Hi guys, just a quick note about this video. The argument I'm presenting here is intended to establish the existence of what's called the God of classical theism. This conception of God goes back to the ancient philosophies of thinkers like Aristotle and Plotinus, who arrived at their conclusions without any kind of religious motivation. However, I think that the conception of God that these philosophers came up with is 100% compatible with the God of the three main monotheistic religions - namely, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. This means that, while this argument doesn't show the truth of any particular religion, it does make a religious worldview more plausible.

@EitherSpark

16 күн бұрын

im probably wrong but i thought aristotle's view of god was much different to classical theism, i.e., he believed god guides and moves the universe yet he did not create the universe and has no personal relationship with the universe, im not sure though.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

16 күн бұрын

​@@EitherSparkHis God still fits into classical theism because he saw God as a "ground of being" I think. I can't say much because I never read Aristotle of course

@EitherSpark

16 күн бұрын

@@Testimony_Of_JTF ive never read him either, but i thought the classical theism included creation ex nihilo as opposed to neo-classical theism which can sometimes affirm creation ex deus. maybe aristotle's god doesn't ground being but grounds the change that beings undergo, as i thought aristotle thought the universe to be eternal, not sure though

@Thomas-Cahill

16 күн бұрын

@@EitherSpark It depends what you mean by God "creating" and "having a personal relationship" with the world. Aristotle argues that nothing in the world could exist if God wasn't moving it to exist right now, so in that sense, God is causally responsible for all of creation. If that's all you mean by "creation," then yes, Aristotle believed that God created the world. If you're referring to God causing the world to come into being from nothing at one specific moment in the past, then no, Aristotle thought that God has been actualizing the world for eternity. But while Aristotle's idea of an infinite past obviously isn't compatible with any of the main monotheistic religions, I don't think it's incompatible with classical theism per se. Similar story with God's "personal relationship" with the world. Aristotle thought that God was responsible for the existence of every single thing in the world, including people. If that's what you mean by a "personal relationship," then Aristotle believed God had a personal relationship with the world. Did he think that God has personally revealed himself to mankind? No, but I don't think that's what's essential to classical theism.

@EitherSpark

15 күн бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill i personally thought that classical theism required creation ex nihilo (coming into being), i wouldn't call sustenance 'creation' unless i was a thomist who believed sustenance is continuous actualisation/creation. by personal relationship, i mean the negation of deism or something like that, as i thought aristotle's god was more deistic

"Don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to pretty much any question. A detective who claims to know who the murderer is (when in fact they don't) is the bad detective. Proving a particular god exists is trivial: invite the god to your show and interview them. Done.

@ArtemMalian

13 күн бұрын

How do you invite something immaterial and infinitely simple to an interview? Genuinely curious

@cerad7304

13 күн бұрын

@@ArtemMalian Email perhaps? Maybe a zoom invite? I mean the working notion is that it created the entire universe so you would think it could handle modern communication technology.

@ArtemMalian

13 күн бұрын

@@cerad7304 no, that doesn't work, none of that follows from the way classical theism (and not only classical) understands what God is. You're confusing your projection of what it's supposed to be with what the arguments are trying to establish. Look more into the platonic concept of the One or the platonic Absolute. It's not an agent that can communicate like you can, at least not directly (that's what you are for, supposedly). If it could do any of those things, it wouldn't be what God is supposed to be, but some advanced complex being, like an alien, which would have to be contingent itself. The works of Plotinus and perhaps even Iamblichus should help, or even something like Spinoza which is fairly close.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

13 күн бұрын

@@ArtemMalian Based

@cerad7304

12 күн бұрын

@@ArtemMalian No doubt you are correct. My reference for a god is basically a God of the Lost Car Keys. This is a god who after creating the entire universe now spends it's time carefully watching all humans and intervening when it feels like it. So someone who lost their keys can ask for help and lo the god makes the keys visible again. Such a god would have no trouble at all mastering the internet or telephone. I guess your god is different. Shrug. If it can't find car keys then what good is it?

This is just basically a god of the gaps argument. The contingency argument fails to address HOW a god and also fails to admit the one answer theists hate. I DONT KNOW!! You still have all your work to do. Basically you failed in your connecting term.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

13 күн бұрын

Deriving knowledge from known principles is not a fallacy from gaps but just how all knowledge works. Even under you "I don't know!" theism would be just as likely a priori than atheism.

@abrarahmad-mw4dk

11 күн бұрын

God of the gaps fallacy again... We couldn't explain how lightning worked, so we guessed it was thor pr something. Now we could explain lighting, so thor or any magical being right? We are observing the universe and finding out it obeys a lot of rules. We actually don't find out how lighting works, we found out what laws are obeyed when lighting strikes The more laws we find, it further solidifies the need for a law giver

@Tony-fq3pp

11 күн бұрын

@@abrarahmad-mw4dk and you fail to do the one thing that is most important, you failed to provide evidence. In your way of thinking I can say it was universe farting pixies.

