I find it hilarious that two non theists convince me more of existence of god than people who are actually supposed to do it as their job.

@2002THEBOY

2 жыл бұрын

That’s because you didn’t expect it from them so you think if they go so far as admitting it. They cannot be lying… Furthermore, since they are smart likely it is true or at least there is very good evidence for it.

@dtgb7

2 жыл бұрын

that's because you are so biased you discard anything coming from theists... what's hilarious is u trying to act as if this two are the first to ever spout this words, when in reality they actually named William lane craig a few times in their conversation having said such things lol... in other words your comment is full of shit, but you already knew this...

@kaganamemiku831

2 жыл бұрын

@@2002THEBOY No. For me it's steelmanning their opponents positions and treating each point with respect and dignity. I cannot say the same about christian scholars as a lot of the time they cannot admit that they are wrong in some regards.

@davidjanbaz7728

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaganamemiku831 LOL 😆

@theodixon3298

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaganamemiku831 It's not uncommon for Christians scholars to attack certain arguments for Christianity. Aquinas didn't like Anselm's ontological argument. Kant disliked the ontological argument and cosmological argument. I think it's a bit unfair to assume theists are particularly more undignified than atheists.

Regarding the origin of the "S Tier", tier lists actually originated from Japan, and can be seen in certain anime such as Naruto where the highest rank mission is S. This is because in Japan the word for exemplary is 秀, or shū.

@SimberLayek

2 жыл бұрын

I first started seeing S rank in racing games like Gran Turismo

@grrsss8335

2 жыл бұрын

I first started hearing about it as a kid in the 90s in video games.

@seionne85

2 жыл бұрын

@@SimberLayek saaaame

@fluffysheap

2 жыл бұрын

Yes. In Japan, 'S' actually originated in the school grade system, where it is the same as American 'A+'.

@coltoncatalli8148

2 жыл бұрын

I first saw it in Forza Motorsport

I really appreciate cosmic sceptic because he doesn't strawman any thiestic arguments

@bobon123

Жыл бұрын

He studied theology, and you can appreciate it. He clearly has spent a lot of time discussing with very smart people and that always gives you at least a respect for the arguments produced from the other side.

@arthurwieczorek4894

Жыл бұрын

One person's strawmaning is another person's laconic characterization.

@schnabelite

Жыл бұрын

Thi-estic sounds like toothpaste to a non-anglophone. ThEIstic is just fine.

@marksandsmith6778

Жыл бұрын

@@schnabelite Unterschied? Zahnpasta is echt nutzlich

@pleaseenteraname1103

Жыл бұрын

That’s not always the case at least not early on his strawmand a bit early on but he has learned a lot since then. When it comes to defenses for free will I definitely think that’s where he stumbles. But he is definitely not your typical Internet atheist he definitely tries to engage theists.

"Why are there any blue balls in reality at all?" a great question posed by many denizens of youtube

@garyskinner2422

Жыл бұрын

The reason is simply people tend to swim (for health reasons) in freezing cold water.

@dinamosflams

Жыл бұрын

I feel that 😔

@hatchsyoutube

Жыл бұрын

@@garyskinner2422 I think you may be conflating shrinkage with blue balls. "Blue balls" is a term for soreness resulting from when visual, physical, or other stimulation leads to arousal and the production of seminal fluid which is not released and "backed up" in the system connecting the testicles, penis, and misc. parts and tubes and such. Shrinkage is the "shyness" resulting from exposure to cold, resulting in the genitals retracting closer to the body for wamth, resulting in shrinking. The classic Seinfeld episode S5E21 popularized the term "shrinkage". Another famous example is Michaelangelo's "David", showing a different kind of shrinkage in the form of a natural response to the "flight of right" response before battle. Michaelangelo was kind of crazy ahead of his time with anatomical kowledge. hope that helps!

@garyskinner2422

Жыл бұрын

@@hatchsyoutube It was a joke lol

@bbllrd1917

10 ай бұрын

😂

Beautiful stuff, my dudes

@pancakeho0e

2 жыл бұрын

yo why did you stop uploading :(

@Yuno08888

2 жыл бұрын

Hahaha good one Steve. I would love to watch your tier list on famous arguments as well !

@benlapp533

2 жыл бұрын

@@pancakeho0e he has a second channel that just posted today

@schlamothy

2 жыл бұрын

@@pancakeho0e he has a couple other channels that upload pretty regularly! LowFruit and Casually Debunked

@reedclippings8991

2 жыл бұрын

Or do a tier list for naturalism. Or a tier list for veganism ;)

I love how this is basically what modern philosophy looks like. Two young lads sitting down and engaging in philosophical dialogue. Back a century, it would have been the same, but perhaps in more sophisticated aesthetic. I just love how THIS is what philosophy looks like in practice in our day and age. It's cool to watch :)

@trenhen4311

Жыл бұрын

Everyone loves a bit a philosophical banter among the fellas.

@idkbad694

11 ай бұрын

Its a breath of fresh air compared to those “debates” of people screaming at each other

@vhawk1951kl

10 ай бұрын

I suppose" two young lads sitting down and engaging in philosophical dialogue" is one way of describing mutual cinque contra uno.

@mylordtakemeaway

7 ай бұрын

Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many inconsistencies. 4: 82

@ApatheticPerson

7 ай бұрын

Bro the Quran has so many inconsistencies and mistakes that I can't even count 😂@@mylordtakemeaway

I admire anyone willing and capable to do 5 minutes of steelmanning from time to time. You did two hours straight, that deserves praise!

@joannware6228

Жыл бұрын

That the sun will come up tomorrow is a scientific prediction. It is not a certainty.

@augusto7886

Жыл бұрын

@@joannware6228 not if you're a linguist

@appledough3843

Жыл бұрын

Not hard to steelman if the argument is already strong to begin with. The contingency argument has always been really good for example.

@MrCmon113

Жыл бұрын

@@appledough3843 1) Contingency is not an attribute of objects, but an epistemic stance or a mental heuristic. 2) It's simply the case that you can always ask "why is this" after any explanation, gods or no gods. 3) The abstract notion of a necessary thing causing contingent things is pure bullshit and would make all of those things necessary as well. Really gods just introduce a whole bunch of confusion into an already confusing topic.

@appledough3843

Жыл бұрын

@@MrCmon113 1) Correct. Physical objects like rocks and pencils can't be contingent. It isn't an attribute of objects. It is however an attribute of God. How do I know this? Because to even BE God you must be the totality of existence. The supreme being. By definition. 2) Why does 2+2=4? Because that's how logic works. Why does logic work like that? Because that's how it is. Why is this? Because that's how it is. Why is this? Because that's how it is. Why is this? Because that's how it is. There, I found the end for you. Same applies to God. 3) Those things wouldn't be necessary. I think I see the picture now. Its become very clear that you don't actually understand what contingency means. Sure you may have a general concept of it but it's obvious you haven't grasped it yet. *Things created are by definition contingent.* The fact that I have to spell it out shows me you don't understand contingency and non contingency. This is part of the frustration with discussing philosophy with the common folk. They don't even understand the rules yet. Just because it's confusing and you don't understand it doesn't mean it should be discarded. I've noticed that you haven't actually pointed to SPESIFIC points in the argument and addressed how they are fallacious. Seems to be a reoccurring thing to people trying to "debunk" the existence of God. Almost like they can't do it.

As a Christian I think I speak for a vast majority of us when I say these are the two most beloved nontheists on KZread by Christians

This is such a breath of fresh air: Alex and Joe are crazy smart, polite, charitable, and amazing educators. They actually make me want to crack open a textbook or two on - of all things - philosophy of religion. 🙂 Seeing scholars (or scholars in training) like these guys and others has really inspired me to try and distance myself from the rhetoric driven showmanship of the “apologetics vs counter-apologetics” mindset as much as possible. There’s a whole world out there of philosophy, science and theology to explore that opens up beautifully (with a lot of hard work) when one isn’t studying it just to try and convert/deconvert others.

@BlacksmithTWD

2 жыл бұрын

Well, to be fair, the vast majority of the books have been available even before these two guys started on youtube. However I agree that the whole world out there is way more intersting than the boring low fruit "apologetics vs counter-apologetics" debates. It's the discussions that are interesting but those are quite rare.

@ShadowMark474

2 жыл бұрын

Frankly I don't see what's so interesting about the field of chiseling away at fallacious arguments with enough linguistic gymnastics to say something somewhat thought provoking but ultimately based on nothing but bias and intuition. I'd argue that steelmanning these arguments without really raising their objections is a bit deceptive, and I'm kinda surprised to see the mostly positive reception.

