ...Wait a minute: "He"? Whence comes this "He"? And whence my alleged assumption that "He" doesn't exist? You're also begging the question that "God" is a noun at all, nevermind an abstract one. You are correct that one CAN say a "God" is a noun, but so can any liar. In the OT, "Yahweh" is more like a type of verb, a force that deals-out punishment and reward: "We know you by your justice, O Lord" (Ps. 9.12). Since everyone could see this "verb" with one's own eyes, the psalmist went on to famously say, @14.1, "A fool says in his heart, 'There is no Yahew.'" Justice, "The Law," not Creation, is the essence of the OT "God." Creation was believed to be created by "The Law;" "The Word." In the NT, Yahweh is also a type of verb, called "Judgement Day," or "Justice Day," when "good people" are rewarded, and "bad people" are punished. In the OT m, one could see "God" in the justice of "bad people" punished, and vice versa. In the NT, "God" has fled the empirical world to become a distant promise of justice -- what has come to be declared as "an abstract noun." ...What happened? Ask Job.
On a more serious note I find this conversation somewhat obscure compared to Vedanta generally and advaita Vedanta in particular. I also find it somewhat exclusionary. There are many times in the conversation where the participants hardly understand each other so how can either point of view be applied to people as a whole . Advaita Vedanta is quite explicit both to the high born and the low born - That thou Art ie God and one's own Being is identical and is equivalent to the ' I AM ' of both the OT and NT . E=🕉️
*“If there is a contingent being, then there is a necessary being”* @6:22 Not if “being” refers to a living organism, since the contingent being can be contingent on matter and unguided processes and not on a “being”.
Not according to Copleston. I’m not exactly sure what distinction you’re trying to make, since the “contingent being” you’re referencing from that quote would indeed apply to living organisms and ultimately also to matter and the unguided processes you mention.
@@tylerhulsey982 “Not according to Copleston” Yes, what I wrote is not according to Copleston. I refuted his argument. Or if that is not what you mean, please clarify. I am not sure what your first “not” negates. I don’t understand your objection. I am saying that Copleston has the barely-unstated assumption that a being must come from a being. That is apparently not true. We also have no demonstrable examples of biological beings being born to non-biological beings, so a supernatural being is not indicated. I did not understand the rest of your post.
By “not according to Copleston” I meant that from what little I could understand in your post, it’s plain to see you’re misunderstanding what he means by contingent and necessary being. You’ve refuted precisely nothing. You could go Russell’s route, however, and say that contingency and necessity are only applicable to propositions and not things in the world!
For Copleston, a necessary being is a being that can’t not exist. It contains within it the explanation for its existence. Contrarily, a contingent being is a being for which it’s possible that it not exist. It depends for its existence on things outside it.
I suggest you a video. Watch this short video for results on intelligence and the self that even philosophy and psychology professors haven't achieved yet. The name of the video is WHAT IS TABULA RASA? WHAT IS IQ INTELLIGENCE? WHAT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THEM?
*“Contains the reason for its existence”* @3:14 Copleston employs the fallacy of composition- claiming that if each part has a characteristic, then the whole must have that characteristic also. Then he implies that not accepting a beginning point to causation means we can’t explain existence, as if *some* claim is necessarily better than admitting that we don’t know.
He’s actually pretty clear that he isn’t talking about a beginning point in causation. It’s his contention that even an infinite causal series would need a sufficient explanation for why it is the case. But personally I’m kind of sympathetic to Russell in denying the PSR. There is still something unsatisfactory with saying “the universe just exists lol”, though.
@@tylerhulsey982 “isn’t talking about a beginning point in causation.” Effectively he *is* talking about a beginning point at 3:44 in the video where he talks about the problem of proceeding to an infinity (of regression of causation) and how that precludes an explanation.
I do not agree with your objection, though I am partial to Russell's side of the debate. Let me explain my position. Copleston, here, is using an argument that has existed, in one form or another, since Aristotle's argument for the existence of a Prime Mover. He is arguing that every "thing" has a cause. The composition fallacy is more about qualities of an object than it is about that object's ontological relationship with other objects. Let's evaluate a fallacious claim to understand what the composition fallacy is: A page of paper is light. A book is composed of pages of paper. A book is therefore light. If you've ever taken a science course with a particularly large textbook you know well and good that books are not light. Composition is a misattribution of qualities, not a misattribution of ontological relationships. Copleston is arguing that the "piece of paper," "book," and every other contingent thing in the universe can be categorized under the class "thing," and that all members of this class "thing" are ontologically dependent upon a "cause" (which itself can be a "thing," though that "thing" itself needs a cause, which can itself be a thing, so on and so forth). To argue that this is a composition fallacy is to argue that general claims can never be made about classes of objects, which is well beyond the scope of what you were trying to do (point out an error on Copleston's logic). If every "thing" has a "cause," we can reasonably trace all presently existing things back to a single cause that was not caused by anything else. We call this self-causing cause God. Copleston, like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas (his debt to Catholic scholasticism is obvious, here) believes that the universe is one big domino chain and God is simply the first domino. For as simple as this argument is, it is strong and difficult to debate on its own grounds. The Big Bang, something we discovered multiple millennia after this argument was first conceived, lends some debatable credence to it. This is why Russell instead objects to Copleston's use of language, and why the debate quickly becomes epistemological and linguistic rather than simply ontological. His arguments against Copleston's loose use of language are strong, though it quickly leaves us with an inability to make grand claims about things like God's exsitence (hence why Russell is agnostic).
@@thiccboi5011 No, the Composition fallacy is not so limited as you claim. It is just as I stated. Look at a philosophy or logic site. In any case, what I stated about composition is true. Just because each thing in the universe seems to have causes (not “a” cause), does not mean the universe as a whole does. For one thing, each thing in the universe has causes from adjacent matter/energy/fields within the universe. So even if you insist that the universe has the same requirement of causation, you are stuck with the universe creating itself, since its causes would be from within its universe, which *seems* to be nonsensical, but then we have no experience or direct evidence of universes beginning. “… general claims can never bemade about classes of objects” No, that is not a conclusion from my fallacy claim. The universe is not merely a collection of objects, for the reason I explained above and because there are processes involved.
@@scienceexplains302 he’s not saying just that the universe as an abstract whole necessarily has a cause (although that’s one part of the claim). But that, if we take as a set of all the things in the universe we find them all contingent. Following the proposition that all contingent things rely on non contingent things for existence, by definition the series of contingent things that we here refer to shorthand as “the universe” must have some independent non contingent cause (or we have an infinite regress). - The only way to refute this I think is to say 1) things can exist without causes at all (quantum indeterminacy, things can pop into existence without any sufficient cause). This is difficult I think because there is just as strong a scientific claim to the opposite, from what I understand, so you’d be making an absolute argument from a probabilistic perspective, and that too not very probable (again from what I know on the current scientific leaning). 2) russelL’s argument that the quality of necessary can only apply to statements and not actual empirical objects (to me this is a semantic misdirection). For Russell saying “a bachelor is unmarried” is necessary, but to say a bachelor must exist or does exist is not. I think Copleston responded well when he said “well can we say that it’s necessary for contingent things to rely on non contingent things” but Russell imo deflected again, or perhaps I didn’t understand the argument and someone in the comments can / will correct me. - Overall though I think the religious experience argument is actually stronger. I definitely think you can offer a rational argument for God (ontological, contingency, moral) but I don’t think it’s the most effective in getting people to actually believe in God.