@GPxNABrothers

10 күн бұрын

@@abrarahmad-mw4dk "God of the gaps" is literally a complain about a hypothesis which you dislike existing. If something is explainable by Gods agency and nothing else, that probably because it is explained by Gods agency. There's no merit in this abjection. If to any fact A, there's possible explanations X, Y, Z, and we have evidence that Y and Z are insufficient, "therefore X likely explain A", isnt a "X of the gaps", its an actually valid argument. Try throwing of the reddit-fallacy-list

@kornelszecsi6512

9 күн бұрын

It isn't god of the gaps, it is funny how this is the only atheistic refutation of any theistic argument. But you are just simply stupid, you label everything god of the gaps and then say that there are no good arguements for God.​@@abrarahmad-mw4dk

This whole argument assumes that "thing" is an objectively valid category... If this is not the case, and there are no "things", then much of the argument is irrelevant. We perceive "things", but we know we are susceptible to pareidolia and apophenia. Sunyata, or in more Western terms, "mereological nihilism" rejects the ultimate category of distinct "things". There is only one "thing" in this view; namely "everything." Everything, that is "all reality", is not obviously contingent.

God of the gaps with special pleading thrown in. When you use terms like “contingent cause” and play semantics to explain your position your whole argument becomes a word salad. Keep it simple and replace “contingent” with “natural” and you’ll understand the objection. While it follows that a natural cause can produce a natural effect, it does not follow that this process can only be terminated by a supernatural cause that is itself immune from the cause and effect process.

Every version of the argument from contingency makes the same basic error. It makes a final leap which cannot be justified. (Some form of step by step logical process and then.... that reason is God) Why? Why is it God and not an alien or the multiverse or a change in form of an eternal universe or one universe giving birth to another or something we haven't yet considered? The only honest answer is that we do not know the reason the for universe or even if it has a reason and its not just ... there. The problem is the question begging fallacy of beginning with your conclusion and trying make things fit.

@hachembetrouni6731

14 күн бұрын

multiverses would be contingent to what caused them to big bang, an alien would be contingent to what made him conscious ... that way we will just move the problem we have about the existence of god to a higher being ... in that case I would rather consider the god of that alien or of that universe to be my god which takes us back to the original answer that the necessary existent being is god. if you would rather call that necessary existent anything else feel free, but just know that it has to be one, unchangeable and all knowing ... in Quran allah say about himself : "He is the First and the Last, the Most High and Most Near, and He has ˹perfect˺ knowledge of all things." first as in the first element of the hierarchical causality he also say : "Say, ˹O Prophet,˺ “He is Allah-One ˹and Indivisible˺; Allah-the Sustainer ˹needed by all˺." however here "the sustainer" is a bad translation for Samed in Arabic, which means he who doesn't get changed (with no potential of changing otherwise he will be contingent to the parameters that could change him). Please understand that the bad image you have about god is the resultant of centuries of misunderstanding of his nature across all religions, depicting an angry humanoid setting on a chair and giving orders, the god I believe in is nothing like that.

@theoutspokenhumanist

14 күн бұрын

@@hachembetrouni6731 Please understand that your bad image of god is a result of you being brainwashed into thinking Islam is the only true religion. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism and every other religion teaches that each of them are the truth. There is no way to prove that any of them are true. Question: Why is it that you can see how every example i offered was contingent on something but you cannot accept that the same might be true of Allah? You believe him to be the one but you do not and cannot know it. The universe has granted me a vision and i now know for certain that the universe is eternal, it has always been and always will be. There are no gods and time only exists inside the universe.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

13 күн бұрын

Sorry but why don't you, as in atheists, just read classical theist works? That the unmoved mover, necessary cause, uncaused cause, etc are God is extensively defended in the works of people like Feser. You can download his book, 5 proofs for the existance of God, online for free.

@theoutspokenhumanist

13 күн бұрын

@@Testimony_Of_JTF You presume, incorrectly, that I and other atheists have not read such works. Whilst there are many non-believers whose days are too filled with family and holding down a job to bother with something they simply do not believe in, there are others, like me, who not only enjoy learning but actually make a living debating and writing on the subject. And we definitely do our homework. Every single argument for the existence of God has been addressed and refuted many times by many different people. If you, as in theists, don't want to read atheist literature, You Tube is full of videos explaining why all the arguments fail. It is also worth mentioning that arguments are not evidence and even if one was particularly convincing, it would only show that the argument was logically valid, not the that God exits.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

13 күн бұрын

@@theoutspokenhumanist Given the fact you raised such a poor objection you clearly did not read the relevant literature. I also suspect you did not watch the video since he does explain why the necessary being must be God. Every single argument for God has not, in fact, been refuted. Atheists, especially on KZread, tend to just strawman the arguments being "debunked" or don't understand the metaphysical pre suppositions taken by atheists. (An example is "The amazing atheist" who actually argued an infinite regress is possible *without* adressing Aquinas' argument against it). Just asserting "arguments are not evidence" is absurd. The only way to do that is to deny logic wich is a position not many are willing to take.