@mil401

2 жыл бұрын

@@ShadowMark474 I hear your point and I get it. Goodness knows I probably wouldn’t have the patience to study this full time like Alex has. Though perhaps I could explain why I do find this kind of philosophy useful? To start, I can’t escape the notion that I could be absolutely wrong about even the kinds of questions I ask. Even simple questions like “show me evidence for God” have a host of built in assumptions. In the past, I was completely and utterly wrong (imo) about the very foundational ideas I believed, and yet, at the time, I thought what I believed was nothing short of common sense. God existing was as obvious as the sky being blue, potentially more so. I had strings of questions I’d ask those who disagreed with me that I was sure would open their eyes to the “fact” that they weren’t seeing “reality.” And yet, I was wrong. Philosophy helps keep me on my toes; I don’t think I’ll ever be completely comfortable resting on any set of “common sense” presuppositions without at least occasionally unpacking them with the assumption that I could be completely and utterly wrong. Now it’s worth noting that yes, philosophy often just explores the structure of our intuitive-yet-socially-created-concepts rather than external, “real” “things.” But that isn’t necessarily a waste of time. Far more than we are often aware, concepts like “knowledge”, “beauty” or even “causation” frame how we come to experience the external world. _All of our observations are theory-laden._ We can’t help but look at reality through the lens of our past experiences, our mental models and our intuitive categories that structure the world. In fact, the phrase “look at reality” is broadly inaccurate, we don’t touch the face of reality directly so much as experience some output filtered through layers of categorisation and meaning creation. Philosophy helps us become more aware of what those layers are, and as a result can help us become more acquainted both with their limitations and with potentially different ideas that could take their place. Philosophy can also explore the logical consequences of reality being a certain way. “Causation” for example, is both a mental construct and (imo) something external. Any philosophy done in this domain should make use of our best physics, chemistry etc., but I’m not ready to completely write off all ontological and cosmological arguments. Why philosophy of religion though? For me at least, engaging with the idea of a God increasingly appears to be the ultimate sandbox in which to unpack and explore these intuitive concepts we have that structure how we view reality. The God question is a great way to test the limits of our ideas about what it means to even know something, what it means to have a mind, what it means for something to be good or beautiful, etc. These can all be studied separably of course - Epistemology is incredibly interesting - but attempting to, for example, unpack the epistemology of an educated theist I respect is a thought provoking and often very humbling challenge. To echo an earlier point again, I’m motivated to explore philosophy because I could be totally wrong about how I _even begin to think about_ the God question. Goodness knows I was in the past, how do I know I’m not wrong now? I’m just doing my best to not become a confident-yet-uninformed evangelistic person who’s essentially identical to my former self with the only real difference being that my theism/not-theism switch points the other way. I hope this clarifies something about my outlook 🙂

@ahgflyguy

2 жыл бұрын

I like that Alex filled out the counter-point to the "best conceivable island" objection- that the argument isn't about the best possible particular thing, but the best possible absolute thing. This reminds me of my own favorite island-style counter, which was the best possible ice cream cone, one property of which is that it appears in my hand when I want it to and tastes always just a little better than I remember. So to then steel-man the Anselm's god-concept, his best conceivable being must also be edible, and taste really good. And I find myself not too surprised that the Catholics have beaten me to this, but in spectacularly bad fashion. Their god is edible, but you have to go and pick him up yourself. And the taste is, well predictably bad. Just like basically every catholic I've known.

@BlacksmithTWD

2 жыл бұрын

@@ahgflyguy How many catholics have you actually eaten? If you merely met them, how do you know what they taste like?

I like that Alex pushes back on Joe, instead of just agreeing with him.

@justinwhite2725

2 жыл бұрын

It's not much of a philosophical discussion if you don't try to break it down. Even if you agree you should challenge the base points in a discussion like this.

@jasonGamesMaster

2 жыл бұрын

@@justinwhite2725 agreed, that is the purpose of philosophical discussions and debates. I think it is a telling condemnation of our current situation culturally that this comes as a pleasant surprise to people, to be honest.

@innitbruv-lascocomics9910

2 жыл бұрын

That's the purpose of a debate no? To push back to create dialogue as well as intirnsic thought about the topic of debate? You can't be too agreeable in debate

@brixan...

2 жыл бұрын

@@innitbruv-lascocomics9910 yes, but this isn't a debate

@brixan...

2 жыл бұрын

They're each pushing back at different points

This is probably the best and most honest discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of these arguments! love how you kept going back and forth steelmanning different parts of the arguments, and taking turns challenging and defending them. Also Joe's impression of WLC is probably the best impression since that new SNL guy's trump impression.

"The thing that exists is greater than the thing that does not." - thing that exists

@mrsatire9475

7 күн бұрын

"You can always think of something better" - thing that does not exist

Joe is brilliant and I think he might be the first guest on the podcast who is actually younger than Alex lol

@batman-sr2px

2 жыл бұрын

How old is he

@fujiapple9675

2 жыл бұрын

@@batman-sr2px 21

@JumperDorian

2 жыл бұрын

@@batman-sr2px yes a 21 year old is smarter than you will ever be

@stylis666

2 жыл бұрын

His conclusions are a bit stupid though. A smarter person wouldn't object to the claim that a god is possible and then conclude that it's pretty much a toss up whether or not a god does exist - that's the stupidest conclusion you could come to. But hey, if having no predictive power isn't a problem, it's at least clear there is no pragmatism in his thinking, so maybe when he grows up he'll be slightly less stupid.

@abs4008

2 жыл бұрын

@@stylis666 When he says it is a toss up he is speaking epistamically. That is not the same as the premise that he said he could reject to. And alex actually made that point in the discussion that god being possible in that argument isn't a matter of an individual's opinion.

Best argument for God is that no matter how many times I hear these guys talk about him it never gets less interesting.

@SimberLayek

2 жыл бұрын

Best argument against God is, no matter how entertaining the arguments, we remain exactly where we started lol

@senkuishigami2485

2 жыл бұрын

@@SimberLayekactually no

@JwalinBhatt

2 жыл бұрын

@@senkuishigami2485 Yes because there are other better arguments against the existence of god as well. Such as divine hiddenness, problem of evil, omniscience vs omnipotence and such.

@StuntpilootStef

2 жыл бұрын

@@senkuishigami2485 You just kind of proved the guy correct by disagreeing.

@senkuishigami2485

2 жыл бұрын

@@StuntpilootStef no disagreeing doesn't mean that thing is true or false many people have accepted and agreed with those but that doesn't mean those are true or false As an agnostic I don't think those arguments are ultimately Successful but we certainly don't remain exactly where we started

This 2-hour video was a tantalizing appetizer. Bring on the 12-hour video!

honestly such a respectful discussion. I’m Muslim, but I loved every minute of this

@dutchthenightmonkey3457

7 ай бұрын

I'm just imagining a muslim watching two atheisest talk about reasons why Christianity is true or false, very funny but also fair it is a very interesting vid. edit: one of them is agnostic which is even funnier

@grahamh.4230

7 ай бұрын

@@dutchthenightmonkey3457But they’re not talking about Christianity at all.

@daily-charge

6 ай бұрын

​​@@grahamh.4230majorly Christians theologies

@carlsderder

6 ай бұрын

​@@grahamh.4230yes and no. I watched some of his videos and is clear that he debates inside the abrahamic mindset. For example, he mentions a lot the idea of God and free will, but not reincarnation.

@skuterixas91

6 ай бұрын

you're a troll lol

This was fantastic, great job starting the podcasts. Hope to see more steel-manning of arguments for God's existence.

Very little surprises me in a good way but Alex is continuing to surprise me in the best possible way.

@martinkent333

6 ай бұрын

No education eh?

Great topic. I like putting philosophical notions in a tier list. Please make more videos in which you put things in a tier list.

Great work gentlemen! Fantastic overview- I love both of you guys. I do hope that you dig into the resurrection more- I don’t think the surface of resurrection evidences and objections was scratched, but I hope to see more!!! Much love.

I agree with Alex about the Anselmian ontological argument being one of the strongest, or at least interesting. I get "I think therefore I am" vibes with this one lol. Also, the fine tuning one personally is the most mind blowing. The Hitchens clip by the way is one of my favorite clips of him. Great video guys

@CookiesRiot

8 ай бұрын

They do bring up that exact point about Descartes at 1:01:55 when discussing the modal argument (which they also compared to Anselm's).