If there is such a being as a God and assuming this has some important bearing in peoples lives, why the hell is it so vague and ambiguous, where people attempting to 'prove' a being have to resort to metaphysical, ethereal and frankly usually tenuous factors as proof of a being ? A being as powerful as the proposed God should at least have the power to give undeniable facts of their existence and clear up confusion.
@@alkestos Crickets Alkestos???? You’re trying to be snarky don’t be scared now. Debate me and let’s see how smart you think you are and then let’s see how smart you actually are 🤣🤣🤣
Copleston: “If the total has no cause, then to my way of thinking it must be its own cause, which seems to me impossible”: funny how that, of course, doesn’t apply to god. One might think you are making a special case for what you believe in…
You're strawmanning Copelstons position he took the Kalam school position that everything that begins to exist has a cause, so it wouldn't be special pleading as God is defined as uncaused as God is first off timeless due to him creating time but also immutable due to him being devoid of ant potentiality.
@@JScholastic I'm strawmanning someone by quoting his exact words? Are you joking? He says not such thing as what the Kalam argument says, you're putting words in his mouth. Also defining something in some way doesn't mean anything, if it did I could just define Santa Claus as uncaused and timeless and kick your god out of the picture.
The first part is more about belif and evidence. The second part is about perception and experience of the world. Mental health can cause lots of experiences but these experiences whether perceived as mystical or not doesn't give evidence.
If the generated thing exists, the generator exists. If the thing was not generated, either because it is spontaneous or because it is infinite, either the generator is spontaneity or it is infinity. (God is not a humanoid, but a place of generation) - Augustu Ox 05-14-2024 (Bruno da Silva Nunes)
Lord Russell confuses me by saying there are no absolutes when he believes some statements have self-contradictory denials. What truth could me more absolute than one with such a denial?
20:03 "Every man who exists has a mother. And it seems to be your argument is: therefore the human race must have a mother. But, obviously, the human race hasn't a mother. That's a different logical sphere." What about the Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor, the “mitochondrial Eve”? Couldn't that be considered "the mother of human race"? Or the Last universal common ancestor of all organisms on Earth?
I think that what Russell meant there is that if we are talking about the whole, then if we say that something created the whole, we reach a contradiction because the creator of the whole is necessarily outside of the whole, and therefore the whole is not the whole. The analogy of the mother of humankind does not capture this contradiction as clearly.
Russel's argument points out that the properties of the whole do not match the properties of each individual part. If we have the set of natural numbers for example, the set has properties none of the parts has, for example the mere property of being a set, or of being indefinite, etc. Further on, the parts have properties the set doesn't have, for example the set doesn't have the property of being odd, even, divisible by 2, etc. Copleston's argument, as he clearly stated, relies on assuming the whole's contingency by virtue of each part being observably contingent (his words: "but it cannot be necessary since each member is contingent"). He did hide this, however, when he said he doesn't assume the whole's contingency but the idea that the whole is a sufficient explanation of the parts. (To which Russel replies why should there be a cause) Ok, but if that's the argument then why the previous line of thought trying to prove the whole must be contigent? It seems to me Copelston is playing on 2 different grounds here and shifting the argument.
What.a brilliant discussion. Only thing is that it's all completely pointless. Fun if you like doing the Times Crossword, which I do, but to others, paragliding and climbing mountains are a much better use of their time. These two are dead as dead and will be for eternity, whatever that is. Great while it lasted but really. Bertrand and Copleston would have had far more fun driving Formula one cars around Silverstone. Now there really is a point to that if you enjoy going round in circles.
My very layman opinion: Sometimes proving the existence needs annihilation of the subject in question. For example if i want to prove the existence of heart inside my body i have to open my chest and take out my heart... ☺️
there are many ways to prove the existence of a heart inside of you by inference. if you have a pulse, you have a heart. if you are alive, you have a heart. there is also plenty of imaging technology which can reveal the heart without the need to open up your chest.
This controversy is easily done away with. Neither of them are talking about God. The term "God" or "god" properly applies to the type of being described in Genesis, or the Iliad, or in the Sumerian Artrahasis, or in Hesiod's Theogony. These have nothing in common with type of entity under consideration by Anselm or Aquinas or Descartes or Tillich or Barth or Russell or Copleston. AND THAT IS THE END OF THE MATTER. 😮
The most disappointing aspect of the whole debate is that not for a moment either has appreciated or even seemed willing to appreciate the other's viewpoint. This isn't philosophy but dogmatism, one skeptic, the other religious.
The moment you realise darwinian evolution is nothing but atheistic philosophy you begin to understand yourself and the world differently, instead of asking someone to prove that God exists, asking them to scientifically prove He doesn't. Read Dr Michael Denton's books on evolution a theory still in crisis.
EChristian Western countries was vry active in slavery as was African leaders. They all thought the pratice ofslavery was ok until it was deemed not to be. The God people were no different than the witch Drs. I see athiests being more just and loving than the christian people I've met or from history.
This is the funniest discussion I've ever heard in my life! The plummy accents are hilarious. The most formal English is so cute. The mutual politeness is almost unbelievable ... in this day and age. Their relative mindsets, standpoints, beliefs, worldviews, semantic theories will NEVER be reconciled. This is so far from Socratic philosophical dialogue as possible. Neither learned anything from the other nor could ever have changed the other's mind. It was just a very very polite argument between two insufferable snobby bigots. Compared to Eastern theologies and philosophies, it is childish thinking -- semantic wrestling. Neither would have lasted 15 minutes in debate with Adi Shankara, Kapila, Vyasa, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, Lao-Tzu. They just went round and round in circles in a self-indulgent wank.
Russell wasn't snobby. That's just his accent, which is acquired from his experience/environment. He was a fascinating human being. Dr. Eric Steinhart on Bertrand Russell: ua-cam.com/video/dQrNFMExwso/v-deo.html
@@ConceptCollection No, I can clearly seperate his plummy accent from his intellectual snobbery and condescension. I haven't seen/read much of his work, but this video (upon which I specifically commented) shows little true insight into the human condition or accute skills at debating a point which convinces another to surrender to higher truths ... which was the true purpose of Socratic philosophy -- hence the other great spiritual philosophers I named.
Crazy to think that they used to be able to put this stuff on the radio and not just some mindless, repeating song that sounds like every other song that is all about yourself and not having to change who you are or improve yourself.
Yes the banter back and forth with the utmost respect was delightful. It would be nice to hear things like this on the radio or TV. Not the garbage monotonous lower human aspects.
They weren't born staring at screens that constantly deliver cheap and instant dopamine hits, which over time destroys the ability to focus on content that isn't immediately gratifying. Social media is literally lobotomizing us.
Here here!
They've been speaking so coherent,and not interrupting each other,they really listened to one another.
Mind blowing when you dive into history,you realise people were so polite about others view even if they considered twisted or wrong in their way.
You best not be talking about Taylor Swift. Her music is not mindless junk; it's very profound.
I do continue to maintain that Eric Idle’s opening narration is surely among the best voice-over work he’s done.
The voice-over was provided by Disney... The character of the Martian commander who sought to blow up the world with a fuse. Bugs Bunny did away with him too.
Bertrand was my relative - albeit - distant. So amazing to hear his voice, read his work and understand so much more about the similarities of other family members, with himself.
Two colleagues were asking them are you a Russell? That nose.
@@horserous am I a Russell? My grandmother was
Both excellent discussion for a timely world, flowing between arguments is spectacular. Especially for today from Historical philosophical experience. Bertrand Russell and copleston.