The thing is, when describing the endless web of hierarchical causation, which connects all parts of reality to every other part, it makes no sense to propose a first thing. The books, as analogy, can only work as an abstract concept in our minds. In reality, the books are just an arbitrary segment of reality, and one can never find a segment of reality that isn't instantaneously causally realted to all other segments, only in our minds are the books an independent situation (actually not even there, they depend on our minds). No matter how much we look, there's is always a proliferation of causes, not a narrowing. So that, in reality, nothing suggests that there is a "first thing", prior somehow to everything. I think the rest of the argument though, we can follow to a satysfying conclusion: If all thought shows us that causes proliferate, leading to a endless web of causation, then the thing that sufficiently explains all reality is reality itself. Reality itself is capable of fitting your requirements: it is pure actuality (we are ignorant to its full extent and contents); reality is unbounded; reality can't be changed into something else, it is always exactly what it is, conceiving past and future as equally existing, there's is no change and no potentiality. Reality depends on nothing and there is no alternative, there's only the possibilty of existance, since the concept of nothing is simply meaningless. However, the shape that power, knowledge and goodness take may not be that palatable to certain theists. Reality itself, surely has all knowledge: You, me, every person, everything are segments of reality, we are inseparable from being, so reality has all knowledge. Separations like you or me are arbitrary concepts, reality has no such separations, and so it is identical to all knowledge and all power. The things that happen are, in fact, reality "using" its knowledge and power. When I go take a walk, there is all of reality allowing me to take that walk, nothing else is possible. And reality being unbounded, so is its "knowledge" and "power". Although those words are simply concepts of our minds; we have knowledge and power, reality simply is that it is. Minds that do things are segments of reality and are made out of parts, they are necessarily contingent. Reality has minds, but isn't a mind, it contains desires, but doen't have desires. All this makes religious view not a bit more plausible. Religions are simply more contingent phenomena, segments of reality, concepts of our minds. Their gods are human conceptualizations, all contingent phenomena. Reality is not this or that, it is all. In fact, all this tells us nothing, all I did wasa a huge exercise in tautology, saying about reality what it obviously is. It tells us nothing useful about what we need or want to know of the necessary thing. At the end, we rely on contingent phenomena to tell us about ourselves, other contingent phenomena, then religion may be useful to some.

I'm not convinced at all! Can you explain why there cannot be contingencies ad-infinitum? In the video you said merely that it's "not sufficient." I see no reason why contingency couldn't be cyclical, for example. And anyways, perhaps "issue" of a lack of necessary object is a product of your insistence on deconstructing the universe into arbitrary contingent structures. There are other ways to conceptualize causality that don't lead to that kind of paradox

@sordidknifeparty

14 күн бұрын

If I'm understanding you correctly, I agree 100%! It seems perfectly reasonable to me that an infinite regression could be the solution, or as you said something cyclical. Quantum mechanics has certainly shown us that causality can go in reverse ( or at least this is my understanding of the experiments) so the end may cause the beginning may cause the end etcetera. And yes, the subdivision of the universe into separate entities is an illusion created by our minds and not a real property of the universe. The universe is one object / entity, and it doesn't really make sense to me to try and assign it with the label contingent or necessary

@andyzacek9760

14 күн бұрын

@@sordidknifeparty interesting point that the universe is principally one object. I don't know much about quantum physics, but I know that it posits that the universe is composed of quantized units of energy, so that is actually kind of the antithesis of that idea.

One objection I can think of is a circulation structure of causal series. That is, A causes B, B causes C and C caudes A, and the total set of (A, B, C) is self sufficient. And the net sum of every being is a very big set of (A, B, C,...) with each element supporting and supported by many other elements. The net sum of every being is self sufficient and requires no "necessary being" to sustain its existence.

Theists believe that God is both throughout the entire real universe, and external to it. Theists further believe that God created the universe. Theists also claim that God exists at all times simultaneously. Therefore before the universe was created God existed both within and external to the universe. Therefore the universe is an example of a thing which is created both by something within it and something external to it. This is a counterexample to your dichotomy that all things must either be created by something external to them or something within them.

@lucinema

14 күн бұрын

Yeah these people think Yahweh is Azathoth

@abrarahmad-mw4dk

11 күн бұрын

God is everywhere, inside and outside the universe, that is true. That is not a contradiction Say there's two apps in your phone, the operating system of your phone can control both. Both apps are part of your phone. Similarly, the universe is a part of God, so exists in this universe. Meanwhile this universe is just a part of God, not the whole thing.

@NicholasGonzalez-si5gs

10 күн бұрын

@@abrarahmad-mw4dkI don’t know what your religious beliefs are but the Catholic dogma of omnipresence very much does not claim that the universe is a “part of God.” That would be pantheism.

@abrarahmad-mw4dk

9 күн бұрын

@@NicholasGonzalez-si5gs First of all i am Muslim Secondly when I say part of God I don't mean it like the pantheists. Pantheists believe this we can see is God as a whole. But I believe God is beyond space and time.

Well anything you can say can also be asked about the gods. Like, why does god exist? Why is your god exclusive in its position? Why am I not a time travelling god, who created everything way back when?

@Thomas-Cahill

14 күн бұрын

The thing about this argument is that it arrives at the conclusion that a being which is Pure Actuality must exist, and a being which is Pure Actuality must be all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, infinite, timeless, immaterial - and, most importantly to your question, singular. The reason for this is that if there were two beings that were Pure Actuality, there would have to be something one of them lacks that the other one has in order to distinguish them, and something which is Pure Actuality can't lack anything, by definition. Also, the reason you or any other material being can't be this God is that you're not immaterial, timeless, infinite, etc.

@mortache

14 күн бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill no, my argument is that making a claim that a god exists is arbitrary and one of infinite other baseless claims, like "I own a time travelling Ferrari on the surface of Venus"

@DeconvertedMan

7 күн бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill it "must be" because!

If only arguments and assertions secured nobel peace prizes someone by now would have received one for proving what you claim you've proven with arguments and assertions. Let's you and I scan the books and see if anyone's ever secured a nobel peace prize with their arguments and assertions for the existence of a god?