@CookiesRiot

7 ай бұрын

@NeedToMaryNingNing I think the ontological argument is more brain-dead. At least "I think therefore I am" tries to dig to the bedrock of knowledge. The beef I have with it is that he follows it immediately with a reconstruction of his current beliefs from that axiom, so after the statement it essentially turns into, "I think, therefore Yahweh." On the other hand, Anselm basically starts with defining Yahweh as "necessarily existing" and then... Oh wait, that's literally the entire ontological argument. He doesn't bother to figure out whether the existence of a deity is (or can be) a brute fact - he just assumes a god must exist then assigns his personally preferred deity that quality, so the whole thing from start to finish is "Yahweh must exist, therefore Yahweh must exist."

@S.D.323

7 ай бұрын

@NeedToMaryNingNing I think it makes sense I mean if there is no self how could there be the illusion of a self illusions are things that are experienced by somebody

@WingMyWay

4 ай бұрын

the fine tuning argument falls apart when you realise that due to life not being possible unless those specific conditions are met, you aren't able to make the argument unless they are. The chance is literally 100%.

@GreenManorite

4 ай бұрын

​@@WingMyWayon fine tuning, if we discovered intrinsic stability, we could expect that a universe like this was probable from the start. As it stands, the fact we are here in this form implies either a multiverse or intent. We're here so something weird is up.

Interesting video as always. Keep up with the great work, Alex!

both these guys are brilliant! Great capacity of discussing and reasoning. Congratulations!!!

This was such a great video. One of the best i’ve seen in months.

Thoroughly enjoyed this. For more than an hour, I was curious "what was Joe's position?" Which was impressive on his part to not come across as biased. I'm gonna subscribe to his channel.

@jack-uv6mt

5 ай бұрын

Yeah that's was great about these two, is acknowledge off the bat that these are "bad" arguments, and they fairly examine them.

This was an excellent conversation. I really appreciate the way you guys communicate the arguments. Also, I am a Christian and am subscribed to both of your channels. You guys should do more collaborative events. Thanks!!

@pansepot1490

2 жыл бұрын

Careful! They’ll lead you to hell. ;)

@senkuishigami2485

2 жыл бұрын

@@pansepot1490 eternal hell :```)

@senkuishigami2485

2 жыл бұрын

Joe(Majesty of Reason channel) and Alex should make a series on this channel like Rationality rule's Kalam series with Joe

Top knotch stuff. I especially like the discussion on the fine tuning argument.

this conversation has brought me inexplicable joy

I was waiting for one of these videos from you after you mentioned GMS’s tier list in your podcast with him

I'd love to see more scholars on here. Such a treat.

The discussion around the modal ontological argument is freaking fantastic

28:35 "Whatever begins to exist is made from preexisting stuff......" I love it. Thanks!

Very nice, interesting conversation, watched right through! Would love to hear which arguements were missed!

Podcast interview wishlist: - Sam Harris (moral landscape, veganism, artificial intelligence) - Will MacAskill (effective altruism) - Rob Miles (existential risks posed by artificial intelligence)

@agentdarkboote

2 жыл бұрын

Agree with all

I really enjoy this video, I learned a lot of new arguments and clarified others. I do feel you are too sympathetic to the arguments given their apparently sound rebuttals, but I am philosophically pessimistic in general. Keep up the good work!

@vhawk1951kl

10 ай бұрын

Since your Excellency is not only all wise and all knowing, perhaps you could indulge your servant here present by answering the question: "to what is the fact that the Bible bought in Dorset or encourages slavery, relevant, or in babytalk: so what if the Bible endorses encourages or supports slavery? Is it not perfectly true to say that anyone that can either bully or threaten others into labouring for him for no reward whatsoever, would be a bloody fool if you didn't do that? Even years the all wise all knowing and all seeing have absolutely no idea why a man (human being that is capable of bullying or intimidating beings weaker and more stupid than himself, might not, tell those creatures to labour for him for no reward exactly as they do any other livestock, which, if you bought it down to its bare bones, poses the question what is the difference between slavery and any other sort of farming? - Why *not* bully threaten or intimidate those weaker than you into labouring for you without reward? You have not the faintest idea? - No surprises. there.

@NeilOB9

7 ай бұрын

@@vhawk1951kl without the enslavement of the livestock, the livestock would probably not be bred in the first place. Humans will be fruitful and multiply either way, so compassion restricts the same being done to humans as it is not a net good. Also people simply care less about animals.

It was really funny watching you guys try and place the anselmian ontological argument! It feels like a theological equivalent of either "i know you are but what am I?" Or "stop hitting yourself." And in the latter.case.i can see why alex loves it so much, but its absurdity is just so plainly self evident.

Great job! Fascinating breakdown of the different arguments :)

might be interesting to do a tier list of arguments against god.

@TBOTSS

2 жыл бұрын

It would be interesting if they knew what they are talking about.

@Hello-vz1md

2 жыл бұрын

@@TBOTSS lol you are ignorant

@giannidewaele4355

2 жыл бұрын

@@TBOTSS you think they don't?

@neonboom6121

2 жыл бұрын

@@TBOTSS u seem rattled

@RadicOmega

2 жыл бұрын

@@TBOTSS Joe certainly knows what he’s talking about, more than most people. Alex is also much more articulated

1:24:06 this is my first time watching either of you, and i did get the impression that joe might be an atheist or an agnostic!! really cool video, it's given me a lot of food for thought :)

I like Cosmic Skeptic because he doesn’t usually attack people for their beliefs incorrectly except for the one time he misunderstood Peterson and his choice in verbiage

@TheTyTyXD

7 ай бұрын

Peterson is incoherent, I don’t know how anyone takes him seriously

@ImBackItsDad

6 ай бұрын

@@TheTyTyXD people who have the ability to understand him get it.

Awesome Discussion! I also love how Alex mostly acts as the defender of these arguments and Joe as the attacker, even though Alex is a self-described atheist and Joe is a self-described agnostic.

@TgfkaTrichter

2 жыл бұрын

I am not surprised. In his very early videos Alex was really attacking religion, nowerdays he tries very hard to steelman the christian arguments sometimes to a point in my opinion, when he gives does arguments way more credit, then they deserve. Lets be honest, there is not a single good argument for a god in general and if we talk about a speficied god, like the christian one, the apologists arguments just fall apart and are often completly relying on fallacies and blunt lies.

@TgfkaTrichter

2 жыл бұрын

@a there are good arguments for a god?

@TgfkaTrichter

2 жыл бұрын

@a I am not sure, you understand those two. Their rating says nothing about the validity of the argument, only if this argument is worth having an interesting discussion abut it and those two are presenting said arguments in most cases way better then the apoligists do. Still, both could casually debunk every single one of those arguments, including the S-tier ones without putting much effort into it. Every single of those big arguments for god has serious flaws, believe me, if there would be a really good argument for god, we would hear it posted 24/7 by apologist, but they still use stuff like the Kalam or the blind watchmaker, which are basicly useless.

@TgfkaTrichter

2 жыл бұрын

@a as long as Hitchens Razor is enough to dismiss nearly all of them, there is not much telling needed...

@TgfkaTrichter

2 жыл бұрын

@a do you know, what Hitchens Razor is?

Just started video and impression of Craig already floored me lmao. SpaceLESS, timeLESS 😂

@colinjava8447

2 жыл бұрын

I thought it was Frank Turek, but after watching it again it is Lame Craig

@namelesssmokemonster

2 жыл бұрын

@@colinjava8447 Turek is lamer than Craig

@colinjava8447

2 жыл бұрын

@@namelesssmokemonster Yes, but that's his name, William Lame Craig.

@namelesssmokemonster

2 жыл бұрын

@@colinjava8447 Can’t tell if you’re joking. Also wanted to add it’s been like six hours and I can’t stop saying TimeLESS and SpaceLESS lmao 🤣

@Greyz174

2 жыл бұрын

@@colinjava8447 gotem

As a Christian, this was very enjoyable. God bless you. Thank you for representing the arguments extremely farily.

You two are such fucking nerds and I'm all here for it!!

@poetrybyivo1299

Ай бұрын

Haha right! So deeply satisfying

Another great video. Thanks Alex!