It really is remarkable how similar in content, if not linguistic style, this conversation is to the kind of discussions had in this field today. It’s easy and pleasant to imagine equivalently engaging disputation happening in the time of Aquinas, Ibn Sina or Aristotle, and I suspect that in most regards we ultimately know precious little more today than such titans knew about the big metaphysical questions
British empiricists and the Vienna Circle, including Wittgenstein, basically eviscerated metaphysics by viewing it as a problem of words, not objects. Notions such as the soul, gods and devils, elves, etc are objects without concrete referent. As Santa and Easter Bunny are fictitious characters.
I wondered whether the full debate was out there somewhere. Thanks for the upload. I love Russell’s enduring stubbornness here (and Copleston’s patience with him).
Lol. Spoken like a true believer!
@@thedolphin5428 Agreed. An atheist would talk about Copleston's stubbornness and Russell's patience with him.
Hmm ... except Russel was right ...
They have both considered every point beforehand and are just going through the motions. Either that or these old-timers really can evaluate arguments on the fly and shoot back with impeccable prose.
I would surmise the latter.
Or some of both
"They have both considered every point beforehand..." No,like all unbelievers, Russell overlooked that any statement about what a "God" is, as Copelston's opening statement, begs the question.
@@jaysyd143 Good information, thanks. I knew there was *something* odd about the way they talk here. Their choice of words seemed alert and passionate, but they both deliver their lines like their heart isn't in it.
@@HegelsOwl An argument begs the question when in order to accept its premise you need to already accept its conclusion.
Copleston's opening statement is the basic step of asking for terminology agreement, by `God` they mean a being with certain qualities, not an idea, or a set of physical laws or moral principles, or your hope for humanity etc.
It doesn't require you to accept the conclusion (whether such being exists or not) to accept that use of terminology in the debate.
The reason such basic step exists in any philosophical debate is to avoid the humpty dumpty use of words when you lose the argument and you start saying "b-but this term means just what I choose it to mean, not what you're saying". Which happens A LOT when lay people debate God. They probably prefer this move so they are never wrong but people who are educated in philosophy hate it and rather avoid such situation.
Suppose you debate someone whether `Superman` exists, the first thing you should do is to come to agreement that the term `Superman` you are debating refers to an actual man in cape, not a comic book character (we already know such character exists).
To simply accept provisionally that the term `Superman` in that debate means an actual man in cape who can fly, punch through buildings and has X ray vision, doesn't require you to accept that such a man exists. So it doesn't beg the question at all. It's the way to even have a clear question to think about.
This is a really basic concept and without understanding it you really shouldn't be thinking about these big philosophical questions at all.
It always makes me chuckle when we have a debate between two great masters of a topic then a guy who understands less than the average first year student comes in with a sweeping generalization and drops their insight on how they failed to consider something :))
If people nowadays, especially the educated, the privileged and the dwindling number of intellectuals, can think with such clarity of thoughts, can articulate their opinions without distorting truths or demonising dissenting views, can behave graciously in victory and defeat, then our world will be a much better place for all.
I dont think Russel was gracious in victory at all. He seems to have lost the debate very clearly and misdirected. Copleston, in turn, seems to have been gracious enough to not press.
@@natanaellizama6559you just repeated the things to that contrary to his points. Proving the existence of God by pure reasoning is just already crazy and it is clear that this more of a discussion where both of them can exchange ideas rather than try to prove their ego
@@SeanAnthony-j7fI'm not sure how this engages with what I've said. Why is it crazy to use reason to prove GODs existence?
And I just disagree. Bertrand was not undogmatic. In fact, he was strongly biased towards his non-theism. If you have to be cornered down to saying "oh, well, even talking of a cause of the world is non-sensical(a technical term to mean it has no linguistic meaning like "flies dances banana koala gotooto")" you kinda lost the debate. Because it's clear that, as Copleston says, to put it in the form of a question is not linguistically non-sensical("Is there a cause of the world?")
@@natanaellizama6559 that is why he can't subscribe to all arguments for the existence of God, because of the limitations of reason itself not because he is being dogmatic about his certain belief or doctrines. He actually described himself as an agnostic philosophically and an atheist regarding his public circle.
It seems like we got a very primitive understanding on the limitations of language and rationality. Conceiving God with humans' inherently finite cognition, living in a tiny planet from our solar system within a Milky Galaxy from another multitude of more Milky Galaxies that has millions and billions of more planets in multiple universes. Trying to deduce all of that by pure reasoning to an omniscient entity- that has anthropological properties such as morality and virtue that we mostly imagine by featuring it as a human by believing in personal God (that also has pluralistic cultures with different personal Gods) that probably also undergoes the same evolutionary processes like us.
Trying to be nuanced and not hindering at least philosophically because I think there are a lot of cultural and existential elements that I find valuable- I will subscribe but proving this personal God exists- it is just out of our faculties. Immanuel Kant had already refuted that God's existence is even conceivable beyond space and time cannot be known a priori; one good example when logical reasoning gets too far is Godel's interpretations of ontological argument that is so precise in deductive reasoning that it comes out as more interesting for computers scientists than of theologians.
@@natanaellizama6559 that is why he can't subscribe to all arguments for the existence of God, because of the limitations of reason itself not because he is being dogmatic about his certain belief or doctrines. He actually described himself as an agnostic philosophically and an atheist regarding his public circle.
It seems like we got a very primitive understanding on the limitations of language and rationality. Conceiving God with humans' inherently finite cognition, living in a tiny planet from our solar system within a Milky Galaxy from another multitude of more Milky Galaxies that has millions and billions of more planets in multiple universes. Trying to deduce all of that by pure reasoning to an omniscient entity- that has anthropological properties such as morality and virtue that we mostly imagine by featuring it as a human by believing in personal God (that also has pluralistic cultures with different personal Gods) that probably also undergoes the same evolutionary processes like us.
Trying to be nuanced and not hindering at least philosophically because I think there are a lot of cultural and existential elements that I find valuable- I will subscribe but proving this personal God exists- it is just out of our faculties. Immanuel Kant had already refuted that God's existence is even conceivable beyond space and time cannot be known a priori; one good example when logical reasoning gets too far is Godel's interpretations of ontological argument that is so precise in deductive reasoning that it comes out as more interesting for computers scientists than of theologians.
It is a little difficult to pass from England to America, and then to India , and to China and keep one's social philosophy unchanged. The world had convinced Bertrand Russell that is to big for his formulae, and heavy to move towards to move rapidly his heart's desire. And there are so many hearts, and so may hearts desires. All in all, a very lovable man: capable of the profoundest metaphysics and the subtlest mathematics, and yet speaking always simply, with clarity which only comes to those who are sincere; a man addicted to fields of thought that usually drys up the springs of feeling, and yet warmed and illumined.
Russell? Profound metaphysics? I find this very confusing. He seems to me incredibly shallow in metaphysics.
Russel's argument points out that the properties of the whole do not match the properties of each individual part. If we have the set of natural numbers for example, the set has properties none of the parts has, for example the mere property of being a set, or of being indefinite, etc. Further on, the parts have properties the set doesn't have, for example the set doesn't have the property of being odd, even, divisible by 2, etc. Copleston's argument, as he clearly stated, relies on assuming the whole's contingency by virtue of each part being observably contingent (his words: "but it cannot be necessary since each member is contingent"). He did hide this, however, when he said he doesn't assume the whole's contingency but rather the idea that the whole is not a sufficient explanation of the parts. (To which Russel replies why should there be a cause) Ok, but if that's the argument then why the previous line of thought trying to prove the whole must be contigent? It seems to me Copelston is playing on 2 different grounds here and shifting the argument.