I ❤ Edward Feser

@generichuman_

15 күн бұрын

He seems like a nice guy, I just don't think his arguments hold up. They are antiquated and haven't kept up with modern physics.

@Thomas-Cahill

15 күн бұрын

Feser's arguments are metaphysical, not physical, in nature, and therefore can't really be impacted by findings in the physical sciences. No matter what the actual particulars of how matter operates turn out to be, it seems like the fundamental principles underlying those particulars (form + matter, act + potency, contingency + necessity) would remain the same.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

15 күн бұрын

@@generichuman_ You should read his blog. If you have objections look up key words to see if he responded to anything. He is a good writer

@generichuman_

9 күн бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill The fundamental principles are wrong though... they are based on arm chair intuitions that don't map to reality. So although it's true that they aren't affected by physical sciences, it's only in the sense that they are wrong without physical science, and they're still wrong with it.

@Thomas-Cahill

8 күн бұрын

@@generichuman_ Well, if you want to show that the principles of Aristotelian metaphysics are wrong, then you'll have to give arguments for why they are. I'm going to be making videos pretty soon on this channel defending some of these metaphysical principles, I'm interested to find out what you'll think of those.

Most of the things you describe are interconnectedness to me, not contingency. There is a difference between things affecting each other, and things being necessary for each other's existence. It would be a logical error to say that because, for example, the ground holds up the rock, that the rock is therefore "contingent" upon the ground. That's false. The ground is affecting the rock in some capacity, and that is not logically the same as a causal relationship, the ground is not causing the rock in some way.

4:16 someone like me probably just wouldnt accept this definition. it assumes psr, which you have given an argument for to be fair, yet to me the argument is unconvincing. maybe a better way of defining contingent is something like 'could fail to exist' or 'exists in only some possible worlds', but i understand these are the definitions feser uses. 4:22 maybe this is a wacky idea but could something be necessary with an external explanation for its sustenance? for example, maybe necessary being x exists which necessarily by its nature sustains the existence of y through a necessary sustenance relationship such that y necessarily exists. 4:35 could you not have some being x which is explained by multiple beings, for example an ultimately good being ultimately explains x's goodness whereas an ultimately knowledgeable being ultimately explains x's knowledge? you would probably say those ultimate beings would be on being however i think this is still a debate. 4:42 maybe i a misunderstanding, but does this not asusme a sort of thomist metaphysics such that a contingent thing always requires causal sustenance for its continuous existence rather than existential inertia, unless you mean that contingent things require initial causes but not necessarily per se causes. 5:45 im not convinced that things are dependent on things not happening to them, this just doesnt seem intuitive to me. 8:51 i feel that there's an equivocation here between per se causation and explanations. you can have non-causal explanations, but it would need to be demonstrated that you can create chains of explanation like you have for the argument to be accepted. also, as explanations differ from causation, you would need to say why an infinite regress is insufficient. i know very little about non-causal explanations, but i believe them to be quite different from causal explanations so to me your reasoning seems dubious. 12:01 i think feser gives a similar example of a coffee mug on a table--i havent read the book in about a year--but i dont think this accurately describes per se chains. per se chains, in my conception, rely on the negation of the existential inertia thesis, which regards sufficient destructive forces (i cannot remember the exact phrase), however in the example there is a sufficient destructive force (gravity) such that if you removed your hand, the books would fall. however if there werent a sufficient destructive force, the books would remain in place even if you removed your hand. this seems to go against the idea that actual things fall back into mere potency of themselves without causal sustenance, whereas your example relies on gravity to bring actual things (books being in the air) to potency (books being on floor and potentially being in air). 12:25 im not seeing the reasoning here. 15:21 why couldnt it have potentiality to change of its accidental features? this wouldnt change the essence of the being. 'as the thing it is' is a things essence, yet accidental features can be changed without a change in essence, hence necessary beings could have potentiality for non-essential features. 15:50 hmmmm, not sure. 16:03 ?. 16:19 what's the techy argument? im guessing its a sort of aristotelian conception of good, where good is fulfilling of purpose, and if something is fully actual, it is completely fulfilled so it all good? 16:56 if something has essential parts, although it would depend on those parts, it would depend on them necessarily; those parts would be necessary, so would the being not also be necessary?

@Testimony_Of_JTF

16 күн бұрын

Do you believe intuition *can* be infalliable and if yes when?

@EitherSpark

16 күн бұрын

@@Testimony_Of_JTF what do you mean infalliable and what do you mean 'can'?

@Testimony_Of_JTF

16 күн бұрын

@@EitherSpark By infalliable I mean without error, you just *know* something is true. By "can" I mean are there scenarios in wich you believe such a thing is possible?

@EitherSpark

16 күн бұрын

@@Testimony_Of_JTF probably not; i think intuition can give credence to a view but i doubt that it can give infallible knowledge

@Testimony_Of_JTF

16 күн бұрын

@@EitherSpark I believe there must be things we can just know are true, that is self evident, because otherwise we would run into an infinite regress of evidence

I've heard this analogy before with the detective who doesn't know who the Killer is. Both before and when you make the analogy it is said that the detective saying he doesn't know who the Killer is though we know there is a killer makes him a bad Detective. I disagree with this. It is precisely a good detective who knows what evidence he does and does not have, and doesn't claim to have an answer when he doesn't. He may not have solved this particular case, but not all cases are solvable with the evidence available, and in those situations it is absolutely the right thing for the detective to Simply say that he does not know.