@davidevans3223

2 жыл бұрын

Lol how can you know

@adrianneilignacio2000

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidevans3223 by the concept alone and knowing Alex's knowledge on the subject

@davidevans3223

2 жыл бұрын

@@adrianneilignacio2000 maybe the concept but you can't just assume that's almost like a religon lol I suppose it depends to me i don't like the vegan videos but the rest are alright

@adrianneilignacio2000

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidevans3223 i can assume that because it's subjective and it depends on me and my basis on it, btw you can disagree on it, no worries mate :)

@davidevans3223

2 жыл бұрын

@@adrianneilignacio2000 it's always there tho lol the squealing clearly was aimed at pig's in gas chambers lol

Two sharp dudes, thank you guys

I have watched this video 6 times all the way thro on number 7 right now. This video is gold.

Great vid! Hope Houston treated you well!

Great video! I’d love to see a video tier list for the arguments for naturalism. An example would be Paul Draper’s case for naturalism

@vidyanandbapat8032

Жыл бұрын

It will bound to be a rebuttal of ridiculous claims made by religions. Richard Dawkins too had done the same in 'The God Delusion'.

A pair of scholars and gentlemen, thanks for the insightful conversation, guys! on The Kalam i was wondering in regard to Joe's Mirror Kalam argument why not concede the point but appeal to Aristotle's Formal Cause as a design in the mind of God?

I enjoyed this very much. As a theist, I appreciate the steps and refutability rhetoric here.

This is a great video! I would be interested in seeing an equivalent video, with a tier list, but about atheistic arguments. Because, there are many atheist arguments out there, and I'm an atheist myself, but I do think there is some pretty bad atheist arguments out there. I would be seriously interested in what you have to say about that! - Andrew

On fine tuning, the non-design stalking horse doesn't need to involve something with dispositions to create life-permitting conditions, it's fine enough simply to have a theory which predicts with some likelihood (say, with the same likelihood as the designer hypothesis under consideration) that there would be life-permitting conditions. Consider an extreme example, where the design hypothesis under consideration is one according to which the designer is disposed to create a universe with the observed physical parameters. Against the Bayesian FTA, we might argue that a hypothesis which merely posits a universe with those same parameters is at least as likely, and this point generalizes. As I've argued, though, a bare-non-design hypothesis will fare just as well (probabilistically) even though it much more weakly predicts the data. Now, FTAs come in different flavors, and you might infer a design hypothesis based on fine-tuning not because of probability considerations, but for abductive reasons: it will include an explanation for some fact (that there are life-permitting conditions) not explained on the alternative. Here, there are two remarks to make: first, the non-design stalking horse that Joe mentioned will be adequate here, and second, the abductive inference involved is questionable. We do not invariably prefer theories simply because they offer explanations for facts not explained on other theories. The designer hypothesis doesn't explain why the designer has the creative powers/dispositions that it has, yet we might be be hesitant to affirm a theory which posits something else to explain those facts. Explanation runs out somewhere, and the proponent of fine-tuning has not shown that it runs out at the level of the designer (or something beyond that) rather than at the level of the cosmos and its basic parameters.

@senkuishigami2485

Жыл бұрын

Hey you should invite Alex for an episode in your channel.

The seemingly infinite amount of examples of the contingency problem was pretty fucking meta.

I'd love more, please give me more videos with you two.

This is awesome. Good lads.

I love Joe because he loves philosophy so much and I just enjoy watching him talk

Joe's imitation of WLC in the first 15 seconds of the video already cracked me up lol

This is far superior to the cosmic skepticism piece-a well-thought-out, lengthy conversation that highlights the argument's merits. It's not a monologue focused on brief counter-arguments that seem to suggest the main goal of the argument is to hoodwink the participants.

I’m doing this as part of my a level and this was very thought provoking for my essays

On the point about resurrection arguments Alex was claiming that *given God wants to raise Jesus from the dead*, God has the power to do so, so it has an objective probability of 1 of occurring! The problem is that we ourselves have imperfect access to the relevant facts (whether God exists and whether He is has those desires). As Joe rightly pointed out our prior for this hypothesis is going to take into account our credence about Gods existence in the first place, our credence that God is the kind of being that cares to raise anyone from the dead and perhaps some kind of principle of indifference applied to every single person who ever lived (supposing that we're hypothesising God might have a desire to resurrect one person as a sign). What we then do is look at each piece of evidence from "revealed theology" that purports to establish what Alex was conditionalising on in the statement "[given] God wants to raise Jesus from the dead" . What exactly the evidence is here is going to be contentious -- i.e. what Isaiah 53 says etc., If those LR's are enough to overcome the really low prior when we compare this hypothesis to others then we ought to believe in the resurrection. Im not sure it does do that though but obviously the McGrews think otherwise!

@senkuishigami2485

Жыл бұрын

Could you invite Alex on your channel for an interview

"Who except God can give you peace? Has the world ever been able to satisfy the heart?" -St. Gerard

There was almost a genuine shock when they we’re actually putting the Resurrection higher than they thought.. enjoyable vid agree with their tiers mostly.

This is my first video from this bloke. I really do appreciate how they approach these arguments. Very different from other very arrogant atheists.

Alex it would be awesome if you make a series with Joe on this channel like Rationality rule's Kalam series with Joe Both atheists and theists communities will appreciate this

I'd say for the contingency argument, stage 1 is S tier. There must be some noncontingent thing, some brute fact of reality. That says nothing of what that something is though. The stage 2 I've heard is D tier though. "Every limited thing is contingent. Therefore a noncontingent thing is not limited." It's at least a proper inversion, so valid structure. But it's also literally the black swan fallacy. Just insert swans. "Every swan is white, therefore a non white thing is not a swan." It's asserting to know the nature of something we don't know, and could conceivably be wrong.

@thunderbuns6811

2 жыл бұрын

also cause and effect break down in quantum mechanics. there is an idea dubbed "quantum mischief" that states 2 events can happen simultaneously, while also causing each other. so which of the 2 is the preceding contingent state? there is no answer to that question, they both are, so you have now hit an end to the supposedly infinite regress. there's also an even newer hypothesis that proposes causality can go in loops, that not just 2, but a series of events will have as a result the state that caused the loop in the first place.

@liarwithagun

Жыл бұрын

@@thunderbuns6811 It like as God of the Gaps argument. A lack of understanding about how things work allowing for speculation that it could be a God.

@matswessling6600

Жыл бұрын

contingent/necessary is meaningless concepts when trying to apply them to reality.

@schnabelite

Жыл бұрын

@@thunderbuns6811 really? if so, causality would be an a-scientific, non-empirical construct?

@MrCmon113

Жыл бұрын

Things being contingent or not is a matter of epistemology or mental heuristics. It's not an attribute of things in themselves.

I went to high school with the man on the left in noblesville, IN… he was in a club called Freedom isn’t Free and totally changed the way I thought about the argument of abortion back when I was catholic. Huge respect to him

@TheEthanCouch

4 ай бұрын

Aye indiana let's go

It would be interesting to have Alex or Joe back on the Atheist Experience for an episode. I’d love to hear one of these guys walk through the scholarship on say, the modal ontological argument with an off-the-street theist. The “show me the evidence” + occasional swearing response is certainly cathartic for some, but it doesn’t really model the kind of atheist / theist dialogue we ought to be having.

Wow, great stuff! You're so good in explaining and steelmanning arguments that you ultimately may not find convincing! Two things I noted though: 1. When you were talking about the resurrection as an argument for god: aren't you engaging in circular reasoning when you evoke god to raise the intrinsic probability of the resurrection itself?* 2. I never found finetuning to be a very convincing argument. I always thought it just amounts to marveling that low probability events happen - but they happen all the time. But the worse point is this: in almost all of the cases that the finetuning proponent sees finetuning, we don't even know whether the particular instance can be in fact finetuned. E.g. can the gravitational constant be different? We don't know, so it is ridiculous to assign any probability to this - low or high. *To explain this better: the argument from the resurrection can be formulated like this: a.) Jesus could only really die, be really dead for some time and resurrect bodily from the grave if god exists and resurrected him. b.) Jesus really died and resurrected -> Therefore god exists If your argument for premise b.) is, that the intrinsic probability is not very low as god wanted Jesus to resurrect and fulfill his plan, then you baked the existence of god e.g. the very thing you're trying to prove with the argument in the premise. This is circular reasoning, right?