The best thing about this debate is the absolutely gorgeous English. I was laughing through almost the entire recording.
You may enjoy Jonathan Miller's impersonation of Russell, recorded some sixty years ago: ua-cam.com/video/MSifxC_L9F0/v-deo.html
@@roberteno4035 I found your proposition to be valid. Thank you 🤣
you normally laugh at that which you find gorgeous?
@@theunrepentantatheist24 Does it strike you as a logical contradiction?
Why?
Russell lost the debate as soon as he uttered the words, "I see no reason whatsoever to suppose that the total has any cause". If it has no cause, then: 1) it's not contingent; 2) it's of necessity, even if you try to dress that up as 'just there', 'gratuitous' or some other absurd sidestep. Therefore, as Copleston said, a total that's of necessity containing parts that are contingent requires further explanation. .
Just recently, I read Bertrand Russell book, Why I am Not a Christian. There is this debate..
one minute in and ..... holy crap these are my boys!!!!! such a great back and fourth
Thanks love Russell as thinker and philosopher .
Nietzsche's "Genealogy of Morals" I find interesting on the ethical issue. It's interesting Russell is so associated with logic as I always have the impression when listening to him of how his views lead to dead ends. Maybe it's because he could not adequately explain them in a limited conversation.
The problem with using logic as a human being with everything is this methodology needs time to reach the end of process and ascertain truth from, time which in its entirety human beings will never have.
Pure GOLD. How we wish Bertrand was around today
Search for Gold and search for a Cause are very different.
"Principia Ethica"; I did wonder when Russell would mention Moores seminal yet provocative work.
"I should maintain: such exquisite banter!
Now we need a kind of debate on positive/negative level in semantics of matter - human understanding via substance.
Please amplify on this and what it concerns in examples.
Read advaitha! They produce the view of world as simulation !
@@letdaseinlive Not gonna come, since it's pompous drivel.
This debate reveals who is actually presupposed and dogmatic. Bases beliefs on feelings and can misuse scientific holes.
yes… russell
Russeo
If "feelings" are not important, then why WOKE?
Coplestone?
I don't wish to diminish these weighty matters but they have something of Badiel and Newman's discussions on History Today !
With those names we can dismiss them.
Russell confused logical necessity with ontological necessity. The statement, 'A rabbit need no sufficient reason to exist,' involves no logical contradiction, analytically, as a statement, but it does it involve an ontological contradiction, as rabbits cannot provide the sufficient reason for their own existence, in actual reality. As with rabbits, and so with all material reality.
He's not confused about it. He explained that he rejects "necessity" as significantly meaningful as used in that sense.
Material reality is self sufficient as a Whole . No need for any outside supporter providing sustenance
why? individual things are not self explanatory, but slap the name “universe” on all of them and suddenly they lose that quality?
@@bun197 no each things are dependent on other things .
@@parallax7819 no
15:30 Russel says we have to grab this whole thing entirely to do what Copleston wants but I certainly can't see any grounds for this assertion. I mean it would mean we know nothing of science. We need not calculate every digit of pi to come to the conclusion that it is an irrational number less than 4 and greater than 3. We need not always trace every path in a maze to realize that there is no way through (for example if we notice that the end is blocked off). We often are able to see something about the big pitcure without knowing all the many details. When we see contigent things, well we can see where things have to end: A necessary thing. We may have no idea at all if the chain goes back a billion years or ten trillion years or through a system of super powerful aliens or gods or simulators of a computer program we live in or whatever...but we can tell we have to end up at a fountain head of all this reality however large this reality may turn out to be.
No dumb Dawkins or Harris , or any of the the other sycophants , just two
Philosopherss discussing an important topic, no name calling ,,just two people who are debating in a good faith effort to make sense of an important topic. ✝️☮️
They never pause to think or double back on what they have said or misspoken. It sounds like they are reading from a script.
They're just to philosophers at the height of their careers talking about topics which are second nature to them.
probably their minds where not destroyed fron TikTok and nonstop nonsense shortclips 😂
It sounds that way because it is.
We exist, so for Bertrand asking why we exist rather then not is meaningless and should NEVER be asked because he has to admit that we came to existence from nothing believing in magic rather than God, but both Bertrand and Frederick know the truth now, and we will find it soon
@@shawnclark8232 You're quite right, we are not in position to know anything about God except He informing us. We don't know what is happening kilometer in our street, when we look at our bodies, its like monkey looking in Ferrari, we know about our immune system about 1% if i remember correctly from Harvard journal. So by logical conclusion how we are going to know Creator if we are not in position to know about ourselves even? First of all, Creator by definition of the word must be one. Think about this experiment, if i am creator of a robot with AI and i put him in closed area with limited amount of objects there. The only way for him to know me is if i inform him, not other way around, because he is subset of my powers and possibilities just like God is outside and beyond our space and time and our dimension. Definition of God in Islam is that we are never going to be in position to understand what God looks like, He looks like nothing we could ever imagine
@@shawnclark8232 Firas Zahabi studied philosophy for 20 years, UA-cam this:
“Fighting Faith - Firas Zahabi, Mohammed Hijab, Subboor Ahmad”,
"Firas Zahabi Talks Religion, Consciousness and Meaning of Life."
“Randomness: The Atheist Idol - Live with Firas Zahabi”,
“Live discussion with Firas Zahabi”,
“What is Truth? with Firas Zahabi”,
“Firas Zahabi Destroys Stephen Fry’s Complaining and Insulting God Argument (GOOD AND EVIL)”,
and this UA-cam channel “AllTruthRevealed”
@@shawnclark8232 Start with this "Live discussion with Firas Zahabi"
Why do you assume they know the truth now?
People who believe in a god are the ones who believe in magic, a magical being they call a god and that everything came from nothing, so it sounds like a bunch of projecting on your part. So stop lying to yourself and admit that you believe in magic and that your holy book is a book that describes a lot of magic, that you supposedly don't believe in.
Frederick Copleston is clearly the superior philosopher... Russell..apparently a man of logic who rejects propositions concerning metaphysics as he cannot answer them and always has to run to mathematics and the hole he digs for himself. Trying to understand the Creator of The Universe cannot be described using mathematics or physics.
I felt persuaded by Copelston's line of argument after the first watch, but after rewatching I realized he's actually not addressing Russel's point at all. Russel said the elements of a set having a particular property (all humans having a mother, for example) is not proof of the set having that property (the human race having a property), and Copelston's reply affirmed the opposite, "and if it (the whole) is sufficient to itself, it is what I call necessary. But it can't be necessary, since each member is contingent". Why does each member being contingent entail the set's contingency? It seems like a fallacy to me.
your god doesnt exist, get over it
@@ieronim272 It is fallacious generally, but Copplestone is trying to say here that there are exceptions to that fallacy, dependant on what the particular property in question is. For example, if each element of the table is made of wood, the table as a whole will of course be wooden. I'm not really sure though, how you could determine which qualities are properly transferrable from the element to the set, and which are not.
Part 1 :
( first Kantian antinomy : Origin )
@26:45 ‘ well , then if it ‘ s a question and then it has no meaning , then it ‘ s very difficult to discuss it . ‘
( Antinomy 3 : @ 25:50 ‘ first causes that haven’t in themselves GOT causes )
( of time succession or events / things a priori ? )
the infinity of a / the series of events
@17:19
( for prelims and part A probability : ill - defined in structure . What is the discipline ?)