@Thomas-Cahill

14 күн бұрын

I didn't say the detective says he doesn't know who the killer is, I said that he says there's no killer, in a case where it's obviously a murder (think about a case where a man was found with a knife wound and suicide's been ruled out). The point of that analogy is to say that there's always a reason sufficient to explain the phenomena we see. We may not know what that sufficient reason is in every case, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

@Carlo_von_Habsburg

13 күн бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill but why do you rule out suic*de? in that analogy suic*de would be life, the universe, whatever, forming by itself. why would you just rule that out with no evidence against it?

@Thomas-Cahill

13 күн бұрын

@@Carlo_von_Habsburg As I mention in the video, this particular version of the contingency argument isn't asking why the universe as a whole exists, it's asking why any particular thing exists. So the better way to phrase your question is "why would I rule out that the Frank Sinatra CD forms itself." And of course the Frank Sinatra CD can't form itself, because in order to do so it would have to be causally prior to itself, which is absurd.

@Carlo_von_Habsburg

13 күн бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill but no one says a frank sinatra cd would form on its own, that would be irrational. But you can‘t disprove something by not knowing about it (the big bang, evolution, emergence of life, etc…) I cannot understand what you are trying to tell me with the „would have to be causally prior to itself“. Like, the Frank Sinatra CD was also nonexistent before Sinatra produced it, nothing, no matter how its made is causally prior to itself, by your logic, if I can even call it that. Life (or at least all of its necessary components) can form on their own, by chemical reactions as they have been both found in space as well as created by natural processes in a Lab. to deny that, you would have to deny atom theory, which is stupid, as anyone knows. Isn‘t also absurd that your God is causally prior to himself, by your logic? Also, unrelated note: Why do you, even if you could 100% prove God‘s existence, think it is your specific interpretation of theism, not one of the literal thousands of others?

@Thomas-Cahill

13 күн бұрын

@@Carlo_von_Habsburg So it sounds like you agree that the Frank Sinatra CD is contingent. Am I right in thinking that that's what you're saying? God wouldn't be causally prior to Himself because He's by definition uncaused. As to your last question, I define "God" as "an infinite, purely-actual, timeless, immaterial, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly simple source and sustainer of all that is not Himself." While other things have gone by the name "God" over the years, I don't think that they are at all comparable to this thing, since those other things called "god" (Zeus, Poseidon, etc.) are imagined as being material, in time, and finite. If the use of the term "God" is confusing to you, I would be fine calling this thing by a different name. Aristotle called it the "Unmoved Mover," Plotinus called it "the One," Aquinas termed it "Ipsum Esse Subsistens." I would be fine using any of these more technical names if you think the term "God" seems to make this thing analogous to other beings which have been called "god." Whatever we call it, my argument is that a being which is infinite, purely-actual, timeless, immaterial, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly simple source and sustainer of all that is not Himself must exist in order to explain the existence of contingent things. Since Zeus or Poseidon would not be infinite, purely-actual, timeless, immaterial, all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing, perfectly simple source, or the source and sustain of all that is not themselves, they could not, according to this argument, explain the existence of contingent things.

4:15 Something having no explanation, or an explanation inside of itself... these seem to be functionally equivalent. I don't even really see how something explaining itself makes sense, and this category seems to be something fabricated to allow for God to sneak in the door. Perhaps you can give me an example besides God where something could potentially explain itself. The very idea of explanation seems to require that you don't use the thing itself in the explanation, other you just have a tautology... God is God. 5:02 "If we know everything about you, we will know why you exist"... I don't think this is true. I think you will simply reach a place of brute facts that you just need to accept, the equivalent of having no explanation. 5:09 Given that the causal chain goes all the way back to God in your view, it seems that the CD could be viewed as a necessary object, and the thing that explains itself is found inside of itself, where "itself" is defined as God and the entire causal chain from him up to and including the CD. 5:45 The idea that something can change doesn't mean it is contingent. The CD could necessarily exist, and you could necessarily step on it and it could necessarily exist as fragments from that point forward. You can't throw around words like obviously because nothing is obvious in philosophy. I cold make a similar argument that God is contingent because obviously he could have chosen to not send himself to earth to be sacrificed, or he could have chosen not to let the holocaust happen, etc. If we can obviously imagine different ways that God could have created things, or interacted with the world, it seems that we could apply similar contingency arguments to him. If the argument is that while God could have done things differently, he himself is unchanging, this seems to be a contradiction, because either the change would have to exist inside God, or it would have to exist separate from God, and something having an origin entirely separate from God seems to contradict God being the author of everything in existence. 6:36 I think you run into trouble if you define contingency as something with an explanation outside of itself. In this view, morality would also contingent because it's explanation lies outside of itself, namely in God. Morality being contingent means it's not objective. 7:34 One more thing to note. Just because we can imagine things being different, doesn't mean they could be. We have one universe, and it could be the case if determinism is true that the candle will always fall over and burn the house down, and us being able to imagine a different scenario is irrelevant. 9:24 Let's trace this chain of contingent things back. Where does contingency first creep in? Saying it terminates in a necessary thing doesn't answer this question because a necessary thing will always behave the same. There has to be some seed of differentiation that would allow for example the CD to exist or not exist. Either this difference exists inside God which means God is not unchanging, and is himself contingent, or it exists outside of God which means you still require an explanation for this contingency and it cannot be God. 12:12 Influences don't happen instantaneously so this is just incorrect. 13:55 Just because you can point to hierarchical causal things in the universe, doesn't mean that everything in the universe is of this type of causality. If you were to take your books, bookshelf, floor, earth example one step further you would find that the earth itself can exist just fine if you remove all causal things before it, much like the parent child example. If you removed the sun, galaxy, etc. The earth would continue to float in space and it's existence wouldn't depend on a constant influx of "causal energy" or whatever you want to call it from preceding causes. Would things be a little different? Sure, it would be a little darker and it's trajectory through space would change, but a child would also change if their parent died, how far should we take this metaphor? The point is, while hierarchical causal things do exist in the universe, these terminate in first members, or at least linear causal things that aren't God. 14:30 Again, I think this is incoherent. I don't see how an explanation can be within the thing you are trying to explain. This seems to be exactly the same as having no explanation. It's the difference between saying "I don't know the explanation for God" and "The explanation for God is God". 15:05 Again, this contradicts the idea that contingent things exist at all because if you are pure actuality and have no potentials, you're still left explaining where potentials come from, and you can't use God. 16:24 All being, All knowing, All good. This argument comes absolutely out of nowhere. I think we've been through this before with this arbitrary list of traits so I won't rehash it here. 16:53 If something isn't made of parts, it this seems to preclude having an explanation. Also, I think the idea of having an entity that can do all the things that God can do, and not have it made of parts is completely incoherent. As incoherent as thinking a supercomputer can be made without parts. This is a larger discussion and involves the magical thinking that people allow themselves to engage with when dealing with minds, that allows them to ignore the vast amount of work that brains do in allowing minds to do the types of things that a God would need to do in order to be God. TLDR; consciousness is spooky != a disembodied mind that can do anything can exist as a matter of brute fact.