@mycroftdonnell

2 жыл бұрын

Thank you!!! I was disappointed that neither of them seemed aware of this kind of objection to the fine tuning argument, bc I've heard it mentioned elsewhere and it makes sense to me

@skepticfaith

Жыл бұрын

I'm late to the party but I'll try to quote from WLC, if you don't find the answers compelling let me know, I have from other authors who have different views on this. (typos exist due to text recognition error) Answering Q2: A Possible Objection and Its Answer Now some of you might be thinking, But if the constants and quantities had bad diferent values, then maybe different forms of life might bave evolved. But that underestimates the truly disastrous consequences of a change in the values of these constants and quantities When scientists say a universe is life-permitting, they're not talking about just present forms of life. By "life" scientists just mean the propery of organisms to take in food, extract energy from it, grow, adapt to their to environment, and reproduce. Anything that can fulfill those functions counts as life, whatever form it might take. And in order for life, so defined, to exist, the constants and quantities of the universe have to be unbelievably fine- tuned. In the absence of fine-tuning, not even matter, not even chemistry would exist, much less planets where life might evolvel! Another Objection and Its Answer Sometimes people will object, *But maybe in a universe governed by different laws of nature, such disastrous consequences might not result." But this objection betrays a misunderstanding of the argument. Were not concerned with universes governed by different laws of nature. We have no idea what such universes might be like! Rather we're concerned solely with universes governed by the same laws of nature but with different values of the constants and arbitrary quantities. Because the laws are the same, we can determine what would happen if the constants and quantities were to be altered. And the results turn out to be disastrous. Among universes governed by our laws of nature, there's almost no chance that a randomly chosen universe would be life-permitting. Answering Q1: Explaining the Evidence We come, then, to the second step in our case: determining which explanation of the evidence is the best. Historians weigh various factors in assessing competing hypotheses. Some of the most important are as follows: 1. The best explanation will have greater explanatory scope than other explanations. That is, it will explain more of the evidence. 2. The best explanation will have greater explanatory power than other explanations. 'That is, it will make the evidence more probable. 3. The best explanation will be more plausible than other explanations. That is, it will fit better with true background beliefs. 4. 'The best explanation will be less contrived than other explanations That is, it won't require adopting as many new beliefs that have no independent evidence. 5. The best explanation will be disconfirmed by fewer accepted belief than other explanations. That is, it won't conflict with as many accepted beliefs. 6. The best explanation will meet conditions 1-5 so much better than the others that there's litle chance that one of the other explanations, after further investigation, will do better in meeting these conditions. He then goes into explaining all other alternative answers in all 6 points to prove they are much weaker than the proposition of the Christian view. Can't paste that it's too long. Finally, concerning the circular reasoning, search "resurrection of jesus to prove god circular reasoning" you'll find a Q&A where he answers that we're moving from Theism to Christianity, not Atheism to Theism. "My studied view, then, is that one first establishes theism on the basis of the arguments of Natural Theology like the cosmological, teleological, axiological, and ontological arguments, so that when one comes to explaining the facts pertinent to Jesus of Nazareth, one may include as part of one’s background information the existence of the God of Natural Theology. You misunderstood the Defenders lectures. There I challenge the assumption that the probability of the resurrection on our background information Pr (R|B) is very low precisely because we can include God’s existence as part of our background information. We’ve already completed our Natural Theology before we come to an examination of Christian evidences. […] Now if one includes the resurrection itself as part of the evidence for theism, as I often do in debates, one cannot include God’s existence as part of the background information (though one could still include evidence like the beginning of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the reality of objective moral values, etc.). What one will say in this case is just that we’ve got no reason to think that Pr (R|B)

@gmlr

Жыл бұрын

@@skepticfaith Hey, it has indeed been some time - I had to retrace again what has been going on here 😄 So, concerning Q1, it seems WLC and you are agreeing with me. Arguing for a god with the resurrection (as the title of the video "Arguments For God's Existence Tier List" implies) cannot include using the existence of God as background knowledge. If you have a successful argument for theism, then monotheism, then you might use the existence and the will of god as background knowledge. Concerning Q2: I think the answer misses my objection. My objection is not that life could be different under different constants or laws of nature - it was that it might not be possible that the constants have different values. Just as it is for example not possible for a temperature to be colder than absolute zero.

@skepticfaith

Жыл бұрын

@@gmlr ​ correct. I couldn't add to more than what was said in the video, not sure if you'll remember what was said a year ago :) But yea, the existence of God is only inferred by the "fishiness" of the situation, and if you require explanations, then you'd have to go through all of the naturalistic interpretations which wouldn't pass the points laid down by WLC, which is convincing IMHO but I'm biased as a Christian to give you that even if I'm pushing myself to be neutral or agnostic to be fair. So there is no circular reasoning because it's not like "if Jesus resurrected then God exists - Jesus resurrected - Therefore God exists". It's more like there's a gap, Jesus and all what we have from Christians and what we know of them claim that it's the fulfillment of the prophecies which were laid down much earlier by the Jews of the resurrection. Naturalistic explanation don't fair well in the explanation of the outcome, therefore we are settling with God as a plausible explanation FOR SOMEONE who is already a Christian. Q2 is answered already in the video, it's a big leap to assume that different values can be sustained in different worlds, but scientifically speaking, to answer you, it's definitely impossible, and it's easy for a scientist to demonstrate that. That's actually how scientists got these weird numbers estimating the infinitely small fractions of change that would cause the world to collapse. And it's true this does seem to resonate with some more than others. I just skipped that chapter in every book I was reading that involved fine tuning. I'm amazed how the subjective preference of each person determines how likely are they to weigh the strength of an argument.

@gmlr

Жыл бұрын

@@skepticfaith Heyo, thanks - I don't understand your point concerning Q2, sorry.... But you are right, it is really interesting how different arguments resonate with different people. As a christian as well, I have many problems with the arguments that WLC proclaims with such vigor and (at least from my subjective point of view) sometimes arrogance. I have problems accepting the arguments when I would not feel comfortable using them myself because of the problems I see with them.

Great video. As a believer I really appreciate that you steel man these arguments. I think the moral argument is far stronger than you ranked it. Also the origin of life argument is a powerful one you didn’t address.

@hillelkita2354

8 ай бұрын

As a non believer I've come out of this video feeling more confident in my non belief, it's interesting that we both saw the same video and drew such different conclusions

@mrsatire9475

7 күн бұрын

The moral argument is very weak. People claim everything God does is moral no matter how nasty or horrific we think it is ... which shows we don't get our morals there or the Bible which condones things like slavery

Just some food for thought, (this may be biased because I’m Christian, and I love seeing you guys debate about the resurrection) but I would argue that Thomas not believing, and in the Book of Matthew there’s reports that people still doubted, it would show that this book was not manmade. If this book copied from mythological books from the past, I think everyone around Jesus would be in awe. Secondly, the small phrase in the book of John where he said “blood and water” come out of Jesus, many scientists came out and said that the “water” was indeed an actual description of a fluid that would have come out from someone who endured such injuries! I enjoyed this video ❤️

My favourite video yet on this channel, though there are several great maybe greater arguments for God than the ones given here. But you cover some of the more popular ones. It's obvious that the material must have come out of the immaterial, otherwise you would have to establish that the material is eternal or never ending or beginning.

Regarding fine tuning: we don't know why the various constants have the values they do. They are free parameters in our current models. Therefore we can't say whether or not they can have different values.

This guy is doing so well at looking at these in an unbiased way that I didn't even realize he was atheist until half way through the video

22:31 I much liked how Peter Adamson described the stages of Necessary and Cosmological arguments and the accompanying Avicennean derivation of divine attributes. “It appears to most that something has gone wrong here, but what it is has proven very difficult to locate.”

Was really hoping Aristotle and his Prime-Mover made it here. Great discussion either way!

I didn't know of Joe or his views before watching this, and the impression I got was that I couldn't tell whether he was a theist or an atheist, which is about right.

Great conversation, guys! Makes one want to join and add a few points to be considered every now and then. Also, it could easily have been a few hours longer in my opinion haha. Interesting how we do have different intuitions and are more prone to being convinced by different arguments. Greetings from a Brazilian christian, keep the good content coming! PS: funny how the agnostic seems to be more skeptical than the atheist here.

@brunoarruda9916

2 жыл бұрын

@@qluucass dae cara, tá fazendo o que nessa parte estranha do KZread?