Kant ( American edition )
antinomy 1 :
(1 ) ‘ an infinite series of states of things in the world , each following another , have passed away ‘
(2 ) ‘ the infinity of a series consists in that it may never be completed by successive synthesis ‘
(3) ‘ thus many series of things’
(4 ) ‘ the infinity of the world series and the sum total of the world .. ‘
@21:00 ‘ the series of events … ‘
IF : … it is caused …
( @23:47
‘ a man may look for gold ‘ )
Part 2 : @26:56
( theme comes from the beginnings of part 1 , but is not exercised as antinomy … namely ,
The 4th Kantian antinomy of a
‘ necessary being ‘ .
This begins with a recognition of religious experience as not necessarily proof . )
@29:20 :
‘ That is by no means always the case ‘
( ‘ the devil ‘ : @31:28 )
( The dijunction : @37:44.
As a facet of contemporary epistemology , one would wish to understand the appropriate ways of requesting justification , and also giving justification . …
‘ seeing ‘ is not appreciated here in its a priori capacity . )
( @46:00 .
The Kantian
‘ categorical imperative ‘
, the ‘ ought ‘ ,
is that one ought to exercise those maxims that admit a possibility of being law . )
It's endlessly fascinating for us to listen to this debate but I know that Fr. Copleston was not entirely happy with it. He preferred his debate with A.J. Ayer on Logical Positivism.
I wish I sounded like this
thank you
This wasn't even close, can we have a more competitive debate next time?
Absolutely, Father Copleston was being to nice on him.
A blind man can't tell a seeing man anything. Insight always triumphs.
Copleston won this in the first three minutes. He gets Russell to agree that everything is contingent and that there has to be a necessary being at the end because it can't just be contingencies forever.
Russell tries to deny the existence of causes. He says "necessary" isn't a meaningful word. He claims the "universe is just there" but is unwilling to say it's uncaused. He tries to maintain that because you can't perfectly know something there's no point in searching. (To clarify, if you were consistent with him here human knowledge would entirely collapse. We'd be able to collect no data because we couldn't isolate causes, and no one would search for any answers anyway because omniscience is impossible.) At every turn he's just deconstructing, deflecting, and avoiding very obvious definitions of simple words like "cause" and "necessary". On the moral issue he says, "I agree but" and then throws out word salad.
This debate was a smackdown from the beginning. Brutal. Watching Russell is like watching a dog poop in the floor and then fighting with all his might as his owner pushes his nose into it.
That’s quite the impression you’ve had.
Copleston by no means won this debate, much less in the first three minutes.
Far from denying that “necessity” and “cause” are meaningless terms, Russell was quite clear that “necessity” is a term proper to notions, not real entities, and that causes *may be* applicable only to entities *of* the universe, but not to the universe itself.
By analogy, “top” and “bottom” may be parts of a whole entity, but that whole entity cannot be describable as “top” or “bottom” unless it is itself also a part of a greater whole.
The same goes for causality. The universe (a whole) itself needn’t be describable in terms of cause and effect simply because entities *of* the universe are effects and causes.
By all means Copleston won this debate. Russell lacks ground, and denies the fact the causality traces back to a first cause necessarily.
@@christophersoria5911
No, Copleston didn’t win this debate by any means, much less the one by which you claim he won it.
Tracing causes back to a “necessary” “uncaused cause” is a notoriously dubious argument, and Copleston certainly didn’t provide any reason for its indubitability.
It is just a plausible that all that exists has always existed and needed no cause to come into existence than that it was caused to come into existence.
Unless God spasmodically caused the world to come into being - which, to admit, would commit you to the possibility that God’s causation is as impersonal as that of impersonal, eternally existent matter - you would have to attribute desire to God. But then the reason for that desire arising for God must be given a reason. And to say that the desire simply arose without reason commits you to the possibility that things can simply come to be, and thus that that is a possibility for the universe itself.
Here is one who thinks that the people on his side won, as happens so often with those who think tribally.
@@HangrySaturn Ah, a winner from the "I'm not a part of a tribe" tribe. Congratulations.
X-Files
Good (god) is the exact opposite of vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).
A priest using reason to attempt proof of the unreasonable?
And a polymath using it to disprove what does not exist in the first place?
Reminds me of my idea for a short film: Two people debating the efficacy of the debate form. The debater studies and practices for months, and shows up ready for a skirmish. The non-debater goes to the park. SPOILER: the non-debater wins.
Life is not a battle of ideas. It is a struggle for connection.
My washing machine is making a funny noise.
Obviously there is a cause. But what can I do about it ?
The Bible is very useful in this regard (Matthew 17:20)
Mr. Cholmondley-Warner arguing with Greyson.
22 Bertrand- you would agree that much that makes life LIFE is not material but transcendent and spiritual. Love, consciousness, come to mind. So if we as humans know this, why is it falsehood to ascribe the source of these gifts as a GREATER SPIRIT rather than arising from material beginnings ?? Which one is more logical??? For being so intelligent he doesn’t seems to have grasped simple obvious facts about human existence
If it was so obvious, modern western society would not be trending towards secularism.
why when you interfere with a brain do you interfere with a person's cs'ness? why is the cs'ness of an adult more refined than that of an infant? why do human cs'nesses begin with the formation of brains?
Theirs back and forthing is helping me 💤
38:00 we probably didn't know back then however now we determine blue in the electro magnetic spectrum as 400-460nm.
A Massless wave and particle I think.
Wow I rarely hear people speaking so calmly about contentious issues in 2023. Hopefully this will change.
If he meant that he understands color through his perspective. Well that's relative for some see color differently. Dichromatic vision and other things. So color is somewhat perspective yet definably on a scale as near exacts. Our own perspective cannot be the underlying causal of ones own higher congnition of reality. For it is limited by varying degrees it seems to me. Through our perception of our own. Which could be not what everyone else experiences on a totality baseline speaking. Or majority speaking.
The accents and speaking voices of these two scholars seem antiquated to me. What type of accent do these two British men speak with? Does it still exist?
It's called snobbery.
R.P I guess.
Hello, no people don't speak like this anymore. It sounds very charming and old fashioned to us in England too. The name of the accent is 'upper RP.' You shouldn't learn it though lol :) because you will sound like a 1940s film star.
36:00 Copleston made and excellent point refuting his own argument. He says the boy falls in love with the value and ideal and not the fictional character which was Russell's point. Copleston's admission is that someone need not exist in order to fall in love with them, because they are really just falling in love with the ideal and confusing that love with the object. It is clear to me that theists confuse their love of value and ideal with the fictional character of God, thus believing their feeling validates the object of their belief.
You can't conclude a god without some kind of logical fallacy
Fallacy is in the eye of the beholder; mostly logical positivist, otherwise known as illogical negativists.
@@allen5455 It's not in the eye of the beholder. Fallacies are defined and can be identified by anyone who understands the definitions of each.
@@HangrySaturn There are over 237 different "fallacies." It is impossible to communicate, as per the "logical positivists," without committing some "fallacy." All communication ends. This is exactly what the likes of L. Wittgenstein and his never-ending "disciples, Marxists all, desire--a lust for confusion.
I thought he was Jimmy Page.
To my mind Copleston's initial premise is not correct. He mentions that there are no objects that contain within themselves the reason for their existence. He gave examples of pen (I think) and a person, but he just didn't look close enough. How would he know if those fundamental particles that make up the pen or person, or the laws which govern them, contain within them the reason for their existence. And just like Wittgenstein once said....perhaps the question is meaningless in any case because we are just playing around with terms.
Most of our language has roots in genetics, and the terms we use are derived from how we react to the world around us. Our basic reactions build in. If, for example we see someone who is really beautiful to look at, it's is almost impossible to rationalize that there is no beauty. Likewise I believe that some people have a genuine feeling about a GOD. This too cannot be easily (if at all) rationalized.