@EitherSpark

16 күн бұрын

1. if you believe in abstracta, then they are usually said to be necessary and hence ground their own existence. maybe if you believe in an infinite regress or a circle of explanations, you also have a tautological explanation. 2. why would morality have to be grounded in god if god exists? 3. "Saying it terminates in a necessary thing doesn't answer this question because a necessary thing will always behave the same." why? could a mind not necessarily exist yet have accidental thoughts which could change or be different across possible worlds. even if a necessary being always behaves the same, due to the nature of contingency would contingent things not act differently across different possible worlds? or could you not have some indeterministic causation/explanation which can lead to random contingencies across possible worlds. 4. what do you mean influences? 5. "I don't see how an explanation can be within the thing you are trying to explain. This seems to be exactly the same as having no explanation. It's the difference between saying "I don't know the explanation for God" and "The explanation for God is God"." if something is necessary, its necessary nature explains itself as existing in all possible worlds. if you accept every premise, then you will ultimately land at a necessary being (hopefully although i doubt this) so you will have no ground to disagree with the concept of a necessary being. however, the only way you can disagree with a necessary being given the argument (if the conclusion follows from the premises) is if you disagree with a premise or premises, which defeats the point of a moorean objection to the argument as a premise or premises are already objected to. if the premises are successful, then we have reason to believe in a non-contingent being which wouldnt make sense to doubt if we accepted the premises and the conclusion followed. 6. "if you are pure actuality and have no potentials, you're still left explaining where potentials come from, and you can't use God." why cant god explain where potentials come from?

@generichuman_

15 күн бұрын

@@EitherSpark 1. I think the term "explanation" needs to be defined, because I can't think of an example of something that could explain itself where that explanation would be satisfying given the usual definition of explanation. Perhaps you could give me an example that didn't just sound tautological. 2. My argument is that morality is an example of something that has an explanation outside of itself, namely God, and thus satisfies Thomas' criteria for contingency. 3. How could something that could have behaved differently be necessary? This seems to be an outright contradiction. I think that there's a bit of magic that gets smuggled in with the concept of mind, that we wouldn't let slide if it was a computer or other automaton. We can imagine a necessary mind that can still use free will and make arbitrary decisions, but this doesn't make the idea coherent. If you have a computer that can output a result of 1, or 2, or 3, in different universes, how can you say that the computer in your universe that outputs a 1 is necessary, given that it could have been one of the other ones? "Due to the nature of contingency" - You're smuggling in contingency here. Where does it come from? It can't come from a necessary thing, so what is the source of the first contingent thing? 4. The stack of books all influence each other. Thomas stated that the influence would propagate instantaneously which is false. 5. I have a big problem with arguments from necessity because there's no way to prove that there isn't a deeper understanding that renders the argument from necessity false. It assumes that you've eliminated all possible explanations, which is an impossible thing to do. The example I like to give, is to imagine that we knew two things, humans didn't always exist, and humans have mothers. We could construct an argument from necessity using pure logic; "There must have been a first human without a mother". The actual answer is, species are a convenient labelling system we use for organisms that works because most of the intermediates have died out, but in reality, there is a smooth continuum from humans to the first common ancestor. If you were to trace a line back in time, you would get progressively more ape looking creatures, but there would never be a hard line where the "first human" appeared, it would simply be that if you go far enough, everyone would agree that the organism in question was no longer human. And every creature would have had a mother. Here we see that an argument from necessity using pure logic can be replaced by a deeper explanation. This could be the case for current arguments from necessity, and we wouldn't know it until we figured it out. To accept an argument from necessity is to say we'll never figure it out. 6. God can't explain potentials because by Thomas' definition, God is unchanging, which means he can't be the source of things that could have existed a different way.