@Metal987

2 жыл бұрын

Mais um BR aqui ;)

Christian here. Absolutely loved this dialogue. Absolutely loved the fact that with some of the arguments, it was difficult to predetermine where you'd rank them on the tier list. I'm absolutely glad for the inclusion of the resurrection argument in the conversation, and was genuinely shocked by how highly it was placed. Overall good conversation, I do have a few questions about distinguishing between some of the arguments eg cosmological v contingency (or even traditional v new kalam); and I wish I was in the room to pose certain questions and see how you navigate those, especially in regards to the moral argument. Overall, was glad to hear that some of the reasoning that I've internally used to go over these arguments wasn't dismissed as intellectually lacking, and inasmuch as I'd have to mull over some of the more weighty counterarguments to the more weighty arguments, it was, as stated by multiple parties on here, a breath of fresh air. Kudos.

@CookiesRiot

8 ай бұрын

Speaking of breaths of fresh air, kudos to the Christian in the comments section of an atheist podcast not trying to drop the mic by attacking everybody in the comments.

@hfdcjiirjmcfi

8 ай бұрын

​@@CookiesRiotanother Christian here. It seems I know the right kind of Christian to not have been around these combatative people. At the end of the day, think about how Jesus would have acted. Surely not like said commenters, starting arguments and attacking

@CookiesRiot

8 ай бұрын

@@hfdcjiirjmcfi I mean, Jesus was said to have thrown people's tables full of merchandise, but I suppose if you're literally the divine creator of everything there is justification for angrily kicking people out of your temple. 🤣 And of course, there are hot-headed atheists who could probably stand to take a chill pill now and then when they discuss these topics. Dave Farina and Aron Ra come to mind. The comments sections are often harsh and sarcastic to the theists rather than merely academic like this discussion. It would be cool to be able to have more conversations along the lines of, "I get where you're coming from, from I don't agree with this specific premise." I think that the Kalam and Anselm arguments are completely nonsensical at nearly every turn, but _I try_ (and probably sometimes fail) _not to beat people over the head and call them idiots_ just because I don't find the arguments convincing.

@StanbyMode

8 ай бұрын

The Kalam Cosmological argument is about cause, whereas the Contingency argument is about dependancy, its a small change but it makes a big difference As a muslim, the contingency argument is easily the most powerful argument for Gods existence ever

@StanbyMode

8 ай бұрын

@@CookiesRiotare there any theists who actually believe Anselms ontological argument? It is nonsense

Cosmic sceptic btw gives the best defenses of arguments for God I have ever heared. So believing something to be true and the capacity to defend the truth value of the belief don't seem to be necessarilly related. Thats quite something.

@UnknownString88

4 ай бұрын

Why did you expect them to be inseparable?

I’m so glad this was serious and not like the April Fools thing 😭

There is a noticeable change to Joe's demeanor when he discusses the fine-tuning argument. In my opinion, I think he would have put that one at "S" if Alex had not been so unmoved by it. I'm curious as to why it seems to be the "one" for Hitchens and many others, but does nothing to Alex. Even without being a scientist, you can understand probability. I see it as the updated version of the watchmaker analogy, only now we know just how intelligent the watchmaker is. I really enjoyed this video, as I do all of your videos. Thank you for sharing.

@mrsatire9475

7 күн бұрын

"fine tuning" is one of the worst arguments since it's not fine tuned

Hi Alec. How about doing a tier list for the arguments in favor of the reality of Star Trek?

I just realized i need to learn a lot more about philosophy to understand this conversation

@mitchgoldstein6720

4 күн бұрын

Joe is really smart and talks fast you gotta watch some cosmic skeptic first😂

Two notes about the Fine Tuning Argument. The first, you kinda touched on in the video, but we only have a sample size of one for universes, so we have no idea how likely it is that the constants have the value they do Maybe it’s super likely, maybe not (all this is disregarding the multiverse theory because we also have zero evidence for that). Second, I thought I read somewhere (I think in Faith vs Fact by Jerry Coyne) that the fine tuning argument is only true if you are only allowed to adjust one constant at a time. If you change more than one, than it becomes more likely for the universe to allow matter to form.

@redx11x

2 жыл бұрын

If you had more than one sample size you would argue that there is a multiverse, you would not argue for fine tuning no matter how dead that other universe or others are. In regards to how likely the chance of the laws of physics coming about by chance and being the only way these laws could have formed, this argument is dead in the water. This is because we would then be saying either the laws existed before the singularity or they came about by chance immediately after the big bang. You can see the major problems in explaining how that would be so without a all Powerful being overseeing such.

@davenchop

Жыл бұрын

@@redx11x an all powerful being doesnt need science to prove its existence.. if an all powerful being created the universe then that entity is able to do whatever it feels like.. so the fine tuning argument is a complete nonstarter.. if god wanted us to breath methane instead of oxygen thats what it would have done. if an all powerful entity must obey the laws of science then its not all powerful

@redx11x

Жыл бұрын

@@davenchop part of your argument falls into the omnipotence paradox, look it up on KZread. Logic and reasoning are fundamental to science, and thus, in your example, lungs do not have the ability to breath methane as it is not biologically possible. Ill send you a link which shows the fallacy of the argument.

@MrCmon113

Жыл бұрын

>all this is disregarding the multiverse theory because we also have zero evidence for that) There is no "the multiverse theory". There being many universes isn't any less plausible than there being one.

@mrsatire9475

7 күн бұрын

It does not appear finely tuned with asteroids smashing into planets, planets colliding into each other, stars exploding, entire galaxies smashing together and black holes ripping things apart ... it's a chaotic mess

Thoroughly enjoyed this and thought it was (unsurprisingly) very well done. My only disappoint was with the moral argument. I completely get you were discussing popular arguments, not necessarily the best, but I think a shoutout to evolutionary debunking arguments would have been great. It seems that Sharon Street’s Darwinian Dilemma, for example, provides good reasons for thinking that, on naturalism, we are left with moral skepticism (and therefore not moral realism). Theism provides a clear advantage in this case over naturalism for someone who is unwilling to abandon moral realism.

@popiko282

Жыл бұрын

Totally agree but theism is regid and it's moral phylosophies are set in stone and unchanging and society is ever changing and humans have new needs and new situations and conditions emerge with the evolution of science life style and culture so we need new morals and ways of thinking like gay rights abolishing slavery women rights and many more especially that nuance rules everything so theism in conclusion morally outdated

@popiko282

Жыл бұрын

So naturalism i think provides better morals because it's grounded in the now so we can adapt And evolution is a scientific unbiased theory that has nothing to do with morality it's just a fact that explains the diversity of life on earth

@coltoncauthen8696

Жыл бұрын

@@popiko282 thanks for the reply! You mentioned that naturalism provides better morals. Setting aside the quality of the morality available on theism vs naturalism, how does naturalism provide morals at all? How, does naturalism give us morality?

@coltoncauthen8696

Жыл бұрын

@@popiko282 That’s a really That’s an interesting perspective on theism! What makes you think theism and specific moral philosophies that are compatible with it, are rigid?

@coltoncauthen8696

Жыл бұрын

@@popiko282 I think what surprised me about your take on Theism is that just as a matter of historical record, theism has for millennium demonstrated its ability to adapt to different cultures around the world and has survived massive changes in human activities due to its combination of being both robust and dynamic. Including supporting 3 of the world’s major religions. And Christianity in particular was able to take off and spread around the world, taking root in many diverse cultures and continues to thrive. If you ever read through the whole New Testament (highly recommended), you can’t miss it- Christianity provides a way for a beautiful unity in the midst of diversity. If you read books by agnostic historians and sociologists like Tom Holland and Rodney Stark you will find that Christianity has been and continues to revolutionize the world in moral terms. You probably value things like equality, freedom, kindness and progress. According to their analysis, you owe that to Christianity, regardless of how you appraise Christianity. If you ever decide to consider the evidence with an open mind I think you will be amazed at the rich, dynamic and enduring intellectual and moral history of Christianity. It took me a while before I did that myself, but once I did I too was, and continue to be, astonished by it!

Great convo! What do y’all make of the critique of the Ontological Argument that it’s a simple equivocation on “greatest conceivable being that actually exists” vs “concept of greatest conceivable being,” with Anselm’s premises supporting the latter and thereby only showing that the concept of “God” is a concept of an actually existing God. Seems decisive to me, and obviates the need for analogies 🐣Love the tiers 🙏🙏

I've got an F tier argument for you: Pascal's Wager.

@t.d.2016

2 жыл бұрын

Meh. It's not really considered an argument for God's existence.

@elanordeal2457

Жыл бұрын

@@t.d.2016 yeah. It’s more an argument to keep christians persisting in faith rather than actually drawing people into the faith.