You are equaling a person with the particles that make them. It seems a way of mereological nihilism
Copleston: everything must have a cause, the experiences of mystics must be true because they come from sound minds, morality must be based on God's law if it is not to be relative. Russell: causal explanations may not always be possible, there is no irrefutable evidence to believe in mystics' experiences, morality is based on the greatest good for the greatest number
How can you measure the “greatest good” when good itself is the subject of morality?
Isn’t that circular?
Isn’t that tantamount to saying “what’s morally good is therefore morally good?”
@@booboo3560 People generally share the desire to survive. This brings primary norms of social order. Over time, innumerable secondary norms develop in societies. Patiently standing in queues is an example. But secondary norms vary from society to society. So, yes, there is a degree of relativism.
@@sendakan666 you almost missed the point of my question. But you accepted that there’s relativism in your example. The fact that “most people have a desire to live” does not create an objective moral truth that “living is good”. Such a moral claim is relative, not objective.
@@booboo3560 The fact that most people have a desire to live creates order. People do things to have peace, protect families, etc. Secondary norms of language and culture are learnt. Nothing is 'objective', they just evolve
@@sendakan666 “nothing is objective” (under a materialist’s world view) is all I wanted you to admit. The rest I could challenge, but it’s irrelevant.
Copleston has no trouble conceiving of a being that has no cause external to itself.
Russell has no trouble conceiving of a universe that has no cause external to itself.
This is not a debate.
Right but only one position violates the PSR and thus is incoherent, and the other one is correct
@@kevinpulliam3661
Do you mean the Payment Systems Regulator ?
Or the Principle of Sufficient Reason ?
(or something else that humans invented)
@@kevinpulliam3661
In any case, I don't know which one violated the PSR.
Perhaps it is a matter of personal preference.
What shall I have for tea ? Chicken fried rice or fish and chips ?
@@tedgrant2 it’s not personal preference. Russell’s view necessitates “brute facts” which is an incoherent concept and its introduction to a worldview makes it a nonstarter. Copelstons view has a necessary being who’s essence is existence, which makes sense and is rational.
@@kevinpulliam3661
For me, the concept "necessary being" is incoherent.
Maybe the universe has always existed in some form.
I don't know, but at least I have no doubts that it really exists.
You can say that there is a cause to the universe but you go off the deep end when you say that this cause is a god, without connecting the cause to a god. You have inserted and asserted that the concept of a cause is a god without proof or evidence. The same happens when you change concepts. The gods have to be inserted and asserted without proper connection to reality. Therefore, gods must remain in the fictional realms until shown to exist.
When you reach home and your stuff is gone you posit it has been stolen. When we see creation we posit a creator. Or, what else could it be? A rock? It has to be a creator.
@@koppite9600 That is your main problem. You look at things as being created by a creator. Stop using stupid words and you won't sound stupid. Nothing was created by a creator. There was never a creator to create anything. You see creation. That's your problem. You can't see a rock as just a rock. You insert a creator to explain things that you believe already. It's your way of thinking. You have no evidence for a creator. That's the problem with making stuff up with out being able to back it up.
@@koppite9600 Why don't you blame your creator for taking all of your stuff? Is it because your creator doesn't have the ability to take your stuff or because positing a god that does stuff is really silly and that it must have been something else, like a robber which we have examples and evidence of?
@@blackswan8653 what explains existence then?
@@koppite9600 Your mom and dad. See when two people get together and have sex, it produces people like you.
The debate starts as it should, with Copleston stating what a "God" is. But, that's as far as the debate should have gone, because no one can say what a "God" is without begging the question. The hypothesis of a Being that can do anything raises more questions than it explains. The subject is that simple.
Does that follow? Does any abstract thing being defined beg the question? How would that work in relation to any abstract noun?
-
Also it’s important to point out they didn’t get i to defining God proper, but the definition itself is based on either 1) deductive necessity / rationality or 2) a posteriori experience.
-
For example if God is Uncaused (as Coppeston holds) then He’s independent by necessity, of other causes. Ghazali points out how a cause cannot be contemporaneous with an effect in time without agency as to when that effect comes into action, if the cause precedes the effect over a sustained period of time (so God has agency). Etc
@user-qu8gi8oh9s ...But, see, you're begging the question that "God" is an abstract noun.
@@HegelsOwl well that’s because you’re assuming He doesn’t exist, and so I referred to Him as an abstract noun. God can either be an abstract noun, or a proper noun. Either way one can reason about what qualities that noun would have. If God is an abstract noun, we can reason what properties He would have, based on other deductive principles. For example, if I say “God” is the non contingent cause of all contingent things, I’d have to believe by definition God is non contingent, able to cause things, independent of causes, prior to contingent things (of which the series of created events and things that make up the universe is one). Etc.
-
Beyond that, we can look at God for example, even as atheists as having certain properties based on the description of Him as such. For example I can define to you various qualities of a unicorn without 1) pre supposing that it exists 2) based on the conception of the creature as what it is.
-
Regardless I don’t think God being referred to either as an abstract noun nor as a proper noun matters. Unless your position is that the only things we can speak of, are those things which we know by empirical experience to exist. So no abstract nouns a priori can have any worth in discussing
@@HegelsOwl you can’t “beg the question” on foundational principles really. Especially in a single proposition. Saying “God can be an abstract noun” doesn’t beg anything really - because to call something an abstract noun doesn’t pre suppose that it exists. Unless you mean I have to first propose the existence of every term “God as a term exists” “can as a term exists” “be as a term exists” “abstract as a term exists” “noun as a term exists”, and then say “God can be an abstract noun”.
@user-qu8gi8oh9s ...Wait a minute: "He"? Whence comes this "He"? And whence my alleged assumption that "He" doesn't exist? You're also begging the question that "God" is a noun at all, nevermind an abstract one. You are correct that one CAN say a "God" is a noun, but so can any liar.
In the OT, "Yahweh" is more like a type of verb, a force that deals-out punishment and reward: "We know you by your justice, O Lord" (Ps. 9.12). Since everyone could see this "verb" with one's own eyes, the psalmist went on to famously say, @14.1, "A fool says in his heart, 'There is no Yahew.'" Justice, "The Law," not Creation, is the essence of the OT "God." Creation was believed to be created by "The Law;" "The Word." In the NT, Yahweh is also a type of verb, called "Judgement Day," or "Justice Day," when "good people" are rewarded, and "bad people" are punished.
In the OT m, one could see "God" in the justice of "bad people" punished, and vice versa. In the NT, "God" has fled the empirical world to become a distant promise of justice -- what has come to be declared as "an abstract noun."
...What happened? Ask Job.
On a more serious note I find this conversation somewhat obscure compared to Vedanta generally and advaita Vedanta in particular. I also find it somewhat exclusionary. There are many times in the conversation where the participants hardly understand each other so how can either point of view be applied to people as a whole .
Advaita Vedanta is quite explicit both to the high born and the low born - That thou Art ie God and one's own Being is identical and is equivalent to the ' I AM ' of both the OT and NT . E=🕉️
*“If there is a contingent being, then there is a necessary being”* @6:22
Not if “being” refers to a living organism, since the contingent being can be contingent on matter and unguided processes and not on a “being”.
Not according to Copleston. I’m not exactly sure what distinction you’re trying to make, since the “contingent being” you’re referencing from that quote would indeed apply to living organisms and ultimately also to matter and the unguided processes you mention.