@EitherSpark

13 күн бұрын

@@generichuman_ 1. maybe my thinking is backwards by if you have god, it is within the concept of god that if he were to exist, he would exist necessarily. god may be said to exist in a metaphysically possible world. since he would be necessary, he would exist in all possible worlds meaning he would exist in the actual world. im not sure about this 2. if god existed, would morality be explained by god? im not sure this was thomas' definition of contingent, especially looking at this third way, but if it is then he would probably accept that morality is contingent as it is his definition

@EitherSpark

6 күн бұрын

@@generichuman_ 1. i think i agree also, but maybe you could say 'if god were to exist in some possible world, god would exist in all possible worlds by his nature; god exists in some possible worlds; so god exists in the actual world which is explained by his nature as necessary and as metaphysically possible' although i dont think this works 2. why would morality have an explanation outside of itself? would tom not just accept that morality is contingent under his definition--he has a very different definition to ours 3. i not sure i understand. if we have a being that necessarily exists, could this being not have accidental thoughts as his thoughts arent necessary, just his existence i dont get your smuggling thing: could a necessary being not create a contingent being? why could a contingent thing not come from a necessary thing? 4. not sure what you mean, i think thom was saying that per se causation is a temporal, meaning it doesnt have to cross time but is a causal chain fully existent at each and every moment, so it instantaneous 5. not sure how this applies. the only two options i see (you can disagree) are contingency and necessity. if contingency cannot be an answer, then by the excluded middle necessity must be the answer. if we necessarily land at a necessary being, it doesnt matter how much you disagree with the concept of a necessary being, you would have to disprove the necessary being as that is the conclusion of the argument

Digging for Answers Biblical Archaeologists are about as certain as you can be about these things that the conquest of Canaan as the Bible describes did not happen: no mass invasion from the outside by an Israelite army and no extermination of Canaanites as God commanded One thing archaeologists can tell us is whether or not a city was violently destroyed by outside invaders and whether a new group of people took up residence, Battle and destructions of cities leave archaeological footprints - things like soot(if the town was burned0, weapons, smashed pottery, and human bones. Mass migrations of people groups as the Bible describes with Israel entering Canaan would cause some cultural upheaval and leave some sort of remains for archaeologists to dig up and write long books about to help them get tenure. Remember those thirty-one Canaanite towns listed in the Book of Joshua (plus other towns on either side of the Jordan River)? Sixteen towns were destroyed according to the stories in the books of Numbers, Joshua and Judges. Of those sixteen, two or three maybe four cities show signs of violent desctruction at or around the time when Joshua and his army would have been ploughing Canaan(thirteenth centuryBCE about 200 years before the time of King David)). That’s it The towns on the other side of the Jordan River, in Moab, don’t look like they were even occupied at the time. We also read in the Bible that twelve towns were taken over without a fight. But of those twelve only seven were even occupied at the time , according to archaeological findings. And of those same twelve towns that the Bible says weren’t destroyed, three actually do show signs of destruction. In other words, archaeology and the biblical story don’t line up well at all. Jericho, the first of the towns to be razed in the Book of Joshua, is the most famous example. Not only was Jericho minimally inhabited at the best of time, but it had no massive protective walls, which means the biblical story of the “walls of Jericho” tumbling down - at least that’s what a hundred years of digging there has shown us. What most everyone is certain about however, is that the Bible;’s version of events is not what happened. And that puts the question “How could God have all those Canaanites put to death?” in a different light, indeed. He didn’t. From Peter Enns The Bible Tells Me So, pp. 58-60 HarperOne , 2015.

@Thomas-Cahill

14 күн бұрын

That's interesting. But what does it have to do with my video?

@noelhausler8006

14 күн бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill The book that believers in God accept contains false history. Not true.

His book if full of nonfactual history.

Even admitting an ultimate necessary being, the jump to the Christian God is wholly unjustified. All this argument can truly prove is that SOMETHING knocked over the first domino in the long line of causality which ultimately made us. None of this points towards the truth of Christianity. However, this is a strong argument against a pure materialist, as by understanding that pure causality alone cannot account for our existence. You point out the grand mystery, but fail to comprehend its mysteriousness.

@Thomas-Cahill

14 күн бұрын

I agree that this argument doesn't necessarily arrive at the truth of Christianity. However, I do think it can give us more than "that something knocked over the first domino." In particular, as I sketched at the end of the video, I think this argument gives us the existence of something which is Pure Actuality, and therefore must be all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, immaterial, infinite, timeless, and perfectly simple. While this isn't necessarily the Christian God, it does look a lot like Him.