@xavisonline

Жыл бұрын

@@elanordeal2457 Threat, you mean. The easiest, least imaginative, most obviously empty threat possible. Like, it could not more clearly come from the mind of ancient ancestors who said "uhhh, imagine the worst thing! Yeah it's worse than that!". For the same reason someone before that said "Uhhh, yeah but my god is yours times infinity!" and that's how you get an Omni-god. It's not an argument (or if it technically is, it is deeply fallacious); it's literally infinite coercion by the being who's supposed to be putting us through this nightmare to preserve our free will. At least if I put a gun to your head and tell you to love me and believe I'm perfect, you'll only die. Of course, we can agree I'd still be a monster and you would have no free will in the matter. But despite having literally all of the power and knowledge possible, such inconceivable sadism is still just as much our fault as it supposedly is in any abusive relationship. "I love you so much. You do this to yourself. Now get on your knees and apologize. And I'll know if you don't mean it." Now that's a god that's definitely both real and *infinitely* kind & just. ❤️

@MrCmon113

Жыл бұрын

Imo S-tier. It's obviously wrong, because it straightforwardly leads to contradictions in it's recommendation for behaviors. But it's very hard to point out what's wrong. Forget about infinities. If someone comes to you with some absurd claim, it's natural to give it some very small positive credence. But if you do that, that leads to absurdity if the consequences of the claim are grand enough. You'd have to scale your credence with the consequences of believing the thing, which seems obviously irrational.

@MrCmon113

Жыл бұрын

@@xavisonline It's not an argument for the existence of something, it's an argument for a behavior and it's very relevant, even sans gods and dragons. In a way we face similar dilemmas thinking about the far future. The far future is incredibly ethically important, so that even if we think that a present action has only a tiny chance of affecting it positively, it's still justified even if it has horrible costs now.

I'm not at all atheistic, complete opposite in fact I believe in countless divine/supernatural beings, but this is some good content. Intellectually honest, the arguments are treated fairly and I really liked how rational and logical your approach was towards everything. Not many people look at theism through a lense of reason or understanding

@lmho0254

6 ай бұрын

Oooh, are you a pantheist? Someone who believes in many gods?

@TheBitingBat

6 ай бұрын

@@lmho0254 I'm Rosicrusian, so I believe in many gods, though I only worship one. The focus is more on personal enlightenment and connection to the divine

@lmho0254

6 ай бұрын

@@TheBitingBat That's a very captivating take on theism, something I don't really hear every day. I really only hear the Holy Trinity (ba dum tiss) of [Abrahamic] theisms, Christianity, Judaism, and, the one I grew up in, Islam. However, I'm really getting into Deism, where you believe in a god that doesn't interact with the universe. People normally think of a deistic god like a "clockmaker god". I think of it as "A knockoff atheist 😂" I love your focus on personal enlightenment and divine connections, it sounds like such a revelating journey. Most people just kinda follow X religion because of getting to heaven or thinking it's the right one and not really looking at the spiritual part of it, aside from praying of course. Sorry that I made such a long comment but I just love looking at other people's perspectives on life and yours was definitely a cool one.

@TheBitingBat

6 ай бұрын

@@lmho0254 Deism is basically agnosticism with extra steps. I personally grew fairly disillusioned with organized religion for the reasons you outlined, too many people were just there because they want to go to heaven or they think you have to be religious or else you go to hell. I wanted something more, which led me to being a pluralist. The only belief that stayed the same for me was gnostic belief and my faith in the Lord Creator. You don't have to apologize, I'm fond of discussing ideology freely, just taking it for what it is rather than arguing who's right

@lmho0254

6 ай бұрын

@@TheBitingBat I love the fact that you aren't willing to argue, definitely not something I see in a lot of these religious video comment sections. About organized religion, atheists sometimes point out that some/most theists that follow it have no _real_ morality. People would steal, kill, rape, and other criminal acts if it weren't for the Bible, or any other religious text, which I think is a hot take; my family acknowledges the simple fact that these acts are wrong without even thinking about the religious part of it. I'm sure anyone else would, anyone that's sane... Deism and agnosticism are kinda different, but the same; deism, you _know_ there's a god, but it just doesn't interact with the universe, but agnostic is where you question the very existence of a God. Maybe that's the extra steps you were talking about... I didn't understand that 😅 I'm gonna be honest, I'm not even in high school yet so I'm gonna say some stuff that may be inaccurate on accident

As a filthy casual when it comes to philosophy (more of a politics guy if even) metaphysics got boring for me for a looooong time, but separating an epistemological argument relating to god vs a metaphysical argument was awesome to hear, enjoyed it 😊

I love this discussion very mind boggling especially the Modal logic argument. I also found it funny that the atheist (Alex) I believe is the one who sounded more agnostic then Joe. Lol

It seems to me that the necessary thing(s) are quantum fields, or at least that is what physics seems to be pointing towards presently. Roger Penrose's CCC, and Lee Smolin's CNS are excellent possible answers to the fine tuning argument, as both show compelling ways for "eons" to have existed before the big bang (the point at which most of the fundamental constants were locked into their current values).

@fluffysheap

2 жыл бұрын

You should really define those acronyms

@davidevans3223

2 жыл бұрын

Locked into place is a belief it can be any other way we have no evidence it's possible to be anything but what we see the numbers like gravity being precise to 19 decimal points added with the other values means the logical none creator argument is infinite number of universes all with different values so one has to be right for ours but it's a belief it's not fact it's not testable. Universe did mean everything until the fine turning law's of the universe were discovered.

@seionne85

2 жыл бұрын

@@fluffysheap the post was long enough without that lol! Penrose's is called Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, Smolins is Cosmological Natural Selection. The former deals with scale invariance in the remote future, which actually looks just like the remote past. The latter is easier to understand, and posits that every black hole formed creates a separate space-time with slightly different constants. If this were the case we would expect to find ourselves in a universe fine tuned for sustaining large numbers of black holes, which we do

@seionne85

2 жыл бұрын

@@davidevans3223 Penrose's CCC can be falsified through more precise images of the cosmic microwave background, smolins would be more difficult to falsify, but it has made at least one confirmed prediction. And as far as the constants being locked into place, it is known that several constants couldn't have been what they are now at the time of the Big bang, gravity couldn't have acted then as it does now or the universe would have collapsed into a black hole, the EM and weak forces were certainly combined into a single, electroweak force, and I believe it's been confirmed that at high enough energies the strong force combines as well. The hubble constant was much different if it was even sensible to think about at that time, just to name a few

With regards to the argument from morality, any value within a relative and subjective system can be objective for any given set of parameters. I can consider a thing "objectively moral" within a relative system contingent on subjective statements A, B, and C. Just as the radiation from N units of X element at D distance can be objectively harmful, the radiation from 2N units of X element at 8D distance can be objectively harmless, or subjectively harmful contingent on other factors. All this to say; I consider an objective moral value statement to be entirely possible within a subjective and relativistic moral framework.

Mann the argument from resurrection seems to me the most believable for some reason omg :')

Subbed to Joe's channel early on, then he said it's about 50/50 in his head. Might need to reconsider.

If you want to get in depth on the Resurrection Argument, you should collab with Paulogia! He has an incredible amount of background knowledge on the Bible and its historicity or lack thereof.

@elanordeal2457

Жыл бұрын

You’re right that Paulogia is knowledgeable, but he’s the exact same as apologists, except the reverse. Alex is very nuanced and objective whereas Paulogia has an axe to grind and consistently engages in counter-apologetics. Alex is miles above Paulogia in maturity and quality of content.

this has been a really good watch and most of these arguments remind me of Exodus 3:14 -> when God says "I am that I am" Its kinda like that quote "I am thinking, therefore i am" Similar how to in Cogito, Ergo Sum, after denying everything to find the “objective” truth, Descartes found out that he could only be certain that he exist because while he doubted there had to exist someone outside the “vat”/stimulation that could even make up those thoughts. So my argument is this: Premise 1: If I think, then my existence is self-evident (based on Descartes' "Cogito, ergo sum"). Premise 2: God, defined as an infinite thinking being who keeps the universe together, would have his existence self-evident through his thinking of keeping the universe together. Premise 3: The universe and its laws can be seen as the product of God's infinite thought because he thinks of keeping it together while he is actually doing it unconsciously or consciously Conclusion: Therefore, the existence of the universe and its laws are self-evident evidence of God's existence, similar to how our thoughts are evidence of our own existence. When Cogito, Ergo Sum is applied to anything outside of human life the conclusion makes perfect sense but at the level at the divine your faced with an unsettling dilemma once rejected, if God doesn’t exist despite him being able to think, then wouldn’t that mean that your not real? My same reasoning applies to fictional characters, mythology, and other religions, the only difference is that the christian God is the only one who first said “I am that I am”...