@@tylerhulsey982 “Not according to Copleston”
Yes, what I wrote is not according to Copleston. I refuted his argument. Or if that is not what you mean, please clarify. I am not sure what your first “not” negates.
I don’t understand your objection. I am saying that Copleston has the barely-unstated assumption that a being must come from a being. That is apparently not true.
We also have no demonstrable examples of biological beings being born to non-biological beings, so a supernatural being is not indicated.
I did not understand the rest of your post.
By “not according to Copleston” I meant that from what little I could understand in your post, it’s plain to see you’re misunderstanding what he means by contingent and necessary being. You’ve refuted precisely nothing. You could go Russell’s route, however, and say that contingency and necessity are only applicable to propositions and not things in the world!
@@tylerhulsey982 Then Copleston is using some definition of Necessary that I have not encountered.
If I am misunderstanding, then explain
For Copleston, a necessary being is a being that can’t not exist. It contains within it the explanation for its existence. Contrarily, a contingent being is a being for which it’s possible that it not exist. It depends for its existence on things outside it.
I suggest you a video. Watch this short video for results on intelligence and the self that even philosophy and psychology professors haven't achieved yet. The name of the video is WHAT IS TABULA RASA? WHAT IS IQ INTELLIGENCE? WHAT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THEM?
thank you for the suggestion. i will watch other videos instead
*“Contains the reason for its existence”* @3:14 Copleston employs the fallacy of composition- claiming that if each part has a characteristic, then the whole must have that characteristic also.
Then he implies that not accepting a beginning point to causation means we can’t explain existence, as if *some* claim is necessarily better than admitting that we don’t know.
He’s actually pretty clear that he isn’t talking about a beginning point in causation. It’s his contention that even an infinite causal series would need a sufficient explanation for why it is the case.
But personally I’m kind of sympathetic to Russell in denying the PSR. There is still something unsatisfactory with saying “the universe just exists lol”, though.
@@tylerhulsey982 “isn’t talking about a beginning point in causation.” Effectively he *is* talking about a beginning point at 3:44 in the video where he talks about the problem of proceeding to an infinity (of regression of causation) and how that precludes an explanation.
I do not agree with your objection, though I am partial to Russell's side of the debate. Let me explain my position.
Copleston, here, is using an argument that has existed, in one form or another, since Aristotle's argument for the existence of a Prime Mover. He is arguing that every "thing" has a cause. The composition fallacy is more about qualities of an object than it is about that object's ontological relationship with other objects.
Let's evaluate a fallacious claim to understand what the composition fallacy is:
A page of paper is light. A book is composed of pages of paper. A book is therefore light.
If you've ever taken a science course with a particularly large textbook you know well and good that books are not light. Composition is a misattribution of qualities, not a misattribution of ontological relationships. Copleston is arguing that the "piece of paper," "book," and every other contingent thing in the universe can be categorized under the class "thing," and that all members of this class "thing" are ontologically dependent upon a "cause" (which itself can be a "thing," though that "thing" itself needs a cause, which can itself be a thing, so on and so forth). To argue that this is a composition fallacy is to argue that general claims can never be made about classes of objects, which is well beyond the scope of what you were trying to do (point out an error on Copleston's logic).
If every "thing" has a "cause," we can reasonably trace all presently existing things back to a single cause that was not caused by anything else. We call this self-causing cause God. Copleston, like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas (his debt to Catholic scholasticism is obvious, here) believes that the universe is one big domino chain and God is simply the first domino. For as simple as this argument is, it is strong and difficult to debate on its own grounds. The Big Bang, something we discovered multiple millennia after this argument was first conceived, lends some debatable credence to it. This is why Russell instead objects to Copleston's use of language, and why the debate quickly becomes epistemological and linguistic rather than simply ontological.
His arguments against Copleston's loose use of language are strong, though it quickly leaves us with an inability to make grand claims about things like God's exsitence (hence why Russell is agnostic).
@@thiccboi5011 No, the Composition fallacy is not so limited as you claim. It is just as I stated. Look at a philosophy or logic site.
In any case, what I stated about composition is true. Just because each thing in the universe seems to have causes (not “a” cause), does not mean the universe as a whole does.
For one thing, each thing in the universe has causes from adjacent matter/energy/fields within the universe. So even if you insist that the universe has the same requirement of causation, you are stuck with the universe creating itself, since its causes would be from within its universe, which *seems* to be nonsensical, but then we have no experience or direct evidence of universes beginning.
“… general claims can never bemade about classes of objects”
No, that is not a conclusion from my fallacy claim. The universe is not merely a collection of objects, for the reason I explained above and because there are processes involved.
@@scienceexplains302 he’s not saying just that the universe as an abstract whole necessarily has a cause (although that’s one part of the claim). But that, if we take as a set of all the things in the universe we find them all contingent. Following the proposition that all contingent things rely on non contingent things for existence, by definition the series of contingent things that we here refer to shorthand as “the universe” must have some independent non contingent cause (or we have an infinite regress).
-
The only way to refute this I think is to say
1) things can exist without causes at all (quantum indeterminacy, things can pop into existence without any sufficient cause). This is difficult I think because there is just as strong a scientific claim to the opposite, from what I understand, so you’d be making an absolute argument from a probabilistic perspective, and that too not very probable (again from what I know on the current scientific leaning).
2) russelL’s argument that the quality of necessary can only apply to statements and not actual empirical objects (to me this is a semantic misdirection). For Russell saying “a bachelor is unmarried” is necessary, but to say a bachelor must exist or does exist is not. I think Copleston responded well when he said “well can we say that it’s necessary for contingent things to rely on non contingent things” but Russell imo deflected again, or perhaps I didn’t understand the argument and someone in the comments can / will correct me.
-
Overall though I think the religious experience argument is actually stronger. I definitely think you can offer a rational argument for God (ontological, contingency, moral) but I don’t think it’s the most effective in getting people to actually believe in God.
Where are these two wise men now?
One might say,They are one with the universe
@@Nfndjdkdndn One might also say that before we all came into this world we are all one with the universe.
Each is where their "confessions" lead them. Confessions, speech, are/is casual.
If there is such a being as a God and assuming this has some important bearing in peoples lives, why the hell is it so vague and ambiguous, where people attempting to 'prove' a being have to resort to metaphysical, ethereal and frankly usually tenuous factors as proof of a being ?
A being as powerful as the proposed God should at least have the power to give undeniable facts of their existence and clear up confusion.
At least you capitalized the “g”
@@SuperMeatBoa Yet you didn't even attempt to answer any of the questions.
@@alkestos It’s a stupid question 🤣 He’s asking if God is real why does it have to be argued using heavy language. You sound just as dumb.
@@alkestos how about you debate me then, since you have so many questions.
@@alkestos Crickets Alkestos???? You’re trying to be snarky don’t be scared now. Debate me and let’s see how smart you think you are and then let’s see how smart you actually are 🤣🤣🤣
Copleston: “If the total has no cause, then to my way of thinking it must be its own cause, which seems to me impossible”: funny how that, of course, doesn’t apply to god. One might think you are making a special case for what you believe in…
You're strawmanning Copelstons position he took the Kalam school position that everything that begins to exist has a cause, so it wouldn't be special pleading as God is defined as uncaused as God is first off timeless due to him creating time but also immutable due to him being devoid of ant potentiality.
@@JScholastic I'm strawmanning someone by quoting his exact words? Are you joking? He says not such thing as what the Kalam argument says, you're putting words in his mouth.
Also defining something in some way doesn't mean anything, if it did I could just define Santa Claus as uncaused and timeless and kick your god out of the picture.