@zachov2931

12 күн бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill So, if we can both agree that the linkage between the Christian God and the unknown "first Domino pusher" is still unproven, what more can we agree upon about our Maker, who certainly exists? I think first, of all, we agree that whatever made us exists outside the physical realm of 3 dimensions our bodies inhabit, possesses power incomprehensible to the human mind, and knows all. Second, we know we all share a common creator, and that we are all siblings of a common heritage. So then, what need do we have for faiths which divide? Why would the sole creator allow so many contradictory faiths to exist? While your argument does make a religious worldview more plausible, the undeniable contradictions between the world's religions makes picking any one religion effectively blind guessing game. Always, it will come down to the believer's choice to favor the recorded subjective spiritual experiences of their religious tradition over the spiritual experiences of the others. If a Christian and a Hindu both hold their beliefs equally highly and equally surely, how can I, a mere man, say who tells the truth? I cannot, and so, I am left to ponder the mystery.

@Thomas-Cahill

12 күн бұрын

@@zachov2931 Interesting point. A couple comments: 1. First, I don't think every religious worldview is equally compatible with the conclusions I arrive at in this argument. After all, some religions don't teach that God is all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, immaterial, infinite, timeless, and perfectly simple - Greek paganism, for example - and so what we can know about the Creator by reason doesn't fit with what they teach. The contingency argument, then, would seem to preclude belief in these religions. 2. When it comes down to differences between the religions which do teach that God is all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful, immaterial, infinite, timeless, and perfectly simple, the arbitrator between the truth claims of these religions will be history, not philosophy. To take Christianity as an example, if the Resurrection of Christ could be demonstrated as a historical fact, then it would entail the truth of Christianity and the falsity of, say, Islam or Judaism.

@zachov2931

8 күн бұрын

@@Thomas-Cahill You're right that some religions match up closer to the boundaries than others. You're also right that, if the Resurrection of Christ could be verified, we could conclusively validate Christianity. But the same is true for other religions, and to take an example that you listed, if Muhammad's ascension to heaven actually happened as written in the Quran, then Islam is the true faith. The problem is that for both events, Muhammad's ascension and Jesus' Resurrection, we only have one source to substantiate the miraculous claims: eyewitness testimony. Those who claimed to see Jesus after he was risen and those who attest Muhammad's ascension doubtlessly hold their belief in their respective miracles with equal fervor. Without actual divine intervention, we cannot tell who is correct by testimony alone.

There are no new ways, or any ways to prove gods exist. In the end, you have the one book and, if your position is one of faith you can not argue against it.

@garyrobertfisher

14 күн бұрын

Doesn't matter what kind of apologetics you have now. Those things were never heard of when the events in the book supposedly happened. Apologetic arguments are made to try to mop up inconsistencies and things that were disporved or superseded by society since then.

What He says DOES NOT MAKE SENSE because NO DECTECTIVE WILL SAY THAT NO ONE DID IT because some is there murdered and it is TESTABLE DEMONSTRABLE .. THE CD Exists and oit is to be seen and needs no proof and it exists because someone wants that music CD bit it is real AND THEN HE SAYS THERE MUST BE OR THERE HAS TO BE AND THIS IS SPECIAL PLEADING

If a detective rules out natural causes and suicide then it would be reasonable to conclude a murder took place, accidental or otherwise. If there was enough evidence to conclude a murder but not enough evidence to conclude who the murder was, it would be perfectly ok to say it was unsolved at that point. it would be wrong to say we need a murder and roll a dice to determine which of the suspects it was. Especially if some yet unknown person might still be a possibility. To say I do not know is an unreasonable answer then you are just asking for a God of the gaps fallacy. Very strange definitions of contingency and necessary things. Not exactly wrong but the implication is that somethings are contingency if the are dependant on things which do not necessarily exist; this is deliberate. Fo example why a breath of wind knocking over a candle is possible, the breath of wind does not necessarily exist.

This just goes back to the point why can't the universe be necessary? The extra attributes given for a necessary being are nonsense. They have nothing to do with necessity.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

13 күн бұрын

Contingent thing+Contingent thing=Contingent thing

@Chidds

13 күн бұрын

@@Testimony_Of_JTF Demonstrate the universe itself is contingent without appealing to the parts within it.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

13 күн бұрын

@@Chidds If I build a lego wall entirely out of red bricks, will the wall be red or green?

@Chidds

13 күн бұрын

@@Testimony_Of_JTF It sounds like you are confusing the cosmos with the universe. The universe includes the stage within which the continent cosmos inhabits.

@Testimony_Of_JTF

13 күн бұрын

@@Chidds You mean space? Space can change and so can't be necessary

Word salad than must be God

No man, you applied a glorified "God of th gaps" argument, you cannot demonstrate the existance of a Creator or Creatures and if you trying to prove the existance of the Abrahamic gods, well, good luck with that.

Until you can demonstrate that your imaginary friend actually exists, you are just emitting WORD-SALAD.

Ok bro got the caveman forehead and the caveman arguments. Next time put a bit more effort into your thesis, I can see through it as clear as through the supposed holes in jesus' hands.

Who created God?

@EitherSpark

6 күн бұрын

jesus

@rcherrycoke7322

5 күн бұрын

Excellent - so who created Jesus ?

@EitherSpark

5 күн бұрын

@@rcherrycoke7322 he was created out of nothing i’m pretty sure - can’t remember that well as it was a long time ago

@rcherrycoke7322

5 күн бұрын

You weren’t there when it happened? Shame on you!

@EitherSpark

Күн бұрын

@@rcherrycoke7322 i was, i remember it like it was yesterday

Never trust people who act and speak on behalf of their god. Never believe in a god who requires people to act and speak on his behalf.

😂🤣😂A new way to prove god because having no proof doesn't work for you lol