@GoatOfAllTrades

2 ай бұрын

I'm having a logical stroke right now😭Is this like, the ontological argument? I don't get it.

@freonsp

2 ай бұрын

​​@@GoatOfAllTrades Its epistemological... I think

The reason I never found fine tuning very convincing is that's it seems very "god of the gaps" to me. It seems to me that there is no particular reason to imagine that these constants could in fact take on any other values. For instance, take gravity. Not the gravitational constant, but the actual strength of gravity on earth. All object accelerate downwards at 9.81 m/s^2. If that number were much lower, things could accidentally fly away from earth, and if it were much higher, we'd all be crushed against the ground and be unable to evolve into our current tall forms. How marvelously coincidental that this is the strength of gravity, instead of any other number. But this is wrong. The rate of gravitational acceleration isn't a coincidence at all. It's a result of more fundamental properties, like the gravitational constant, the mass of the earth, etc. There is no "well what if it were different", because it couldn't have been different. The laws of physics require it to be that specific number. So when we move to the "fundamental constants of the universe", it does not seem to be a settled matter that they are in fact fundamental. I think it's entirely plausible that there is some more underlying physics that determines why these numbers are the way that they are instead of any other value, which we just haven't found yet. I think it's logical to assume that if we ever "finish" physics, and learn everything there is to learn, there will be significantly fewer fundamental constants, possibly even none whatsoever. Just because we don't know why the values we observe are the way they are, doesn't mean we should jump to "god did it."

@japexican007

2 жыл бұрын

You literally just did a naturalism of the gaps argument

@rebelresource

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah you might be sciencing of the gaps here. Same issue as god of the gaps

@davidevans3223

2 жыл бұрын

You're missing the point we discovered the law's of the universe we have no idea why they have them values and if they can't be any other way then why you can't say because that's not science

@BreatheManually

2 жыл бұрын

@@rebelresource It cant be god therefore science! haha

@bennettpalmer1741

2 жыл бұрын

@@rebelresource I don't think you understand the "God of the gaps". Historically, we have had a large number of gaps in our knowledge of the world. "How did species get here?" " What causes disease?" And a million others. Every single time we've found the explanation for these gaps, it's always been science. Every single time. That's why it's absurd to say "this time, surely, it'll be God", but perfect reasonable to say "it'll probably be science this time". Our past experience with these gaps is that it's always been science, and never been God.

I'd find it useful to split a single tier rating into, maybe, 2 categories: 1. How philosophically interesting an argument is 2. How well it actually argues for some conception of god. For example, IMO contingency and fine-tuning are both quite interesting but the former is so absurdly general and abstract that there's no hint of a god as some kind of "being" that has any kind of properties anywhere in there. Although it also relies on the specific theology to do much of the heavy lifting, the fine-tuning argument at least seems more grounded and has some connection to god as an agent with certain properties. I know the tier thing is a fun meme, but I'd legitimately be interested in a tiny bit more granularity in the ratings.

@jaram6049

2 жыл бұрын

Find this interesting. My take is the Contingency is interesting as well as (for me) the most convincing argument for a god. It at very least narrows down to a necessary thing which would exist in all possible universes. Thus we have one characteristic of at least one type of god. To conclude that things are contingent or necessary doesn't seem to be far off from intuition/common sense. The fine tuning doesn't sit well with me. (1) Of all the possible worlds that could exist, each one would be just as unique (life or not) mathematically. (2) We are also, due to our ignorance, don't know the total of "all possible worlds" or all possible factors. That is there could be for whatever reason only one possible world/universe or an infinite amount. (3) We suppose that this particular outcome despite how probable (see #1 however) that it was somehow planned or crafted by an intelligent being. That, to me takes a big leap as you have to add qualifiers to your conclusion (intelligent designer) in order for the rest to fit which in return requires more reasoning and discussion on why this character has these particular qualities. I do think that the fine tuning argument is more well known and accepted by the general population but something seems off about it, where on the contingency concept you only need to make one assumption about a god which is he/she/it is necessary. It's more humble too.

@anzov1n

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaram6049 fair enough, i think there's a variety of reasonable but subjective stances on this. Specifically on contingency though... The basic conclusion is that there is a necessary uncaused cause. What can we honestly say about this uncaused cause without bringing in a truckload of theology and biased intuition? Does it continue to have influence after the initial "event"? I don't see how you can know that. Does it have agency? Preferences etc? Is it causally related to any part of our physical universe? It seems presumptuous to make any such conclusions from the contingency argument alone. In fact, it being metaphysically necessary only makes things worse - if it couldn't fail to exist the more properties you assign to it the higher the ontological cost grows. So just as i was saying with a dual tier system, the contingency argument is kind of interesting but even if was found to be true it would do very little to support any particular theistic claim. It is a hopelessly abstract notion. Fine-tuning, on the other hand feels so relevant and grounded to reality (albeit a bit less fundamental that contingency). Why are the mechanisms underlying our every living second what they are? Why are the constants of nature balanced so seemingly precisely as to allow us to exist? We can even try to imagine the alternatives and compare them to our universe. There's at least something to work with here, an agent of some kind could prefer one scenario over another. I think fine-tuning falls under the teleological umbrella, which was actually quite compelling before sciences (such as biology, genetics) shed more light on the apparent design of things.

@blamtasticful

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaram6049 I am honestly suprised that theists don't push the fine-tuning argument more than they do. I think it's complicated but I agree with anzov1n that it seems to really get at more specific properties of a being that fit into the description of God. Fine-tuning in cosmology is taken seriously even if its implications are philosophically controversial. I think because it is a complex argument that relies on many assumptions to be true and is generally presented as an inductive or probabilistic argument that the argument isn't as popular as cosmological type arguments. On a side note I was suprised to see Joe as critical of it in this general discussion as I think he agrees with Draper that the fine-tuning argument is an evidential chip in favor of theism. I know he doesn't find the multiverse response particular convincing from his conversation with Deliberation Under Ideal Conditions.

@jaram6049

2 жыл бұрын

@@blamtasticful I do believe fine tuning is pushed a lot by theist (least Abrahamic). It's def an argument I think even those who don't dive into philosophy at least know. The issue I have with the fine tuning, I think you stated well, too many assumptions before the argument is made. Where as the contingency one has way less assumptions baked in. It doesn't seem to attempt to prove a god exist, merely that a nessacry thing exist which is a possible trait of a god. It's more humble, assumes less, claims less and thus more likely to be more true. Again, just my take on these arguments. Be curious about the conversation you are refrenceing about the ideal conditons thing. (Spelling bad, early in morning, sorry)

@blamtasticful

2 жыл бұрын

@@jaram6049 Hey no problem. Deliberation Under Ideal Conditions is a small chanel by an atheist moral realist who generally likes to defend utilitarianism. He has interviewed heavyweights like Michael Huemer. I don't at all agree with him on everything but he is a calm and respectful interlocuter and when he inteviewed Joe Schmid I wanted to watch the interaction. Yeah maybe my experience is too skewed by interacting with Christians who very much are engaged in philosophy of religion circles. I would agree that at the popular level fine-tuning is more popular. However, I do find many philosophy of religion types to not find it too convincing for the reasons we agreed about. However, even take someone like TJump who had been pushing a layperson version of the stalking horse objection before Alex Malpass formalized the argument, at the very least it would show what the naturalist would be comitted to if they wanted to defend a complex stalking horse if they found that it was important in order to explain fine-tuning. Then the relative plausibility of the stalking horse and the God hypotheses could be compared. Heck if they are fairly close to each other in plausibility I think that would be a significant result. I also think layppeople are more likely to point to the beauty of nature or the complexity of life as more intuitive design inferences rather than mostly just focusing on the constants. Maybe one last point then I will take a break from rambling. I think the idea that out of all contingent things that exist that not one of them is unexplained is actually at least fairly unintuitive. I also think that something as radically different as the starting point of the universe is intuitively is much more likely to be one of those things. Even if say this point had a 25% chance of being true I think that possibility would be something that could completely undermine the contingency argument that the fine-tuning argument becomes stronger as an argument as a result. Anyways just a couple of thoughts; could be wrong.

Mind blowing discussion. What smart young men are you!