@suntorytimes1 yes santa couldn't be timeless or uncaused as he's made out of matter
@@JScholastic No, as I define him, he isn’t.
What do we understand by the word Gad ? 😂
Don't you mean Gadfrey?
I think you mean "gadfly."
Does Copleston sound like AI to anyone else?
The first part is more about belif and evidence. The second part is about perception and experience of the world. Mental health can cause lots of experiences but these experiences whether perceived as mystical or not doesn't give evidence.
If the generated thing exists, the generator exists. If the thing was not generated, either because it is spontaneous or because it is infinite, either the generator is spontaneity or it is infinity. (God is not a humanoid, but a place of generation) - Augustu Ox 05-14-2024 (Bruno da Silva Nunes)
That's what debating is. It is not nihilism. It is debate.
the biggest chipmunks on earth in a great discussion
Lol
God is counsciouness objectivated.
The idea of God can allow people do bad things and beleve they are doing good.
The idea of Not God can allow people to do bad things and not care less for good or ill.
Lord Russell confuses me by saying there are no absolutes when he believes some statements have self-contradictory denials. What truth could me more absolute than one with such a denial?
A round square is a cylinder.
Checkmate, theists!😅
Surely Russell inspired Dawkins. These have their "confessions" and I have mine. Never the twain shall meet.
First. Like God.
What a low intelectual level of Russell, incredible
Another vain fool thinks he knows more than one of the great philosophers.
@@HangrySaturn other than insulting, can you argue?
@@AuxiliumChristianorum Other than insulting, can you offer any true criticism?
@@HangrySaturn the video is more than evident, what else do you need
@@AuxiliumChristianorum Evidently, a lot more as you came off with a completely different opinion than I.
It is an exercise in futulity to expect logic from the illogical.
PS: Look again and again, you will be stumped and conquered.
🧕🏽📚📚 ☕️
ρ尺ｏΜ𝐎ᔕᗰ 🎶
20:03 "Every man who exists has a mother. And it seems to be your argument is: therefore the human race must have a mother. But, obviously, the human race hasn't a mother. That's a different logical sphere."
What about the Chimpanzee-human last common ancestor, the “mitochondrial Eve”? Couldn't that be considered "the mother of human race"? Or the Last universal common ancestor of all organisms on Earth?
I think that what Russell meant there is that if we are talking about the whole, then if we say that something created the whole, we reach a contradiction because the creator of the whole is necessarily outside of the whole, and therefore the whole is not the whole. The analogy of the mother of humankind does not capture this contradiction as clearly.
Russel's argument points out that the properties of the whole do not match the properties of each individual part. If we have the set of natural numbers for example, the set has properties none of the parts has, for example the mere property of being a set, or of being indefinite, etc. Further on, the parts have properties the set doesn't have, for example the set doesn't have the property of being odd, even, divisible by 2, etc. Copleston's argument, as he clearly stated, relies on assuming the whole's contingency by virtue of each part being observably contingent (his words: "but it cannot be necessary since each member is contingent"). He did hide this, however, when he said he doesn't assume the whole's contingency but the idea that the whole is a sufficient explanation of the parts. (To which Russel replies why should there be a cause) Ok, but if that's the argument then why the previous line of thought trying to prove the whole must be contigent? It seems to me Copelston is playing on 2 different grounds here and shifting the argument.
God is diverse for love.
This episode of The Harry Enfield Show isn’t funny. Discuss…
What.a brilliant discussion. Only thing is that it's all completely pointless. Fun if you like doing the Times Crossword, which I do, but to others, paragliding and climbing mountains are a much better use of their time. These two are dead as dead and will be for eternity, whatever that is. Great while it lasted but really. Bertrand and Copleston would have had far more fun driving Formula one cars around Silverstone. Now there really is a point to that if you enjoy going round in circles.
My very layman opinion:
Sometimes proving the existence needs annihilation of the subject in question. For example if i want to prove the existence of heart inside my body i have to open my chest and take out my heart...
☺️
there are many ways to prove the existence of a heart inside of you by inference. if you have a pulse, you have a heart. if you are alive, you have a heart. there is also plenty of imaging technology which can reveal the heart without the need to open up your chest.
@@ekkiazure
Thank You.🙏🏻
@@HegelsOwl
Thank You 🙏🏻
This controversy is easily done away with. Neither of them are talking about God. The term "God" or "god" properly applies to the type of being described in Genesis, or the Iliad, or in the Sumerian Artrahasis, or in Hesiod's Theogony. These have nothing in common with type of entity under consideration by Anselm or Aquinas or Descartes or Tillich or Barth or Russell or Copleston. AND THAT IS THE END OF THE MATTER. 😮
What is God as described in the religious texts, and what is God as described by the philosophers, and then what is the difference between the two?
5th, like some secret other thing. It's too esoteric for to share, sorry people
The most disappointing aspect of the whole debate is that not for a moment either has appreciated or even seemed willing to appreciate the other's viewpoint. This isn't philosophy but dogmatism, one skeptic, the other religious.
See Monty Pythons Upper Class Twit of the Year skit for a more in depth look at where these two are really are.
23rd like. Michael Jordan 🤯
The moment you realise darwinian evolution is nothing but atheistic philosophy you begin to understand yourself and the world differently, instead of asking someone to prove that God exists, asking them to scientifically prove He doesn't. Read Dr Michael Denton's books on evolution a theory still in crisis.
Yes! Bravo!
Guys, don't ask anyone to disprove an unfalsifiable notion. It's just logical absurdity and will make you look like a fool.
@@HangrySaturn So, falsifiability is important? Try "falsifying" Darwinism or any of its "variations."
God! The God man is so annoying.
god is unknowable so why believe in something that you don't know about? Also who wants to live for eternity in the after life with no way out?
Russell crushed the theist. Of course.
EChristian Western countries was vry active in slavery as was African leaders. They all thought the pratice ofslavery was ok until it was deemed not to be. The God people were no different than the witch Drs. I see athiests being more just and loving than the christian people I've met or from history.
This is the funniest discussion I've ever heard in my life! The plummy accents are hilarious. The most formal English is so cute. The mutual politeness is almost unbelievable ... in this day and age. Their relative mindsets, standpoints, beliefs, worldviews, semantic theories will NEVER be reconciled. This is so far from Socratic philosophical dialogue as possible. Neither learned anything from the other nor could ever have changed the other's mind. It was just a very very polite argument between two insufferable snobby bigots.
Compared to Eastern theologies and philosophies, it is childish thinking -- semantic wrestling. Neither would have lasted 15 minutes in debate with Adi Shankara, Kapila, Vyasa, Confucius, Gautama Buddha, Lao-Tzu. They just went round and round in circles in a self-indulgent wank.
Russell wasn't snobby. That's just his accent, which is acquired from his experience/environment. He was a fascinating human being.
Dr. Eric Steinhart on Bertrand Russell:
ua-cam.com/video/dQrNFMExwso/v-deo.html
@@ConceptCollection
No, I can clearly seperate his plummy accent from his intellectual snobbery and condescension. I haven't seen/read much of his work, but this video (upon which I specifically commented) shows little true insight into the human condition or accute skills at debating a point which convinces another to surrender to higher truths ... which was the true purpose of Socratic philosophy -- hence the other great spiritual philosophers I named.
Copleston was acquainted with eastern philosophy
@@filopon7116
Yeah, and I'm acquainted with the lady in the cake shop. Doesn't mean I could out-debate her on the nature of pastries.
The East has produced nothing but over-population and poverty.
Copleston-God real
Russell-God no real
Third. Like Jesus.